Advertisement

Nonlocal-Dependencies and Infinitival Constructions in German

  • Klaus Netter
Part of the Studies in Linguistics and Philosophy book series (SLAP, volume 35)

Summary

Drawing on the example of infinitival constructions in German this paper will contrast two different approaches to the treatment of non-local dependencies within the framework of Lexical Functional Grammar. The essential difference between the two accounts is that the first and older approach, Constituent Control (CC), operates on phrase structure, whereas the second approach, Functional Uncertainty (FU), operates on functional structure. A further difference between the two approaches is that FU allows one to do without empty strings (as traces), which are indispensable in CC for purely technical reasons. This paper concentrates on the linguistic aspects rather than the mathematical properties of FU, arguing in favour of FU on the basis of linguistic data.

To compare the two approaches a small fragment of German infinitival constructions will be described. The phenomena considered are primarily extraposition and ‘wh-movement’.

A grammar for the basic clauses is presented in section 1., which illustrates the underlying grammatical relations. It will be argued that, given these basic assumptions, in LFG extraposition to the right in LFG must be treated as a kind of non-local dependency in German. To introduce and compare the mechanisms of CC and FU, the grammar is extended in section 2. for both mechanisms, to cover the extraposition phenomena. The simple case of extraposed infinitival clauses governed by verbs serves to show that for a CC-based analysis, an equivalent grammar based on FU cam be constructed.

By expanding the grammar further to include infinitival claused subcategorized for by nouns (section 3.), evidence is presented which suggests that grammatical relations rather than the phrase structure configuration determine the gramatical process of extraposition. For these phenomena, the FU approach permits to capture certain generalizations more directly than the phrase structure oriented CC.

In section 3., a more classical type of non-local dependencies, wh-movement, illustrated by German relative clauses, will be discussed. Certain restrictions on wh-movement with respect to its interaction with extraposition are described. It will be shown that, given the correctness and adequacy of the generalization outlined in the previous sections, FU allows the formulations of restrictions which cannot be expressed in the traditional approach of constituent control.

Keywords

Regular Expression Phrase Structure Empty String Control Domain Rule Schema 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Bibliography

  1. ASKEDAL, J. O. (1982): “Über den Zusammenhang zwischen Satztopologie und Statusrektion im Deutschen.” in: Studia Neophilologica, vol 54, 287–308CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. BECH, G. (1955, 1983): Studien über das deutsche Verbum Infinitum. 2nd ed., TübingenGoogle Scholar
  3. BRESNAN, J. ed. (1982): The Mental Representation of Grammatical Relations. Cambridge, Mass.Google Scholar
  4. BRESNAN, J. / R. KAPLAN / S. PETERS / A. ZAENEN (1982): “Cross Serial Dependencies in Dutch” LI 13Google Scholar
  5. BRESNAN, J. (1982): “On Control and Complementation.” LI 13, 343–434; also in: BRESNAN ed. (1982: 282 — 390)Google Scholar
  6. EVERS, A. (1975): The Transformational Cycle in Dutch and German. Reproduced by IULC, Bloomington, IndianaGoogle Scholar
  7. GREWENDORF, G (1984): “Kohaerenz und Restrukturierung. Zu verbalen Komplexen im Deutschen.” To appear in: B. ASBACH-SCHNITKER / J. ROGGENHOFER eds., Festschrift für H. Brekle.Google Scholar
  8. HAIDER, H. (1986): “Nicht-Sententiale Infinitive.” Groninger Arbeiten zur Germanistischen Linguistik 27Google Scholar
  9. HUANG, J. C.-T. (1982): Logical relations in Chinese and the Theory of Grammar. PhD-Thesis, MIT.Google Scholar
  10. JOHNSON, M. (1986): The LFG Treatment of Discontintuity and The Double Infinitive Construction in Dutch. CSLI report CSLI-86-65Google Scholar
  11. JOHNSON, M. (1986): Computing With Regular Path Formula. Ms., StanfordGoogle Scholar
  12. KAPLAN, R. / J. BRESNAN (1982): “Grammatical Representation.” in: BRESNAN ed. (1982: 173–281)Google Scholar
  13. KAPLAN, R. / J. MAXWELL / A. ZAENEN (1987): “Functional Uncertainty.” in: CSLI Monthly, 01–87Google Scholar
  14. KAPLAN, R. / A. ZAENEN (1987): “Wh-Constructions and Constituent Structure.” To appear in: M. BALTIN / A. KROCH eds., Alternative Conceptions of Phrase Structure.Google Scholar
  15. KARTTUNEN, L. (1987): “Radical Lexicalism”. To appear in: M. BALTIN / A. KROCH eds., Alternative Conceptions of Phrase Structure.Google Scholar
  16. NETTER, K. (1986): “Getting Things Out Of Order”. COLING 11.Google Scholar
  17. NETTER, K. (1987): “Wortstellung und Verbalkomplex im Deutschen.” To appear in: SCHERBER et. al., eds. (1987): Computerlinguistik und Philologische Datenverarbeitung. HildesheimGoogle Scholar
  18. RAPPAPORT, M (1983) “On the Nature of Derived Nominals”, in: L. LEVIN / M. RAPPAPORT / A. ZAENEN eds. (1983): Papers in Lexical Functional Grammar. IULC, Bloomington, Indiana.Google Scholar
  19. SELLS, P. (1985): Lectures on Contemporary Syntactic Theories. StanfordGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© D. Reidel Publishing Company 1988

Authors and Affiliations

  • Klaus Netter
    • 1
  1. 1.Institut für Maschinelle SprachverarbeitungUniversität StuttgartGermany

Personalised recommendations