Advanced Topics in HPSG∗

Andreas Kathol Adam Przepiórkowski Jesse Tseng

1 Introduction

This chapter presents a survey of some of the major topics that have received attention from anHPSG perspective since the publication of Pollard and Sag (1994). In terms of empirical cover-age (of English and other languages) and analytical and formal depth, the analyses summarizedhere go well beyond the original theory as defined in Pollard and Sag (1987) and (1994), althoughthese naturally remain an indispensable point of reference.1

We will have to make a biased choice among the possible topicsto cover here, and the pre-sentation will of course be colored by our own point of view, but we hope that this chapter willgive the reader a reasonable idea of current research efforts in HPSG, and directions for furtherexploration of the literature.

In keeping with HPSG’s emphasis on rich lexical descriptions, the first section (§2) concen-trates on the licensing of dependents by lexical heads. We begin with a discussion of the con-ceptual separation between argument structure and valencein current HPSG work. We examinehow the the traditional distinction between arguments and adjuncts fits into this model, and thenwe turn to the highly influential idea of argument composition as a mechanism for dynamicallydetermining argument structure.

In §3, we concentrate on issues of linear order, beginning with lexicalist equivalents of con-figurational analyses and then considering more radical departures from the notion of phrasestructure. The topics covered in §4 all have to do with ‘syntactic abstractness’. On the one hand,most work in HPSG avoids the use of empty categories in syntactic structure, preferring concrete,surface-based analyses. On the other hand, there is a current trend towards construction-basedapproaches, in which analyses are no longer driven only by detailed lexical information, but relycrucially on the definition of phrasal types, or constructions.

One of the distinctive design features of HPSG is its integrated view of grammar. Informa-tion about syntax, semantics, morphology/phonology, and (potentially) all other components ofthe grammar represented in a single structure, with the possibility of complex interactions. In §5we discuss a number of recent developments in the analysis ofthe syntax-semantics-pragmaticsinterface, in particular the treament of scope and illocutionary force, as well as information struc-ture and the representation of speakers’ beliefs and intentions. The discussion of grammatical

∗We would like to thank Bob Borsley, Miriam Butt, Ivan Sag, andespecially Georgia Green for extensive com-ments on an earlier draft of this article. All remaining errors are ours.

1

interfaces continues in in §6, devoted to interactions between syntax and morphology. We con-clude the chapter with a summary of recent developments in the formal logical foundations ofHPSG (§7).

2 Argument Structure

One of the most significant conceptual changes distinguishing HPSG from Generalized PhraseStructure Grammar is the treatment of combinatorial properties. In GPSG, lexical items carry anumerical index that identifies the subcategorization frame in which they can occur, and there isa distinct immediate dominance rule for each subcategorization type, resulting in a large numberof such rules for head-complement structures. In contrast,lexical descriptions in HPSG includea detailed characterization of their combinatorial potential encoded in a valence feature, and thusa much smaller set of highly general immediate dominance schemata is sufficient. In this way,HPSG has an affinity with Categorial Grammar, where the categories themselves are complexand encode combinatorial properties, allowing the assumption of a small number of generalcombination mechanisms.

A number of linguistic problems have since been explored in HPSG and solutions have beendeveloped that have significantly refined the original ideasand provided new insights into thenature of valence.

2.1 Valence and Argument Structure

One significant development since the original presentation of the theory is the separation of thenotions of valence and argument structure.

In HPSG1 and HPSG2, valence was encoded in a single attribute, SUBCAT, containing a listof all syntactically selected dependents. Borsley (1987) pointed out, however, that this approachdid not allow syntactic functions to be reliably distinguished. For example, the subject wasoriginally defined as “the single remaining element onSUBCAT”, but this incorrectly identifiessome prepositional complements and nominal specifiers as subjects. Borsley’s proposals fortreating syntactic functions as primitive notions, and splitting theSUBCAT list into three valencelists, SUBJ(ECT), SPECIFIER(SPR), andCOMP(LEMENT)S, were adopted in HPSG3, and sincethen most authors assume these three lists as part of a complex VALENCE attribute.2

The technical consequence of this move is that the head-complement, head-subject, and head-specifier schemata refer to the appropriate valence lists, rather than particular configurations ofSUBCAT, and theSUBCAT Principle is replaced by the correspondingly more complex ValencePrinciple. An alternative default formulation of this principle is proposed by Sag (1997),3 laterincorporated into the default Generalized Head Feature Principle (Ginzburg and Sag, 2000). Thisapproach offers a more economical notational representation (at the price of additional formalmachinery for allowing default unification), but it can be argued that the essential content of theoriginal Valence Principle—thatsynsemobjects are removed from the valence lists when they aresyntactically realized—is then encoded in a piecemeal fashion in the definitions of the individualID schemata.

2

The decision to split syntactic valence into three lists makes it possible to express mismatchesbetween the syntactic function of a constituent and the way that it is realized in the syntactic struc-ture. This possibility has been exploited mainly in analyses where thesynsemof the grammaticalsubject is encoded in theCOMPS list. As a result, the subject is realized not by the head-subjectschema, but by the head-complement schema. This has been proposed for verb-initial languageslike Welsh (Borsley, 1989), and for finite clauses in German,where the subject appears in theMittelfeld, just like the complements and adjuncts of the verb (Kiss, 1995). Another exampleof the same valence/function mismatch is the analysis of subject-auxiliary inversion in Sag andWasow (1999), where a lexical rule empties the auxiliary’s subject valence, which has the resultof forcing the valence object corresponding to subject to appear as the first element of theCOMPS

list instead. This ensures that the subject will not be realized preverbally, but as the first “com-plement” following the auxiliary verb, which is the desiredstructure. It should be said that manyanalyses of this type are motivated primarily by word order considerations, and so a possible al-ternative approach would be to use surface linearization constraints, without actually modifyingthe basic syntactic structure via valence manipulation.

After replacingSUBCAT by SUBJ, SPR, andCOMPS, researchers soon realized that for thetreatment of some phenomena (most notably Binding Theory),they still needed a single listencoding all of the arguments of a head. So theSUBCAT list was revived in the form of theARG(UMENT)-ST(RUCTURE) list, with one crucial difference: whileSUBCAT as a valence fea-ture recorded the level of syntactic saturation for each higher phrase in the tree,ARG-ST wasintroduced as a static representation of the dependents of the lexical head. In its original concep-tion, this information is only found in the representation of the lexical head (an object of typeword). But a variety of recent work (for instance Przepiórkowski2001) has argued that certainphenomena require thatARG-ST information also be visible on phrasal constituents projectedfrom the head.

In simple cases, theARG-ST list is identified with the concatenation ofSUBJ, SPR, andCOMPS

at the lexical level, i.e., before any valence requirementshave been saturated. However, the listsin question do not always line up in this fashion and the possibility of mismatches gives rise to anumber of analyses of otherwise puzzling phenomena. We willbriefly discuss two of these here,pro-drop and argument realignments in Austronesian languages.

The standard transformational approach to missing subjects in finite environments has beento posit a null pronoun (pro) that instantiates the syntactic subject position. In keeping withHPSG’s general avoidance of unpronounced syntactic material, we can instead analyze the un-expressed subject as anARG-ST element that does not have a corresponding valence expression.The following example from Italian (1a) and the corresponding lexical description of the verbmangiaillustrate this idea:

(1) a. Mangia un gelato.eat.3SG a icecream‘S/he is eating an icecream.’

b.

ARG-ST 〈NP[3sg], NP〉SUBJ 〈 〉COMPS 〈NP〉

3

Dependencies in which the subject participates, such as binding or agreement, can be accommo-dated straightforwardly if they are described as referringto the least obliqueARG-ST element,rather than the value ofSUBJ.

A more radical mismatch between valence and argument structure has been proposed byManning and Sag (1998) and Manning and Sag (1999) for the realization of arguments in WesternAustronesian languages such as Toba Batak. In this languageclause-initial verbs form a VPwith the immediately following argument NP. In the case of active voice (AV ) morphology,this NP has the status of non-subject, as evidenced by the fact that a reflexive in that positionhas to be bound by a later (“higher”) NP. The example in (2) canbe analyzed exactly like thecorresponding English sentence (apart from the position ofthe subject NP). In particular,AGR-ST

is the concatenation ofSUBJ andCOMPS:

(2) a. [Mang-idaAV -saw

diri-na]self-his

siPM

John.John

‘John saw himselfi.’

b.*[Mang-idaAV -saw

siPM

John]John

diri-na.self-his

c. S

[

SUBJ 〈 1 〉]

SUBJ 〈 1 〉COMPS 〈 2 〉ARG-ST 〈 1 , 2 〉

mang-ida

2 NP

diri-na

1 NP

si John

Compare this now with objective voice (OV) verbs. Again, using the distribution of reflexives asa diagnostic, we now have to assume that the VP-internal NP has the status of a subject. But thismeans that in theOV case, valence and argument structure are aligned in a way that is preciselyopposite from theAV cases.

(3) a.*[Di-idaOV-saw

diri-na]self-his

siPM

John.John

b. [Di-idaOV-saw

siPM

John]John

diri-na.self-his

‘John saw himselfi.’

c.

4

S

[

SUBJ 〈 2 〉]

SUBJ 〈 2 〉COMPS 〈 1 〉ARG-ST 〈 1 , 2 〉

di-ida

1NP

si John

2 NP

diri-na

By separating information about valence (i.e., syntactic combinatorial potential) from argu-ment structure (the lexically determined list of syntacticand semantic arguments) it becomespossible to provide a lexical treatment of a number of phenomena that would otherwise have tobe handled in syntactic terms. In turn this keeps structuralcomplexity (in terms of the inventoryof genuine syntactic elements) to a minimum. The issue of structual complexity will also be ofconcern in the next subsection, and in §4.

2.2 Dependents and Lexical Amalgamation

The following subsections deal with two issues in the area ofargument structure that appear atfirst to be independent of each other but turn out to be closelylinked in recent HPSG work. First,is there a fundamental distinction between complements andadjuncts and, second, what is therole of the syntactic head in licensing information about missing dependents?

2.2.1 Complements and Adjuncts

It is a common and generally unquestioned assumption in muchof contemporary linguistics thatthere is a syntactic distinction between complements and adjuncts, and that these two classes ofdependents occupy different tree-configurational positions (for example, sister of X0 for comple-ments vs. sister of X′ for adjuncts). This was also the position of early HPSG work.

However, the evidence for this syntactically encoded complement/adjunct dichotomy has re-cently been re-examined within HPSG. For example, Hukari and Levine (1994, 1995) show thatthere are no clear differences between complement extraction and adjunct extraction, and Boumaet al. (2001) build on these observations and propose a unified theory of extraction based on theassumption that there is no structural distinction betweencomplements and (at least a class of)adjuncts. Earlier, eliminating the configurational distinction was proposed in Miller (1992) (onthe basis of French agreement facts,inter alia), van Noord and Bouma (1994) (on the basis of se-mantic ambiguities in Dutch clusters), and Manning et al. (1999) (on the basis of the behavior ofJapanese causative constructions). This ‘adjuncts-as-complements’ approach is further defendedon the basis of case assignment facts in Finnish and other languages (Przepiórkowski 1999c,1999a), and on the basis of diachronic considerations (Bender and Flickinger, 1999).

The central idea of all these analyses is that (at least a class of) adjuncts must be addedto the verb’s subcategorization frame at the lexical level and are thus indistinguishable from

5

complements in syntax. For example, in the analysis of Boumaet al. (2001), words are specifiedfor the attributeDEPS(ENDENTS), in addition to the attributesARG-ST andVALENCE discussedin the previous section.ARG-ST encodes the ‘core’ argument structure, i.e., information aboutdependents that are more or less idiosyncratically required by the word. This information iseventually mapped into the word’sVALENCE attributes, responsible for the syntactic realizationof these dependents. However, in Bouma et al.’s 2001 accountthere is an intermediate levelbetweenARG-ST andVALENCE, namelyDEPS, which encodes all dependents of the verb, bothsubcategorized (elements ofARG-ST) and non-subcategorized (adjuncts). In other words,DEPS

extendsARG-ST to adjuncts, as schematically illustrated in (4).

(4) Argument Structure Extension[

word

. . . |HEAD verb

]

→

. . . |CAT

category

DEPS 1 ⊕ list(adjunct)ARG-ST 1

The DEPS list is, in turn, mapped into theVALENCE attributes, according to the followingschematic constraint.

(5) Argument Realization

word→

. . . |CAT

category

VALENCE

[

SUBJ 1

COMPS 2 ⊖ list(gap)

]

DEPS 1 ⊕ 2

According to this principle, all elements ofARG-ST, exceptgaps, must be present onVA -LENCE attributes. There are two things to note about (5). First,gaps(encoding informationassociated with extracted elements) are present on theDEPS list, but they are not mapped toVA -LENCE. This means that, according to this approach, there are nowh-traces (and, more generally,no empty elements) anywhere in the constituent tree.

Second, the configurational distinction between complements and adjuncts is lost here: allelements of the extended argument structureDEPS are uniformly mapped to theVALENCE at-tributes, regardless of their complement/adjunct status.

As we will in the next section, various grammatical processes are assumed to operate at thelevel of such an extended argument structure.

2.2.2 Extended Argument Structure

Extraction Bouma et al. (2001) propose a theory of extraction that makescrucial use of theextended argument structure encoded inDEPS. They argue that extraction does not distinguishbetween various kinds of dependents and propose the following principle ofSLASH amalgama-tion to account for this observation.4

(6) SLASH Amalgamation:

word→

SYNSEM

LOC|CAT

[

DEPS 〈[SLASH 1 ],. . . ,[SLASH n ]〉BIND 0

]

SLASH ( 1 ∪ . . . ∪ n ) − 0

6

This principle is responsible for collectingSLASH values from all dependents of aword,perhaps lexically binding some of them (this happens in caseof words such astoughor easy,which are lexicalSLASH-binders), and collecting all other elements of theseSLASH sets into theword’s own SLASH value. ThisSLASH value is then shared along the head projection of theword, in accordance with the principle ofSLASH inheritance:5

(7) SLASH Inheritance (schematic):

hd-val-ph→

[

SLASH 1

HD-DTR|SLASH 1

]

This approach differs from earlier HPSG approaches to extraction not only in that it treatsdependent extraction and argument extraction uniformly, but it also establishes a different divi-sion of labor between parts of the grammar. In the analysis sketched above, the amalgamationof SLASH values takes place at the level ofwords, never at the level ofphrases— phrasesonlypassSLASH values to the head-filler phrase, where extracted elements are overtly realized. SeeBouma et al. 2001 for further details and examples.

Similar lexical amalgamation is also assumed for the purposes of the lexical analysis of quan-tifier scoping in Manning et al. (1999) and Przepiórkowski (1997, 1998), and for the flow ofpragmatic information in Wilcock (1999).

One important aspect of the SLASH Amalgamation Principle (6) is that it does not distinguishbetween slashed arguments and slashed adjuncts: since, in principle, anyDEPS element can bea gap, any DEPS element, whether an argument or an adjunct, may be extractedby the samemechanism, in accordance with the observations in Hukari and Levine (1994, 1995).

Case Assignment Apart from extraction, another phenomenon that, contrary to common as-sumptions, does not seem to distinguish between complements and adjuncts is syntactic caseassignment. For example, Maling (1993) argues at length that some adjuncts (adverbials of mea-sure, duration and frequency) behave just like objects withrespect to case assignment and, inparticular, notes the following generalization about syntactic case assignment in Finnish: onlyone NP dependent of the verb receives the nominative, namelythe one with the highest grammat-ical function; other dependents take the accusative. Thus,if no argument bears inherent case, thesubject is in the nominative and other dependents are in the accusative (8), but if the subject bearsan idiosyncratic case, it is the object that gets the nominative (9). Furthermore, if all arguments(if any) bear inherent case, and the ‘next available’ grammatical function is that of an adjunct,then this adjunct takes the nominative (10)–(11).

(8) LiisaLiisa.NOM

muistiremembered

matkantrip.ACC

vuoden.year.ACC

‘Liisa remembered the trip for a year.’

(9) Lapsenchild.GEN

täytyymust

lukearead

kirjabook.NOM

kolmannen[third

kerran.time].ACC

‘The child must read the book for a 3rd time.’

7

(10) KekkoseenKekkonen.ILL

luotettiintrust.PASSP

yksi[one

kerta.time].NOM

‘Kekkonen was trusted once.’

(11) KekkoseenKekkonen.ILL

luotettiintrust.PASSP

yhden[one

kerrantime].ACC

yksi[one

vuosi.year].NOM

‘Kekkonen was trusted for one year once.’

Maling (1993) concludes that syntactic case is assigned according to the grammatical hierarchyand that (at least some) adjuncts belong in this hierarchy.

On the basis of these facts, as well as other case assignment facts in Korean, Russian, and es-pecially Polish, Przepiórkowski (1999a) provides an HPSG account of syntactic case assignmenttaking extended argument structure (i.e.,DEPS, assuming Bouma et al.’s 2001 feature architec-ture) as the locus of syntactic case assignment. (See §6.3 below, and Przepiórkowski 1999a,ch. 10 for details.)

2.3 Argument Composition

Moving subcategorization information into lexical descriptions is at first blush a simple redis-tribution of labor between the syntax and the lexicon. But itturns out that this move affords amuch wider perspective on the kinds of relationships that are lexically encoded. In particular,the lexicalization of valence makes it possible to express second-order dependencies—i.e., for aword to refer to the valence of its valence elements.

The HPSG analysis of controlled complements can be seen as anapplication of this basicidea, in that the subject requirement of the selected VP is identified with the subject requirementof a predicate selecting that VP:6

(12)[

SUBCAT⟨

1 ,[

V[

SUBCAT 〈 1 synsem〉]]⟩]

More generally, since structure-sharing tags in HPSG can bevariables over any kind of struc-ture, they can range over the entire list of valence elementsof the selected predicator. The valencelist of that predicator consists of the verbal complement followed by (using the list-append nota-tion “⊕”) the list of dependents of that same complement. This is illustrated in (13), where “1 ”is used as a variable over lists.

(13)[

SUBCAT 1 ⊕⟨[

V[

SUBCAT 1 list(synsem)]]⟩]

As a result, the arguments of the higher predicator are composed from those of the selected(typically verbal) complement. Another way of thinking about such cases is in terms of thehigher predicator ‘attracting’ the valence requirements of the lower one. Many phenomena forwhich separate operations of “clause union” have been assumed in other syntactic frameworkscan thus be treated in terms of a rather straightforward head-driven extension of HPSG’s originalvalence mechanism.7

Among the original applications of argument composition isHinrichs and Nakazawa’s analy-sis of the German verb cluster, the clause-final sequence of verbal forms (Hinrichs and Nakazawa

8

1989, 1994). Starting with Bech (1955), two modes of verbal complementation have been as-sumed for German. The first (known as the “incoherent” construction) is very similar to EnglishVP-complement constructions, as for instance in (14):

(14) a. Sandy tries [VP to read the book].

b. daß Otto versucht [VP das Buch zu lesen].that Otto tries the book to read

A plausible analysis of (14) is thatlesencombines with its NP complement (das Buch) and theresulting phrase serves as the VP complement toversucht.

However, it is highly debatable whether the same should be assumed for the relation betweengelesenand its notional objectdas Buchin constructions such as (15), where the main verbco-occurs with the tense auxiliarieshabenandwerden.

(15) a. daß Peter das Buchgelesen haben wird.that Peter the book read-PSP have-INF will- FIN

‘that Peter will have read the book.’

Hinrichs and Nakazawa propose that in “coherent” constructions of this kind, the valence re-quirements of the main verb (here,lesen) are inherited by the governing tense auxiliaries (habenandwird), so that the satisfaction of the main verb’s valence requirements are now mediated bythe highest governing head element (here,wird).

Suggestive evidence for such an analysis comes from the factthat the object of the mainverb is subject to the same range of order variation as if the main verb itself had been the solepredicator in the clause. Thus, in (16a) the pronominal object esoccurs before the subjectPeter,which is precisely parallel to the simple case in (16b):

(16) a. daßes Peter gelesen haben wird.that it Peter read-PSP have-INF will- FIN

‘that Peter will have read it.’

b. daß es Peter las.that it Peter read‘that Peter read it.’

Transformational analyses have usually assumed that such cases are the result of a scramblingtransformation that dislocates the object (es) from the phrase that it forms with the main verb.8

Dislocation constructions are generally treated as filler-gap dependencies in HPSG, becausethey can typically hold across finite clause boundaries. Since cases like (16) are restricted toa single clause, an analysis in terms of dislocation is inappropriate. Instead, order variation ofthis kind has been analyzed in terms of permissive linear precedence conditions within a localsyntactic domain (typically, a local phrase structure tree). If both subject and object end up asarguments of the highest predicatorwird via argument composition, the “scrambled” order in(16a) can be explained in terms of order variations among daughters within the same local tree,just as in (16b).

9

Further evidence against the main verb and its notional object forming a constituent comesthe fact that in relative clauses, the two do not form a frontable relative phrase (“VP pied piping”),as seen in (17a). This is in contrast to cases such as (17b), where the governing verbversuchendoes combine with a frontable VP dependent:

(17) a.*ein Buch [[das gelesen] Peter haben wird]a book that read Peter have will

b. ein Buch [[das zu lesen] Peter versuchte]a book that to read Peter tried‘a book which Peter tried to read’

As has been pointed out by Kathol (2000, 180–183), linking the valence requirements of ver-bal material by means of argument composition does not, in fact, determine the phrase structuralrelations among the participating verbs. Thus, for typicalhead-final cases as in (15), there havebeen proposals that assume no subconstituents among the verbal elements at all (Baker 1994,1999; Bouma and van Noord 1998b; Bouma and van Noord 1998a), aconstituent with right-branching structure (Kiss 1994; 1995), or a constituent with left-branching structure (Hinrichsand Nakazawa 1989; Kathol 2000) illustrated in (18):9

(18)[

V [fin]...|SBCT 1

]

3

[

V [ inf]...|SBCT 1

] [

V [fin]...|SBCT 1 ⊕ 〈 3 〉

]

2

[

V [ inf]...|SBCT 1 〈NP[nom],NP[acc] 〉

][

V [ inf]...|SBCT 1 ⊕ 〈 2 〉

]

wird

lesen können

Empirical evidence in favor of such structures is presentedby Hinrichs and Nakazawa (1989),who point out, among other things, that the order variation known asOberfeldumstellung(or“aux-flip”) receives an elegant account in terms of reordering of constituents under their left-branching analysis:

(19)[

V [fin]...|SBCT 1

]

[

V [fin]...|SBCT 1 ⊕ 〈 3 〉

]

3

[

V [ inf]...|SBCT 1

]

wird 2

[

V [ inf]...|SBCT 1 〈NP[nom],NP[acc]〉

] [

V [ inf]...|SBCT 1 ⊕ 〈 2 〉

]

lesen können

10

In §3, we will return to evidence presented by Kathol (2000) that a purely phrase structure-basedview fails to cover the full range of order variation among verb cluster elements seen in Germanand Dutch.

Argument composition analyses in effect establish ‘extended’ valence relations between agoverning verb and the phrasal argument of a more deeply embedded verb. This property hasbeen the basis for novel proposals for the treatment of passives suggested by Kathol (1994) andPollard (1994). Instead of simply copying the valence requirements of the embedded verb, apassive auxiliary can be thought of as actively manipulating the set of valence elements thatthey inherit from the governed dependents. As a result, passives on the clausal level can beanalyzed as a form of object-to-subject raising. Compared to more standard manipulation of theverb’s valence in terms of lexical rules, such an approach has the advantage of only assumingone participle; no distinction between morphologically identical passive and past participles isneeded.10

Other areas of German grammar for which argument composition analyses have been pro-posed include derivational morphology (Gerdemann 1994) and the problem of preposed com-plements of nouns (De Kuthy and Meurers 1998). In addition, Abeillé and Godard (1994) haveargued that tense auxiliaries in French should be analyzed as inheriting the arguments of theirmain verbs via argument composition, albeit with a flat constituent structure. Abeillé et al.(1998) show how this idea can be extended to certain causative constructions withfaire. Anotherlanguage for which argument composition has yielded insightful analysis is Korean, both forauxiliaries (Chung, 1993) and control verb constructions (Chung 1998a, cf. also Bratt 1996). Fi-nally, Grover (1995) proposes an analysis of Englishtough-constructions by means of argumentcomposition, as an alternative to the more standard approach that treats missing objects insidethe VP complements oftough-adjectives as the result of an extraction.

3 Phrase Structure and Linear Order

3.1 Configurationality

A theme running through much of the HPSG literature is the lexicalization of relationships thathave been treated in tree-configurational terms in other theories. HPSG’s binding theory is aprime example of how certain asymmetries among co-arguments can be reinterpreted in terms ofobliqueness on valence/argument structure. As a result, there is no longer a need for expressingsuch asymmetries using structural notions such as c-command.

Similarly, variation in phrase order of the kind seen in Japanese or German has typically beenseen in terms of liberal linear precedence constraints overflat clausal tree structures rather thanthe result of manipulating highly articulated phrase structures via scrambling movements (see forinstance Uszkoreit 1987 and Pollard 1996 for German and Chung 1998a for Korean).11 HPSGanalyses of this kind are thus similar to recent LFG proposals for describing nonconfigurationallanguages in terms of flat clause structures (cf. Austin and Bresnan 1996). For instance, freeorder among nominative and accusative dependents in a verb-final language can be described interms of the linear precedence constraint in (20a), which requires NPs to precede verbal elements,

11

without specifying any order among the NPs. As a result, bothconstituent orders in (20b) and(20c) are licensed.

(20) a. NP≺ V

b. S

NP[nom] NP[acc] V

c.S

NP[acc] NP[nom] VAn issue closely related to order variation among phrasal dependents is that of the placement

of verbal heads in the Germanic languages (and elsewhere). Given a flat structure analysis forthe phrasal constituents of the clause, the different positions of the finite verb in verb-initial andverb-final clauses then reduce to clause-initial vs. clause-final placement of that verb (typicallymediated by a binary-valued feature such asINV , familiar from GPSG/HPSG analyses of Englishsubject-auxiliary inversion), cf. Pollard (1996):

(21) a. S

V[+INV] NP NP

liest Otto das Buch

b. S

(daß) S

NP NP V[−INV]

Otto das Buch liest

Analyses of this kind diverge starkly from the standard transformational approach in terms ofmovement of the finite verb from its clause-final base position to a clause-initial position (Comp)via head movement. The underlying intuition that verb placement is dependent on constituentstructure is in fact also shared by various HPSG-based proposals that offer a number of differentways in which verb movement may be implemented in HPSG, cf. Kiss and Wesche (1991), Kiss(1995), Netter (1992), Frank (1994). The representation given in (22) illustrates how to capturethe dependency between the finite verb (liest) and its putative base position (occupied by anempty category) in terms of the additional nonlocal featureDSL (for “double slash”):12

12

(22)V

[

SUBCAT 〈〉DSL {}

]

V

[

SUBCAT

⟨

V

[

SUBCAT 〈〉DSL {V}

]⟩]

V

[

SUBCAT 〈〉DSL {V}

]

liest

NP V

[

SUBCAT 〈NP〉DSL {V}

]

Otto

NP V

[

SUBCAT 〈NP,NP〉DSL {V}

]

das Buch t

Thus, much likeSLASH is used to thread information about phrasal constituents from the gap siteto the filler, DSL does the same for finite verbs occurring in verb-first or verb-second construc-tions in German.

Accounts of verb placement in terms of nonlocal dependencies of this kind are discussedby Kathol (1998) and Kathol (2000), who points out that none of the putative evidence for adislocation-based analysis in fact holds up under closer scrutiny.13 In addition, Kathol notes anumber of technical and conceptual problems involving the locality of the dependency and theexistence of dislocated heads. One area in which verb dislocation approaches appear to providebetter analyses than those based on ordering variation within local trees is the interaction betweenfinite verbs and complementizers. German and most other Germanic languages exhibit a charac-teristic complementarity of distribution between initialfinite verbs and complementizers in rootand subordinate clauses, respectively.14 If verbs and complementizers are not subconstituents ofthe same local tree, it is not clear how they can be made to interact positionally. In contrast, verbmovement analyses are able to express a direct functional analogy between those two categories,which can account for the distributional facts. However, like their transformational counterparts,such analyses fail to generalize to phrasal clause-initialcategories—that is,wh-phrases in sub-ordinate interrogative and relative clauses—which share the basic distributional and functionalproperties of complementizers (cf. Kathol and Pollard 1995and Kathol 2000, for extensive dis-cussion of this point). In fact, one of the major motivating factors behind the linearization-basedapproach to Germanic clausal syntax pursued in Kathol (2000) is precisely to express this basicparallelism in a comprehensive account of the linear underpinnings of Germanic clause structure.As we will see in the next section, the required extensions ofthe phrase structure substrate of theHPSG linguistic theory affords a fairly flexible and elegantapproach to problems of discontinu-ous constituency within HPSG.

3.2 Nonconcatenative Approaches to Linear Order

In much of contemporary syntactic theory, the correlation between hierarchical organization andlinear order in terms of a left-to-right concatenation of the leaves of the syntactic tree (“terminal

13

yield”) is taken for granted. However, an interesting consequence of the sign-based approachis that the very ingredient that gave HPSG its name (“phrase structure grammar”) turns out tobe a nonessential part of the formalism. While simple concatenation is one mode of computingthe phonology of a sign from the phonology of its constituentparts, other relations are perfectlycompatible with the sign-based approach. There is now a significant literature that explores suchalternatives.

Concatenative approaches lends themselves rather straightforwardly to the description of therelation between constituency and order in a language like English. However, it is far less clearwhether this also holds of languages such as German. For instance, Reape (1993, 1994, 1996)observes that in German nonfinite complementation constructions of the kind illustrated in (23a),the verbzu lesenoccurs separated from its notional objectdieses Buch—unlike in the Englishcounterpart (23b).

(23) a. daßdieses Buch niemand zu lesen versuchte.that this book.ACC no one.NOM to read tried‘that no one tried to read this book.’

b. that no one tried toread this book.

The argument composition approach sketched above in §2 attributes this discontinuity to theformation of a complex predicate (zu lesen versuchte). Reape instead proposes analyzing theGerman and English constructions in terms of the same basic constituent types (in particularVPs), yet realized in a discontinuous fashion in German. This is illustrated in (24), where eachsign now is augmented with a list-valued feature representing that sign’s (WORD) ORDER DO-MAIN . Linear order is determined by mapping the phonology of the domain elements onto thephonology of the phrase, rather as the terminal yield of the constituent structure. This is indicatedbelow in (24) by arrows linking the phonology of individual domain elements to the phonologyof the entire constituent. While in standard phrase structure grammar, the region of (potential)order variation is the local tree, order domains expand thatregion to include elements that arenot immediate constituents of the sign in question. For instance, in (24), the NPdieses Buchasa complement ofzu lesenis not an immediate constituent of the clause; neverthelessit occurstogether with the verbal headversuchtewithin the clause’s order domain. As a result, both theclausal and the higher VP node have order domains that contain more elements than immediatesyntactic daughters.

14

(24)

S

PHON〈dieses Buch niemand zu lesen versuchte〉

DOM

⟨[

〈dieses Buch〉NP

]

,

[

〈niemand〉NP

]

,

[

〈zu lesen〉V

]

,

[

〈versuchte〉V

]⟩

[

NP

〈niemand〉

]

VP

DOM

⟨[

〈dieses Buch〉NP

]

,

[

〈zu lesen〉V

]

,

[

〈versuchte〉V

]⟩

[

V

〈versuchte〉

]

VP

DOM

⟨[

〈dieses Buch〉NP

]

,

[

〈zu lesen〉V

]⟩

[

NP

〈dieses Buch〉

] [

V

〈zu lesen〉

]

Reape’s proposal bears a strong resemblance to previous approaches to discontinuous con-stituents, in particular Pullum and Zwicky’s notion of “liberation” (Pullum 1982, Zwicky 1986)(for related ideas in Categorial Grammar, see Bach 1981 and especially Dowty 1996). Thus, theVP in (24) can be thought of as being liberated in the sense that its immediate constituents mayintermingle with elements from outside the VP. Unlike Pullum and Zwicky’s proposals, HPSGorder domains provide a level of syntactic representation from which the range of possible in-termingling effects can be represented directly. Thus, while the VPdieses Buch zu lesengivesrise to two list elements in the clausal domain, the NPdieses Buchcontributes only one element.Since domain elements cannot themselves be broken apart, itis predicted that discontinuities areallowed only in the former case, but not in the latter. Finally, if order domains take the place oflocal trees as the range of potential order flexibility, it isnatural to interpret linear precedenceconstraints as well-formedness conditions over order domains rather than as order constraints ondaughter nodes in trees.

3.2.1 Linearization-Based vs. Valence-Based Approaches

The initial appeal of structures such as (24) is that they allow an analysis of German that, despitedifferences in linear order, is remarkably similar to the constituency commonly proposed for theequivalent English sentences in nontransformational approaches.

Therefore, it appears that argument composition and order domains constitute two alterna-tive ways of allowing for embedded verbs and their objects tooccur discontinuously in a “middledistance dependency” construction. There are, however, empirical reasons for preferring one ap-proach over the other. As discussed in detail in Kathol (1998), Reape’sDOMAIN analysis is

15

ultimately unsatisfactory in that it fails to link the argument structure of more deeply embed-ded predicates to that of the governing verb—which is precisely the main intuition behind theargument composition approach. Evidence that such linkageis in fact necessary comes from aphenomenon known as “remote (or long) passive” (cf. Höhle 1978). In (25), the NPder Wagenis the direct object of the embedded verbzu reparieren, yet its nominative case marks it as thesubject of the passivized predicatewurde versucht.

(25) ?Der Wagen wurde zu reparieren versucht.the car-NOM was to repair tried‘Someone tried to repair the car.’

If all predicates of theversuchen-class invariably embed VPs, as suggested by Reape, the directobject of the embedded verb (den Wagenin (25)) would never be ‘visible’ to the valence changethat accompanies the passivization ofversuchen.15 Thus, Reape’s approach wrongly predicts thatsuch constructions should not exist. In contrast, the argument composition approach can easilyaccommodate such cases because the syntactic arguments of the most embedded verbal predicatebecome the syntactic dependents of the governing predicates.

Even though facts such as these cast doubt on the appropriateness of order domains in de-scription of the particular phenomena that they were originally developed for, there neverthelessappear to be other discontinuous constituency phenomena for which order domains represent anelegant descriptive tool. For instance, Kathol (1998) points out that argument composition of thekind proposed by Hinrichs and Nakazawa fails to correctly account for certain orderings withinDutch verb clusters. In Dutch we typically find head-first ordering between the governing verband the governed subcomplex. For example, in (26a),moetas the highest governing verb pre-cedeshebben gelezen. Combinations of tense auxiliaries and their dependent verbs can generallyoccur in either order; when they occur in head-final order, asin (26b), the preferred occurrenceof the governing verbmoet(in standard Dutch) turns out to be betweengelezenandhebben. Thiskind of ordering cannot be described assuming only argumentcomposition and binary branchingverbal complexes of the kind initially proposed by Hinrichsand Nakazawa.

(26) a. dat Jan dit boek moet1 hebben2 gelezen3.that Jan this book must-FIN have-INF read-INF

‘that Jan must have read the book.’

b. dat Jan dit boek gelezen3 moet1 hebben2.that Jan this book read-PSP must-FIN have-INF

Kathol (2000) shows how facts such as these can be accounted for if argument compositionis combined with order domains that permit the discontinuous linearization of governed sub-complexes such asgelezen hebbenin (26). Such an analysis goes a long way toward a uniformaccount of the ordering possibilities in a number of varieties of German and Dutch by factoringout dialect-independent constituency and dialect-dependent linearization constraints.

16

3.2.2 Further Applications

Another area in which the adoption of order domains has arguably led to significant progress isin the syntax of left-peripheral elements in German. As was pointed out above, the striking in-terplay between finite verbs and complementizers (andwh-phrases, for that matter) which formsthe basis of transformational verb movement accounts has been captured only insufficiently inpurely phrase structure-based approaches. However, if order domains are combined with theconcept of “topological fields” from traditional German grammar, these facts can be describedstraightforwardly in purely nonderivational terms (cf. Kathol 2000). The basic idea is to allowelements with different grammatical roles within the clause—verbal head, phrasal complements,filler phrase, complementizer, etc.—all to occur within theclause’s order domain and assign eachof them to a topological field such asVorfeld (vf.)(roughly equivalent to [Spec,CP]),linke Satzk-lammer (l. S.)(roughly equivalent to Comp), orMittelfeld (mf.), etc., determined either lexicallyor by the combination schema. With the further constraint that the leftmost topological fields(Vorfeld, linke Satzklammer) can be instantiated by at most one element, the distributional com-plementarity of complementizers and finite verbs follows asa natural consequence. Thus, in (27)the finite verb cannot be associated with the same field as the complementizer and must insteadoccur clause-finally (rechte Satzklammer (r. S.)).

(27)

DOM

⟨

l. S.PHON〈daß〉COMPL

,

mf.PHON 〈Lisa〉NP[EM NOM]

,

mf.PHON 〈die Blume〉NP[EM ACC]

,

r. S.PHON 〈sieht〉V [EM FIN]

⟩

In verb-first constructions such as (28) by contrast, there is no complementizer blocking thel. S.position, hence the finite verb can (and in fact, must) occur there.

(28)

DOM

⟨

l. S.PHON〈sieht〉V [EM FIN]

,

mf.PHON〈Lisa〉NP[EM NOM]

,

mf.PHON〈die Blume〉NP[EM ACC]

⟩

Typical verb-second declarative clauses involve the instantiation ofVorfeldby a non-wh-phraseandlinke Satzklammerby a finite verb, as shown in (29):

(29)

DOM

⟨

vf.PHON〈die Blume〉NP[EM ACC]

,

l. s.PHON〈sieht〉V [EM FIN]

,

mf.PHON〈Lisa〉NP[EM NOM]

⟩

Kathol (1999, 2000) further describes how clausal domains of this kind can be utilized in a con-structional approach (see 4.2 below) to German sentence types with various kinds of illocutionaryforce potential.

While much of the work employing order domains has concentrated on German (see alsoRichter 1997 and Müller 1999, ch. 11, Müller 2000), there have been numerous adaptationsof linearization-based ideas for a variety of other languages, including Breton (Borsley andKathol 2000), Danish (Hentze 1996 and Jensen and Skadhauge 2001), Dutch (Campbell-Kibler

17

2002), English (Kathol and Levine 1992), Fox (Crysmann 1999b), French (Bonami et al. 1999),Japanese (Calcagno 1993 and Yatabe 1996, 2001), Ojibwe (Kathol and Rhodes 1999), EuropeanPortuguese (Crysmann 2000b), Serbo-Croatian (Penn 1999a,1999b), and Warlpiri (Donohueand Sag 1999). One of the ongoing issues in the literature on nonconcatenative approaches tosyntax is the precise informational content of the elementsof order domains. In Reape’s originalformulation, order domains contain HPSGsigns. But this allows for the formulation of manylinear precedence constraints for which there is little or no empirical evidence. As a result, therehave been proposals (cf. Kathol 1995) to limit the informational content of domain elements, i.e.the features appropriate for order domain elements. This can be seen as closely related to otherproposals that utilize the architecture of features to express linguistically contentful constraints(“geometric prediction”). For instance, the idea that dependents are represented on valence listsas objects of typesynsemrather thansignmakes predictions about which properties of depen-dents can be selected by heads (e.g. syntactic category and semantic type, but not phonology).In the case of linearization, the equivalent issue is which aspects of linguistic information appearnever to be relevant for linear precedence relations; thesefeatures should be rendered inaccessi-ble by means of the feature geometry. For instance, it appears that linear precedence constraintsare not sensitive to internal phrase structure, i.e. the number and kind of immediate constituents,as encoded in theDAUGHTERS value.

TheDOMAIN model should therefore be restricted in certain ways, but itcan also be extendedin other ways. For the analysis of phenomena involving ‘floating’ affixes, it has been proposedthat domain elements can represent objects smaller than words.16 This makes it possible touse linearization constraints to handle discontinuous realization of words in the same way asdiscontinuous phrases.

4 Syntactic Abstractness and Reductionism

In this section we survey some developments in HPSG that seemto be primarily methodologicalissues, but on closer inspection also have empirical ramifications. These have to do with the real-ity of phonologically empty syntactic constituents and thedivision of labor between the lexiconand the combinatorial apparatus in expressing syntactic generalizations. The overriding concernin both is the question of how abstract we should assume syntactic representations to be.

4.1 The (Non-)Reality of Syntactic Traces

With the introduction of the structure preserving constraint on transformations in the seven-ties, the notion of a “trace” as the residue of movement operations became a core ingredient oftransformational theories of grammar. The presence of inaudible copies of dislocated elementswithin the syntactic representation has been of crucial importance for the formulation of manyprinciples in transformational theories, including binding, scope of quantificational expressions,distribution of case-marked elements, and constraints on extraction.

The definition of a trace in HPSG is quite straightforward. One can simply see it as a phrasalelement of some category (usually nominal or prepositional) that is phonologically empty and

18

contributes its own local information to the set of nonlocalSLASH information:

(30)

PHON 〈 〉

SYNSEM

[

LOCAL 1

NONLOCAL | SLASH { 1}

]

However, the reliance on such phonologically empty syntactic elements is generally consid-ered to go against the spirit of HPSG as a surface-oriented theory. This holds for all kinds ofempty categories, not only traces (e.g.wh-trace and NP-trace), but alsopro, PRO, and the manyempty operators and empty functional heads that are assumedin other frameworks. The discus-sion in this section focuses onwh-trace, because most of the other empty categories have neverbeen proposed in standard HPSG analyses. For example, PRO isnot needed in infinitival con-structions, because the unrealized subject is identifiableas an unsaturated valence element, andNP-trace is not needed in the HPSG treatment of the passive alternation, which involves relatedbut distinct verbal lexical entries.

It should be said that some authors do in fact take advantage of the fact that HPSG cantechnically accommodate empty categories. As discussed in§3.1 above, a number of proposalsfor German clause structure assume a ‘head movement’ analysis with clause-final verbal traces.And the account of relative clauses in Pollard and Sag 1994 relies crucially on syntacticallycomplex but phonologically empty relativizing operators.For both of these cases, however,subsequent research has shown that alternative analyses are available that do not involve emptycategories (recall §3.2 and see the next section). The main issue that remains to be considered istherefore the elimination ofwh-trace.

And in fact, the treatment of extraction in terms of traces inthe syntactic structure proposedin HPSG2 was supplanted right away in HPSG3 by a traceless approach involving several lexicalrules, and later by the unified head-driven constraint-based analysis sketched in §2.2.2. Extrac-tion is encoded as a mismatch between the list of potential syntactic dependentsDEPS and theelements on the valence lists, which correspond to canonically realized dependents. An extractedelement is instead identified as agap, a non-canonical subtype ofsynsem, and itsLOCAL value isadded to theSLASH set.17 SLASH information propagates by head-driven inheritance and even-tually licenses the appearance of a filler that discharges the long-distance dependency.

The syntactic evidence typically offered in support ofwh-traces can be equally well ac-counted for by referring to theARG-ST list, whose membership remains unchanged even if argu-ments are extracted. For instance, fillers in English topicalization constructions can be reflexiveswith an antecedent in the following clause (31a)—notwithstanding the fact that the reflexive ispresumably in a configurationally higher position than its antecedent (Pollard and Sag 1994:265).Similiarly, an extracted subject as in (31b) can still serveas antecedent for a reflexive object ofits original verb.

(31) a. (John and Mary are stingy with their children.)But themselvesi, theyi pamper.

b. Which mani do you think perjured himselfi?

19

In transformational analyses, these in situ effects are analyzed by assuming the presence of atrace at the extraction site, but this is unnecessary in HPSG, because the relevant reflexive bindingconstraints apply to theARG-ST list of the verb.

Many aspects of extraction phenomena are open to both trace-based and traceless analyses inHPSG, but there are empirical motivations for preferring one technical approach to the other. Ashas been argued by Sag and Fodor (1994), the evidence for the existence of traces proposed in theliterature is often extremely weak. At the same time there are phenomena that can be explainedmore straightfowardly if no traces are assumed in the syntactic structure.

As an example of arguments of the first kind, considerwanna-contraction, one of the mostcelebrated pieces of evidence in favor of traces. The basic idea is thatwh-traces disallow thephonological contraction ofwant and to. The relative clause in (32a) is ambiguous between asubject or object control reading for the understood subject of succeed. In contrast, the variant in(32b) is only said to permit the subject control reading, supposedly because of the impossibilityof contraction across awh-trace.

(32) a. This is the man I want to succeed.

b. This is the man I wanna succeed.

However, as has been pointed out by Pullum (1997), there are numerous technical and con-ceptual problems with this explanation. For instance, whether contraction is possible appearsto be highly lexically specific:gonna, hafta, but *intenna (intend to),*lufta (love to),*meanna(meant to). This suggests that contraction cannot be a general process.

Instead, a fully lexical, traceless analysis of the above contrast is available ifwannais thoughtof as syntactically underived subject-control verb that does not license an object. Pullum isable to explain all of the phenomena previously discussed inthe literature, in addition to datadistinguishing his proposal from others that have been advanced.

Turning to positive evidence against traces, a strong argument in favor of their abolitioncomes from data involving extractions from coordination, first discussed by Sag (2000) (see alsoBouma et al. 2001). The well-known Coordinate Structure Constraint requires that each conjunctbe affected equally in extractions from conjoined phrases;in particular, extraction must apply inan “across-the-board” fashion. This straightforwardly explains the ungrammaticality of (33):

(33) *Whoi did you see [ i and Kim]?

However, as Sag points out, examples such as the following are also ungrammatical, eventhough here, the extraction affects each conjunct in a parallel fashion:

(34) a.*Whoi did you see [ i and a picture of i]?

b.*Which studenti did you find a picture of [a teacher of i and i]?

c.*Who did you compare [ i and i]?

The pertinent generalization is that no conjunct can consist of an extraction site with no othermaterial. This “Conjunct Constraint” has to be stipulated in addition to the across-the-board

20

condition of the Coordinate Structure Constraint. In an analysis without traces, however, thisadditional stipulation is unnecessary. In a coordinated structure, the conjuncts must be syntacticconstituents, and all syntactic constituents (in such an approach) must have phonological content.

Together with the elimination of such inaudibilia aspro (or empty relativizers as discussedin the next subsection), the abolition of traces from syntactic representations is a further step to-ward reducing syntactic abstractness and the complexity ofthe syntactic representations, i.e. thenumber of nodes, phonologically empty elements, and derivational relationships within syntactictrees. This has been made possible by the fact that a “word” inHPSG is not an isolated bundle ofinformation, but instead is part of a highly articulated network of lexical generalizations. Thus,the same lexical element (“lexeme”) is typically linked to aset of different ways of realizing itsargument structure, which obviates the need for traces or other empty elements. A further, andto some extent complementary, way of reducing complexity ofsyntactic structures itself is toadopt a more articulated inventory of ways in which elementscan be put together syntacticallyby adopting a “constructional” approach to syntactic licensing. This issue is the topic of the nextsubsection.

4.2 The Constructional Turn

One of the aspects of GPSG that HPSG sought to improve upon wasthe large number of ID rulesthat had to be posited in GPSG. A consequence of the GPSG approach was that it was difficult toexpress a natural correspondence between the semantic valence of a verb and its syntactic frameof occurrence. Such linking relations between syntactic valence and semantic argument structureare stated much more transparently if syntactic valence is represented directly as a property ofthe lexical element (cf. for instance Davis 2001). Also, as discussed at the beginning of §2,the lexicalization of combinatorial properties reduces the number of the ID schemas needed toexecute the instructions encoded in lexical descriptions.

Even though this view is initially attractive, its shortcomings become apparent when oneconsiders constructions whose combinatorial potential isnot obviously reducible to the proper-ties of particular lexical elements. A case in point is relative clauses. Since they are modifiers,their combination with a modified noun is licensed by means ofthe head featureMOD. Yet inconstructions likethat-less relative clauses in English, no lexical element signals this modifierstatus.18

(35) This is the woman I love.

The solution proposed in Chapter 5 of Pollard and Sag 1994 preserves the idea that com-binatorial properties are lexically derived, but at the price of introducing phonologically emptysyntactic elements. The result is a functional head analysis in which an empty relativizer (“Rel”)takes a clausal complement with a gap. As the head of the wholerelative clause, the relativizercontributes itsMOD specification to its projection (“Rel′”), which in turn licenses the combina-tion with a modified nounwoman.

(36)

21

N′

N′1

woman

Rel′[

MOD N′1

]

Rel[

MOD N′1

]

∅

S[

SLASH {NP1 }]

I love

A rather different approach to relative clauses is pursued by Sag (1997). Instead of associat-ing the internal and external properties of relative clauses to particular lexical elements, Sag treatsrelative clauses as grammatical entities in their own right. Thus, relative clauses are consideredto be CONSTRUCTIONS in the sense of Construction Grammar (Fillmore et al. ming; Zwicky1994; Goldberg 1995), that is, pairings of meaning and formal syntactic properties that cannotbe expressed at the level of smaller components. From such a construction-based perspective,the example in (36) receives an analysis of the kind sketchedin (37):

(37) N′

N′1

woman

S

bare-rel-clMOD N′

1

SLASH {NP1 }

I love

Herebare-rel-cl is a particular kind of relative clause, a subtype ofphrase, with properties thatset it apart from other kinds of relative clauses, in particular the absence of any initialwh-filler.

The constructional perspective has led to a reevaluation ofthe division of labor between thelexicon and the supra-lexical units recognized by the grammar. HPSG analyses have habituallyfocused on lexical description and the hierarchical organization ofwords, and there has beena tendency to provide lexical treatments of the grammaticalaspects of phrases and sentenceswhenever possible. In contrast, given a fuller model of the hierarchy ofphrases, a simplerconception of the lexicon, free of aspects better treated atthe constructional level, becomespossible.

In addition to relative clauses, two areas in which a construction-based approach has led tosignificant advances are English interrogative constructions (Ginzburg and Sag 2000, see also§5.1.2) and German clause types (Kathol, 1997, 2000). The latter combines the construction-based perspective with the linearization framework outlined in §3.2. As a result, German clausalconstructions can be defined entirely by referring to their topological structure, abstracting awayfrom combinatorial licensing. In the case of root declarative clauses this makes it possible to

22

have a uniform description of the construction, whether theinitial element is a filler (as in (29)above) or some other element, such as the positional expletivees, illustrated in (38):

(38)

root-decl= (v2∧ declarative)

DOM

⟨

vf.PHON〈es〉EXPL

,

l. s.PHON〈sah〉V [FIN]

,

mf.PHON〈niemand〉NP[NOM]

,

mf.PHON〈d. Blume〉NP[ACC]

⟩

Whether the first element is a filler or an expletive, both (29)and (38) satisfy the constraintson root declarative clauses, which are defined as the conjunction of constraints onv2clauses anddeclarativeclauses, cf. (39) (Kathol 2000:147–148):

(39) a.v2→

... | HEAD 1

DOM

⟨

vf,

[

l. s.... | HEAD 1

]

, ...

⟩

b.

declarative→

... | HEAD 1

... | MODE proposition

DOM

⟨[

l. s.... | HEAD 2

]

, ...

⟩

1 6= 2

The first constraint requires that the verbal head occur in second position in the clausal domain,while the second states that the verbal head must not occur clause-initially, while imposing propo-sitional semantics on the entire clause.19

Next we turn to the question of how the various constructional constraints can be related toeach other. The type-based formalism of HPSG allows the information in constructional defini-tions to be organized in terms of hierarchical inheritance.

4.3 Construction Hierarchies

Construction-based approaches are sometimes criticized for being merely descriptive and notexplanatory and hence failing to reveal the underlying factors responsible for the patterns ob-served in the data. On the other hand, it must be recognized that reductionist approaches oftenonly succeed by arbitrarily selecting a subset of data to be explained (“core” vs. “periphery”).Moreover, in many purportedly reductionist analyses, constructional complexity is often simplyhidden in the use of phonologically null elements, for whichlittle or no empirical motivation isprovided. Finally, critics of constructional approaches fail to realize that as a result of describingwhat is special and irreducible about a given entity in the grammar, we end up with an accountof what properties a given constructionSHARESwith other elements of the grammar. Of centralimportance in this respect are multiple inheritance hierarchies. Such hierarchies are well-knownfrom the way that lexical information is organized in HPSG. For instance, a verbal form such aswalkscan intuitively be characterized in terms of at least two parameters of variation. The firstis the lexical class or part of speech, which groupswalkstogether with such forms asis, proved,andsinging. The second is valence, which putswalks in the same class assleeping, house, orabroad, cf. (40).

23

(40) valence part-of-speech

... transitive intransitive verb noun preposition...

intransitive-verb

Thus once membership in these and other classes has been established for a given lexeme, onlythe lexically indiosyncratic properties need to be listed specifically.

The use of multiple inheritance hierarchies extends naturally to objects of typephraseaswell. For instance, the phrasal typebare-rel-cl in (37) above is simultaneously an instance of thephrase typesnon-wh-rel-clandfin-hd-subj-ph, as shown in (41) (Sag 1997:443, 473):

(41) phrase

CLAUSALITY HEADEDNESS

clause ... hd-ph ...

decl-cl inter-cl rel-cl ... ... ...

non-wh-rel-cl ... hd-subj-ph ...

fin-hd-subj-ph ...

bare-rel-cl

The typenon-wh-rel-clclassifies the construction as a particular subinstance of non-wh relativeclauses (rel-cl), which is one way in which the ‘clausality’ of a phrase (its combinatorial andsemantic properties) can be specified.20 The typefin-hd-subj-phaccounts for its internal compo-sition as a finite subject-predicate construction (and, forinstance, not as a filler-head constructionas in the case ofwh-relative clauses). This in turn is an instance of a subject-predicate phrase(hd-subj-ph), which is ultimately related to the general type of headed phrases (hd-ph).

While there are often residual properties that cannot be accounted for by stating what largerconstructional classes a given entity inherits from, both constructions under consideration here—English bare relative clauses and German verb-second declaratives—are defined entirely by theirsupertypes. Thus, the constraints on phrases of typebare-rel-clare simply the logical conjunctionof the constraints onnon-wh-rel-clandfin-hd-subj-ph.

The constructional hierarchy in (42) illustrates the same for the example in (38) above. UnlikeHEADEDNESSin (41), which makes reference to the schema responsible forthe combination, thesubtypes ofINT(ERNAL)-SYNTAX in (42) are defined in terms of topological structure (adaptedfrom Kathol 2000:175).

24

(42) finite-clause

INT-SYNTAX CLAUSALITY

root subord inter

v2 v1 imp wh polar decl rel

root-decl

Far from simply providing a list of grammatical constructions, the constructional approachstrives to capture generalizations whenever possible. As aresult, as Kathol (2000, 176–177)points out, the various inheritance relationships that organize the constructions of a languageinto a complex web of dependencies of different kinds take the place of the representationalcomplexity inherent in the abstract structures posited in transformational analyses. This orga-nized repository is sometimes referred to as the “constructicon”, the counterpart of the lexiconfor constructions.

5 Meaning in HPSG

As Halvorsen (1995) and Nerbonne (1992, 1995) argue at length, LFG- or HPSG-styleconstraint-based semantics has several advantages over approaches such as Montague grammarthat assume a homomorphism between syntax and semantics. Constraint-based semantics allowsmuch greater freedom in stating analyses at the syntax/semantics interface. The notion of thelinguistic sign in HPSG makes it easy to formulate phonological and pragmatic constraints onmeaning (cf. §5.2). In addition, constraint-based semantics seems to be particularly well-suitedfor expressing semantic underspecification (cf. §5.1) and it allows the formulation of theories ofcombinatorial semantics that go beyond compositionality,a notion recently argued to be unnec-essary, if not completely vacuous (Zadrozny, 1994; Lappin and Zadrozny, 2000).

In the two subsections below, we will look at recent HPSG approaches to semantics andpragmatics, respectively.

5.1 Advances in Semantics

Recent years have witnessed increased interest in foundational semantic issues within HPSG. Anumber of studies have proposed various novel approaches toHPSG semantics, either extendingthe account of Pollard and Sag (1994) (cf. §5.1.1 and §5.1.2), or replacing it (cf. §5.1.3).

5.1.1 Scope and Recursive Modification

The standard HPSG approach to semantics presents two major flaws: the incorrect interaction ofraising and scope, and a failure to account for recursive modification.

25

Raising and Scope The first problem is recognized in Pollard and Sag (1994, p. 328). Theambiguous sentences in (43) receive only a single reading under their analysis, namely, the widescope readings in which the quantifiersa unicornandeach paintingoutscope the raising verbs.

(43) a. A unicorn appears to be approaching. (ambiguous)

b. Sandy believes each painting to be fraudulent. (ambiguous)

The problem stems from the fact that, in Pollard and Sag (1994), a quantifier starts its lifeonly at the surface position of the phrase to which it corresponds and from there it can onlypercolate upwards. Thus, in (43a), the quantifier cannot be in the scope ofappears, even thoughit corresponds to the raised subject ofapproaching, which is in the scope ofappears. The solutionPollard and Yoo (1998) propose is to make the quantifier corresponding to a raised constituentavailable at the ‘initial’ position, e.g. at the level of theembedded verbapproachingin (43a).The quantifier can then percolate up and be retrieved either inside or outside the scope ofappear.Below, we present an analysis proposed in Przepiórkowski (1997, 1998), which simplifies theanalysis of Pollard and Yoo, while at the same time solving a number of problems, such asspurious ambiguity.

Przepiórkowski’s analysis rests on the following assumptions: First, in order to treat raisingexamples such as (43),QSTOREmust be present not at the level ofsign, as in Pollard and Sag(1994), but at least at the level ofsynsem. If QSTOREappears onsynsemobjects, the quantifiercorresponding toa unicornin (43a) will be present on theQSTORE in thesynsemof a unicorn,(i.e. the subject ofappears). Sinceappearsis a raising verb, thisQSTOREvalue is also presenton the subject ofapproachingand it can therefore be retrieved within the scope ofappears. Infact, on the basis of extraction examples such as (44), Pollard and Yoo (1998) argue thatQSTORE

should actually be appropriate forlocal objects.

(44) Five books, I believe John read.

Przepiórkowski (1997, 1998) goes further and argues thatQSTOREshould be part of a sign’scontent:

(45)[

content

QSTORE set(quant)

]

[

psoa

QUANTS list(quant)

]

nom-obj quant

Second, there is a new set-valued attribute appropriate forword only, namelyNEW-QS. If aword introduces a quantifier, theNEW-QS set contains this quantifier; otherwise it is empty. Forexample, a partial specification of the indefinite determiner a, assumed to be a quantifier, is:

26

(46)

word

PHON 〈 a 〉

SYNSEM|LOC

CAT|HEAD

[

det

SPEC N′: 1

]

CONT 2

quant

DETERMINER existsRESTIND 1

ARG-ST 〈 〉NEW-QS { 2 }

Third, quantifier retrieval is only allowed at the lexical level, as proposed in Manning et al.1999. Przepiórkowski provides a constraint that ensures that words withnom-objor quantcon-tent simply amalgamate theQSTOREvalues of their arguments and their ownNEW-QS value, andthe resultingQSTOREset propagates further up the tree in accordance with the standard Seman-tics Principle. A word withpsoacontent, on the other hand, can retrieve quantifiers from this setand move them toQUANTS (which contains the list of retrieved quantifiers in the order of theirscope). Other quantifiers remain inQSTOREfor retrieval by a higher lexical head.

Przepiórkowski’sQSTOREamalgamation mechanism relies crucially on a distinction betweenselected and non-selected arguments. For example,a unicornin (43a) is a selected argument ofthe lower verb (approaching), but not of the higher verb (appears). In this way, the quantifieris only introduced once, by thesynsemof a unicornat the level of the verbapproaching. Asdesired, however, (43a) has exactly two possible readings:a unicorn is either retrieved by theword approaching, or it remains inQSTORE and is retrieved in the upper clause by the wordappears.

Recursive Modification Kasper (1997) notes that the original semantic theory of Pollard andSag (1994) does not account for modifying phrases that contain modifiers of their own as, e.g. in(47).

(47) a. Bob showed us an [[apparently] simple] example.

b. Congress reconsidered the [[[[very] obviously] unintentionally] controversial] plan.

According to the Semantics Principle of Pollard and Sag (1994), the adjunct daughter is thesemantic head in a head-adjunct phrase, and it provides all of the semantic content of the resultingphrase. TheCONTENT value of the modified daughter (the syntactic head)—in particular, thesemantic relations encoded in theRESTR(ICTIONS) set—must therefore be incorporated into theCONTENT of the adjunct. This is taken care of in the lexical description of the modifier, whichhas access to thesynsemof the modified element through itsMOD value.

This approach does not produce the correct analysis in casesof recursive modification. In(47), for example,apparentlymodifiessimple, which means that theRESTR set of simple isadded to that ofapparently. However, theRESTRset ofsimplein turn includes theRESTRset ofexample. The entire NP ends up therefore with an incorrect interpretation in which the simpleexample is apparent, and not the actual reading in which the example is apparently simple.

The problem is that there is no way for the embedded modifierapparentlyto pick out justthe inherent semantics ofsimplewhile excluding the semantics ofexample: the value ofRESTR

27

is an unstructured set. Kasper addresses this problem by encoding the “internal” content of theadjunct daughter in one part of its representation (in itsMOD | ICONT value), and the overallcontent, incorporating the semantics of the modified element, in another part (MOD | ECONT).The Semantics Principle is revised to specify that theCONTENT of a head-adjunct phrase isshared with theECONT value of the adjunct daughter.

In the original Pollard and Sag analysis, modifiers must havedifferentCONTENT values de-pending on the identity of the modified element or the syntactic context. For example, an at-tributive adjective likesimpleabove has aCONTENT of typenom-obj, but a predicative adjective(as inThis problem is apparently simple) has aCONTENT of typepsoa. The adverbapparentlyexhibits exactly the same alternation in these examples, although there is nothing in its local con-text to motivate this. Kasper’s revised approach allows a more uniform representation of modifiermeaning: theCONTENT of a modifier always encodes its inherent semantics (an object of typepsoa).

Assuming lexical specifications ofpotentiallyandcontroversialas in (48) and (49), respec-tively, the structure of the phrasepotentially controversial planaccording to Kasper’s analysis isschematically described in (50).

(48)

word

PHON 〈 potentially〉

SS|LOC

CAT|HEAD

adv

MOD

mod

ARG

[

HEAD adjCONT 5 psoa

]

ICONT 3 psoaECONT 3

CONT

[

RELN potentialARG 5

]

(49)

word

PHON 〈 controversial〉

SS|LOC

CAT|HEAD

adj

PRD −

MOD

mod

ARG|CONT

nom-obj

INDEX 1

RESTR 2

ICONT 3

ECONT

nom-obj

INDEX 1

RESTR 2 & 3

CONT

[

RELN controversialINST 1

]

28

(50)[

PHON 〈 potentially controversial plan〉CONT 7

]

PHON 〈 potentially controversial〉

HEAD 4

MOD

ARG 9

ICONT 3

ECONT 7

[

INDEX 1

RESTR 2 & 3

]

CONT 3

PHON 〈 potentially〉

MOD

ARG 8

ICONT 3

ECONT 3

CONT 3

[

RELN potentialARG 5

]

8

PHON 〈 controversial〉HEAD 4

CONT 5

[

RELN controversialINST 1

]

9

PHON 〈 plan 〉

CONT

INDEX 1

RESTR 2

[

RELN planINST 1

]

The analysis assigns the correct meaning to the NP: ‘x :plan′(x) & potential′(controversial′(x))’. The adverbpotentially only modifies the in-herent semantic content ofcontroversial, and the semantics of the entire AdjPpotentiallycontroversialis combined with the semantics of the modified nounplan.

Another solution to the problem of recursive modification isto abandon the idea of a se-mantic head that is solely responsible for the propagation of semantic content in head-adjunctphrases. In Minimal Recursion Semantics (discussed in 63 below), all daughters contribute theircontent directly to the higher phrase. The embedding of the modified element’sCONTENT in themodifier’sCONTENT, which was the source of the original problem, is thus avoided.

5.1.2 Propositions, Facts, Outcomes and Questions

Ginzburg and Sag (2000) extend previous HPSG approaches to semantics by considering thecontent of illocutionary acts other than assertions. They propose a typemessagefor the semanticcontent of clauses, with two immediate subtypespropositionalandquestion.

Ginzburg and Sag distinguish three types ofpropositionalobjects: proposition, fact, andoutcome. Proposition is the semantic type of the complement of predicates such asbelieve,assert, assume, denyor prove, so calledtrue/falsepredicates (“TF predicates”). Such predicates,unlike factive predicates, e.g.knowor discover, can only occur with nominal complements ofwhich truth can be predicated:

(51) a.#Jackie believed/doubted/assumed. . . Bo’s weight / my phonenumber.

29

b. Jackie knows/discovered Bo’s weight / my phone number.

Moreover, TF predicates treat proposition-denoting complements purely referentially, in thesense of Quine (1968):

(52) a. Substitutivity :

The Fed’s forecast was that gold reserves will be depleted bythe year 2000.Brendan believes/denies. . . the Fed’s forecast.Hence, Brendan believes/denies. . . that gold reserves willbe depleted by 2000.

b. Existential Generalization:

Brendan believes/denies. . . that gold reserves will be depleted by the year 2000.Hence, there is a claim/hypothesis/prediction that Brendan believes/denies. . .

On the other hand, factive predicates do not seem to treat proposition-denoting complementspurely referentially, e.g.:

(53) Substitutivity :

The Fed’s forecast was that gold reserves will be depleted bythe year 2000.(The Fed’s forecast is true.)Brendan discovered/was aware of the Fed’s forecast.IT DOES NOT FOLLOW THAT Brendan discovered/was aware that gold reserves will bedepleted by 2000.

This suggests that the denotation of the complement of a TF predicate (i.e. a proposition) isdifferent from that of the complement of a factive predicate(i.e. a fact or, more generally, apossibility).

Another difference between facts and propositions is that only the former can enter into causalrelations:

(54) a. The fact that Tony was ruthless made the fight against her difficult.

b. The possibility that Glyn might get elected made Tony’s hair turn white.

c.#The claim/hypothesis/proposition that Tony was ruthless made the fight against herdifficult.

On the other hand, truth can only be predicated of propositions, not of facts (or possibilities):

(55) a.#The fact that Tony was ruthless is true.

b. The claim/hypothesis/proposition that Tony was ruthless is true/false.

Apart from complements of factive verbs, facts are the content of the illocutionary acts of re-minding and exclaiming, e.g.:

(56) a. Laurie:Bo:

Why don’t the vendors here speak Straits Salish?We’re in New York City for Pete’s sake.

30

b. Bo reminded Laurie (of the fact) that they were in New York City.

It is considerations like these that lead Ginzburg and Sag (2000) to introducepropositionandfact as distinct subtypes ofpropositional. Another subtype ofpropositionalthat they distinguishis outcome, the type of imperative clauses,inter alia. What all thesepropositionalcontents havein common is their internal structure, which involves a situation (the value of the attributeSIT)and a state of affairs (the value of the attributeSOA), the latter corresponding to Pollard and Sag’s1994 parametrized state of affairs (psoa).

On the other hand,questions, which correspond to the content of clausal complements ofpredicates such aswonderandask, are represented as propositional abstracts, with the relevantnotion of abstraction being Aczel and Lunnon’s 1991 “simultaneous abstraction”. In terms ofHPSG feature geometry,questionsaremessageswith two new attributes:PARAMS, whose valueis the set of (abstracted) parameters, andPROP, with values of typeproposition. This is summa-rized below.

(57) message

propositional

SIT situationSOA soa

proposition fact outcome

question

PARAMS set(parameter)PROP proposition

The following examples illustrate the semantic representation of a simple declarative and asimpleyes/nointerrogative clauses within Ginzburg and Sag’s 2000 approach. Note that thevalue ofPARAMS in (59) is the empty set, corresponding to the simultaneous abstraction of zeroparameters in case ofyes/noquestions, and that background assumptions are represented asfacts.

(58) Brendan left.

SS|LOC

CONT

proposition

SIT s0

SOA

soa

QUANTS 〈 〉

NUCL

[

leave-rel

LEAVER 1

]

CONX|BKGRND

fact

SIT s1

SOA

soa

QUANTS 〈 〉

NUCL

name-rel

NAMED 1

NAME Brendan

31

(59) Did Brendan leave?

SS|LOC

CONT

question

PARAMS { }

PROP

proposition

SIT s0

SOA

soa

QUANTS 〈 〉

NUCL

[

leave-rel

LEAVER 1

]

CONX|BKGRND

fact

SIT s1

SOA

soa

QUANTS 〈 〉

NUCL

name-rel

NAMED 1

NAME Brendan

See Ginzburg and Sag 2000 for further details and explication in terms of Situation Theory,as well as for extensive application of this approach to an analysis of English interrogatives.21

5.1.3 Beyond Situation Semantics

The extensions of HPSG semantics presented in the two preceding subsections are exactly that:extensions of the standard Pollard and Sag (1994) HPSG semantic theory, which was inspiredby Situation Semantics. The last decade has also witnessed numerous proposals for integratingother approaches to semantics into HPSG. These proposals can be classified into two overlappingcategories: the first category comprises analyses that replace standard HPSG semantics with aversion of predicate logic, the second contains HPSG analyses of underspecified meaning. Wewill present these two classes of approaches in turn below.

Predicate Logics To the best of our knowledge, the first proposal to use a predicate logic asthe semantic language of HPSG is that of Nerbonne (1992, 1993): he shows how to encode thelanguage of generalized quantifiers in typed feature structures and provides a treatment of scopeambiguities within this encoding.

A more recent proposal of this type is made by Richter and Sailer (1999a, 1999b), who showin technical detail how the higher order type theoretic language Ty2 can be used as the semanticobject language of HPSG. In this model, the value ofCONTENT is of typeme(meaningful ex-pression), which introduces the attributeTYPE for identifying eitheratomic-types(entity, truth,w-index) or complex-types(with two type-valued attributes, i.e.IN andOUT). The subtypes ofmeincludevariable, constant, application, abstraction, equation, negation, logical-constantandquantifier, which can have further subtypes and introduce their own attributes. The following ex-ample shows how lambda abstraction and function application are encoded in Richter & Sailer’ssystem.

32

(60) a. λxe.professor′〈e,t〉(xe)

b.

abstraction

TYPE

c-typeIN 1 entityOUT 2 truth

VAR 3

[

varTYPE 1

]

ARG

application

FUNC

professor

TYPE

c-typeIN 1

OUT 2

ARG 3

In this approach, combinatorial semantics is particularlysimple: theCONTENT value of aphraseis always the result of functional application of theCONTENT value of one daughter to theCONTENT value of the other daughter (with additional applications of β-reduction, as needed).

Richter and Sailer also introduce a lexical rule for type shifting.22

(61)

[

wordSYNSEM|LOC|CONTENT λx1 . . . λxi . . . λxn.φ

]

=⇒

[

wordSYNSEM|LOC|CONTENT λx1 . . . λXi . . . λxn.Xi(λxi.φ)

]

With this type shifting lexical rule in hand, one of the two meanings of, say,Someone loveseveryonecan be derived by type shifting the basic meaning oflove(given in (62a)) to (62b) and,subsequently, to (62c), followed by ordinary functional application, indicated in (63).

(62) a. λyλx.love′(x, y)(61)=⇒

b. λyλX.X(λx.love′(x, y))(61)=⇒

c. λY λX.Y (λy.X(λx.love′(x, y)))

(63) ∀y∃x.love′(x, y)

λQ∃x.Q(x) λX∀y.X(λx.love′(x, y))

λY λX.Y (λy.X(λx.love′(x, y))) λP∀y.P (y)someone loves everyone

Note that in this approach, such scope ambiguities result from different placements of the newvariable introduced by the Quantifier Raising rule (61): ifλY were placed afterλX in (62c), theopposite scoping would result (i.e.∃x∀y.love′(x, y)).

Richter and Sailer (1999a, 1999b) provide extensive discussion of their proposals for HPSGsemantics and show how it can be used to analyze Negative Concord in French and Polish.

33

Underspecification One of the first discussions of the proper representation of semantic under-specification in HPSG is Nerbonne (1992, 1993), which shows how underspecifieddescriptionsof meanings can correctly denote semanticobjectscorresponding to fully specified meanings.For example, although the grammar leaves open which quantifier outscopes the other inEvery-body loves somebody, each object corresponding to the content of this sentence is disambiguatedone way or the other. This is, in fact, also the approach adopted in Pollard and Sag (1994),Pollard and Yoo (1998), and other works mentioned above. According to all these works, al-thoughdescriptionsof (semantic) objects are underspecified with respect to meaning, theobjectsthemselves correspond to fully resolved semantic representations.

Recent years have witnessed a number of proposals for truly underspecified semantics forHPSG, i.e. a semantics in which both descriptionsand objectscorrespond to underspecifiedmeanings. According to such approaches, the semantic object described (generated) by an HPSGgrammar and corresponding to, say,Everybody loves somebodydoes not resolve the relativescope of the two quantifiers. An extra-grammatical resolution mechanism steps in to providedisambiguated readings, when necessary. Some logics, suchas Underspecified Discourse Rep-resentation Theory (UDRT; Reyle 1993), define truth conditions for underspecified semanticrepresentations and provide a proof theory which makes it possible to draw inferences from suchpartial semantic structures. In fact, the first (to the best of our knowledge) proposal for under-specified semantics for HPSG simply embeds UDRT into HPSG. Frank and Reyle (1992, 1995,1996) use this formalism in their analysis of interactions between word order and quantifierscope, and of the collective/distributive readings of plural NPs.

A related approach, which has gained greater attention fromHPSG practitioners, is MinimalRecursion Semantics (MRS; Copestake et al. 2006), an underspecified version of predicate cal-culus. Although originally devised as a computationally-oriented semantic formalism, it is alsoincreasingly adopted in theoretical linguistic work.

One of the principal characteristics of MRS is that the grammar does not determine scoperelations; they are resolved at a post-grammatical resolution stage (if at all). The grammar itselfgenerates semantic representations such as (64), corresponding toEvery dog chased some cat:

(64)

mrs

HOOK

[

LTOP 0

INDEX e

]

RELS 〈

every

LBL 1

ARG0 x

RSTR l

BODY m

,

dog

LBL 2

ARG0 x

,

chase

LBL 3

ARG0 e

ARG1 x

ARG2 y

,

some

LBL 4

ARG0 y

RSTR n

BODY p

,

cat

LBL 5

ARG0 y

〉

HCONS 〈

qeq

HARG 0

LARG 3

,

qeq

HARG l

LARG 2

,

qeq

HARG n

LARG 5

〉

The main attribute of anmrs structure isRELS, whose value is a bag of elementary pred-ications (EPs), consisting of a semantic predicate with an identifying label (an object of typehandle) and associated arguments. These arguments take either semantic variables or handles

34

as values. In (64), the variable-valued arguments (ARG0, ARG1, ARG2) are properly identifiedwith the entity and event variablesx , y , and e . The appropriate coindexations are determinedby lexical and syntactic constraints.

The scopal EPs foreveryandsome, on the other hand, are more complicated: the two handle-valued arguments specify the restriction and body (or scope) of the quantifier. The values ofthese arguments must eventually be equated with theLBL value of some EP, but this linking isnot fully determined by syntactic and semantic compositionrules. We can see this in (64), wherethe valuesl , m , n , and p are not identified with any EP labels, although some handle constraintsare introduced inHCONS.

The authors assume that the resolution of handle-argument values is done by an extra-grammatical processing module.23 The two ways of disambiguating the example in (64) areshown in (65)–(66) below; they can be represented in the traditional notation as in (65′)–(66′).

(65)

mrs

LTOP 0

RELS 〈

every

LBL 1

ARG0 x

RSTR l

BODY m

,

dog

LBL 2

ARG0 x

,

chase

LBL 3

ARG0 e

ARG1 x

ARG2 y

,

some

LBL 4

ARG0 y

RSTR n

BODY p

,

cat

LBL 5

ARG0 y

〉

(66)

mrs

LTOP 0

RELS 〈

every

LBL 1

ARG0 x

RSTR l

BODY m

,

dog

LBL 2

ARG0 x

,

chase

LBL 3

ARG0 e

ARG1 x

ARG2 y

,

some

LBL 4

ARG0 y

RSTR n

BODY p

,

cat

LBL 5

ARG0 y

〉

(65′) ∀x(dog′(x) → ∃y(cat′(y) ∧ chase′(x, y)))

(66′) ∃y(cat′(y) ∧ ∀x(dog′(x) → chase′(x, y)))

Not all identifications ofRSTR andBODY with EP labels lead to well-formed formulas. Ina fully resolved MRS representation, all of the handles mustform a tree (where the label of anEP immediately dominates the handles that appear as arguments in that EP) rooted at theLTOP

(local top) handle, which corresponds to the EP (or conjunction of EPs) with the widest scope inthe phrase. This tree condition is satisfied in the two scope-resolved MRSs above. On the otherhand, for example, the handlem could not be equated with1 , and m and p could not both beequated with3 , because the resulting structures are not trees.

The resolution of an underspecified MRS structure must also respect the constraints inHCONS. These are formulated as “equality modulo quantifiers” or “=q” constraints, which statethat either (i) theHARG andLARG handles are identified, or (ii) if there are intervening quan-tifiers, theHARG handle must outscope theLARG handle. In both possible resolutions of the

35

underspecified MRS in (64)), the constraintsl =q 2 and n =q 5 are satisfied by handle iden-tification, while 0 =q 3 is satisfied by handle outscoping. As a more interesting example, in asentence likeKim thinks that Sue did not make it, notcannot outscopethinks, even though such areading would be allowed by well-formedness conditions alone. The unavailability of this inter-pretation is ensured by adding a constraint toHCONSrequiring theltop of the complement clauseto outscope the handle of the negation. See Copestake et al. (2006) for further formal discussionand examples ofHCONS constraints.

An interesting variant of MRS is presented in Egg 1998 and used as a basis for a (syntactico-)semantic HPSG account ofwh-questions. And Richter and Sailer (1999c), following Bos(1995), show how for any logical object language, a semantically underspecified version of thislanguage can be defined as the semantic representation for HPSG, generalizing over previousHPSG approaches to underspecified semantics.

5.2 Forays into Pragmatics

5.2.1 Information Structure

The HPSG framework is ideally suited for studying interactions between various grammaticallevels. Although the syntax-semantic interface has received the most attention, there has alsobeen work on information structure (also calledtopic-focus, theme-rheme, new-given, topic-ground), which is known to interact with syntax and prosody in interesting ways. The mostinfluential approach is based on Vallduví’s 1992 account of information structure, further de-veloped in Engdahl and Vallduví (1994), Engdahl and Vallduví (1996), Vallduví and Engdahl(1996), and Engdahl (1999). We will illustrate this approach with a simple example from Eng-dahl and Vallduví (1996).

Consider the mini-dialogue in (67), wherebold face corresponds to “B-accent” (L+H*),while SMALL CAPITALS correspond to “A-accent” (H*).

(67) A: In the Netherlands I got a big Delft china tray that matches the set in the living room.Was that a good idea?

B: (Maybe.) Thepresident [F HATES] the Delft china set. (But thefirst lady LIKES it.)

Vallduví (1992) assumes a 3-way partition of information structure of sentences. First, the in-formation conveyed by a sentence is split into new information (focus) and information alreadypresent in the discourse (ground). Second,groundis further subdivided intolink (what the sen-tence is about, sometimes calledtopic) andtail. Under the assumption that every utterance con-tains new information, this leads to a four-way classification of utterances:all-focus(no ground),link-focus(no tail), focus-tail(no link) andlink-focus-tail. The sentence in (67B) represents thelink-focus-tailtype.

Engdahl and Vallduví (1994, 1996) and Engdahl (1999) propose that information structurebe represented within in theCONTEXT value ofsignsin the following way:

36

(68)

context

INFO-STR

info-struc

FOCUS set(content)

GROUND

ground

LINK set(content)TAIL set(content)

They also formulate principles that add a word’s semantic contribution to the focus if and only ifit bears the A-accent, and to the link if and only if it bears the B-accent:

(69)

[

word

PHON|ACCENT A

]

↔

word

CONT 1

CONX|INFO-STR|FOCUS { 1 }

(70)

[

word

PHON|ACCENT B

]

↔

word

CONT 1

CONX|INFO-STR|GROUND|LINK { 1 }

There are additional principles specifying how a phrase’s information structure is constrained bythe information structure of its daughters.

This leads to the following (much simplified) structure of (67B):

(71) S

INFO-STR

info-struc

FOCUS { 1 }

GROUND

ground

LINK { 4 }TAIL { 2 }

NP

PHON|ACCENT BCONT 4

INFO-STR

[

info-struc

GROUND|LINK { 4 }

]

the president

VP

INFO-STR

info-struc

FOCUS { 1 }GROUND|TAIL { 2 }

V

PHON|ACCENT ACONT 1

INFO-STR

[

info-struc

FOCUS { 1 }

]

HATES

NP[

CONT 2

]

the Delft china set

37

Note that this analysis simultaneously accesses and constrains various grammatical levels:prosody (PHON values) and pragmatics (CONX|INFO-STR values), but also semantics (CONT val-ues) and constituent structure (DTRS values, represented here using tree notation). This accountclearly illustrates the advantages of constraint-based theories, such as HPSG, over derivationaltheories, like Minimalism, where it is not clear how such an analysis, making simultaneous useof various levels of grammatical knowledge, could be stated.24

Recent HPSG analyses concerned with information structurein various languages in-clude: Avgustinova (1997), Kolliakou (1998), Kolliakou (1999), Alexopoulou (1998) andPrzepiórkowski (1999b).

5.2.2 Beliefs and Intentions

Green (1994) and Green (2000) seek to spell out in further detail the kind of information normallyrepresented byCONTEXT values and argue that this information does not correspond to the realworld directly (as it apparently does, e.g. in Pollard and Sag (1994) and in (58)–(59) in §5.1.2above), but rather describes speakers’ beliefs about the world and their intentions.

Thus, Green (1994) reiterates arguments that “the relevantbackground propositions are notabout objective aspects of any world, but rather are propositions about beliefs which the speakersupposes to be mutual” (p. 5); for example, sentence (72) is felicitous provided that both thespeaker and the hearer believe the presupposition (that french fries are bad for Clinton), even ifthat presupposition is in fact false.

(72) Clinton realizes french fries are bad for him.

Moreover, Green (1994) argues that restrictions onINDEX values, normally taken to be a partof CONTENT (i.e. values of the attributeRESTRICTION) should rather be treated as beliefs abouthow referential expressions can be used, i.e. as parts ofCONTEXT. This is because “as languageusers, we are free to use any word to refer to anything at all, subject only to the purely pragmaticconstraint that [. . . ] our intended audience will be able to correctly identify our intended referentfrom our use of the expression we choose” (p. 7). If expressions such asdognevertheless havecertain ‘standard’ or ‘normal’ meanings, this is due to the mutual belief of the speaker and thehearer as to what a normal belief about the referential use ofdog is within a given languagecommunity. A partial simplified (‘naive’) version of the lexical entry fordog in this kind offramework would be (73).

38

(73)

PHON 〈 dog〉

SS|LOC

CONT|INDEX 1

CONX

C-INDS

[

SPEAKER 2

ADDRESSEE 3

]

BKGRND {

mutually-believe

EXPERIENCER 2

STANDARD 3

SOA

normally-believe

EXPERIENCER Englishspeakers

SOA

[

canis

INST 1

]

}

This approach to referential expressions is a step towards atreatment of transferred reference,extensively discussed by Nunberg (1978), such as (74) below.

(74) The milkshake claims you kicked her purse.

Here,milkshakecan refer to whoever purchased the milkshake by virtue of themutual beliefof the speaker and the addressee that, within sales agents’ parlance, the thing purchased candesignate the purchaser. This means that theBACKGROUND value of thesigncorresponding to(74) contains the following mutual belief (in addition to the belief thatmilkshakenormally refersto a milkshake and other beliefs):

(75)

mutually-believe

EXPERIENCER 2 (speaker)STANDARD 3 (addressee)

SOA

normally-believe

EXPERIENCER sales agents

SOA

rfunction

DEMONSTRATUM purchaseDESIGNATUM purchaser

Green (2000) seeks to represent the illocutionary force of utterances within the value ofCONTEXT|BACKGROUND25 as speakers’ intentions. For example, the illocutionary force ofpromising is analyzed as a speaker’s intention that the addressee recognize the speaker’s in-tention that the addressee believe that the speaker commitshimself or herself to be responsiblefor the content of the promise:

(76) Illocutionary force of promising:

39

CONX

C-INDS

[

SPEAKER 1

ADDRESSEE 2

]

BKGRND {

intend

EXPERIENCER 1

SOA

recognize

EXPERIENCER 2

SOA

intend

EXPERIENCER 1

SOA

believe

EXPERIENCER 2

SOA

commit

AGENT 1

SOA

responsible

THEME 1

SOA psoa

}

The grammatical principles giving rise to structures like (76) are not formulated explicitly.Green suggests that “it is not the sign which is the indicatorof illocutionary intentions, but theact of uttering it”. A fuller model of speech acts is thus required in order to incorporate theseproposals into HPSG grammars.

6 Issues in Morphosyntax

The interface between syntax and morphology has also received considerable attention in re-cent HPSG research. The original presentations of the framework in Pollard and Sag (1987)and (1994) did not address these kinds of issues in detail, but they did establish the Strong Lex-icalist foundations of HPSG. Under this hypothesis, elements smaller than words (i.e. boundmorphemes) are not manipulated in the syntax. There are manylinguistic phenomena, however,that result from the interaction of syntax and morphology, and this section surveys a number ofproposals for handling such phenomena in a way that is consistent with the lexicalist claim aboutthe modularity of grammar.

6.1 Clitics

The elements described as ‘clitics’ in various languages are notoriously difficult to analyze pre-cisely because they straddle the boundary between morphology and syntax. They can be charac-terized broadly as once fully independent words that have lost their autonomy in various ways;as this process continues, these elements may lose their syntactic word status, or disappear alto-gether.

In this section we will present the analysis of French pronominal clitics proposed by Millerand Sag (1997). As they discuss in detail, the empirical facts confirm that French clitics areactually lexical affixes, rather than syntactic words. Theyprovide a lexicalist account of clitic

40

realization (as bound morphological elements), disproving earlier claims that such a treatment ofRomance cliticization cannot be applied uniformly (Sportiche, 1996).

In this analysis, French clitics are represented by non-canonical affix-synsemobjects. The(partial) type hierarchy undersynsemis as follows:

(77) synsem

canon noncan

gap affix

Non-canonicalsynsemelements onARG-ST are not realized syntactically as valence elements.26

Instead, in the analysis of Miller and Sag, the presence of anobject of typeaffix on ARG-ST isreflected in the morphological realization of the verb. Specifically, wordsare assumed to have afeatureMORPH, whose values introduce three further features,STEM, I-FORM andFORM:

(78)

word

MORPH

FORM . . .I-FORM . . .STEM . . .

The value ofSTEM corresponds to the morphological stem of the verb,I-FORM representsthe inflected form of the verb before clitics are taken into account, whileFORM values representfull inflected forms including any clitics affixed to the verb. For example, the 3rd person singularpresent tense indicative form of the lexemeLAVER ‘wash’ with its object realized as a 3rd personplural affix has the followingMORPH value:

(79)

FORM les-laveI-FORM laveSTEM lav-

FORM values are derived fromI-FORM values, taking into accountHEAD andARG-ST informa-tion, via the following constraint:

(80)

word→

MORPH

[

FORM FPRAF( 0 , 1 , 2 )I-FORM 0

]

SYNSEM|LOC|CAT

[

HEAD 1

ARG-ST 2

]

If ARG-ST contains no clitics, the function FPRAF behaves like the identity function on its firstargument, i.e. the value ofFORM is identical to the value ofI-FORM. But if there are clitics onARG-ST, the FPRAF function encodes a complex constraint that produces the appropriate clitics inthe correct positions with respect to each other and with respect to the verb. For example, inthe case of an indicative verb with only one pronominal 3rd person plural accusative clitic on itsARG-ST, the FPRAF function adds the affixles in front of the value ofI-FORM:

41

(81)

MORPH

[

FORM FPRAF( 0 , 1 , 2 ) = les-0

I-FORM 0

]

SYNSEM|LOC|CAT

HEAD 1

[

verb

VFORM indic

]

ARG-ST 2 〈NP,

affix

CASE accINDEX 3pl

〉

Theaffix element onARG-ST is not mapped to the verb’sCOMPS list, so the resulting form(e.g.,les-lave‘washes them’) can function as a complete,COMPS-saturated VP.

The real challenge for a lexicalist approach to Romance cliticization is the phenomenonknown as ‘clitic climbing’, where clitics originating on one verb, such aslaver in (82), arerealized on a higher verb, such as the tense auxiliaryavoir in (82).

(82) PierrePierre

les3PL

ahas

lavés.washed

‘Pierre washed them.’

In order to deal with such cases, Miller and Sag (1997) assumean argument compositionapproach (cf. §2.3), where the higher verb does not subcategorize for a VP, but rather combineswith the lexical verb and copies all of the arguments of this verb to its ownARG-ST list. Forexample, a schematic lexical entry for the auxiliaryavoir is given in (83):

(83) AVOIR (tense auxiliary):

word

SS|LOC|CAT

HEAD verb

ARG-ST 〈 1 ,

synsem

LOC|CAT

HEAD

verb

VFORM past-pV-AUX avoir

ARG-ST 〈 1 〉 ⊕ 2

〉 ⊕ 2

One consequence of this is that any clitics selected by the past participle will also be presenton theARG-ST of avoir. The constraint (80) ensures that these clitics are morphologically re-alized onavoir. This constraint also applies to the part participle itself, but the function FPRAF

(which has access to theHEAD | VFORM value) is defined so that clitics are never overtly real-ized on past participles.

Clitic phenomena in Romance have inspired a great deal of research in HPSG. In addition toMiller and Sag (1997) and the references cited therein for French, see Monachesi (1993, 1999)for Italian, and Crysmann (1999a, 2000a) for European Portuguese.

The Slavic languages exhibit a wider range of cliticizationphenomena, including not onlypronominal clitics that serve as arguments, but also verbalclitics that express tense and mood.Polish has received the most attention in HPSG work: see Kupsc (1999, 2000) for pronominalclitics, and a series of papers on auxiliary clitics (Borsley, 1999; Kupsc and Tseng, 2005; Crys-mann, 2006). See Avgustinova (1997) for clitics in Bulgarian, and Penn (1999b, 1999a) for anextensive treatment of second position clitics in Serbo-Croatian.

42

6.2 Mixed Categories

With its type hierarchies and the possibility of multiple inheritance, HPSG is particularly well-suited for analyzing mixed categories, i.e. categories that simultaneously share various propertiesof different major categories, such as verb and noun.

Malouf (1998, 2000b) takes advantage of these mechanisms toprovide an HPSG accountof verbal gerunds in English (like (84a)–(84b), but not (84c)), well known for exhibiting mixedverbal and nominal properties.

(84) a. Everyone was impressed by [Pat’s artfully folding the napkins].(verbal POSS-ing gerund)

b. Everyone was impressed by [Pat artfully folding the napkins].(verbal ACC-ing gerund)

c. Everyone was impressed by [Pat’s artful folding of the napkins].(nominal gerund)

On the nominal side, verbal gerunds have a distribution similar to that of NPs, but not thatof VPs or sentences; in particular, they can occur as complements of prepositions and as clause-internal subjects. On the verbal side, they project a VP-like structure. Thus, they take the samecomplements as the corresponding verbs would, including accusative NPs, and they are modifiedby adverbs, not by adjectives.

Malouf (2000b) accounts for this behavior by postulating the (partial) type hierarchy forheadin (85a) and the lexical rule (85b).

(85) a. head

noun verbal

common-noun gerund verb adjective

b.

HEAD

[

verb

VFORM prp

]

VALENCE

SUBJ 〈 1 NP〉COMPS 2

SPR 〈〉

⇒

HEAD gerund

VALENCE

SUBJ 〈 1 〉COMPS 2

SPR 〈 1 〉

Sincegerundis a subtype ofnoun, a gerund projection can occur anywhere an NP is selectedfor (just like the projection of a common noun). To account for the modification facts, we canassume that adverbs modify anyverbalcategory, including gerunds, but adjectives only modifycommon nouns.

Since the external argument of a gerund is, as indicated in (85b), both its subject and itsspecifier at the same time, gerund phrases can be either specifier-head constructions or subject-head constructions. More specifically, according to the type hierarchy ofphraseassumed inMalouf (2000b), gerund phrases can be either of typenonfin-head-subj-cx, in which case the

43

external argument receives accusative case (cf. (84b)), orof typenoun-poss-cx, in which case ittakes the genitive (cf. (84a)). Malouf also shows how this analysis accounts for the differencebetween POSS-ing and ACC-ing verbal gerunds with respect to the possibility of pied-pipingwith the external argument, cf. (86a).

(86) a. I couldn’t figure out [whose being late every day] Pat didn’t like .(verbal POSS-ing gerund)

b.*I couldn’t figure out [who(m) being late every day] Pat didn’t like .(verbal ACC-ing gerund)

Languages with more morphology than English provide additional evidence for this approachto mixed categories. For instance,verbal nounsin Polish are verbal in that their argument struc-ture is systematically related to that of the correspondingverb and, more importantly, in thatthey show both aspect and negation morphologically, just like ordinary verbs in Polish. On theother hand, verbal nouns are nominal in that they occur in positions reserved for NPs, they have(neuter) gender, decline for case and number, and can be modified by adjectives, just like ordi-nary nouns. Another mixed category in Polish is that ofadjectival participles, which inflect forcase and number, and modify nouns, just like other adjectives, but can inflect for negation and(to some extent) aspect, like verbs. They also pattern with verbs in the way they assign case totheir arguments (e.g., genitive of negation, cf. Przepiórkowski 1999a).

These mixed categories in Polish are more complex than English verbal gerunds in that theycombine properties of different major categoriesat the same level; for example, verbal nounsdisplay the internal structure and morphology of both nominal and verbal elements. This makesthem ineligible for accounts, often proposed for English verbal gerunds, which posit a purelyverbal internal structure, but a nominal outer layer to explain their external distribution (cf. Mal-ouf 1998, 2000b for a review of such approaches). On the otherhand, the multiple inheritanceapproach can be applied straightforwardly (Przepiórkowski, 1999a).

6.3 Case and Case Assignment

In the original presentation of HPSG, case assignment was simply dealt with as part of lexicalsubcategorization requirements, with “no separate theoryof case (or Case)” (Pollard and Sag,1994, 30). It has since become clear that a (partially) syntactic theory of case assignment isneeded after all. See Przepiórkowski (1999a, ch. 3) for a brief history of approaches to caseassignment in HPSG and other frameworks. The most explicit proposal for HPSG is that ofHeinz and Matiasek (1994).

This approach consists of three parts. First, the type hierarchy does not simply enumeratethe possible morphological cases (nom, acc, etc.) as subtypes ofcase; intermediate types areintroduced to distinguish between lexical/inherent case,assigned directly in lexical entries, andstructural case, assigned in the syntax.27 Heinz and Matiasek (1994) propose the following typehierarchy forcasein German, which says thatnominativeis always structural,genitiveandaccusativeare either structural or lexical, anddativeis always lexical.

44

(87) case

morph-case syn-case

nom gen dat acc structural lexical

snom sgen sacc lgen ldat lacc

Second, the lexical entries of predicates (verbs, nouns, etc.) are assumed to distinguish be-tween structural and lexical arguments: only the latter have lexically specified case. For example,the German verbsunterstützen‘support’ andhelfen‘help’ have the followingARG-ST (originally,SUBCAT) specifications:

(88) a. unterstützen: [ARG-ST 〈NP[str], NP[str]〉]

b. helfen: [ARG-ST 〈NP[str], NP[ldat]〉]

The criterion for deciding whether an argument has structural or lexical case is the stabilityof the morphological case across syntactic configurations.For instance, the case of the secondargument ofunterstützen(i.e. its object) is unstable because it is accusative in theactive voicebut nominative in the passive, cf. (89), whereas the second argument ofhelfenis consistentlydative, cf. (90).

(89) a. Derthe.NOM

Mannman

unterstütztsupports

denthe.ACC

Installateur .plumber

‘The man is supporting the plumber.’

b. Derthe.NOM

Installateurplumber

wirdAUX

unterstützt.supported

‘The plumber is supported.’

(90) a. Derthe.NOM

Mannman

hilfthelps

demthe.DAT

Installateur .plumber

‘The man is helping the plumber.’

b. Demthe.DAT

Installateurplumber

wirdAUX

geholfen.helped

‘The plumber is helped.’

Similarly, the subject of most verbs, includingunterstützenand helfen, has an unstable (i.e.structural) case, realized as nominative in ordinary subject-verb constructions, but as accusativein subject-to-object raising structures.

Third, the resolution ofstructuralis determined by configurational constraints. For example,if the first argument of a finite verb has structural case and isrealized locally (not inheritedby another predicate), then it is morphologically nominative (snom). Similarly, if the secondelement ofARG-ST is structural and realized locally (via theCOMPS list) its case issacc.

45

This approach accounts nicely for data like (89)–(90), as well as more complex data involv-ing so-called remote passivization in German (cf. Pollard 1994, Heinz and Matiasek 1994, aswell as (25) above). An updated version of Heinz and Matiasek’s 1994 analysis is developedin Przepiórkowski (1999a), in order to overcome various technical and conceptual shortcom-ings. In particular, the configurational case-resolution constraints are replaced by strictly localnon-configurational principles, so that the resulting analysis is compatible with current HPSGapproaches to extraction and cliticization.

At first sight, phenomena like the remote passive in German, where correct resolution of thestructural case of an argument seems to crucially depend on its tree-configurational realization,present an obstacle to non-configurational approach to caseassignment. Przepiórkowski (1999a)shows, though, that it is only necessary to know whether a given argument is realized locally orinherited by a higher predicate. If this information is encoded for each element onARG-ST (bymeans of a binary feature), the case assignment principles can be formulated strictly locally andnon-configurationally.

See Przepiórkowski (1999a) for a complete presentation of this approach, with an extensiveexamination of case assignment in Polish and other languages. See also Calcagno and Pollard(1997), Chung (1998b), Kupsc (1999), Calcagno (1999), Meurers (1999a, 1999b) and Malouf(2000a) for other applications.

6.4 Agreement

Agreement phenomena involve morphosyntax, semantics, andpragmatics, and so it is not sur-prising that this is another domain in which the sign-based formalism of HPSG has yieldedsignificant results.

The central concept of the HPSG theory of agreement is theINDEX, which unifies some of theproperties of constants and variables from logical formalisms. In the simplest cases an index is anabstract linguistic entity that is referentially linked tosome object in the interpretation domain.Indices are also used with quantification, in which case theybehave much like variables. Un-like constants and variables in logic, however, indices have an internal organization that reflectsproperties of the associated linguistic entities or referential objects. In English, this informa-tion includes number, gender, and person. This makes it possible to straightforwardly accountfor a number of agreement phenomena. For instance, if we assume that person/number/genderinformation is encoded on indices and that the relation between reflexive pronouns and theirantecedents involvesINDEX identity, then the distribution of forms in (91) follows immediately.

(91) a. I saw {myself/*himself/*herself} in the mirror.

b. He saw {*myself/himself/*herself} in the mirror.

c. She saw {*myself/*himself/herself} in the mirror.

The need for indices to mediate between form and meaning has been challenged, for instanceby Dowty and Jacobson (1988), who propose a strictly semantic approach to agreement relationsof the kind illustrated in (92). However, as Pollard and Sag (1994) point out, a purely semanticapproach runs into difficulties when several linguistic forms exist for referring to some entity. For

46

instance, English allows pets to be referred to either with the neuter pronoun or by their naturalgender. A strictly semantic approach predicts that both alternatives should always be available.While this is the case across sentences, cf. (92), within certain grammatical domains, the samepronoun must be chosen consistently, and switching gives rise to ill-formedness, cf. (93).

(92) That dog is so stupid, every time I seeit I want to kick it . He’s a damn good hunter,though.

(93) a. That dog is so ferocious, it even tried to bite itself/*himself.

b. That dog is so ferocious, he even tried to bite himself/*itself.

Indices can be used to record aspects of the linguistic form used to introduce an entity into thediscourse. In this case, such domain effects can be readily explained by simple structure sharingamong indices.

There are, however, cases where properties of the linguistic form need to be distinguishedfrom properties of the referent itself. An illustration of such a situation in French is given in(94):

(94) Vous êtes belle.you are-PL beautiful-SG.FEM

‘You are beautiful.’

Here, the subjectvouswith a single female as the intended referent is involved in two agreementrelations. It triggers plural morphology on the verbêtes. At the same time, the predicativeadjective exhibits feminine singular morphology. Whereasthe first can straightforwardly beattributed to the number properties of the index ofvous, Pollard and Sag (1994) argue that thesingular marking of the adjective is a reflection of inherentsemantic properties of the subject’sreferent. Thus, we need to distinguish between the index perse and the conditions under which anindex is referentially anchored to an entity of the world. The singular morphology onbellecan beexplained pragmatically as the result of using morphologically plural vouswith a nonaggregatereferent. The split between syntactic/semantic index-agreement and pragmatic agreement of thelatter kind is illustrated in (95):

(95) index agreement(GEND)

index agreement(PER, NUM)

〈vous〉

INDEX fem︷ ︸︸ ︷

2nd plANCH. COND. nonaggregate

êtes belle

pragmatic agreement(NUM)

47

Finally, there exist cases of agreement that do not plausibly involve indices at all. Indices onlycarry information about number, person, and gender (as reflected by the slots in the pronominalparadigm). They do not encode case information. This is well-motivated because pronoun-antecedent relations typically allow case discrepancies (cf. (91)). But in many languages there iscovariation of case within NPs, cf. the following data from German:

(96) NOMINATIVE ein lieber VerwandterACCUSATIVE einen lieben Verwandten

a dear relative

Such cases of what Pollard and Sag (1994) call “case concord”are dealt with by assuming thatadjectives have their ownCASE feature whose value is constrained to be identical to that ofthenoun. Thus the potential of morphological variation of the head noun and the dependent adjectiveis directly reflected in their own independentCASE features. This contrasts with Pollard andSag’s 1994 view of other agreement relations. In particular, subject-verb agreement is taken tobe a reflection of the subcategorization requirements of theverb. For instance, English-s tells usthat the verb constrains its subject to be 3rd person singular—there is no independent reflectionof 3rd singular properties in the lexical description ofwalks.

As Kathol (1999) argues, this position is somewhat unsatisfactory for constructions with nosubject. Consider for instance the case of impersonal passives in German. Here, the passiveauxiliary shows 3rd singular morphology, but it cannot be said to select a 3rd singular subject:

(97) An jenem Abend {wurde/*wurden} viel gelacht.on that evening was.3.SG/were.3.PL much laughed‘There was much laughter that evening.’

Such examples indicate that agreement as a relation betweensyntactic forms needs to be dis-tinguished from cases where morphological form indicates some syntactic dependency. For thisreason Kathol (1999) proposes that all inflecting lexical categories have a head featureMORSYN

encoding aspects of their morphological form. TheMORSYN value includes the attributeAGR,which groups together all morphosyntactic features that are, in principle, subject to covariation.28

For example, nouns, adjectives, and determiners are typically assumed to have case, gender, andnumber information inAGR, while verbs have person, number, and in some languages, gender(but never case).

As a consequence, NP-internal agreement (between the noun and its adjectival modifiers) canbe treated as sharing of allAGR features, not justCASE, as previously assumed by Pollard andSag (1994). This is illustrated with the following example from Polish where there is NP-internalagreement between demonstratives, adjectives, and nouns involving case, number, and gender:

(98) ten duzy chłopiecthis.NOM.SG.MASC big.NOM.SG.MASC boy.NOM.SG.MASC

[

AGR 1

] [

AGR 1

]

AGR 1

CASE nomGENDER mascNUMBER sg

48

The assumption ofAGR as a bundle of features participating in agreement allows for a greaterdifferentiation in terms of which pieces of lexical information bear a systematic relation withmorphology and semantics/pragmatics—and what kinds of mismatches are possible. A detailedstudy of these correlations and possible exceptions in Serbo-Croation is undertaken by Wech-sler and Zlatic (2001), who also highlight the role that declension classes play in determiningagreement behavior. Wechsler and Zlatic distinguish four levels at which agreement-related in-formation are pertinent. In addition to semantics (i.e. anchoring conditions), index, and concord,they propose that declension class should also be represented lexically. While declension class isnot a direct parameter of covariation, the morphological shape determined by a declension classcan nevertheless give rise to certain concord facts that arein apparent conflict with the seman-tically conditioned feature assignment (in terms ofindexfeatures). Consider the following datafrom Serbo-Croatian:

(99) a. det-e(‘child’)declension class I (typically for masc. and neut. nouns)concord neuter singindex neuter sing

b. dec-a(‘children’)declension class II (typically for fem. nouns)concord feminine singindex neuter plural

The pluraldeca(‘children’) is in declension class II, which is normally associated with femininenouns. For the purposes of adjectival concord, this form behaves as if it were a feminine singularnoun (100b):

(100) a. ovothat.NEUT.SG

lepobeautiful.NEUT.SG

detechild.NEUT.SG

‘that beautiful child’

b. ovathat.FEM.SG

lepabeautiful.FEM.SG

decachild.FEM.SG

‘those beautiful children’

Outside of the NP, more semantically-based principles takeover, as shown by plural marking onthe verb, cf. (101):

(101) Tathat.FEM.SG

dobragood.FEM.SG

decachildren

dolaze.come.PAST.3.PL

‘Those good children came.’

In other cases, declension class mismatch has no bearing on the covariation of dependentelements. For instance,Steva(‘Steve’) is also inflected according to declension class II, but herethe determiner and the adjective exhibit masculine agreement:

49

(102) a. Stev-a(‘Steve’)declension class II (typically for fem. nouns)concord masculine singindex masculine sing

b. Vratioreturned

mime

jeAUX

ovajthis.NOM.M .SG

ludicrazy.NOM.M .SG

StevaSteve.NOM

violinuviolin

kojuwhich

samAUX

muhim

pozajmio.loaned

‘This crazy Steve returned to me the violin which I loaned him.’

The diversity of the data motivates the idea of declension class, concord, index, and seman-tics as four distinct parameters. The simplest cases of totally transparent covariation can berepresented as in (103a). Where there is a split between morphology, NP-internal concord andNP-external covariation behavior—as withdecain (100, 101), there is a misalignment betweenconcord and index-based properties, as shown in (103b). Finally, if only the morphology isexceptional, as in (102), we have the situation representedin (103c).

(103) a. declension ⇔ concord ⇔ index ⇔ semanticsb. declension ⇔ concord || index ⇔ semanticsc. declension || concord ⇔ index ⇔ semantics

Wechsler and Zlatic’s 2001 conception of agreement as a multi-layer phenomenon based ondefault alignments between ‘modules’ successfully modelsthe range of covariation phenomena,from the most familiar to the most exceptional.

7 Advances in Logical Foundations (RSRL)

Within the last 15 years or so, a number of different formalisms have been proposed for formal-izing HPSG-style analyses, e.g., Kasper and Rounds (1986),King (1989) and Carpenter (1992).These different formalisms often reflect the state of the artin HPSG theorizing at the time whenthey were developed and more or less straighforwardly allowto encode large parts of HPSGgrammars. However, they lack mechanisms necessary to encode other parts of HPSG analyses,mainly those involving so-called relational constraints and quantification. As Richter et al. (1999)and Richter (2000) point out, analyses making implicit or explicit reference to such mechanismsabound in HPSG literature.

One famous case in point is Pollard and Sag’s 1994 Binding Theory, cited in (104) below.

(104) The Binding Theory (Pollard and Sag, 1994, 401):

Principle A:A locally o-commanded anaphor must be locally o-bound.Principle B:A personal pronoun must be locally o-free.Principle C:A nonpronoun must be o-free.

50

This principle relies on notions such as(local) o-command, (local) o-bindingand(local) o-freeness, which in turn rely on the notion of obliqueness. Relevant definitions are cited below(Pollard and Sag, 1994, 401):

(105) a. Onesynsemobject ismore obliquethan another provided it appears to the right of theother on theSUBCAT list of some word.

b. One referentialsynsemobjectlocally o-commandsanother provided they have distinctLOCAL values and either (1) the second is more oblique than the first, or (2) the secondis a member of theSUBCAT list of a synsemobject that is more oblique than the first.

c. One referentialsynsemobjecto-commandsanother provided they have distinctLOCAL

values and either (1) the second is more oblique than the first, or (2) the second is amember of theSUBCAT list of a synsemobject that is o-commanded by the first, or (3)the second has the sameLOCAL | CATEGORY | HEAD value as asynsemobject that iso-commanded by the first.

d. One referentialsynsemobject (locally) o-binds another provided it (locally) o-commands and is coindexed with the other. A referentialsynsemobject is(locally)o-freeprovided it is not (locally) o-bound. Twosynsementities arecoindexedprovidedtheir LOCAL | CONTENT | INDEX values are token-identical.

It is clear that the definitions in (105) are really definitions of relations. For example, ac-cording to (105a), twosynsemobjectsx andy stand in themore obliquerelation provided thereexsists a wordw such thatx is to the right ofy on w’s SUBCAT list. Similarly, according to(105b), two objectsx andy stand in thelocal o-commandrelation if and only if both haveLO-CAL | CONTENT | INDEX values of typeref, their LOCAL values are not token-identical and,moreover, eithery andx stand in themore obliquerelation, or there exists asynsemobjects suchthaty is a member ofs’s LOCAL | CATEGORY | SUBCAT, ands andx stand in themore obliquerelation. Similar paraphrases can be given for the notions introduced in (105c–d).

These paraphrases already show that there is a great deal of existential quantification hiddenin Pollard and Sag’s 1994 Binding Theory. The definition of the more obliquerelation makesreference tosome word, the definition oflocal o-commandrefers toa synsem object, etc.

Any direct formalization of this Binding Theory must also make use of universal quantifi-cation. This is because the logical structure of PrinciplesA–C is actually as follows:For eachx such thatx is a locally o-commanded anaphor / a personal pronoun / a nonpronoun,x is lo-cally o-bound / locally o-free / o-free, respectively.Note that, apart from universal quantification,these principles also make direct use of existential quantification. For example, the more carefulparaphrase of Principle A would be:

(106) Principle A of Pollard and Sag’s 1994 Binding Theory (paraphrased):

For eachx such that, both,x is an anaphor and there existsy such thaty andx stand inthe local o-command relation, there existsz such thatz andx stand in the local o-bindingrelation.

51

Finally, the definition of(local) o-freenessin (105d) calls for the presence of logical negationin the underlying formalism: two objectsx andy stand in the(local) o-freenessrelation if andonly if they do not stand in the(local) o-bindingrelation.

Although relations, quantification and general logical negation are commonly (albeit oftenimplicitly) used in HPSG, for a long time there existed no HPSG formalism providing the log-ical foundations for these notions. A formalism meeting these desiderata has been proposed inRichter et al. (1999) and, more comprehensively, in Richter(2000) under the name “RSRL” (Re-lational Speciate Re-entrant Language). It is based on SRL (Speciate Re-entrant Logic; cf. King1989, 1994, 1999 and Pollard 1999) but extends SRL by introducing relations and restrictedquantification. A formal presentation of RSRL is well beyondthe scope of this survey, so wewill only illustrate this formalism here.

Let us look again at Principle A, as paraphrased in (106). Assuming the existence of relationsymbolsloc-o-command andloc-o-bind which correspond tolocal o-commandandlocalo-binding, respectively, this principle can rendered in RSRL as follows (Richter, 2000, §4.2):

(107) Principle A of Pollard and Sag’s 1994 Binding Theory (in RSRL):

∀x ((x[LOC CONT ana] ∧ ∃y loc-o-command (y, x)) →→ ∃z loc-o-bind (z, x))

According to this principle, for each objectx, if x’s LOC|CONT is of typeana, and if there existssomey which locally o-commands it, then there must exist some object z which actually locallyo-bindsx.

Similarly, taking into consideration the fact that being(locally) o-freeis tantamount tonotbeing(locally) o-bound(cf. (105d)), Principles B and C can be formalized in RSRL as follows:

(108) Principles B and C of Pollard and Sag’s 1994 Binding Theory (in RSRL):

a. ∀x (x[LOC CONT ppro] → ¬∃y loc-o-bind (y, x))

b. ∀x (x[LOC CONT npro] → ¬∃y o-bind (y, x))

For these formalizations of Principles A–C of Pollard and Sag’s 1994 Binding Theory to havethe intended effect, it is necessary to define the meaning of relation symbolsloc-o-command ,loc-o-bind ando-bind . We will first define the simpler relationmore-oblique :

(109) more-oblique (x, y)∀

⇐=

w

[

word

SS LOC CAT SUBCAT 1

]

∧ to-the-right (x, y, 1 )

According to this definition,x andy stand in themore-oblique relation if and only ifthere arew and 1 such thatw is a word whoseSYNSEM | LOCAL | CATEGORY | SUBCAT is1 and y is to-the-right of x on 1 .29 Note that this definition relies on the conventionaccording to which (i) variables present on the left hand side of ‘ ∀

⇐= ’ are quantified universally,while (ii) variables present only on the right hand side of ‘∀

⇐= ’ are quantified existentially.The definition ofloc-o-command is more complex but its overall logical structure corre-

sponds to the prose in (105b).

52

(110) loc-o-command (x, y)∀

⇐=

(x[LOC 1 [CONT INDEX ref]] ∧y[LOC 2 [CONT INDEX ref]] ∧¬ 1 = 2 ) ∧(more-oblique (y, x) ∨

(s

[

synsem

LOC CAT SUBCAT 3

]

∧

more-oblique (s, x) ∧member(y, 3 )))

Similar definitions can be given for relationsloc-o-bind ando-bind .One important aspect of RSRL that should not be overlooked isthe restricted character of its

quantification mechanism: the range of quantifiers used in anRSRL description is restricted tocomponents of the described object. Let us illustrate this aspect with a generalization regardingSerbo-Croatian case assignment discussed in Wechsler and Zlatic (1999; 2001) and cited in (111)below.

(111) Serbo-Croatian Dative/Instrumental Case Realization Condition.

If a verb or noun assigns dative or instrumental case to an NP,then that case must bemorphologically realized by some element within the NP.

The element that realizes the dative/instrumental case on an NP does not have to be the headof this NP: in Serbo-Croatian, there is a class of uninflectedfemale names which do not de-cline for case at all and, hence, are grammatical in dative and instrumental positions only whenaccompanied by a determiner or an adjective which is overtlyinflected for case, cf. (112).

(112) Divimadmire.1ST.SG

seREFL

*(mojoj)my.DAT .SG

Miki.Miki

‘I admire (my) Miki.’

The generalization in (111) is difficult to state without quantification (cf. Wechsler and Zlatic1999 for an attempt), but straighforward when quantification is available; (113) is a slightlymodified version of the constraint given in Wechsler and Zlatic (2001).

(113)

[

phrase

SYNSEM|. . . |CASE 1 (dative∨ instrumental)

]

→

→ ∃x | x =

[

inflected-word

SYNSEM|. . . |CASE 1

]

This constraint is already almost an RSRL principle. The RSRL version is given below.

(113′) ∀ 1 ((

[

phrase

SYNSEM . . . CASE 1

]

∧ ( 1dative∨ 1 instrumental)) →

→ ∃x x

[

inflected-word

SYNSEM . . . CASE 1

]

)

53

Constraint (113) illustrates an important aspect of RSRL: this constraint has the effect in-tended in the informal description (111) only because RSRL quantification is restricted to com-ponents of the described object, i.e., to values of paths within the described object. Since (113)is a constraint onphrases with dativeor instrumentalSYNSEM|. . . |CASE values, the existentialquantifier∃x ranges over objects within such a phrase, so theword overtly inflected for casemust be somewhere within this phrase. Without this restriction on quantification, the existentialquantifier could pick up a dative or instrumental element somewhere else within the sentence (or,more generally, anywhere within the model), and the constraint (113) would in effect state that,whenever there is adativeor instrumental phrase, there must be aninflected-wordwith the samecase valueanywherein the sentence (or in the model).

Despite its relative novelty, RSRL has already been employed in HPSG accounts of a va-riety of phenomena, including German clause structure (Richter, 1997; Richter and Sailer,2000), semantic scope (Przepiórkowski, 1997), underspecified semantics (Richter and Sailer,1999c), linearization and cliticization (Penn 1999b, 1999a, Kupsc 1999, 2000), negative con-cord (Richter and Sailer 1999a; 1999b), Montagovian semantics (Sailer, 2000), case assignment(Przepiórkowski, 1999a; Meurers, 1999a; Wechsler and Zlatic, 2001) and morphology (Rein-hard, 2000).

8 Conclusion

HPSG is probably best seen as a collection of analyses developed by a community of researcherslinked by a common commitment to nonderivational, psychologically plausible, lexicalist, for-mally precise, and computationally tractable descriptions of natural language phenomena. It isone of the most popular formal grammar paradigms outside of the transformational mainstream,and the use of HPSG in linguistic research, language engineering applications, and teaching issteadily increasing. Since 1993 the annual conference devoted to HPSG-based work has at-tracted a truly international audience and done much to foster a sense of community amongHPSG researchers of all trades. Given the attention to descriptive precision and sound formalfoundations, it should not come as a surprise that there are now numerous implementations ofthe framework.30 While the history of linguistics has seen its share of movements that fizzled outafter only a few productive years, we hope to have conveyed tothe reader our confidence thatthere is still a tremendous amount of unrealized potential in HPSG.

54

Notes

1We will sometimes use the following identifiers for the successive versions of the ‘standardtheory’ of HPSG: “HPSG1” (Pollard and Sag, 1987), “HPSG2” (the first eight chapters of Pollardand Sag 1994), “HPSG3” (chapter 9 of Pollard and Sag 1994, “Reflections and Revisions”).

2Sag and Wasow (1999) assume a single listSPR for both specifiers (of nouns) and subjects(of verbs), but the formalism presented in this textbook is not meant to be a presentation of thefull theory of HPSG.

3See Green (this volume), example (*8*).

4This formulation supersedes theARG-ST version in Green (this volume), example (*51*).

5The head-driven propagation ofSLASH information is incorporated into the GeneralizedHead Feature Principle of Ginzburg and Sag (2000), which relies on default unification. See alsothe default formulation in Green (this volume), example (*52*).

6Throughout this section we follow the authors cited in usingtheSUBCAT list. See Green (thisvolume), for lexical descriptions of raising and control verbs usingSUBJ andCOMPSvalence.

7A notable exception is Ackerman and Webelhuth’s 1998 HPSG/LFG theory of predicates,in which the valence of complex predicates is presumed to be determined entirely at the level ofmorphology, rather than in syntax as with argument composition.

8Notable exceptions are the analyses of Haider (1993) and Bierwisch (1990), who assumebase-generated verbal complexes similar to the ones proposed by Hinrichs and Nakazawa.

9Chung (1993) argues that similar constructions in Korean should be handled by means ofa valence feature distinct fromSUBCAT that is exclusively responsible for combining verbalmaterial. Rentier (1994) makes a closely related proposal for Dutch verb clusters, which isextended and further motivated empirically by Kathol (2000). See also Gunji (1999) and Gunjiand Hasida (1998) for similar ideas in the closely related framework of Japanese Phrase StructureGrammar.

10As Kathol (1994) shows, passive constructions without auxiliaries, such as adjectival pas-sives, are not necessarily a problem, since they need to havea distinct lexical category from theparticiples occurring in clausal passive cases. However, as Müller (2000) points out, there arestill problems with this approach in light of partial VP fronting constructions, and Müller (2001)argues for a return to a lexical rule-based analysis for German passives.

11Note however that this correlation does not follow by necessity. For instance, Kiss (1995)and related work assume a strictly binary branching clause structure for German of the kindfamiliar from transformational analyses.

55

12A feature with this name and function was first suggested by Jacobson (1987).

13Cf. also Wechsler (1986) for an earlier critique of movement-type analyses of verb placementin Swedish.

14One notable exception is Yiddish. See Kathol (2000, ch.9) for some discussions of Yiddishand cases of non-complementarity in other Germanic languages.

15This argument of course pressuposes a lexicalist approach to passives in terms of variationin argument structure or valence rather than manipulation of the tree structure.

16See for example Crysmann (2006).

17Another possible option for non-canonical argument realization is pronominalization insome languages (see §6.1 below).

18One possibility would be to attribute the relative clause behavior entirely to the verbal head.In other words, finite verbs would be treated as ambiguous between a “regular” version and a rel-ative clause version licensing a gap and turning the finite clause into a noun-modifier. However,long-distance dependencies of the kind shown in (i) provideevidence against such an approach.

(i) This is the woman they say I love.

Here the verb licensing the gap islove, yet the verb responsible for the modification of the nounwomanis say.

19The first constraint also characterizes other verb-second structures, such as matrix con-stituent questions. Similarly, the second constraint alsoapplies to subordinate declarativeclauses.

20As is also shown in (113), other instances of clausality include declarative (decl-cl) andinterrogative (inter-cl) clauses.

21See also Przepiórkowski (1999b) and Przepiórkowski and Kupsc (1999) for a related ap-proach to Negative Concord in Italian and in Polish.

22They call it theQuantifier Raising Derivational Ruleto indicate that it is a description-level(derivational) lexical rule in the sense of Meurers (1999a).

23Resolution within the grammar using recursive constraintsis formally possible, but compu-tationally impractical.

24See Engdahl (1999) for some discussion on how information packaging could be representedin Minimalism and in HPSG.

56

25Contrast this with the representation of basic illocutionary types within CONTENT inGinzburg and Sag (2000); cf. §5.1.2.

26This idea is also crucial for the analysis of extracted arguments asgaps(recall §4.1).

27This distinction is analogous to the dichotomy assumed in Chomskyan syntax.

28Along similar lines, Wechsler and Zlatic (2001, 2003) group locally shared information inCONCORD.

29See Richter (2000, §4.2) for the straightforward definitionof to-the-right as used in(109) andmember as used in (110). Also, note that both letters and tags are used as variables inRSRL descriptions.

30The activities of the members of the international, multilingual Delph-In consortium(http://www.delph-in.net/ ) are particularly notable in this regard.

References

Abeillé, A. and Godard, D. (1994). The complementation of French auxiliaries. In Aranovich,R., Byrne, W., Preuss, S., and Senturia, M., editors,Proceedings of the Thirteenth West CoastConference on Formal Linguistics, volume 13, Stanford University. CSLI Publications/SLA.

Abeillé, A., Godard, D., and Sag, I. A. (1998). Two kinds of composition in French complexpredicates. In (Hinrichs et al., 1998), pages 1–41.

Ackerman, F. and Webelhuth, G. (1998).A Theory of Predicates. CSLI Publications, Stanford.

Aczel, P. and Lunnon, R. (1991). Universes and parameters. In Barwise, J., Gawron, J. M.,Plotkin, G., and Tutiya, S., editors,Situation Theory and Its Applications, II, number 26 inCSLI Lecture Notes. CSLI Publications, Stanford.

Alexopoulou, T. (1998). Unbounded dependencies and the syntactic realisation of informationpackaging. In (Bouma et al., 1998).

Austin, P. and Bresnan, J. (1996). Non-configurationality in Australian Aboriginal languages.Natural Language and Linguistic Theory, 14(2):215–268.

Avgustinova, T. (1997). Word Order and Clitics in Bulgarian. PhD thesis, Universität desSaarlandes, Saarbrücken.

Bach, E. (1981). Discontinuous constituents in generalized categorial grammars. InProceedingsof the 11th Annual Meeting of the Northeast Linguistic Society, pages 515–531, Amherst.Graduate Linguistics Student Association.

57

Baker, K. L. (1994). An integrated account of “modal flip” andpartial verb phrase frontingin German. InPapers from the 30th Regional Meeting of the Chicago Linguistic Society,volume 30, Chicago, Illinois. CLS, CLS.

Baker, K. L. (1999). “Modal flip” and partial verb phrase fronting in German. In (Levine andGreen, 1999), pages 161–198.

Bech, G. (1955). Studien über das deutsche Verbum infinitum.Danske Historisk-filologiskeMeddelelser, 35: 2.

Bender, E. and Flickinger, D. (1999). Diachronic evidence for extended argument structure. In(Bouma et al., 1999), pages 3–19.

Bierwisch, M. (1990). Verb cluster formation as a morphological process. In Booij, G. and vanMarle, J., editors,Yearbook of Morphology, pages 173–199. Foris, Dordrecht.

Bonami, O., Godard, D., and Maradin, J.-M. (1999). Constituency and word order in Frenchsubject inversion. In (Bouma et al., 1999), pages 21–40.

Borsley, R. and Kathol, A. (2000). Breton as a V2 language.Linguistics, 38:665–710.

Borsley, R. D. (1987). Subjects and complements in HPSG. CSLI Report 87-107, StanfordUniversity, Stanford University.

Borsley, R. D. (1989). An HPSG approach to Welsh.Journal of Linguistics, 25:333–354.

Borsley, R. D. (1999). Weak auxiliaries, complex verbs and inflected complementizers. In(Borsley and Przepiórkowski, 1999), pages 29–59.

Borsley, R. D. and Przepiórkowski, A., editors (1999).Slavic in Head-Driven Phrase StructureGrammar. CSLI Publications, Stanford.

Bos, J. (1995). Predicate logic unplugged. InProceedings of the 10th Amsterdam Colloquium.

Bouma, G., Hinrichs, E., Kruijff, G.-J. M., and Oehrle, R. T., editors (1999).Constraints andResources in Natural Language Syntax and Semantics. CSLI Publications, Stanford.

Bouma, G., Kruijff, G.-J. M., and Oehrle, R. T., editors (1998). Proceedings of the Joint Con-ference on Formal Grammar, Head-Driven Phrase Structure Grammar, and Categorial Gram-mar, 14–16 August 1998, Saarbrücken.

Bouma, G., Malouf, R., and Sag, I. A. (2001). Satisfying constraints on extraction and adjunc-tion. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory, 19:1–65.

Bouma, G. and van Noord, G. (1998a). Word order constraints on Germanic verb clusters. InHinrichs, E., Kathol, A., and Nakazawa, T., editors,Complex Predicates in NonderivationalSyntax, volume 30 ofSyntax and Semantics, pages 43–72. Academic Press, San Diego.

58

Bouma, G. and van Noord, G. (1998b). Word order constraints on verb clusters in German andDutch. In (Hinrichs et al., 1998), pages 43–72.

Bratt, E. O. (1996).Argument Composition and the Lexicon: Lexical and Periphrastic Causativesin Korean. PhD thesis, Stanford University.

Bunt, H. and van Horck, A., editors (1996).Discontinuous Constituency. Number 6 in NaturalLanguage Processing. Mouton de Gruyter, Berlin.

Calcagno, M. (1993). Toward a linearization-based approach to word order variation in Japanese.In Kathol, A. and Pollard, C., editors,Papers in Syntax, volume 42 ofOSU Working Papers inLinguistics, pages 26–45. Department of Linguistics, Ohio State University, Columbus, OH.

Calcagno, M. (1999). Some thoughts on tough movement. In (Kordoni, 1999), pages 198–230.

Calcagno, M. and Pollard, C. (1997). Argument structure, structural case, and French causatives.Paper delivered during the 4th International Conference onHPSG, 18–20 July 1997, Ithaca,New York.

Campbell-Kibler, K. (2002). Bech’s problem, again: Linearization and Dutch r-pronouns. InEynde, F. V., Hellan, L., and Beermann, D., editors,Proceedings of the 8th InternationalConference on Head-Driven Phrase Structure Grammar, pages 87–102. CSLI Publications,Stanford.

Cann, R., Grover, C., and Miller, P., editors (2000).Grammatical Interfaces in HPSG. CSLIPublications, Stanford.

Carpenter, B. (1992).The Logic of Typed Feature Structures. Cambridge University Press,Cambridge.

Chung, C. (1993). Korean auxiliary verb constructions without VP-nodes. In Kuno, S., Whitman,J., Kang, Y.-S., Lee, I.-H., Maling, J., and joo Kim, Y., editors, Harvard Studies in KoreanLinguistics V, pages 274–286. Hanshin, Seoul. Proceedings of the 1993 Workshop on KoreanLinguistics.

Chung, C. (1998a). Argument composition and long-distancescrambling in Korean: An exten-sion of the complex predicate analysis. In (Hinrichs et al.,1998), pages 159–220.

Chung, C. (1998b). Case, obliqueness, and linearization inKorean. In (Bouma et al., 1998),pages 164–174.

Copestake, A., Flickinger, D., Pollard, C., and Sag, I. A. (2006). Minimal Recursion Semantics:An introduction.Research on Language and Computation, 3:281–332.

Crysmann, B. (1999a). Licensing proclisis in European Portuguese. In Corblin, F., Dobrovie-Sorin, C., and Marandin, J.-M., editors,Empirical Issues in Formal Syntax and Semantics.Selected papers from the Colloque de Syntaxe et de Sémantique de Paris (CSSP 1997), pages255–276, The Hague. Thesus.

59

Crysmann, B. (1999b). Morphosyntactic paradoxa in Fox. In (Bouma et al., 1999), pages 41–61.

Crysmann, B. (2000a). Clitics and coordination in linear structure. In Gerlach, B. and Grijzen-hout, J., editors,Clitics in Phonology, Morphology, and Syntax. Benjamins. To appear.

Crysmann, B. (2000b). Syntactic transparency of pronominal affixes. In (Cann et al., 2000),pages 77–96.

Crysmann, B. (2006). Floating affixes in Polish. In Müller, S., editor,Proceedings of the 13thInternational Conference on Head-Driven Phrase StructureGrammar, pages 123–139, Stan-ford. CSLI Publications.

Davis, A. (2001).Linking by Types in the Hierarchical Lexicon. CSLI Publications, Stanford.

De Kuthy, K. and Meurers, W. D. (1998). Towards a general theory of partial constituent frontingin German. In (Bouma et al., 1998), pages 113–124.

Donohue, C. and Sag, I. (1999). Domains in Warlpiri. Paper presented at the 6th InternationalConference on HPSG, Edinburgh.

Dowty, D. (1996). Towards a minimalist theory of syntactic structure. In Bunt, H. and van Horck,A., editors,Discontinuous Constituency, pages 11–62. Mouton de Gruyter, Berlin/New York.

Dowty, D. and Jacobson, P. (1988). Agreement as a semantic phenomenon. InProceedings ofthe 5th Eastern States Conference on Linguistics, pages 1–17.

Egg, M. (1998). Wh-questions in Underspecified Minimal Recursion Semantics.Journal ofSemantics, 15(1):37–82.

Engdahl, E. (1999). Integrating pragmatics into the grammar. In Mereu, L., editor,Boundariesof Morphology and Syntax, volume 180 ofCurrent Issues in Linguistic Theory. Benjamins,Amsterdam.

Engdahl, E. and Vallduví, E. (1994). Information packagingand grammar architecture: Aconstraint-based approach. In Engdahl, E., editor,Integrating Information Structure intoConstraint-based and Categorial Approaches, volume R1.3.B ofDYANA, pages 41–79, Ed-inburgh.

Engdahl, E. and Vallduví, E. (1996). Information packagingin HPSG. In Grover, C. and Vall-duví, E., editors,Studies in HPSG, volume 12 ofEdinburgh Working Papers in CognitiveScience, pages 1–31. Centre for Cognitive Science, University of Edinburgh.

Fillmore, C. J., Kay, P., Michaelis, L., and Sag, I. A. (Forthcoming). Construction Grammar.CSLI Publications, Stanford.

Flickinger, D. and Kathol, A., editors (2001).Proceedings of the 7th International Conferenceon Head-Driven Phrase Structure Grammar. CSLI Publications, Stanford.

60

Frank, A. (1994). Verb second by lexical rule or by underspecification. Arbeitsberichte desSonderforschungsbereichs 340 43, IMS, Stuttgart.

Frank, A. and Reyle, U. (1992). How to cope with scrambling and scope. In (Görz, 1992), pages178–187.

Frank, A. and Reyle, U. (1995). Principle based semantics for HPSG. In7th Conference of theEuropean Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics, pages 9–16, UniversityCollege Dublin, Belfield, Dublin, Ireland. Association forComputational Linguistics.

Frank, A. and Reyle, U. (1996). Principle based semantics for HPSG. Unpublished manuscript,Institut für Maschinelle Sprachverarbeitung, Universität Stuttgart.

Gerdemann, D. (1994). Complement inheritance as subcategorization inheritance. In (Nerbonneet al., 1994), pages 341–363.

Ginzburg, J. and Sag, I. A. (2000).Interrogative Investigations: The Form, Meaning, and Use ofEnglish Interogatives. CSLI Publications, Stanford.

Goldberg, A. (1995).Constructions: A Construction Grammar Approach to Argument Structure.Cognitive Theory of Language and Culture. University of Chicago Press, Chicago.

Görz, G., editor (1992).KONVENS’92, Berlin. Springer-Verlag.

Green, G. M. (1994). The structure ofCONTEXT: The representation of pragmatic restrictions inHPSG. In Yoon, J., editor,Proceedings of the 5th Annual Conference of the Formal LinguisticsSociety of the Mid-America (Studies in the Linguistic Sciences 24), pages 215–232, Urbana,IL. Department of Linguistics, University of Illinois. Version dated January 31, 1997, availablefrom http://www.cogsci.uiuc.edu/˜green/ .

Green, G. M. (2000). The nature of pragmatic information. Unpublished manuscript, version 2.3dated January 31, 2000, available from:http://www.cogsci.uiuc.edu/˜green/ .

Green, G. M. (Forthcoming). Elementary principles of HPSG.In Borsley, R. and Börjars, K.,editors,Nonderivational Syntax. Blackwell, Oxford.

Grover, C. (1995).Rethinking Some Empty Categories: Missing Objects and Parasitic Gaps inHPSG. PhD thesis, University of Essex.

Gunji, T. (1999). On lexicalist treatments of Japanese causatives. In (Levine and Green, 1999),pages 119–160.

Gunji, T. and Hasida, K. (1998). Introduction. In Gunji, T. and Hasida, K., editors,Topics inConstraint-Based Grammar of Japanese, volume 68 ofStudies in Linguistics and Philosophy,pages 1–14. Kluwer, Dordrecht.

Haider, H. (1993).Deutsche Syntax — generativ. Vorstudien zur Theorie einer projektiven Gram-matik. Gunter Narr, Tübingen.

61

Halvorsen, P.-K. (1995). Situation Semantics and semanticinterpretation in constraint-basedgrammars. In Dalrymple, M., Kaplan, R. M., Maxwell III, J. T., and Zaenen, A., editors,Formal Issues in Lexical-Functional Grammar, number 47 in CSLI Lecture Notes, pages 293–309. CSLI Publications, Stanford.

Heinz, W. and Matiasek, J. (1994). Argument structure and case assignment in German. In(Nerbonne et al., 1994), pages 199–236.

Hentze, R. (1996). Unit accentuation in a topological grammar of Danish. Master’s thesis,University of Copenhagen.

Hinrichs, E., Kathol, A., and Nakazawa, T., editors (1998).Complex Predicates in Nonderiva-tional Syntax, volume 30 ofSyntax and Semantics. Academic Press, San Diego.

Hinrichs, E. and Nakazawa, T. (1989). Flipped out: Aux in German. InPapers from the 25thMeeting, pages 193–202, Chicago. Chicago Linguistic Society.

Hinrichs, E. and Nakazawa, T. (1994). Partial VP and split NPtopicalization in German: AnHPSG analysis. In Hinrichs, E., Meurers, D., and Nakazawa, T., editors,Partial-VP andSplit-NP Topicalization in German—An HPSG Analysis and itsImplementation, volume 58 ofArbeitsberichte des SFB 340. SFB 340, Tübingen/Stuttgart.

Höhle, T. (1978).Lexikalistische Syntax: die Aktiv-Passiv-Relation und andere Infinitkonstruk-tionen im Deutschen. Niemeyer, Tübingen.

Hukari, T. E. and Levine, R. D. (1994). Adjunct extraction. In Proceedings of the Twelfth AnnualWest Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics, pages 283–298.

Hukari, T. E. and Levine, R. D. (1995). Adjunct extraction.Journal of Linguistics, 31:195–226.

Jacobson, P. (1987). Phrase structure, grammatical relations, and discontinuous constituents.In Discontinuous Constituency, volume 20 ofSyntax and Semantics, pages 27–69. AcademicPress, San Diego.

Jensen, P. A. and Skadhauge, P. (2001). Linearization and diathetic alternations in Danish. InMeurers, W. D. and Kiss, T., editors,Constraint-Based Approaches to Germanic Syntax, pages111–140. CSLI Publications, Stanford.

Kasper, R. (1997). Semantics of recursive modification.

Kasper, R. and Rounds, W. (1986). A logical semantics for feature structures. InProceedingsof the 24th Annual Meeting of thhe Association for Computational Linguistics, Morrisontown,N.J. Association for Computational Linguistics.

Kathol, A. (1994). Passives without lexical rules. In (Nerbonne et al., 1994), pages 237–272.

Kathol, A. (1995).Linearization-Based German Syntax. PhD thesis, Ohio State University.

62

Kathol, A. (1997). Concrete minimalism of German. In d’Avis, F.-J. and Lutz, U., editors,ZurSatzstruktur des Deutschen, number 90 in Arbeitsberichte des SFB 340, pages 81–106. SFB340, Tübingen/Stuttgart.

Kathol, A. (1998). Constituency and linearization of verbal complexes. In (Hinrichs et al., 1998),pages 221–270.

Kathol, A. (1999). Agreement and the syntax-morphology interface in HPSG. In (Levine andGreen, 1999), pages 223–274.

Kathol, A. (2000).Linear Syntax. Oxford University Press, Oxford, UK.

Kathol, A. and Levine, R. D. (1992). Inversion as a linearization effect. In Schafer, A., edi-tor, Proceedings of the North East Linguistic Society 23, pages 207–221, Amherst. GraduateLinguistics Student Association.

Kathol, A. and Pollard, C. (1995). On the left periphery of German subordinate clauses. InPro-ceedings of the Fourteenth West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics, volume 14, StanfordUniversity. CSLI Publications/SLA.

Kathol, A. and Rhodes, R. A. (1999). Constituency and linearization of Ojibwe nominals. InCaldecott, M., Gessner, S., and Kim, E.-S., editors,Proceedings of WSCLA 4, pages 75–91.University of BC Department of Linguistics, Vancouver.

King, P. J. (1989).A Logical Formalism for Head-driven Phrase Structure Grammar. PhD thesis,University of Manchester.

King, P. J. (1994). An expanded logical formalism for Head-driven Phrase Structure Gram-mar. Arbeitspapiere des Sonderforschungsbereichs 340 Bericht Nr. 59, Seminar für Sprach-wissenschaft, Universität Tübingen.

King, P. J. (1999). Towards truth in HPSG. In (Kordoni, 1999), pages 301–352.

Kiss, T. (1994). Obligatory coherence: The structure of German modal verb constructions. In(Nerbonne et al., 1994), pages 71–107.

Kiss, T. (1995).Infinite Komplementation: neue Studien zum deutschen Verbum, volume 333 ofLinguistische Arbeiten. Tübingen: Max Niemeyer.

Kiss, T. and Wesche, B. (1991). Verb order and head movement.In Herzog, O. and Rollinger,C.-R., editors,Text Understanding in LILOG, number 546 in Lecture Notes in Artificial Intel-ligence, pages 216–240. Springer-Verlag, Berlin.

Kolliakou, D. (1998). Linkhood and multiple definite marking. In (Bouma et al., 1998).

Kolliakou, D. (1999). Linkhood and polydefinites. In Wyner,A. Z., editor,IATL 6: The Proceed-ings of the Fourteenth Annual Conference Ben Gurion University of The Negev 1998, pages49–67.

63

Kordoni, V., editor (1999). Tübingen Studies in Head-Driven Phrase Structure Grammar,Arbeitspapiere des Sonderforschungsbereichs 340 BerichtNr. 132, Seminar für Sprachwis-senschaft, Universität Tübingen.

Kupsc, A. (1999). Haplology of the Polish reflexive marker. In (Borsley and Przepiórkowski,1999), pages 91–124.

Kupsc, A. (2000). An HPSG Grammar of Polish Clitics. Ph.D. thesis, Polska Akademia Naukand Université Paris 7. In progress, preliminary title.

Kupsc, A. and Tseng, J. (2005). A new HPSG approach to Polish auxiliary constructions. InMüller, S., editor,Proceedings of the 12th International Conference on HPSG, pages 253–273.CSLI Publications, Stanford, CA.

Lappin, S. and Zadrozny, W. (2000). Compositionality, synonymy, and the systematic represen-tation of meaning. Unpublished manuscript, King’s CollegeLondon and IBM T.J. WatsonResearch Center. Available from:http://arXiv.org/abs/cs.CL/0001006 .

Levine, R. D. and Green, G., editors (1999).Studies in Contemporary Phrase Structure Gram-mar. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

Maling, J. (1993). Of nominative and accusative: The hierarchical assignment of grammati-cal case in Finnish. In Holmberg, A. and Nikanne, U., editors, Case and Other FunctionalCategories in Finnish Syntax, pages 51–76. Mouton, Dordrecht.

Malouf, R. (1998).Mixed Categories in the Hierarchical Lexicon. PhD thesis, Stanford Univer-sity.

Malouf, R. (2000a). A head-driven account of long-distancecase assignment. In (Cann et al.,2000), pages 201–214.

Malouf, R. (2000b). Verbal gerunds as mixed categories in Head-driven Phrase Structure Gram-mar. In Borsley, R. D., editor,The Nature and Function of Syntactic Categories, volume 32 ofSyntax and Semantics, pages 133–166. Academic Press, San Diego.

Manning, C. D. and Sag, I. A. (1998). Argument structure, valence, and binding.Nordic Journalof Linguistics, 21:107–144.

Manning, C. D. and Sag, I. A. (1999). Dissociations between argument structure and grammaticalrelations. In (Webelhuth et al., 1999), pages 63–78.

Manning, C. D., Sag, I. A., and Iida, M. (1999). The lexical integrity of Japanese causatives. In(Levine and Green, 1999), pages 39–79.

Meurers, W. D. (1999a).Lexical Generalizations in the Syntax of German Non-FiniteConstruc-tions. PhD thesis, Universität Tübingen.

64

Meurers, W. D. (1999b). Raising spirits (and assigning themcase). Groninger Arbeiten zurGermanistischen Linguistik (GAGL), 43:173—226.

Miller, P. H. (1992).Clitics and Constituents in Phrase Structure Grammar. Garland, New York.

Miller, P. H. and Sag, I. A. (1997). French clitic movement without clitics or movement.NaturalLanguage and Linguistic Theory, 15:573–639.

Monachesi, P. (1993). Restructuring verbs in Italian HPSG grammar. In Beals, K., Cooke,G., Kathman, D., Kita, S., McCullough, K., and Testen, D., editors, Proceedings of the 29thRegional Meeting of the Chicago Linguistic Society, pages 281–295, Chicago.

Monachesi, P. (1999).A Lexical Approach to Italian Cliticization. Number 84 in CSLI LectureNotes. CSLI Publications, Stanford.

Müller, S. (1999).Deutsche Syntax deklarativ. Head-Driven Phrase StructureGrammar für dasDeutsche. Number 394 in Linguistische Arbeiten. Niemeyer, Tübingen.

Müller, S. (2000). German particle verbs and the predicate complex. In (Cann et al., 2000),pages 215–229.

Müller, S. (2001). The passive as a lexical rule. In Flickinger, D. and Kathol, A., editors,Proceedings of the 7th International Conference on HPSG, pages 247–266, Stanford, CA.CSLI Publications.

Nerbonne, J. (1992). Constraint-based semantics. In Dekker, P. and Stokhof, M., editors,Proceedings of the Eighth Amsterdam Colloquium, pages 425–444, Amsterdam. Institute forLogic, Language and Information. Reprinted in Keh-jiann Chen and Chu-Ren Huang (eds.),Proceedings of Republic of China Computational Linguistics Conference VI , Taipei, 1993.pp. 35–56.

Nerbonne, J. (1993). A feature-based syntax/semantics interface. Annals of Mathematics andArtificial Intelligence, 8:107–132. Special issue on Mathematics of Language edited by AlexisManaster-Ramer and Włodek Zadrozny. Also published as DFKI Research Report RR-92-42.

Nerbonne, J. (1995). Computational semantics—linguistics and processing. In Lappin, S., editor,Handbook of Contemporary Semantic Theory, pages 461–484. Blackwell, London.

Nerbonne, J., Netter, K., and Pollard, C., editors (1994).German in Head-Driven Phrase Struc-ture Grammar. Number 46 in CSLI Lecture Notes. CSLI Publications, Stanford.

Netter, K. (1992). On non-head non-movement. In (Görz, 1992), pages 218–227.

Nunberg, G. (1978).The Pragmatics of Reference. PhD thesis, City University of New York.

Penn, G. (1999a). A generalized-domain-based approach to Serbo-Croatian second-positionclitic placement. In (Bouma et al., 1999), pages 119–136.

65

Penn, G. (1999b). Linearization andWH-extraction in HPSG: Evidence from Serbo-Croatian.In (Borsley and Przepiórkowski, 1999), pages 149–182.

Pollard, C. (1994). Toward a unified account of passive in German. In (Nerbonne et al., 1994),pages 273–296.

Pollard, C. (1996). On head non-movement. In (Bunt and van Horck, 1996), pages 279–305.

Pollard, C. (1999). Strong generative capacity in HPSG. In (Webelhuth et al., 1999), pages281–297.

Pollard, C. and Sag, I. A. (1987).Information-Based Syntax and Semantics, Volume 1: Funda-mentals. Number 13 in CSLI Lecture Notes. CSLI Publications, Stanford.

Pollard, C. and Sag, I. A. (1994).Head-driven Phrase Structure Grammar. Chicago UniversityPress / CSLI Publications, Chicago.

Pollard, C. and Yoo, E. J. (1998). A unified theory of scope forquantifiers andwh-phrases.Journal of Linguistics, 34:415–445.

Przepiórkowski, A. (1997). Quantifiers, adjuncts as complements, and scope ambigui-ties. To appear inJournal of Linguistics. Draft of December 2, 1997. Available from:http://www.ling.ohio-state.edu/˜adamp/Drafts/ .

Przepiórkowski, A. (1998). ‘A Unified Theory of Scope’ revisited: Quantifier retrieval withoutspurious ambiguities. In (Bouma et al., 1998), pages 185–195.

Przepiórkowski, A. (1999a).Case Assignment and the Complement-Adjunct Dichotomy: A Non-Configurational Constraint-Based Approach. PhD thesis, Universität Tübingen, Germany.http://www.ling.ohio-state.edu/˜adamp/Dissertation/ .

Przepiórkowski, A. (1999b). Negative polarity questions and Italian negative concord. In (Kor-doni, 1999), pages 353–400.

Przepiórkowski, A. (1999c). On case assignment and “adjuncts as complements”. In (Webelhuthet al., 1999), pages 231–245.

Przepiórkowski, A. (2001).ARG-ST on phrases: Evidence from Polish. In (Flickinger andKathol, 2001), pages 267–284.

Przepiórkowski, A. and Kupsc, A. (1999). Eventuality negation and negative concord in Polishand Italian. In (Borsley and Przepiórkowski, 1999), pages 211–246.

Pullum, G. (1982). Free word order and phrase structure rules. In Pustejovsky, J. and Sells, P.,editors,Proceedings of the 12th Annual Meeting of the Northeast Linguistic Society, pages209–220. Graduate Linguistics Student Association, Amherst.

Pullum, G. (1997). The morpholexical nature of to-contraction. Language, 73:79–102.

66

Quine, W. V. O. (1968).From a Logical Point of View. Harper and Row, New York.

Reape, M. (1993).A Formal Theory of Word Order: A Case Study in West Germanic. PhD thesis,University of Edinburgh.

Reape, M. (1994). Domain union and word order variation in German. In (Nerbonne et al.,1994), pages 151–197.

Reape, M. (1996). Getting things in order. In (Bunt and van Horck, 1996), pages 209–254.

Reinhard, S. (2000).Deverbale Komposita an der Morphologie-Syntax-Semantic-Schnittstelle:Ein HPSG-Ansatz. PhD thesis, Universität Tübingen. In progress.

Rentier, G. M. (1994). A lexicalist approach to Dutch cross dependencies. In Beals, K., Den-ton, J., Knippen, E., Melnar, L., Suzuki, H., and Zeinfeld, E., editors,Papers from the 30thRegional Meeting of the Chicago Linguistic Society, pages 376–390, Chicago, Illinois. CLS,CLS.

Reyle, U. (1993). Dealing with ambiguities by underspecification: Construction, representationand deduction.Journal of Semantics, 10(2):123–179.

Richter, F. (1997). Die Satzstruktur des Deutschen und die Behandlung langer Abhängigkeiten ineiner Linearisierungsgrammatik. Formale Grundlagen und Implementierung in einem HPSG-Fragment. In Hinrichs, E., Meurers, D., Richter, F., Sailer, M., and Winhart, H., editors,Ein HPSG-Fragment des Deutschen, Teil 1: Theorie, Arbeitspapiere des Sonderforschungs-bereichs 340 Bericht Nr. 95, Seminar für Sprachwissenschaft, Universität Tübingen, pages13–187.

Richter, F. (2000).A Mathematical Formalism for Linguistic Theories with an Application inHead-Driven Phrase Structure Grammar. PhD thesis, Universität Tübingen. April 28, 2000.

Richter, F. and Sailer, M. (1999a). A lexicalist collocation analysis of sentential negation andnegative concord in French. In (Kordoni, 1999), pages 231–300.

Richter, F. and Sailer, M. (1999b). LF conditions on expressions of Ty2: An HPSG analysis ofNegative Concord in Polish. In (Borsley and Przepiórkowski, 1999), pages 247–282.

Richter, F. and Sailer, M. (1999c). Underspecified semantics in HPSG. In Bunt, H. C. andMuskens, R., editors,Computing Meaning, pages 95–112. Kluwer, Dordrecht.

Richter, F. and Sailer, M. (2000). On the left periphery of German finite sentences. To appear in T.Kiss and D. Meurers (eds.),Topics in Constraint-Based Germanic Syntax, CSLI Publications.

Richter, F., Sailer, M., and Penn, G. (1999). A formal interpretation of relations and quantifica-tion in HPSG. In (Bouma et al., 1999), pages 281–298.

Sag, I. A. (1997). English relative clause constructions.Journal of Linguistics, 33(2):431–484.

67

Sag, I. A. (2000). Another argument againstwh-trace. In Chung, S., McCloskey, J., and Sanders,N., editors,Jorge Hankamer WebFest. http://ling.ucsc.edu/Jorge/, UC Santa Cruz.

Sag, I. A. and Fodor, J. D. (1994). Extraction without traces. In Proceedings of the Thir-teenth West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics, pages 365–384, Stanford. CSLI Publi-cations/SLA.

Sag, I. A. and Wasow, T. (1999).Syntactic Theory: A Formal Introduction. CSLI Publications,Stanford, CA.

Sailer, M. (2000).The Content ofCONTENT: Semantic Construction and Idiomatic Expressionsin HPSG. PhD thesis, Universität Tübingen. In progress.

Sportiche, D. (1996). Clitic constructions. In Rooryck, J.and Zaring, L., editors,Phrase Struc-ture and the Lexicon, pages 213–276. UILC Press, Bloomington, Indiana.

Uszkoreit, H. (1987).Word Order and Constituent Structure in German. Number 8 in LectureNote Series. CSLI Publications, Stanford.

Vallduví, E. (1992).The Informational Component. Garland, New York.

Vallduví, E. and Engdahl, E. (1996). The linguistic realization of information packaging.Lin-guistics, 34:459–519.

van Noord, G. and Bouma, G. (1994). Adjuncts and the processing of lexical rules. InFifteenthInternational Conference on Computational Linguistics (COLING ’94), pages 250–256, Ky-oto, Japan.

Webelhuth, G., Koenig, J.-P., and Kathol, A., editors (1999). Lexical and Constructional Aspectsof Linguistic Explanation. CSLI Publications, Stanford.

Wechsler, S. (1986). Against verb movement: Evidence from Swedish. InPapers from the 23rdRegional Meeting of the Chicago Linguistic Society, volume 23, Chicago, Illinois. CLS, CLS.

Wechsler, S. and Zlatic, L. (1999). Syntax and morphological realization in Serbo-Croatian. In(Borsley and Przepiórkowski, 1999), pages 283–309.

Wechsler, S. and Zlatic, L. (2001). Case realization and identity.Lingua, 111:539–560.

Wechsler, S. and Zlatic, L. (2001). A theory of agreement and its application to Serbo-Croatian.Language, 76(4):799–832.

Wechsler, S. and Zlatic, L. (2003).The Many Faces of Agreement. CSLI Publications, Stanford.

Wilcock, G. (1999). Lexicalization of context. In (Webelhuth et al., 1999), pages 373–387.

Yatabe, S. (1996). Long-distance scrambling via partial compaction. InFormal Approaches toJapanese Linguistics 2, pages 303–317. MIT Working Papers in Linguistics.

68

Yatabe, S. (2001). The syntax and semantics of left-node raising in Japanese. In (Flickinger andKathol, 2001), pages 325–344.

Zadrozny, W. (1994). From compositional to systematic semantics. Linguistics and Philosophy,17:329–342.

Zwicky, A. M. (1986). Concatenation and liberation. InPapers from the 22nd Regional Meetingof the Chicago Linguistic Society, pages 65–74, Chicago. Chicago Linguistic Society.

Zwicky, A. M. (1994). Dealing out meaning: Fundamentals of syntactic constructions. In Gahl,S., Dolbey, A., and Johnson, C., editors,Proceedings of the Twentieth Annual Meeting of theBerkeley Linguistics Society, pages 611–625.

69