<?xml version="1.0" standalone="yes"?>
<Paper uid="C96-2115">
  <Title>Arguments desperately seeking Interpretation: Parsing German Infinitives</Title>
  <Section position="3" start_page="0" end_page="682" type="metho">
    <SectionTitle>
2 The DIPS Parser
2.1 General Properties of DIPS
DIPS (Deutsches Interaktives Parsing System
'German Interactive Parsing System') is a large-
</SectionTitle>
    <Paragraph position="0"> 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 concerning traces, argument structure, and case features. null The syntactic structure of constituents corresponds to the GB X-schema. We consider German 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 deg 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).</Paragraph>
    <Paragraph position="1">  (1) XP --, Spec X -~ X deg Compl, if Xdeg:{C deg, D O , po, N O ' Adv deg } -~ Compl X deg, if Xdeg={V deg, A deg, I deg} 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.</Paragraph>
    <Paragraph position="2"> 2 C/. Chomsky &amp; Lasnik 1992, Haegeman 1994  for a presentation of Government and Binding Theory (GB), and Berwick et al. 1991, Wehrll 1988 for a possible implementation of the theory.</Paragraph>
    <Paragraph position="3"> aWe assume Abney's 1987 DP-hypothesis, according to which the head of a noun phrase is the deter-</Paragraph>
    <Paragraph position="5"/>
    <Section position="1" start_page="681" end_page="681" type="sub_section">
      <SectionTitle>
2.2 General Parsing Strategy
</SectionTitle>
      <Paragraph position="0"> 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 analysis looks up the words in the lexicon; each lexical item (word) projects the node corresponding to its category; thus, the lexieal features are transferred 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 projections (similar to Grimshaw's 1991 &amp;quot;extented projections&amp;quot;) and attachments, which are further filtered by grammatical constraints; structure building is incremental, as the current constituent is immediately integrated into the existing hypotheses. null A cross-category projection creates a new constituent with the same start and end vertex in the chart as the subconstituent from which it is projected. 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.</Paragraph>
      <Paragraph position="1"> 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 combination: null  1. A constituent of the left context is attached to the current constituent (left attachment).</Paragraph>
      <Paragraph position="2"> 2. The current constituent is attached to a con- null stituent of the left context (right attachment). null 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 adjacent constituents and are licensed by lexieal properties such as selection or agreement (e.g. auxiliary-verb selection, determiner-noun agreement).</Paragraph>
      <Paragraph position="3"> * Non-formal attachments concern thematic complements and are licensed by subcategorization and theta properties.</Paragraph>
      <Paragraph position="4"> The second type of attachment requires a specific argument interpretation strategy (AIS) to establish the link between the argument and the predicate which subcategorizes it.</Paragraph>
    </Section>
    <Section position="2" start_page="681" end_page="682" type="sub_section">
      <SectionTitle>
2.3 The Argument Interpretation
Strategy
</SectionTitle>
      <Paragraph position="0"> The aim of the AIS is to match the arguments with the subcategorization properties (argument structure) of the predicate, and thus to establish an interpretation, 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 lexical level, there is only one argument table for a (verb) node at the syntactic level, which contains the arguments of the clause. This argument table is matched with the corresponding argument structures, which has the effect of filtering the inappropriate argument structures.</Paragraph>
      <Paragraph position="1"> The AIS has to deal with two types of difficulties: first, the predicate (with its argument structure) is not always available at the time the argument is attached; second, the large number of possible word orders in German makes the argument's grammatical function difficult to determine.</Paragraph>
      <Paragraph position="2"> 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 interpretation 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 assignment); if more than one interpretation is possible, different hypotheses are considered in parallel. If the verb follows the arguments, they are also inserted into the argument table, with a provisional interpretation. 4 The matching between the argu- null ment table and the argument structure eventually takes place at the time the main verb is attached.</Paragraph>
      <Paragraph position="3"> The task of identifying the grammatical function 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 number of constituents (XP) is possible, such as the subject, an object, an adjunct, an empty operator. Scrambhng is a process that modifies the order of clause-internal arguments and adjuncts under some constraints (cf. for instance, Uszkoreit 1987). Extraposition is the occurrence of prepositional or sentential complements or adjuncts after the verb in its base position V deg. Thus, the grammatical function of an argument depends not only on its position, but also on case and agreement information and (scrambling) ordering constraints.</Paragraph>
      <Paragraph position="4"> The interpretation module works as follows: The first step is to check whether there are arguments to be interpreted. If so, it is further checked whether the main verb is available, with the argument structures. In ease it is not available, the new argument is inserted into the provisional argument table (and its interpretation can be checked only later, when the argument structure is available). If it is available, the new argument is matched with the argument structures; if there is a provisional argument table instead of one argument, the matching is effeeted for each argument in turn. Thus, the list of argument structures 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 position, a chain is created to hnk the argument with that position, in which a trace is inserted.</Paragraph>
      <Paragraph position="5"> Let us illustrate how the analysis proceeds on the basis of the sentence in (2).</Paragraph>
      <Paragraph position="6"> (2) Die Kinder haben dieseu Bericht gelesen.</Paragraph>
      <Paragraph position="7"> 'the children have this report read' the children have read this report.</Paragraph>
      <Paragraph position="8"> When the parser reads the verb haben, the general 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 deg and in I deg. Then, the first constituent die Kinder is attached as the specifier of the CP.</Paragraph>
      <Paragraph position="9"> As this first constituent is morphologically ambiguous 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.</Paragraph>
      <Paragraph position="10"> Bader &amp; Lasser 1993).</Paragraph>
      <Paragraph position="11"> or of a verb with particle, the argument structure is available: diesen Bericht is the direct object and die Kinder the subject. This hypothesis, however, fails when the parser arrives at the participle gelesen. For the hypothesis of haben as an auxiliary, die Kinder is inserted into the provisional argument table as the subject or the direct object of a forthcoming verb and diesen Bericht is inserted as direct object. When the past participle 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).</Paragraph>
      <Paragraph position="12"> (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.</Paragraph>
    </Section>
  </Section>
  <Section position="4" start_page="682" end_page="685" type="metho">
    <SectionTitle>
3 The Treatment of Infinitives
</SectionTitle>
    <Paragraph position="0"/>
    <Section position="1" start_page="682" end_page="683" type="sub_section">
      <SectionTitle>
3.1 Different Infinitival Structures
</SectionTitle>
      <Paragraph position="0"> German displays two types of infinitives: infinitives introduced by the conjunction zn and infinitives without zu.</Paragraph>
      <Paragraph position="1">  Infinitives without zu occur as the complement of modal verbs (e.g. m(tssen 'must') and exceptional 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 infinitival VP as complement and are not associated with an argument table. In compound tenses, the infinitival form of the modal is usually used instead 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 selecting 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 example (4b), where h~te precedes besuchen wollen.</Paragraph>
      <Paragraph position="2"> (4)a. Das Kind hat die alte Frau besuchen wollen.</Paragraph>
      <Paragraph position="3"> 'the child had the old woman visit want' The child wanted to visit the old woman.</Paragraph>
      <Paragraph position="4"> b. Wenn das Kind die alte Frau h/~tte besuchen wollen...</Paragraph>
      <Paragraph position="5"> 'if the child the old woman would-have visit want ' If the child had wanted to visit the old woman...</Paragraph>
      <Paragraph position="6"> From a structural point of view, this reordering can be analyzed as verb raising (VR): the verbs  which whould precede the uppermost final auxiliary (without VR) are attached to the right of the auxiliary head (right-adjoined position), forming head chains with their base positions, as represented in (5).</Paragraph>
      <Paragraph position="7"> (5) \[ vt' \[Vv \[ vv ti\]tj\] h&amp;tte besuehenl wollenj\] The phenomena of IPP and verb raising also occur with F.CM verbs, as example (6) shows. Unlike modals, ZCM verbs are analyzed as taking an infinitival 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).</Paragraph>
      <Paragraph position="8"> (6) Nachdem ihn die Polizei hatte fliehen sehen... 'after him the pofiee had escape see' After the police had seen him escape...</Paragraph>
      <Paragraph position="9"> 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.</Paragraph>
      <Paragraph position="10">  The subject of infinitival clauses with zu is an empty constituent. In control constructions, the subject is a null pronoun PRO, which can be coreferential with (controlled by) the subject (example (7a)) or the object (example (Tb)) of the upper 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)).</Paragraph>
      <Paragraph position="11"> (7)a. Erl behauptete, \[ Cl ~ PROi sic gesehen zu haben\].</Paragraph>
      <Paragraph position="12"> 'he claimed PRO her seen to have' he claimed to have seen her.</Paragraph>
      <Paragraph position="13"> b. Sic hat ihmi tj erlaubt, \[ cv PRO; das Bueh anzusehen\] j.</Paragraph>
      <Paragraph position="14"> 'she has allowed him, PRO the book tolook-at' null she allowed him to look at the book.</Paragraph>
      <Paragraph position="15"> c. Siei sehien \[ cP ti ihn gesehen zu haben\]. 'she seemed him seen to have' She seemed to have seen him.</Paragraph>
      <Paragraph position="16"> The infinitival clause can be extraposed in control constructions (Tb), but not in raising construction. null Among subject-control verbs, there is a class of verbs, called 'coherent verbs', which form a clause union with their infinitival complement (by restructuring). As a consequence, arguments and adjuncts attached to the upper clause can be interpreted 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.</Paragraph>
      <Paragraph position="17"> In the example (8), the pronoun sic is the direct object of the infinitival clause, although it is attached to the main clause.</Paragraph>
      <Paragraph position="19"/>
    </Section>
    <Section position="2" start_page="683" end_page="685" type="sub_section">
      <SectionTitle>
3.2 Treatment of Infinitival
Particularities
</SectionTitle>
      <Paragraph position="0"> 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.</Paragraph>
      <Paragraph position="1"> 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).</Paragraph>
      <Paragraph position="3"> This solution also works for verb raising in P.CM constructions, although the verbal head of the infinitival clause is deeper in the structure.</Paragraph>
      <Paragraph position="4">  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 precede or follow its controller. Therefore, the coindexation only applies when both arguments (controller and eontrollee) are available (the infinitival CP and the indirect object in (10)).</Paragraph>
      <Paragraph position="5"> (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.</Paragraph>
      <Paragraph position="6"> b. \[ PRO/ Ins Theater zu gehen\] ~rlaubte CP die Mutter ihrer Tochteri nicht.</Paragraph>
      <Paragraph position="7"> 'to the theatre to go allowed the mother her daughter not' The mother did not allow her daughter to go to the theatre.</Paragraph>
      <Paragraph position="8">  Since restructuring allows arguments and adjuncts to be attached to the clause containing a  coherent verb, while being interpreted with respect 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 complement is left in the argument table of the coherent verb -- for this reading, no matching takes place and this argument is marked as 'uninterpreted'. The second modification occurs after argument trace insertion. At this stage, it is checked whether there are arguments marked as 'uninterpreted' 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 provisional argument table, which is matched with the predicate of the infinitival complement.</Paragraph>
      <Paragraph position="9"> 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 account (in parallel). On the one hand, it can be the direct object of the main verb (Gestern hat sic der Professor versucht 'Yesterday, the professor has tried them'); this analysis fails when the infinitival complement cannot be attached.</Paragraph>
      <Paragraph position="10"> On the other hand, the pronoun sic is regarded as the argument of a following infinitival clause, i.e. marked as 'uninterpreted'. When the infinitival complement zu k(tssen is attached, this uninterpreted argument is treated as a new argument of the infinitival verb and interpreted as its direct object, resulting in the structure (11).</Paragraph>
      <Paragraph position="11"> (11) \[ ep \[ tdvr Gestern\] \[ ~ hat/\[ 1T \[ vp sie\]3&amp;quot; \[ Dr der Professor\] 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 sentence is given in (12b).</Paragraph>
      <Paragraph position="12"> (12)a. ?...weil das Fahrrad niemand zu reparieren verspricht zu versuehen.</Paragraph>
      <Paragraph position="13"> '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 attached 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.</Paragraph>
      <Paragraph position="14"> The parser proceeds as follows: The three arguments preceding the main verb verspricht are attached and inserted into the provisional argument 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 following infinitival complement). Since rtiemand is non-ambiguously interpreted as the subject of versucht, 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 argument of zu reparieren, resulting in the grammatical sentence (13).</Paragraph>
      <Paragraph position="15"> (13) ...weft \[ DP das Fahrrad\]i niemand \[ eP ti zu reparieren\] verspricht.</Paragraph>
      <Paragraph position="16"> 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 sentential complement of versprichi, the two uninterpreted arguments das Fahrrad and zu reparieren are transferred to the CP2 for interpretation. The CP3 zu reparieren is interpreted as sentential object 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.</Paragraph>
      <Paragraph position="17"> 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 infinitival 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 thematic 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.</Paragraph>
      <Paragraph position="18"> (14) ...dab ihn die Frau zu schlagen scheint.</Paragraph>
      <Paragraph position="19"> 'that him the woman to beat seems' that the woman seems to beat him.</Paragraph>
      <Paragraph position="20"> 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  role and, in addition, as an uninterpreted argument of a following infinitival complement. When the infinitival clause zu schlagen is interpreted as the sentential complement of scheint, the uninterpreted arguments ihn and die Frau are transferred to this clause in order to be interpreted with respect 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'.</Paragraph>
    </Section>
  </Section>
class="xml-element"></Paper>