論 文

Bracketing Paradoxes in Dependency Morphology

Thomas Gross要

旨

依存形態論からみる「ブラッケティング・パラドックス」
本文では，「moral philosopher」みたいなbracketing paradoxを取り上げる。非連続的な表現なので，構成素構造文法にとって，不愉快なものと思われる。どうやって分析できるかを依存形態論的な概念で論じる。中心的な概念とは，chain「チェーン，連鎖」であり，まずその統語論的な応用を導入する。その後，形態論上にも，連鎖があると証明する。
Keywords : bracketing paradox, chain, dependency, morphology, syntax

1. Constituency’s limit: Bracketing paradoxes
This paper addresses bracketing paradoxes (Pesetsky 1985, Sproat 1988, Spencer 1988).
Well known English examples include personal nouns (Spencer 1988). The following
bracketing paradoxes are instances of morpho-semantic mismatch (Beard 1991):(1)

a. nuclear physicist
b. moral philosopherc. theoretical linguist
―1―

愛知大学

言語と文化

No. 24In every example above, the attributive adjectives do not scope over the whole nouns,
but only over the first parts. For instance, nuclear does not scope over physicist, but
only over physic(s). The case is identical in (1b), and again more complex in (1c).
   The examples in (1) are difficult to analyze in morphology because they do notallow for a bracketing consistent with their respective meanings. The following
problem arises: Even though physicist is one word, one of its parts, namely physic(s)must combine with the attributive adjective nuclear before it combines with thepersonal suffix -ist. On the other hand, one would expect physicist to be compiled
before this word is combined with the attributive adjective. Therefore two ways ofbracketing are conceivable:(2)

a. [nuclear] [[physic][-ist]]b. [[nuclear] [physic]][-ist]

In (2a), the words are compiled, before they form larger constructions. In (2b), themeaning nuclear physic(s) is compiled before the personal suffix is attached. Even
though it is (2a) that should exhibit proper bracketing, it is (2b) that is believed to becorrect. (2b), however, conflicts with the tenet that syntax should apply after word
formation, which is clearly not the case in (2b). Example (1b) would be formed
along the lines of (1a), namely a bracketing according to (2b) should be the correctone.
   (1c), in turn, is even more problematic. The adjective theoretical does not scopeover linguist, but over linguistics. However, a suffix such as -ic(s) seems to be missing.
If true, then the adjective in (1c) would have no overt part to combine with. If one
assumed a covert element, then a bracketing paradox would again obtain.
(3)a. [theoretical] [linguist]b. [[theoretical] [[linguist]] [-ic(s)]]c. [[[theoretical] [ti]] [[linguist] [-ic(s)i]]](3a) shows that the adjective and the noun cannot form a proper bracket (as theouter brackets are missing). (3b) shows a covert element (strikethrough) which
combines with the adjective even though adjacency does not obtain. Then the lexical―2―Bracketing Paradoxes in Dependency Morphology

noun is combined. A third alternative is shown in (3c): The suffix and the adjective
combine first while being adjacent. Then the personal noun is combined and thesuffix is raised (moved). After movement this suffix is elided.
   In contemporary proposals the last version has gained currency. In (3c), thesuffix moves to a higher position, but in many cases lowering is required (Embick &Noyer 2001: 561). The next examples, which are not morpho-semantic mismatches,
exhibit such an instance(4)

a. aides-de-camp
b. sisters-in-law

In (4), the plural morphemes are not attached at the periphery of the expressions,even though that should be expected because the singulars aide-de-camp and sisterin-law are well-formed. In other words, these forms cannot be bracketed in such a
way as to exclude the plural morphemes. Here, one assumes that the pluralmorphemes are combined last and then lower into their positions shown in (4):(5)

a. [aide-si -[de-[camp]]]tib. [sister-si -[in-[law]]]ti

In (5), the plural morphemes attach to the entire singular expression, which iscompiled first. Then the plural morpheme lowers to attach to the head of the singularexpression. Note that a plural morpheme cannot attach to a head if the head lacks
the morphological features to allow such an attachment. The plural form of in-law isin-laws, not *ins-law because the preposition does not usually license plural forms (acounter example would be ins-and-outs of (something)), even though it is the head.
   Bracketing paradoxes are regarded as exceptional instances of linguistic
structure. They are exceptional insofar as it is impossible to provide a bracketing
structure that coincides with the semantic scope exhibited and that adheres to thetenet of an ordered process of word formation and sentence formation, such that theformer precedes the latter. This paper argues that it is the concept of bracketing as
such that leads to the assumed exceptionality of these paradoxes. The notion ofbracketing invests the assumption that in linguistic structure elements that contribute
―3―

愛知大学

言語と文化

No. 24

to meaningful units appear together.
   In syntax, phenomena equivalent to bracketing paradoxes are known as
discontinuities. A discontinuity is characterised by the fact that two elements which
form a meaningful unit are separated by other elements not contributing to thisrespective meaning. One well known instance of discontinuities is the so-called whmovement. Consider example (6):(6)

a. What did you eat?

In (6a), the question word what does not constitute a meaningful unit with thefollowing word did. In fact, what is the direct object of the verb eat, from which it isseparated by did you. In order to account for this separation, many theories invoke
movement. The question word has moved from a position adjacent to its governing
verb to the front. Example (6b) displays this assumption using a trace operator.
(6)b. Whati did you eat ti ?

(6b) shows that the question word has moved from its position indicated by the trace
t to the front of the sentence. The subscripted elements mark two different stages ofa derivation: The trace marks the initial stage, and the question word marks the final
stage. Similar structures were shown in (3c) and in (5).
   Movement (raising and lowering) is the principal tool for a theory that assumes
that elements constituting meaningful units may start out as unexceptional (insofar
as they are adjacent, i.e. not separated, at initial stages), but may lead to exceptional,
i.e. discontinuous, structures at later stages. The notion of meaningful units
consisting of adjacent elements (at initial stages) is known as constituency. Meaningful
units must form constituents (at least at initial stages). Constituency is one of themost pervasive notions in contemporary linguistics. Even many theories that are
mono-stratal and non-generative adhere to constituency.
   This paper argues that bracketing paradoxes are not exceptional if viewed froma perspective that does not regard constituency as the sole ordering mechanism of
linguistic form. The next section introduces the chain, a unit necessary to define thecomponent. Constituents are considered as a subset of components, which form a―4―Bracketing Paradoxes in Dependency Morphology

subset of chains. If so-called bracketing paradoxes are viewed as chains, not as (failed)constituents, then these paradoxes lose their paradoxical flavour and become
unexceptional. The third section applies the chain concept to the examples (1–5). A
final section concludes this paper.

2. Chain-based dependency grammar
Because the ensuing argument is conducted in a dependency grammaticalframework, the general notions of this framework need to be introduced. In general,
modern dependency grammar is a tradition originating in Tesnière (1959). In thelast decades many proposals have contributed to a more precise understanding ofdependency grammar.1   The next section introduces essential concepts of dependency syntax, and thefollowing section applies these concepts to morphology, a field largely neglected bydependency grammar.

2.1. Dependency syntax
Dependency grammar is foremost a syntactic theory. It is distinguished fromconstituency-based theories by positing the asymmetrical relationship of dependency
as basic. Constituency grammars, of course, posit constituency as basic. In mostmodern versions of constituency grammar, constituency relationships can be easily
captured in dependency grammatical frameworks. Constituency grammars positing
binary constituency relationships such as X’-syntax or Merge Minimalism cannot be
fully recovered in dependency systems.
   Dependency grammar assumes an asymmetrical relationship between words,
which are considered the principal syntactic objects. Constituency, on the other
hand, is a symmetrical relationship, and it obtains between words and constituents.
This proposal is consistent with Hays (1964), Robinson (1970), Kunze (1975), Matthews(1981), Mel’čuk (1988, 2003), Schubert (1988), Starosta (1988), Lobin (1993), Pickering andBarry (1993), Engel (1994), Jung (1995), Heringer (1996), Groß (1999), Eroms (2000), Kahane(2000), Tarvainen (2000), Hudson (1990, 2007), Ágel et al. (2003, 2006), Matthews (2007),and Groß & Osborne (2009).

1	

―5―

愛知大学

言語と文化

No. 24This section introduces the basic concepts of dependency grammar, and shows how
constituents relate to these concepts. Consider the next example:(7)

aka-i 		tori-wa		
red-npst
bird-top‘[a] red bird is on [the] roof.’yane-no		roof-genue-ni		top-loc

i-ru.
be-npstThe adjective aka-i modifies the noun tori. It is marked with the non-past suffix,
which also marks attribution. This property is dependent on the presence of anominal morpheme. The attributive adjective aka-i therefore depends on tori-wa.
   The noun tori-wa is marked with the topic morpheme -wa. Topic morphemes
are only possible in the presence of finite expressions, which is i-ru in (7). The topic
morpheme -wa covers up two case morphemes, namely nominative -ga andaccusative -o. In (7), tori is covertly case marked by the nominative.
   The noun yane-no is marked by the genitive case morpheme -no. The genitive
case morpheme is dependent on the presence of another nominal, here the locative
noun ue. Therefore yane-no depends on ue-ni.
   The expression ue-ni is a noun case marked by the dative case morpheme -ni,
which is interpreted as the locative case in (7). The covert case marking of thenominative for tori and the dative case marking in locative function for ue are part ofa valency relationship established by the verb i-ru. The valency [-ga, -ni ] is a locative
relationship and to be understood as “the item referred to by the nominal marked
with -ga is located at a location referred to by the nominal marked with -ni ”.
Therefore, both tori-wa and ue-ni depend on i-ru.
   A dependency tree depicts these dependency relationships in the form of anglededges. Vertical edges serve as visual identifiers of projectivity: These lines ensure thatthe word order is correct and not tangled. Every word receives one projection edge.
A dependency tree for (7) looks like (8):―6―Bracketing Paradoxes in Dependency Morphology

(8)

i-ru
tori-wa

ue-ni

aka-i

yane-noaka-i

tori-wa yane-no

ue-ni

i-ru.

red-NPST bird-TOP roof-GEN top-LOC be-NPST‘[a] red bird is on [the] roof.’

The dependency tree (8) shows exactly those relationships established in thepreceding paragraphs. Note that there are five words and five nodes in (8). In adependency tree, the number of nodes is always equal to the number of words. In
constituency grammars the number of nodes is always greater than the number ofwords, because constituency grammars require that nodes form certain types ofprojective nodes. For example, the attributive adjective aka-i and the noun tori-wa
would constitute the subject noun phrase. This noun phrase would appear as aseparate node in the phrase marker and thus increase the number of nodes. As any
element present in a structural representation is subject to cognitive processing,phrase markers require more processing power than dependency trees, which always
contain less nodes.
   The assumption of letting the attributive adjective aka-i depend on the noun
tori-wa is on the whole equivalent with acknowledging the noun as the head of theconstituency grammar noun phrase. Insofar, dependency trees are basically equivalent
to phrase markers. Differences do exist, however. Dependency grammar does not
acknowledge a finite verb phrase (IP or TP), nor does it acknowledge functional
heads.
   The attributive adjective aka-i and the noun tori-wa form a chain. A chain is aword combination of two or more words connected in the dependency dimension.
Because a word may have no dependents, a word is also a chain. There are 15 chainsin (8):(9)aka-i, tori-wa, yane-no, ue-ni, i-ru;
	aka-i tori-wa, tori-wa i-ru, yane-no ue-ni, ue-ni i-ru, aka-i tori-wa i-ru,
―7―

愛知大学

言語と文化

No. 24yane-no ue-ni i-ru, tori-wa ue-ni i-ru, aka-i tori-wa ue-ni i-ru, tori-wa
yane-no ue-ni i-ru, aka-i tori-wa yane-no ue-ni i-ru.
A chain would not obtain for aka-i … ue-ni i-ru because aka-i is not dependent oneither ue-ni or i-ru. There are many word combinations that are not chains in (8).
   A string is a combination of words that are adjacent. For example, aka-i tori-wa
is a string because these words are adjacent. This combination is also a chain.
Combinations of words that are strings as well as chains are components. The word
combination tori-wa … i-ru is not a component, because it does not qualify as astring even though it qualifies as a chain. The word combination tori-wa yane-no is
not a component, because it is not a chain, even though it is a string. Like chains,
single words qualify as components. There are 11 components in (8):(10) aka-i, tori-wa, yane-no, ue-ni, i-ru;
	aka-i tori-wa, yane-no ue-ni, ue-ni i-ru, yane-no ue-ni i-ru, tori-wa yane-noue-ni i-ru, aka-i tori-wa yane-no ue-ni i-ru.
The number of components is usually smaller than the number of chains, because
components must fulfil an additional criterion, namely that of qualifying as strings.
Components are thus a subset of chains.
   If a component subsumes all dependents of all its nodes, then this component
is complete. Complete components are constituents. Consider the word tori-wa: It
qualifies as a component because all words qualify as components. It is, however, nota constituent because in order to qualify as such it would have to be complete, i.e.
subsume all its dependent nodes. Since there exists a node dependent on tori-wa,
namely aka-i, only the word combination aka-i tori-wa qualifies as a constituent, but
not the noun itself. The situation is different for aka-i, which qualifies as aconstituent, because it is complete as it does not have any dependents it could
subsume. There are 5 constituents in (8):(11)	aka-i, yane-no, aka-i tori-wa, yane-no ue-ni, aka-i tori-wa yane-no ue-ni i-ru.
The number of constituents is greatly reduced when compared to chains and―8―Bracketing Paradoxes in Dependency Morphology

components. Constituents are such a specific subset of components (and chains) that
their number is always significantly less than chains or components.
   The fact that chains (and components) are considerably more inclusive (i.e.
there are usually many more instances of chains and components in a given sentence
than constituents), makes most constituency grammarians sceptical of chains. The
usual criticism is that most of the numerous chains cannot be attributed any
semantic function. This criticism, however, is unfounded. Consider again the set ofchains given in (9). The single words qualifying as chains can be attributed theirrespective semantic functions. The chains aka-i tori-wa and yane-no ue-ni constitutethe two maximal noun phrases in (8). The chains tori-wa i-ru and ue-ni i-ru arerespective nominal heads and their governing verb. The chains aka-i tori-wa i-ru andyane-no ue-ni i-ru are maximal noun phrases and their governing verb. The chain
tori-wa ue-ni i-ru constitutes the skeletal valency chain. The chains aka-i tori-wa
ue-ni i-ru and tori-wa yane-no ue-ni i-ru are partial, insofar as one noun phrase is not
maximal, but these expressions are well-formed sentences, which are easily
understood.
   Constituency grammars posit the least inclusive notion as basic. The constituent
is the least inclusive of the three notions introduced above, because it is a subset ofthe component, which is a subset of the chain. As a result, constituency grammars
run into problems when faced with certain phenomena. Consider the next German
example:
(12)

mag
Ich

MädchenblondeIch mag blonde Mädchen, und er brünette.
I like blonde girls,
and he brunette‘I like blonde girls, and he brunettes.’

Example (12) is an instance of gapping because the verb mag is missing in the second
conjunct, and an instance of noun ellipsis because the head noun of the constituent
―9―

愛知大学

言語と文化

No. 24brünette Mädchen is elided. The elided combination mag … Mädchen is not a
constituent, nor is it a component. It qualifies, however, as a chain.
   It turns out that all instances of ellipsis require the elided material to qualify as
chains. Constituency grammars must invoke additional mechanisms to account for
the fact that a non-constituent has elided. Generative systems usually assume
movement. Movement, however, is a cognitively expensive operation. Chain-based
dependency syntax, on the other hand, can point to the fact that elided materialmust qualify as chains.
   Further evidence for chains comes from the structure of idioms. O’Grady(1998) was the first to propose that idioms form chains in the lexicon. In the next
examples the italicised words form the idioms:
(13)

pull

drive
leg

keep
X crazyX’sa. pull X’stabs onXlegb. drive X crazyc. keep tabs on X

The symbol X in (13) always represents a necessary element which, however, is
external to the idioms. However, only the inclusion of X allows the idioms to qualify
as constituents. If X is excluded, the idioms form chains. In (13a) X represents anominal possessor of the object leg. In (13b), X is the direct object of drive. In (13c),
X is the syntactic object of the preposition on. As a result, idioms form chains, but
not constituents.
   Ellipsis and idiom structure make a strong case for the cognitive existence of
chains. If gaps and idioms must qualify as chains, then it stands to reason that themind/brain computes these items as chains, and not as a cognitively expensive
potpourri of movement, traces, and subsequent deletion.
   This section has introduced three essential notions of dependency syntax:
chains, components, and constituents. Chains are the most inclusive units,
constituents the least inclusive units of syntax. The assumption of the existence of
chains as syntactic units seems justified because ellipsis requires elided material to― 10 ―

Bracketing Paradoxes in Dependency Morphology

qualify as most inclusive units, namely chains. The same argument was made foridioms. The next section applies these concepts to morphology.

2.2. Dependency morphology
In order to explain bracketing paradoxes, one needs to consider morphologicalinformation because one of the problems is that many structures cut into words.
Morphology in dependency grammar frameworks is considerably less well establishedthan syntax. While proposals on dependency syntax are plentiful, proposals on themorphology of a dependency grammar are scarce. The only major attempts stemfrom Mel’čuk (1988) and Hudson (2003, 2007). Both proposals are highly
idiosyncratic, insofar as they do not mesh easily with other dependency systems.
Mel’čuk’s dependency theory is multi-stratal, a feature usually eschewed in
dependency grammar. Hudson’s system is perhaps the most widely known
dependency theory, but does not enjoy wide acceptance within the dependency
grammar community. Its network-like structures and its generative aspirations do
not sit well with generally acknowledged theories. Anderson (1980) proposed amorphology based on his widely known dependency phonology. And both Harnisch(2003) and Maxwell (2003) re-emphasise the need for dependency grammar to lookbeyond the word border.
   This exhortation is indeed justified. Dependency grammarians have, due totheir concentration on Indo-European languages, neglected to take a closer look at
more agglutinative languages. The only extensively researched non-Indo-European
language within dependency grammar frameworks is Japanese (Rickmeyer 1985).
Agglutinative languages tend to pack the grammatical information, that in, e.g.,
English is parceled into several function words, into one verb. Consider the next
examples:― 11 ―

愛知大学

言語と文化

(14)

No. 24let
kuw-ase-ta
inu-niesa-oa. inu-ni

esa-o

dog-DAT food-ACC

dog eatfood

kuw-ase-ta

b. [I] let [the] dog eat [its] food.

eat-CAUS-PSTThe English sentence (14b) is the translation of the Japanese sentence (14a). The
dependency tree (14a) is not very illuminating, as it seems to indicate that the causee
inu-ni and the object esa-o relate to the complex verb in the same manner. In (14b),
one can see that the causee dog depends on the causative auxiliary let, while theobject food depends on the lexical verb eat.
   A dependency morphology should aim to establish asymmetrical dependency
relationships not between words, but between morphs. Such a program is faced withtwo problems: The morphological word structure needs to be established, and thedependency relationship between morphs contained in different words needs to be
distinguished from the relationships between words contained in the same word. The
former is called inter-word dependency, the latter intra-word dependency.
   One example for an inter-word dependency is that between the genitive casemorpheme -no attached to yane, and the lexical morpheme ue in the word ue-ni in(8). The genitive case morpheme -no is part of yane-no, and the lexical morpheme ue
is part of ue-ni. Since -no is required in the presence of ue, -no morphologicallydepends on ue. This morphological dependency establishes the syntactic dependencyof yane-no depending on ue-ni.
   An intra-word dependency obtains between morphs contained in the sameword. Considering again the above example, one must obtain an asymmetrical
relationship between yane and -no. Evidently, the case for obligatory appearance of
one morpheme in the presence of another morpheme is not feasible. The morpheme
yane is not required in the presence of -no. Rather, the morpheme combination
yane-no distributes like the combination noun-no, not like the combination yanecase.
   In summary, inter-word dependencies obtain between morphs contained in― 12 ―

Bracketing Paradoxes in Dependency Morphology

different words. One morph is dependent on the other, if the former is required in
the presence of the latter. In contrast, intra-word dependencies obtain between
morphs contained in the same word. One morph is dependent on the other, if the
combination of these morphs distributes more like the latter, rather than the former.
   In the wake of the Zwicky-Hudson-debate (Zwicky 1985, Hudson 1987) onheadedness, morphologists have gradually come to consider morphological heads asakin to syntactic heads. The debate is confusing and confused because the aim was toestablish the same set of criteria across the board. Many authors felt that this did notwork. The main pitfall seems to have been the inability to provide for sufficientdistinctions between inter- and intra-word relationships, while ensuring sufficientsimilarities. Because morphologists at that time adhered to constituency, theirmorphological constituents were too exclusive to capture the data, and a more
inclusive chain-like notion did not occur to them. Nowadays, Distributed
Morphology (Halle & Marantz 1993, Harley & Noyer 2003, Embick & Noyer
2007) takes explicit headedness to be their main credence as it operates pre- as wellas post-syntactically. As a result, contemporary morphology and morphosyntax
theories assume similar structures for words and sentences, namely those that exhibit
constituent(-like) structures, and that are projections of heads contained in thesestructures.
   With inter-word and intra-word dependencies sufficiently distinguished, asecond look at (14a) is warranted. The serial morphological structure is alreadyprovided in the gloss. The intra-word dependencies of nouns and case morphemes
has also been provided. The intra-word dependencies of the complex verb kuw-ase-ta
still remain. The combination kuw-ase distributes like verb-ase, therefore kuw
depends on -ase. The combination -ase-ta distributes like verb-ta, therefore -ase
depends on -ta.
   If one integrates this additional information from morphology into a
dependency tree, (14a) can be redrawn as (15a). Intra-word dependencies are shownby dotted edges. The projection edge runs from the lowest morph node contained ina word. Compare (15a) with its English pendent (14b), repeated here as (15b).

― 13 ―

愛知大学

言語と文化

(15)

No. 24

-ta
-ase
-ni

let

kuw

inu

dog eat

-o

food

esa
a. inu -ni

esa

-o

kuw -asedog -DAT food -ACC eat-tab. [I] let [the] dog eat [its] food.

-CAUS -PST

Example (15a) shows a morph dependency tree. There are three projection edges
indicating three words. Their respective lowest nodes receive the projection edge.
Morphs in intra-word dependencies are connected by dotted edges. Other than(14a), (15a) shows that the causee inu-ni and the object esa-o do not depend in thesame manner on the verb. Rather the causee inu-ni depends on the causative morph-ase, while the direct object esa-o depends on the lexical verb kuw. These relationships
correspond to the English example (15b), apart from the fact that in Japanese thecase morphs must be granted node status. In the English example, the auxiliary let isan exponent of both causative and tense, and the nouns dog and food are both
exponents of objective case and the nominals.
   Because dependencies between morphs are treated no different than dependencies
between words, the notions of chains, components, and constituents, which wereintroduced for word dependencies in the previous section, can be applied to morph
dependencies as well.
   A chain was defined as a word itself or as a word combination of words directly
connected in the dependency dimension. Substituting “morph” against “word”, every
morph forms a chain on its own, and every morph combination directly connectedin the dependency dimension also forms a chain. For example, in (15a) the casemorpheme -ni and the causative suffix -ase form a chain because these morphs are
directly connected. The morphs inu, -ni, and -ase also form a chain because they are
directly connected. The morphs inu and -ase, however, do not form a chain as they
are not directly connected, because -ni intervenes. There are 33 chains in (15a).
― 14 ―

Bracketing Paradoxes in Dependency Morphology(16) inu, -ni, esa, -o, kuw, -ase, -ta
	inu-ni, inu-ni -ase, inu-ni -ase-ta, inu-ni kuw-ase-ta, inu-ni -o kuw-ase-ta,
inu-ni esa-o kuw-ase-ta; inu-ni kuw-ase, inu-ni -o kuw-ase, inu-ni esa-o
kuw-ase;	-ni -ase, -ni -ase-ta, -ni kuw-ase-ta, -ni -o kuw-ase-ta, -ni esa-o kuw-ase-ta,-ni -o kuw-ase, -ni esa-o kuw-ase;	esa-o, esa-o kuw, esa-o kuw-ase, esa-o kuw-ase-ta;
	-o kuw, -o kuw-ase, -o kuw-ase-ta;
	kuw-ase, kuw-ase-ta, -ase-ta(16) displays an intimidating large list of chains. The criticism that many of thesechains do not fulfil any function seems justifiable, but on closer inspection one findsthat one can attribute many purported chains with a compositional and analysable
function. Space does not permit proof that every chain in (16) has a function, so thefollowing explanation is limited to all chains containing -ni to the exclusion of -ta.
(17)

a. -niCase[-ni](Causee[_])b. inu-ni
Case[-ni](Causee[inu])
c. -ni -ase
Caus[-ase](Case[-ni](Causee[_]), Verb[_])d. inu-ni -ase
Caus[-ase](Case[-ni](Causee[inu]), Verb[_])e. -ni kuw-ase
Caus[-ase](Case[-ni](Causee[_]), Verb[kuw])
f. inu-ni kuw-ase
Caus[-ase](Case[-ni](Causee[inu]), Verb[kuw])
g. -ni -o kuw-ase
Caus[-ase](Case[-ni](Causee[_]), Verb[kuw](Case[-o]))h. inu-ni -o kuw-ase Caus[-ase](Case[-ni](Causee[inu]),			Verb[kuw](Case[-o])))i. -ni esa-o kuw-ase
Caus[-ase](Case[-ni](Causee[_]),
			Verb[kuw](Case[-o](Obj[esa])))j. inu-ni esa-o kuw-ase Caus[-ase](Case[-ni](Causee[inu]),			Verb[kuw](Case[-o](Obj[esa])))(17a) shows the case marker on its own: It marks the case of a causee, which isunnamed, therefore its slot is not filled. (17b) shows the chain with a filled causee
slot. (17c–f ) show versions of the -ni … -ase chain: (17c) shows the raw chain with― 15 ―

愛知大学

言語と文化

No. 24

unfilled causee and verb slots. In (17d), the causee slot is filled, in (17e) the verb slot,
and in (17f ) both slots. (17g–j) show the extension of (17e): In (17e) the case slot of
the lexical verb is not filled, in (17g) it is filled. In (17h) the causee slot is filled, in(17i) the object slot, and in (17j) both.
   If one adds the tense marker -ta one gets another eight chains. One would thenhave to add “Tense[-ta]” to all additional formulae. The whole sentence (15a) formsa chain that can be formalised as (18):(18) inu-ni eas-o kuw-ase-ta	  Tense[-ta](Caus[-ase](Case[-ni](Causee[inu]),				  Verb[kuw](Case[-o](Obj[esa]))))
This discussion should lay to rest any fears that chains may semantically overgenerateor could not be attributed with analysable functions.
   Because morph combinations form chains, many of them also form
components. A morph component is defined as a morph on its own or as a morph
combination that forms a chain as well as a string. There are 22 morph componentsin (15a):(19)

inu, -ni, esa, -o, kuw, -ase, -ta;
inu-ni, inu-ni esa-o kuw-ase, inu-ni esa-o kuw-ase-ta;-ni esa-o kuw-ase, -ni esa-o kuw-ase-ta;
esa-o, esa-o kuw, esa-o kuw-ase, esa-o kuw-ase-ta;-o kuw, -o kuw-ase, -o kuw-ase-ta;
kuw-ase, kuw-ase-ta, -ase-ta

Because the morph components in (19) form a subset of the morph chains in (16),they can all be attributed compositional and analysable functions.
   Finally, morph constituents are complete morph components. Constituents arealways considerably less than components. There are only 7 morph constituents in(15a):(20)

inu, esa;
inu-ni, inu-ni esa-o kuw-ase, inu-ni esa-o kuw-ase-ta;― 16 ―

Bracketing Paradoxes in Dependency Morphology

esa-o, esa-o kuw
The nouns inu and esa form respective noun phrases. Together with their respective
case markers, inu-ni and esa-o form case phrases. The constituent esa-o kuw is a verb
phrase, the constituent inu-ni esa-o kuw-ase is a small verb phrase, and the wholesentence is a tense phrase. Because the constituents in (20) are a subset of thecomponents in (19), which are a subset of the chains in (15), every constituent isfully interpretable.
   This section has introduced the basic notions of a dependency morphology, andit has shown that the syntactic notions introduced in the previous section are
applicable to morphs as well. Further, it has been argued that morph chains,
components, and constituents express compositional and analysable functions, andthus receive transparent semantic interpretations. The next section turns again tobracketing paradoxes and their treatment within the framework developed in thissection.

3. Bracketing paradoxes revisited
After having outlined the essential concepts and notions of a dependency grammar
framework, it is now time to attempt an alternative analysis of the bracketing
paradoxes given in the first section. Prior to this attempt, however, a look at run-ofthe-mill constructions is necessary, in order to show that a constituency-based
analysis may even have problems with expressions usually not considered paradoxes.
Consider the next example:(21)

metalworker

Example (21) is an English compound. The first noun metal modifies the second
compound part work. The suffix -er creates a personal noun. The standard analysis in
a constituency-based approach would be to combine the compound parts first, andthen attach the suffix. This procedure is formalised in (22):(22)

a. [metal]+work→ [[metal]work]― 17 ―

愛知大学

b. [[metal]work]+er

言語と文化

No. 24→ [[[metal]work]er]

This type of analysis has the drawback that the expression work-er is not available.
Because work first combines with metal, and because work forms the morphologicalhead of metalwork, the concept of constituency does not allow to speak only of thehead, as the head of a constituent must always subsume all subordinate elements
grouped with it. In other words, a constituency-based approach only recognises
constituents, of which there are three in (22): metal, metal-work, and metal-work-er.
   Another approach would be to attach the personal suffix to work first, and then
combine metal with work-er.
(23)

a. [work]+erb. metal+[[work]er]→ [[work]er]→ [[metal] [[work]er]]

In (23), the compound metal-work is not available, the possible constituents being
metal, work, and metal-work-er.
   A dependency morphological approach such as the one outlined in the previous
section can do better. It recognises the chains metal, work, -er, metal-work, work-er,
and metal-work-er. In addition to the constituents that a constituency-based
approach allows, a dependency approach can point to additional chains. A
dependency approach never runs into the problems that two different sets of units(such as constituents) are derived by beginning the analysis at different points.
A morph dependency tree of (21) looks like (24):
(24)

-er
work
metal
metal

work

-er

Tree (4) is a maximally transparent, even though it is structurally minimal. Every
chain receives a transparent interpretation: metal-work is work on or with metals,― 18 ―

Bracketing Paradoxes in Dependency Morphology

work-er is someone who works, and metal-work-er is someone who does work on orwith metals. Of course, also the simplex chains each receive a transparent
interpretation. Note that the chain work-er is not available in the constituency-based
analyses (22, 23), and that the chain metal-work is not available in (23).
   The examples (1) from the first section now receive a straightforward andunexceptional explanation. Consider the next morph trees:
(25)

-ist

-er

physicphilosoph

-ar

-al

nucle

mor

a. nucle -arphysic -istb. mor -al

philosoph -er

-ist

-ics

lingu

-al

-al
-tic

-tic

-ist
lingu

theoretheorec. theore -tic -al lingu -istd. theore -tic -al

lingu -ist -ics

(25ab) show the morph trees for nuclear physicist and moral philosopher. Because both
expressions stem from the Greek-Latinate stratum, their internal structures areshown. The noun nucle is the root of nucle-us, the attachment of the derivationalsuffix -ar creates an adjective depending on the root physic. The chain nucle-ar physic
denotes the meaning of “nuclear physics”. Like example (24), the chain physic-ist
needs to be available, therefore the derivational suffix -ist attaches to the root physicin order to create this chain. (25a) contains 10 chains (nucle, -ar, physic, -ist, nucle-ar,-ar physic, physic-ist, nucle-ar physic, -ar physic-ist, and nucle-ar physic-ist), the exact― 19 ―

愛知大学

言語と文化

No. 24

number of components (because the tree is totally ordered), and constituents (nucle,
nucle-ar, nucle-ar physic, and nucle-ar physic-ist). A similar account holds for (25b).
   (25c) shows the tree for theoretical linguist. Instead of assuming a covert orelided suffix -ics, the morph tree (25c) assumes the Latinate root lingu from lingu-a‘tongue’ as a confix. The confixual root theore depends via the suffixes -tic and -al on
the root lingu. The derivational suffix -ist is attached to the latter root. The expression
theoretical linguistics could then either be constructed by attaching the derivationalsuffix -ics to lingu-ist, or analysed as is shown in (25d). There, theore-tic-al depends
on the suffix -ics. Whichever option one chooses, it is important to note that the
attributive adjective theore-tic-al never depends on the personal suffix -ist.
   The latter fact is true for all examples in (25). Because the attributive adjectives
never form chains together with the personal suffixes, those type of morpho-semantic
mismatch that give rise to bracketing paradoxes never arise. Furthermore, thestructures in (25) are indistinguishable from structures of expressions not regarded asbracketing paradoxes. In other words, in a dependency morphology as the one
outlined in section 2.2, the notion of bracketing paradoxes has no place because suchcases cannot be distinguished from non-paradoxical cases.
   The notion of bracketing paradox is akin to a cognitive illusion: One can only
perceive the purported phenomenon within a certain framework (a specific cognitive
set-up); once the framework is changed, the illusion dissolves. The principle cause of
the bracketing paradox illusion is the notion of the constituent. As was shown insection 2, the constituent is the least inclusive unit of syntax and morphology. A lessinclusive unit allows less discrimination of phenomena than a more inclusive unit.
Less discrimination may lead to lead to faulty assumptions, skewed results, andmisperceptions. Bracketing paradoxes are such a misperception.
   The strength of the dependency morphological model is even more apparent
when one enlarges the expressions (25a–c) with attributive adjectives that must
depend on the personal suffixes for semantic reasons. Consider the next examples:― 20 ―

Bracketing Paradoxes in Dependency Morphology

(26)

-ist
a

-ed

physicconcern

-ar
nucle

a. a

concern -ed

nucle -arphysic -ist
-er

an

-ed

philosoph

alleg

-al
mor

b. an alleg -ed

mor -alphilosoph -er
-ist

the

-y

lingu

quirk

-al
-tic
theorec. the quirk -y

theore -tic -al

lingu -ist

The examples in (26) are remarkably unexceptional when shown in morph
dependency trees. In (26a), the determiner a and the attributive adjective concern-ed
modify a person, not a discipline, therefore they must depend on the personal suffix-ist. The same accounts for the article an and the adjective alleged and theirdependencies on -er in (26b). There, it is not some kind of moral philosophy that is― 21 ―

愛知大学

言語と文化

No. 24in question, but the status of a person as a moral philosopher. In (26c), what isquirky is the linguist as a person, not the kind of theoretical linguistics this linguist
conducts. The structures in (26) lead to iterated bracketing paradoxes in any
constituency-based approach.
   A final example from German identifies a curious phenomenon, which may
help to shed more light on the structure of the German noun phrase, which enjoys
the dubious honour of being considered as quite intractable. Other than English,
German has retained explicit genus for its nouns. Every German noun belongs to a
specific genus class. A small minority can belong to two classes, which then must be
masculine or neuter (feminine genus can never be combined). In these rare cases, themeanings of the different genus tend to differ. One such example is Moment, which
can be der Moment ‘moment’ or das Moment ‘element, fact(or), moment [phys.]’.
   Whenever two or more nominal morphs combine, the genus of the complex,
derivational noun, is equal to the genus of the last nominal morph. Since nominal
genus is expressed as inflectional morphs attached to articles and attributive
adjectives, these morphs must be in a dependency relationship with that morph that
constitutes the presence in which these genus must appear. They must therefore
depend on this morph. Genus is regarded as an inherent feature of German nouns,
or differently put: Genus is one exponent of a German noun. Consider now the next
example:(27) a. theore-tisch -er		 theor[y]-tic -nom.m		 ‘theoretical physicist’

Physik -er
physics -pers

Traditionally, (27a) is a bracketing paradox. The attributive adjective theore-tisch-er
modifies only the noun Physik, not the noun Physik-er or the personal suffix -er. The
problem, however, is that while the attributive adjective modifies the lexical noun
Physik, this noun is feminine. But the genus marker attached to the adjective is,beyond any doubt, an exponent of masculine genus. Based on the semantics of theexpression (27a), one would expect theoretische Physiker, which is possible but plural.
   It must be kept in mind, that genus morphs, such as (the first) -er in (27a), arealways exponents of multiple morphemes: They always express a specific genus, and a― 22 ―

Bracketing Paradoxes in Dependency Morphology

specific case. This property distinguishes them from pure case morphs, which are
only exponents of case. Of the latter, there are two types: -e expresses [-case] and -en
expresses [+case]. Genus morphs are necessary when nouns have dependents andwhen nouns themselves are not overtly case-marked. Whenever genus and casemorphs appear together, the former precede the latter.
   In a dependency morphological approach, such as the one employed here, theproblem finds a straightforward structural representation. The next tree shows the
structure of (27a):
(27)

-er
-er

Physik-tisch -er

Physik-tischtheoreb. theore

theor[y] -tic -NOM.m‘theoretical physicist’-erphysics -PERS

The most important feature of the morph tree (27b) is the edge between the genus
morph -er and the phonetically identical derivational personal suffix -er. The
justifiable assumption is that the former depends on the latter, because it must appear
in the presence of the latter. Genus is inherent in the personal suffix, but contextual
in the genus morph. Because these two morphs are not part of the same word, theirrelationship must be an inter-word dependency. Therefore they receive a straightdependency edge.
   On the other hand, the genus morph is clearly a part of the word theore-tisch-er.
The surprising result is that the genus morph in (27) does not entertain any intradependency relationships with the other morphs with which it constitutes the word
theore-tisch-er. The genus morph is only phonetically part of the attributive adjective,
but not a morpho-syntactical part.
   The assumption of a genus morph not entertaining intra-word dependency― 23 ―

愛知大学

言語と文化

No. 24

relationships, but only inter-word dependency relationship could lead to a new
approach to the German noun phrase structure. The next example adds articles to(27a).
(28)

-er
ein

-er

-er Physik-er-tisch-e Physik

diestheore-tischtheorea. ein theore -tisch -er Physik -er

b. dies -er theore -tisch -e Physik -er

In the nominative case (stipulated here), the indefinite article does not take a genus
morph. Instead, attributive adjectives, if present, require the attachment of a genus
morph. This is shown in (28a), where the genus morph depends, like the indefinite
article, on the personal suffix. Note that the attachment of a genus morph does not
require that the genus morph entertain an intra-word dependency relationship withanother morph of the word that contains both morphs.
   The situation in (28b) is more complicated. Unlike the indefinite article in(28a), the demonstrative article dies in (28b) must depend on the genus morph. In
addition, the genus morph in (28b) is, like in (28a), dependent on the personal
suffix. Because the genus morph -er appears the attributive adjective may not receive
another genus morph, but must receive a case morph, here -e. This case morph closes
off the slot for a specific type of dependents, namely adjectival attributes. While
multiple attributes are possible, they must all receive the same case morph.
   Definite articles or determiners express multiple exponence: Not only do theyexpress definiteness, but also all those properties usually expressed by genus morphs.
The genus morphs have fused with the definite article morphs and have become
unanalysable. The next examples show a definite article, and an accusative marked
example.

― 24 ―

Bracketing Paradoxes in Dependency Morphology

(29)

-er
der

-er

-e Physik-en-tisch-en Physik

diestheore-tischtheorea. der theore -tisch -e Physik -er

b. dies -en theore -tisch -en Physik -er

In (29a), the definite article der not only marks definiteness, but also marks the same
properties of the genus morph -er in (28). In (29b), the morph -en appears twice, but
it is not the same. The first morph is the genus morph, the second one is the casemorph expressing [+case].
   One final remark is necessary. It was claimed in section 2 that every chain could
be attributed a transparent function or meaning. The chains -er … -er in (27b) and(28), the chain -en … -er in (9b), the chains -e … -er in (28b) and (29a), and thechain -en … -er in (29a) still require an explanation.
   The chains -er … -er in (27b) and (28) express the necessary grammaticalproperties of the whole noun phrase. Every required feature is expressed: Case
(nominative) and genus (masculine) is expressed by the inflectional (the first) suffix-er, and the projective head of the noun phrase is expressed by the derivational suffix(the second) suffix -er. The difference to the chain -en … -er in (29b) is that the latter
expresses accusative case instead of nominative case. The chains -e … -er in (28b) and(29a) express a case property required in the presence of another case feature: Thiscase feature is either expressed by a genus morph or by a case morph attached to thenoun (such as genitive in singular non-feminine nouns, or as dative in certain plural
nouns). The co-occurring case property is called [-case] here, and it has purely
attributive function. The strong case feature is expressed in the chain -en …-er in(29a): Like in (28b), the presence of [+case] requires the presence of a genus morph.
[+case] expresses any case other than the nominative or any case phonetically
identical with it. This information is summarised in Table 1.

― 25 ―

愛知大学

言語と文化

No. 24

Table 1: Chain meaning/functions in (7–9)

ExampleChain

Meaning /function(27b), (28)-er … -er[nom.m]+[pers](29b)-en … -er[acc.m]+[pers](28b)-e … -er[-case]+[pers](29a)-en … -er[+case]+[pers]

Table 1 shows that indeed every chain can be attributed with a specific meaning orfunction. Note that these chains are not available in a constituency-based approach,because they fail to form constituents.

4. Conclusion
This paper argued that the so-called bracketing paradoxes dissolve under adependency morphological approach. Section 1 outlined several instances ofbracketing paradoxes often cited in the literature. The proposed solutions withinconstituency-based approaches, notably lowering, were explained and criticised.
Lowering adds a considerable load to processing, a cost a dependency-based approach
does not incur.
   Section 2 gave an overview over dependency-based syntax and morphology.
Section 2.1 was mainly concerned with the introduction of the notions of chain,component, and constituent in a dependency-based framework. Section 2.2 appliedthese notions to a morpho-syntactical and morphological approach. It was shown
that, in particular, chains also obtain in morphology.
   Section 3 constitutes the main argument of this paper, as this section reconsiders
bracketing paradoxes under the developed chain-based dependency approach. It was
shown that the putative bracketing paradoxes vanish under a chain-based
representation. Iterated paradoxes were also addressed and shown to be
unproblematic. Finally, the mystifying distribution of inflectional suffixes ofdependents within German noun phrases were also explained within dependency
morphology. It offered the surprising hypothesis that these inflectional suffixes were

― 26 ―

Bracketing Paradoxes in Dependency Morphology

dependents of the head noun, even though they are, phonetically, part of themodifiers, such as articles and attributive adjectives.
   The central criticism was also made in Section 3, namely that bracketing
paradoxes are the result of applying the least inclusive unit to linguistic structure,and thereby begetting something akin to a cognitive illusion. Only chain-based
dependency grammar shows things as they are.

References:Ágel, Vilmos, Eichinger, Ludwig, Eroms, Hans-Werner, Hellwig Peter, Heringer, Hans Jürgen, &Henning Lobin (eds.). 2003. Dependency and Valency: An International Handbook ofContemporary Research, vol. 1. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.
Ágel, Vilmos, Eichinger, Ludwig, Eroms, Hans-Werner, Hellwig Peter, Heringer, Hans Jürgen, &Henning Lobin (eds.). 2006. Dependency and Valency: An International Handbook ofContemporary Research, vol. 2. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.
Anderson. John. 1980. Towards dependency morphology: the structure of the Basque verb.
Anderson, J. & C. J. Ewen eds. Studies in dependency phonology. Ludwigsburg. 227–71.
Beard, Robert. 1991. Decompositional Composition: The Semantics of Scope Ambiguities and“Bracketing Paradoxes”. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 9. 195–229
Embick, David & Philip Noyer. 2001. Movement operations after syntax. Linguistic Inquiry
Vol 32, No. 4, 555–595
Embick, David & Rolf Noyer. 2007. Distributed Morphology and the Syntax/Morphology
Interface. Ramchand, Gillian & Charles Reiss eds. The Oxford Handbook of Linguistic
Interfaces. 289–324. Oxford University Press.
Engel, Ulrich. 1994. Syntax der deutschen Gegenwartssprache, 3rd rev. ed. Berlin: Erich Schmidt.
Eroms, Hans-Werner. 2000. Syntax der deutschen Sprache. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.
Groß, Thomas. 1999. Theoretical Foundations of Dependency Syntax. Munich: Iudicium.
Groß, Thomas and Timothy Osborne 2009. Toward a practical DG theory of discontinuities. Sky
Journal of Linguistics 22: 43–90.
Halle, Morris & Alec Marantz. 1993. Distributed Morphology and the Pieces of Inflection. In
Kenneth Hale and S. Jay Keyser (eds.), The View from Building 20, 111–176, Cambridge:
MIT Press.
Harley, Heidi & Ralph Noyer. 2003. Distributed Morphology. In The Second GLOT International
State-of-the-Article Book. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. 463–496.
Harnisch, Rüdiger. 2003. Ebenen der Valenzbeschreibung: die morphologische Ebene. In VilmosÁgel et. al. (eds), Vol. 1, 411–421. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.
Hays, David. 1964. Dependency theory: a formalism and some observations. Language 40,― 27 ―

愛知大学

言語と文化

No. 24

511–525.
Heringer, Hans Jürgen. 1996. Deutsche Syntax Dependentiell. Tübingen: Stauffenburg.
Hudson, Richard. 1987. Zwicky on Heads. Journal of Linguistics 23, 109–132.
Hudson, Richard. 2003. Word Grammar. In: Vilmos Ágel et. al. (eds), Vol. 1, 508–525. Berlin:
Walter de Gruyter.
Hudson, Richard. 2007. Language networks: The new Word Grammar. Oxford University Press.
Jung, Wha-Young. 1995. Syntaktische Relationen im Rahmen der Dependenzgrammatik. Hamburg:
Buske.
Kahane, Sylvain (ed.). 2000. Les grammaires de dépendance (Dependency grammars), Traitement
automatique des langues 41. Paris: Hermes.
Kunze, Jürgen. 1975. Abhängigkeitsgrammatik. Studia Grammatica 12. Berlin: Akademie Verlag.
Lobin, Henning. 1993. Koordinationssyntax als prozedurales Phänomen. Studien zur deutschen
Grammatik 46. Tübingen: Narr.
Matthews, Peter. 1981. Syntax. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Matthews, Peter. 2007. Syntactic Relations. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Maxwell, Dan. 2003. The Concept of Dependency in Morphology. In Vilmos Ágel et. al. (eds),
Vol. 1, 678–684, Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.
Mel’čuk, Igor. 1988. Dependency syntax: Theory and practice. Albany: State University of New York
Press.
O’Grady, William. 1998. The Syntax of Idioms. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 16,
79–312.
Osborne, Timothy. 2005. Beyond the constituent: a DG analysis of chains. Folia Linguistica 39(3–4): 251–297.
Pesetsky, David. 1985. Morphology and logical form. Linguistic Inquiry 16: 193–246.
Pickering, Martin & Guy Barry. 1993. Dependency Categorial Grammar and coordination.
Linguistics 31, 855–902.
Rickmeyer, Jens. 1985. Morphosyntax der japanischen Gegenwartssprache. 2nd rev. ed.
Heidelberg: Julius Groos Verlag.
Robinson, Jane. 1970. Dependency structures and transformational rules. Language 46, 259–285.
Schubert, Klaus. 1988. Metataxis: Contrastive Dependency Syntax for Machine Translation.
Dordrecht: Foris.
Spencer, Andrew. 1988. “Bracketing paradoxes and the English lexicon.” Language 64: 663–682.
Sproat, Richard. 1988. Bracketing paradoxes, cliticization, and other topics: The mapping between
syntactic and phonological structure. In Everaert et al. (eds), Morphology and Modularity.
Amsterdam: North-Holland.
Starosta, Stanley. 1988. The Case for Lexicase: An Outline of Lexicase Grammatical Theory. New
York: Pinter Publishers.
Tarvainen, Kalevi. 2000. Einführung in die Dependenzgrammatik. 2. Auflage. Tübingen:
Niemeyer.
Tesnière, Lucien. 1959. Éléments de syntaxe structurale. Klincksieck: Paris.
Zwicky, Arnold. 1985. Heads. Journal of Linguistics 21, 1–29.
― 28 ―