Licensing Complex Prepositions via Lexical Constraints
Beata Trawi´nski
Seminar für Sprachwissenschaft/ Abt. Computerlinguistik
Universität Tübingen
Wilhelmstraße 19
72074 Tübingen, Germany
trawinski@sfs.uni-tuebingen.de
Abstract
In this paper, we will investigate a
cross-linguistic phenomenon referred to
as complex prepositions (CPs), which is
a frequent type of multiword expressions
(MWEs) in many languages. Based on
empirical data, we will point out the
problems of the traditional treatment of
CPs as complex lexical categories, and,
thus, propose an analysis using the formal
paradigm of the HPSG in the tradition of
(Pollard and Sag, 1994). Our objective is
to provide an approach to CPs which (1)
convincingly explains empirical data, (2)
is consistent with the underlying formal
framework and does not require any ex-
tensions or modifications of the existing
description apparatus, (3) is computation-
ally tractable.
1 Introduction
Among numerous types of expressions that seem
unpredictable regarding standard grammar regulari-
ties, sequences consisting of a preposition, a noun,
and another preposition (P a0 N a0 Pa1 ) are particularly
frequent. Interestingly, this class of expressions,
usually termed in linguistic literature as “com-
plex prepositions” (CPs), “phrasal prepositions”,
“quasi-prepositions” or “preposition-like word
formations” occurs in many different languages,
thereby showing nearly uniform properties (cf.
examples below quoted from (Lindqvist, 1994),
(Quirk and Mulholland, 1964), (Grochowski et al.,
1984) and (Beneš, 1974)).
French: en face de, en dépit de, au milieu de
Spanish: al lado de, en casa de
Swedish: i början av, med hjälp av, i stället för
English: in view of, in spite of, by dint of
Polish: bez wzgl˛edu na, w zwi ˛azku z, z uwagi na
German: an Hand von„ mit Hilfe von, in Bezug auf
Traditionally, CPs are assumed to be complex lex-
ical categories evincing prepositional character. As
well as in the case of other multiword expressions
(MWEs), the question arises of how they should be
analyzed to make them suitable for machine pro-
cessing.1
In this paper, we will propose an HPSG-based
linguistically motivated, formal treatment of CPs,
applicable for computational platforms intended for
developing typed feature structure grammars.
The starting point of our investigations is the sum-
mary of empirical facts about CPs. Although, we
have indicated above that CPs can be considered a
cross-linguistic phenomenon, we will focus in this
paper exclusively on German data, because they pro-
vide very explicit and convincing linguistic evidence
which motivates and supports our approach. How-
ever, we assert that the analysis proposed here for
1For discussion on various strategies for analyzing MWEs
such as listing “words with spaces”, hierarchically organized
lexicons, restricted combinatoric rules, lexical selection, “id-
iomatic constructions” and simple statistical affinity using
HPSG grammar framework see (Sag et al., 2002). On prob-
lems of using corpus-based, statistical methods for identifying
P a2 N a2 Pa3 word combinations in Dutch referred to in the paper
as collocational prepositional phrases (CPPs) see (Bouma and
Villada, 2002).
German can also be applied to other languages such
as Polish or English.
2 Empirical Data
We have taken into account word combinations in
German such as those in (1).
(1) an Hand von (‘by means of’), in Zusammen-
hang mit (‘in connection with’), unter Auf-
sicht von (‘under survey of’) ...2
These expressions, when combined with NPs, result
in PPs, acting as modifiers within the entire sentence
(cf. (2)).
(2) In
in
Bezug
regard
auf
to
Privatsphäre
private_sphere
gibt
is
es
there
im
in_the
WWW
WWW
immer
still
noch
yet
keine
no
einheitlichen
uniform
Richtlinien.
rules
‘With regard to privacy, there are still no uniform rules
in the WWW.’
However, the interdependence between the par-
ticular elements of those expressions seems to defy
standard constraints on the PP structure of German.
To see this, we will consider a typical PP in (3).
(3) in einer engen Verbindung mit den Beratern
in a close connection with the advisers
‘in close connection with the advisers’
The standard analysis for such PPs assumes that
the preposition in (‘in’) acts as the head of the entire
phrase, taking the NP as its complement. The se-
lected NP is headed by the noun Verbindung (‘con-
nection’) and contains the adjective engen (‘close’)
and the determiner einer (‘a’). Furthermore, we
have the PP mit den Beratern (‘with the advisers’),
which is selected by the noun Verbindung as its com-
plement and can be omitted without causing un-
grammaticality (cf. Figure 1 on the next page).
2For German, Schröder (1986) specifies more than 90 “com-
plex prepositions”, while e.g. Beneš (1974) itemizes 160 ex-
amples, though he emphasizes the incompleteness of his list.
In any case, CPs do not form a marginal class of expressions
in contemporary German. For further discussion on CPs in
German see (Beneš, 1974), (Buscha, 1984), (Lindqvist, 1994),
(Meibauer, 1995).
Trying to apply the above approach to an analysis
of PPs involving a CP presents several problems. To
see these problems, we will consider one of the CPs
combined with an NP, which looks very similar to
the PP in (3) (cf. (4)).
(4) in
in
Verbindung
connection
mit
with
diesem
this
Problem
problem
‘in connection with this problem’
Using PPs such as those in (4) in contexts exem-
plified in (5), we can observe many contrasts with
the traditional PPs such as those in (3).
(5) In
in
Verbindung
connection
mit
with
diesem
this
Problem
problem
möchte ich darauf hinweisen, dass ...
would_like I DA_on point_out that
‘In connection with this problem, I would like to point
out that ...’
First of all, the noun Verbindung cannot syntacti-
cally select for a determiner or a quantifier, nor it can
be combined with possessive pronouns or prenomi-
nal genitives (cf. (6a)).3 Secondly, it cannot be mod-
ified (cf. (6b) and (6c)). Finally, the PP mit den
Beratern (’with the advisers’) cannot be deleted (cf.
(6d)).
(6) a. in
in
*einer/
a/
*der/
the/
*seiner/
his/
*Peters
Peter’s
Verbindung
connection
mit
with
diesem
this
Problem
problem
...
b. in
in
*enger/
close/
*unerwarteter
unexpected
Verbindung
connection
mit
with
diesem
this
Problem
problem
...
c. in
in
[Verbindung
connection
mit
with
diesem
this
Problem],
problem
*die
which
uns
us
betrifft
concerns
...
3However, the definiteness information can be provided di-
rectly by P a2 s, since P a2 N a2 Pa3 NP sequences as well as other PPs
allow for expressions referred to as preposition-determiner con-
traction (e.g. in dem a0 im). Such expressions can be con-
sidered as a special kind prepositions, that additionally state
for the definiteness specification. For an analysis proposal for
preposition-determiner contraction within the HPSG paradigm
see (Winhart, 1997).
P’
P
in (‘in’) NP
D
einer (‘a’) N’
A
engen (‘close’) N’
N
Verbindung
(‘connection’)
PP
a0mit den Beratern
a1
(‘with the advisers’)
Figure 1: The structure of the PP in einer engen Verbindung mit den Beratern (‘in a close connection with the advisers’)
d. * in
in
Verbindung
connection
...
These observations support the traditional analy-
sis which assumes that the string in Verbindung mit
(‘in connection with’) in the PP exemplified in (4) is
a complex lexical sign. Thus, Fries (1988) assumes
that PPs which include a CP have the structure such
as those in Figure 2.
P’
P
NP
a0diesem Problem
a1
(‘this problem’)
P
in (‘in’)
N
Verbindung
(‘connection’)
P
mit (‘with’)
Figure 2: The structure of the PP in Verbindung mit diesem
Problem (‘in connection with this problem’) in (Fries 1988)
The preposition heading the entire phrase is a pro-
jection of three lexical categories which form a com-
plex lexical category, in this case, a preposition in
Verbindung mit. This complex preposition then se-
lects an NP forming a prepositional phrase.
The main problem with this analysis consists in
the assumption that the preposition mit (‘with’) be-
longs to the complex preposition and cannot form a
constituent with the NP diesem Problem. However,
there are several data demonstrating the opposite.
Firstly, the combinations Pa1 NP where Pa1 is real-
ized by von (’of’) can be replaced by the genitive;
this replacement of von adheres to the restrictions
on the distribution of postnominal genitives and von-
PPs in German (cf. (7a)). Secondly, the discussed
sequences can be substituted by wo/da expressions
as in (7b), which are usually considered as proforms
for PPs. Finally, the Pa1 NP sequences can be coordi-
nated with PPs headed by the same preposition (cf.
(7c)).
P’
P
PP
a0 mit diesem Problem
a1
(‘with this problem’)
P
in (‘in’)
N
Verbindung
(‘connection’)
Figure 3: The structure of the PP in Verbindung mit diesem
Problem (‘in connection with this problem’) assuming the in
Verbindung string to be a complex lexical category
(7) a. mit Hilfe ??von dem Buch/ des Buches
with help of the book/ the booka2a4a3a6a5
‘by dint of the book’
b. in
in
Verbindung
connection
womit/damit
WO_with/DA_with
‘in connection with what/with it’
c. in
in
Verbindung
connection
mit
with
diesem
this
Problem
problem
und
and
mit
with
seiner
its
möglichen
possible
Lösung
solution
‘in connection with this problem and with its pos-
sible solution’
These observations imply that Pa1 NP sequences form
a constituent. Thus, another analysis seems to arise,
that assume P a0 N a0 combinations to constitute com-
plex lexical categories, requiring prepositional com-
plements (cf. Figure 3).
However, the following fact argues against the
analysis in Figure 3: There is a type of nouns in Ger-
man that allows for two options in realizing the da-
tive case. While the first eventuality relates to suffix-
less forms, the second one relates to forms ending in
-e. The choice of a given form is usually determined
by stylistic effects. Examples in (8) show that dative
nouns of the discussed declension class can occur
within P a0 N a0 sequences in both forms.
P”
P’
PP
a0 mit diesem Problem
a1
(‘with this problem’)
P
in (‘in’)
N
Verbindung
(‘connection’)
Figure 4: The structure of the PP in Verbindung mit diesem
Problem (‘in connection with this problem’) assuming in to se-
lect for two complements
(8) a. im
in
Verlauf/Verlaufe
course/course_e
von
of
Jahrhunderten
centuries
‘in the course of the centuries’
b. im
in
Fall/Falle
case/case_e
von
of
Mängeln
deficit
‘in case of deficit’
These examples illustrate that the declension form
of N a0 s is determined not by P a0 Na0 combinations,
but by the same factors that otherwise determine the
form of inflection realization. Thus, the data above
clearly eliminate the analysis in Figure 3.
We will consider one more possible analysis, as-
suming prepositions heading P a0 N a0 Pa1 NPs as select-
ing for two arguments: a noun and a PP, which
would result in structures such as those in Figure 4.
However, this assumption seems unmaintainable
for the following reason: It cannot enforce that
whenever a noun a0 appears, a PP headed by a prepo-
sition a1 is required. In consequence, ungrammatical
PPs such as those in (9) cannot be ruled out.
(9) a. * in
in
Verbindung
connection
zu
to
diesem
this
Problem
problem
b. * in
in
Bezug
regard
mit
with
diesem
this
Problem
problem
Rather, the assumption seems plausible that syn-
tactic properties of Pa1 NP sequences are determined
by N a0 s since these properties are identical with
the properties of PPs selected by the corresponding
nouns in their free occurrences.
Further evidence seems to argue against the
above analysis. Namely, if prepositions heading
P a0 N a0 Pa1 NPs take both N a0 s and Pa1 NPs as their ar-
guments assigning theta roles to them, then it is in-
explicable why the semantic relationship between
these two arguments differs from the semantic re-
lationship between the referential arguments of all
other transitive predicates. As we can see in
(10), no coindexing is possible between the noun
Verbindung and the personal pronoun ihr (‘her’) or
the anaphora sich selbst (‘herself’). Rather, ihr and
sich selbst belong to the argument structure of the
noun Verbindung, and are possibly bound by a PRO-
like element which belongs to the same argument
structure and which is controlled by the noun Sarah.
(10) Saraha2
Saraha2
wollte
wanted
was
sth.
sagen
say
in
in
Verbindunga3
connectiona3
mit
with
ihra2a5a4a7a6a8a3 /
hera2a5a4a7a6a8a3 /
[sich
[her
selbst]a2a5a4a7a6a8a3 .
self]a2a5a4a7a6a8a3
‘Saraha9 wanted to say something in connectiona10 with
hera9a12a11a14a13a15a10 / herselfa9a12a11a16a13a5a10 .’
All these observations seem to lead to the follow-
ing conclusions. Firstly, the PP mit diesem Prob-
lem acts as an argument of the noun Verbindung in
that it is determined by this noun with regard to its
syntactic properties, e.g. the form of the heading
preposition. Secondly, the PP mit diesem Problem is
theta-marked by the noun Verbindung. Finally, the
PP mit diesem Problem is expected to be syntacti-
cally selected by the noun Verbindung as its comple-
ment. Thus, we proceed according to the standard
methods of handling relational nouns taking prepo-
sitional arguments. This explains why N a0 Pa1 NP se-
quences within the discussed PPs share many gram-
matical properties with the appropriate phrases oc-
curring within other syntactic contexts.
On the other hand, data in (7) indicate for
P a0 N a0 Pa1 NP expressions constituency such as those
in Figure 4.
On the basis of these observations, the assumption
can be made that Pa1 NP sequences are lexically se-
lected by N a0 s, yet are realized syntactically by P a0 s.
3 The Analysis
Formalizing this idea within the HPSG paradigm,
we will make use mainly of two features: the ARG-
ST feature and the VAL feature, whose value con-
tains three valence lists: the SPR list, the SUBJ list
and the COMPS list. Specifying the relationship be-
tween the values of these features, one can make
generalizations about selectional properties of lex-
ical signs. Thereby, the relationship between the
ARG-ST and the SPR, SUBJ and the COMPS val-
ues (which are all assumed to have a form of list)
does not always have to be an appendrelationship.
Also, other relationships can be assumed, thereby
facilitating the expression of possible discrepancies
between the structure of the syntactic environment
that a given lexical sign can construct, and this lexi-
cal sign’s current selectional requirements.
Such discrepancies appear for instance in the case
of argument raising as realized within the HPSG
grammar framework. To illustrate this idea, we
will look at the essential aspect of the German ver-
bal complex analysis in the style of (Hinrichs and
Nakazawa, 1989). According to this analysis, the
lexical entries of German auxiliaries are specified to
subcategorize for verbal complements and to raise
the arguments of their complements. (See the sim-
plified lexical entry for the auxiliary wollen (‘want’)
in Figure 5 on the next page.)
Thus, the auxiliary will (‘wants’) in the structure
in Figure 6 selects for the verb lesen (‘read’) first,
and then it selects the arguments of lesen (‘read’),
the NP das Buch (‘the book’) and the NP Peter (‘Pe-
ter’), as its own complements.
VP
NP
Peter
(‘Peter’)
V”
NP
das Buch
(‘the book’)
V’
Va0
lesen
(‘read’)
V
will
(‘wants’)
Figure 6: The structure of the VP Peter das Buch
lesen will (‘Peter wants to read the book’)
This idea underlies most current HPSG approaches
to verbal complexes in Germanic and Romance lan-
guages. We argue that the same method can also be
used to make generalizations about selectional prop-
erties of prepositions, and, thereby, to license “com-
plex prepositions”.
Thus, based on empirical data, we assume two
uses of prepositions: the raising and the non-raising
usages. The preposition in in (11a) occurs in a non-
raising context, while the preposition in in (11b) oc-
curs in a raising context.
(11) a. in einer engen Verbindung mit den Beratern
in a close connection with the advisors
‘in a close connection with the advisors’
b. in
in
Verbindung
connection
mit
with
diesem
this
Problem
problem
‘in connection with this problem’
Our assumption is that both strings mit den Be-
ratern in (11a) and mit diesem Problem in (11b) act
as arguments of the noun Verbindung, and are thus
determined by this noun with regard to their syntac-
tic properties.
Furthermore, we assume that the preposition in
in (11b) in opposition to in in (11a), which sub-
categorizes the saturated NP, selects first the noun
Verbindung (which does not realize its complement)
and then in selects the complement of Verbindung,
the PP mit diesem Problem. That is, by virtue of an
appropriate lexical principle of grammar specifying
the valence of prepositions, the complement of the
noun Verbindung is raised by in to become the com-
plement of in, and be realized by in syntactically.
4 HPSG Formalization
Avoiding redundancies in the lexicon, we specify
only one lexical entry for in, thereby underspecify-
ing information about its argument. In Figure 7 we
can see the relevant part of the lexical entry of the
preposition in in AVM notation.
a1a2
a2
a3
word
PHON a4 in a5
SYNS a6 LOC a6 CAT a7
HEAD prep
ARG-ST a8a10a9 LOC a6 CAT a6 HEAD nouna11a13a12a15a14
a16a18a17
a17
a19
Figure 7: The relevant part of the lexical entry of the
preposition in (‘in’)
The only information about potential arguments of
in which this lexical entry provides is that in can
take only one argument, and this argument has to be
a noun. Here, information about the valence prop-
erties neither of that noun nor of the preposition in
will be specified.
The syntactic selection properties of in are li-
censed by a lexical constraint on the mapping of the
elements of the ARG-ST list to the valence lists. For
prepositions, the principle on mapping of the ele-
ments of the ARG-ST list to the valence lists is tradi-
tionally assumed to have the form as in Figure 8.
a1a2
a2
a3
word
PHON a4 wollen a5
SYNS a6 LOC a6 CAT a6 VAL a6 COMPS 1 a0
a1
a7 LOC a6 CAT a7
HEAD verb
VAL a6 COMPS 1 a14 a14a3a2
a16a18a17
a17
a19
Figure 5: The relevant part of the lexical entry of the auxiliary wollen (‘want’)
a4
1
a5a6
a6
a6
a6a7
a1
a3
word
SYNS a6 LOC a6 CAT a7 HEAD prepARG-ST 1
a14
a16
a19a9a8
a0
a9 SYNS a6 LOC a6 CAT a6 VAL a6 COMPS 1 a11
a10a12a11
a11
a11
a11
a13
Figure 8: ARG-ST Mapping Lexical Principle for
Prepositions (preliminary version)
That is, the ARG-ST value is assumed to be iden-
tical with the COMPS value. In order to facili-
tate prepositions to subcategorize nouns which are
complement-unsaturated, and then select the com-
plements of those nouns, the above principle has to
be reformulated in the way shown in Figure 9. Here,
the list of complements syntactically selected by a
preposition is a concatenation of its own ARG-ST list
and the list of complements of its argument.4
It has to be mentioned that the raising of more
than one nominal complement result in ungrammat-
ical constructions like those in (12).
(12) a. *in
in
[Verbindung]
connection
[der
the
Regierung]
governmenta2a4a3 a5
[mit
with
diesem
this
Problem]
problem
...
To avoid this problem, we have restricted the ARG-
ST value of prepositions to the lists containing either
one saturated element, or to the lists containing one
element with a singleton COMPS list. Additionally,
we have specified the LEX value of the second dis-
junct to be a14 with the idea of marking objects that
have realized none of their complements. This re-
striction rules out the selection of relational nouns
that have already realized one of their complements
(cf. 13).
4We assume, as Meurers (1997) does, that argument raising
takes place only with respect to the valence attributes, and not
with respect to the ARG-ST list.
(13) a. *in
in
[Verbindung
connection
der
the
Regierung]
governmenta2a4a3 a5
[mit
with
diesem
this
Problem]
problem
...
5 An Example
The structure in Figure 10 exemplifies the interac-
tion of the above assumptions in the licensing of
a PP headed by a raising preposition. Due to the
ARG-ST Mapping Lexical Principle for Prepositions
in Figure 9, the preposition in, which takes one no-
minal argument with one unrealized complement
can be licensed. Thus, the syntactic and semantic
properties of that complement are determined not
by the preposition, but by the noun. Thereby, un-
grammatical PPs such as those in (9) can be blocked.
Both the noun and its unrealized complement are
mapped to the COMPS list of in and, according to
the constraints on the head-complement-structures
for prepositions, they are syntactically selected by
in.
The first complement that in selects is the noun.
By virtue of selectional requirements of restrictive
adjectives as well as prepositions modifying nouns,
that are specified as combining with complement-
saturated nouns only, the modifying of complement-
unsaturated nouns is blocked. The same restriction
holds for determiners and quantifiers in German.
These constraints, existing in the grammar indepen-
dently of the principles on the CPs syntax, explain
the apparent lexical fixedness of the P a0 N a0 sequences
(cf. (6a) and (6b)) without additional stipulations.
Further on, the preposition in selects the comple-
ment of the noun as its own complement, forming a
PP.
Exactly the same lexical entry for preposition in
and the same set of principles license PPs headed
by non-raising prepositions such as the PP in einer
engen Verbindung mit den Beratern (‘in close con-
nection with the advisers’).
a4
1
a4
2
a5a6
a6
a6
a6
a6
a6
a6
a6
a6
a6
a6
a6
a6
a6
a6
a6
a6
a6a7
a1
a3
word
SYNS a6 LOC a6 CAT a7
HEAD prep
ARG-ST 1 a8 a9 LOC a6 CAT a6 VAL a6 COMPS 2 a11a13a12 a14
a16
a19 a8
a0
a5a6
a6
a6
a6
a6
a6
a6
a6
a6a7
1 =
a5a6
a6
a6
a6
a6a7a1a0
a1
a3 LOC
a6 CAT a6 VAL
a1
a3
SPR a4 a5
SUBJ a4 a5
COMPS a4 a5
a16
a19
a16
a19a3a2a5a4
a1
a7
LEX a6
LOC a6 CAT a6 VAL a6 COMPS a4 synsema5 a14a3a2
a10 a11
a11
a11
a11
a11
a13 a7
a9 SYNS a6 LOC a6 CAT a6 VAL a6 COMPS 2 a0 1 a11
a10 a11
a11
a11
a11
a11
a11
a11
a11
a11
a13
a10 a11
a11
a11
a11
a11
a11
a11
a11
a11
a11
a11
a11
a11
a11
a11
a11
a11
a11
a13
Figure 9: ARG-ST Mapping Lexical Principle for Prepositions
a1a2
a2
a2
a2
a3
word
PHON a8 ina12
SYNS
a1
a3 LOC
a1
a3 CAT
a1
a3
HEAD 3 prep
ARG-ST < 1 a9 LOC | CAT | VAL | COMPS < 2 >a11 >
VAL a9 COMPS a8 2 , 1 a12 a11
a16
a19
a16
a19
a16
a19
a16 a17
a17
a17
a17
a19
a1a2
a2
a2
a2
a3
word
PHON a8 Verbindunga12
SYNS 1
a1
a3 LOC
a8 CAT a8
HEAD noun
ARG-ST <NP, 2 >
VAL a9 COMPS a8 2 a12a15a11a10a9a11a9
a16
a19
a16a18a17
a17
a17
a17
a19
a8
phrase
PHON a8 mit, diesem, Problema12
SYNS 2 a9
a12 a13 a13
a1a2
a2
a3
phrase
PHON a8 in, Verbindung, mit, diesem, Problema12
SYNS a7 LOC a7 CAT a7
HEAD 3
VAL a9 COMPSa14a16a15a11
a14 a14 a14
a16a18a17
a17
a19
Figure 10: The structure of the PP in Verbindung mit diesem Problem (‘in connection with this problem’)
6 Summary and Outlook
In this paper, syntactic aspects of CPs in German
have been investigated. We have thereby seen that
the previous approaches to this phenomenon are
highly problematic. We then proposed an HPSG
analysis based on the raising mechanism assuming
prepositions to be able to raise complements of their
arguments. Underspecifying valence information
within lexical entries of prepositions and applying
appropriate lexical constraints, the presented theory
offers a non-redundant description of linguistic facts
about both the raising and non-raising prepositions.
The proposed analysis entails a technique which
is already well established in the HPSG-based stud-
ies. We have shown for instance that there are par-
allels between the raising analysis proposed here
for CPs and the raising analysis of German verbal
complexes as proposed in (Hinrichs and Nakazawa,
1989).5
In processing systems, an implementation of the
idea of raising as presented and formalized in Sec-
tion Four has already proved to be computationally
tractable. For instance, there is a large grammar
fragment of German developed at the Seminar für
Sprachwissenschaft at the University of Tübingen,
that has been exhaustively implemented by using
a new grammar implementation software TRALE.6
The fragment includes among other phenomena the
5On further applications of the raising mechanism in the
HPSG-based grammar fragments of German see e.g. (Hinrichs
and Nakazawa, 1994), (Meurers, 2000) or (De Kuthy, 2000).
6TRALE is a platform for implementing HPSG-style gram-
mars that was created within the framework of the B8 project
Ein HPSG-Syntaxfragment für das Deutsche: Sprachtheoretis-
che Grundlagen und Computerlinguistische Implementierung
and Domain Specific Processing of Constraint-Based Gram-
mars of the SFB 340 Sprachtheoretische Grundlagen für die
Computerlinguistik under direction of Gerald Penn and has
been still developed within the framework of the MiLCA-
Consortium at the Seminar für Sprachwissenschaft in Tübingen.
partial fronting theory of (De Kuthy and Meurers,
2001), that is based on the idea of raising. Testing
and evaluating this analysis using the TRALE sys-
tem has provided satisfactory results.
It has to be emphasized that the theory presented
in this paper focuses on syntactic aspects of CPs,
dealing with problems of constituency and lexi-
cal and syntactical selection within P a0 N a0 Pa1 NP se-
quences. However, a further module should also be
elaborated that account for generalizations about se-
mantic aspects.
Acknowledgments
I would like to thank Manfred Sailer, Frank Richter,
and the anonymous reviewers of the ACL-2003
Workshop on Multiword Expressions: Analysis, Ac-
quisition and Treatment in Sapporo for their inter-
esting comments on the issue presented in this paper
and Carmella Payne for help with English.

References
E. Beneš. 1974. Präpositionswertige Präpositionalfü-
gungen. In U. Engel and P. Grebe, editors, Sprachsys-
tem und Sprachgebrauch. Festschrift für Hugo Moser
zum 65. Geburtstag. Teil I., number 33 in Sprache der
Gegenwart, pages 33–52. Schwann, Düsseldorf.
G. Bouma and B. Villada. 2002. Corpus-based Ac-
quisition of Collocational Prepositional Phrases. In
M. Theune, A. Nijholt, and H. Hondorp, editors,
CLIN, Selected Papers from the Twelfth CLIN Meet-
ing, pages 23–37, Amsterdam - New York.
J. Buscha. 1984. Zur Syntax der Präpositionen. Deutsch
als Fremdsprache 21.
K. De Kuthy and W. D. Meurers. 2001. On Partial Con-
stituent Fronting in German. Journal of Comparative
Germanic Linguistics, 3(3):143–205.
K. De Kuthy. 2000. Discontinuous NPs in German — A
Case Study of the Interaction of Syntax, Semantics and
Pragmatics. Ph.D. thesis, Universität des Saarlandes,
Saarbrücken.
N. Fries. 1988. Präpositionen und Präpositionalphrasen
im Deutschen und im Neugriechischen. Number
208 in Linguistische Arbeiten. Max Niemeyer Verlag,
Tübingen.
M. Grochowski, S. Karolak, and Z. Topoli´nska. 1984.
Gramatyka Współczesnego J˛ezyka Polskiego: Skład-
nia. Pa´nstwowe Wydawnictwo Naukowe, Warszawa.
E. Hinrichs and T. Nakazawa. 1989. Flipped Out: Aux
in German. In Papers from the 25th Regional Meeting
of the CLS, pages 193–202, Chicago, Illinois.
E. Hinrichs and T. Nakazawa. 1994. Linearizing AUXs
in German Verbal Complexes. In J. Nerbonne, K. Net-
ter, and C. Pollard, editors, German in Head-Driven
Phrase Structure Grammar, number 46 in CSLI Lec-
ture Notes, pages 11–37. Stanford, CA.
Ch. Lindqvist. 1994. Zur Entstehung der Präpositionen
im Deutschen und Schwedischen. Max Niemeyer Ver-
lag, Tübingen.
J. Meibauer. 1995. Komplexe Präpositionen — Gram-
matikalisierung, Metapher, Implikatur und Division
of Pragmatic Labour. In F. Liedtke, editor, Imp-
likaturen. Grammatische und pragmatische Analysen,
number 343 in Linguistische Arbeiten, pages 67–74.
Max Niemeyer Verlag, Tübingen.
W. D. Meurers. 1997. Using Lexical Principles in HPSG
to Generalize over Valence Properties. In Proceedings
of the Third Conference on Formal Grammar, Aix-en-
Provence, France.
W. D. Meurers. 2000. Lexical Generalizations in the
Syntax of German Non-Finite Constructions. Ph.D.
thesis, Eberhard-Karls-Universität Tübingen. Pub-
lished as: Arbeitspapiere des SFB 340, Nr. 145.
C. J. Pollard and I. A. Sag. 1994. Head-Driven Phrase
Structure Grammar. The University of Chicago Press,
Chicago.
R. Quirk and J. Mulholland. 1964. Complex Preposi-
tions and Related Sequences. In English studies pre-
sented to R. W. Zandvoord on the occasion of the 70th
birthday, Supplement to Vol. 45, pages 64–73, Amster-
dam.
I. A. Sag, T. Baldwin, F. Bond, A. Copestake, and
D. Flickinger. 2002. Multiword Expressions: A Pain
in the Neck for NLP. In A. Gelbukh, editor, Com-
putational Linguistics and Intelligent Text Processing:
Third International Conference: CICLing-2002, Hei-
delberg, Berlin. Springer-Verlag.
J. Schröder. 1986. Lexikon deutscher Präpositionen.
Verlag Enzyklopädie, Leipzig.
H. Winhart. 1997. Die Nominalphrase in einem HPSG-
Fragment des Deutschen. In E. Hinrichs, D. Meur-
ers, F. Richter, M. Sailer, and H. Winhart, editors, Ein
HPSG-Fragment des Deutschen, Teil 1: Theorie, num-
ber 95, pages 319–384. Universität Tübingen.
