<?xml version="1.0" standalone="yes"?>
<Paper uid="C88-2090">
  <Title>treatment of Scope and Negatio~</Title>
  <Section position="2" start_page="0" end_page="445" type="abstr">
    <SectionTitle>
\]\[.2 SVO versus SOV
</SectionTitle>
    <Paragraph position="0"> Rosetta translates between two types of languages, namely the SOV-type (Dutch) and the SVOotype (Spanish and English). This SOV- versm~ SVOo character has important consequences for the expresdeg sion of scope. I claim that in both types of languages the position of NEG is as close to the left-hand side of the verb as possible: it only precedes possible Q~ elements that are wlthin the scope of NEG/Van Muno ster 1985/.</Paragraph>
    <Paragraph position="1"> Consider the following scheme:  In an SOV-language the verb (in basic position) is in sentence-final position, while in an SVOdangaage the verb is in second position. Consequently, in a~a SVO.. language only two elements (one in subject po~ition and one in 'zhift-position~, i.e. the position to the left of the subject) s can precede NEG; the objects are to the right of NEG in basic positiondeg ~L an SOV-language like Dutch, however, the objects axe to the left of NEG in basic position. In principle there is no restriction to the number of elements that can appear to the left of NEG.</Paragraph>
    <Paragraph position="2"> In genera\[ it can be said that, especially if the sentence  contains a NEG, an SOV-language is more 'suited' to express scope through word order than is an SVOlanguage. null This basic difference between Dutch and Spanish/English can cause problems when translating from one type of language into the other. Consider e.g. (2), where (2)a cannot be translated into (2)b since the relative order of NEG and the Q-NP is not the same:  (2) a De kinderen aten reel snoepjes niet op.</Paragraph>
    <Paragraph position="3"> 'The-children-at e-many-sweeten.not ' b The children didn*t eat many sweets.</Paragraph>
    <Paragraph position="4"> ~u the :English sentence the object has to be topicaUzed in urde~ *o get the correct scope relations: (2) c lvfany sweets the children didn't eat.</Paragraph>
    <Paragraph position="5"> )L2i Subdivision of Quantifiers l: argue that the following subdivision of NPa can be made: IA) Qo)~Ps oenuttive to scope, i.e. the surface order of Q-NPs mid NEG is crucial for the interpretation. (Dutch: iemand ('everybody'), ten N ('a N'), reel N ('many N'), alle N ('all N'), twee N ('two N'); English: many Ill; meet; Spanish: muehos ('many'), dos N ('two ~'), etc.).</Paragraph>
    <Paragraph position="6"> E.g. (3)a does not mean the same as (3)b: (3) a Niet reel mensen houden van vis.</Paragraph>
    <Paragraph position="7">  face order of Q-NPs and NEG is not crucial tot the interpre~,ation; these NPs always have wide scope, irrespective of their position. (e.g. sommige N ('saline'), most N, alguien ('someone'), something, etc.) Since these NPs do contain a quantifier, however, there is a strong preference for a surface order which reflects the scope. Therefore, (4)b is a much more natural word order than (4)a, although both sentences have in fact the same meaning. (NB. For some speakers (4)a is even out).</Paragraph>
    <Paragraph position="8">  2) deflxdte iqPs (e.g. Jan ('John'), her boek ('the book*), the maay linguias, etc.). Surface order is irrelevant for scope-interpretation. If in (4)a and (4)b 2Another term would be *topicaliv.ation-posltion'. However, thin term can cause confusion since in Rosetta a dis~inction is made between 'scope-shift' (treated in this paper; the sentence still ha~ a neutral intonation), and 'topicalization ~ (th0~ sentence has a non-neutral intonation; not the surface order but the original position of the topiealized Q-elemettt reflects the scope.} Both types of shift go to aM#-po~'tfo~ Scopeoshift is a transformation, Topicalization rule. (For these terms ave section 2.1).</Paragraph>
    <Paragraph position="9"> ,ommige is rephced by the de.re d~, (~) ~nd (b) not only have the same meaning but there is no difference in naturalness either. Definite NPs have the feat.~e \[-q\].</Paragraph>
    <Paragraph position="10"> 1A and 1B together are the NPs traditionally called quantifiers. I will indicate tile two types with resp. the features \[+S\] and \[-S\].</Paragraph>
    <Paragraph position="11"> Note that the subdivision of Q-NPs is language spedeg tide, e.g. iemand in Dutch is scope-sensitive, while the Spanish and English equivalents (resp. alguien axial someone) are not.</Paragraph>
    <Paragraph position="12"> Spanish and English seem to have much more \[-S\] ele~ ments than Dutch does, which, as I claim, relates to the fact that they are less suited to express scope through word order (see section 1.2).</Paragraph>
    <Section position="1" start_page="442" end_page="442" type="sub_section">
      <SectionTitle>
1.4 Two approaches to scope
</SectionTitle>
      <Paragraph position="0"> In TG-oriented theories a distinction is often made be-.</Paragraph>
      <Paragraph position="1"> tween different types of negation: S~negation and V}?~ negation (e.g./Jackendoff 1972/, /Las~ik 19'n/, a.o. L with the speciM addition of TVP- and Vonegation for Dutch (e.g./Hoekstra 1985/) s. To illustrate briefly what is meant by the different types of' negation~ let me give an example of each:  It is assumed that the constituents to the right of 1NEG, including the verb, are within the scope of NEG. In (a) NEG follows the subject, but since Jan is definite, Snegation is equivalent to VP-negation: as a general rule the position of NEG is after a definite (unless the sentence is eontrastive). Both (a) and (b), however, cart be paraphrased by 'it is not the case that ...' which is a proof of S-negatlon /Jackendoff 1972/. In (c) NEG has scope over the VP containing an intransitive verb, in (d) over the VP containing a transitive verb plus direct object and in (e) merely over the transitive verb. In logical terms, however, these sentences merely diIfer in the relative scope order of NEG and Qoelement~t (i.e. of scope operators). Ill a semantic, Montagueo like theory a verb (unless it is a modal) is not a scope SFor a treatment of ~cope-ambiguity in TGoframework see/May 1977/.</Paragraph>
      <Paragraph position="2"> Sin the sample sentences the perfect ~ense i~ u~ed since this renders a word order with the main verb in basic, i.e. sentence final, position.</Paragraph>
      <Paragraph position="3">  p.~ et:-t~,hm (,f ~;he a~.'~ .i;e*~(,. :\],'i~&lt;~ k~,.ci; i;h..t i{}utch~ b~_t x~.()~ eat (oo~mq~.lc:,.*&lt;~i (,f the Ja.cL tive;t IN~);(~ ~x~a~ p4:pea'c ht more Fm,'fa.ce o::~.e_r po~d,~;h,:~x~; :m/)~d;, h (belog ~ g()Vla:o.g-~ ~, :e ).</Paragraph>
      <Paragraph position="4"> e~y.~.,tv.ctic d; ,ely d;.~ t_,'~ ,e~ (~},;e ~eci.io~,. 2l). \]~* ith,seC/i;a (~,ompoMt;.icm;d G.c~:nomar,~ of the M:o_,,taguc J;ype :m'~ u.sed, This me; ~a gh;~,'L scltte.(mea axe ht~ihJ rip ~';;,a,.vfhxg tro:~l }-a,'fi; e:.,)n:e;-mi,~ by applying ,~y~H;actic r; d:~; wh{ ':L..~x%~lc:dbe..1 o:v bJ.gger (.,* \])~e ..... ~ ~.io'w ~* &lt;a~.,~ be CO* i ;~I( ;t~, t~ Jt'O~f* ,qiO K!,\]\]ev o:~les. '-J~Je gr &amp;quot;,o:u t~'~'* J.~av~: h&gt; obey Lb.e (:o~eq)o:dtLo:**MJty f'j'i.ac(fde: eve\]:y :rtth; an,.! e'vcx 2 .,a-.~ ~,&amp;quot; e~.pve~4td(m ha.*; a ',~w:\]\]-deihted me,ruing. ':Fbi~ de&gt;i,mi, io.,,, p).oeet~,'~ ,':a,~ be ::lhow,~ ht a, ho-ealled 8.y:~ta:acg~c dcPS;!v~?.i, aoa, t;~-c.co Go.uald.c,, e j,;.. ~..~tC/; btrmtgly siml)ii~h~d ~),**{;a:,.C/:t~.(: ,leriva_LJo,~. t,ee of (~i)a which co!!*,aim; L'wo Q-. iq P;o 00{ ~i; , (G) (,C/dereea !,cost re,, ~e ~ / I?.!:', ii i~ ai;, ~:J / ',.</Paragraph>
      <Paragraph position="5"> J?,gvai,;;'~;, X:; J.e(~(.'z'C/! C/~,.</Paragraph>
      <Paragraph position="6"> / ~,, l%a'i; a'c~ F! i ,~:~ t; b O ('.' !~ -'.; ~).</Paragraph>
      <Paragraph position="7"> ~tc2;eyt :~J. &amp;quot;g2 '.{}h~: *, (,~aex~ of ,mt*`~Jte~io:a of ~ Q.NP indicates i~;~; gmot)e-domahL lit (6) icdereC/;~is mtb,~tituted latin: thm~ ~ it he.~ ~, wider ~copeo ht other v:ord,% io:c ~,,t ~: most p\].r.u~,fible readi.~g of a 8e~_lteliee we W&amp;llt ;..b~: Q~elements to be m~butito.ted f_ro:,a x'ight to left in ~eate',.'aC/i(m (r}l;ht-h'PS1; gene.ra~iox O. ,qince the Sub~)titw  i;ioSl rll!eu apply freely in prindple, i{ itt easeiliial that Lhe conditions (m the applicability of Substi~aiion- aiid N egatio~x rules force tlhiu order, ba,~ie;~lly in ~lle foflow- null iug way: (a) An argume.nt-aubutit*d;io(t rule (.f~aubst,~) o:aly applies if there are .ao free variables (from now on VAY{~), to {;he righ~ of the variabl.e to be mfl)stituted.</Paragraph>
      <Paragraph position="8"> (b) A ~egation role (l~r~eg) only ::y)plies it' there are no free W'AI{a Lo the right oi Um poai~i(m where NEG ie.</Paragraph>
      <Paragraph position="9">  inser~;ed.</Paragraph>
      <Paragraph position="10"> \])'or (6) thh~ mea,nu that ~he o~p~lL of the nfle~ ia; au Follom: (deLaih~ omil;ted): }bm})s~b ~.2 : &gt;rTi !we:: }mekmt \]ee~t *f _....*, ,ore.:.,. t o lede.rec~r~ twee boel~:m~ Ice,at  f(~x' e~.~ch ha,h; ext)reazio** ia one language there must be a{; ieaut one co:rre'~pondi:ag e*~pressio*~ it, the othe:,: !amo ,,x~a.ge w~,h the s~m*`e -mea~rdx, g. For each. ~y:uta(;tk; }*,tie</Paragraph>
      <Paragraph position="12"> e~-,.cb, uther if ~hey .,re derived flxm:,, con'e,apm,ding ba.</Paragraph>
      <Paragraph position="13"> ~Jh: expre~J~ion~ by applies,!ion of cox:tdegespondi:0-g rtde,'~o grope ea~'*, be :alaJ~,aine4 i~t trunalatiou if ht SI, aad TG the S~butit*ttio~&gt; and NegaLhm ~-~fles t.re applied ix.t the ~*me. orderdeg (,%nsider ~tow the F, ng\]iuh derlvatiort teee oi&amp;quot; (7)~ eoxre,,;po~tdi~g {o tile Dutch. o~m:</Paragraph>
      <Paragraph position="15"> _~-absi;,x:~: xl reada two books }L:mbsGxl: Everybody :reads tWO books \]n g.hia example there ia no proble:m making an isomo~'o phlc de~'iva.,i;J.o~t for English (m: ,(!panic,h), becanue ht ~he English lmn~;lation the order of Q~NTPs is the sa~ne as h't D a~(:ho .fit }b~e.~a a disti~u;~io~. ~a made between r~des~ wtfich axe :mca~fi.gfal and reJ.ewu~ for Sranslation, aud ~ranso. formations, which are lang~tage-speeific~ meaningle~'m ~:ad. ~mt releva~ for ~ra).lslation. Since in the derivation bee 9~dy ~he sules are represented~ the correspmtdi~g U'ee.~ h~cC/~: exa.e~ly ~,he scum geomet):% i{iC ~he ~;e:Y~e~.ce corttMnu ~z ~eg~tion, thi~ ~mgation ia ~n~ted ~d. fhe prqiec~hm pM:h ~ mt aente,tce level~ ioeo no~ co~C/ikw~i-i~ttemal, whereever poaslbleo 'r e ogo h~ (8) iJ~e l,(mifio_~, og NEG il~ ay:atactically inside {he Y'O? 'bai; will be Im~ i*~ ~\]du position (ge~terativety) y :meaLm of a b:acmforma~iOXto (ghe de:dvaLio*~ tree h~:  atJ'or Udu notion see/.Appeto eC/ at/et aL 7To give au example era ~eugoace where ~he NEG i~a conag~'ae,~t (m~,mely ADV'deg) h~C/e~.,ta\], i~, (i) not ha~ oMy and ~,_o~ aaaSie, aa~ follows: (i} Not vC/i.L~.o~x{; &lt;C/ re~uoiC/~ ~ ~aniuhed ~o'me, one. (8) a Niet iedere man loopt.</Paragraph>
      <Paragraph position="16">  (For more theoretical details about the Rosetta framework se,~/Appelo 1987 et al./).</Paragraph>
    </Section>
    <Section position="2" start_page="442" end_page="445" type="sub_section">
      <SectionTitle>
2.2 'IYanslatlng Scope
</SectionTitle>
      <Paragraph position="0"> Now, there may be various reasons why the right-left substitution order causes problems, both within one language and in translating from one language to another, in the subsections 1 and 2 the problems will be sketched, in 3 a general strategy for a solution in Rosetta will be given.</Paragraph>
      <Paragraph position="1">  Problems within one language arise if the arguments have be~n switched with respect to the order of the verbpatteru (i.e. the argument structure of the verb), in order to express the correct scope relations in the sentence. Consider e.g. (9): (9) Veel boeken leest iedereen.</Paragraph>
      <Paragraph position="2"> 'Mmly-bo oks-reads-everyb ody' Recall that in analysis the Q-arguments are substituted from left to right (cf. section 2.2), i.e. reel boeken (= x2) before iedereen (= xl). Now, the output of the generative rules is as follows: Rst~trt: xl x2 lezen Rsubst,xl: (blocked) Rsubst,:rl has to apply first but is blocked since there is a free VAR (x2) to the right.</Paragraph>
      <Paragraph position="3"> This type of switch also occurs in translating from one languagv into the other, namely if the verb in the TL has a different order of arguments than the verb in the SL. Consider e.g. the following verbpatterns: Sp~aish: xl dar x2 x3 Dutch: xl x3 x2 geven Again a~suming that surface-order reflects scope order,  (10)a aud (10)b are not a correct translation of each other: (10) a Jan geeft iedereen een boek.</Paragraph>
      <Paragraph position="4"> ' John-gives-everybody-a( ='some')-book' b Juan da un libro a todo el mundo.</Paragraph>
      <Paragraph position="5"> ' John-glves-a('cer t aln')-book-to-everybody'  The order of Q-NPs in the Spanish sentence has to be awitr~_mmchaw~ SNEG is introduced syncategorematically, although it could have been a basic expression as well.  If a sentence containing a NEG-element has to be translated from an SOV-language (like Dutch) into an SVO-language (like English/Spanish) problems may arise. Recall that the position of NEG is closely related to the position of the verb (cf. scheme in section 2). In principle no problems arise if NEG does not follow  a Q-object in Dutch. (ll)a and (12)a can simply be translated into (ll)b and (f2)b respectively: (11) a Niet iedereen komt.</Paragraph>
      <Paragraph position="6"> b Not everybody comes.</Paragraph>
      <Paragraph position="7"> (12) a Veel mensen krijgen geen kado.</Paragraph>
      <Paragraph position="8"> b Many people don't get a present.</Paragraph>
      <Paragraph position="9">  However, as I explained in section 1.2, in Dutch (an SOV-language), NEG may occur to the right of a nontopicalized Q-object, as in (13): (13) Wij stelden veel vragen niet.</Paragraph>
      <Paragraph position="10"> 'We-asked-many-questions-not' The corresponding syntactic derivation tree is as follows (since the Dutch and English trees are isomorphic, I only give the English or target one):  Since x2 is to the right of the verb (and thus of the NEG-position), Rneg is blocked. Note that this blocking is justified: without blocking the result of applying the English rules would be (14), which is not a correct translation of (13): (14) We didn't ask many questions.</Paragraph>
      <Paragraph position="11"> In other words, the wrong output is blocked but how can a correct translation be obtained?  2.2.3 General strategy for a solution In \]I{osetta two types of VAR~ are distinguished, namely \[+Q\] and f-Q\]. Later on a Substitution rule can only substitute a \[+Q\] NP for a \[+QI VAR and a f--Q\] NP for a \[-QI VAR'9 The following general strategy is followed: Ira the Mffft-transformations, where VARs are shifted, \[+Q\] VARs are shifted to shift-position under certain condltions, xdeg Since there is only one shift-position, only one VAR can be shifted at a time. These transformations precede the substitution-rules. The shift-transformations can be subdivided into two Ca, ses: 1. A VAR is shifted over a \[+Q\] VAR.</Paragraph>
      <Paragraph position="12"> For (9), (in which both arguments are \[q-q\]), this means that the shift-transformations render two surface orders of VARa: (path i) xl x2 lezen (path ii) shift/x2 xl lezen Later on, in the Substitution rules, only (ii) offers the correct input for a succesful application of Substitution rules, since VAR1 has to be substituted first (right-left generation). This type of shift is only meant to get the correct scope relations in a sentence, both when translating Dutch-Dutch and Dutch-English/Spanish (see also note 2).</Paragraph>
      <Paragraph position="13"> 2. A VAR. is shifted over a f-Q\] VAR, under one of the following conditions: a. There are two \[+Q\] VARs in the VP. The left one can shift over the f-Q\] NP (subject).</Paragraph>
      <Paragraph position="14"> b. There is one \[+Q\] VAR in the VP; a negationrule has to follow.</Paragraph>
      <Paragraph position="15"> Although the conditions for both Dutch and Spanish/English are the same, the motivation for the shift over a f-Q\] NP in both types of languages (i.e. SOV vs. SVO) is different: For SVO-languages this shift is necessary in order to put a \[+Q\] argument in a position to the left of NEG, i.e. to get the correct scope relations.</Paragraph>
      <Paragraph position="16"> Consider again the output of the English rules for (13)  Rsu,x2: (ii) many (IS xl not V Rsu,xl: (ii) many qs we not -V (Final result: - Mazly questions we did not ask) o This is the theoretical approach. In order to avoid many wrong paths in the derivation process, the implementation iB slightly different: it is possible to extract information about the substituent from the derivation tree and assign the correct Q-value to the VAR, before the generative rules apply.</Paragraph>
      <Paragraph position="17">  For Dutch, being an SOVqanguage, this type of shift is not necessary for scope, since all Q-NPs can precede NEG without shift (see section 1.2). However, this type of shift should be done anyway in order to  generate both (15)a and (15)b as paraphrases of each other: (15) a Jan geeft reel kinderen een snoepje.</Paragraph>
      <Paragraph position="18"> 'Jolm-gives-many-children-a-sweet' b Veel kiuderen geeft Jan een snoepje.</Paragraph>
      <Paragraph position="19"> 'Many-chilclren-gives- John-a-swe et ' (16)a and (16)b are also paraphrases of each other, but (17)a and (l~)b are not, considering condition 2b TM (16) a Jan heeft veel boeken niet gelezen.</Paragraph>
      <Paragraph position="20">  As I explained earlier (sect.ion i.3), in the SOV-language Dutch it is easier to express scope through word order than in English and Spanish, especially if the sentence contains a negation. In this section I will explain how the conditions (a) and (b), stated in seco tion 2.1 can be loosened in order to be able to translate a Dutch sentence with more than two VARs to the left of NEG into Spanlsh/Euglish.</Paragraph>
      <Paragraph position="21"> In general it can be stated that Rneg and Rsubst can apply freely even if there is a free VA.R. to the right, if this VAR is \[-S\]. Now there are two possibilities: - The VAI~ is definite. The rules apply without restrictions, x2 - The VAR is a \[-S I Q-VAR. In this case the surface order which rejects scope order is pre/erred (of. (4)). Now, this preference will be handled in Rosetta by means of a so-called bonus system. Every output of a rule has a bonus 0. Application of a rule can change this value. If there is more than one output, the bonus merely determines the order in which the output sentences appear.</Paragraph>
      <Paragraph position="22"> XXThe reason behind these facts is that only an NP that is not the focus, can topicalize without changing the meaning (or the theme/rheme relations~ /Suffer 1982/) of the sentence. However, since a theory about focus is not available yet in Rosetta, this is a way of either avoiding or making certain paraphrases of a sentence. In fact, (17)b is a correct paraphrase of (17}a in case vee/bo~ke~ is not focus, but not in all cases. In short, under the conditions given only a paraphrase is given if the topicalized argument has to be a non-focus element, namely in case the negation is the focus ((16)b as paraphrase of (16)a) and in case another argument as the one topicalized is focus ((15)b as paraphrase of (l~)a).</Paragraph>
      <Paragraph position="23"> x2R-L gsnsration in case of deflnitea is merely done for efficiency, in order to avoid unwanted ambiguities. Let me illustrate this process with an example. Consider (181 and its Spanish derivation (V = 'entender'):  Application of Rnegwith a free \[-S l VAR to the right lowers the bonus with one. Consequently~ the order of output ~cntences is: (I) A alguien no entiendo. (output o/path i 0 (2) No entiendo a alguien, zs (output of path 0 Furthermore, if the Dutch sentence has more than two \[+S\] VARs to the left of NEG, I tentatively propose to deviate from the conditions in the following way: - Application of Rnegwith a free \[+S\] VAR to the right lowers the bonus with 2.</Paragraph>
      <Paragraph position="24"> - Application of Rsubst.~ with a free \[+S\] VAR to the right lowers the bonus with 3.</Paragraph>
      <Paragraph position="25"> In other words, a deviation in the order of NEG\[+S\]/\[+S\]-NEG is preferred to a deviation in the order of \[+S\]-elements mutually.</Paragraph>
      <Paragraph position="26"> Now con.sider the Spanish derivation of (191 (isomorphic to the Dutch one): (191 Twee kinderen aten veel snoepjes niet op.</Paragraph>
      <Paragraph position="27">  (ii) m.d. no xl no V -3 Rsu,xI: (i) d.n. no V m.d. 0 (ii) m.d. d.n. no V -3 lSThis ~entence is marginal for many Spanish speakers. Compare Dutch, cf.(4), with surface order NEG + I-S\] NP. For a fairly extended description of Spanish data w.r.t. negation see/Bosque 1980/.</Paragraph>
      <Paragraph position="28"> The output sentences are: (i) Dos .~os no han co~do muchos d~ces. (path 0 (2) Muchos dulces dos amos no ha~ comido.&amp;quot;(path .) Note that in neither of the output sentences the scope order is the same as in Dutch. The limit of scope~ translation has been reached.</Paragraph>
    </Section>
  </Section>
class="xml-element"></Paper>