"Discontinuous" adjuncts?

In Russian, the following is possible:

(1) V  kakoj  Ivan priehal gorod?
    In which  Ivan arrived town?
"In which town did Ivan arrive?"

I am afraid this might be a rabbit hole so I kept myself from tinkering too much here, but I want to lay this out.

Right now, my grammar can extract the determiner from the NP gorod. The HEAD there is nouny and is therefore MOD < >. Because it is MOD < >, it cannot participate as an adjunct in a head-adjunct rule.

If I were to remove this constraint from nouns generally, I suppose I could then try to carefully make sure it is put in place by the head-spec rule and by the bare NP rule? Would that be sufficient?.. This way, if the NP was formed by the extracted determiner rule, the MOD can be non-empty?

Then the question is how to attach the adposition. Normally an adposition’s complement is a noun, not a determiner. Does it sound perhaps like the adposition, being the head of the adjunct modifying the verb, is extracted here separately? Sounds weird but I currently don’t see how else to do it? But to do even that, the adposition would need to be QUE-nonemtpy, in other words perhaps it would need to share its complement’s determiner’s QUE value or something like that? (I think determiner’s share their SPEC’s QUE value as it is, so, if I am not seeing that in my case, that could just be a bug).

…But the above actually suggests some kind of a discontinuous adjunct, which perhaps is crazy.

Can in which be somehow extracted at the level of the NP?.. Not if in is the head of the constituent ultimately, right?.. Only if in which somehow is altogether a non-head?

To me, this looks like extraction of a “non-traditional constituent” of the kind that CCG likes to play with. (To be clear, I don’t khow if this particular construction has been analysed in CCG. But it reminds me of other analyses.)

I don’t think you should solve this problem by loosening constraints on general rules, or you will almost certainly overgenerate. “gorod” cannot be treated as a normal adjunct, because it relies on “v kokoj” (assuming that this is impossible with a normal determiner like “this” or “that” instead of a wh-determiner).

As a general point, you have recently been posting a lot of difficult cases on this forum. At some point you will have to decide what is out of scope for your library. Questions are going to interact with pretty much the entire grammar, and you can’t try to solve the entire grammar!

I think an elegant solution for this problem (that correctly generalises to other sentences with similar non-traditional extraction) will require quite fundamental changes. Dan experimented with VP- and S-gapping but ultimately decided against it, because it meant hallucinating all possible coordination types. (At least that’s my understanding.)

There may be dragons in this rabbit hole.

1 Like

It is possible, actually, with certain intonation/information patterns. I think (I don’t know that much about information structure still) that when gorod is particularly in focus, then this is possible. Like the only thing that matters is that he arrived in a TOWN, and the information that the town was, say, big or small or, if we want a determiner, just this, is relevant but is perhaps deemphasized and fronted as topic? Something like that. Unless you put a lot of intonational emphasis on this, in which case what is fronted is in fact focus (it is confusing):

(2) (vot) v  ETOT      Ivan     priehal gorod
    (FOC) in THIS.PREP Ivan.NOM arrived town.PREP
`It is in THIS sort of town that Ivan arrived''

Agreed. I think this one is a great candidate for my next project, after the library is done. I just want to lay this out while I am looking at it.

Okay, so I should amend what I said to: “gorod” cannot be treated as a normal adjunct, because it relies on a fronted preposition and determiner.

1 Like

Right! You cannot say Ivan priehal gorod; has to be a PP, in the adjunct role.