Parasitic gap

Last updated

In generative grammar, a parasitic gap is a construction in which one gap appears to be dependent on another gap. Thus, the one gap can appear only by virtue of the appearance of the other gap, hence the former is said to be "parasitic" on the latter. For example, in the example sentence in (1) the first gap is represented by an underscore ( __ ), and appears as a result of movement of the constituent which explanation to the beginning of the sentence. The second gap is represented by an underscore with a subscript p ( __p); this is the "parasitic gap".

Contents

(1)Which explanation did you reject__without first really considering__p?

While parasitic gaps are present in English and some related Germanic languages, e.g. Swedish (see Engdahl 1983), their appearance is much more restricted in other, closely related languages, e.g. German and the Romance languages. [1] Japanese linguistic scholar Fumikazu Niinuma has attempted to differentiate between parasitic gaps and coordination in his research, as he believes the two are often confused. [2]

An aspect of parasitic gaps that makes them particularly mysterious is the fact they usually appear inside islands to extraction. Although the study of parasitic gaps began in the late 1970s, no consensus has yet been reached about the best analysis. [3]

The phenomenon

The example sentences in (2) are normal declarative sentences that contain no gap at all. The sentences in (3), in contrast, contains two gaps, whereby the second gap is parasitic on the first; the parasitic gap is marked with a p-subscript. The sentences in (4) show that if there is no real gap (that corresponds to the bold-faced constituent), then the parasitic gap is not possible.

(2)no gap
a.You reviewed that book without actually reading it.
b.They played that song repeatedly despite not liking it.
c.You bought that old bike in order to fix it up.
(3)parasitic gap possible with real gap
a.What book did you review __ without actually reading__p?
b.Which songdid they play__ repeatedly despite not liking __p?
c.Which old bike did you buy __ in order to fix __pup?
(4)parasitic gap impossible without real gap
a.*You reviewed that book without actually reading__p.
b.*They played that song repeatedly despite not liking __p.
c.*You bought that old bike in order to fix __pup.

The appearance of parasitic gaps in (3) appears to be reliant on syntactic movement (e.g. wh-movement or topicalization), and presents two challenges:

This is a syntax tree representing the example, parasitic gap phrase "Which article did Ted copy without reading?" example from Postal 's article Parasitic and Pseudoparasitic Gaps. Parasitic gap is represented with "pg" and the real gap with "t". Parasitic gap tree.png
This is a syntax tree representing the example, parasitic gap phrase "Which article did Ted copy without reading?" example from Postal 's article Parasitic and Pseudoparasitic Gaps. Parasitic gap is represented with "pg" and the real gap with "t".

History

Discovery

The phenomenon of parasitic gaps appears to have been discovered by John Robert Ross in the 1960s, [4] but remained undiscussed until papers by Knut Tarald Taraldsen and Elisabet Engdahl explored the properties of the phenomenon in detail. [5] The analysis of parasitic gaps was central to the development of the GPSG framework (Generalized Phrase Structure Grammar) in the mid 1980s, and this analysis was later refined in the HPSG framework (Head-driven Phrase Structure Grammar) of Carl Pollard and Ivan Sag. In the 1990s, a debate centered around the best theoretical analysis of parasitic gaps, namely extraction versus percolation. This debate culminated in a collection of essays edited by Peter Culicover and Paul Postal in 2001. [6]

Controversy

Extraction gap versus proform

The theoretical analysis of parasitic gaps is not a settled matter by any means, since accounts of the phenomenon vary drastically. In very broad terms, there are two lines of analysis that one can pursue:

  • The extraction analysis assumes that parasitic gaps are extraction gaps, [7] and that parasitic gaps arise by way of the same basic mechanism that licenses "normal" extraction gaps. This sort of approach must augment the analysis of extraction gaps in some way in order to accommodate parasitic gaps under the same theoretical umbrella. Extraction analyses have the advantage that they immediately accommodate the simple observation that most parasitic gaps appear to be dependent on the occurrence of wh-movement or topicalization. Extraction analyses are challenged, however, by missing-object constructions, as noted above.
  • The proform analysis assumes that parasitic gaps actually contain a covert element, this element having the status of definite proform. [8] Proform analyses have the advantage that they immediately accommodate the simple observation that many parasitic gaps occur optionally; the covert proform has the option to be overt. Proform analyses are challenged, however, by the fact that most parasitic gaps occur in the immediate environment of wh-movement or topicalization, since they do not provide a clear basis for explaining this correlation.

Some analyses mix and match these two basic lines of analysis, although in general, both are well represented in the literature on parasitism and most accounts can be placed in the one or the other camp.

Licensing of real gap

The controversy regarding the licensing of parasitic gaps has also been widely debated as the phenomenon has continued to be researched. It is generally agreed upon that a real gap licenses a parasitic gap [8] [7] however, the required properties of this real gap have been widely debated. In 1994, Postal wrote a paper examining how the leftward extraction of clauses may be a general licensor for parasitic gaps while examining two theoretical approaches:

  • P-Gap Licensing Restriction (PLR) suggests that the gaps that license parasitic gaps must be restricted in some way.
  • PG=NP [9] suggests that the licensors of parasitic gaps must be NPs/DPs.

On the basis of evidence from topicalization and object raising, Postal's 1994 paper concludes that true parasitic gaps are not licensed by rightward DP movement, but rather by leftward extraction of a clause. Overfelt 2016 argues against Postal's claim that rightward DP movement cannot license true parasitic gaps, and concludes that the licensors of true parasitic gaps are adjunction structures. [10]

Some traits of parasitic gaps

Some of the central research issues that arise in the investigation of parasitic gaps include:

Often optional

Many parasitic gaps appear optionally. They are in non-complementary distribution with a pronoun, meaning that the speaker has the choice whether to employ the gap or not. The example sentences in (5) contain typical parasitic gaps, whereas the ones in (6) use a pronoun instead of the gap. In other words, in these contexts, the parasitic gap is optional. Optionality like this suggests an analysis of parasitism in terms of ellipsis, since optionality is the primary trait of known ellipsis mechanisms.

(5)parasitic gap present
a.Which dishdid you order __ after you tried __p?
b.Which movie will they like __ as soon as they see __p?
(6)parasitic gap absent
a.Which dish did you order __ after you tried it?
b.Which movie will they like __ as soon as they see it?

Sometimes obligatory

While many parasitic gaps occur optionally, other parasitic gaps occur obligatorily; this can be seen when the parasitic gap precedes the "real" gap. The example sentences in (7) are normal declarative sentences that contain no gap at all. The sentences in (8), in contrast, contain two gaps, with the parasitic gap preceding the real gap. We know that the first gap (the leftmost gap) in (8) is parasitic on the following gap because it, i.e. the leftmost gap, appears inside what is normally an extraction island (marked with square brackets). As for the sentences in (9) — which are strongly marginal (indicated by the double question mark notation ??) — they show that in a sense, the real gap can also be dependent on the parasitic gap. This aspect of parasitic gaps is related to weak crossover (WCO). [11] WCO occurs when a fronted expression is coreferential with an intermediate expression that appears between the fronted expression and the position of its gap.

(7)no gap
a.The rumor about the girl annoyed her.
b.If you get to know him, you will like Bill.
(8)parasitic gap precedes real gap
a.Which girl did [the rumor about __p] annoy __?
b.Bill is the type of guy who [if you get to know __p], you will like __.
(9)real gap marginal if parasitic gap absent; weak crossover violation
a.??Which girl did the rumor about her annoy __?
b.??Bill is the type of guy who if you get to know him, you will like __.

In the big picture, one can simply note that parasitic gaps behave variably depending upon whether they precede or follow the "real" gap. When they precede the "real" gap, their appearance is usually obligatory.

Missing object

Much work on parasitism assumes that parasitic gaps are dependent on the existence of another gap. The assumption is that parasitic gaps are reliant on the mechanisms that license normal extraction gaps such as wh-movement and topicalization. This assumption is challenged, however, by so-called missing-object constructions, also known as tough-constructions or tough-movement. [12] The example sentences in (10) lack gaps entirely. The sentences in (11) contain parasitic gaps despite the fact that neither wh-movement nor topicalization has occurred. These sentences illustrate a missing-object construction, since the verbs appreciate, understand, and get are transitive and should hence take an object. This object is missing, as marked by the gap on the left. Whatever the analysis of parasitic gaps ends up being in the long run, it will have to accommodate the facts involving missing objects illustrated here. Movement (wh-movement, topicalization) may not actually be the key factor licensing parasitic gaps.

(10)no gap
a.It is easy to appreciate her after getting to know her.
b.It is hard to understand this essay without reading it several times.
c.It will be tough to get the motor running without entirely rebuilding it.
(11)parasitic gap despite lack of wh-fronting or topicalization
a.She is easy to appreciate __ after getting to know __p.
b.This essay is hard to understand __ without reading __pseveral times.
c.The motor will be tough to get __ running without entirely rebuilding __p.

Show structural parallelism

Examining the examples of optional parasitic gaps produced above so far, one sees that in each case, a certain structural parallelism is present, where both the real gap and the parasitic gap bear the grammatical function of direct object. [13] This parallelism is now explicitly illustrated using brackets. In each of these examples, the square brackets mark what appear to be parallel structures, similar to the type of coordinate structure found coordination. The brackets mark verb phrases (VPs), and the subordinator appearing between the brackets is functioning like a coordinator (i.e. and, or, or but). This parallelism may be a significant factor that is aiding the appearance of the parasitic gaps.

(12)structural parallelism:OBJECTOBJECT
a.Which manuscriptdid you[VPresubmit__ ]after[VPrevising__p ]?
b.Which reportdid you[VPfile__ ]without[VPreading__p ]?
c.Which old bikedid he[VPbuy__ ]in order to[VPfix up__p ]?
d.Which foodsdoes he[VPfantasize about__ ]without[VPever eating__p ]?
e.Which girldid you[VPask out__ ]before[VPmeeting__p ]in person?

When the real gap and the parasitic gap are not structurally parallel — as when the real gap bears the grammatical function of subject, while the parasitic gap bears the grammatical function of object — there is a significant drop in acceptability of the parasitic gap. The examples in (13) show that, in such contexts, parasitic gaps are all marginal to varying degrees.

(13)structural non-parallelism:SUBJECTOBJECT
a.?Who[XP __secretly supports John ]without[XPJohn secretly supporting__pback ]?
b.?Which girl[XP __likes Billy ]without[XPBilly liking__pback ]?
c.?Which spy[XP __escaped ]without[XPanyone first identifying__p]?
d.??Which explanation[XP __had to be repeated ]for[XP us to finally get__p]?
e.??Which report[XP __was filed ]without[XP any of us first reading__p]?

The marginality of the examples in (13) correlates with the lack of syntactic parallelism. What exactly explains this drop in acceptability is not entirely clear, although it may have to do with ease of processing. Parallel structures are easier for humans to process, and hence parasitic gaps are facilitated by contexts that have a low processing load.

See also

Notes

  1. Parasitic gaps have been studied most using English and Swedish data. See Engdahl's seminal article (1983) in this regard.
  2. Fumikazu, Niinuma (2010). "Across-the-Board and Parasitic Gap Constructions in Romanian". Linguistic Inquiry. 41 (1): 161–7. doi:10.1162/ling.2010.41.1.161.
  3. See the introduction in Culicover's and Postal's collection of papers (2001) for an overview of the varying theoretical accounts of parasitic gaps.
  4. See Ross' seminal dissertation (1967/86) in this regard.
  5. See especially Engdahl's 1983 article in this regard – more than any other paper, this one got the ball rolling.
  6. In addition to the essays, Culicover's and Postal's book also contains an extensive overview of earlier accounts of the phenomenon.
  7. 1 2 For two examples of the extraction analysis of parasitic gaps, see Contreras (1984) and Chomsky (1986).
  8. 1 2 For examples of the proform analysis, see Cinque 1990, Fiengo and May 1994, Postal 1994).
  9. Postal, Paul M. (1994). "Parasitic and Pseudoparasitic Gaps". Linguistic Inquiry. 25 (1): 63–117. ISSN   0024-3892.
  10. Overfelt, Jason (2016). "Rightward DP-Movement Licenses Parasitic Gaps: A Reply to Postal 1994". Linguistic Inquiry. 47: 127–144 via Project MUSE.
  11. Concerning the importance of weak crossover to the theory of parasitic gaps, see for instance Engdahl (1983:17ff.), Culicover (2001:32f.), and Levine and Hukari 2001:194).
  12. The ability of missing-object constructions to license parasitic gaps is widely acknowledged, e.g. Engdahl (1983:12f.), Postal (2001:257), Culicover (2001:34).
  13. The role played by syntactic parallelism in determining the distribution of parasitic gaps has been explored by many, e.g. Williams (1990), Munn (2001), Culicover (2013:153ff.).

Related Research Articles

In linguistics, X-bar theory is a theory of syntactic category formation that was first proposed by Chomsky (1970) and further developed by Jackendoff (1977), along the lines of the theory of generative grammar put forth in the 1950s by Noam Chomsky. It attempts to capture the structure of phrasal categories with a single uniform structure called the X-bar schema, basing itself on the assumption that any phrase in natural language is an XP that is headed by a given syntactic category X. It played a significant role in resolving issues that phrase structure rules had, representative of which is the proliferation of grammatical rules, which is against the thesis of generative grammar.

In syntactic analysis, a constituent is a word or a group of words that function as a single unit within a hierarchical structure. The constituent structure of sentences is identified using tests for constituents. These tests apply to a portion of a sentence, and the results provide evidence about the constituent structure of the sentence. Many constituents are phrases. A phrase is a sequence of one or more words built around a head lexical item and working as a unit within a sentence. A word sequence is shown to be a phrase/constituent if it exhibits one or more of the behaviors discussed below. The analysis of constituent structure is associated mainly with phrase structure grammars, although dependency grammars also allow sentence structure to be broken down into constituent parts.

In linguistics, wh-movement is the formation of syntactic dependencies involving interrogative words. An example in English is the dependency formed between what and the object position of doing in "What are you doing?" Interrogative forms are known within English linguistics as wh-words such as what, when, where, who, and why, but also include interrogative words like how. This kind of dependency has been used as a diagnostic tool in syntactic studies as it is subject to a number of interacting grammatical constraints.

In linguistics, pied-piping is a phenomenon of syntax whereby a given focused expression brings along an encompassing phrase with it when it is moved.

In linguistics, an adverbial phrase ("AdvP") is a multi-word expression operating adverbially: its syntactic function is to modify other expressions, including verbs, adjectives, adverbs, adverbials, and sentences. Adverbial phrases can be divided into two types: complement adverbs and modifier adverbs. For example, in the sentence She sang very well, the expression very well is an adverbial phrase, as it modifies the verb to sing. More specifically, the adverbial phrase very well contains two adverbs, very and well: while well modifies the verb to convey information about the manner of singing, very is a degree modifier that conveys information about the degree to which the action of singing well was accomplished.

Topicalization is a mechanism of syntax that establishes an expression as the sentence or clause topic by having it appear at the front of the sentence or clause. This involves a phrasal movement of determiners, prepositions, and verbs to sentence-initial position. Topicalization often results in a discontinuity and is thus one of a number of established discontinuity types, the other three being wh-fronting, scrambling, and extraposition. Topicalization is also used as a constituency test; an expression that can be topicalized is deemed a constituent. The topicalization of arguments in English is rare, whereas circumstantial adjuncts are often topicalized. Most languages allow topicalization, and in some languages, topicalization occurs much more frequently and/or in a much less marked manner than in English. Topicalization in English has also received attention in the pragmatics literature.

Paul Martin Postal is an American linguist.

In linguistics, antisymmetry is a theory of syntactic linearization presented in Richard S. Kayne's 1994 monograph The Antisymmetry of Syntax. It asserts that hierarchical structure in natural language maps universally onto a particular surface linearization, namely specifier-head-complement branching order. The theory derives a version of X-bar theory. Kayne hypothesizes that all phrases whose surface order is not specifier-head-complement have undergone syntactic movements that disrupt this underlying order. Subsequently, others have attempted to derive specifier-complement-head as the basic word order.

In linguistics, raising constructions involve the movement of an argument from an embedded or subordinate clause to a matrix or main clause; in other words, a raising predicate/verb appears with a syntactic argument that is not its semantic argument, but is rather the semantic argument of an embedded predicate. For example, in they seem to be trying, the predicand of trying is the subject of seem. Although English has raising constructions, not all languages do.

In syntax, sluicing is a type of ellipsis that occurs in both direct and indirect interrogative clauses. The ellipsis is introduced by a wh-expression, whereby in most cases, everything except the wh-expression is elided from the clause. Sluicing has been studied in detail in the early 21st century and it is therefore a relatively well-understood type of ellipsis. Sluicing occurs in many languages.

In linguistics, coordination is a complex syntactic structure that links together two or more elements; these elements are called conjuncts or conjoins. The presence of coordination is often signaled by the appearance of a coordinator, e.g. and, or, but. The totality of coordinator(s) and conjuncts forming an instance of coordination is called a coordinate structure. The unique properties of coordinate structures have motivated theoretical syntax to draw a broad distinction between coordination and subordination. It is also one of the many constituency tests in linguistics. Coordination is one of the most studied fields in theoretical syntax, but despite decades of intensive examination, theoretical accounts differ significantly and there is no consensus on the best analysis.

Antecedent-contained deletion (ACD), also called antecedent-contained ellipsis, is a phenomenon whereby an elided verb phrase appears to be contained within its own antecedent. For instance, in the sentence "I read every book that you did", the verb phrase in the main clause appears to license ellipsis inside the relative clause which modifies its object. ACD is a classic puzzle for theories of the syntax-semantics interface, since it threatens to introduce an infinite regress. It is commonly taken as motivation for syntactic transformations such as quantifier raising, though some approaches explain it using semantic composition rules or by adoption more flexible notions of what it means to be a syntactic unit.

Empty category

In linguistics, an empty category is an element in the study of syntax that does not have any phonological content and is therefore unpronounced. Empty categories may also be referred to as covert categories, in contrast to overt categories which are pronounced. When representing empty categories in tree structures, linguists use a null symbol to depict the idea that there is a mental category at the level being represented, even if the word(s) are being left out of overt speech. The phenomenon was named and outlined by Noam Chomsky in his 1981 LGB framework, and serves to address apparent violations of locality of selection — there are different types of empty categories that each appear to account for locality violations in different environments.

In formal syntax, tough movement refers to sentences in which the syntactic subject of the main verb is logically the object of an embedded non-finite verb. Because the object of the lower verb is absent, such sentences are also sometimes called "missing object constructions". The term tough movement reflects the fact that the prototypical example sentences in English involve the word tough.

Syntactic movement is the means by which some theories of syntax address discontinuities. Movement was first postulated by structuralist linguists who expressed it in terms of discontinuous constituents or displacement. Some constituents appear to have been displaced from the position in which they receive important features of interpretation. The concept of movement is controversial and is associated with so-called transformational or derivational theories of syntax. Representational theories, in contrast, reject the notion of movement and often instead address discontinuities with other mechanisms including graph reentrancies, feature passing, and type shifters.

In linguistics, locality refers to the proximity of elements in a linguistic structure. Constraints on locality limit the span over which rules can apply to a particular structure. Theories of transformational grammar use syntactic locality constraints to explain restrictions on argument selection, syntactic binding, and syntactic movement.

A resumptive pronoun is a personal pronoun appearing in a relative clause, which restates the antecedent after a pause or interruption, as in This is the girli that whenever it rains shei cries.

In linguistics, crossover effects are restrictions on possible binding or coreference that hold between certain phrases and pronouns. Coreference that is normal and natural when a pronoun follows its antecedent becomes impossible, or at best just marginally possible, when "crossover" is deemed to have occurred, e.g. ?Who1 do his1 friends admire __1? The term itself refers to the traditional transformational analysis of sentences containing leftward movement, whereby it appears as though the fronted constituent crosses over the expression with which it is coindexed on its way to the front of the clause. Crossover effects are divided into strong crossover (SCO) and weak crossover (WCO). The phenomenon occurs in English and related languages, and it may be present in all natural languages that allow fronting.

In syntax, shifting occurs when two or more constituents appearing on the same side of their common head exchange positions in a sense to obtain non-canonical order. The most widely acknowledged type of shifting is heavy NP shift, but shifting involving a heavy NP is just one manifestation of the shifting mechanism. Shifting occurs in most if not all European languages, and it may in fact be possible in all natural languages including sign languages. Shifting is not inversion, and inversion is not shifting, but the two mechanisms are similar insofar as they are both present in languages like English that have relatively strict word order. The theoretical analysis of shifting varies in part depending on the theory of sentence structure that one adopts. If one assumes relatively flat structures, shifting does not result in a discontinuity. Shifting is often motivated by the relative weight of the constituents involved. The weight of a constituent is determined by a number of factors: e.g., number of words, contrastive focus, and semantic content.

Extraposition is a mechanism of syntax that alters word order in such a manner that a relatively "heavy" constituent appears to the right of its canonical position. Extraposing a constituent results in a discontinuity and in this regard, it is unlike shifting, which does not generate a discontinuity. The extraposed constituent is separated from its governor by one or more words that dominate its governor. Two types of extraposition are acknowledged in theoretical syntax: standard cases where extraposition is optional and it-extraposition where extraposition is obligatory. Extraposition is motivated in part by a desire to reduce center embedding by increasing right-branching and thus easing processing, center-embedded structures being more difficult to process. Extraposition occurs frequently in English and related languages.

References