<?xml version="1.0" standalone="yes"?>
<Paper uid="C94-2162">
  <Title>Towards a Proper Linguistic and Computational Treatment of Scrambling: An Analysis of Japanese</Title>
  <Section position="2" start_page="0" end_page="7002" type="intro">
    <SectionTitle>
1 Introduction
</SectionTitle>
    <Paragraph position="0"> l)uring the past several years, the phenomenon known as &amp;quot;sermnbling&amp;quot; has become a topic of some interest; it is of particular importance in languages like Get'man, Japanese, Korean and tlindi among others, its opposed to fixed-word-order languages like English.</Paragraph>
    <Paragraph position="1"> Scrambling can pose both sever(', linguistic and cornpurational ditficulties for naturM language parsers. This paper describes how these problems are dealt with in a Principles-and-I)aran3eters-based parser. Japanese,  at first glance, seems to permit fMrly-free permutation of objects: (I) Short distance (Vl'-internal) scrambling Ca) aohn-ga Mary-n! kono hon-o ageta (koto) t John gave this book to Mary (b) ,Iohn-ga kono hon-o Mary-n! ageta (koto) (2) Short (or medium)distance scrambling to IP (at) Mary-ga John-n! sono hon-o watasita (koto) Mary handed that book to John (b) SOIl() hon-o John-n! Mary-ga watasita (koto) (e) .Iohn-ui sono hon-o Mary-ga watasita (koto) (3) Long distance scrambling Ca) 3ohn-ga Mary-ga sono hon o katta to omotte iru (koto) John thinks that Mary bought that book (13) sono hon-o ,lohn-ga Mary-ga katta to olnotte iru (koto) *The author is deeply grateful to I{obert C. Berwlck for his technical advice and comments.</Paragraph>
    <Paragraph position="2"> (c) Mary-ga John-ga Bill-n! sono hon-o watasita~ to omotte iru (koto) Mary thinks John handed that book to Bill (d) Bill-n! sono hon-o Mary-ga,lohn-ga wata.sita to omotte iru (koto) (Exan3ple (l) is take.n from (Tada, 1993), and (2) and (3) from (Saito, 1985).)  To handle examples like these, computational linguists have sometimes adopted the straightforward strategy of adding permutation machinery on top of an existing formMism: for example, Becket el; M.(1990) augment the '\[Y=ee Adjoining Grammar (TAG) systent using either: (1) multi-component (set-based) adjunct!on (Me-TAG), or (9) relaxed linear precedence (FO-TAG), I~o handle so-called &amp;quot;long distance&amp;quot; scrambling in German (that is, scrambling over clausal boundaries). 2 This augmentation aims to directly repair the lack off pernmtation in ordinary TAGs by adding a mechanism that can (over)generate many different scramblings, llowever, as so often happens, when one turns to a richer sel; of exmnples in other languages, or the interaction of scrambling with other phenomena such as anaphor binding and weak crossover, things are not as simple as they appear and the straightforward solution breaks clown.</Paragraph>
    <Paragraph position="3"> An altogether different appro~ch is t~ken in this pa per. The goM is to produce an a nMysis of scrambling that works for different languages and a wider variety of examples wilhou! introducing new machinery. The essential idea is to rely on the same (universal) constraints and parsing algorithms Mready in place for non-scramhling languages, e.g. English. \[n other words, we adopt the null hypothesis. So, we begin with a comImtationally-rnodelh:d linguistic framework that is already capable of handling scrambling as the dedm-tive result of interactions of basic principles, such as general movement (Move-c 0 with Binding theory. The point is that scrambling (like the so-called i asmv ; and &amp;quot;dative&amp;quot; constructions) obeys the same i:estrictions ah'eady showu to be operative for other syntactic phenomena, and so shoukl follow from in1 (Salt, o, 1992) remarks that ko to %he fact. that' is often added to avoid the unuagurahless resulting fl'om not having a topic in the main'ix clause.</Paragraph>
    <Paragraph position="4"> 2It was brought t,o lny attention by Doug Jones (personM coinmunlcation), l, hat German is normally considered to have only short, distance scrambling for technical reasons. We will not explore this here, but note that none of die examples lu'e sented in (l-lecker et ah, 1990) inwJve &amp;quot;scramblillg&amp;quot; out of tensed clauses.</Paragraph>
    <Paragraph position="5">  depcndent;ly justified pl:inciples; this is why it should be easy go add. Ilenee we gain, ahnosl; &amp;quot;for fi'ee&amp;quot;, an ~tccoun~, of its (r~*ther subtle) interactions with previously described phenomena liot handled ill the (Becket ct, al., 1990) a~ceoultl\[,. As we will see, the system directly hmidles a surprisingly l;~rge munl)er of examples from l, he recenl, literature.</Paragraph>
    <Paragraph position="6"> l \[owever, as (;flit be expect, ed our experinmnl;s do re.wml some sul3)rises. The thoroughness of the parser in exploring all possibilities leads it to dcriw~' alterni&gt; t,ive ana.lyses l;hal; are identical saw~ for the presence of stxing wtcuous sofa.tabling. We note here that lnlder l'~tore, reeenl, conceptions on lnoveinent e.g. ((Thomsky, 1990), such options are ncver taken. Ilere, we will sin&gt; ply eliminate l, he iiliwaili;ed alternatives wil;holll, colill)ronlising Cml)irieM cover;tge by a.ssuining l, lu~i, sel'~Ulll)ling IllllSl; l)e noll-VaCllOllS ill t,h(, sense l;hal, ew~ry ill-SLalIC(; lii/lS(; be visible. We&amp;quot; will l, ranslal;e i, his lionva.cuit;y ('onsi;r~l.ill\[0 inl;o the Lll.(k)-parsing rr;llnework, and e.xhibit t,wo dill'erenl; iinlAetilental,ions, and end with a eomparisoil of their computational e\[ficiency. But first,, we consider a lmich wider w~riety ofscraulbling exalltplcs, including both posii, lw~ and ne.gatiw; data (since scrambling in Ja.paneso is nol, coinplel;e\[y \[reel, I,o show thai; simply adding permul;al;ion machinery t;o a base grammar c;mnot be desc.riptively adequate.</Paragraph>
  </Section>
class="xml-element"></Paper>