philosophies Article Lexicalised Locality: Local Domains and Non-Local Dependencies in a Lexicalised Tree Adjoining Grammar Diego Gabriel Krivochen 1,* and Andrea Padovan 2 1 Dipartimento di Culture e Civiltà, Università di Verona, 37129 Verona, Italy 2 Dipartimento di Lingue e Letterature Straniere, Università di Verona, 37129 Verona, Italy; [email protected] * Correspondence: [email protected] Abstract: Contemporary generative grammar assumes that syntactic structure is best described in terms of sets, and that locality conditions, as well as cross-linguistic variation, is determined at the level of designated functional heads. Syntactic operations (merge, MERGE, etc.) build a structure by deriving sets from lexical atoms and recursively (and monotonically) yielding sets of sets. Additional restrictions over the format of structural descriptions limit the number of elements involved in each operation to two at each derivational step, a head and a non-head. In this paper, we will explore an alternative direction for minimalist inquiry based on previous work, e.g., Frank (2002, 2006), albeit under novel assumptions. We propose a view of syntactic structure as a specification of relations in graphs, which correspond to the extended projection of lexical heads; these are elementary trees in Tree Adjoining Grammars. We present empirical motivation for a lexicalised approach to structure building, where the units of the grammar are elementary trees. Our proposal will be based on cross-linguistic evidence; we will consider the structure of elementary trees in Spanish, English and German. We will also explore the consequences of assuming that nodes in elementary trees are Citation: Krivochen, D.G.; Padovan, addresses for purposes of tree composition operations, substitution and adjunction. A. Lexicalised Locality: Local Domains and Non-Local Keywords: locality; tree adjoining grammar; lexicalised grammar; tree composition Dependencies in a Lexicalised Tree Adjoining Grammar. Philosophies 2021, 6, 70. https://doi.org/ 10.3390/philosophies6030070 1. Introduction The definition of local domains for the application of syntactic rules, as well as rules Academic Editor: Peter Kosta of semantic interpretation, has been a central topic in generative grammar since the first definitions of a transformational cycle [1–3]. In the early days of generative grammar, cycles Received: 15 July 2021 were delimited by the presence of two designated nodes, S and NP, as the only categories Accepted: 4 August 2021 Published: 18 August 2021 that could take subjects. From a contemporary perspective, this definition implies a certain heterogeneity. Whereas NP is the projection of a lexical category, S does not fit in the Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral uniformly endocentric template that has been the norm since the mid-1980s, and thus with regard to jurisdictional claims in is neither a “lexical” nor a “functional” category in a strict sense. The mixed nature of published maps and institutional affil- bounding nodes remained in the Government and Binding (GB) framework, where barriers iations. were nodes defining opaque domains for the application of syntactic operations [4]. For example, CP was a barrier for movement from VP (not L-marked, dominated the bounding category inflexion), as were VPs (not L-marked) and adjuncts (similarly, not L-marked). Note that C is a functional head, but V is not (adjuncts may be PPs or AdvPs, also lexical categories). The definition of locality and the distinction between lexical and functional Copyright: © 2021 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. categories remained relatively orthogonal to each other. This article is an open access article In the late 1980s functional categories started playing a much more crucial role in distributed under the terms and the syntactic derivation (in particular after the layered analysis of the VP in [5] and the conditions of the Creative Commons “explosion” of the node Infl(ection) in [6]), and the research on locality became centred on Attribution (CC BY) license (https:// functional heads and their projections. With the advent of the phase-theoretic framework, creativecommons.org/licenses/by/ in [7] and much subsequent work, this shift towards functional categories as delimiters 4.0/). of local structure became even more obvious. Syntactic domains are delimited by the Philosophies 2021, 6, 70. https://doi.org/10.3390/philosophies6030070 https://www.mdpi.com/journal/philosophies Philosophies 2021, 6, x FOR PEER REVIEW 2 of 33 [7] and much subsequent work, this shift towards functional categories as delimiters of Philosophies 2021local, 6, 70structure became even more obvious. Syntactic domains are delimited by the pres- 2 of 29 ence of functional categories v* and C, which defines the size of syntactic chunks where operations of feature checking/valuation and movement/internal merge take place. How- ever, the consequencespresence of this of shift functional are far-reaching. categories Thev * focus and C, on which functional defines categories the size as of syntactic chunks the skeleton of the whereclause operations(and the main of feature locus checking/valuationof cross-linguistic variation) and movement/internal has found its merge take place. maximal expressionHowever, in the cartographic the consequences enterprise of this as shiftwell areas nanosyntax far-reaching. (where The focus features on functional categories configure a finer-grainedas the skeletonhierarchy of at the a clausesmaller (and level the of mainorganisation). locus of cross-linguistic Because the order variation) has found its of projections in themaximal phrasal skeleton expression is fixed in the (grossly cartographic speaking, enterprise the phrasal as well skeleton as nanosyntax is an (where features ordered array C > Tconfigure > V, where a finer-grained C, T and V each hierarchy stands at for a smaller a possibly level highly of organisation). articulated Because the order sequence of functionalof projections heads, as in in [8 the–11] phrasal), the occurrence skeleton is fixedof phase (grossly heads speaking, and non- thephase phrasal skeleton is an heads follows a rhythmordered determined array C >a Tpriori > V, [12 where–14] C,(p. T56). and V each stands for a possibly highly articulated In this paper, wesequence will argue of functional for a different heads, approach as in [8– 11to]), the the locality occurrence in syntax, of phase which heads and non-phase follows the lead of headslexicalised follows tree a rhythmadjoining determined grammarsa (TAGs). priori [12 This–14] (p.entails 56). two depar- tures from contemporaryIn m thisinimalist paper, practice, we will arguewhich for will a differentbe empirically approach motivated. to thelocality First, in syntax, which that the grammar buildsfollows and the operates lead of lexicalised over graphs, tree not adjoining sets. Second, grammars that (TAGs). locality This condi- entails two departures tions defined in structuralfrom contemporary representations minimalist are intimately practice, whichrelated will to bethe empirically distinction motivated. be- First, that the tween lexical and functionalgrammar buildsmaterial, and such operates that overlexical graphs, heads not define sets. Second,local interpretative that locality conditions defined domains. We will providein structural arguments representations in favour of are a model intimately of the related grammar to the where distinction the size between lexical and of syntactic domainsfunctional is neither material, defined sucha priori that nor lexical is it determined heads define by local the interpretativepresence of a domains. We will specially designatedprovide functional arguments head. Rather, in favour cycles of a modelare defined of the as grammar the extended where projections the size of syntactic domains of lexical heads. In orderis neither to do definedso, we needa priori to presentnor is itsome determined preliminary by the definitions presence of of lexi- a specially designated calised TAGs. functional head. Rather, cycles are defined as the extended projections of lexical heads. In order to do so, we need to present some preliminary definitions of lexicalised TAGs. 2. Main Tenets of the TAG Formalism 2. Main Tenets of the TAG Formalism A TAG is essentially a rewriting system working on predefined elementary trees that A TAG is essentially a rewriting system working on predefined elementary trees that can be augmented and combined with one another at the frontier or “counter-cyclically”; can be augmented and combined with one another at the frontier or “counter-cyclically”; these two cases correspond to the (generalised) operations substitution [15,16] and adjunc- these two cases correspond to the (generalised) operations substitution [15,16] and adjunc- tion [17,18], respectively. Trees may be either elementary or derived: the latter are obtained tion [17,18], respectively. Trees may be either elementary or derived: the latter are obtained by by means of applyingmeans composition of applying operations composition to the operations former. In to turn, the former.two kinds In of turn, elemen- two kinds of elementary tary trees are defined:trees initial are defined: trees andinitial auxiliary trees and treesauxiliary. Initial trees. Initialare single trees-rooted are single-rooted struc- structures that tures that contain acontain non-terminal a non-terminal node that node is thatidentical is identical to the toroot the of root an of auxiliary an auxiliary tree.