Introduction

Descriptive Analysis

LFG Analysis

Cross-linguistic Analysis

Cross-linguistic Analysisof the Mermaid Constructions in LFG
Chihiro Taguchi
University of Notre Dame
https://ctaguchi.github.io

October 29, 2022
33rd South of England LFG Meeting

Conclusion

Introduction

Descriptive Analysis

LFG Analysis

OutlineIntroduction
Descriptive Analysis
LFG Analysis
Cross-linguistic Analysis
Conclusion

Cross-linguistic Analysis

Conclusion

Introduction

Descriptive Analysis

LFG Analysis

Cross-linguistic Analysis

In this talk...
Objective• To analyze the Mermaid Constructions across languages with LFG

Background (from LFG 2022 at Groningen)• “Mermaid Constructions in LFG”
• Takeaways: Mermaid Constructions are control and raising with anominal predicate• Evidence was mainly data from JapaneseWhat’s new in this talk?
• Provide a cross-linguistic accountConclusion

Introduction

Descriptive Analysis

LFG Analysis

Cross-linguistic Analysis

Conclusion

Mermaid Constructions
Coined by Tsunoda (20111 , 20122 , 20203 )Structure (by Tsunoda 2020)[ NSUBJ ... V ]Clause + NMC + (Copula)4• Tsunoda’s analysis: V and NMC compose a compound predicate• thus MC is monoclausal: NSUBJ ... [ V + N + (Copula) ]CompPred

Examples(1) Japanese (< Japonic; SOV)
Hanako=ga [Igirisu=ni ik-u]
Hanako=NOM

UK=DAT

yotei=dago-NPST. ADN plan(N)=COP‘Hanako is going to go to the UK. (lit. Hanako is the plan that goes tothe UK)’
ADN : adnominal, COP: copula, NPST: non-past

1 Tsunoda Tasaku. “Ningyo koubun: nihongogaku kara ippan gengogaku he no kouken”. In: NINJAL Research Papers 1 (2011), pp. 53–75.
2 Tasaku Tsunoda. “Ningyo koubun to meisi no bunpouka”. In: NINJAL Project Review 7 (2012), pp. 3–11.
3 Tasaku Tsunoda. Mermaid Construction: A Compound-Predicate Construction With Biclausal Appearance. Comparative Handbooks of Linguistics.
Mouton de Gruyter, 2020.
4 The actual order is subject to language-specific word order.

Introduction

Descriptive Analysis

LFG Analysis

Cross-linguistic Analysis

Conclusion

Examples (contd.)(2) Mitsukaido (< Japanese < Japonic; SOV)5
oraNte[gaNzizu=dage
udoN ku-u]
my:family.NOM New_Year’s_Day=only udon

eNNi=daeat-NPST. ADN origin=COP. NPST‘My family customarily eat udon only on New Year’s Day.’(3) Irabu (< Miyako < Ryukyuan < Japonic; SOV)6
kai=ga=du [sac=n idi-r]kutu
3SG = NOM = FOC first=DAT go_out-NPST. ADN thing‘S(he) should go first’(4) Korean (< Koreanic; SOV)7
chinkwu=ka [ilpon=ey ka-l]friend=NOM

Japan=DAT

yeyceng=i-ta

go-PROS . ADN plan=COP - DECL‘(My) friend is going to Japan’
DECL : declarative, NMLZ : nominalizer, PROS: prospective

5 Kan Sasaki. “Mitsukaido dialect of Japanese”. In: Mermaid Construction: A Compound-Predicate Construction With Biclausal Appearance. Ed. by
Tasaku Tsunoda. Comparative Handbooks of Linguistics. Mouton de Gruyter, 2020, pp. 125–166.
6 Michinori Shimoji. “Irabu Ryukyuan”. In: Mermaid Construction: A Compound-Predicate Construction With Biclausal Appearance. Ed. by
Tasaku Tsunoda. Comparative Handbooks of Linguistics. Mouton de Gruyter, 2020, pp. 781–816.
7 Joungmin Kim. “Korean”. In: Mermaid Construction: A Compound-Predicate Construction With Biclausal Appearance. Ed. by Tasaku Tsunoda.
Comparative Handbooks of Linguistics. Mouton de Gruyter, 2020, pp. 781–816.

Introduction

Descriptive Analysis

LFG Analysis

Cross-linguistic Analysis

Examples (contd.)(5) Amdo Tibetan (< Tibeto-Burman < Sino-Tibetan; SOV)8
aréa=k@ [nor ptsoN-éu]
ntCh arý@ rE
father=ERG yaksell.IPFV- NMLZ . GEN plan

COP. B‘(My) father plans to sell yaks’(6) nDrapa (Zhaba) (< Qiangic < Sino-Tibetan; SOV)9
Noro1 [kaoúoN1 lo=Ci2
Hdi=ú13] nkhei1rE
3 SG
high_school ˚learn=wish think=IPFV appearance COP‘He seems to want to go to high school’(7) Burmese (< Tibeto-Burman < Sino-Tibetan; SOV)10”tù [dì híð=gò sá=dÊ] póuð(=bÉ)
3 SG this curry=KO eat=ADN shape(=EMP)‘(S)he seems to have eaten this curry’B — pattern B (see Ebihara 2020), EMP — emphasis, KO — kò/gò (see Kato 2020)

8 Shiho Ebihara. “Amdo Tibetan”. In: Mermaid Construction: A Compound-Predicate Construction With Biclausal Appearance. Ed. by
Tasaku Tsunoda. Comparative Handbooks of Linguistics. Mouton de Gruyter, 2020, pp. 419–464.
9 Satoko Shirai. “nDrapa”. In: Mermaid Construction: A Compound-Predicate Construction With Biclausal Appearance. Ed. by Tasaku Tsunoda.
Comparative Handbooks of Linguistics. Mouton de Gruyter, 2020, pp. 465–509.
10 Atsuhiko Kato. “Burmese”. In: Mermaid Construction: A Compound-Predicate Construction With Biclausal Appearance. Ed. by Tasaku Tsunoda.
Comparative Handbooks of Linguistics. Mouton de Gruyter, 2020, pp. 781–816.

Conclusion

Introduction

Descriptive Analysis

LFG Analysis

Cross-linguistic Analysis

Examples (contd.)(8) Kurukh (< Northern Dravidian < Dravidian; SOV)11
a:s-hi:[tamba-s-in ilc-ka:]caããe: rahc-a:
3 SG . M - GEN own.father-M - ACC fear.PS - PST. VADJ necessity

COP. PS - PST.3 SG . NM

‘It was because he was afraid of his father’(9) Sidaama (< Cushitic < Afro-Asiatic; SOV)12íse[faraššó
guluf-f-annó] gara-a=ti
3 SG . F. NOM horse.ACCOBL ride-3 SG . F - IPFV.3 manner-LV = NPC . PRED . MOD‘She seems to ride a horse (habitually)’(10) Bengali (< Indo-Iranian < Indo-European; SOV)13
tar[t.okio=te jawar]
kOth a3 SG . GEN Tokyo=LOC go.NMLZ . GEN word

‘It is planned that he s/he is going to Tokyo’
ACCOBL — Accusative-Oblique, LV — lengthened vowel, MOD — modified, NM — non-masculine, NPC — nominalized predicate clitic, PRED —predicative, PS — past stem, VADJ — verbal adjective
11 Masato Kobayashi and Tasaku Tsunoda. “Kurux”. In: Mermaid Construction: A Compound-Predicate Construction With Biclausal Appearance.
Ed. by Tasaku Tsunoda. Comparative Handbooks of Linguistics. Mouton de Gruyter, 2020, pp. 781–816.
12 Kazuhiro Kawachi. “Sidaama”. In: Mermaid Construction: A Compound-Predicate Construction With Biclausal Appearance. Ed. by
Tasaku Tsunoda. Comparative Handbooks of Linguistics. Mouton de Gruyter, 2020, pp. 781–816.
13 Keisuke Huziwara. “A contrastive study of external adnominal clauses in Japanese and Bangla”. In: Bangabidya: International Journal of Bengal
Studies 10 (2018), pp. 358–367.

Conclusion

Introduction

Descriptive Analysis

LFG Analysis

Cross-linguistic Analysis

Conclusion

Examples: different case-marking in Tagalog(11) Tagalog < Malayo-Polynesian < Austronesian; VSO)14
plano ni=Noy [na b‹um›isita sa=Davao bukas]plan

GEN =Noy

LK

visit‹AF : INF› OBL=Davao

tomorrow‘Noy plans to go to Davao tomorrow’(12) Tagalog < Malayo-Polynesian < Austronesian; VSO)
plano[=ng b‹um›isita ni=Noy sa=Davao bukas]
plan=LK

visit‹AF : INF› GEN=Noy OBL=Davao

tomorrow‘Noy plans to go to Davao tomorrow’(13) Tagalog < Malayo-Polynesian < Austronesian; VSO)
mukha[=ng bi-bisita
si=Noy sa=Davao bukas]
face=LK

AF : CONT -visit

NOM =NoyOBL =Davao

tomorrow‘It seems that Noy will go to Davao tomorrow’
Genitive vs. Nominative
Position of ni=Noy
CONT — contemplative (prospective) aspect

14 Masumi Katagiri. “Tagalog”. In: Mermaid Construction: A Compound-Predicate Construction With Biclausal Appearance. Ed. by Tasaku Tsunoda.
Comparative Handbooks of Linguistics. Mouton de Gruyter, 2020, pp. 781–816.

Introduction

Descriptive Analysis

LFG Analysis

Cross-linguistic Analysis

Examples: Different case-marking in Tatar(14) Tatar (< Kipchak < Turkic; SOV)15
siNa[joqla-rGa] röxsät
2 SG . DAT sleep-INF

permission‘You are allowed to sleep.’(15) Tatar (< Kipchak < Turkic; SOV)16
Marat-nïN [joqla-rGa] isäb-eMarat-GENsleep-INF

thought-POSS .3‘Marat is going to sleep.’
Dative vs. Genitive (+ possessive agreement)

15 Chihiro Taguchi. “Mermaid Construction in Tatar”. In: Proceedings of the 162nd Conference of the Linguistic Society of Japan. 2021.
16 Chihiro Taguchi. “Mermaid Construction in Tatar”. In: Proceedings of the 162nd Conference of the Linguistic Society of Japan. 2021.

Conclusion

Introduction

Descriptive Analysis

LFG Analysis

Cross-linguistic Analysis

Examples: Copy raising in Egyptian Arabic(16) Egyptian Arabic (< Arabic < Semitic < Afroasiatic; SVO)17
šakl el-welād [kānubiyitderbo]
shape DET-boy.PL be.PV.3 PL beat.BI . IPFV. PASS .3 PL‘The boys seem to have been beaten (lit. the boys’ shape, they were
beaten)’(17) Egyptian Arabic (< Arabic < Semitic < Afroasiatic; SVO)
šakl-uhum[waèašū-k]shape-POSS .3 PL lack.PV.3 PL -2 SG . M‘It seems like you missed them! (lit. their shape, you missed them)’
The syntactic subject of the embedded finite clause is copied to the matrix
clause17 Shaimaa ElSadek and Louisa Sadler. In: Proceedings of the LFG15 Conference. CSLI Publications, 2015.

Conclusion

Introduction

Descriptive Analysis

LFG Analysis

Cross-linguistic Analysis

Conclusion

Examples against the compound predicate analysis
Tsunoda (2020) says adjacent V and N become a compound predicate, but...
(18) Russian (< Slavic < Indo-European; SVO)
pora nam[uxodit’]time

1 PL . DAT PF:leave:INF‘It is time for us to leave’(19) Welsh (< Celtic < Indo-European; VSO)
Rhaid i fi
[godi’ngynnar]rhaid
i fi [godiyn gynnar]
necessity to 1 SG wake_up.INF in

early‘I need to wake up early’• NMC and V are not adjacent to each other in these languages• How can they form a compound predicate? (they don’t)

Introduction

Descriptive Analysis

LFG Analysis

Cross-linguistic Analysis

Conclusion

Typology of Mermaid Constructions
Case-marking of subject/agent
Case

Languages

NOM / ERG
GEN / POSSDAT /toJapanese, Mitsukaido, Irabu, Korean, Amdo-Tibetan, nDrapa, Burmese, Sidaama, Tagalog
Kurukh, Bengali, Tagalog, Tatar, Egyptian Arabic
Tatar, Russian, Welsh

Form of the embedded predicate
Function

Form

Languages

Adnominal

ADN
NMLZ . GEN
VADJJapanese, Mitsukaido, Irabu, Korean, nDrapa, Burmese, Sidaama
Amdo-Tibetan, Bengali
KurukhInfinitive

Tagalog, Tatar, Russian, Welsh

FiniteTagalog, Egyptian Arabic... Quite diverse
Tsunoda’s (2020)18 generalization:• MCs are “in the main confined to Asia” ... not really
18 Tasaku Tsunoda. Mermaid Construction: A Compound-Predicate Construction With Biclausal Appearance. Comparative Handbooks of Linguistics.
Mouton de Gruyter, 2020.

Introduction

Descriptive Analysis

LFG Analysis

Cross-linguistic Analysis

Conclusion

Proposal

Proposal (from LFG22)• MC is anaphoric/functional control with a nominal predicate• MC does not involve a compound predicate• Therefore, MC is biclausal• MC can be analyzed in LFG just like other anaphoric/functional control

Proposal (new)• Typological diversity of MCs can be captured in f-structure• different case-marking: subcategorization of predicates• different verb forms:

Introduction

Descriptive Analysis

LFG Analysis

Cross-linguistic Analysis

Subject is in the matrix clause: Evidence 1
The following slides demonstrate that an MC subject is in the matrix clause.
• A comparison with the similar non-MC (21)• In (21), Hanako(=ga) is inside the modifier clause, so an additional
subject argument can be added in the matrix clause (otherwise pro).
• (20), in contrast, doesn’t allow it• the matrix subject is already occupied(20) Japanese (MC)(*kore=ga) Hanako=ga sakana=o yak-u
this=NOM

Hanako=NOM

fish=OBJ

yotei=dagrill-NPST. ADN plan(N)=COP‘Hanako is going to grill the fish.’(21) Japanese (non-MC)(kore=ga) [Hanako=ga sakana=o yak-u]
this=NOM

Hanako=NOM

fish=ACC

nioi=dagrill-PRS . ADN smell(N)=COP‘(This is) the smell that [comes from where] Hanako grills the fish.’Conclusion

Introduction

Descriptive Analysis

LFG Analysis

Cross-linguistic Analysis

Subject is in the matrix clause: Evidence 2• NOM - GEN alternation of a subject in relative clauses (in Japanese)• RC (23): NOM - GEN alternation ✓• MC (22): NOM - GEN alternation ×• In MC, the subject is in the matrix clause(22) Japanese (MC)Hanako={ga/*no} sakana=o yak-u
Hanako=NOM /* GEN

fish=ACC

yotei=dagrill-NPST. ADN plan(N)=COP‘Hanako is going to grill the fish.’(23) Japanese (non-MC)[Hanako={ga/no} sakana=o yak-u]
Hanako=NOM / GEN

fish=ACC

nioi=dagrill-NPST. ADN smell(N)=COP‘(It is) the smell that [comes from where] Hanako grills the fish.’Conclusion

Introduction

Descriptive Analysis

LFG Analysis

Cross-linguistic Analysis

Conclusion

Subject is in the matrix clause: Evidence 3• Honorifics19 in Japanese: the referent is its subject (Matsumoto 1996)20• In (25) Hanako can agree with yotei: matrix subject• In (26) Hanako cannot agree with nioi: embedded subject• MC’s subject is in the matrix clause (agreeing with Tsunoda (2020))(24) Japanese (Hanako is honorified by the speaker)
Hanako=sama=ga sakana=o oyakininar-u
Hanako=HON = NOM

fish=ACC

grill:HON - NPST. DECL

‘Hanako grills the fish.’(25) Japanese (Hanako is honorified by the speaker)
Hanako=sama=ga sakana=o yak-u
go-yotei=daHanako=HON = NOM

fish=ACC

grill-NPST. ADN

HON -plan(N)= COP‘Hanako is going to grill the fish.’(26) Japanese (Hanako is honorified by the speaker)# Hanako=sama=ga sakana=o yak-u
Hanako=HON = NOM

fish=ACC

grill-NPST. ADN

o-nioi=da
HON -plan(N)= COP‘(It is) the smell that [comes from where] Hanako grills the fish.’
19 I thank Chen Xie (Oxford) for suggesting this diagnostic.
20 Yo Matsumoto. “Complex Predicates in Japanese: A Syntactic and Semantic Study of the Notion ‘Word’”. In: Studies in Japanese Linguistics series().

Introduction

Descriptive Analysis

LFG Analysis

Cross-linguistic Analysis

Anaphoric/functional control analysis of MC• Observation: Subject of MC is in the matrix clause• Point: Some MCs are anaphoric control like (27), others are functional
control like (28)• Intuition: MCs function as modals, evidentials, aspects, and attitudes,
just like verbs and adjectives of anaphoric/functional control• In this section, syntactic diagnostics for anaphoric/functional control
are applied to MCs• Passivization• Idiom chunks(27) Japanese (anaphoric control)
Hanako=gai [PROi Taroo=o tatak-u]
Hanako=NOM

PRO

Taro=ACC

ki=da

hit-NPST. ADN feeling(N)=COP‘Hanako intends to hit Taro.’(28) Japanese (functional control)
Hanako=gai [ti Taroo=o tatak-u]
Hanako=NOM

Taro=ACC

yotei=dahit-NPST. ADN plan(N)=COP‘Hanako is going to hit Taro.’

Conclusion

Introduction

Descriptive Analysis

LFG Analysis

Cross-linguistic Analysis

Conclusion

Syntactic tests: Passivization• Functional control (29), (30): passivization does not change thematic
relation• Anaphoric control (31), (32): passivization does change thematic
relation(29) a.
b.

Tom seems to hit Jerry.
Jerry seems to be hit by Tom.

(30) a.

Japanese (functional control)
Hanako=gai [ti Taroo=o tatak-u]
Hanako=NOM

b.

Taro=ACC

seem(hit(Tom, Jerry))seem(hit(Tom, Jerry))
yotei=dahit-NPST. ADN plan(N)=COP‘Hanako is going to hit Taro: planned(hit(h, t))’Japanese (functional control, passivized)
Taroo=gai [ti Hanako=ni tatak-are-ru]
yotei=da
Taro=NOM

Hanako=DAT

hit-PASS - NPST. ADN plan(N)=COP‘Taro is going to be hit by Hanako: planned(hit(h, t))’• yotei shares a characteristic of a functional control predicate

Introduction

Descriptive Analysis

LFG Analysis

Cross-linguistic Analysis

Conclusion

Syntactic tests: Passivization• Functional control (29), (30): passivization does not change thematic
relation• Anaphoric control (31), (32): passivization does change thematic
relation(31) a.
b.

Tom tries to hit Jerry.
Jerry tries to be hit by Tom.

(32) a.

Japanese (anaphoric control)
Hanako=gai [PROi taroo=o tatak-u]
Hanako=NOM

PRO

Taro=ACC

try(Tom, hit(Tom, Jerry))try(Jerry, hit(Tom, Jerry))ki=dahit-NPST. ADN feeling(N)=COP‘Hanako intends to hit Taro: intend(h, hit(h, t))’b.

Japanese (anaphoric control, passivized)
Taroo=gai [PROi Hanako=ni tatak-are-ru]
Taro=NOMPRO

Hanako=DAT

ki=dahit-PASS - NPST. ADN feeling(N)=COP‘Taro intends to be hit by Hanako: intend(t, hit(h, t))’• ki shares a characteristic of an anaphoric control predicate

Introduction

Descriptive Analysis

LFG Analysis

Cross-linguistic Analysis

Syntactic tests: Idiom chunks• Functional control (33 b), (34 b) keeps idiomatic meaning• Anaphoric control only allows for literal meaning(33) a.
b.

The cat is out of the bag. (i.e., the secret is revealed)
The cat seems to be out of the bag.

(34) a.

Japanese
asi=ga boo=ni nar-u
leg=NOMb.

stick=DAT

become-NPST‘The legs become sticks (i.e., exhausted)’
Japanese
asi=ga boo=ni nar-u
yotei=da
leg=NOM

stick=DAT

become-NPST. ADN plan(N)=COP‘The legs are going to be sticks (i.e., exhausted)’• yotei shares a characteristic of a functional control predicate

Conclusion

Introduction

Descriptive Analysis

LFG Analysis

Cross-linguistic Analysis

Syntactic tests: Idiom chunks• Functional control keeps idiomatic meaning• Anaphoric control (35 b), (36 b) only allows for literal meaning(35) a.
b.

The cat is out of the bag.
# The cat tries to be out of the bag.

(36) a.

Japanese
asi=ga boo=ni nar-u
leg=NOMb.

stick=DAT

become-NPST‘The legs become sticks (i.e., exhausted)’
Japanese# asi=ga boo=ni nar-u
ki=da
leg=NOM

stick=DAT

become-NPST. ADN plan(N)=COP‘The legs intend to become sticks’• ki shares a characteristic of an anaphoric control predicate

Conclusion

Introduction

Descriptive Analysis

LFG Analysis

Cross-linguistic Analysis(Hopefully theory-neutral) Interim summary
Tsunoda (2020)’s Analysis of MC• V and NMC compose a compound predicate• MC is monoclausal

We have seen:• MC can be treated as anaphoric/functional control• but with a noun predicate• It follows that MC is biclausal

Next:• Analyze MC in LFG

Conclusion

Introduction

Descriptive Analysis

LFG Analysis

Cross-linguistic Analysis

Motivation for an LFG analysis• PRED readily allows for a nominal predicate• Therefore, lexical entries of MC nouns (NMC ) have a similar form toanaphoric/functional control• Anaphoric control MC:• (↑ PRED) = ‘NMC ⟨(SUBJ|OBLθ ), COMP⟩21• (↑ COMP SUBJ PRED) = ‘PRO’• Functional control MC:• (↑ PRED) = ‘NMC ⟨XCOMP⟩SUBJ• (↑ SUBJ) = (↑ XCOMP SUBJ)• COMP/XCOMP can readily handle the cross-linguistic variation of
non-finite forms• Infinitive: Tagalog, Tatar, Russian, Welsh• Adnominal/verbal adjective: Japanese, Burmese, Kurukh, Sidaama, etc.
• Verbal noun: Amdo Tibetan, Bengali• Severing syntax, function, and semantics (c/f/s-structure)• Disentangling MC’s mystery: ‘Syntactically nominal, functionallypredicative, and semantically abstract (modal, etc.)?’21 Whether SUBJ or OBL

θ is selected depends on each lexeme.

Conclusion

Introduction

Descriptive Analysis

LFG Analysis

Cross-linguistic Analysis

c-structure of functional control with NMC(37) Japanese (< Japonic)
Hanako=ga Igirisu=ni ik-u
Hanako=NOM

UK=DAT

yotei=dago-NPST. ADN plan(N)=COP‘Hanako is going to go to the UK.’
(38)

S

NP

VP

Hanako=ga

NMC P
IP

V
NMC

NP

V

Igirisu=ni

ik-u

yotei

=da

Conclusion

Introduction

Descriptive Analysis

LFG Analysis

Cross-linguistic Analysis

c-structure of anaphoric control with NMC(39) Japanese (< Japonic)
Hanako=ga Igirisu=ni ik-u
Hanako=NOM

UK=DAT

ki=da

go-NPST. ADN feeling(N)=COP‘Hanako intends to go to the UK.’
(40)

S

NP

VP

Hanako=ga

NMC P

V
NMC

IP
NP

V

Igirisu=ni

ik-u

=da

ki

• c-structural form is the same in raising and equi (language-specific)

Conclusion

Introduction

Descriptive Analysis

LFG Analysis

Cross-linguistic Analysis

Conclusion

f-structure of functional control with NMC

(41)

(42)

S

VP

NP
Hanako=ga
NMC P

V
=da

IP

NMC

NP

V

Igirisu=ni

ik-u

yotei



PRED



SUBJ








XCOMP

‘planned⟨XCOMP⟩SUBJ ’"#
PRED ‘Hanako’







CASE NOM
PRED ‘go⟨ SUBJ ⟩’

SUBJ





"

#




PRED ‘UK’


ADJ

 CASE DAT  Introduction

Descriptive Analysis

LFG Analysis

Cross-linguistic Analysis

Conclusion

f-structure of anaphoric control with NMC(43)(44) PRED

S

NP

VP

Hanako=ga
NMC P

V
=da

IP

NMC

NP

V

Igirisu=ni

ik-u

ki



SUBJ









COMP




‘feeling⟨SUBJ , COMP⟩’"#PRED ‘Hanako’











PRED ‘go⟨ SUBJ ⟩’

h
i 


SUBJ
PRED ‘ PRO ’




"

#

 PRED ‘UK’ 



ADJ

 CASE DAT 
CASE

NOM

• Raising and equi MCs have a different f-structure (lexical entries)

Introduction

Descriptive Analysis

LFG Analysis

Cross-linguistic Analysis

Semantics of the Mermaid Constructions• The meaning of MCs can also be constructed in the same manner asfunctional/anaphoric control• Following the semantic representation of raising and equi verbs byDalrymple et al. (2019)22 :• David seemed to yawn: seem(yawn(David))• David tried to yawn: try(David, yawn(David))• We expect the same representation for MCs too:
• Hanako=ga Nagoya=ni ik-u yotei=da: planned(go(Hanako, UK))
• Hanako=ga Nagoya=ni ik-u ki=da: feeling(Hanako, go(Hanako, UK))

• Meaning constructors for NMC :• raising: λP.yotei(P) : (↑ XCOMP)σ ⊸↑σ• equi: λPλx.ki(x, P(x)) :((↑ COMP SUBJ)σ ⊸ (↑ COMP PRED)σ ) ⊸ ((↑ SUBJ)σ ⊸ ↑σ )22 Mary Dalrymple, John J. Lowe, and Louise Mycock. The Oxford Reference Guide to Lexical Functional Grammar. Oxford University Press, 2019.

Conclusion

Introduction

Descriptive Analysis

LFG Analysis

Cross-linguistic Analysis

Predicting scope ambiguity of functional control• Functional control analysis can correctly predict the scope of NMC
(45)

(46)

Japanesedareka=ga
ik-u
yotei=dasomeone=NOM go-NPST. ADN plan(N)=COP‘Someone is going to go. (wide: ∃ > plan, or narrow: plan > ∃)’
PRED‘planned⟨XCOMP⟩SUBJ ’
"
# 



PRED ‘someone’
SUBJ



CASE NOM


s"

# 




PRED ‘go⟨ SUBJ ⟩’XCOMP


(47)

SUBJ

g

p

[yotei][dareka]
[iku]

(48)

Narrow:

(49)

Wide:

λP.planned(P)λS.exist(x, person(x), S(x))λx. go(x)[dareka-iku][dareka-iku-yotei][iku-yotei][dareka-iku-yotei]

23 by conditional proof:::gσ ⊸ pσ∀H.(sσ ⊸ H) ⊸ H
s σ ⊸ gσ::exist(x, person(x), go(x))
planned(exist(x, person(x), go(x)))λx.planned(go(x))
exist(x, person(x), planned(go(x)))

:
:

gσ
pσ
sσ ⊸ pσ 23
pσConclusion

Introduction

Descriptive Analysis

LFG Analysis

Cross-linguistic Analysis

Predicting the scope of anaphoric control• Anaphoric control analysis correctly restricts the scope(50)

Japanesedareka=ga
ik-u
ki=da
someone=NOM go-NPST. ADN feeling(N)=COP‘Someone intends to go. (wide: ∃ > intend; *narrow: intend > ∃)’
PRED‘intend⟨SUBJ , COMP⟩’
"
# 



PRED ‘someone’
SUBJ



CASE NOM


s"

#



PRED ‘go⟨ SUBJ ⟩’ 
COMP

SUBJ
‘ PRO ’gi[ki]
λPλx.intend(x, P):(sσ ⊸ gσ ) ⊸ (sσ ⊸ iσ )[dareka]λS.exist(x, person(x), S(x)):∀H.(sσ ⊸ H) ⊸ H
(52)
[iku]
λx. go(x):s σ ⊸ gσ
(51)

(53)

Wide:

[iku-ki][dareka-iku-ki]• Narrow scope is underivable

24 by conditional proof

λx.intend(go(x))
exist(x, person(x), intend(go(x)))::

sσ ⊸ iσ 24
pσ

Conclusion

Introduction

Descriptive Analysis

LFG Analysis

Cross-linguistic Analysis

Interim Summary• MCs can be analyzed as raising/equi in LFG.
• Parallelism with conventional verbal/adjectival raising/equi in terms of:• c-structure• f-structure• semantics (Glue)• These structures disentangle the core mystery of MC:• ‘Syntactically nominal, functionally predicative, and semanticallyabstract’Control
Raising

VerbalAdjectival

NominalEnglish try
English seem

English eager
English likely

Japanese ki
Japanese yotei↑ MC

Conclusion

Introduction

Descriptive Analysis

LFG Analysis

Cross-linguistic Analysis

Cross-linguistic analysis
We have seen mainly from Japanese data:• Mermaid Constructions as raising/equi• Anaphoric control MC:• (↑ PRED) = ‘NMC ⟨(SUBJ|OBLθ ), COMP⟩25• (↑ COMP SUBJ PRED) = ‘PRO’• Functional control MC:• (↑ PRED) = ‘NMC ⟨XCOMP⟩SUBJ• (↑ SUBJ) = (↑ XCOMP SUBJ)How general are these formulations? Are they valid in other languages?
Arguments from here are ongoing work with sloppy points; comments aremuch appreciated.

25 Whether SUBJ or OBL

θ is selected depends on each lexeme.

Conclusion

Introduction

Descriptive Analysis

LFG Analysis

Cross-linguistic Analysis

Dative case-marking in Tatar
Hypothesis 1: Control by OBLθ• röxsät subcategorizes for ⟨OBLθ , COMP⟩• OBJθ controls (↑COMP SUBJ)(54) Tatar (< Kipchak < Turkic; SOV)26
Marat-qa [joqla-rGa] röxsät
Marat-DAT

sleep-INF

permission‘Marat is allowed to sleep.’(55) PRED ‘permission⟨OBLθ , COMP⟩’
"
#




PRED ‘Marati ’

OBLθ


CASE
DAT


g







PRED ‘sleep⟨ SUBJ ⟩’


h
i



COMP
PRED ‘ PRO i ’
SUBJhf
26 Chihiro Taguchi. “Mermaid Construction in Tatar”. In: Proceedings of the 162nd Conference of the Linguistic Society of Japan. 2021.

Conclusion

Introduction

Descriptive Analysis

LFG Analysis

Cross-linguistic Analysis

Dative case-marking in Russian
Seemingly working similarly(56) Russian (< Slavic < Indo-European; SVO)
pora nam[uxodit’]time

1 PL . DAT PF:leave:INF‘It is time for us to leave’PRED‘time⟨OBLθ , COMP⟩
PRED ‘ PRO i ’PERS 1





NUM
PL














OBL


θ






CASE DAT


g






PRED ‘ LEAVE ⟨ SUBJ ⟩’ 
COMP hiPRED ‘ PRO i ’
SUBJ
h
f

Conclusion

Introduction

Descriptive Analysis

LFG Analysis

Cross-linguistic Analysis

Prepositional phrase as OBLθ in Welsh
In Welsh, the oblique argument is expressed by a prepositional phrase i(57) Welsh (< Celtic < Indo-European; VSO)
Rhaid i fi
[godi’ngynnar]rhaid
i fi [godiyn gynnar]
necessity to 1 SG wake_up.INF in

early‘I need to wake up early’PRED‘necessity⟨OBLθ , COMP⟩’
PRED ‘to⟨ OBJ ⟩’PRED ‘ PRO i ’ 





OBJ

PERS 1















OBLθ









NUM
SG




g






PRED ‘wake_up⟨ SUBJ ⟩’







SUBJ
‘
PRO
’

i

COMP 




h
i





PRED ‘early’
ADJ
f

h

Conclusion

Introduction

Descriptive Analysis

LFG Analysis

Cross-linguistic Analysis

Genitive case-marking in Tatar
Hypothesis 2: Control by genitive SUBJ
• isäp subcategorizes for ⟨SUBJ , COMP⟩• The possessive suffix on the MC noun is encoded as the value of PERS(58) Tatar (< Kipchak < Turkic; SOV)27
Marat-nïN [joqla-rGa] isäb-eMarat-GENsleep-INF

thought-POSS .3‘Marat is going to sleep.’(59) PRED ‘thought⟨SUBJ , COMP⟩’
"
#




PRED ‘Marati ’

SUBJ


CASE GEN


g







PRED ‘sleep⟨ SUBJ ⟩’

h
i

COMP 

PRED ‘ PRO i ’ 
SUBJ




h
PERS
3
f
27 Chihiro Taguchi. “Mermaid Construction in Tatar”. In: Proceedings of the 162nd Conference of the Linguistic Society of Japan. 2021.

Conclusion

Introduction

Descriptive Analysis

LFG Analysis

Cross-linguistic Analysis

Conclusion

Genitive case-marking in Tagalog
Tagalog MC noun plano would work similarly:(60) Tagalog < Malayo-Polynesian < Austronesian; VSO)28
plano ni=Noy [na b‹um›isita sa=Davao bukas]plan

GEN =Noy

LK

visit‹AF : INF› OBL=Davao

tomorrow‘Noy plans to go to Davao tomorrow’


PRED



SUBJ








COMP



f

‘plan⟨SUBJ , COMP⟩’"#PRED ‘Noyi ’







CASE GEN
PRED ‘visit⟨ SUBJ ⟩’SUBJ ‘ PRO ’



" i


#


 PRED ‘Davao’ 


OBL

 CASE OBLh

28 Masumi Katagiri. “Tagalog”. In: Mermaid Construction: A Compound-Predicate Construction With Biclausal Appearance. Ed. by Tasaku Tsunoda.
Comparative Handbooks of Linguistics. Mouton de Gruyter, 2020, pp. 781–816.

Introduction

Descriptive Analysis

LFG Analysis

Cross-linguistic Analysis

Conclusion

Genitive in embedded infinitival clause in Tagalog
How about this?
(61) plano[=ng b‹um›isita
plan=LK

ni=Noysa=Davao bukas]

visit‹AF : INF› GEN=Noy OBL=Davao tomorrow‘Noy plans to go to Davao tomorrow’

Hypothesis 3: Optional backward control raising in Tagalog• Anaphoric controller in the matrix clause can be functionally controlled
by the embedding SUBJ (backward control raising29 )←−−‘plan⟨SUBJ , COMP⟩’

PRED


SUBJ








COMP








PRED



SUBJ






OBL








‘visit⟨SUBJ⟩’
#
"


PRED ‘Noyi ’CASE GEN

"

# 

 PRED ‘Davao’  CASE OBLhf

29 Susi Wurmbrand. “On forward and backward raising”. In: Proceedings of the 32nd West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics. Somerville, MA,
2015.

Introduction

Descriptive Analysis

LFG Analysis

Cross-linguistic Analysis

Conclusion

Finite COMP in Tagalog
mukha ‘face’ in Tagalog employs a finite COMP
(62) mukha[=ng bi-bisita
face=LK

AF : CONT -visit

si=Noysa=Davao bukas]

NOM =NoyOBL =Davao

tomorrow‘It seems that Noy will go to Davao tomorrow’

Hypothesis 4: Obligatory backward raising in Tagalog• mukha ‘face’ obligatorily triggers backward raising30


PRED


SUBJ








COMP






←−−
‘face⟨COMP⟩SUBJ ’


PRED



SUBJ






OBL








‘visit⟨SUBJ⟩’
"
#


PRED ‘Noy’
CASE NOM

"

# 

 PRED ‘Davao’  CASE OBL

30 Susi Wurmbrand. “On forward and backward raising”. In: Proceedings of the 32nd West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics. Somerville, MA,
2015.

Introduction

Descriptive Analysis

LFG Analysis

Cross-linguistic Analysis

Copy raising in Egyptian Arabic
Egyptian Arabic MC (in a way) “repeats” the subject(63) šakl-uhum[waèašū-k]shape-POSS .3 PL lack.PV.3 PL -2 SG . M‘It seems like you missed them! (lit. their shape, you missed them)’

Hypothesis 5: Copy raising in Egyptian Arabic• šakl in Egyptian Arabic causes copy raising31


PRED






SUBJ

















COMP









‘shape⟨SUBJ , COMP⟩’
PRED ‘ PRO ’PERS 3
NUM PL 
















CASE GEN
PRED ‘lack⟨ SUBJ , OBJ ⟩’ 

 



PRED ‘ PRO ’



 

 
SUBJ PERS 3


 




NUM
PL




 





PRED ‘ PRO ’



 


 
OBJ  
PERS 2


NUM

SG

31 Shaimaa ElSadek and Louisa Sadler. In: Proceedings of the LFG15 Conference. CSLI Publications, 2015.

Conclusion

Introduction

Descriptive Analysis

LFG Analysis

Cross-linguistic Analysis

Conclusion
This presentation has shown (from LFG22):• Descriptive (theory-neutral) evidence for biclausal analysis of MC• Syntactic evidence for anaphoric/functional control analysis• LFG’s merits to analyze MCs:
• LFG readily allows for nominal predicates• COMP / XCOMP covering cross-linguistically diverse non-finite forms• Treating each module separately (syntax — (interface) — semantics)

New:• Possible analyses for peculiar cases of MCs across languages• Anaphoric/functional control analysis seems to hold
• Language-specific scrutiny is still much needed

Conclusion

Introduction

Descriptive Analysis

LFG Analysis

Cross-linguistic Analysis

Thank you!

Contact: ctaguchi@nd.edu

Website: https://ctaguchi.github.io

Conclusion