Syntactic Complements Research Articles

< TRY AND V >, structure de coordination

This paper attempts to show that the “try and V” construction (V1 and V2) is not simply an informal variant of “try to V”, at least not for those speakers for whom the two constructions are readily available. It is here claimed that the key to an understanding of this construction is the separating function of the coordinator “and”: the transitive verb “try” (V1) is syntactically separated from V2 by the coordinator, and so is being used intransitively, thus acquiring referential autonomy. The verb “try” deprived of a syntactic complement can be paraphrased as “try to do something” and is thus claimed to represent by itself (synthetically and implicitly) the complete set of actions required for the realisation of the coordinated V2 event.

Do deaf adults with limited language have advanced theory of mind?

Previous studies show that deaf children have deficits in false belief understanding due to their language impairment. However, it is not clear whether deaf adults still have problems in advanced theory of mind (ToM). The present study examined deaf adults’ performance on three aspects of advanced ToM. All of the deaf groups lacking mental state language tended to perform worse than the hearing group on explicit mental state understanding. Deaf groups with either vocabulary skill or interpersonal experience from early years were similar to the hearing group in implicit mental state reasoning. Individuals frequently using syntactic complements or having interpersonal experience with hearing people from early years tended to use ToM better. Moreover, language ability was the only predictor for explicit rather than implicit mental state understanding. Sufficient language is not necessary for all aspects of advanced ToM. Rich interpersonal experience as a substitute for language may facilitate deaf adults’ advanced ToM.

Bare nominals and incorporating verbs in Spanish and Catalan

This paper presents an analysis of bare nominals unmarked for number (BNs) occurring in object position in Spanish and Catalan, on which the BN is a syntactic complement to the verb, but not a semantic argument. After describing the properties that distinguish BNs from other indefinite expressions (bare plurals, indefinite singulars preceded by un ‘a’, and bare mass terms), we argue that these BNs occur in a monadic syntactic configuration in the sense of Hale & Keyser (1998), that they denote first-order properties, and that they are combined with the verb via a modified version of Dayal's (2003) semantics for pseudo-incorporation. Specifically, the proposal consists of a lexical rule that generates the class of verbs that productively accept BN objects, plus a composition rule that treats the BN as modifier of the verb. We point out the advantages of this analysis over three other well-known semantic analyses for combining verbs with property-type nominals. Finally, we show how the analysis can be naturally extended to existential sentences, which combine with BNs although, prima facie, they do not appear to meet the lexical conditions for doing so.

Language and theory of mind in preschool children with specific language impairment

Language plays a critical role in the development of theory of mind (ToM). There is limited research, however, examining the role of specific components of language in ToM development for typical and clinical populations. The purpose of the current study is to examine the relative contributions of general grammar, grammatical tense markers, syntactic complementation, and receptive vocabulary on understanding standard ToM tasks in preschool children with specific language impairment (SLI). Thirty-four children with language disorders, ages 42–65 months, were administered a series of language and ToM measures. Hierarchical regression analyses were conducted to examine the relative contributions of language subcomponents to ToM task performance. The results indicated that general grammatical development and vocabulary contributed uniquely to ToM reasoning. Sentential complementation abilities did not make an independent contribution. Theoretical and clinical implications of the findings for different accounts of the role of language in ToM reasoning will be discussed. Learning outcomes: Readers of the current study will be able to: (1) understand the relationship between language and ToM development in both typical and clinical populations; (2) understand the different ways in which various language components are related to false belief reasoning; and (3) consider the implications for intervening with children with language disorders.

On the computation of collostruction strength: Testing measures of association as expressions of lexical bias

Collostruction strength, i.e. the degree of attraction that a word Cj exhibits to a construction Ck, has been argued to be exploited in processes of online comprehension, for example, to parse ambiguousstructures.There are, however, many ways to express this quantity and a large body of candidate measures can be foundin the computationaland corpuslinguisticliterature. The present studyprovidesa comprehensiveempirical evaluationof 47competing(variantsof)measuresofassociationinordertoassesstheirusefulness formodelsofsentencecomprehension.Tothatend,thedegreeofadequacyof a given measure is evaluated against its performance in a task of predicting human behavior in an eye-tracking experiment that investigated the reading of a local syntactic complementation ambiguity (Kennison 2001).The analysis shows that individual measures in fact arrive at different estimations of degrees of attraction between verbs and the relevant complementation patterns, and hence differ in their power to predict human reading behavior. On the basis of the obtained results, it is suggestedthat minimum sensitivity (Pedersen and Bruce 1996) is best suited as an expression of collostruction strength.

How Complex Are Complex Predicates?

Abstract. This paper argues that clause union/restructuring constructions such as verb clusters in German do not involve head clustering in the form of (lexical or derived) complex head formation. I provide several arguments showing that clause union properties are licensed in the absence of complex head formation and that complex head formation hence cannot be seen as a condition on clause union/restructuring. Complex head approaches are compared to syntactic complementation approaches—in particular, to an approach where the verbs of a restructuring construction project independent VPs that include all the internal arguments associated with the particular verbs. A series of empirical facts are considered (constituency, word order, modification, event structure properties, and nominalizations) that all point to the conclusion that these constructions involve regular VPs rather than complex V‐V heads. Although it is not excluded that complex head approaches could be adjusted to accommodate these facts, the main advantage of the VP‐complementation approach is that the sum of the properties discussed follows without additional assumptions from the structure suggested and that this approach also correctly predicts which constructions are excluded.

The interface of language and Theory of Mind

The proposal is made that the interface between language and Theory of Mind is bidirectional. It seems probable that the conceptual developments of early Theory of Mind form an essential basis for helping to fix at least word reference. In development from 2 to 4 years, no basis exists in research for conclusions about the direction of influence between language and Theory of Mind. At the stage of false belief reasoning, after age 4, the role of the mastery of syntactic complementation is highlighted as a representational tool, that is, language development assists reasoning. The paper presents a brief summary of Theory of Mind, ranging from its earliest beginnings in infancy to the appreciation around age 4 years that others might hold false beliefs and act according to them. For each development, the parallel language developments are described, and questions are raised about the interface between the two. In particular, research that might determine the direction of influence from one to the other is discussed. More work is called for, especially with nonverbal tasks, good experimental linguistic work and other special populations, that might allow a more precise delineation of how language and Theory of Mind interrelate at the interface.

Language and Theory of Mind: A Study of Deaf Children

Theory-of-mind (ToM) abilities were studied in 176 deaf children aged 3 years 11 months to 8 years 3 months who use either American Sign Language (ASL) or oral English, with hearing parents or deaf parents. A battery of tasks tapping understanding of false belief and knowledge state and language skills, ASL or English, was given to each child. There was a significant delay on ToM tasks in deaf children of hearing parents, who typically demonstrate language delays, regardless of whether they used spoken English or ASL. In contrast, deaf children from deaf families performed identically to same-aged hearing controls (N=42). Both vocabulary and understanding syntactic complements were significant independent predictors of success on verbal and low-verbal ToM tasks.

Language and false belief: Evidence for general, not specific, effects in cantonese-speaking preschoolers.

Two studies were conducted with Cantonese-speaking preschoolers examining J. de Villiers's (1995) hypothesis that syntactic complements play a unique role in the acquisition of false belief (FB). In Study 1, the authors found a positive correlation between FB and syntactic complements in 72 four- to six-year-old Cantonese-speaking preschoolers. Study 2 followed 72 three- to five-year-old Cantonese-speaking children who initially failed an FB screening task and were then tested on general language abilities, short-term memory, inhibition, nonverbal IQ, and on FB and complement tasks. Once age and initial FB understanding were controlled for in both multiple regression and hierarchical linear modeling analyses, complements no longer uniquely predicted FB. Instead, individual differences in general language abilities and short-term memory contributed to the variation in both complements and FB.

NPs as just NPs

The hypothesis initially defended in [Abney, S.P., 1987. The English noun phrase in its sentential aspects. Ph.D. dissertation, MIT] that determiners, quantifiers, and adjectives are heads and NP is their syntactic complement became one of the standard analyses within P&P and early minimalist syntax, but, examined in an unprejudiced way, causes more difficulties than it solves at both the empirical and the conceptual level. Without rejecting the head status of articles and the DP view of nominals, Kayne [Kayne, R., 1994. The Antisymmetry of Syntax. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA], Cinque [Cinque, G., 1995. On the evidence for partial N-movement in the Romance noun phrase. In: Cinque, G. (Ed.), Italian Syntax and Universal Grammar. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp. 287–309] and others have subsequently proposed that demonstratives, quantifiers, possessives, and adjectives be considered phrasal specifiers of various functional projections, rather than heads, with only articles treated as heads of DP, and such is now the standard view within Chomskian generative grammar, but the specifier theory is itself subject to serious objections. This work evaluates afresh the pros and cons of both accounts, but finally rejects them to return to the earlier NP analysis of NPs and the traditional view of articles, demonstratives, quantifiers, adjectives, PPs and relative clauses as modifiers of the noun, which, under the theory of modification presented in [Escribano, J.L.G., 2004. Head-final effects and the nature of modification. Journal of Linguistics 40, 1–43], accounts for the facts quite well and meets the Occamian ideals of Minimalist Theory rather better than current competitors.

On Particle Verbs and Similar Constructions in German (review)

Reviewed by: On particle verbs and similar constructions in German by Anke Lüdeling Gary H. Toops On particle verbs and similar constructions in German. By Anke Lüdeling. (Dissertations in linguistics.) Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications, 2001. Pp. xiv, 178. ISBN: 1-575863-01-4. Cloth $65.00. Paper $23.00. Lüdeling’s examination of German ‘particle verbs’ includes verbs traditionally regarded as having so-called separable prefixes (ankommen ‘arrive’, abfahren ‘depart’, anlachen ‘laugh at, deride’) as well as verbs occurring together with fixed manner adverbs (wach küssen ‘wake with a kiss’, kaputtmachen ‘break’, etc.). In the introduction to this somewhat revised version of her doctoral dissertation, L reveals that her work has led her to conclude that particle verbs as such do not actually exist and that ‘what people call particle verbs are lexicalized phrasal constructions’ (ix–x). Nevertheless, L indulges the reader with the following working definition: ‘Particle verbs are constructions that consist of a verb and a preverb and that behave like words in some respects and like syntactic constructions in others’ (1). According to the author, there are two basic problems associated with the notion of German particle verbs: One is the ‘structure problem’ concerning the question of whether particle verbs are morphological objects or phrasal constructions; the other is the ‘delimitation problem’ concerning the question of how particle verbs can be distinguished from similar (surface) constructions. To obviate these problems in the course of her examination, L adopts as a convenient construct the cover term ‘preverb verb constructions [PVCs]’ (22–23). In the second of six chapters, ‘Particle verbs in syntax, semantics, and phonology’, L demonstrates that a given preverb may or may not be subject to adverbial modification (cf. Sie machten die Tür zum Balkon ganz auf ‘They opened the door to the balcony all the way’ vs. *Sie führten das Stück ganz auf ‘They performed the play all the way’). She formulates a test whereby an element is a phrase or an independent word if it can be modified. L maintains that the separable prefix auf of aufmachen ‘open (up)’ in the former sentence is modifiable by an adverb like ganz ‘completely, all the way’ because it is semantically independent or transparent while in the latter German sentence, the same preverb auf of aufführen ‘perform, put on’ cannot be adverbially modified because it lacks semantic independence (56–57). Observations such as these lend support to L’s assertion that German particle verbs do not constitute a uniquely delineable class (119, 129, 138, and passim). In Ch. 3, ‘Particle verbs in morphology’, L concedes that it is ‘difficult to assert the category of a prefix’. Reasoning, however, that separable prefixes historically developed from prepositions, with which many of them remain homophonous, L argues that a number of separable prefixes ‘have the semantic content of a preposition’ (71). In Ch. 4, ‘Strange words or strange phrases?’, L further maintains that prefixes (or particles) ‘are never syntactic complements, but always secondary predicates or adverbs’ (135). In Ch. 5, ‘Preverbs as secondary predicates or adverbs’, L demonstrates that all PVCs (see above) lend [End Page 812] themselves to a phrasal analysis even if they do not constitute a uniform class of constructions. She maintains that, structurally, preverbs appear in two distinct positions—either as sisters to V or as V′ adjuncts (159). On the whole L’s argumentation is precise, thorough, and easy to follow. In the span of only 164 pages, L manages to subject PVCs to an impressive array of diagnostics. Equally impressive is her facility in citing and providing clear summaries of the work of others as it relates to her own discussion of the relevant facts. Gary H. Toops Wichita State University Copyright © 2003 Linguistic Society of America

Der Fokus im Mittelfeld

In this article a proposal is made for the treatment of a construction which is known under the terminus "verschrnkte Konstruktion" (Kvam 1982); it includes the so called "third construction". Example (1) shows a sentence with a syntactic complement of an infinite verb standing before the governing finite verb: (1) The proposal is made that the NP on the "wrong" place (in (1) it is the indirect object dir) is a focus in the middlefield ("Mittelfeldfokus"). In the framework of the transformational grammar of Semantic Syntax (Seuren 1996) the sentence-predicate "VATTR" is assumed which is responsible for the filling of the middlefield-position (2) a and is responsible for topicalisation, too: b This uniform syntactic treatment of topicalisation and the filling of the focus-position in the middlefield corresponds to the functional similarities of both positions. The focus is the part of the sentence which can contain the new information (Geilfu 1991) and the filling of the focus-position ("Fokussierung") is a means to make prominent a certain part of the sentence with the background of common information in the discourse of speaker and hearer. It is proposed in this article that the constructions in question are not-coherent in the sense of Bech (1983). For a sentence like (2)a no form of raising has to be assumed. The infinite embedded sentence is extraposed: no union of matrix-sentence and infinite complement has taken place.

Multiple subcategorization and the ?-criterion: The case of climb

We have successfully accounted for all the data of section 2 with the single unified entry (27). The price has been two innovations in the semantic structure of lexical items: the curly bracket notation for alternative realizations of variables, and the P operator. Each of these has been independently motivated. Returning to the general issue that motivated this study, we have maintained a strong correspondence between syntactic ϑ-positions and semantic argument positions. However, the correspondence need not be strictly one-to-one. We have seen multiple argument positions for a single ϑ-position in transitive climb, transaction verbs such as buy and sell, and possibly intransitive dress. We have also seen, possibly, that an argument may be multiply filled, once by a subcategorized phrase and once by a nonsubcategorized phrase. We have also seen that the correspondence between syntactic and semantic structure is encoded in lexical entries by means of principles more complex than seems to have been suspected. And the complexities we have found are for climb, which intuition suggests is a relatively simple item with rather transparent semantics. When we attempt to represent verbs with complicated options for sentential complementation (such as know and ask), we should expect the descriptive problems to multiply. Eventually, of course, one would like to adequately constrain the theory of syntax-semantics linkages in the lexicon. The present study should caution us, however, of the danger of applying Occam's razor too soon, thereby cutting off one's hand. This study has also provided evidence confirming Grimshaw's (1979) conclusion that syntactic and semantic conditions on lexical insertion are autonomous. Here we have ended with a lexical entry whose sole syntactic constraint is that there is a single postverbal complement. The syntactic category of the complement, however, is determined by the range of semantic categories possible in the corresponding variables. Viewed from a different angle, though, one might say that it is the availability of only one syntactic complement position that prevents both semantic variables from being expressed at once. There is nothing conceptually wrong with * Bill climbed the mountain up the ropes, in which both postverbal complements fill j-variables in (27) — it is just a syntactic fact about the English verb climb that makes it ungrammatical. To sum up, then, the subcategorization feature is not simply a projection of argument structure, as generally assumed. Rather, ϑ-structure and argument structure are better thought of as each constraining potential projections of the other. Finally, it is evident that these issues could not have been investigated without a fairly explicit theory of semantic structure like Conceptual Semantics. I hope to have provided here a taste of what syntactic theory may have missed out on, as a result of its habit of viewing semantics through the narrow window of more traditional formalizations of predicate-argument structure. I am grateful to Jane Grimshaw and David Olson for helpful discussion of this material, and to Jerrold Katz and especially another (anonymous) NLLT reviewer for many insightful comments on an earlier version. The puzzle of rent in section 4 goes back to discussions with Joe Emonds around 1966. This research was supported in part by NSF Grant IST-8120403 to Brandeis University, and in part by NSF Grant BNS-7622943 to the Center for Advanced Study in the Behavioral Sciences, where my initial exploration of climb took place one typically glorious day in February 1984.