权益分类	功能权益	普通用户	{{item.name}}会员
{{category.name}}	{{benefitItem.name}}

Locality and the argument-adjunct distinction:Structure-building vs. structure-enrichment

局部性和论证附加物的区别：结构构建与结构丰富

基本信息

批准号：
AH/V002872/1
负责人：
Robert Truswell
金额：
$ 35.23万
依托单位：
University of Edinburgh
依托单位国家：
英国
项目类别：
Research Grant
财政年份：
2020
资助国家：
英国
起止时间：
2020 至无数据
项目状态：
未结题

来源：
https://gtr.ukri.org/projects?ref=AH%2FV002872%2F1
关键词：
Locality argument adjunct distinction Structure

项目摘要

Syntax is partly about structure-building: the combination of words into phrases and phrases into sentences. But it's also about dependencies between different elements in a sentence. We aim to compare how "local" different types of syntactic dependencies are in a range of languages (that is, how much syntactic structure they can traverse), and build a theory to explain the different locality patterns that we uncover.For example, in the Hindi sentence "Vivek-ne kitab parh-nii chaah-ii" ("Vivek wanted to read the book"), "parh-nii" ("read") and "chaah-ii" ("want") show feminine inflection, because they agree with the feminine object "kitab" ("book"). This "long-distance agreement" (where the object of a subordinate clause influences the shape of multiple verb forms) is an example of a syntactic dependency.Another nonlocal dependency is "control", where a noun phrase in one clause determines the interpretation of an implicit argument in another clause. In the same Hindi example above, "Vivek" is interpreted not only as the subject of "want" but also as the subject of "read". Again, this dependency is syntactically mediated.Different syntactic dependencies permit different amounts of nonlocality. We compare different dependency types and ask whether they can cross adjunct boundaries, where an adjunct is an unselected optional phrase within the sentence (like "in the garden" in "I was walking in the garden"). Control dependencies clearly can cross adjunct boundaries: in "They left after eating", the adjunct is the optional modifier "after eating", and the implicit subject of "eating" is controlled by "they". However, long-distance agreement appears to be impossible across an adjunct boundary: to our knowledge, no language allows a pattern like "Vivek left.FEM after buying.FEM the book.FEM", where long-distance agreement between "left" and "book" crosses an adjunct boundary. Other types of syntactic dependency show more complex patterns, sensitive to the specific type of adjunct and the nature of the elements that the dependency relates.Our aim is to describe and explain these patterns. Currently, no theory explains why different types of dependency interact with adjunction in these different ways. We believe that the different patterns can be explained in terms of two new ideas: (1) a particular conception of the way that adjuncts relate to their hosts, and how it differs from e.g. the relationship between a verb and its object; (2) a theory that accounts for interactions between different types of syntactic dependencies in terms of how the structure-building mechanism determines when agreement and control can take place.

语法部分是关于结构的构建：将单词组合成短语，将短语组合成句子。但它也是关于句子中不同元素之间的依赖关系。我们的目标是比较如何“本地”不同类型的句法依赖关系是在一系列的语言（即它们可以遍历多少句法结构），并建立一个理论来解释我们发现的不同的局部性模式。例如，在印地语句子“Vivek-ne kitab parh-nii chaah-ii”中，（“维韦克想读这本书”），“parh-nii”（“读”）和“chaah-ii”（“想”）显示女性的曲折，因为他们同意女性对象“kitab”（“书”）。这种“长距离一致”（即从句的宾语影响多个动词形式的形状）是句法依赖的一个例子。另一种非局部依赖是“控制”，即一个从句中的名词短语决定另一个从句中隐含论元的解释。在上面同样的印地语例子中，“Vivek”不仅被解释为“想要”的主语，也被解释为“阅读”的主语。同样，这种依赖是以句法为中介的，不同的句法依赖允许不同的非局部性。我们比较了不同的依赖类型，并询问它们是否可以跨越附加词的边界，其中附加词是句子中的可选短语（如“I was walking in the garden”中的“in the garden”）。控制依赖显然可以跨越修饰语的边界：在“They left after eating”中，修饰语是可选的修饰语“after eating”，而“eating”的隐含主语是由“they”控制的。然而，远距离一致似乎不可能跨越附加词边界：据我们所知，没有语言允许像“Vivek left.FEM after buying.FEM the book.FEM”这样的模式，其中“left”和“book”之间的远距离一致跨越附加词边界。其他类型的句法依存关系表现出更复杂的模式，对特定类型的附加语和依存关系所涉及的元素的性质敏感。目前，没有理论解释为什么不同类型的依赖以这些不同的方式与附加作用。我们认为，不同的模式可以用两个新的观点来解释：（1）一个关于动词与其主语的关系的特殊概念，以及它与动词与其宾语之间的关系的区别;（2）一种理论，解释了不同类型的句法依赖之间的相互作用，即结构如何--构建机制决定了协议和控制何时能够发生。