<?xml version="1.0" standalone="yes"?>
<Paper uid="C94-2130">
  <Title>Dutch Cross Serial Dependencies in HPSG</Title>
  <Section position="3" start_page="0" end_page="818" type="metho">
    <SectionTitle>
2 Event Semantics in HPSG
</SectionTitle>
    <Paragraph position="0"> The choice of semantics in terms of a theory of events, known from \[Davidson(1967)\], offers interesting advantages and explanations of logical and linguistic pheuomena, motivating tt, e development of a constraint-based version of it. 3 So, in the spirit of event semantics we propose that main verbs like voeren(&amp;quot;feed') in (3) should denote a discourse referent, which is in fact a very natural assumption. In (3) and throughout the paper, recurring \[-~'s indicate structure sharing, that is token-identity of information, as is common usagc in HPSG. Note also that we follow \[Borsley(1987)\] in representing subjects as values of SlJB3 and follow \[P&amp;S(1994)\] (chapter 9) in representing non-subject  tics and translation to an event-based logical fomn originates with work on the EC-sponsored PLUS project, EsPaiT P52fi4, a &amp;quot;Pragmatics-based Language Understanding System&amp;quot;.  arguments as wducs of C()MI'~.</Paragraph>
    <Paragraph position="1">  q?he constraint-based event semantics of the base form verb voeren as it is depicted in (3), with the quasideterminer V~W.:N% should be interpreted as an existentially quantified event with a parameter \[a I which is restricted to involve a relation of feeding, an argumcvt with the role of agent which is associated 4 with a sc-mantle content \[2 I and an argument associated with a semantic content \[~ which is the theme. '~ Here the valne of I)1,7\[' is a 'shallow' representation of a quantifier, (5 and the value of PAHA, which is an abbreviation for 'parameter', is structure shared with the value of a feature/NST which is short for 'instance'. We will suppose that the value of I'AI(A corresponds with a discourse referent in the discourse representation associated with a i, atural langnage expression, without formally defining this relation here. The value of HI,;STIq which abbreviates 'restrictions': is a set of constraints on the value of this parameter.</Paragraph>
  </Section>
  <Section position="4" start_page="818" end_page="818" type="metho">
    <SectionTitle>
3 An Argument Colnposition Analysis
</SectionTitle>
    <Paragraph position="0"> We assume that the clause structure of 1)CSI)s is one where we have a binary left-branching verbal cmnplex.</Paragraph>
    <Paragraph position="1"> This verbal complex then locally selects the sum of the arguments of the verbs which constitute it. We fecl that a binary branching analysis is empirically motivated by auziliary flip in the same way as auxiliary flip motivates a binary right-branching structure for the German verbal complex, following \[H&amp;N(1989)\].</Paragraph>
    <Paragraph position="2"> 4Here mid throughout the paper, &amp;quot;(}:~&amp;quot; memm &amp;quot;feature tltrllcLure * with as C()NTI,\]N'I'-value ~&amp;quot;.</Paragraph>
    <Paragraph position="3"> BWe ~lSSllllJ.e thttt our constraint-based event st21llalltie8 is ittduetively translated to a level of underspecified logical fortxl, and that this ULF-level then can be mapped to a level of logical form and a model-theoreLic interpretation. The attxiliary levels are not defined here, but of. \[llentier(ms.)\].</Paragraph>
    <Paragraph position="4"> The eoztcept of semantics we will outline here will b e shallow for instance ht the sense that we do not dismiss quantification as it is COlIt~non-place in formal semantics. IIowever, of. chapter 8 of \[P&amp;S(1994)\] for discussion of a treatment of quantifier scope which could he cornhlned with ore' approach, if so desired.</Paragraph>
    <Paragraph position="5"> A governing auxiliary will apply argument composition and raise all the complements from the governed verb(s) to become arguments of the auxiliary, as proposed in \[H&amp;N(1989)\]. We assume that causative and perceptuM verbs syntactically behave just like auxiliaries in this respect.</Paragraph>
    <Paragraph position="6"> Tile difference between auxiliaries on the one hand and perceptual and causative verbs on the other we view as basically semantic. We take it that auxiliaries semantically more or less operate on events, affecting features for tense and aspect or modality. Causative and perceptual verbs on the other hand will be analyzed as events themselves, events which take other events as their argument~ in general as a theme (viz, a valne of AIt(~, cf. the entry in (7) below).</Paragraph>
    <Paragraph position="7"> ht chapter 9 of \[P&amp;S(1994)\] the approach to local se-lection from \[Borsley(1987)\] is developed fltrther and leads to the Valence t)rinciple, which refers to the valence features SiJI-~d and C()MPS through 'F':</Paragraph>
  </Section>
  <Section position="5" start_page="818" end_page="819" type="metho">
    <SectionTitle>
(4) Valence Prineiph, Chapter 9, \[P&amp;S(1994)\]
</SectionTitle>
    <Paragraph position="0"> In a headed phrase, h)r each valence featnre F, the t,' wdue of the head-daughter is the con-.</Paragraph>
    <Paragraph position="1"> catenation of the phrase's F value with the list of SYNSI,;M values of tt, e F-daughters' value.</Paragraph>
    <Paragraph position="2"> The general effect of the principle on a phrase which is headed by some sign is that this headed sign can only become 'complete' (or &amp;quot;saturated') if it is combined with the appropriate arguments. For example, in the case of a transitive verb, such a verb must find a subject NP (selected through Sl;B./) and some oh.</Paragraph>
    <Paragraph position="3"> ject (selected through (:()Ml'S). If we assume a lint clause structure analysis of Dutch and we furthenm)re assume lcxical signs like (3) and (7), then the imme~ diate dominance statements (5) and (6) will suffice to describe tilt: constructim, of Dutch we are concerned with here. r Here the H,S and C indicate that the daughters of the phrase include a head, a subject and complements, not necessarily in that order (eft chapter 9 of \[P&amp;S(1994)\] for details). Note that in addition to the wdency features suJLI and COMPS, we also assume the t)resence of the G()V-feature, ranging over 1  'Phe second schenta is in a sense not a &amp;quot;phrase&amp;quot; structure schema but is instead a &amp;quot;cluster-formation'schema. This is because normally the combination of two or more words leads to a sign which is I,I.;x-, a phrasal sign, but here it leads to a 'complex word' which is I,\],;X F. Also (6) is strictly binary: it takes one argument, namely the argument which is the value of fActually, our analysis also presupposes the IIead Featm'e  COY. We arrange the lexicon so that any value of coy will always be an unsaturated base form verb which is defined as LEX+ as well. By the Valency Principle, this selection requirement of the governing verb will be appropriately 'cancelled' after string concatenation during parsing.</Paragraph>
    <Paragraph position="4"> Central to our analysis of the case-markings of NPs in the Dutch Mittelfeld is the assumption from \[Pollard(fc.)\] that base forms of verbs do not assign any case to their subject. The value for the subject-NP's CASE-feature in (3), &amp;quot;c^s~&amp;quot;, is the supertype in the type hierarchy for those atomic types that are appropriate values of the feature CASE. So, the value cast.&amp;quot; is the supertype of NOM and Ace in Dutch and English, and in German also of DA'r and G~N. The result of assigning the subject-NP this supertype for case in practice bolls down to giving this NP some kind of &amp;quot;any&amp;quot;-value for case; the case-value CASE of such an NP will unify with any other possible case value.</Paragraph>
    <Paragraph position="5"> In our analysis, the discontinuous relation between arguments and verbs in DCSDs is brought about firstly by lexically defining finite pereeptuals like zag (and finite causatives) as argument composition verbs, along the following lines: 9</Paragraph>
    <Paragraph position="7"> The finite argument composition verb zag selects a singular nominative NP through its suB J-feature. As non-subject arguments it selects through its COMPSfeature first the NP tagged as \[\] which is unified with the SUB J-value of the governed verb(s), and secondly the list \[~\] of zero or more non-subject arguments of the governed verb(s). And crucially, being a governing verb, zag selects through cov a governed base form verb, 1deg with as SUB J-value &amp;quot;\[~', as COMPS-value  erned v\[nsi.:\] is selected as missing a subject and a list of complements, it must not 'find' this subject or these complements, which it indeed doesn't (cf. the tree in Figure 1).</Paragraph>
    <Paragraph position="8"> As it were in passing, the governing perceptual verb (or causative verb alike) imposes accusative case on the NP which denotes the suloject-argument of the governed verb. The unification of \[CASE CASK\] and \[CASE Acc\] will be forced through the structure-sharing indicated in (7) as &amp;quot;\[\]', and will result in the more specific restriction \[CASE ,cc\]. This accounts for the accusative case-marking on hasp (&amp;quot;her&amp;quot;) in examples (1) and (2), and in general on all non-subject arguments in such constructions.</Paragraph>
    <Paragraph position="9"> The second and crucial step in our account of the discontinuity is accounting for the linear order in the verb cluster with DCSDs. The linear order of the verb  cluster in Dutch we account for through (8): (8) Linear Precedence l=tule Dutch Verb Clusters \[c~ov ( x )\] &lt; x (9) Linear Precedence Rule German Verb Clusters</Paragraph>
    <Paragraph position="11"> By these LP-rnles, in each part of the binary branching verb cluster the governing verb will appear head-initial in Dutch, and head-final in German. n It is straightforward to show that the above approach has the desired effect also for the sentence (2) mentioned in the introduction if we define a lexical entry for the causative helpen with a syntax and semantics along the same lines as the perceptual zag. The only difference must be that such nonfinite entries do not assign NOM to their subject, but &amp;quot;CASl.:&amp;quot;. Other than that, there will just be additional embeddings in the semantics as well as in the verb cluster. Thus, by the ID-rule in (6) and the lexical entries for causatives and perceptuals, we account for the recursiveness of the phenomenon, cf. the tree in Figure 2.</Paragraph>
  </Section>
class="xml-element"></Paper>