Long-distance dependencies without filler−gaps: a cognitive-functional alternative in Fluid Construction Grammar *

Long-distance dependencies are notoriously difficult to analyze in a formally explicit way because they involve constituents that seem to have been extracted from their canonical position in an utterance. The most widespread solution is to identify a gap at an extraction site and to communicate information about that gap to its filler , as in What_ FILLER did you see_ GAP ? This paper rejects the filler−gap solution and proposes a cognitive-functional alternative in which long-distance dependencies spontaneously emerge as a side effect of how grammatical constructions interact with each other for expressing different conceptualizations. The proposal is supported by a computational implementation in Fluid Construction Grammar that works for both parsing and production.

[1]  The Rise of Auxiliary DO‐Verb Raising or Category‐Strengthening? , 1997 .

[2]  E. Gibson The dependency locality theory: A distance-based theory of linguistic complexity. , 2000 .

[3]  A. Goldberg Constructions: A Construction Grammar Approach to Argument Structure , 1995 .

[4]  A. Goldberg Surface generalizations: An alternative to alternations , 2002 .

[5]  Luc Steels,et al.  Open-ended Procedural Semantics , 2012, Language Grounding in Robots.

[6]  R. Levy Expectation-based syntactic comprehension , 2008, Cognition.

[7]  Stefan Müller,et al.  Discussion Note: Phrasal or Lexical Constructions? , 2007 .

[8]  Frank Keller,et al.  Data from eye-tracking corpora as evidence for theories of syntactic processing complexity , 2008, Cognition.

[9]  Freek Van de Velde,et al.  Left-peripheral expansion of the English NP1 , 2011, English Language and Linguistics.

[10]  E. Gibson Linguistic complexity: locality of syntactic dependencies , 1998, Cognition.

[11]  Kees Hengeveld,et al.  The Structure of the Clause , 1997 .

[12]  Kevin Knight,et al.  Unification: a multidisciplinary survey , 1989, CSUR.

[13]  M. Haspelmath,et al.  The gradual coalescence into ‘words’ in grammaticalization , 2011 .

[14]  Walt Detmar Meurers,et al.  Head-driven phrase structure grammar: linguistic approach, formal foundations, and computational realization , 2006 .

[15]  Tibor Kiss,et al.  Local Modelling of Non-Local Dependencies in Syntax , 2012 .

[16]  Michael Halliday,et al.  Explorations in the functions of language , 1973 .

[17]  Gosse Bouma,et al.  Satisfying Constraints on Extraction andAdjunction , 2001 .

[18]  Kees Hengeveld,et al.  Layers and operators in functional grammar , 1989 .

[19]  A. Verhagen Constructions of Intersubjectivity: Discourse, Syntax, and Cognition , 2007 .

[20]  Stephen R. Anderson,et al.  English Reduced Auxiliaries Really are Simple Clitics , 2008 .

[21]  John Hale,et al.  The Information Conveyed by Words in Sentences , 2003, Journal of psycholinguistic research.

[22]  Thomas Wasow,et al.  Performance‐Compatible Competence Grammar , 2011 .

[23]  Stefan Müller,et al.  Zur Analyse der deutschen Satzstruktur , 2005 .

[24]  Noam Chomsky,et al.  On Wh-Movement , 1977 .

[25]  Josefina Sierra Santibáñez Computational Issues in Fluid Construction Grammar , 2012, Lecture Notes in Computer Science.

[26]  C. Fillmore An Alternative to Checklist Theories of Meaning , 1975 .

[27]  Knud Lambrecht,et al.  Information structure and sentence form , 1994 .

[28]  Walt Detmar Meurers,et al.  A Grammar Formalism and Parser for Linearization-based HPSG , 2004, COLING.

[29]  Ewa Dabrowska,et al.  Questions with long-distance dependencies: A usage-based perspective , 2008 .

[30]  Jonathan Ginzburg,et al.  Interrogative Investigations: The Form, Meaning, and Use of English Interrogatives , 2001 .

[31]  Remi van Trijp A design pattern for argument structure constructions , 2011 .

[32]  Noam Chomsky,et al.  WH-Movement: Moving On , 2006 .

[33]  Gerald Gazdar,et al.  Unbounded Dependencies and Coordinate Structure , 1981 .

[34]  S. Levinson,et al.  The myth of language universals: language diversity and its importance for cognitive science. , 2009, The Behavioral and brain sciences.

[35]  M. Dryer Are Grammatical Relations Universal , 1997 .

[36]  Laura A. Michaelis Sign-based Construction Grammar , 2015 .

[37]  C. Fillmore,et al.  Grammatical constructions and linguistic generalizations: The What's X doing Y? construction , 1999 .

[38]  Ivan A. Sag,et al.  English filler-gap constructions , 2010 .

[39]  Jan Nuyts,et al.  Pattern versus process concepts of grammar and mind , 2008 .

[40]  A. Goldberg Constructions at Work: The Nature of Generalization in Language , 2006 .

[41]  Luc Steels,et al.  Design patterns in fluid construction grammar , 2011 .

[42]  Richard L. Lewis,et al.  Argument-Head Distance and Processing Complexity: Explaining both Locality and Antilocality Effects , 2006 .

[43]  M. Haspelmath,et al.  Comparative concepts and descriptive categories in crosslinguistic studies , 2010 .

[44]  Noam Chomsky,et al.  वाक्यविन्यास का सैद्धान्तिक पक्ष = Aspects of the theory of syntax , 1965 .

[45]  M. Haspelmath,et al.  Pre-established categories don't exist: Consequences for language description and typology , 2007 .

[46]  W. Bruce Croft,et al.  Logical and typological arguments for Radical Construction Grammar , 2005 .

[47]  John B. Lowe,et al.  The Berkeley FrameNet Project , 1998, ACL.

[48]  Frank Richter,et al.  A Mathematical Formalism for Linguistic Theories with an Application in Head-Driven Phrase Structure Grammar , 2000 .

[49]  Luc Steels A design pattern for phrasal constructions , 2011 .