1 / 27

Butterpillar or Caterfly?

Butterpillar or Caterfly?. The Bangla Passive in a Minimalist Parser Tanmoy Bhattacharya Department of Linguistics University of Delhi tanmoy@linguistics.du.ac.in. What is the talk about. Passive template historically is a result of a certain tension within the body of the clause

naif
Télécharger la présentation

Butterpillar or Caterfly?

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Butterpillar or Caterfly? The Bangla Passive in a Minimalist Parser Tanmoy Bhattacharya Department of Linguistics University of Delhi tanmoy@linguistics.du.ac.in MSPIL06, IIT Mumbai

  2. What is the talk about • Passive template historically is a result of a certain tension within the body of the clause • Incorporation, verb-shell, “smuggling”, of P&P can capture the tension • Invites treatment in a Minimalist Parser • Importing syntactic analysis as it is does not work MSPIL06, IIT Mumbai

  3. The Place of Passive in the P&P Frameworks • Later GB: severance between the active and the passive form  • Different derivational histories • Misses the generalization about how we think of passivesnot out of the blue • Passive is more ‘surfacey’ Can we capture this in Minimalism? MSPIL06, IIT Mumbai

  4. Evaluation Matrix and the Passive • Evaluation matrix (EM) is a collection of Economy Principles (Last Resort, Least Effort, Procrastinate, etc.) • Evaluation is of only convergent derivations • Passive and Active are comparable, passive ‘wins out’ later, iff speaker’s intention had dethematicization of subject • Passive/ active are one until EM acts MSPIL06, IIT Mumbai

  5. The Passive in Bangla • Very prolific • Analytic Passive: pass ppl+aux v a. ama-ke dEkha jay me-dat seen goes b. dEkha jay (impersonal) • Agent, if expressed, is marked by a P: jim dara bagh-Ta mar-a gEche Jim by tiger-cla kill-pass go.ppl.3 ‘The tiger has been killed by Jim.’ MSPIL06, IIT Mumbai

  6. Idiomatic Passive forms MSPIL06, IIT Mumbai

  7. The Revised Passive Template • GEN subject: ama-r dara bagh mar-a hObe I-gen by tiger kill-pass be.fut ‘Tiger will be killed by me.’ • Revised Passive template: [(NP-gen by) NP V-abe V MSPIL06, IIT Mumbai

  8. Similarity with the Gerund • Gerunds have GEN subject too: ama-r boi pOR-a I-gen book read-ger ‘my reading book.’ • The P dara in passive can be dropped: amar kOfi ken-a holo I-gen book read-pass became ‘Coffee was bought by me.’ • Norwegian: Det vart kjøpte kaffe it became bought coffee ‘There was bought coffee.’ (Åfarli 1992) MSPIL06, IIT Mumbai

  9. LR Parsing and the Passive-Gerund Ambiguity (1) a. (jOn dara)boi pORa hoeche J-(gen) by book read.pass be.ppl.3 b. joner boi pORa hoeche .gen book read.pass be.ppl.3 ‘the book has been read by J.’ The VPs are identical Difference: (i) Non-optionality of the subject (of the DP)in (b), and (ii) GEN on the subject in (b) GEN cased DP can’t be recovered MSPIL06, IIT Mumbai

  10. First Parse of the Gerund/Passive • (A) If GEN, mark –a on V as GER Parsing Question:How is the next V analysed? • (a) If zero N, select T and check [NOM] on N • (b) When V is scanned, -a triggers a PASS vP • (c) PASS selects an unaccusative VP Rule: If 2 NPs, the V is not PASS, or if (A), then:?? • (d) GEN triggers: (i) POSS DP, or (ii) GER • (e) If the next V is –a, (i) is rejected, parser backtracks to (ii) • (f) When another V, (ii) is also rejected ?? MSPIL06, IIT Mumbai

  11. How to Recover the POSS DP • PASS with POSS DP: joner bagh mara gEche John.gen tiger killed go.ppl.3 ‘John’s tiger has been killed.’ MSPIL06, IIT Mumbai

  12. Algorithm for both Types of Light Verbs i. [joner bagh] ii. + mara A: ger expects N/ø and main V B: pass expects LV iii + gEche C: rejects (iiA) D: proceeds as pass OR,If iii. + hoeche then apply R1 R1: [NP+gen…a]-> no pass iv. reject (iiB) ger tree projected MSPIL06, IIT Mumbai

  13. Algorithm for POSS DP • But still no POSS DP parse! ii. + mara A: as before B1:[joner bagh] ømara B2: :[joner bagh]dat mara iii. + gEche C: rejects (iiA) D: proceeds with B d1: rejects B1, apply R2: gEche takes nom d2: accept B2 OR iii. + hoeche E: accept A generates poss tree F: reject B MSPIL06, IIT Mumbai

  14. Algorithm for the PASS Parse • For this, we need yet another rule: Rule 3: ho can take NP-nom at [Spec,T] and NP-dat at [Spec,v] Now, step (iii) above becomes: (iii) + hoeche E: accepts A  ger F: rejects B1 G: accepts B2  apply R3pass (23b) We needed 3 ad hoc rules (Rule 1-3) to resolve the passive/ gerund ambiguity MSPIL06, IIT Mumbai

  15. Butterpillar/ Caterfly • Trapped energy, caterpillar waiting to burst into a butterfly (CB) • Opposite view: butterfly shrinking to a caterpillar (BC) • Both possibilities in Passive: • Clipping the wings of EA (BC) • History and synchrony (CB) MSPIL06, IIT Mumbai

  16. History of the Bangla Passive • -a < denominative –aya • Obscured by causative –aw a. daMR‘stick’ > daMRay‘stands’ b. tOl‘bottom’ > tOlay‘goes to the bottom’ • Distinction between DENOM and CAUS is lost  Verbalise (NV) C B • Both find syntactic analogues: • incorporation (shelfshelve) • V  v • feed (example par excellence) MSPIL06, IIT Mumbai

  17. History of the Passive Agent • N+Case P • Loss of Case in MIA  N+Aff P+Case • Skt extended P-use to verbal forms (pass ppl, prs ppl) influenced by Dravidian (IE regarding, during, concerning) a. kore‘having done’ b. diye‘having given’ c. dara inst of dvar‘through the instrumentality of’ • PV (a and b); PN (c) BC MSPIL06, IIT Mumbai

  18. Syntax of the Caterfly Effect • Surfacing of v = Bypassing v • Collins (2005) “Smuggling” VoiceP 2 2 voice vP 2 PP 2 v <PartP> MSPIL06, IIT Mumbai

  19. Smuggling in Bangla TP 2 2 VcP T 2 2 vP Vc 2 amar dara2 PrtP v 2hoeche VP Prt 2 -a boi V pOR- MSPIL06, IIT Mumbai

  20. Minimalist Parser and Minimalism • Similarity: Incremental Processing • Differences with Minimalism: • Unavailability of Lexical Array (LA) • No place for Merge/ Move in a LR parser since they are bottom up; ETs are the alternatives to them • Move Box to capture effects of -theory • Probe Box to capture Case and PIC MSPIL06, IIT Mumbai

  21. Lexicon of a MP MSPIL06, IIT Mumbai

  22. Elementary Trees MSPIL06, IIT Mumbai

  23. Move Box and Probe ox Move Box Preference Rule When filling open positions, always prefer the Move Box over the input Elements involving Agree are picked from the most current Probe stored in the Probe Box: Agree(p,g) if a. Match(p,g) holds. Then: b. Value(p,g) for matching features c. Value(p,g) for property value(f) MSPIL06, IIT Mumbai

  24. Parse a. Given a category X, pick an ET headed by X b. From the Move Box or input: i. Fill in the Spec ii. Run Agree(p,g) if both p,g are non-empty ii. Fill in the Head iv. Copy h to Probe Box if h is a probe iii. Fill in the complement by recursively calling parse with X’ where X has lexical property select(X’) MSPIL06, IIT Mumbai

  25. “Smuggling” in a Minimalist Parser? MSPIL06, IIT Mumbai

  26. Failure of Pass Parse with/ without Smuggling • Agree(T,Spec-Vc) will not take whole PRT, but only the Obj • Obj wrongly valued nom • If Obj moves alone, again Agree will value Case as nom, wrongly • Movement of Obj not possible • Vc is not required MSPIL06, IIT Mumbai

  27. Conclusions • A Minimalist Parsing algorithm cannot mimic syntactic object movement outside the VP shell • Voice Phrase is unnecessary • Probe-Goal Syntax in Minimalist Inquiries finds support from the Parser • Movement to any higher functional position (Agro) is unimplementable MSPIL06, IIT Mumbai

More Related