Explorations in Syntactic Government and Subcategorisation

31 August - 3 September 2011 University of Cambridge

Corbett 2004

canonical instances: the best examples, those most closely matching the canon

‘best’, ‘clearest’, ‘indisputable’ (according to the ‘canon’)

Who establishes the canon and how?

Government: the selection of the morphosyntactic shape of one constituent (the governed or subordinate constituent) by virtue of its combining with another (the governor).

Zwicky 1985

Osborne and Groß (this conference):

A word constituent x governs another distinct constituent y if a morpheme μ1 in x determines a morpheme μ2 in y.

(Groß 1999)

Government obtains when a dominant element (head) A opens a slot for a dependent element B.

(Jung 1995)

Rektion (government):

1) The grammatical case of a subordinate word is determined by a superordinate word

2) Asymmetrically determined dependency relation between a verb and obligatory arguments

3) The dependency relation: the governor (Regens) governs (regiert) its dependents.

Lewandowski 1985

1) The grammatical case of a subordinate word is

determined by a superordinate word

(Zwichy, Groß)

case of the dependent is obligatory (redundant, no significant case variation)

(1) Hans ist durch die Tür gegangen

(2) *Hans ist durch der Tür gegangen

(3) Er hat mir geholfen

(4) *Er hat mich geholfen

2) Asymmetrically determined dependency relation

between a verb and obligatory arguments

governor has slots which obligatorily require fillers – fillers do not presuppose governor

(5) I lifted the bag

(6) *I lifted

(7) Mary is at work

(8) *Mary is at

Dependency is by definition a non-symmetrical relation, of the same type as implication: one element 'presupposes' in some sense the other, but generally speaking not vice versa

Melˈčuk 2003

3) The dependency relation: the governor (Regens) governs (regiert) its dependents

(Osborne and Groß )

Constituent A governs constituent B if the syntactic function of B depends on A

Moravcsik 1995

Are all dependency relations alike?

Taxonomie der syntaktischen Relation syntaktische Relation Dependenz Soziation Rektion Modifikation Koordination Apposition ... Verb- Präp- ... Adnominale adverbiale dir.Obj. Kompl. Modifikation Modifikation [Adjunktion] Determination Attribution ... (from Lehmann, 1983: 341).

Government: the head as a slot which must be filled by a dependent

The head is relational

Modification: the head has no slots that must be filled

The modificatum is the primary argument of the modifier

If a the predicate is downgraded to a modifier, then its argument becomes its syntactic head.

(Lehmann, this conference)

Canonical agreement (Corbett 2004)

Criterion 1: controller present > controller absent

Criterion 2: controller has overt features > controller has covert features

(Principle-I: Canonical agreement is redundant rather than informative)

Criterion 3: consistent controller > hybrid controller

Criterion 1: controller present > controller absent

Dependent present / dependent absent

(9)gesæt þæt lond ond gedælde.

occupied.3SG the.ACC land.ACC and divided.3SG

“(The army) occupied the land and divided it’ (Anglo-Saxon Chronicle A [Plummer] 880)

Criterion 2: controller has overt features > controller

has covert features

(Canonical agreement is redundant rather than informative)

Dependent case marked / dependent not case marked

(10) Mit dir / with you

(case marking is redundant)

Criterion 3: consistent controller > hybrid controller

Case marking obligatory / variable case marking

(11) Sie ist mit mir / *mich gekommen

(12) Sie fährt in die / der Stadt

Canonical government requires obligatoriness

From modification to government:

adverbs adpositions

Body part > Local noun > Relational noun > Adposition

(from Lehmann 1999)

(13) Ich fahre in der Stadt

“I drive inside the town (dat.)”;

(14) Ich fahre in die Stadt

“I drive into town (acc.)”.

The dative is the default case in German PPs; when the accusative occurs it is governed directly by the verb

(Abraham 2001, 2003)

German has a newer set of prepositions built on top of an older case system that has preserved spatial distinctions of the richer Indo-European case system. It is this non-combinatorial ‘stacking’ of two systems, originating in different phases of grammaticalization, that creates non-compositionality, redundancy and vacuity (Zwaart 2005)

asyè” ’ntáh, ‘in the mouth, inside’ (locative)

a”syà”d antáh, ‘out of (the interior of) the mouth’ (ablative)

(Vedic Sanskrit)

parà neòs ‘from the ship’ (gen.)

parà neusì ‘near the ships’ (dat.)

(Homeric and Classical Greek)

Did the genitive indicate Source? (15) eîke, Diòs thúgater, polémou kaì dēïotêtos flee:IMPT.PRS.2SG Z.:GEN daughter:VOC war:GEN and

fight:GEN “o daughter of Zeus, flee from the battle and the fight!”

(Hom. Il. 5.348). (16) elthónt’ ek polémoio kaì ainês dēïotêtos come:PART.PRS.M out.of war:GEN and fearful:GEN fight:GEN “coming from the battle and the fearful fight” (Hom. Il.

5.409).

(17) ê ouk Argeos êen ...;

PTC not A.:GEN be:IMPF.3SG

was he not in Argos?” (Hom. Od. 3.251)

(18) kaì gár tís th’ héna mêna

and PTC INDEF.NOM PTC one:ACC month:ACC

méno n apò hês alókhoio ...

remain:PRT.PRS.NOM from POSS.3SG.GEN.F wife:GEN.F

“for he that abides but one single month far from his wife ...” (Hom. Il. 2.292).

(19) érkhesthai metá tina (acc) = ‘go after smb.’

(20) érkhesthai metá tinos (gen) = ‘go with smb.’

(Attic-Ionic)

The verb cannot govern the case inside the PP

The case by itself does not have the meaning of the PP

Case study:

Metá from Homeric Greek to Modern Greek

HOMERIC GREEK

Relational/non-relational

(21) teîkhos mén rh’ álokhoí ... rhúat’ ephestaótes

wall:ACC PTC PTC wife:NOM.PL guard:AOR.3PL.M/P stand:PRT.PRF.NOM.PL

metà d’ anéres hoùs ékhe gêras

among PTC man:NOM.PL REL.ACC.PL have:IMPF.3SG old-age:NOM

“the wall were their wives guarding, as they stood thereon; among (them stood) the old

men” (Hom. Il. 18.514-515);

(22)nôi d’ ... kédesin allélon terpómetha ... mnooméno: 1DU.NOM PTC woe:DAT.PL REC.GEN.PL rejoice:PRS.1PL.MP recall:PART.PRS.NOM.DU.M/P

metà gár te kaì álgesi térpetai anér after PTC PTC and pain:DAT.PL rejoice:PRS.3SG.M/P man:NOM.SG

“we two will take delight each in the other’s woes, as we recall them to mind: for in after

time a man finds joy even in woes” (Hom. Od. 15.398-401).

HOMERIC GREEK

(a) dative: „between‟; „among‟ (all types of lm)

(23) pe dálion metà khersì … ékhonta

rudder:ACC between hand:DAT.PL … have:PRT.PRS.ACC

“holding in his hands the steering-oar” (Hom. Od. 3.281).

(24) metà prótoisi mákhesthai

among first:DAT.PL fight: INF.PRS.M/P

“to fight among the foremost” (Hom. Il. 5.536).

HOMERIC GREEK

(b) genitive: ‘among’ (only pl. count nouns or pronouns w/human referents)

(25) oudè meth’ heméon peirâi hós ke

NEG among 1PL.GEN seek:SUBJ.PRS.2SG.M/P that PTC

Trôes ... apólontai

Trojan:NOM.PL perish:PRS.3PL.M/P

“neither you will seek among us that the Trojans may

perish” (Hom. Il. 21.458-459).

HOMERIC GREEK

(c) accusative: ‘among’ (only mass nouns/pl. count modified by pâs ‘all’) ‘toward a position among’ (pl. lm) ‘after’ (sg lm)

(26) pôs ke sù kheírona phôta saóseias

how PTC 2SG.NOM inferior:ACC man:ACC rescue:OPT.AOR.2SG

meth’ hómilon

among crowd:ACC

“how are you like to save a meaner man amid the press of battle” (Hom. Il. 17.149-150).

HOMERIC GREEK (c) accusative: ‘among’ (only mass nouns/pl. count modified

by pâs ‘all’) ‘toward a position among’ (pl. lm) ‘after’ (sg lm)

(27) bê d’ ímen eis agorè n met’ ... go:AOR3.SG PTC go:INF.PRS to assembly:ACC among Akhaioús Achaean:ACC.PL “and he went his way to the place of assembly to join the

company of the Achaeans,” (Hom. Od. 20.146);

HOMERIC GREEK (c) accusative: ‘among’ (only mass nouns/pl. count modified

by pâs ‘all’) ‘toward a position among’ (pl. lm) ‘after’ (sg lm)

(28) ankhímolon dè met’ autòn edúseto go.close:ADV PTC after DEM.ACC.SG.M dive:3SG.IMPF.M/P dómat’ Odusseús palace:N/A.PL O.:NOM “close after him Odysseus entered the palace”, (Hom. Od.

17.336).

Government in Homeric Greek?

Metá does not have a slot that obligatorily needs to be filled

Admits variation of all available cases

Syntactic function of NPs is determined by metá

(24) metà pró toisi mákhesthai

among first:DAT.PL fight: INF.PRS.M/P

“to fight among the foremost” (Hom. Il. 5.536).

(24)’ pró toisi mákhesthai

first:DAT.PL fight: INF.PRS.M/P

“to fight against the foremost”.

(dative: second argument of mákhesthai)

CLASSICAL GREEK

(a) genitive: ‘with’ (Comitative, Manner, Attendant circumstances, Means):

(b) accusative: ‘after’, ‘across’

Non-canonical government in Classical Greek

Metá has a slot for an obligatory filler

Case variation is limited (other prepositions have other patterns of variation)

Syntactic function of NPs is determined by metá:

BYZANTINE GREEK

Metá + genitive / me + accusative: ‘with’

Metá + accusative ‘after’

MODERN GREEK

Me with the accusative : ‘with’

Metá with the accusative: ‘after’, ‘behind’, ‘because of’

CANONICAL GOVERNMENT

Prepositions have slots for obligatory fillers

No case variation: they only take the accusative

Syntactic function of NPs is determined by prepositions

Governor determines syntactic function of dependent

Governor has a slot that requires a filler

Governor determines morphosyntactic shape (case) of the filler

CASE VARIATION WITH VERBS

(29) mukethmoû t’ ékousa boôn

lowing:GEN PTC hear:AOR.1SG cow:GEN.PL

aulizomenáo n oiôn

lodge:PART.PRS.M/P.GEN.PL sheep:GEN.PL

te blekhén

PTC bleating:ACC.F

“I heard the lowing of the cattle lying (in the courtyard) and the bleating of the sheep” (Hom. Od. 12.265-266).

(30) orexámenos prumnòn skélos

reach:PART.AOR.NOM extreme:ACC leg:ACC

“hitting him upon the base of the leg” (Hom. Il. 16.314)

(31) ou paidòs oréxato phaídimos Héktōr

not child:GEN reach:AOR.3SG glorious:NOM H.:NOM

„glorious Hector stretched out his arm to his boy (but could not reach him)“ (Hom. Il. 6,466)

The idea that cases carry no independent semantic content when governed by the verb has the effect that „one considers verbs polysemous and assumes that each verbal meaning selects a specific oblique case“

Hettrich 1990

An explanation that takes the semantic content of cases as its starting point has the advantage to give a unified treatment of all verbs that allow for case alternation, as well as of verbs that take cases different from the accusative.

Hettrich 1990

… in the various sorts of ‘dependency grammar’ … nominal argument

are said to be dependent on a relational element such as a verb …, which is said to have a particular valence potential and consequently determines how many nominals are allowed in the clause

I would say instead that the relational predication is conceptually dependent on the nominals.

Langacker 1987

Government, valency, subcategorization

… when government as a syntactic dependency is equated with subcategorisation, there is no consensus about where to draw the lines between subcategorisation, semantic selection, and co-occurrence.

(Explorations in Syntactic Government and Subcategorisation – Meeting description)

Syntactic vs. semantic valence

Valence: semantically based gradience notion with syntactic implications.

(Langacker 1987, Croft 2001, Luraghi, Parodi 2008)

(32) John just ate

(33) John just ate a hamburger

(34) John just ate a hamburger at MacDonald’s

Each filler elaborates on a substructure of the verb ‘eat’

The event of eating requires an eater and something eaten. The former is more salient, hence the verb can be construed as denoting an activity. The event is localizable: a substructure of ‘eat’ is elaborated by the location expression, but this substructure is much less salient than those elaborated by ‘John’ and ‘a hamburger’.

(35) *Seymour sliced

(36) Seymour sliced the salami

(37) Seymour sliced the salami with a knife

(38) et cum scaphas concurrere undique ab navibus

and as boats coming from.anywhere from ships

cernerent, ad excipiendos sese venire rati, ut

they.saw to taking them come thinking in.order.to

caperent Ø potius quam occiderent Ø, longius in aquam, quidam

take rather than kill farther in water some

etiam natantes, progressi sunt.

even swimming they.moved.on

“When they saw small boats gathering from all around the fleet, they thought that these were coming to pick them up, to take them prisoner rather than to kill them, and so they advanced farther into the water, some even swimming.” Liv. 44.42.5

(39) ... ta peri tēs anthrōpoui, mē

dem.acc.pl regarding art:gen person:gen neg

koinēi hēmas khrēsthai Øi sugkhōrēsai.

in.common 1pl.acc use:inf agree:inf.aor

“[he denies, in face of the settlement clearly made] regarding the woman, that we agreed to share her between us”, Lys. 4.1.

Fillmore and Kay 1993

Free null instantiation

(40) The dog just ate

vs.

Definite null instantiation

(38), (39) referent must be accessible (Croft 2001)

(41) et non sciebat unde esset, ministri autem sciebant, qui

haurierant aquam (John 2.9)

a. che non sapeva donde questo uscisse (lo sapevan però i serventi);

b. y no sabia de donde era, aunque los que servian lo sabian;

c. kai den ēxeure pothen einai, oi upēretai omōs ēxeuron oi antlēsantes to udōr

d. and did not know where it came from, but the waiters knew who had drawn the water.

Johnson 1991, Luraghi 1996.

Is there a sharp difference between FNI and DNI?

(42) I’m eating (FNI)

(43) I’m eating a piece of bread

(44) I picked up a piece of bread and started eating

(FNI or DNI?)

Lexical vs. constructional DNI?

(45) A: John married Mary.

B: I know!

(46) A: Giovanni ha sposato Maria.

B: *(Lo) so!

Lexical vs. constructional DNI?

(47) A: I just can’t do that!

B: I understand.

(48) A: Non posso proprio farlo!

B: (?Lo) capisco.

Obligatoriness revisited

The semantics of a construction is attributable to the construction as a whole, rather than to verb meanings

often pointless to distinguish between telic (transitive) and atelic (unergative).

Obligatoriness revisited

With transitive verbs, the direct object often coveyes new information. Hence it is overtly realized more often than not.

Obligatoriness revisited

Syntacticization of valency: frequent occurrence of DO creates a syntactic slot which at a later stage is mandatorily filled also in syntactically specified contexts valency emerges from usage

Obligatoriness revisited

Increase in obligatoriness of argument realization and of case marking apparently parallel process in the case of verb complements.