<?xml version="1.0" standalone="yes"?>
<Paper uid="C86-1117">
  <Title>Getting Things Out Of Order (Au LFG-Proposal for the Treatment of German Word Order)</Title>
  <Section position="3" start_page="494" end_page="495" type="intro">
    <SectionTitle>
2. VERB-SECOND
</SectionTitle>
    <Paragraph position="0"> Until now we have considered only clauses with the finite verb in a final position, and a strict order of nontinal arguments, In the following we shall ntodify our rules to cover also verb second clauses, restricting ourselves to declaratives. 5) The rule determining the position of the finite verb in German can be informally expressed by the following generalization: The finite verb appears in a clause final position iff the first position of the sentence is taken by a conjunction, or by a relative or (subordinative) interrogative prononn. If these conditions do not apply we &amp;quot;,viii assume that the finite verb takes the position that is dominated by COMP in (Rl). In this case the position in front of the finite verb, which we will assume to be (laminated by S&amp;quot; , may be filled by any major constituent (including VP). As this position is by no nteans lestrieted to be a SUBJ~posltion, we will introduce a variable G ranging ovtu the full set of governable functions (including XCOMP). 6) Furthermore wt, ~ have to take into consideration, that only the surface realization S\[JBJ will always appear on the top-level of the global f-structure, whereas any other function may belong to a deeper level of f-structnre embedding. So we will again make use of an annotation involving the Kleene--star operator, yielding ('1' XCOMP* G) = &amp;quot;~. Thus we will be able to topicalize any governable function xto matter, how deep it be embedded in the VP or VP' structures. The principle of consistency will again guarantee that no governable function will appear in this position that is not subcategorized for by a verbal predicate that can be reached along an f-structure path consisting of XCOMPs only. Restricting the f-structure path to XCOMPs will make sure that no governable function be 'extracted' from inside a complex NP or some node annotated as ADJUNCT. 7) Another important modification concerns our S-rule: In order to avoid constituent control as well as a VP rule expanding to an ol)tional V constituent, we 'flatten' the S rule, making all its immediately dominated constituents optional. The principle of consistency will then make sure that one and only one position for the verb will be selected. The existential constraint requiring tense will hold for both the final and the front position.</Paragraph>
    <Paragraph position="2"> Given this rule system it will be no problem to generate any of the following declarative sentences:  (8) Der Mann hat \[der Frau das Buch gegeben/. the alan lies tile Woalan the book given (9) Der t,'rau hat der Mann dos Buch gegeben. to the uoman has ttle man the book given (i0) Das Buch hat dec Mann der l,'rau gegeben. tile book has the man to the ~oman given (l I) Der Frau hat er w, rsprochen, das Buch zu lesen. to the woman has he pr~rlfised the book to read (12) Dos Buch hat er ihr versprochen zu lesen the book has he her promised to read (13) Dos Buch /tat er ihr zu lesen versprochen, the book has lie her to read promised (14) Dos Buch zu lesen hat er ihr versprochen. the book to read has he her promised (/5) Versueht hat er, das Buch zu lesen.</Paragraph>
    <Paragraph position="3"> tried has he tile book to read 3. GERMAN AS A FREE WORD ORDER LANGUAGE  fit the htst section we assumed that it will be only the sentence iuitial positions that can be filled by any major constituents. However there is little reason to assmne that the linear order of nominal arguments will always follow the pattern produced by the original rules (R2) and (R3):  (16) dass dem Erfinder diese Entdeckung gehmgen ist. to the inventor thi!; discovery succeeded has (17) dass dem Mann jemand ein Buclt geschenkt hat. to the mnn somebody a book given has (18) d.ss ibm dos linch jemand geschenkt hat.</Paragraph>
    <Paragraph position="4"> hirn tile book soli\]ebody given has (19) dasses ihm jemand geschelt\]C/l h(zl.</Paragraph>
    <Paragraph position="5"> it hba sc~nobody given has (20) dass siclt der Mann zu bewegen begann, himself tile man to iilove started (21) dass ihn eine Studentin zu kuessen versuchte. him a student (femote) to kiss tried (22) dass einc Studentin ihn versucht hat zu kuessen. a student hilll tried has to kiss (23) dass ihn eine Studentin versucht hat zu kuessen, hinl a student tried has to kiss (24) dass es ihm jemand xu &amp;,sen versproehen hat. it to him somebody to read promised has (25) dass sic&amp;quot; ihm dos Buch \[ hat \[\[geben\] wollen\]\]. she IHm the book has given uanted  (16) is representative for a class of verbs which require an unmarked linear order OBJ2 &lt; SUBJ. (17)-(19) show some permutations of SUBJ, OBJ and OBJ2 which seem to obey some linear precedence rules relating to a definiteness-scale for noun phrases. In (20) and (21) an argument depending on a verb governed by an equi verb precedes the subject of this equi verb. In the extraposition variants (22) and (23) of the embedded structure (21) the verbs are extraposed while leaving behind their arguments. In (24) the linear order of nominal arguments has been 'reversed' to yield a structure comparable to some Dutch infinitival constructions. In (25) the finite verb separates the all objects from heads appearing in a left-branching verb complex. All of these sentences have in common that tim arguments of some embedded verb(s) are separated from their head(s) by some constituent belonging to a higher level of f-structure embedding, i.e. they are obviously not derivable by a simple self-embedding c-structure rule. Basically three different approaches to handle these cases come to mind: a) One could stick to rule (R2.2) and modify it by introducing several NP-positions as left sisters of the SUBJ-NP annotated with a regular expression containing as its rightmost attribute a variable Go ranging over the set of various OBJects:</Paragraph>
    <Paragraph position="7"> Apart from potentially yielding several different c-structure analyses in eases where the SUBJ has been topicalized, this rule would only cover tim sentences (16)-(21).</Paragraph>
    <Paragraph position="8"> b) In addition to the modifications under a) the V constituent in the VP-rule is made optional and complemented by introducing a</Paragraph>
    <Paragraph position="10"> A rule system of this format (if annotated appropriately) seems to handle the double infinitive cases as well as some of the extraposition structures quite nicely, however it has several major disadvantages: As the clause final verb-complex can be generated by the VP or the V' rule (or both), in many cases this could lead to multiple c-structure ambiguities for identical input strings with identical f-structure outputs. To make sure that the verbs appear in a 'coherent' structure obeying the constraints on possible topicalization and extraposition, quite a number of additional constraining rules presumably will be necessary.</Paragraph>
    <Paragraph position="11"> Finally, as in this rule system c-structure derivations may not be avoidable, that follow a rule like vp -&gt; vP (I XCOMp) = f.</Paragraph>
    <Paragraph position="12"> (i.e. violate the constraint for valid c-structure derivations Kaplan/Bresnan (1982: 266f)), a slight increase in the generative power of the system may be the consequence.</Paragraph>
    <Paragraph position="13"> c) The VP is given up altogether in non-peripheral positions. We define a variable ranging over the set of grammatical functions that may be fulfilled by NPs (let's call it Gs) and modify our rules in the following way: Range of Variebtes:</Paragraph>
    <Paragraph position="15"/>
  </Section>
class="xml-element"></Paper>