- ...VP.1
- Space
prevents us from giving a full account of partial VP
fronting and the Dutch data. These topics are
covered in a longer version of this paper [2].
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
- ....2
- We disallow the use
of this rule if both L and R are instantiated as the empty
list. Thus, there are no non-branching derivations.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
- ...VP:
3
- Following most HPSG analyses of German, we do not
introduce a separate HEAD-SUBJECT schema. Instead, we assume a
lexical rule for finite verbs which adds the subject to COMPS.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
- ... constituent.4
- Note that Hinrichs and
Nakazawa use the valence feature SUBCAT instead of COMPS
and assume that the subject is in general included in SUBCAT.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
- ... left-branching:5
-
In the examples below, VC stands for verb cluster, VP is
used for (partial) verb phrases, and S is a verb phrase
including a subject.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
- ...VP.6
- See also [15], where an analysis
along the lines of Nerbonne is proposed, and [2],
where we develop a proposal in which a monotonic version of the
complement extraction rule is proposed. A similar monotonic account
can be found in [11].
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
- ... ungrammatical.7
- Baker cannot
exclude the derivation of (15b) since in her HEAD-COMPLEMENT schema she assumes that the complements of the
head are the sequence union [14] of the selected
complements and the (unselected) complements on the mother. This
allows the derivation of the phrase das Examen können. Our
HEAD-COMPLEMENT schema is more restrictive in that it requires
the unselected complements to be a prefix of the complements on the
head.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
- ... cluser.8
- See [2]
for an account of these phenomena compatible with the analysis
developed below.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
- ... it.9
- Note that this constraint
(apart from the feature specification used to implement it) is exactly
the same as the Directionality constraint.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
- ....10
-
Kathol adopts a somewhat different definition. Since he assumes a
separate valence feature VCOMPS, on which verbal complements
are represented and on which there is no inheritance, and since only
the governors of verbal complements need to be identified, it is
possible to define the governor of a verbal complement as the sign on
whose VCOMPS-list this complement appears.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
- ... constraints:11
-
Kathol restricts the scope of these constraints to elements that are
in the verb cluster field. The reason for this restriction is
that, in main clauses, finite verbs may also appear in first or second
position. Kathol [6] provides an account of main
clauses in which these are derived by means of the same rules used to
derive subordinate clauses. The only difference is that in main
clauses the finite verb occupies a different topological field. If we
would adopt a similar account of verb-first and verb-second, we would
have to restrict the scope of the Governor constraints to izone
elements as well.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
- ...
complement:12
- We may in fact assume that this reentrancy is
present on auxiliaries in general (and thus there is no need to
distinguish between finite and nonfinite verbs in this respect) as
finite verbs are never governed.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
- ...1213
- Note that we assume that haben uniformly governs a
past participle. This implies that there must be a lexical entry for
können specified as [VFORM psp]. Other solutions
are possible as well, but this is immaterial to the present issue.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.