Скачать презентацию A quantitative model of word order and movement Скачать презентацию A quantitative model of word order and movement

7bd70d1adaa99ad261d6506c58e40b50.ppt

  • Количество слайдов: 60

A quantitative model of word order and movement in English, Dutch and German complement A quantitative model of word order and movement in English, Dutch and German complement constructions Karin Harbusch Computer Science Dept. , University of Koblenz. Landau [email protected] de & Gerard Kempen Psychology Dept. , Leiden University & Max Planck Institute Nijmegen [email protected] leidenuniv. nl

Preview 1. 2. Introduction Essentials of Performance Grammar n n 3. 4. Hierarchical component Preview 1. 2. Introduction Essentials of Performance Grammar n n 3. 4. Hierarchical component Linearization component: topologies Topology sharing in the three target languages Linear order and typed feature unification Examples in the three target languages Conclusions

1. Introduction Linear order in English, Dutch and German complement constructions varies considerably w. 1. Introduction Linear order in English, Dutch and German complement constructions varies considerably w. r. t. : n n n Wh-extraction, clause union, extraposition, verb clustering, particle movement, etc. We show that both the within- and betweenlanguage variations of these phenomena reduce to differences between a few numerical parameters.

2. Essentials of Performance Grammar (PG) is a psycholinguistically motivated formalism. Psycholinguistic phenomena suggest 2. Essentials of Performance Grammar (PG) is a psycholinguistically motivated formalism. Psycholinguistic phenomena suggest separate hierarchical and linear grammar components. n We focus on the linear component and describe it in declarative terms based on feature unification. n The parametrization scheme we propose belongs to the linear component. n

Hierarchical component of PG Data structures n Segments XP XP Hea. D func pos Hierarchical component of PG Data structures n Segments XP XP Hea. D func pos XP lexical anchor

Segments such as in clauses. . . S S HD SUBJ v NP S Segments such as in clauses. . . S S HD SUBJ v NP S S DOBJ IOBJ S S PRED S S S CMPR PRT CMP PINF … NP NP|PP NP| CP prep | S|PP PP adv ADJP | PP . . . combine into lexical , e. g. clausal, HD frames v fool S SUBJ NP DOBJ MOD* NP ADVP|PP|S

Example “Slim snijdertje fopte dertig zeerovers” “Clever tailor fooled thirty pirates” (Title of Dutch Example “Slim snijdertje fopte dertig zeerovers” “Clever tailor fooled thirty pirates” (Title of Dutch children’s story by Annie M. G. Schmidt)

Lexical frames from the mental S lexicon SUBJ HD DOBJ MOD* NP v NP Lexical frames from the mental S lexicon SUBJ HD DOBJ MOD* NP v NP ADVP |PP|S NP DET Q MOD* DP CNP ADJP|PP HD n snijdertje/tailor ADJP NP fopte/fooled DET Q MOD* HD DP CNP ADJP|PP n zeerover/pirate CNP MOD* HD HD ADVP adj crd slim/clever dertig/thirty

Substitution (feature structures are omitted) S SUBJ DOBJ NP v NP NP fopte/fooled DET Substitution (feature structures are omitted) S SUBJ DOBJ NP v NP NP fopte/fooled DET Q HD NP MOD* DP CNP ADJP|PP ADJP HD DET Q MOD* n MOD* ADVP|PP|S hd DP CNP ADJP|PP n snijdertje/ zeerover/pirate CNP tailor MOD* HD HD ADVP adj crd slim/clever dertig/thirty

Reduced dominance structure S HD SUBJ HD DOBJ HD v NP v fopte/ fooled Reduced dominance structure S HD SUBJ HD DOBJ HD v NP v fopte/ fooled MOD HD ADJP n HD snijdertje/ tailor q HD CNP n HD zeerover/ pirate adj crd slim/ clever dertig/ thirty fopte/ fooled

Linearization Component Data structure: topology n A topology is associated with the foot node Linearization Component Data structure: topology n A topology is associated with the foot node layer of every lexical frame n Function: reservation of work/storage space for frame constituents Topologies with nine slots for clauses: Forefield English Dutch/German F 1 F 2 F 1 F 3 Midfield M 1 M 2 M 3 Endfield M 4 M 1 M 2 M 3 M 4 M 5 M 6 E 1 E 2

Assigning slot positions (English) Slot Filler F 1 Declarative main clause: Topic, Focus (one Assigning slot positions (English) Slot Filler F 1 Declarative main clause: Topic, Focus (one constituent only) Interrogative main clause: Wh-constituent Complement clause: Wh-constituent F 2 Complement clause: Co. MPLementize. R that F 3 Subject (iff non-Wh) M 1 Pre-INFinitive to < Hea. D verb (oblig. ) < Pa. RTicle M 2 Direct Object (iff personal pronoun) Interrogative main cl. : Subject (iff non-Wh); SUBJ < DOBJ M 3 Indirect OBJect < Direct OBJect (non-Wh) M 4 Pa. RTicle E 1 Non-finite Complement of 'Verb Raiser‘ (in particular Auxiliaries) E 2 Non-finite Complement of 'VP Extraposition verb‘ Finite Complement clause

Slot positions for Dutch & German Slot Filler F 1 Declarative main cl. : Slot positions for Dutch & German Slot Filler F 1 Declarative main cl. : SUBJect, Topic or Focus (one constituent only) Interrogative main clause: Wh-constituent Complement clause: Wh-constituent M 1 Main clause: Hea. D verb Complement clause: Co. MPLementizer dat/om (Du. ), dass (Ger. ) M 2 Subject NP (iff non-Wh), Direct OBJect (iff personal pronoun) M 3 Direct OBJect < Indirect OBJect (iff non-Wh) M 4 Pa. RTicle (Du. only) M 5 Non-finite Co. MPlement of Verb Raiser M 6 Subordinate clause: Du. : Pre-INFinitive te < Hea. D verb Ger. : Pa. RTicle < Pre-INFinitive zu < Hea. D verb E 1 Non-finite Complement of 'Verb Raiser‘ (Du. only) E 2 Non-finite Complement of 'VP Extraposition verb‘ Finite Complement clause

English clausal topology S SUBJ F 1 F 2 F 3 NP M 1 English clausal topology S SUBJ F 1 F 2 F 3 NP M 1 MOD HD ADJP n HD DOBJ HD v M 2 M 3 NP M 4 fooled Q HD CNP n tailor HD adj crd clever thirty pirate E 1 E 2

Dutch clausal topology S SUBJ F 1 NP DOBJ HD M 1 v M Dutch clausal topology S SUBJ F 1 NP DOBJ HD M 1 v M 2 M 3 NP M 4 M 5 M 6 E 1 E 2 fopte MOD HD Q HD ADJP n CNP n HD snijdertje HD adj crd slim dertig zeerover

Topology sharing If a sentence consists of a main clause plus one or more Topology sharing If a sentence consists of a main clause plus one or more complement clauses, each of the clauses (i. e. verb frames) instantiates its own topology. In such cases, topologies are allowed to share slots, conditionally upon several restrictions. After two slots have been shared, they are no longer distinguishable; in fact, they are the same object. This operation may cause upward movement of constituents: "promotion".

General constraints on topology sharing: n Only between adjacent clausal topologies n Only between General constraints on topology sharing: n Only between adjacent clausal topologies n Only between identically labeled slots n Hea. D slot never participate in sharing n Only left- and/or right-peripheral left-peripheral shared area (LS) central non-shared area … HD … right-peripheral shared area (RS)

Example S HD SUBJ CMP v NP S did John HD CMP v S Example S HD SUBJ CMP v NP S did John HD CMP v S try DOBJ PINF NP PP who to HD v call

Example (cont. ) HD F 1 M 1 v did S CMP SUBJ M Example (cont. ) HD F 1 M 1 v did S CMP SUBJ M 2 NP E 1 HD John M 1 F 1 v DOBJ try F 1 S NP who CMP E 1 PINF M 1 PP to S HD M 1 v call

Example (cont. ) HD F 1 M 1 v S CMP SUBJ M 2 Example (cont. ) HD F 1 M 1 v S CMP SUBJ M 2 N P did DOBJJohn E 1 HD M 1 F 1 N P v try who F 1 S CMP E 1 S PINF M 1 PP to HD M 1 v call

Example (cont. ) DOBJ F 1 N P Who HD M 1 v did Example (cont. ) DOBJ F 1 N P Who HD M 1 v did S CMP SUBJ M 2 N P John E 1 HD M 1 F 1 v try F 1 S CMP E 1 S PINF M 1 PP to HD M 1 v call

Unsuccessful attempt at sharing Who did Poirot claim that he saw last week? *Who Unsuccessful attempt at sharing Who did Poirot claim that he saw last week? *Who did Poirot make the claim that he saw last week? S DOBJ HD SUBJ CMP NP v NP S who did Poirot F 1 HD DOBJ x v NP HD CMP DP n S the claim make DET F 1 CMPR SUBJ HD MOD CP NP v NP that he saw last week

Language-spec. values for LS/RS Clause type English Interrogative LS=0 RS=0 LS=1 RS=0 LS=3 RS=0 Language-spec. values for LS/RS Clause type English Interrogative LS=0 RS=0 LS=1 RS=0 LS=3 RS=0 n. a. Declarative & Finite Decl. & Non-Finite, VP Extraposition Decl. & Non-Finite, Verb Raising Decl. & Non-Finite, Third Construction Dutch LS=0 RS=1 LS=1 RS=1 LS=4: 6 RS=1 LS=1: 6 RS=1 German LS=0 RS=1 LS=1 RS=1 LS=5 RS=1 LS=1: 6 RS=1

Within-language parametrization: Slot assignment (Engl. ) Decl. & Non-Finite, VP Extraposition F 1 F Within-language parametrization: Slot assignment (Engl. ) Decl. & Non-Finite, VP Extraposition F 1 F 2 F 3 M 1 … M 4 E 1 E 2 SUBJ HD

Parameters (cont. ): English sharing left-peripheral shared area (LS) central non-shared area Decl. & Parameters (cont. ): English sharing left-peripheral shared area (LS) central non-shared area Decl. & Non-Finite, VP Extraposition F 1 F 2 F 3 SUBJ M 1 M 2 … E 2 HD RS

Between-language parametrization left-peripheral shared area (LS) central non-shared area RS English Decl. & Non-Finite, Between-language parametrization left-peripheral shared area (LS) central non-shared area RS English Decl. & Non-Finite, VP Extraposition F 1 F 2 F 3 SUBJ F 1 M 2 M 3 M 4 M 5 Dutch/German Decl. & Non. Finite, VP Extraposition M 1 M 2 … E 2 HD verb in subclause M 6 E 1 E 2

Comparison: Engl. /Du. /Ger. sharing left-peripheral shared area (LS) central non-shared area RS English Comparison: Engl. /Du. /Ger. sharing left-peripheral shared area (LS) central non-shared area RS English Decl. & Non-Finite, VP Extraposition F 1 F 2 F 3 F 1 M 2 M 3 M 4 M 5 Dutch/German Decl. & Non. Finite, VP Extraposition M 1 M 2 … E 2 M 6 E 1 E 2

Specification of topologies in terms of typed feature unification S [tpl p(1)t, p(2)t, . Specification of topologies in terms of typed feature unification S [tpl p(1)t, p(2)t, . . . p(9)t ] where p(i)t denotes the type of the ith member of the list. For each of the target languages 9 slot types are defined (e. g. , F 1 t). Slots are attributes that take a non-branching list of lemmas or constituents (e. g. SUBJect-NP, Co. MPlement-S or Hea. Dv) as their value. n Slots are initialized with the value empty list, denoted by " " (e. g. , [ F 1 ]. Lists of segments can be combined by the append operation, represented by the symbol ”O". A slot type may impose a constraint on the cardinality (the number of members) of the list serving as its value. Cardinality constraints are expressed as subscripts of the value list. E. g. , the subscript "c=1" in [ F 1 c=1] states that the list serving as F 1's value should contain exactly one member. n F 1 t

Specification of topologies (cont. ) n Depending on the values of sharing parameters LS Specification of topologies (cont. ) n Depending on the values of sharing parameters LS and RS, the list is divided into a left area, the central area, and the right area. LS and RS are set to zero by default; this applies to the root S of main clauses and adverbial subordinate clauses. The root S of a complement clause obtains its sharing parameter values from the foot of the S-CMP-S segment belonging to the lexical frame of its governing verb. Sharing (see 1 ) simply means S [tpl 1 F 1, . . . , E 2 2 ] unifying the slots in the two laterally shared areas according to the LS and RS parameters. CMP n The contents of non-shared (central) slots are appended to S 2 tpl 1 F 1, . . . the contents of the receiving slot ctype decl-fin (see 2 ). n

3. English question formation F 1 F 2 F 3 M 1 do M 3. English question formation F 1 F 2 F 3 M 1 do M 3 M 4 E 1 E 2 have Who M 2 to call The non-finite complements of both do and have are declarative. (Cf. the paraphrase "For which person x is it the case that I have to call x", which highlights the scope of who. ) It follows that LS=3 in both complements. Do is a Verb Raiser, have (in have to) is a VP Extraposition verb.

English question formation (cont. ) F 1 F 2 F 3 M 1 did English question formation (cont. ) F 1 F 2 F 3 M 1 did M 3 M 4 E 1 E 2 say Who M 2 you John saw The lower clause is finite and declarative (LS = 1) — cf. the paraphrase “For which person x is it the case that you said that John saw x”. (The scope of who exceeds its ‘own’ clause and includes the matrix clause. ) LS = 3 in the middle topology.

English question formation (cont. ) I know who John saw F 1 F 2 English question formation (cont. ) I know who John saw F 1 F 2 F 3 I M 1 know M 2 M 3 M 4 E 1 E 2 who John saw Here, the scope of the interrogative pronoun does not include the main clause (“I know for which person x it is the case that John saw x”). Therefore, the complement is interrogative and does not share its F 1 slot with that of the main clause (LS = 0).

English question formation (cont. ) a. Who did you claim that you saw last English question formation (cont. ) a. Who did you claim that you saw last week? S DOBJ F 1 NP who HD SUBJ CM P v NP S did you CMP v F 1 HD S claim F 1 CM PR SUBJ HD M OD CP NP v NP that you saw last week

Island Effects in English a. Who did you claim that you saw last week? Island Effects in English a. Who did you claim that you saw last week? b. *Who did you make the claim that you saw last week? S DOBJ HD SUBJ CM P NP v NP S who did you HD DOBJ x v NP F 1 make DET HD CMP DP n S the claim F 1 CM PR SUBJ HD M OD CP NP v NP that you saw last week

Dutch question formation Dutch interrogative main clauses feature Subject-Verb inversion without the equivalent of Dutch question formation Dutch interrogative main clauses feature Subject-Verb inversion without the equivalent of do-insertion: a. Zag je dat? saw you that ‘Did you see that? ’ F 1 M 1 Zag M 2 M 3 M 4 M 5 je dat M 6 E 1 E 2 M 3 M 4 M 5 dat M 6 E 1 E 2 a´. Je zag dat? F 1 Je M 1 zag

Dutch question formation (cont. ) b. Wie zag dat? who saw that ‘Who saw Dutch question formation (cont. ) b. Wie zag dat? who saw that ‘Who saw that? ’ F 1 M 1 Wie M 2 M 3 M 4 M 5 zag M 6 E 1 E 2 dat c. Wat zagen ze? ‘What did they see? ’ F 1 Wat M 1 M 2 M 3 M 4 M 5 zagen ze M 6 E 1 E 2

She asked whether I John knew ‘She asked whether I knew John’ Dutch question She asked whether I John knew ‘She asked whether I knew John’ Dutch question formation (cont. ) F 1 M 1 Zij vroeg of M 2 M 3 M 4 M 5 ik Jan M 6 E 1 E 2 kende Because the complement is interrogative here, the sharing rule prohibits left-peripheral sharing: LS=0.

Clause Union in Dutch. . . dat ik Jan zal bellen that I John Clause Union in Dutch. . . dat ik Jan zal bellen that I John will phone '. . . that I will phone John F 1 M 1 dat M 2 M 3 M 4 M 5 M 6 E 1 E 2 ik zal Jan bellen The subordinate clause features clause union, causing the auxiliary zal to intervene between the Direct OBJect Jan and its governor bellen. The left-peripheral sharing area may vary between 4 and 6 slots (LS=4: 6). Because Jan lands in M 3, i. e. in the shared area, it is promoted. The remainder of the lower topology, including the Hea. D bellen itself, occupies E 1 — one of the options of the complement of a Verb Raiser.

Clause Union in Dutch (cont. ). . . dat ik Jan bellen zal that Clause Union in Dutch (cont. ). . . dat ik Jan bellen zal that I John phone will '. . . that I will phone John' F 1 M 1 dat M 2 M 3 M 4 M 5 M 6 E 1 E 2 ik zal Jan bellen

Dutch Particle Hopping. . . dat ik Jan zou hebben op gebeld that I Dutch Particle Hopping. . . dat ik Jan zou hebben op gebeld that I John would have up called '. . . that I would have called John up' F 1 M 1 dat M 2 M 3 M 4 M 5 ik Jan op M 6 zou E 1 E 2 hebben gebeld The positions marked by " " are grammatical alternatives to the particle (op) position mentioned in the example; no other positions are allowed. Given LS=4: 6 for complements of Verb Raisers, it follows that Jan is obligatorily promoted into the higher topology. However, sharing of the fifth slot (M 4) is optional.

Dutch Particle Hopping (cont. ). . . dat ik Jan zou hebben op gebeld Dutch Particle Hopping (cont. ). . . dat ik Jan zou hebben op gebeld that I John would have up called '. . . that I would have called John up' F 1 M 1 dat M 2 M 3 M 4 M 5 ik Jan op Second level: LS=4: 6, third level: LS=4 M 6 zou E 1 E 2 hebben gebeld

Dutch Particle Hopping (cont. ). . . dat ik Jan zou op hebben gebeld Dutch Particle Hopping (cont. ). . . dat ik Jan zou op hebben gebeld that I John would up have called '. . . that I would have called John up' F 1 M 1 dat M 2 M 3 M 4 M 5 M 6 E 1 E 2 ik zou hebben Jan op gebeld Second level: LS=4, third level: LS=4: 6

Dutch Particle Hopping (cont. ). . . dat ik Jan op zou hebben gebeld Dutch Particle Hopping (cont. ). . . dat ik Jan op zou hebben gebeld that I John up would have called '. . . that I would have called John up' F 1 M 1 dat M 2 M 3 M 4 M 5 ik Jan op Second level: LS=4: 6, third level: LS=4: 6 M 6 zou E 1 E 2 hebben gebeld

Dutch Cross-serial Dependency. . . dat ik Jan de fiets wil helpen maken that Dutch Cross-serial Dependency. . . dat ik Jan de fiets wil helpen maken that I John the bike want-to help repair '. . . that I want to help John to repair the bike' F 1 M 1 dat M 2 ik M 3 M 4 M 5 M 6 E 1 E 2 wil Jan helpen de fiets maken Assumption about the order of constituents that land in the same slot but originate from different levels in the clause hierarchy: We stipulate that constituents from more deeply embedded clauses follow constituents belonging to higher clauses.

German VP Extraction F 1 M 1 dass M 2 er uns es M German VP Extraction F 1 M 1 dass M 2 er uns es M 3 M 4 M 5 M 6 E 1 E 2 zwingt zu tun Parametrization for German VP Extraposion verbs: n shared areas: LS=1, RS=1 n slot assignment for complement clause: E 2

that he us (Dat. ) promises it to do '. . . that he that he us (Dat. ) promises it to do '. . . that he promises us to do it' German Third Construction F 1 M 1 dass M 2 er es M 3 uns M 4 M 5 M 6 E 1 E 2 verspricht zu tun Parametrization for German Third Construction verbs: n shared areas: LS=1: 6, RS=1 n slot assignment for complement clause: M 5 or E 2

German Third Construction (cont. ) F 1 M 2 M 3 M 4 M German Third Construction (cont. ) F 1 M 2 M 3 M 4 M 5 M 6 E 1 E 2 c. . dass er es uns zu tun verspricht dass er uns es zu tun F 1 M 1 dass M 2 er es M 3 uns M 4 M 5 M 6 E 1 E 2 verspricht zu tun

e. ? . . . dass er uns es verspricht zu tun Third Construction e. ? . . . dass er uns es verspricht zu tun Third Construction (cont. ) F 1 M 1 dass M 2 er es F 1 M 1 dass M 2 er M 3 uns M 4 M 5 M 6 E 1 E 2 verspricht zu tun M 3 M 4 M 5 M 6 E 1 E 2 uns verspricht es zu tun

4. Conclusions n n We have shown that the introduction of topologies with a 4. Conclusions n n We have shown that the introduction of topologies with a fixed number of slots, in conjunction with cross-clause lateral topology sharing enables a simple treatment of word order and movement (promotion) in complement structures of the three target languages. The great amount of within- and between-language variation typical of these constructions could be analyzed as resulting from different settings of a small number of quantitative parameters (size of shared areas; slot number of landing site targeted by the complement clause, by head verb, and by other major constituents). Due to space limitations we could not go into much detail. Elsewhere we have provided a more fine-grained discussion of our approach and its psycholinguistic motivation. Future study is needed to find out whether the PG approach generalizes to other languages.

Thank you! Sources of the examples: n Haegeman, 1994 n Kathol, 2000 n Rambow, Thank you! Sources of the examples: n Haegeman, 1994 n Kathol, 2000 n Rambow, 1994 n Sag & Wasow, 1999 For more PG details see http: //www. uni-koblenz. de/~harbusch/pg. html

Nominal Segments. . . NP NP NP HD DET Q MOD CMP n|pro DP Nominal Segments. . . NP NP NP HD DET Q MOD CMP n|pro DP CNP . . . form nominal lexical frames HD DET n DP pirate ADJP|PP|S NP Q CNP MOD* ADJP|PP|S

Example S SUBJ HD CMP NP v know S HD SUBJ HD DOBJ pro Example S SUBJ HD CMP NP v know S HD SUBJ HD DOBJ pro NP v NP hates we Dana Kim Hierarchical structure Simplified lexical frames underlying the sentences We know Dana hates Kim and Kim we know Dana hates.

Example (cont. ) S SUBJ F 1 F 2 F 3 NP CMP HD Example (cont. ) S SUBJ F 1 F 2 F 3 NP CMP HD M 1 v M 2 M 3 M 4 E 1 E 2 S know pro F 1 F 2 F 3 NP DOBJ HD SUBJ HD M 1 v M 2 M 3 NP M 4 E 1 hates we Dana Kim Topology slot assignment The focused Direct OBJect Kim may go to M 3, producing: We know Dana hates Kim E 2

Example (cont. ) S SUBJ F 1 F 2 F 3 NP HD pro Example (cont. ) S SUBJ F 1 F 2 F 3 NP HD pro CMP HD M 1 M 2 v M 3 know DOBJ F 1 NP M 4 E 1 E 2 HD SUBJ F 2 F 3 NP S M 1 v M 2 M 3 M 4 E 1 hates we Kim Dana Topology slot assignment The Direct OBJect Kim may also go to F 1 if the constituent is focused E 2

Example (cont. ) S DOBJ F 1 NP F 2 SUBJ F 3 NP Example (cont. ) S DOBJ F 1 NP F 2 SUBJ F 3 NP CMP HD M 1 v M 2 M 3 M 4 E 1 E 2 S know Kim pro HD SUBJ HD F 1 F 2 F 3 NP M 1 v hates we Dana Sharing produces: Kim we know Dana hates M 2 M 3 M 4 E 1 E 2

Example (cont. ) S SUBJ NP [tpl 2 ] HD pro HD ctype Main. Example (cont. ) S SUBJ NP [tpl 2 ] HD pro HD ctype Main. Cl tpl 1 F 1, F 3 o 2 , M 1 o 3 , B 2 o 4 CMP v [lemma 3 ] S know SUBJ tpl 4 1 F 1, F 3 o 5 , M 1 o 6 , M 3 o 7 HD NP [tpl 5 ] we 1 F 1 o 7 , F 3 o 5 , M 1 o 6 DOBJ v NP foc + tpl 7 hates Dana [lemma 6 ] Kim Topology slot assignment in terms of feature structures Both placement options of the focused direct object are specified in the disjunctive alternatives of the TPL feature of the complement S node (gray rectangle).

Scrambling in German a. . dass niemand verspricht zu versuchen das Fahrrad zu reparieren Scrambling in German a. . dass niemand verspricht zu versuchen das Fahrrad zu reparieren … that nobody promises to try the bike to repair ‘… that nobody promises to try to repair the bike’ F 1 M 2 dass niemand M 3 d. Fahrr. M 4 M 5 M 6 E 1 E 2 verspr. zu vers. zu rep.

Scrambling in German (cont. ) b. . dass niemand das Fahrrad verspricht zu versuchen Scrambling in German (cont. ) b. . dass niemand das Fahrrad verspricht zu versuchen zu reparieren F 1 M 2 dass niemand M 3 d. Fahrr. M 4 M 5 M 6 E 1 E 2 verspr. zu vers. zu rep.

Scrambling in German (cont. ) c. ? . . . dass das Fahrrad niemand Scrambling in German (cont. ) c. ? . . . dass das Fahrrad niemand verspricht zu versuchen zu reparieren F 1 M 2 dass niem. d. Fahrr. M 3 M 4 M 5 M 6 E 1 E 2 verspr. zu vers. zu rep.

Right-peripheral sharing Versprochen wird er ihr nicht haben den Wagen zu waschen promised will Right-peripheral sharing Versprochen wird er ihr nicht haben den Wagen zu waschen promised will he her not have the car to wash ‘He will not have promised her to wash the car. ’ F 1 M 1 wird M 2 er M 3 M 4 M 5 M 6 E 1 E 2 haben ihr nicht verspr. d. Wag. zu wa.