Richard Hudson (r.hudson@linguistics.ucl.ac.uk)
Tue, 25 Jul 1995 21:08:07 -0600 (CST)
For Hans Uszkoreit: I'm not sure what happens with intervening auxiliaries like "haben" in your example, but for consistency I'd like them to follow the same rule of universal raising. The surface dependencies for your example are certainly as follows: ---------x--------> <-s- <-o- <-x- Er wird Aepfel gegessen haben. Universal raising should mean that we raise the xcomp dependency from haben to wird, as well as raising the object dependency from gegessen to haben, and thence to wird, giving the following diagram. If that gives the wrong results, the rule will have to be modified. ---------x--------> <-s- <-o- <-x- Er wird Aepfel gegessen haben. <-------s--------/--------/ <----?------- -?-> ----?-----> [???] This structure predicts that all the following are ok. That surely can't be true? a. Aepfel gegessen haben wird er. b. Gegessen haben wird er Aepfel. c. Haben wird er Aepfel gegessen. [!!!!] If c. is bad, as I suspect, then gegessen can't have been raised to wird. If b. is ok, then recursive raising must be ok, so I'm not sure what the rule should look like. I await your troublesome data with eager anticipation! ============================================================================ Prof Richard Hudson Tel: +44 171 387 7050 ext 3152 E-mail: r.hudson@ling.ucl.ac.uk Dept. of Phonetics and Linguistics Tel: +44 171 380 7172 Fax: +44 171 383 4108 UCL Gower Street London WC1E 6BT UK
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.0b3 on Fri Dec 18 1998 - 20:33:03 PST