Skip to main content
×
×
Home

Long-distance dependencies without filler−gaps: a cognitive-functional alternative in Fluid Construction Grammar*

  • REMI VAN TRIJP (a1)
Abstract

Long-distance dependencies are notoriously difficult to analyze in a formally explicit way because they involve constituents that seem to have been extracted from their canonical position in an utterance. The most widespread solution is to identify a gap at an extraction site and to communicate information about that gap to its filler, as in What_FILLERdid you see_GAP? This paper rejects the filler−gap solution and proposes a cognitive-functional alternative in which long-distance dependencies spontaneously emerge as a side effect of how grammatical constructions interact with each other for expressing different conceptualizations. The proposal is supported by a computational implementation in Fluid Construction Grammar that works for both parsing and production.

Copyright
Corresponding author
Address for correspondence: Sony Computer Science Laboratory Paris, 6, Rue Amyot, 75005 Paris, France. e-mail: remi@csl.sony.fr
Footnotes
Hide All
*

While this paper was undergoing review, I learned the sad news of Ivan Sag’s passing away. His contributions to the field can hardly be overestimated, and it is with the utmost respect for his work that I disagree with his analysis of long-distance dependencies. The research reported in this paper has been conducted at and funded by the Sony Computer Science Laboratory Paris. I would like to thank Luc Steels, director of Sony CSL Paris, for his feedback and support. I also thank Pieter Wellens from the VUB AI-Lab for his recent additions to FCG that have made this implementation possible. I also thank Frank Richter (University of Tübingen) and Stefan Müller (Free University of Berlin) for helping me to better understand HPSG. Finally, I would like to thank the editors and reviewers of Language and Cognition for their efforts that have helped to improve this paper. All remaining errors are of course my own.

Footnotes
References
Hide All
Alexiadou, Artemis, Kiss, Tibor, & Müller, Gereon (Eds.) (2012). Local Modelling of Non-Local Dependencies in Syntax (Linguistische Arbeiten 547). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Anderson, Stephen R. (2008). English reduced auxiliaries really are simple clitics. Lingue e Linguaggio, 7, 169186.
Baker, Colin F., Fillmore, Charles J., & Lowe, John B. (1998). The Berkeley FrameNet project. In Proceedings of the 36th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics and 17th International Conference on Computational Linguistics, Volume 1(pp. 8690). Montreal: Association for Computational Linguistics. Online: <https://framenet2.icsi.berkeley.edu/> (last accessed 9 November 2012).
Bouma, Gosse, Malouf, Rob, & Sag, Ivan A. (2001). Satisfying constraints on extraction and adjunction. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory, 19 (1), 165.
Cheng, Lisa Lai-Shen, & Corver, Norbert (Eds.) (2006). WH-movement: moving on. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Chomsky, Noam (1965). Aspects of the theory of syntax. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Chomsky, Noam (1977). On WH-movement. In Culicover, Peter W.Wasow, Thomas, & Akmajian, Adrian (Eds.), Formal syntax (pp. 71132). San Francisco & London: Academic Press.
Croft, William (1998). Event structure in argument linking. In Butt, Miriam, & Geuder, William (Eds.), The projection of arguments: lexical and compositional factors (pp. 2163). Stanford: CSLI Publications.
Croft, William (2005). Logical and typological arguments for Radical Construction Grammar. In Östman, Jan-Ola, & Fried, Mirjam (Eds.), Construction grammars: cognitive grounding and theoretical extensions (pp. 273314). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Dabrowska, Ewa (2008). Questions with long-distance dependencies: a usage-based perspective. Cognitive Linguistics, 19 (3), 391425.
Daniels, Mike, & Meurers, Walt Detmar (2004). A grammar formalism and parser for linearization-based HPSG. In Lemnitzer, Lothar, Meurers, Detmar, & Hinrichs, Erhard (Eds.), COLING 2004: Proceedings of the 20th International Conference on Computational Linguistics (pp. 169175). Geneva: COLING.
Demberg, Vera, & Keller, Frank (2008). Data from eye-tracking corpora as evidence for theories of syntactic processing complexity. Cognition, 109 (2), 193210.
Dik, Simon C. (1997). The theory of Functional Grammar. Part 1: the structure of the clause (2nd rev. ed., edited by Hengeveld, Kees). Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
Dryer, Matthew S. (1997). Are grammatical relations universals? In Bybee, Joan L.Haiman, John, & Thompson, Sandra A. (Eds.), Essays on language function and language type: dedicated to T. Givón (pp. 115143). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Evans, Nicholas, & Levinson, Stephen C. (2009). The myth of language universals: language diversity and its importance for cognitive science. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 32, 429492.
Fillmore, Charles J. (1977). An alternative to checklist theories of meaning. In Cogan, Cathy, Thompson, Henry, Thurgood, Graham, Whistler, Kenneth, & Wright, James (Eds.), Proceedings of the first annual meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society (pp. 123−131). Berkeley: Berkeley Linguistics Society.
Gazdar, Gerald (1981). Unbounded dependencies and coordinate structure. Linguistic Inquiry, 12, 155184.
Geeraerts, Dirk (2008). Cognitive linguistics. In Momma, Haruko, & Matto, Michael (Eds.), Blackwell companion to the history of the English language (pp. 618629). Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell.
Gibson, Edward (1998). Linguistic complexity: locality of syntactic dependencies. Cognition, 68, 176.
Gibson, Edward (2000). The dependency of locality theory: a distance-based theory of linguistic complexity. In Marantz, AlecMiyashita, Yasushi, & O’Neil, Wayne (Eds.), Image, language, brain (pp. 95126). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Ginzburg, Jonathan, and Sag, Ivan A. (2000). Interrogative investigations: the form, the meaning, and use of English interrogatives. Stanford: CSLI Publications.
Goldberg, Adele E. (1995). A Construction Grammar approach to argument structure. Chicago: Chicago University Press.
Goldberg, Adele E. (2002). Surface generalizations: an alternative to alternations. Cognitive Linguistics, 13 (4), 327356.
Goldberg, Adele E. (2006). Constructions at work: the nature of generalization in language. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Hale, John (2003). The information conveyed by words in sentences. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 32 (2), 101123.
Halliday, M. A. K. (1973). Explorations in the functions of language. London: Edward Arnold.
Haspelmath, Martin (2007). Pre-established categories don’t exist: consequences for language description and typology. Linguistic Typology, 11 (1), 119132.
Haspelmath, Martin (2010). Comparative concepts and descriptive categories in crosslinguistic studies. Language, 86 (3), 663687.
Haspelmath, Martin (2011). The gradual coalescence into ‘words’ in grammaticalization. In Narrog, Heiko, & Heine, Bernd (Eds.), Oxford handbook of grammaticalization (pp. 342−355). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Hengeveld, Kees (1989). Layers and operators. Journal of Linguistics, 25 (1), 127157.
Hudson, Richard (1997). The rise of auxiliary DO – verb raising or category-strengtehning? Transactions of the Philological Society, 95 (1), 4172.
Kaplan, Ronald M., & Zaenen, Annie (1995). Long-distance dependencies, constituent structure, and functional uncertainty. In Dalrymple, MaryKaplan, Ronald M.Maxwell, John T. III, & Zaenen, Annie (Eds.), Formal issues in Lexical-Functional Grammar (pp. 137165). Stanford: Stanford University.
Kathol, Andreas (2000). Linear syntax. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Kay, Paul, & Fillmore, Charles J. (1999). Grammatical constructions and linguistic generalizations: the What’s X doing Y? construction. Language, 75 (1), 133.
Knight, Kevin (1989). Unification: a multidisciplinary survey. ACM Computer Surveys, 21 (1), 93124.
Lambrecht, Knud (1994). Information structure and sentence form: topic, focus, and the mental representation of discourse referents (Cambridge Studies in Linguistics 71). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Levine, Robert D., & Meurers, Walt Detmar (2006). Head-Driven Phrase Structure Grammar: linguistic approach, formal foundations, and computational realization. In Brown, Keith (Ed.), Encyclopedia of language and linguistics, 2nd ed. (pp. 237252). Oxford: Elsevier.
Levy, Roger (2008). Expectation-based syntactic comprehension. Cognition, 106 (3), 11261177.
Michaelis, Laura (2013). Sign-Based Construction Grammar. In Hoffman, Thomas, & Trousdale, Graeme (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of construction grammar (pp. 133152). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Müller, Stefan (2005). Zur Analyse der deutschen Satzstruktur. Linguistische Berichte, 201, 339.
Müller, Stefan (2006). Phrasal or lexical constructions? Language, 82 (4), 850883.
Nuyts, Jan (2011). Pattern versus process concepts of grammar and mind: a cognitive-functional perspective. In Brdar, MarioGries, Stefan Th., & Fuchs, Milena Žic (Eds.), Cognitive linguistics: convergence and expansion (pp. 4766). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Reape, Mike (1994). Domain union and word order variation in German. In Nerbonne, JohnNetter, Klaus, & Carl Pollard, (Eds.), German in Head-Driven Phrase Structure Grammar (pp. 151197). Stanford: CSLI Publications.
Richter, Frank (2004). A mathematical formalism for linguistic theories with application in Head-Driven Phrase Structure Grammar. (Unpublished DPhil dissertation), University of Tübingen.
Sag, Ivan A. (2010). English filler−gap constructions. Language, 86 (3), 486545.
Sag, Ivan A., & Wasow, Thomas (2011). Performance-compatible competence grammar. In Borsley, Robert D., & Börjars, Kersti (Eds.), Non-transformational syntax: formal and explicit models of grammar (pp. 359377). Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell.
Spranger, Michael, Pauw, Simon, Loetzsch, Martin, & Steels, Luc (2012). Open-ended procedural semantics. In Steels, Luc, & Hild, Manfred (Eds.), Language grounding in robots (pp. 153172). New York: Springer Verlag.
Steels, Luc (Ed.) (2011a). Design patterns in Fluid Construction Grammar. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Steels, Luc (2011b). A design pattern for phrasal constructions. In Steels, Luc (Ed.), Design patterns in Fluid Construction Grammar (pp. 71114). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Steels, Luc (Ed.) (2012). Computational issues in Fluid Construction Grammar. Berlin & Heidelberg: Springer Verlag.
Van de Velde, Freek (2011). Left-peripheral expansion of the English NP. English Language and Linguistics, 15 (2), 387415.
van Trijp, Remi (2011). A design pattern in for argument structure constructions. In Steels, Luc (Ed.), Design patterns in Fluid Construction Grammar (pp. 115145). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Vasishth, Shravan, & Lewis, Richard L. (2006). Argument−head distance and processing complexity: explaining both locality and antilocality effects. Language, 82 (4), 767794.
Verhagen, Arie (2005). Constructions of intersubjectivity: discourse, syntax and cognition. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Recommend this journal

Email your librarian or administrator to recommend adding this journal to your organisation's collection.

Language and Cognition
  • ISSN: 1866-9808
  • EISSN: 1866-9859
  • URL: /core/journals/language-and-cognition
Please enter your name
Please enter a valid email address
Who would you like to send this to? *
×

Keywords:

Metrics

Altmetric attention score

Full text views

Total number of HTML views: 46
Total number of PDF views: 23 *
Loading metrics...

Abstract views

Total abstract views: 262 *
Loading metrics...

* Views captured on Cambridge Core between September 2016 - 25th April 2018. This data will be updated every 24 hours.