The Configurational Matrix

Abstract

In this paper we explore what primitives of syntax may explain why grammatical relations are obligatory, unique, local and sensitive to c-command. We propose that these properties follow from the way information percolates in syntactic trees (as regulated by compositionality) and the way information in nodes is organized (as regulated by set theory). IntroductionGrammatical relations -binding, movement, predication and the licensing of negative polarity items -display a cluster of properties that Koster (1987) refers to as the configurational matrix. They are obligatory in that a dependent element must have an antecedent. Moreover, the antecedent must be unique, in a c-commanding position and sufficiently close to the dependent.An explanation for the configurational matrix is in order, as it can hardly be accidental that it holds of the four relations mentioned above, which are prima facia very different in nature. Moreover, as Koster points out, the properties of grammatical relations are by no means necessary -non-syntactic relations such as coreference do not display them. It must be the case, then, that the configurational matrix reflects primitives of syntax.In this paper, we explore what the primitives in question could be. We argue that a grammatical relation is established if a function introduced by a dependent is copied upward until it directly dominates a node which satisfies it (section 2). This allows us to capture the properties of c-command (section 3) and obligatoriness (section 4). We further argue that nodes are minimally ordered sets of attributes (section 5). From this, it can be derived that the antecedent in a grammatical relation is unique (section 6), but Neeleman & van de Koot 4741 Throughout this paper we will talk about syntax as if it is a derivational system. It should be noted from the outset that we only do so for presentational purposes and that nothing of substance depends on it.2 Indeed, in many theories sisterhood or a variant thereof is adopted. Government-binding theory and its successors assume that selection and internal ,-role assignment take place under sisterhood (cf. Chomsky 1981(cf. Chomsky , 1986b. Similar statements are made in LFG (cf. Bresnan 1982), GPSG (cf. and HPSG (cf. Pollard & Sag 1987, 1994. In categorial grammar, combinatory rules apply to adjacent entities only (cf. Steedman 1993). Adjacency and sisterhood are of course different notions, but like sisterhood, adjacency can be seen as a minimal sideways relation.

The fundamental left–right asymmetry in the Germanic verb cluster

“…Flexible base hierarchies of (clustering) verbs with respect to their arguments are frequently assumed in theories with argument-passing mechanisms (Hinrichs and Nakazawa 1989;Haider 1993Haider , 2003Neeleman and van de Koot 2002). Such theories typically also allow base generated scrambling of arguments with respect to adjuncts, another instance of freedom in base generating cross-class hierarchies.…”

Control without a subject

“…Q-roles have been defined here as purely syntactic objects; this means that they are visible to and engage in syntactic operations, but the syntax makes no distinction between them. Two uroles that meet on a node through percolation, therefore, will be indistinguishable and as such will collapse, that is identify, effectively becoming one composed role: Higginbotham (1985) introduces this view of theta-roles, which has been applied to secondary predication in Neeleman and van de Koot (2002).Theu-role of a secondary predicate is identified with a u-role of a matrix verb, before assignment to an argument. So in a sentence such as, the students attended the lecture drunk, the result is such that both the main verb and the secondary predicate can be predicated of the same argument, without tampering with the Q-Criterion:…”

“…This representation is based on a theory in which grammatical dependencies are regulated by a system of upward copying comparable to that in Neeleman and van de Koot (2002). We can think of a grammatically dependent element as one that needs an antecedent of some kind; this need that a dependent element exhibits might be represented by the dependent element's introduction of a selectional requirement.…”

“…The theory of OC to be presented here relies on this encoding of grammatical dependencies, which is based on Neeleman and van de Koot (2002) and belongs to a family of theories which use percolation, such as the HPSG framework of Pollard and Sag (1994) and also GPSG (see Gazdar, 1985).…”

“…Application obtains when the selectional requirement is in a relation of immediate domination with the sought after node, from where it can ascertain whether this node has the property it seeks. Restricting such application to those instances in which the selectional requirement immediately dominates its antecedent imposes a very strict locality condition on each node; essentially it ensures that the properties of every node in a tree can be retraced to the properties of its daughters (for further detail see Neeleman and van de Koot, 2002). selectional requirements, which each contribute to the syntactic relation formed between the predicate from which their u-role originates and the argument to which they are applied.…”