A Treebank-based Investigation of IPP-triggering Verbs in Dutch
A Treebank-based Investigation of IPP-triggering Verbs in Dutch
A Treebank-based Investigation of IPP-triggering Verbs in Dutch
Create successful ePaper yourself
Turn your PDF publications into a flip-book with our unique Google optimized e-Paper software.
extra-posed relative clause that generates discont<strong>in</strong>uity, there are <strong>in</strong>stances <strong>in</strong> the<br />
IL treebanks where even Left-adjo<strong>in</strong>ed relative clauses can be separated from their<br />
head noun by some verbal argument.<br />
(2) iskaa mojuda<br />
Its current swaroop theory<br />
form theory aadharit hai jisko<br />
<strong>based</strong> is which practical<br />
practical aadhirit banaaya jaayega<br />
<strong>based</strong> made will be<br />
‘Its current form is theory <strong>based</strong> which will be made practical <strong>based</strong>.’<br />
<br />
<br />
iskaa<br />
<br />
mojuda_swaroop<br />
<br />
theory_aadharit<br />
hai<br />
<br />
jisko<br />
<br />
practical_aadhirit<br />
banaaya_jaayega<br />
5.2 Clausal Complements<br />
Clausal complements, <strong>in</strong>troduced by a complementizer (ki <strong>in</strong> H<strong>in</strong>di/Urdu, je <strong>in</strong><br />
Bangla), are placed post-verbally <strong>in</strong> H<strong>in</strong>di-Urdu and Bangla. If the head predicate<br />
licens<strong>in</strong>g the clausal complement is other than the verb, the canonical order is such<br />
that the head is positioned preverbally and its complement is extraposed. In such<br />
order the structure has <strong>in</strong>herent discont<strong>in</strong>uity. Example (3) shows an extraposed<br />
complement clause <strong>of</strong> an expletive yaha ‘it’. The head element and the complement<br />
clause are at a distance from each other, the verb likha hai ‘is written’ <strong>in</strong> the<br />
ma<strong>in</strong> clause <strong>in</strong>terferes <strong>in</strong> the projection <strong>of</strong> yaha ‘it’ mak<strong>in</strong>g the structure discont<strong>in</strong>uous.<br />
Extraposed complement clauses are the major source <strong>of</strong> non-projective<br />
structures <strong>in</strong> IL treebanks. In H<strong>in</strong>di treebank around 42% non-projective structures<br />
are due to extraposed clausal complements <strong>of</strong> a non-verbal predicate.<br />
(3) jisme<br />
In which yaha<br />
this bhi<br />
also likha<br />
written hai ki<br />
is that Togadiya<br />
Togadiya jordaar<br />
powerful dhmaake me<strong>in</strong> maare<br />
blast <strong>in</strong> killed jaayenge<br />
will be<br />
‘In which this is also written that Togadiya will be killed <strong>in</strong> powerful blast.’<br />
<br />
jisme yaha_bhi likha_hai ki Togadiya jordaar_dhmaake_me<strong>in</strong> maare_jaayenge<br />
5.3 Genitive Constructions<br />
In genitive constructions, the genitive marked nom<strong>in</strong>al is easily dislocated from<br />
the head noun. The study <strong>of</strong> IL treebanks show a varied number <strong>of</strong> movements<br />
from genitive constructions. Genitive marked noun can either be extraposed or<br />
be extracted towards the left. However, the extraction towards left is wide spread<br />
with good number <strong>of</strong> <strong>in</strong>stances <strong>in</strong> all the treebanks except Telugu treebank. In<br />
example (5), genitive marked pronoun jiski ‘whose’ has been extracted from its<br />
base position to the sentence <strong>in</strong>itial position cross<strong>in</strong>g the subject <strong>of</strong> the sentence.<br />
(4) jiski raashtra ko bhaari keemat adaa karni padi<br />
for which country ACC heavy cost pay had to<br />
‘For which country had to pay a heavy cost’<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
jiski raashtra_ko bhaari_keemat adaa karni_padi_thi<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
5.4 Control Constructions<br />
In ILs under study, verbs can select non-f<strong>in</strong>ite complements and adverbial clauses<br />
marked with <strong>in</strong>f<strong>in</strong>itive or participle <strong>in</strong>flections (-kar and -na <strong>in</strong> H<strong>in</strong>di-Urdu). In<br />
such bi-clausal comb<strong>in</strong>ations non-f<strong>in</strong>ite clauses have a null subject controlled by<br />
a syntactic argument <strong>of</strong> the ma<strong>in</strong> verb. In IL treebanks such arguments, which<br />
thematically belong to both the verbs but are syntactically governed only by the<br />
ma<strong>in</strong> verb, are annotated as the child <strong>of</strong> the ma<strong>in</strong> verb only <strong>in</strong> view <strong>of</strong> the s<strong>in</strong>gleheadedness<br />
constra<strong>in</strong>t <strong>of</strong> dependency trees. Interest<strong>in</strong>gly, <strong>in</strong> these control constructions,<br />
<strong>in</strong>dividual arguments <strong>of</strong> non-f<strong>in</strong>ite verb can move around and cross the<br />
shared argument, child <strong>of</strong> the ma<strong>in</strong> verb, generat<strong>in</strong>g discont<strong>in</strong>uity <strong>in</strong> non-f<strong>in</strong>ite<br />
clause. There are varied occurrences <strong>of</strong> such discont<strong>in</strong>uous non-f<strong>in</strong>ite clauses <strong>in</strong><br />
29