<?xml version="1.0" standalone="yes"?>
<Paper uid="C02-1116">
  <Title>Linking syntactic and semantic arguments in a dependency-based formalism</Title>
  <Section position="2" start_page="0" end_page="0" type="intro">
    <SectionTitle>
1 Introduction
</SectionTitle>
    <Paragraph position="0"> This paper deals with the mapping (or linking) of semantic predicate-argument structure to surface syntactic realizations. We present a formal architecture in the framework of a multi-dimensional, heavily lexicalized, efficiently parsable dependency formalism (Duchier and Debusmann, 2001), which uses lexical inheritance as a means to explicitly model syntactic variation. We concentrate on variation between prepositional phrases and nominal phrases which realize verbal arguments, and remedy problems that occur with this kind of variation in recent approaches like the HPSG linking architecture proposed by (Davis, 1998).</Paragraph>
    <Paragraph position="1"> Section 2 presents and analyses some of the problematic data we can model, English dative shift, optional complements and thematic role alternations.</Paragraph>
    <Paragraph position="2"> Section 3 compares the HPSG account with less formal valency or dependency based approaches and comments on the shortcomings, focusing on the treatment of PP complements. We then present a new account in the formal framework of Topologi1The authors wish to thank Denys Duchier and Geert-Jan Kruijff for lots of helpful comments on this paper.</Paragraph>
    <Paragraph position="3"> cal Dependency Grammar (TDG) by adding a new representational level (thematic structure additionally to ID structure) to the framework in Section</Paragraph>
    <Section position="1" start_page="0" end_page="0" type="sub_section">
      <SectionTitle>
4.1 and introducing the concept of a valency frame
</SectionTitle>
      <Paragraph position="0"> in the TDG inheritance lexicon (Sections 4.2 and 4.3). We then show how we use syntactic role hierarchies to account for the data in a linguistically concise way and define admissibility conditions for a TDG derivation. Section 5 contrasts our analysis of the dative shift construction with the analysis of thematic role alternations.</Paragraph>
    </Section>
  </Section>
class="xml-element"></Paper>