Arguments desperately 
seeking Interpretation: 
Parsing German Infinitives 
Christopher Laenzlinger 
Martin S. Ulmann 
Eric Wehrli* 
LATL - Department of Linguistics 
University of Geneva CH-1206 Geneva 
laenzlinger@latl.unige.ch, ulmann@latl.unige.ch, wehrli@latl.unige.ch 
Abstract 
In this paper we present a GB-parsing 
system for German and in particular 
the system's strategy for argument in- 
terpretation, which copes with the dif- 
ficulty that word order is relatively free 
in German and also that arguments can 
precede their predicate. In this latter 
case, the parser makes a provisional in- 
terpretation, which is checked when the 
argument structure of the predicate is 
available. Moreover, a strategy of argu- 
ment transfer is used in eases of long- 
distance scrambling, according to which 
arguments and adjuncts are attached to 
the domain of the coherent verb, ECM 
verb, or raising verb, and transferred to 
the infinitival complement for interpre- 
tation. 
1 Introduction 
Free word order languages raise difficulties for 
parsing systems based on phrase-structure rule 
grammars, where the constituents are ordered. In- 
deed, to list all the possible orders leads to an in- 
crease in the grammar size and a corresponding 
decrease in performance. There have been several 
approaches to this problem, notably those based 
on the ID/LP (immediate dominance/linear prece- 
dence) grammars (eft Gazdar et al. 1985) or func- 
tional unification grammars (cf. Karttunnen &: 
Kay 1985). Within the Government and Binding 
framework, Kashket (1991) presents a parser for 
Warlpiri, a non-configurational language, where 
word order and its variation depends mainly on 
case marking. 
Although German is a partially free word or- 
der language, we will assume that it has a fixed 
base word order, which is modified by a set of 
movement transformations. In this paper, we 
will present the argument interpretation strategy 
*Thanks to Scott Fergusson for comments. This 
work has been supported in part by a grant from the 
FNRS, grant no 11-33731.92 
of our parser for German, which is able to han- 
dle the difficulties arising from word order vari- 
ations, focusing on the treatment of infinitival 
constructions. 1 
2 The DIPS Parser 
2.1 General Properties of DIPS 
DIPS (Deutsches Interaktives Parsing System 
'German Interactive Parsing System') is a large- 
scale interactive GB-based 2 parsing system. Its 
architecture is basically similar to that of IPS 
(Wehrli 1992) and FIPS (Laenzhnger 8z Wehrli 
1991). The parser produces a set of GB S- 
structures (trees) from an input sentence. These 
structures are associated with information con- 
cerning traces, argument structure, and case fea- 
tures. 
The syntactic structure of constituents corre- 
sponds to the GB X-schema. We consider Ger- 
man to be an SOV-language (i.e. objects precede 
their predicates in their base position). Thus, the 
X-schema is parameterized in German as follows: 
The complement (Compl) precedes the head X ° 
for the categories V, A, I, whereas it follows the 
head for the categories C, D, P, N, Adv. 3 As 
the specifier (Spec) is always on the left, the X- 
schema has the structure given in (1). 
(1) XP --, Spec X 
-~ X ° Compl, if X°:{C °, D O , po, N O ' 
Adv ° } 
-~ Compl X °, if X°={V °, A °, I °} 
On the basis of this schema, the clause structure 
in German has the general representation given in 
1 There are other proposals to deal with infinitival 
constructions in German: Netter 1986 discusses an 
LFG approach, and ~ambow 1994 uses a variation of 
TAG. 
2 C/. Chomsky & Lasnik 1992, Haegeman 1994 
for a presentation of Government and Binding The- 
ory (GB), and Berwick et al. 1991, Wehrll 1988 for a 
possible implementation of the theory. 
aWe assume Abney's 1987 DP-hypothesis, accord- 
ing to which the head of a noun phrase is the deter- 
miner (D O ). 
681 
Figure 1. 
CP 
Spec C 
Spec I 
VP 
Spee V 
Compl V ° 
Figure 1: Structure of a German clause 
2.2 General Parsing Strategy 
The parsing strategy is data-triggered (mainly 
bottom-up), proceeds from left to right, and treats 
alternatives in parallel by using a chart (cf. Kay 
1980/1986 and Kaplan 1973). The analysis of 
a sentence proceeds at two levels: the lexical 
level and the syntactic level. The lexical analy- 
sis looks up the words in the lexicon; each lexical 
item (word) projects the node corresponding to 
its category; thus, the lexieal features are trans- 
ferred to the syntactic level in accordance with 
the Projection Principle (Chomsky 1981). The 
projected node is then inserted into the chart as 
an edge. The syntactic analysis builds all possible 
structures by making use of cross-category projec- 
tions (similar to Grimshaw's 1991 "extented pro- 
jections") and attachments, which are further fil- 
tered by grammatical constraints; structure build- 
ing is incremental, as the current constituent is 
immediately integrated into the existing hypothe- 
ses. 
A cross-category projection creates a new con- 
stituent with the same start and end vertex in the 
chart as the subconstituent from which it is pro- 
jected. This kind of projection is limited to some 
categories and triggered by intrinsic features. For 
instance, an infinitival verb projects the structure 
in Figure 1 from VP to CP. 
Attachment combines the current constituent 
with the constituents which immediately precede 
this current constituent in the chart. Attachments 
can be divided into two different types of combi- 
nation: 
1. A constituent of the left context is attached 
to the current constituent (left attachment). 
2. The current constituent is attached to a con- 
stituent of the left context (right attach- 
ment). 
In order to keep track of where a constituent can 
be attached in the structure, a list of active nodes 
specifics the potential attachment sites; this list is 
systematically updated. Attachments are further 
constrained as follows: 
• Formal attachments are restricted to adja- 
cent constituents and are licensed by lexi- 
eal properties such as selection or agreement (e.g. 
auxiliary-verb selection, determiner- 
noun agreement). 
• Non-formal attachments concern thematic 
complements and are licensed by subcatego- 
rization and theta properties. 
The second type of attachment requires a specific 
argument interpretation strategy (AIS) to estab- 
lish the link between the argument and the pred- 
icate which subcategorizes it. 
2.3 The Argument Interpretation 
Strategy 
The aim of the AIS is to match the arguments with 
the subcategorization properties (argument struc- 
ture) of the predicate, and thus to establish an in- 
terpretation, which corresponds to the assignment 
of the thematic roles. The argument structure of 
a verb (predicate) is provided by the lexicon and 
specifies the number and type of arguments that 
the predicate can take; while there can be more 
than one argument structure for a verb at the lex- 
ical level, there is only one argument table for a 
(verb) node at the syntactic level, which contains 
the arguments of the clause. This argument ta- 
ble is matched with the corresponding argument 
structures, which has the effect of filtering the in- 
appropriate argument structures. 
The AIS has to deal with two types of difficul- 
ties: first, the predicate (with its argument struc- 
ture) is not always available at the time the argu- 
ment is attached; second, the large number of pos- 
sible word orders in German makes the argument's 
grammatical function difficult to determine. 
The argument structure is only available ff the 
main verb (predicate) occurs in C o , that is the 
second position in the clause (verb second with 
the main verb), and thus at most one argument 
precedes the verb. In this case, a final interpreta- 
tion of the arguments is established immediately 
(at the moment of attachment); the arguments 
are inserted into the definitive argument table of 
the clause and interpreted by being matched with 
the argument structure of the verb (theta assign- 
ment); if more than one interpretation is possible, 
different hypotheses are considered in parallel. If 
the verb follows the arguments, they are also in- 
serted into the argument table, with a provisional 
interpretation. 4 The matching between the argu- 
4This strategy seems to have psycholinguistic sup- 
682 
ment table and the argument structure eventually 
takes place at the time the main verb is attached. 
The task of identifying the grammatical func- 
tion of an argument is complicated by the large 
number of possible word orders, which results 
from the interaction of three syntactic processes: 
verb second, scrambling, and extraposition. The 
verb second constraint requires that the tensed 
verb occupies the second position of the main 
clause; for the first position, however, a large num- 
ber of constituents (XP) is possible, such as the 
subject, an object, an adjunct, an empty opera- 
tor. Scrambhng is a process that modifies the or- 
der of clause-internal arguments and adjuncts un- 
der some constraints (cf. for instance, Uszkoreit 
1987). Extraposition is the occurrence of preposi- 
tional or sentential complements or adjuncts after 
the verb in its base position V °. Thus, the gram- 
matical function of an argument depends not only 
on its position, but also on case and agreement in- 
formation and (scrambling) ordering constraints. 
The interpretation module works as follows: 
The first step is to check whether there are ar- 
guments to be interpreted. If so, it is further 
checked whether the main verb is available, with 
the argument structures. In ease it is not avail- 
able, the new argument is inserted into the provi- 
sional argument table (and its interpretation can 
be checked only later, when the argument struc- 
ture is available). If it is available, the new ar- 
gument is matched with the argument structures; 
if there is a provisional argument table instead of 
one argument, the matching is effeeted for each ar- 
gument in turn. Thus, the list of argument struc- 
tures is filtered and a list of new argument tables is 
returned. For each of these argument tables, it is 
checked whether its arguments obey the ordering 
constraints. If so, the new structure is completed 
and for each argument that is not in its base posi- 
tion, a chain is created to hnk the argument with 
that position, in which a trace is inserted. 
Let us illustrate how the analysis proceeds on 
the basis of the sentence in (2). 
(2) Die Kinder haben dieseu Bericht gelesen. 
'the children have this report read' 
the children have read this report. 
When the parser reads the verb haben, the gen- 
eral clause structure (el. Figure 1) is projected 
from 7P to CP, triggered by the tensed verb, which 
is placed in C o leaving a head trace in V ° and in I °. 
Then, the first constituent die Kinder is attached 
as the specifier of the CP. 
As this first constituent is morphologically am- 
biguous between nominative and accusative, it can 
bc interpreted a priori as a subject or as a direct 
object. For the hypothesis of haben as a main verb 
port: German speakers assign an interpretation to 
arguments even before the predicate is available (el. 
Bader & Lasser 1993). 
or of a verb with particle, the argument structure 
is available: diesen Bericht is the direct object 
and die Kinder the subject. This hypothesis, how- 
ever, fails when the parser arrives at the participle 
gelesen. For the hypothesis of haben as an auxil- 
iary, die Kinder is inserted into the provisional 
argument table as the subject or the direct ob- 
ject of a forthcoming verb and diesen Bericht is 
inserted as direct object. When the past partici- 
ple is read, the arguments are matched with the 
argument structure of gelesen: die Kinder as sub- 
ject and diesen Bericht as direct object. A trace 
is inserted into the specifier of IP for the subject, 
and another trace into the complement of VP for 
the direct object, as illustrated in (3). 
(3) \[el, \[Dr die Kinder \]j\[~ habeni lip \[Dr 
t \] j \[ DP diesen Bericht \] k \[ $ \[ Vr \[ VP \[ Dr 
t\]k gelesen \]tl \]\]t'/ 233 
In the following section, we will show how the 
AIS works in the ease of infinitival constructions. 
3 The Treatment of Infinitives 
3.1 Different Infinitival Structures 
German displays two types of infinitives: infini- 
tives introduced by the conjunction zn and infini- 
tives without zu. 
8.1.1 Infinitives without zu 
Infinitives without zu occur as the complement 
of modal verbs (e.g. m(tssen 'must') and excep- 
tional case marking (EelS) verbs (e.g. sehen 'see', 
lassen 'let/make'). Modals are treated on a par 
with auxiliaries, i.e. they are taken to select an in- 
finitival VP as complement and are not associated 
with an argument table. In compound tenses, the 
infinitival form of the modal is usually used in- 
stead of its past participle form; in example (4a), 
the infinitive wollen substitutes for the participle 
gewoll~. This phenomenon is called infini~ivus pro 
parLicipio (IPP) or Ersatzinfini~iv. If the verb se- 
lecting the IPP is in its base position, the order 
of the verbs differs from the usual one: auxiliaries 
that would be at the right of the IPP immediately 
precede the final predicates, as illustrated in ex- 
ample (4b), where h~te precedes besuchen wollen. 
(4)a. Das Kind hat die alte Frau besuchen wollen. 
'the child had the old woman visit want' 
The child wanted to visit the old woman. 
b. Wenn das Kind die alte Frau h/~tte be- 
suchen wollen... 
'if the child the old woman would-have visit 
want ' 
If the child had wanted to visit the old 
woman... 
From a structural point of view, this reordering 
can be analyzed as verb raising (VR): the verbs 
683 
which whould precede the uppermost final auxil- 
iary (without VR) are attached to the right of the 
auxiliary head (right-adjoined position), forming 
head chains with their base positions, as repre- 
sented in (5). 
(5) \[ vt' \[Vv \[ vv ti\]tj\] h&tte besuehenl wollenj\] 
The phenomena of IPP and verb raising also oc- 
cur with F.CM verbs, as example (6) shows. Unlike 
modals, ZCM verbs are analyzed as taking an infini- 
tival CP as complement and assign (accusative or 
dative) ease to the subject of the infinitival clause, 
e.g. the accusative case to ihr~ in (6). 
(6) Nachdem ihn die Polizei hatte fliehen sehen... 
'after him the pofiee had escape see' 
After the police had seen him escape... 
Furthermore, the subject of the infinitival 
clause (ihrt) can be attached to a position higher 
than the subject of the main clause as a result of 
scrambling. 
3.1.2 Infinitives with zu 
The subject of infinitival clauses with zu is an 
empty constituent. In control constructions, the 
subject is a null pronoun PRO, which can be coref- 
erential with (controlled by) the subject (exam- 
ple (7a)) or the object (example (Tb)) of the up- 
per clause according to the lexicai property of the 
main verb. In raising constructions, the subject of 
the infinitive is a trace coindexed with the subject 
of the higher clause (example (7c)). 
(7)a. Erl behauptete, \[ Cl ~ PROi sic gesehen zu 
haben\]. 
'he claimed PRO her seen to have' 
he claimed to have seen her. 
b. Sic hat ihmi tj erlaubt, \[ cv PRO; das Bueh 
anzusehen\] j. 
'she has allowed him, PRO the book to- 
look-at' 
she allowed him to look at the book. 
c. Siei sehien \[ cP ti ihn gesehen zu haben\]. 
'she seemed him seen to have' 
She seemed to have seen him. 
The infinitival clause can be extraposed in con- 
trol constructions (Tb), but not in raising con- 
struction. 
Among subject-control verbs, there is a class of 
verbs, called 'coherent verbs', which form a clause 
union with their infinitival complement (by re- 
structuring). As a consequence, arguments and 
adjuncts attached to the upper clause can be in- 
terpreted with respect to the infinitival clause. 
(8) Gestern hat siei der Professor versucht 
\[ ti zu kfissen\]. cp 
'yesterday has her the professor tried to kiss' 
Yesterday the professor tried to kiss her. 
In the example (8), the pronoun sic is the di- 
rect object of the infinitival clause, although it is 
attached to the main clause. 
b. \[ 
c.\[ \[ vP 
wollenj \] 
3.2 Treatment of Infinitival 
Particularities 
3.2.1 Verb Raising 
The main problem with VR is that the verbs 
occur on the right of the uppermost final auxiliary, 
while their maximal VP constituents remain on the 
left and contain a head trace. As a solution to this 
problem, we propose attaching the structure that 
contains the verb to the left and extracting all 
of the heads, which are adjoined to the right of 
the upper verb. Take for instance the VP in (9a) 
and the complex VP in (9b); the latter is attached 
as the complement of the former, i.e. to its left. 
However, to account for the surface word order, 
the heads besuchen and wolleu must be extracted 
and attached to the right of hStte, as shown in (9c). 
(9)a. \[ VP hKtte\] 
\[ besuchen\] wollen\] YP vP 
VV \[ VV t{\]tj\] h/itte besuchem 
This solution also works for verb raising in P.CM 
constructions, although the verbal head of the in- 
finitival clause is deeper in the structure. 
3.2.2 Control 
An infinitive with zu projects a non-finite clause 
(CP) to which an empty subject is added (Spec 
IP). If the infinitival clause is a complement of a 
control verb, the empty subject must be eoindexed 
with the controlling argument (lexically specified). 
As illustrated in (10), an infinitival clause can pre- 
cede or follow its controller. Therefore, the coin- 
dexation only applies when both arguments (con- 
troller and eontrollee) are available (the infinitival 
CP and the indirect object in (10)). 
(10)a. Die Mutter erlaubte ihrer Toehteri nicht, 
\[ PROI ins Theater zu gehen\]. CP 
'The mother allowed her daughter not to 
the theatre to go' 
The mother did not allow her daughter to 
go to the theatre. 
b. \[ PRO/ Ins Theater zu gehen\] ~rlaubte CP 
die Mutter ihrer Tochteri nicht. 
'to the theatre to go allowed the mother her 
daughter not' 
The mother did not allow her daughter to 
go to the theatre. 
3.2.3 Argument restructuring 
Since restructuring allows arguments and ad- 
juncts to be attached to the clause containing a 
684 
coherent verb, while being interpreted with re- 
spect to the infinitival clause, the AIS needs to 
be extended. The first modification concerns the 
matching procedure: An argument that may be 
interpreted with respect to the infinitival comple- 
ment is left in the argument table of the coher- 
ent verb -- for this reading, no matching takes 
place and this argument is marked as 'uninter- 
preted'. The second modification occurs after ar- 
gument trace insertion. At this stage, it is checked 
whether there are arguments marked as 'uninter- 
preted' and whether the infinitival complement is 
available. If both of these conditions are fulfilled, 
the uninterpreted arguments are transferred from 
the argument table of the main verb to a provi- 
sional argument table, which is matched with the 
predicate of the infinitival complement. 
Consider example (8): the pronoun sie and the 
nominative DP der Professor are attached to the 
main clause. When the parser reads versucht, it 
interprets the DP unambiguously as the subject. 
For the pronoun, two analyses are taken into ac- 
count (in parallel). On the one hand, it can be 
the direct object of the main verb (Gestern hat 
sic der Professor versucht 'Yesterday, the profes- 
sor has tried them'); this analysis fails when the 
infinitival complement cannot be attached. 
On the other hand, the pronoun sic is regarded 
as the argument of a following infinitival clause, 
i.e. marked as 'uninterpreted'. When the infiniti- 
val complement zu k(tssen is attached, this unin- 
terpreted argument is treated as a new argument 
of the infinitival verb and interpreted as its direct 
object, resulting in the structure (11). 
(11) \[ ep \[ tdvr Gestern\] \[ ~ hat/\[ 1T \[ vp 
sie\]3" \[ Dr der Professor\] k \[ ~ \[ VP \[ VP \[ eP 
t\]t versucht\] ti\] \[ cP \[ xp PROk \[ vP \[ DP t\]j 
zu kiissen\]\]\]l It'\]\]\] 
Example (12a), discussed by Rainbow (1994: 
17-23), is a sentence containing multiple coherent 
verbs, which illustrates the recursive application 
of argument transfer. The structure of the sen- 
tence is given in (12b). 
(12)a. ?...weil das Fahrrad niemand zu reparieren 
verspricht zu versuehen. 
'because the bicycle (ace) no-one (nom) to 
repair promises to try' 
...because no one promises to try to repair 
the bicycle 
b. \[ CP1 well \[ DP das Fahrrad\] i niemand \[ CP3 
ti zu reparieren\]j tk verspricht \[ eP2 tj zu 
versuchen\] k \] 
The direct object das Fahrrad of the most 
deeply embedded infinitive zu reparieren is at- 
tached to the main clause CP1 (long-distance 
scrambling). In addition, the CP3 is scrambled out 
of CP2, which is extraposed after the finite main 
verb. 
The parser proceeds as follows: The three ar- 
guments preceding the main verb verspricht are 
attached and inserted into the provisional argu- 
ment table. When the parser reads verspricht, 
the matching procedure applies. Das Fahrrad can 
be nominative or accusative. Therefore, three 
readings are temporarily possible: subject, direct 
object and uninterpreted (direct object of a fol- 
lowing infinitival complement). Since rtiemand is 
non-ambiguously interpreted as the subject of ver- 
sucht, the subject reading for das Fahrrad fails. 
On the one hand, the CP3 zu reparieren can be 
interpreted as sentential complement of the main 
verb versucht, which produces an interpretation of 
das Fahrrad as the long-distance scrambled argu- 
ment of zu reparieren, resulting in the grammati- 
cal sentence (13). 
(13) ...weft \[ DP das Fahrrad\]i niemand \[ eP ti zu 
reparieren\] verspricht. 
because no one promises to repair the bicycle 
This interpretation will fail, since the CP2 zu 
versuchen cannot be attached. On the other hand, 
CP3 can be left uninterpreted; when the Cp2 zu 
versuchen is attached; and interpreted as the sen- 
tential complement of versprichi, the two uninter- 
preted arguments das Fahrrad and zu reparieren 
are transferred to the CP2 for interpretation. The 
CP3 zu reparieren is interpreted as sentential ob- 
ject of versuchen, while das Fahrrad is regarded as 
uninterpreted again, and thus is transferred to the 
CP3, where it is interpreted as the direct object of 
reparieren. 
The same strategy of argument transfer holds 
for ECM constructions in which a subject is 
scrambled to the upper clause (el. example (6)). 
In almost the same way, this strategy applies to 
the arguments of the infinitival clause in raising 
constructions. While the complements of the in- 
finitival clause are treated in the same way as in 
the restructuring case, the subject is inserted into 
the argument table of the raising verb with the 
grammatical function 'subject', but without the- 
matic role; thus, it is inserted a second time into 
the argument table as 'uninterpreted'; therefore, it 
can be treated like other restructuring arguments, 
i.e. it is transferred to the infinitival clause and 
interpreted as the logical subject of the embedded 
clause. 
(14) ...dab ihn die Frau zu schlagen scheint. 
'that him the woman to beat seems' 
that the woman seems to beat him. 
In (14), the direct object ihn of the infinitival 
verb schlagen, being in a scrambled position, is 
inserted into the argument table of the raising 
verb and marked as 'uninterpreted'. The subject 
die Frau is inserted into this argument table as 
the surface subject of scheirtt without a thematic 
685 
role and, in addition, as an uninterpreted argu- 
ment of a following infinitival complement. When 
the infinitival clause zu schlagen is interpreted as 
the sentential complement of scheint, the uninter- 
preted arguments ihn and die Frau are transferred 
to this clause in order to be interpreted with re- 
spect to the verb schlagen; die Frau is taken as the 
subject of schlagen with the thematic role 'agent' 
and ihn as the direct object of the same verb with 
the thematic role 'patient'. 
4 Conclusion 
The task of our DIPS parser consists of not only 
building one or more trees for an input sentence, 
but also of determining the grammatical function 
and the thematic interpretation of arguments. We 
have discussed the parsing strategy in detail and 
shown that it is adequate for the treatment not 
only of finite clauses, but also of non-finite clauses. 
This strategy relies on the following steps: im- 
mediate attachment, provisional and definitive in- 
terpretation, the testing of constraints, creation 
of chains, and restructuring. An argument in- 
terpretation strategy has been developed, which 
analyses arguments in a uniform fashion, regard- 
less of whether they precede or follow the verb. 
This strategy has been extended to handle long: 
distance scrambling, so that arguments are trans- 
ferred from the clause in which they are attached 
to an embedded clause in which they receive an 
interpretation. 
DIPS is a practical system under develop- 
ment, which uses a large-sized lexicon (over 
150,000 entries) and which, at present, cov- 
ers a large range of grammatical constructions 
such as simple and complex sentences, finite 
and non-finite clauses, active and passive voice, 
wh-constructions, topicalization, extraposition, 
scrambling, long-distance dependencies, and verb 
raising. 
References 
Abney, S. 1987. The English Noun Phrase in its 
Sentential Aspect, doctoral dissertation, MIT, 
Cambridge, Mass. 
Bader, M & I. Lasser. 1993. "German verb-final 
clauses and sentence processing: evidence for 
immediate attachment", ms., in C. Clifton, L. 
Frazier & K. Rayner (eds.), Perspectives in Sen- 
tence Processing, Lawrence Erlbaum, Hillsdale 
N.J. 
Berwick, R., S. Abney & C. Tenny (eds.). 1991. 
Principle-Based Parsing: Computation and 
Psycholinguistics, Kluwer, Dordrecht. 
Chomsky, N. 1981. Lectures on Government and 
Binding, Foris Publications, Dordrecht. 
Chomsky, N. & H. Lasnik. 1992. "Principles 
and Parameters Theory", in J. Jacobs, A. 
van Stechow, W. Sternefeld & T. Vennemann 
(eds.), Syntax: An International Handbook of 
Contemporary Research, Walter de Gruyter, 
Berlin. 
Haegeman, L. 1994. Introduction to Government 
and Binding Theory Blackwell, Oxford. 
Gazdar, G, E. Klein, G. Pullum & I. Sag. 1985. 
Generalized Phrase Structure Grammar, Har- 
vard University Press, Cambridge, Mass. 
Grimshaw, J. 1991. Extended Projections, ms. 
Brandeis University. 
Kaplan, R. 1980/1986 "Algorithm Schemata 
and Data Structures in Syntactic Processing", 
technical report CSL-80-12, Xerox PARC, 1980. 
reprinted in B. Grosz, K. Sparck Jones & B. 
Lynn Webber (eds.), Readings in Natural Lan- 
guage Processing, Morgan Kaufmann Publish- 
ers, Los Altos, 1986, 35-70. 
Karttunen L. & M. Kay. 1985. "Parsing in a free 
word order language", in D. Dowry, L. Kart- 
tunen et A. Zwicky (eds.) Natural Language 
Parsing, Cambridge University Press, Cam- 
bridge, 279-306. 
Kashket, M. 1991. "Parsing Warlpiri, a free word 
order language", in Berwick et al. (eds.), 123- 
151. 
Kay, M. 1967. "Experiments with a powerful 
parser", in COLING-67. 
Laenzlinger, C. & E. Wehrli. 1991. "FIPS: Un 
analyseur interactif pour le fran~ais", TA infor- 
mations, 32.2, 35-49. 
Netter, K. 1986. "Getting things out of order 
(An LFG-proposal for the treatment of German 
word order)", in COLING-86, 494-496. 
Rambow, O. 1994. "Formal and computational 
aspects of natural language syntax", IRCS Re- 
port 94-08, University of Pennsylvania. 
Uszkoreit, H. 1987. Word Order and Constituent 
Structure in German, CSLI, Lecture notes 8, 
Stanford University. 
Wehrli, E. 1988. "Parsing with a GB grammar", 
in U. Reyle and C. Rohrer (eds.), Natural Lan- 
guage Parsing and Linguistic Theories, Reidel, 
Dordrecht, 177-201. 
Wehrli, E. 1992. "The IPS System", in COLING- 
92, 870-874. 
686 
