Auxiliary-Stranding Relative Clauses Doug Arnold, Robert D. Borsley University of Essex

Transcription

1 Auxiliary-Stranding Relative Clauses Doug Arnold, Robert D. Borsley University of Essex 1. Introduction In this paper we present an HPSG analysis of English auxiliary-stranding relative clauses (ASRCs), such as that in (1). (1) Kim will sing a rude song, which Lee won t/can t/never has. Such relative clauses have been previously noticed, e.g. in Ross (1969), and are briefly discussed in Huddleston and Pullum (2002:1523), but they have not hitherto received an explicit analysis in any framework. We will argue that the best analysis involves a filler-gap mismatch. The existence of such mismatches challenges the plausibility of syntactic movement as the fundamental syntactic operation involved in filler-gap constructions. ASRCs appear to be non-restrictive (appositive, supplementary) relative clauses (NRRCs) in which (i) the antecedent is not normally an NP and (ii) the gap follows an auxiliary. The first property is unsurprising since it is well known that NRRCs can have nonnominal antecedents, as in (2). (2) Kim is riding a camel, which is really difficult. The second property is more interesting. Typically, the gap in an NRRC is in an NP position, as in (2) and there is a straightforward paraphrase with a normal anaphor: (3) Kim is riding a camel. It is really difficult. What is surprising about ASRCs is that the gap is complement of an auxiliary verb not an NP position except possibly in the case of be, which of course allows VP, AP, PP and NP complements. Hence, in contrast to (1), the following is impossible: (4) Kim will sing a rude sing. *Lee won t it/that. As far as we are aware, all auxiliary verbs can occur in this construction, including modals, have, be, and to, which following Pullum (1982), we assume is a defective auxiliary verb: (5) a. Kim has sung a rude song, which Lee hasn t. b. Kim is singing a rude song, which Lee isn t. c. Kim wants to go home, which Lee doesn t want to. Notice, however, that only auxiliary verbs are permitted. In particular lexical verbs that take VP complements are excluded: (6) a. *Kim managed to run two miles, which Lee didn t try. b. *Kim persuaded Lee to go home, which she didn t persuade Lee. The construction looks rather like VP Ellipsis (VPE) (which is really auxiliary complement ellipsis). However, the differences are significant. VPE is an optional process. Hence the gap in an auxiliary complement ellipsis sentence can be filled in. This is not possible with the gap in an ASRC:

2 2 (7) a. Kim will sing, but Lee won t sing. (VPE) b. *Kim will sing, which Lee won t sing. (ASRC) Moreover the processes responsible for ASRCs differ from VPE in being sensitive to island constraints. (8) shows that ASRCs are subject to the Complex Noun Phrase Constraint. (9) shows that VPE is not. (8) a. Kim is singing, which I don t believe that Lee is. b. *Kim is singing, which I don t believe the claim that Lee is. (9) a. Kim is singing, but I don t believe that Lee is. b. Kim is singing, but I don t believe the claim that Lee is. This strongly suggests that ASRCs, like ordinary NRRCs, involve an unbounded dependency construction. In what follows we will explore a number of alternative analyses. (For reasons of space we will only provide formal details for the final analysis.) 2. A simple filler-gap analysis A fairly obvious approach to ASRCs assumes that which is a pronominal counterpart of the categories that appear as complements of an auxiliary, most often a VP. One problem for this approach is that ordinary VP complements of an auxiliary do not appear as fillers in a relative clause. Thus, only the (a) examples are acceptable in the following: (10) a. This is the book, which Kim will read. b. *This is the book, [read which] Kim will. (11) a. This is the book, which Kim has read. b. *This is the book, [read which] Kim has. (12) a. This is the book, which Kim is reading. b. *This is the book, [reading which] Kim is. A second problem involves infinitival to and not. If which could be a VP filler in ASRCs, one would expect it to be possible to have a larger VP containing these elements, but this is not possible: (13) a. Kim ought to go home, which Lee ought not to. b. *Kim ought to go home, [to which] Lee ought not. c. *Kim ought to go home, [not to which] Lee ought. A third problem is that some of the categories that appear as complements of an auxiliary also appear as complements of lexical verbs. Hence there is no obvious way within this approach to rule out examples like those in (6). It seems, then, that an analysis which treats the relative pronoun in ASRCs as having the same category as the gap is not very plausible. 3. Two non-filler analyses Given the defects of this filler analysis of which one might suppose that it is not in fact a filler. One possibility would be to assume that it is the ordinary nominal which but that it is not a filler because it does not match the SLASH value of its clausal sister. Another

3 possibility would be to assume that it is a head, more precisely a complementizer. The first analysis involves a special construction. The second involves a special lexical entry for which. We omit formal details for reasons of space. One objection to these analyses is that they are incompatible with the otherwise sound generalization that NRRCs (unlike restrictive relatives) are head-filler structures. Another objection is that like the first analysis they miss the fact that the gap in ASRCs is restricted to auxiliary complement position. There is no obvious way within these analyses to rule out examples like (6) without the introduction of some otherwise unmotivated diacritic features. These analyses make it look as if what is special about ASRCs is at the top of the dependency, but it seems clear that there is something special at the bottom of the dependency where the gap must follow an auxiliary A filler-gap mismatch analysis We turn now to an analysis which we think provides a satisfactory account of the data. In this analysis, which in ASRCs is a filler, but a nominal filler which does not match the associated gap. Thus, it is a filler-gap mismatch analysis. Consider first VP ellipsis. A fairly standard HPSG approach to ellipsis treats it as involving a head with an ARG-ST element which does not appear in either its SUBJ list or its COMPS list. If we adopt this approach, we can propose that auxiliaries in VPE sentences have the following syntactic properties, where the precise nature of XP varies from auxiliary to auxiliary: (14) & & & v ### HEAD % AUX + " SS LOCAL CAT SUBJ < [1] > % COMPS <> " % ARG - ST < {1], XP > " The crucial property of this structure is that the second member of the ARG-ST list does not appear in the COMPS list. To allow ASRCs we simply need to allow the second member of the ARG-ST list to have a SLASH feature with a value which will pick out which. We assume that which has something like the following syntactic and semantic properties: (15) & & & CAT NP ### -& param #* LOCAL CONT, INDEX[j] ) SS % + % RESTR [1]{ non - person(j),[j].[i]}" (" -& param #* REL, INDEX[i] ) % % + % RESTR [1]" ( ""

4 This ensures that the index in the CONTENT of which is a non-person, which includes events/states, and that it is anaphorically dependent on the index that is its REL value (which, as with all relative clauses, is identified with the index of the antecedent). The value of SLASH is a set of local feature structures. Thus, to allow ASRCs we need to allow the LOCAL value of (15) to appear in the SLASH value of the unexpressed complement of a null complement auxiliary. In other words, we need to flesh out (14) as (16). 4 (16) & & & v ## # HEAD % AUX + " SS LOCAL CAT SUBJ < [1] > % COMPS <> " % ARG - ST < {1], XP j[slash{(npj, j i)}] > " The local feature structure within the value of SLASH is within round brackets, indicating that it is optional. If this option is not taken, we have a VPE sentence. If it is taken, we have an ASRC. The optional SLASH value is coindexed with the unexpressed complement but it is an NP and hence will generally differ from the unexpressed complement. It is thus what Webelhuth (2008) calls a dishonest gap. If the unexpressed complement has a non-empty SLASH value, standard constraints will ensure that this SLASH value is passed up the tree, and the result will be an ASRC. Assuming Arnold s (2004) analysis of NRRCs, we will have structures like the following: (17) [1] [1]VP i S [MOD [1]] NP j, j i S NP VP V sing a rude song which Lee won t Like the other analyses this analysis predicts that ASRCs are subject to island constraints because it involves the SLASH feature and for HPSG island constraints are constraints on this feature. However, it is superior to the other analyses in a number of ways. Firstly, unlike the first and third analyses it treats which as the ordinary nominal which, which appears in other NRRCs and does not need any extra lexical entries for which. Secondly, unlike the other analyses, it excludes gaps which are complements of lexical verbs because an optional property of auxiliaries is responsible for the existence of the construction.

5 Thirdly, unlike the first analysis, it has no difficulty in ruling out examples with a VP filler such as (10)-(12) because it does not assume that which may be a VP. Fourthly, again unlike the first analysis, it does not suggest that infinitival to should be possible before which as in (13b) because it does not assume that which may be a VP. Finally, it predicts the existence of complex examples with one gap in an auxiliary complement position and one in a nominal position such as the following: (18) Kim has often ridden a camel, which most people haven t, and some consider too dangerous. Such examples are unexpected on all the other analyses since for all of them the two conjuncts have different SLASH values, the first being [SLASH {VP}] and the second [SLASH {NP}]. Within the analysis we are proposing, both are [SLASH {NP}]. A further point to note about this analysis is that it predicts that it should be possible to have not just which but other anaphoric fillers associated with an auxiliary complement gap. The following naturally occurring examples suggest that both that and this may occur. (19) a. They can only do their best and that they certainly will. ( aff.asp) b. It was thought that he would produce a thought provoking chapter, and this he certainly has. (J. B. Cullingworth, ed. British planning: 50 years of urban and regional policy/, Continuum International Publishing Group, 1999, p13). Finally we want to emphasize how simple the analysis we are proposing is. It attributes ASRCs to an optional additional property of auxiliaries which have an unexpressed complement. Essentially we are claiming that ASRCs are just one more idiosyncrasy of a word class which is well known for its idiosyncrasies. This approach also makes it easy to see how ASRCs could have arisen historically and how they might in the grammar of an individual. All that is required is the addition of an optional non-empty SLASH value to the unexpressed complement of VPE auxiliaries. This is a rather simple change. 5 REFERENCES Arnold, D.J. (2004), Non-restrictive relative clauses in construction based HPSG, in Stefan Müller (ed.), Proceedings of the 11th International Conference on Head-Driven Phrase Huddleston, R. and G. K. Pullum (2002), The Cambridge Grammar of the English Language, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Pullum, G. K. (1982), Syncategorematicity and English infinitival to, Glossa 16, Ross, J. R. (1969), Auxiliaries as main verbs, in W. Todd (ed.), Studies in philosophical linguistics (Series 1). Evanston, IL: Great Expectations Press. Webelhuth, G. (2008), A lexical-constructional approach to movement mismatches, paper presented at the Fifth international Conference on Construction Grammar, The University of Texas at Austin, September 26-28, 2008.