<?xml version="1.0" standalone="yes"?>
<Paper uid="P95-1024">
  <Title>a Theory of Linearization in Head-Driven Phrase</Title>
  <Section position="1" start_page="0" end_page="175" type="abstr">
    <SectionTitle>
Abstract
</SectionTitle>
    <Paragraph position="0"> We propose a novel approach to extraposition in German within an alternative conception of syntax in which syntactic structure and linear order are mediated not via encodings of hierarchical relations but instead via order domains. At the heart of our proposal is a new kind of domain formation which affords analyses of extraposition constructions that are linguistically more adequate than those previously suggested in the literature.</Paragraph>
    <Paragraph position="1"> 1 Linearization without phrase structure Recent years have seen proposals for the elimination of the phrase structure component in syntax in favor of levels of representation encompassing possibly nonconcatenative modes of serialization (Dowty, In press; Reape, 1993; Reape, 1994; Pollard et al., 1993). Instead of deriving the string representation from the yield of the tree encoding the syntactic structure of that sentence (as, for instance in GPSG, LFG, and--as far as the relationship between S-structure and PF, discounting operations at PF, is concerned--GB), these proposals suggest deriving the sentential string via a recursive process that operates directly on encodings of the constituent order of the subconstituents of the sentence. In Reape's proposal, which constitutes an extension of HPSG (Pollard and Sag, 1994), this information is contained in &amp;quot;(Word) Order Domains&amp;quot;. On the other hand, the way that the surface representation is put together, i.e. the categories that have contributed to the ultimate string and the grammatical dependency relations (head-argument, head-adjunct, etc.) holding among them, will be called the &amp;quot;composition structure&amp;quot; of that sentence, represented below by means of unordered trees.</Paragraph>
    <Paragraph position="2"> *Thanks to Bob Kasper for helpful discussions and suggestions.</Paragraph>
    <Paragraph position="3"> As an example, consider how a German V1 sentence, e.g. a question or conditional clause, is derived in such a system. 1 (1) Las Karl dasBuch read Karl the book E.g.: 'Did Karl read the book?' The representation in Figure 1 involves a number of order domains along the head projection of the clause (\[1\]-\[3\]). Each time two categories are combined, a new domain is formed from the domains of the daughters of that node, given as a list value for the feature DOM. While the nodes in the derivation correspond to signs in the HPSG sort hierarchy (Pollard and Sag, 1994), the elements in the order domains, which we will refer to as domain objects, will minimally contain categorial and phonological information (the latter given in italics within angled brackets). The value of the DOM attribute thus consists of a list of domain objects. Ordering is achieved via linear precedence (LP) statements.</Paragraph>
    <Paragraph position="4"> In Reape's approach, there are in essence two ways in which a sign's DOM value can be integrated into that of its mother. When combining with its verbal head, a nominal argument such as das Buch in Figure 1 in general gives rise to a single domain element, which is &amp;quot;opaque&amp;quot; in the sense that adjacency relations holding within it cannot be disturbed by subsequent intervention of other domain objects. In contrast, some constituents contribute the contents of their order domains wholesale into the mother's domain. Thus, in Figure 1, both elements of the VP (\[2\]) domain become part of the higher clausal (\[1\]) domain. As a result, order domains allow elements that are not sisters in composition structure to be linearly ordered with respect to each other, contrary 1In Kathol and Pollard (1995), we argue for dispensing with binary-valued features such as INV(ERTED) or EXTRA(POSED) in favor of a multi-valued single feature TOPO(LOGY) which imposes a partition on the set of domain elements of a clause according to membership in Topological Fields (see also Kathol (In progress)). Since nothing in the present proposal hinges on this detail, we keep with the more common binary features.</Paragraph>
    <Paragraph position="5">  NP\[ACC\])\] to ordinary HPSG, but in the spirit of &amp;quot;liberation&amp;quot; metarules (Zwicky, 1986).</Paragraph>
    <Paragraph position="6"> With Reape we assume that one crucial mechanism in the second type of order domain formation is the shuffle relation (Reape's sequence union), which holds of n lists L1, ..., L,-1, L,, iff L, consists of the elements of the first n-1 lists interleaved in such a way that the relative order among the original members of L1 through L,-1, respectively, is preserved in Ln. As a consequence, any precedence (but not adjacency) relations holding of domain elements in one domain are also required to hold of those elements in all other order domains that they are members of, which amounts to a monotonicity constraint on deriving linear order. Hence, if \[1\] in Figure 1 were to be expanded in the subsequent derivation into a larger domain (for instance by the addition of a sentential adverb), the relative order of subject and object in that domain could not be reversed within the new domain.</Paragraph>
    <Paragraph position="7"> The data structure proposed for domains in Reape (1993) is that of a list of objects of type sign. However, it has been argued (Pollard et al., 1993) that signs contain more information than is desirable for elements of a domain. Thus, a sign encodes its internal composition structure via its DAUGHTERS attribute, while its linear composition is available as the value of DOM. Yet, there are no known LP constraints in any language that make reference to these types of information. We therefore propose an impoverished data structure for elements of order domains which only consists of categorial and semantic information (viz. the value of SYNSEM (Pollard and Sag, 1994)) and a phonological representation.</Paragraph>
    <Paragraph position="8"> This means that whenever a constituent is addedto a domain as a single element, its information content will be condensed to categorial and phonological information. 2 The latter is constrained to be the concatenation of the PHONOLOGY values of the domain elements in the corresponding sign's order 2For expository convenience, semantic information is systematically ignored in this paper.</Paragraph>
    <Paragraph position="9"> domain. We will refer to the relation between a sign S and its representation as a single domain object O as the compaction, given informally in (2): 3 (2) compaction(\[i-\],El ) --</Paragraph>
    <Paragraph position="11"> To express this more formally, let us now define an auxiliary relation, joinF, which holds of two lists L1 and L2 only if L2 is the concatenation of values for the feature F of the elements in L1 in the  function cons; i.e. cons holds among some element E and two lists L1 and L2 only if the insertion of E at the beginning of L1 yields L2.</Paragraph>
    <Paragraph position="12">  Given compaction and the earlier shnffle relation, the construction of the intermediate VP domain can be thought of as involving an instance of the Head-Complement Schema (Pollard and Sag, 1994), augmented with the relevant relational constraints on domain formation, as shown in Figure 2.</Paragraph>
  </Section>
class="xml-element"></Paper>