A Lexicalist Account of Icelandic Case Marking 
Gosse Bouma 
Computational Linguistics Department 
University of Groningen, P.O. box 716 
NL-9700 AS Groningen, The Netherlands 
email: gosse~llet, rug. nl 
Abstract 
Recent theoretical descriptions of the Icelandic 
case system distinguish between lexicai and struc- 
tural case. Lexical case is assigned in ttle lexi- 
COIl, whereas structural case is assigned in syn- 
tax, under tim provision that it does not override 
lexicai case assignment. This analysis is prob- 
lematic for grammatical theories such as Cate- 
gorial Unification Grammar (CUG) and Head- 
driven Phrase Structure Grammar (HPSG) as 
the introducion of a syntactic case cmnponent 
is incompatible with the lexicalist ideology un- 
derlying these frameworks. Furthermore, the 
default character of syntactic case introduces 
a procedural aspect into the grammar which 
goes against the derlarative spirit of unification- 
based frameworks in general. In this paper, I 
propose an alternative anMysis, formulated in 
terms of CUC,, in which all case constraints are 
expressed lexically and in which default reason- 
ing is restricted to nonmonotonic inheritance of 
lexicai information only. 
1 Introduction: Case Marking 
and Defaults 
The Icelandic case marking system I has often 
been taken as evidence for a distinction between 
structural (or regular or default) and lexicai 
(irregular, quirky) case marking. This distinc- 
tion is introduced to explain the following two 
facts. First, most verbs select nominative case 
marked subjects (1), but a number of verbs se- 
lect accusative, genitive or dative subjects (2)- 
(4). Similarly, most transitive or ditransitive 
verbs select an accusative direct object (1), but 
some select a nominative, dative, or genitive (4)- 
(6) object. 
(1) Stfilkan(N) kyssti drengina(A) 
the-girls kissed the-boys 
1See Andrews (1982) for an extensive overview. 
(2) Drengina(A) vantar mat(A) 
the-boys lacks food 
(3) Verkjanna(G) g~etir ekki 
the-pain is-noticeable not 
(4) Barninu(D) batnac~i veikin(N) 
the-child ~,eeovered-from the-disease 
(5) 13g hj£1paSi honum(D) 
I helped him 
(6) Eg mun sakna hans(G) 
I will miss him 
The fact that the vast majority of subjects and 
objects is nominative and accusative, respec- 
tively, is accounted for by assigning default sta- 
tus to these cases (that is, if nothing is said 
about the case of a subject or object, assume it 
must be nominative or accusative, respectively). 
Second, passive sentences (7)-(8) and so-called 
'raising' constructions (9)-(12) exhibit a distinc- 
tion between regular and irregular case marked 
NPs. In transformational terms, the case of reg- 
ular case marked NPs corresponds with their 
surface position ((7), (9), and (11)), whereas 
the case of irregular case marked NPs corre- 
sponds to their underlying position ((8), (10), 
and (12)). (In these examples, tc represents 
a lexicaily case marked NP-trace and t a trace 
which has not been assigned case (assunfing that 
structural case is only assigned to surface NP 
positions)). 
(7) Drengirnir(N) voru kysstir t 
the-boys were kissed 
(8) IIonum(D) var hj£1pa5 tD 
him was helped 
(9) lIann(N) virSist It elska hana\] 
he seems to-love her 
(10) liana(A) virSist IrA vanta peninga\] 
her seems to-lack money 
AcrEs DE COLING-92, NANTES, 23-28 AOt~'r 1992 9 4 PROC. OF COLING-92, NANTES, AUG. 23-28, 1992 
(11) \]~g taldi Guarfinu(A) \[t sakna 
1 believed Gvdrun to-miss 
llaraldar\] 
llarald 
(12) Harm telur barniml(I)) \[to hafa 
he believes the-cild to-have 
batna(') veikin \] 
recovered-from the-disease 
Preservation of irregular case is particularly 
striking is a sentence such as (13). Although, 
normally, a verb which selects an accusative ob- 
ject Mways selects a nominative subject when 
passivized, this is not so in (13), where a rais- 
ing to object verb has been passived. The lexicai 
case assigned by the embedded verb vanta is pre- 
served even if raising to object and subsequent 
passivization takes place. 
(13~ig(h) er tMi3 tA \[tA vant;~ peninga\] 
I is believed to-lack money 
The interaction of case assignment, raising, 
and passivization is summarized in the table be- 
low (where ~ and \[ refer to the underlying and 
surface NP position, respectively). The distinc- 
tion between structural and lexical accusative in 
passives is needed to account for a sentence suetl 
as (13). Transitive verbs with nominative ob- 
jects do not passivize (Yip et al., t987, p. 225). 
e.  iw 
I nom Nora I Nom Acc/ Acc(s.) NOM 
IAcc Ace lAce AeeJAce(l. ) Act: 
IDat Dat IDat l)atlI)at Dat 
~1 Gen Gen 
Table 1: Icelandic Case Patterns 
All previous accounts of these facts ~ have adop- 
ted the following two assmnptions: 
• Lexical case is assigned in the lexicon (that 
is, before the lexical and syntactic l)rocesses 
responsible for passive formatiml and rais- 
ing have appfied) attd structural case is as- 
signed in syntax (after idl other syntactic 
processing has been completed). 
• Structural case assignment is a default pro- 
cess which can never override lexical case 
assignments. 
2Except Sag et at. (to appear), whose analysis is in 
many respects similar to the one developed below. 
Andrews' (1982, p. 485) LFG-based account, for 
instance, assumes two default conventions, ap- 
plical)le to functional structures (that is, after 
syntactic processing has been cmnI)leted). First, 
if the subject is unmarked for case, (direct and 
indirect) objects are accusative by default (i.e. 
only if they are not lexically ease marked), and, 
second, an argmnent must be nominative if no 
other ease constraint has been imposed upon it. 
The application of the first convention nmst pre- 
cede that of the second. Zaenen et al. (1985, p. 
466) adopt a default case marking convention 
which appears to be restricted to the lexicon 
and which assigns nominative case to the highest 
available grammaticM function (i.e. a grammat- 
ical function which is present in the argument 
(or thematic) structure of a verb attd which has 
not been assigned lexical case), and accusative 
to the next highest available grammatical fnnc 
tiou. Zaenen et al. concentrate primarily on 
passives and do not present an explicit account 
t)f raising constructions. Yip ctal. (1987), in- 
spire(\[ by i(\[eas froln autosegmental phonology, 
propose a system in which a case tier" \[NOM ACC\] 
is associated with verbal arguments in syntatx in 
a left-to-right fashion, in such a way that NOM is 
associated with the leftmost argument titat has 
not been assigned lexical case and hcc is asso- 
ciated with the next available argument. Their 
account of raising to object assumes that case 
association is a cyclic rule and that syntactic 
(as opposed to lexieal) case assignments may 
be overwritten by syntactic case assignments in 
higher cycles. 
These proposals are prol)lematic for standard 
unification-based formMisms of the PATR-II va- 
riety (Shieber, 1986a). The default constraints 
for nominative and accusative case ntarking must 
not apply if :t lexical case constraint is present 
already. This ilnlflies that tit(., default constraints 
cannot be added to the syntactic rules or lex- 
ical entries which introduce subjects and ob- 
jects, as this would make the constraints ab- 
solute. Rather, syntactic default case mark- 
ing principles would have to be added as a fil- 
ter on syntactic structures or as seperate de- 
fault rules (much like the syntactic fi.~ature spec- 
ification defaults of GPSG) whose application 
must be intertwined with syntactic processing a. 
Admitting such extensions, however, is poten- 
tially damaging to the descriptive adequacy of 
3Note that the defaults cannot be 'compiled away' 
in this case, as is proposed for the feature specification 
defaults of GPS( / in Shieber (1986b). 
Acrv.s DE COLING-92, NA~rrEs, 23-28 Aotrr 1992 9 5 PROC. OF COL1NG-92, NArCrES, AUO. 23-28, 1992 
unification-based formalisms, as the. addition of 
syntactic tilters a<hls a powerful and seemingly 
unrestricted level of <lescription to the grammar 
formalism arrd the a<ldition of syntlt<:tic defaults 
iirtroduces a procedural aspect to syntactic de- 
scriptions wbich is absent in tire standard for- 
realism. 
The proposals of Andrews (1982) and Yip ~:t 
al. (1987) are also a challenge for lexicalist ttle- 
ories such as I\[I'SG and CUC,. The probleni for 
lexicatist theories is that the default principles 
above must make use of information which is 
only available a.fler a certain amount of syn 
|actic processing has taken place. In raising 
to object constructions, for instance, the ques- 
ti<m whether the object must be assigned ac- 
cusative case or not Call olrly be answered after 
it is known wbethcr the sul>ject of tire embedded 
VP is assigned lexical case or not. These con 
siderations have even been used (in ,lacobson, 
1990) as arguments against lexicalist accounts 
of case marking in generM. 
Below, I will demonstrate that the Icelandic 
data can ire a.ecounted for declaratively alid in 
a lexicalist fashion. Ill the next section, I in: 
troduce a fragment of (;Ill\] including raising 
verbs and passives. Next, the distinction be- 
tweet| lexicM and structural case is accounted for 
by assuming that case is encoded as a feature- 
colnplex and by introducing a system for non- 
monotonic iiflmritanee of lexical information. In 
section 4 I show that this deeomlrosed case sys- 
tem makes it possible to analyze the case pat- 
terns found in passive and raising constructions 
as a reflection of a partial agreement relation. 
The final section romllares the present proposal 
with recenl, work by Sag ctal. (to appear). 
2 Categorial Unification Gram- 
mar 
In this section, I will l)r'esent a brief outline 
of Categorial Unification Gralnmar ((~U(',), a 
unitication-based version of Categorial Gram- 
mar (see, ainong others, Uszkoreit (f986), Kart- 
tunen (1989), Bouma (1988), alld Zeevat (1988), 
for details). In particular, the treatment of rais- 
ing verbs and passives will be adressed. 
The categories of categoriM grammar can 
be encoded as feature-structures using tire fea- 
ture CAT(EGORY) to represent basic categories 
and the Datures VaL(UE), ARG(UMENT) and 
DIR(E(:TIONALITY) to represent complex care- 
AcrEs DE COLlNG-92, NAbrI'ES, 23-28 Ao\[rr 1992 
gories. The category NP\,S', for instance, is 
translated as: 
<1,,/ira, {c t s 1 / 
dir left 
|arg \[cat np\] 
Lcat - 
The specification \[CA\]' -\] is needed only to make 
complex categories non-unifilthle with basic cat- 
egories. \[ will omit this specification in tile ex- 
amples below. The template system ill (15) <le- 
fines the basic inwmtory of categories that is its- 
sumed in the sequel 4. 
(1.5) NI' : (cat) = up ). 
x : (cat> =.~ ). 
VI' : NI>\S ). 
TVP : VP/NP ). 
t assume a categorial grammar which provides 
(at least) the following combinatory rules: 
Right Application: ofl.,X ~, t~,X/Y fl, Y 
Left Application: ties, X => fl, Y ~, Y\X 
Right Wrap: cqfl(~,X => c*la2, X/Y fl, Y 
These rules can ire thought of as licencing cer- 
tain operations on strings arid feature struc- 
tures, q'his is illustrated for leftward application 
in (16)below. 
(16) Arldy dreams, \[~ \[cat s\] 
All eombinatory rules unify the value of the 
\[unctor daughter with the feature structure of 
the mother aild unify the argument of the fune- 
tor with the argument daughter. 
Raising verbs subcategorize for a VP-comple- 
ment (i.e. a category NP\,5 ~) the subject of 
which is controlled by an NP-argument of the 
raising verb. Following Bach (1979) I assume 
that the controller is always the so-called ti.ext- 
argur~er~t-itl. That is, a 'raising to subject' verb 
such as seem receives the category (NI>\,5)/VP, 
~I use X/Y and Y\X a:~ shorthand for 
(v"O = X (v"O = X 
(air) = right and (dir) = ,'ight . 
(.,v) = v <.,v} = ~" 
9 6 PROC. OF COLING-92. NANTES, Auc;. 23-28. 1992 
whereas a 'raising to object' verb such ,as cx- 
pect is categorized ms (VP/NP)/VP. This im- 
plies that such verbs combine with their object 
using right wrapS: 
(17) expects Bob to go, VP 
expects to go, VP/ NP Bob, NP 
expects, (VP/NP)/VP to go, VP 
The semantic and syntactic implications of the 
relation between the controlling NP and the sub- 
ject of the VP-complement can be implemented 
by making these two arguments reentrant. I will 
ignore tits aspect of the analysis below (but see 
Pollard &, Sag (to appear) for an aimlysis which 
makes a similar assumption). 
Passive auxiliaries subcategorize for a pas- 
sive TVP (i.e. a category VP/NP with pas- 
sive morphology) and a subject NP (that is, 
I adopt a lexicalized version of the analysis in 
Bach (1980)). The fact that the subject is in- 
terpreted as the object of the '\['VP cat) again be 
implemented by making these two argument po- 
sitions reentrant. Since raising to object verbs 
are functors which are reducible to TVI', this 
analysis predicts that such verbs may be pas- 
sivized: 
a feature complex. 'l?bat is, instead of using 
a single fi~atnre CASE, i will use three distinct 
features. The feature STItU(:T distinguishes be- 
tween structural and lexical case, and the fea- 
tures Lt;X and NOM distinguish between the var- 
ious lexical cases and between nominative and 
accusative structurM case, respectively. The 
data in section 1 show that genitive and dative 
case are always lexical (i.e. non-structural), that 
accusative may be lexical (if assigned to sub- 
jects) as well as structural (if assigned to oll- 
jects), and that nominative is always structurM. 
Therefore, I assume that the templates NOM, 
Acc, I)AT, and (JEN assign the values specified 
in table 2 to tim features lnentioned M)ove. The 
Acc\[ ace 
!)AT\] - dat 
Table 2: l)ecomposing CASE 
fact that A(:c is unspecilied for STRUCT i8 im- 
portant in the account of case preservation pre- 
sented below. Note that these four template def- 
initions denote incompatible feature structures 
and thus can be used to defiim the morphologi- 
cal case of NPs in lexicM entries: 
(18) w~ expected to go, VP 
was, VP/TVP expected to go, 'I'VP 
3 Distinguishing Lexical and 
Structural Case 
The most important tool for expressing linguis- 
tic generalizations in unification-based fornta- 
fisms is the template meclmnism. In this sec- 
tion, I iutroduce the template system for case 
and show how nonmonotonic template inheri- 
tance call be used to account for the default 
character of structurM case. 
The distinction between lexical and structural 
case can be made explicit if case is encoded as 
5The feature structures above encode only the direc- 
tionality of fimctors, not their mode of comhination (i.e. 
application or wrap). It is possible to add a feature which 
encodes this information explicitly. 
ACRES DE COLlNG-92. NANTES, 23-28 Ao~rr 1992 
(19) ~tdlkan : ( NI" Nora ). 
DreT~gina : ( NP Ace ). 
Intransitive and transitive verbs, are detined 
as follows (where +STRUCT denotes a positive 
vMue for STRUCT): 
(20) IV:( (NI'Nom)\S ). 
TV :( IV/(Nf" Ace +Struct) ). 
Note that tile fact that accusative acts a,s a 
structural case for objects has been added ex- 
plicitly. 
Both structural and lexical case assigning verbs 
are defined in terms oftlm templates ill (20). For 
structurM case assigning verbs only their cate- 
gory needs to be specified. The detinitions of 
lexicM case assigning verbs, on the other hand, 
will contain explicit case constraints. To avoid 
feature-clashes, I assume that these irregular 
verbs inherit nonmonotonically from the tern- 
9 7 PROC. OF COLING-92, NANTES, AUG. 23-28, 1992 
plates above: 
(21) kyssti :(TV ). 
hjalpa~i : ( TV 
!(are_l ) = Dat ). 
vantar : ( TV 
!( val arg) =(Acc -Struct) ). 
In these definitions, the '!'-prefix (comparable 
to the overwrite operator of PATR-H) indicates 
that the following constrMnt contains non-default 
information which may surpress the inheritance 
of incompatible information from other sources 
(i.e. the template TV). Thus, hjalp~i denotes 
the feature struture (where IVis left unexpand- 
ed): 
dir right 
\[cat ~:I' 
L arg \]l~'~; uct aatjj 
Lnom 
Note also that vantar assigns \]exicM (i.e. non- 
structural) accusative case to its subject. 
The definitions above capture the intuitive 
difference between structural and lexical case. 
If a verb assigns structural, default case, only 
its category needs to be specified, the relevant 
case constraints follow by inheritance. If a verb 
assigns lexical case, however, case must be speci- 
fied explicitly. Although tids analysis introduces 
a limited form of nonmonotonicity, this does not 
endanger the declarative nature of the grammar. 
The definitions in (21) still denote feature struc- 
tures~ and thus, the effect of combining default 
and non-default information can be computed at 
compile time. That is, there are no formal difl'er- 
ences between a grammar using nonmonotonic 
inheritance and agrammar which does not. Fur- 
thermore, in Bouma (to appear) it is demom 
strated that the inheritance operation itself can 
be defined declaratively. What is gained by us- 
ing nonmonotouic inheritance is the fact that it 
supports a direct and natural implementation of 
certain linguistic observations. 
4 Case Preservation 
In this section I argue that the case preserva- 
tion pheuomena which can be observed in rais- 
ing and passive constructions are a reflection of 
a (partial) case agreement relation between two 
NP-argument positions. 
Ac'r~ DE COLING-92, NANTES, 23-28 aotrr 1992 98 
~br raising to subject verbs, for instance, the 
case of controlling subject is Mways identical to 
the subject case constraint specified by the em- 
bedded VP (that is, I assume that infinitival 
verbs may specify structural, nominative, case 
for their subject). Thus, raising to subject verbs 
can be defined as in (23). The paths (val arg) 
and (arg arg) refer to the controlling and con- 
trolled NP, respectively. 
(23) R-to-S : 
(xv/yp 
(val arg struct) = (a,:q arg struct) 
(,,.1 ..j lex) : (.,g .,9 l~x) 
(..t .,v nora) = (.-j "'V ,,ore) ). 
The feature structures denoted by this template 
and by the templates defined below are shown 
in figure 1. 
Raising to object verbs, on the other hand, 
do not take nominative objects and thus require 
that their object is \[NOM -\]. The other case 
features again agree: 
(24) R-to-O : 
( (IV/NP)/VP 
(val auI nora) = - 
(val arg struct) = ( an2 arg struct) 
(val a~ lex) : ( ar 9 arg lex) ). 
Note that if the VP-complement assigns nomi- 
native case to its subject argmnent, the object 
is specified as \[STItUCT +, NOM -\], This impfies 
that the object must be accusative, as only the 
case template Ace will unify with this specifica- 
tion. In all other cases, the lexical case assigned 
by the Vl'-complement will be preserved. In 
particular, a lexical accusative subject gives rise 
to the following derivation: 
(25) tall6 vanta peninga, 
\[val IV \] 
|dir right | 
/ \[cat np \]/ 
\[\]/a r /struct - // 
taiiS, vanta peninga, 
dir ht \[\] \]struct np 
\]1 
PRoc. OF COL1NG-92, NAm'ES. AUG. 23-28, 1992 
dir h:ft 
cat ill)" 
Lnom 
dir right 
dir left 
arg \[ cat ~' 
Lu,,n, \[:.'~1 \] J 
:v ti dir right Icat Ill)- eat / struct ! \[arg /le× L nOnl 
dir right 
dir left 
~rg ~arg :\[trtuct ~1~ ) 
\] val 
eal / dir 
\[ arg 
dir right 
\[vat 
arg / dir 
arg 
lcat s\] 
left 
lex 
VP 1 right 
\[cat ,tp\] 
|struct \[21// Dx ~t~jj 
Figure 1: Feature structures for R-To-S, R-'ro-O, and PAss-Allx 
Passive auxiliaries, finally, are detined as fol- 
lows: 
(26) l'ass-Aux : 
( vv/'rvl, 
(v.l .,,a no,,0 = ( ,t,.u ,,,v ,~,.,,~t) (oat 
.,v t~.) - ( ,,.,j ,,,.g t~,) ). 
In passives, the question whether a nomina~ 
tire subject will appear or not is determined by 
the question whether the object of tim TVP- 
complement receives structural case or not. If 
the object was marked for one of the lexical 
cases GEN or I)AT, this case will also appear 
on the subject. A structural accusative object 
gives rise to a \[NOM -~-, LEX ACC\] specitication 
for the subject, which is unitiable with the case 
template NOM only. A lexieai accusative object 
(as in (25)), on tit(.' other hand, gives rise to a 
\[NOM -,LEX ACC\] sul)ject, a specilicati(m which 
is only unifiable witil Acc. Note that this ac- 
counts for example (13), which showed that lex- 
ical accusative case imlst be preserved in passive 
constructions. 
5 Concluding Remarks 
In the previous sections I have argued that, con- 
trary to what has been assumed in previous 
work, the Icehmdic case system does not pro- 
vide compelling evidence for the introduction of 
a nonlnonotonic syntactic case conlpollent. 
The same conclusion is reached by Sag et aL 
(to appear), who present an analysis formulated 
in terms of IIPSG (Pollard & Sag, 1987, to 
appear) which emphasizes the theoretical and 
methodologic~d advantages of a declarative, lex~ 
icallst, solution. Their analysis rests on the as- 
sulnption that case is encoded using the two fea- 
tltl'e8 CASI.; atld I)CASI';~ where the latter i8 used 
t() encode the default c~L~(: of certain argument 
tmsitioas. The distinction between structured 
and lexical case assigning verbs is implemented 
as follows: 
Non-quirky verbs require that the DCASE 
and CASE values of their subjects be 
identified (structure-shared). 
Quirky verbs impose uo snch identity, 
and select at particular CASE value for 
their subject. 
\[t is assumed that raising verbs specit~¢ that 
tile controlling and controlled NI' are reentraut. 
Note that this predicts that the case of a lex- 
ical (quirky) case assigning verb is always pre- 
served. If a raising verb combines with a Vt'- 
conq)lentent which assigns structural case to its 
subject, the features ChS~; and D('ASE of the 
controlling NI' will also be reentrant. Since ob- 
jects are always (lexically) specilied as \[PEASE 
A(:C\], this implies that a raising to object verb 
which coml)ines with a structural case assign- 
ing VP nmst take an accusative case marked 
object. Subjects are assumed to be marked as 
{I)£:ASl.; NOM\] by the syntax rule which intro- 
duces subjects. Thus, raising to subject verbs 
that coinbine with a structural case assigning 
VP can only take a nominative suhject. 
The fact that the ca.se of subjects is deter- 
nfined at least in part by syntax is surprising, 
given the lcxicalist ~pproach advocated by Sag 
Acres DE COLING-92, NAI,rI'I~S, 23-28 Ao~r 1992 9 9 Paoc. o~, COLING-92, N^NTUS, A~6.23-28, 1992 
et al.. It is essential for their analysis, however, 
that subjects of infinitives are not assigned nom- 
inative default ease in the lexicon, as this would 
make it impossible for a raising to object verb 
to combine with its VP-complement 6. In the 
account above, there was no need to introduce 
syntactic case marking principles. One might 
even maintain that this account, apart from be- 
ing truly lexica\[, also has the advantage that it 
avoids the procedural flavor of the analysis of 
Sag et al., which, a3though formulated declara- 
tively, makes essential use of the fact that nom- 
inative default case is imposed during syntac- 
tic processing, whereas all other case constraints 
are imposed beforehand (i.e. in the lexicon). 
Sag et al. (to appear) do not adress the case 
marking patterns of passives. The most ob- 
vious way in which their analysis could cover 
these facts would be to assume the passive lex- 
ical rule presented in Pollard & Sag (1987, p. 
215). This seems to account for the facts im- 
mediately, given the additional assumi)tion that 
objects are marked as \[DCASI~ ACC\] after passive 
has applied. Note, however, that this would im- 
ply a slightly different lexical component than 
is standardly assumed in HPSG, and, perhaps 
nmre disturbing, would introduce explicit order- 
ing of lexical rules or rule types. 
I 0 0 PROC. OF COLING-92, NANTES, AUG. 23-28, 1992 
6One might suggest that it is actually the morpho- 
logical rule which creates finite verbs that imposes the 
constraint \[DCASE NOM\] olt subject arguments. However, 
this would leave a sentence such as (i), mentioned by 
Sag et al. as evidence for the claim that nominative is 
assigned syntactically, unaccounted for. Note also that 
this example is unproblematic for the system presented 
above, given the assumptiou that virOist se\]ects an iu- 
finitival S. 
(i) Mdr(D) virSist hun(N) e\]ska hann(A) 
me seems she to-love htm 
AcrEs DE COLING-92, NANTES, 23-28 Ao(rr 1992 

References 

Andrews, Avery (1982). The Representation of 
Case in Modern Icelandic. In J. Bresnan (ed.) 
The Mental Representation of Grammatical Re- 
lations, MIT Press, Cambridge, Mass., pp. 427-503. 

Bach, Emmon (1979). Control in Montague 
Grammar. Linguistic Inquiry 10, pp. 515-532. 

Bach, Emmon (1980). In Defense of Passive. 
Linguistics ~5 Philosophy 3, pp. 297-341. 

Bouma, Gosse (1988). Modifiers and Specifiers 
in Categorial Unification Grammar. Linguistics 
26, pp. 21-46. 

Bouma, Gosse (to appear). Feature Structures 
and Nonmonotonicity. Groningen University. 
Comptational Linguistics 18. 

Jacobson, Pauline (1990). Raising as Function 
Composition. Linguistics ~ Philosophy 13, pp. 
423-476. 

Karttunen, Lauri (1989). Radical Lexicalism. 
In M. Ilaltin & A. Kroch (eds.) Alte~ntive Con- 
ceptions of Phrase Structul~e, Chicago University 
Press, Chicago, pp. 43-66. 

Pollard, Carl & Ivan Sag (1987). Information- 
Based Syntax and Semantics, vol I: Fundamen- 
tals, CSLI Lecture Notes 13, University of Chica- 
go Press, Chicago. 

Pollard, Carl ~ Ivan Sag (to appear). Informat- 
ion-Based Syntax and Semantics, vol II: Agre- 
meat, Binding, and Control, CSLI Lecture Notes, 
University of Chicago Press, Chicago. 

Sag, Ivan, Lauri Karttunen, & Jeffrey Goldberg 
(to appear). A Lexical Analysis of Icelandic 
Case. In I. S:~.g & A. Szabolesi (eds.), Lexi- 
cal Matters, CSLI Lecture Notes, Univerity of 
Chicago Press, Chicago. 

Shieher, Stuart (1986a). An httroduction to 
Unification-Based Approaches to Grammar, CSLI 
Lecture Notes 4, University of Chicago Press, 
Chicago. 

Shieber, Stuart (1986b). A Simple reconstru- 
cion of GPSG . Proceedings of Coling 1986, In- 
stltut ffir angewandte Kommunikantions- und 
Sprachforschung, Bonn, pp. 211-215. 

Uskoreit, Hans (1986). CategoriaI Unification 
Grammar. Proceedings of Coling 1986, Institut 
ffir angewandte Kommunikantions- und Sprach- 
forschung, Bonn, pp. 187-194. 

Yip, Moira, Joan Mallng, & Ray Jackendoff 
(1987). Case in Tiers. Language 63, pp. 217-250. 

Zaenen, Annie, Joan Maling, & HSskuldur 
Thr£insson (1985). Case and Grammatical Func- 
tions: The Icelandic Passive. Natural Language 
Linguistic Theory 3, pp. 441-484. 

Zeevat, Henk (1988). Combining Categorial 
Grammar and Unification. In Uwe Reyle 
Christian Rohrer (eds.) NatuT~al Language Pars- 
ing and Linguistic Theories, Reidel, Dordreeht, 
pp. 202-229. 
