<?xml version="1.0" standalone="yes"?>
<Paper uid="C94-2130">
  <Title>Dutch Cross Serial Dependencies in HPSG</Title>
  <Section position="2" start_page="0" end_page="0" type="intro">
    <SectionTitle>
1 Introduction
</SectionTitle>
    <Paragraph position="0"> Dutch cross serial dependencies (DCSDs), well-known from (1) and (2), still challenge computational linguistics for an efficient treatment.</Paragraph>
    <Paragraph position="1"> (1) dat ik~ haar~ de nijlpaardeu~ zag~ voeren~ that I her the hippos saw feed &amp;quot;that I saw her feed the hippos&amp;quot; (2) dat ik~ Henk~ haar 3 de nijlpaarden a zag~ that I Itenk her the hippos saw helpena voeren 3 help feed &amp;quot;that I saw tIenk help her feed the hippos&amp;quot; The problematic aspects of I)CSDs are of course the bounded discontinuous relation between the NPs and the verbs of which they are arguments, indicated in (1) and (2) by the subscripted integers, and the recursiveness of the phenomenon. The construction is only licensed by members of two closed classes of verbs, the class of perceptual verbs like zicn( &amp;quot;see&amp;quot; ), hoven( &amp;quot;hear&amp;quot; ) and voelen( &amp;quot;feel&amp;quot; ), and the class of causative verbs like laten('qet/make&amp;quot;) and helpen(&amp;quot;help&amp;quot;). In the analysis put forward here wc emphasize this lexical aspect of the phenomenon; in our analysis DCSDs are strictly tied to the subcategorization and semantics of perceptual and causative verbs. We analyze them as verbs which select, apart from their subject, a nonfinite V-projection which denotes an event. More particularly, as is proposed for German auxiliaries in \[H&amp;N(1989)\], they subcatego*Sponsored by EC projects FJSI'IHT P5254 (PLUS), \],\].ql'Rrl' P6665 (DANDELION) and two travel grants by the Netherlands Organization for Scientific Research (NWO). Many thanks to Bob Borsley, Jo Calder, Bart Geurts, 3os~e IIeemskerk, John Nerbonne, Paola Monachesi, Ivan Sag, Wietske Sijtsma and Craig Thiersch for detailed ornaments and sound advice. Errors are, of course, completely my own.</Paragraph>
    <Paragraph position="2"> rize for the arguments of the verb they govern, a mechanism frequently referred to as argument composition or argument inheritance.</Paragraph>
    <Paragraph position="3"> Recently DCSDs have been analyzed in a non-standard version of tIPSG 1 in \[P~eape(fc.)\]. In his so-called sequence union approach, the standard concept of phrase structure grammar (i.e. that a string is defined as the terminal yield of a phrase structure tree) is abandoned. Our analysis is more standard, in the sense that we only need to refer to the lexicon and the HPSG-mechanism of structure sharing3 Our preferred explanatory mechanism, argument composition, is not so much an additional mechanism as an effect which derives from careful specification of structure sharing, and structure sharing is already at the theoretical core of HPSG.</Paragraph>
    <Paragraph position="4"> Furthermore, argument composition is independently motivated, because Dutch is like German with rcspect to the phrase-structural behaviour of auxiliaries, and argument composition in German constructions with auxiliaries is well-motivated (\[H&amp;N(1989)\]). So we have good reason to assume argument composition present in the theory, regardless of DCSDs.</Paragraph>
  </Section>
class="xml-element"></Paper>