<?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="3" start_page="7002" end_page="7002" type="metho">
    <SectionTitle>
2 Interactions with Scrambling
</SectionTitle>
    <Paragraph position="0"> Sentenees (1) (3) showed l, ha.l, ,la.t)~mesc exhibits nonclmise-bonnded, or long disl;ance, scr;unbling as well as clause-I)ounded scrambling. Mull;iple scrambling is also possi/de; see (2b), (2el and (ad). In each case, the hi- ~uid o-ma.rked objects haw~ both been scrainbled.</Paragraph>
    <Paragraph position="1"> Note. thai. (3d), t, he long distance ease, is classified by S~ito as &amp;quot;uullal, ural bul, perfectly granmiatical&amp;quot;:  (3) (d) Billj-ni sono hon&lt;o Mm'y-ga. \[ ..... Iohn-ga t~ Zj  wal;asih tel oniolil, e il:u (kol,o) By &amp;'awing on (S~61,o&gt; :i98a),(1992) aud (Tada, 1993), and by cxl;ensiou, on the exl, ensiw~ lit;er;d, ure eil;ed I, here, tiffs secl;ion will sunitnarize Idle data showing thai; Japanese scrainbling is ilot only pl:odnctive, but, fro' from simple, exhibil;ing lnany sublde a.nd coniplex interactions.</Paragraph>
  </Section>
  <Section position="4" start_page="7002" end_page="7002" type="metho">
    <SectionTitle>
2.;I Basic Assumptions
</SectionTitle>
    <Paragraph position="0"> II; is llol; surprising l;hal, tdiere are differl!nces between t, he n-lode\] deseribed he, re a.l/d f, he l, lleol:y aSSlll\[iC(I by Sail;o (1985). ()rigiua&gt;ily, 1,he sysl;em was desiglied to parse all and only l;he English sentellces froln &amp;quot;A COllrse in (71~ Syntax&amp;quot; (I,asnik &amp; Uriagereka, 1988). 3 hi snl)seqilelll, work, see for example (l~erwick &amp; l!'ong, 1992), t;hc sysl;ein has I)een extended 1;o handh', basic exam,pies i,, ,lapa.nese eft'ore (Las,,ik &amp;. Sail,o, 1984)) 31,'or a detailed description of the theory and implenlent, alion, scc (l,'ong, 1991 ).</Paragraph>
    <Paragraph position="1"> and Dutch. The basic modules in t;he eurrcnl, system are as follows: * blove-a: with substitution and adjunct;ion being l.he two basic operations and Subjacency. Also, I.lmt movelnenl, lea.yes l, ra.ces.</Paragraph>
    <Paragraph position="2">  * Binding theory, namely, Free lndexation along wil,h Conditions A, 13 and C. I'lus a simple PRO Control module.</Paragraph>
    <Paragraph position="3"> ( * (,as l;heory: strucDur;d ~unl iuherelll; (,'ase, the Case filter and conditions on traces.</Paragraph>
    <Paragraph position="4"> * Theta theory: including t.hc Theta Criterion.</Paragraph>
    <Paragraph position="5"> * Quantifier raishlg (Ql{) and Wh-mow'mcnt at l,ogicM Form (IA,').</Paragraph>
    <Paragraph position="6"> * The. l,hnpl,y CaLegory I'rinciple (ECP) operating at LF and S-strncture.</Paragraph>
    <Paragraph position="7"> * l,',lelnents of 1,'ull \[nt, erpret, ai;ion at I,F including li null censing el)crater/variable constructions, rea nalysis o\['A-boul~d pro-tbrlnS, quanl,ilier scoping, Wh-Comp condition from (Lasnik &amp;. Saito, 1984), ;rod the like.</Paragraph>
    <Paragraph position="8"> * I,'unction~d l)el.erminal,iotl for empl;y NPs. We make use of the following classes: wu:iables, anN~hors , pl:o and PIe(), la'aces and empty op er.2t ~,OlyS. 4 In all, there are about; thirty principles. We assume basic plmtse smicture is I)inary branching ~md gener-aged in accordance with X2theory and t;he Projection principle. Furthermore, we current, ly assume only I;wo \[\mctionM categories, 1 and C, no VP-internal subjecl;s, a.ml finally that Japanese has SPEC(CP) only for I,F \[lioveillenl, a.nd eiD_l)ty Opel'at,ors al; S-strnciaire (to handle relai;iw,' clauses). Figure I shows a. i;ypical exalnple of J~q~tllese phrase stA'ucldire ~ts produced by the parser.</Paragraph>
    <Paragraph position="9"> For scranil)lhig, we will add two assunll)iiions:  1. 11; is inovemeui, by adjunction in syntax; adjoining 1,o either VI' (short-disl, mice) or lP (medium or long), and 2. The landing site is (lx',ni;al,ively) in iul Aq)osit, ion.  l&gt;ai't o\[' the evidence for assumpi, ion el) will oOlrle, of COllr,Se~ fiX)Ill l, he da.i,~ below; in other words, Scl'allibling obeys the same kinds of constraints as for regula.r lnovemenl,. As for the reasons for VP and IP, arguments are given in (Sa.ito&gt; 1.98~5). assumpi;iot, (2) which will be revised lal,er differs \['rollI (,q,l.il;o, 1985), where it; is assunied tlit~t scramMing is A-inovelri0nt. l)espii.e i, his difl'erenee, it is surprising to see how llla.ny of Sail, o's ex~unples actually go l;hrough. We noi, e hero thai; the A/A-distinction is a cruciM one since so ma.ny principles, e.g. Binding conditions, A-bound pro-form ,i Obviously, space llmit.s us to a brief listing of the principles. llowew~r, nol, e that this by no means a fixed nor exhaustive llst.  reanMysis and the ECP, and therefore analyses, turn on it. Much has also been written on this issue as it relates to scrambling in other languages, see (Mahajan, 1990) on l\]indi and (Webelhuth, 1989) on Germanic languages.</Paragraph>
    <Section position="1" start_page="7002" end_page="7002" type="sub_section">
      <SectionTitle>
2.2 Scrambling and Binding
</SectionTitle>
      <Paragraph position="0"> Our goal in this and the following sections is to reinterpret the data in terms of the implemented theory outlined above, and see how far we get. Wc will point out any oddities and problems along tile way. All examples are taken From (Saito, 1985) and have been verified to work on the parser unless otherwise stated.</Paragraph>
      <Paragraph position="1">  (4) (a)* Kare&lt;ga Mary-ga 3ohn&lt;ni okutta tegami-o mada yonde inai (koto) s (b) Mau:y-ga ,Iohnl-ni okutta tegami-o karei-ga mada yonde inai (koto) rl'he letter i;llat Mary sent to John, he has not yet read it (c)*? Masaoga otagMi-no sensei-ni karerai-o syookaisita (koto) (d) Karera&lt;o Masao-ga otag~G:-no sensei-ni t i syookaisita (koto)  Themi, Masao introduced ti to each other/'s teachers 111 (!aeh case~ seral-ub\]illg the pronoun or anaphor saves the ungralnmatiea\] sentence. (4a) is strMghtforwardly ruled out by Condition C of the Binding theory since 5As is conventional, sul)scrlpt indices will be used to mark coreference possibilities. Roughly speaking, if two NPs have identical indices, then are said to denot, e the same object/person.</Paragraph>
      <Paragraph position="2"> kate binds John. (4c) and (4d) flora (Saito, 1992) are also handled by Binding theory. In (4c) olagai is unbound which violates Condition A (all anaphors have to be A-bound). In (4d) it is A-bound since we have assumed scrambling to A-positions. Ilence, these data. involving tile scrambling of anaphors and pronouns constitutes evidence that scrambled elements obey the usual principh;s.</Paragraph>
    </Section>
    <Section position="2" start_page="7002" end_page="7002" type="sub_section">
      <SectionTitle>
2.3 Scrambling and Weak Crossover
</SectionTitle>
      <Paragraph position="0"> Weak Crossover (WCO) effects are a well-known phenomenon in English. For example: (5) (a) Whoi loves his i n\]other (b)* Who/ does hisi mother love ti (5a) can be interpreted as asking tile question for  which. person a:, x loves x's mother. Crucially, (51)) cannot be interpreted as asking the question: for' which, person x, x's ?no/her loves x. In the parser, the unavailability of (Sb) is explained by an LF principle, Ileanalyze Pro-l;'orms, which reanMyzes as variables those pro-rorms (e.g. pronouns) hound by an operator in tm A-position, as suggested by the above logical analysis. \[iowever, this fails when the pro-fbrm intervenes between the operator mid its trace, as is the case in (Sh).</Paragraph>
      <Paragraph position="1">  llanako-ga ti hihausita t;(7 itta (koto) Them/, Masao said to each other/'s teachers that tlanako cril, icized ti (h)* Soitui-o hitome lnita hit() ga Mary-ga dare/o sukininaH to omotta no The person who took a ghmee at the guy/ thought that Mary would fa\]l in love with</Paragraph>
      <Paragraph position="3"> ga li sukininaru to omotta no We note the following:  ,, In (6@, John &amp;quot;crosses over&amp;quot; kar'e. Ilowever, since John scrambles to ma A-posii;ion by defiui|;ion, the pro'set correcl;ly reports tie WGO violation. In S:dto's original A-based account, this example is prolflemat, ic. s * (615) ,rod (6c) show wee em:{:ts ~.l he round even with empty pronom~s (pro). '\['he pa, rser rt,les out (6c) since done honi must raise el; I,F to the real;fix chutse, r No WCO violet.ion is reported for the scrambled counterpart (6d). 'l'his is comp~tPSibh: with the A-posil, ion hypothesis, l{,unning the parser produces the Li e structure in figure 1. * (6e) from (SaiLo, 1!)92) ix l,he Jal,ahesc cou,&gt; l, el'pa.rL (:,f the I,;nglish WCO violation (Sb). :ks (~xlsecl;e&lt;l, it, is ungratnUl~d;ica.l. On I.he A-hylsot, hesis, (Gf) would he predicted I,o he as bml as (6c).</Paragraph>
      <Paragraph position="5"> scrambling f,'om (Saito, I992)and (Ta.da, 1993)).</Paragraph>
      <Paragraph position="6"> We need I,o assume t;h~l; hmg distance scranflding ix to -A--positions to el:COUnt for this under WCO, as in ('l'ad~, 1993). We re||fin I.he A-posii.ion op Lion for sllorL dist,ance serambliug only. s '\['his is currenl,ly implemented as a stipulation. Not,c, empirical support |'or this dichot, omy e(smes from Ilindi, seo (lVhdmiaal, 1990).</Paragraph>
      <Paragraph position="7"> Sere.tabling, by its inl.erzwlive nature, also reveals shorteomings i,, I;he imph',mented |,heo,'y. We uow turn our ~d:l, ention to (h~l,~ uol; handled in the parser f'rom (S{~i~;o, 199:2): (7) (.)': ,)o.o ho,,.o m~...5-g~ m..~ko ~(, ti I, osyoka.n-kar~t karida.sila ka sirit;~gal.tciru koto The \['aet that. whic.h hool{;, Masao waut.s Io know \]la.md{o checlwd out, ti fro,l, Lhe library (15) Zib,mzisiu~ o l\[amd{o~-ga t~ hihansit~ (1{&lt;)|,(5) \[\]erselfi, Ha.nako/ criticized Our esscnl:ially &amp;quot;\['or free?' apla:oach breaks down hore. So far we have be.eu successfully relying on existiug principles l,o see us through |;he maze of scrand)ling Facts. As S~dto observes, /CCP blocks l,he IA!'-lowering SAn intl!resl, ing 1)oinl~ is |,hat the simil;w sentm~(:e: *John/ o lcare/-g:t t i syookalsil,*~ (koto) cited as &amp;tl example of a crossover vlobtt, ion is |.raced I,o other reasons in t, lxe fl',a, tt~ew{wl{ of the parser. II; reports a C.n,litiou B vicdation irreslmct, ive ol7 the A/A-status ~d' John, The tra~:e z,. time|ions as I'll() since iI; is locally A-lmttud by (kate) with an indcpemlent 0-role. Sine:! the l.race is ;tll arglnn(tnt, il. will viohtte one of the Binding C.nditl,ms.</Paragraph>
      <Paragraph position="8">  pie, Shin Wltl.&amp;ll&amp;\])l~ (I,SA, 199,t) D.l'g, utts for scrambling as .~illOV(~lllel it Ollly.</Paragraph>
      <Paragraph position="9"> of done hon-o in (7a). !) tlowever, in contrast ~,o typice.1 eases of ECP vioh~tions, Saito ('lass|lies (7a) as only being mihlly ungr~unmatica.l. Similarly, zibunzisin A-binds llanako in l, he (gr~mnm~ticM) cxam-I)le (7b). Ilowever, tim parser relsorts ;~ Condition (7 violation. According to Saito, the |briner case (::m I)e Imndled by making l;r,~'~ces optional, mad the lat,1L, cr I)y ~qqllying some form of 1,l{, \[{~econstrucl;ion. II) We note Lha.t ne.i|;her proposal is g(mera.lly considered to t0t scram/ding-specitic ~md t, her0:lbre points t;o i;}le general incompleteness of l;he implemented system.</Paragraph>
    </Section>
    <Section position="3" start_page="7002" end_page="7002" type="sub_section">
      <SectionTitle>
2.4 Scrambling and NQ Float
</SectionTitle>
      <Paragraph position="0"> As a limd case, consider the l)hellolltelic.ii o1' Nlllller;\]J Qua, ntifier (NQ) lion,t;, a~ shown h, (8). Sa.i~o aualyzed (8(1) as an insl.ance of scrand4ing, i.l!. sr&amp;c has been scrandd(~d oul, \[,o IlL  (8) (~) Salmiu-no g~d{usei-ga salw-o 11o11(\[c it'll 3 sl.udcnts are drinking sa.ke (b) (;akusei-g~ smmin s;d{e-o uonde iru (c)* Gal{usei-g~ sake-o sanniu nonde iru (d) Sakel-o John-ga. sanbon ti metre kite John I)rought :l boLl.h.'s of sake  D~aving ashh; the structure ()1' NQ-N P, iL is ltOl. (;lear whether gaknsci in (815) undergoes scrambling. Since Saito assmned that subj(~cl.s do tie|; scrmuble for inher-Clll. (*disc i'e\[/SOllS I.hereby explaining the mlgratH maticalil.y of (8c), il, ~tl'qsc;tl's Ilol; I,o \])e. |,he (:g~se.tl Iqnally, we el)serve tha.t, tllcrc Z(l:e other ca.ses we h&amp;ve Itot, tested, such as ClmlSal &amp;lid a,(|jtltlCt SCt'C/IAIIhlmg, the. ell~ets of Sul)jacency, and the distinction 15etween inedium and shorl, disl;ml('e scramblhlg.</Paragraph>
    </Section>
  </Section>
class="xml-element"></Paper>