<?xml version="1.0" standalone="yes"?>
<Paper uid="W03-1813">
  <Title>Licensing Complex Prepositions via Lexical Constraints</Title>
  <Section position="3" start_page="0" end_page="0" type="metho">
    <SectionTitle>
2 Empirical Data
</SectionTitle>
    <Paragraph position="0"> We have taken into account word combinations in German such as those in (1).</Paragraph>
    <Paragraph position="1"> (1) an Hand von ('by means of'), in Zusammenhang mit ('in connection with'), unter Aufsicht von ('under survey of') ...2 These expressions, when combined with NPs, result in PPs, acting as modifiers within the entire sentence (cf. (2)).</Paragraph>
    <Paragraph position="2">  'With regard to privacy, there are still no uniform rules in the WWW.' However, the interdependence between the particular elements of those expressions seems to defy standard constraints on the PP structure of German. To see this, we will consider a typical PP in (3). (3) in einer engen Verbindung mit den Beratern in a close connection with the advisers 'in close connection with the advisers' The standard analysis for such PPs assumes that the preposition in ('in') acts as the head of the entire phrase, taking the NP as its complement. The selected NP is headed by the noun Verbindung ('connection') and contains the adjective engen ('close') and the determiner einer ('a'). Furthermore, we have the PP mit den Beratern ('with the advisers'), which is selected by the noun Verbindung as its complement and can be omitted without causing ungrammaticality (cf. Figure 1 on the next page). 2For German, Schroder (1986) specifies more than 90 &amp;quot;complex prepositions&amp;quot;, while e.g. Benes (1974) itemizes 160 examples, though he emphasizes the incompleteness of his list. In any case, CPs do not form a marginal class of expressions in contemporary German. For further discussion on CPs in German see (Benes, 1974), (Buscha, 1984), (Lindqvist, 1994), (Meibauer, 1995).</Paragraph>
    <Paragraph position="3"> Trying to apply the above approach to an analysis of PPs involving a CP presents several problems. To see these problems, we will consider one of the CPs combined with an NP, which looks very similar to  'in connection with this problem' Using PPs such as those in (4) in contexts exemplified in (5), we can observe many contrasts with the traditional PPs such as those in (3).</Paragraph>
    <Paragraph position="4">  mochte ich darauf hinweisen, dass ...</Paragraph>
    <Paragraph position="5"> would_like I DA_on point_out that 'In connection with this problem, I would like to point out that ...' First of all, the noun Verbindung cannot syntactically select for a determiner or a quantifier, nor it can be combined with possessive pronouns or prenominal genitives (cf. (6a)).3 Secondly, it cannot be modified (cf. (6b) and (6c)). Finally, the PP mit den Beratern ('with the advisers') cannot be deleted (cf.  3However, the definiteness information can be provided directly by P a2 s, since P a2 N a2 Pa3 NP sequences as well as other PPs allow for expressions referred to as preposition-determiner contraction (e.g. in dem a0 im). Such expressions can be considered as a special kind prepositions, that additionally state for the definiteness specification. For an analysis proposal for preposition-determiner contraction within the HPSG paradigm see (Winhart, 1997).</Paragraph>
    <Paragraph position="6">  These observations support the traditional analysis which assumes that the string in Verbindung mit ('in connection with') in the PP exemplified in (4) is a complex lexical sign. Thus, Fries (1988) assumes that PPs which include a CP have the structure such as those in Figure 2.</Paragraph>
    <Paragraph position="8"> Problem ('in connection with this problem') in (Fries 1988) The preposition heading the entire phrase is a projection of three lexical categories which form a complex lexical category, in this case, a preposition in Verbindung mit. This complex preposition then selects an NP forming a prepositional phrase.</Paragraph>
    <Paragraph position="9"> The main problem with this analysis consists in the assumption that the preposition mit ('with') belongs to the complex preposition and cannot form a constituent with the NP diesem Problem. However, there are several data demonstrating the opposite.</Paragraph>
    <Paragraph position="10"> Firstly, the combinations Pa1 NP where Pa1 is realized by von ('of') can be replaced by the genitive; this replacement of von adheres to the restrictions on the distribution of postnominal genitives and von-PPs in German (cf. (7a)). Secondly, the discussed sequences can be substituted by wo/da expressions as in (7b), which are usually considered as proforms for PPs. Finally, the Pa1 NP sequences can be coordinated with PPs headed by the same preposition (cf.</Paragraph>
    <Paragraph position="12"> Problem ('in connection with this problem') assuming the in Verbindung string to be a complex lexical category (7) a. mit Hilfe ??von dem Buch/ des Buches with help of the book/ the booka2a4a3a6a5 'by dint of the book' b. in  'in connection with this problem and with its possible solution' These observations imply that Pa1 NP sequences form a constituent. Thus, another analysis seems to arise, that assume P a0 N a0 combinations to constitute complex lexical categories, requiring prepositional complements (cf. Figure 3).</Paragraph>
    <Paragraph position="13"> However, the following fact argues against the analysis in Figure 3: There is a type of nouns in German that allows for two options in realizing the dative case. While the first eventuality relates to suffixless forms, the second one relates to forms ending in -e. The choice of a given form is usually determined by stylistic effects. Examples in (8) show that dative nouns of the discussed declension class can occur</Paragraph>
    <Paragraph position="15"> These examples illustrate that the declension form of N a0 s is determined not by P a0 Na0 combinations, but by the same factors that otherwise determine the form of inflection realization. Thus, the data above clearly eliminate the analysis in Figure 3.</Paragraph>
    <Paragraph position="16"> We will consider one more possible analysis, assuming prepositions heading P a0 N a0 Pa1 NPs as selecting for two arguments: a noun and a PP, which would result in structures such as those in Figure 4.</Paragraph>
    <Paragraph position="17"> However, this assumption seems unmaintainable for the following reason: It cannot enforce that whenever a noun a0 appears, a PP headed by a preposition a1 is required. In consequence, ungrammatical PPs such as those in (9) cannot be ruled out.</Paragraph>
    <Paragraph position="18">  Rather, the assumption seems plausible that syntactic properties of Pa1 NP sequences are determined by N a0 s since these properties are identical with the properties of PPs selected by the corresponding nouns in their free occurrences.</Paragraph>
    <Paragraph position="19"> Further evidence seems to argue against the above analysis. Namely, if prepositions heading P a0 N a0 Pa1 NPs take both N a0 s and Pa1 NPs as their arguments assigning theta roles to them, then it is inexplicable why the semantic relationship between these two arguments differs from the semantic relationship between the referential arguments of all other transitive predicates. As we can see in (10), no coindexing is possible between the noun Verbindung and the personal pronoun ihr ('her') or the anaphora sich selbst ('herself'). Rather, ihr and sich selbst belong to the argument structure of the noun Verbindung, and are possibly bound by a PROlike element which belongs to the same argument structure and which is controlled by the noun Sarah.</Paragraph>
    <Paragraph position="21"> All these observations seem to lead to the following conclusions. Firstly, the PP mit diesem Problem acts as an argument of the noun Verbindung in that it is determined by this noun with regard to its syntactic properties, e.g. the form of the heading preposition. Secondly, the PP mit diesem Problem is theta-marked by the noun Verbindung. Finally, the PP mit diesem Problem is expected to be syntactically selected by the noun Verbindung as its complement. Thus, we proceed according to the standard methods of handling relational nouns taking prepositional arguments. This explains why N a0 Pa1 NP sequences within the discussed PPs share many grammatical properties with the appropriate phrases occurring within other syntactic contexts.</Paragraph>
    <Paragraph position="22"> On the other hand, data in (7) indicate for P a0 N a0 Pa1 NP expressions constituency such as those in Figure 4.</Paragraph>
    <Paragraph position="23"> On the basis of these observations, the assumption can be made that Pa1 NP sequences are lexically selected by N a0 s, yet are realized syntactically by P a0 s.</Paragraph>
  </Section>
  <Section position="4" start_page="0" end_page="0" type="metho">
    <SectionTitle>
3 The Analysis
</SectionTitle>
    <Paragraph position="0"> Formalizing this idea within the HPSG paradigm, we will make use mainly of two features: the ARG-ST feature and the VAL feature, whose value contains three valence lists: the SPR list, the SUBJ list and the COMPS list. Specifying the relationship between the values of these features, one can make generalizations about selectional properties of lexical signs. Thereby, the relationship between the ARG-ST and the SPR, SUBJ and the COMPS values (which are all assumed to have a form of list) does not always have to be an appendrelationship.</Paragraph>
    <Paragraph position="1"> Also, other relationships can be assumed, thereby facilitating the expression of possible discrepancies between the structure of the syntactic environment that a given lexical sign can construct, and this lexical sign's current selectional requirements.</Paragraph>
    <Paragraph position="2"> Such discrepancies appear for instance in the case of argument raising as realized within the HPSG grammar framework. To illustrate this idea, we will look at the essential aspect of the German verbal complex analysis in the style of (Hinrichs and Nakazawa, 1989). According to this analysis, the lexical entries of German auxiliaries are specified to subcategorize for verbal complements and to raise the arguments of their complements. (See the simplified lexical entry for the auxiliary wollen ('want') in Figure 5 on the next page.) Thus, the auxiliary will ('wants') in the structure in Figure 6 selects for the verb lesen ('read') first, and then it selects the arguments of lesen ('read'), the NP das Buch ('the book') and the NP Peter ('Peter'), as its own complements.</Paragraph>
    <Paragraph position="3">  lesen will ('Peter wants to read the book') This idea underlies most current HPSG approaches to verbal complexes in Germanic and Romance languages. We argue that the same method can also be used to make generalizations about selectional properties of prepositions, and, thereby, to license &amp;quot;complex prepositions&amp;quot;.</Paragraph>
    <Paragraph position="4"> Thus, based on empirical data, we assume two uses of prepositions: the raising and the non-raising usages. The preposition in in (11a) occurs in a non-raising context, while the preposition in in (11b) occurs in a raising context.</Paragraph>
    <Paragraph position="5"> (11) a. in einer engen Verbindung mit den Beratern in a close connection with the advisors 'in a close connection with the advisors'  'in connection with this problem' Our assumption is that both strings mit den Beratern in (11a) and mit diesem Problem in (11b) act as arguments of the noun Verbindung, and are thus determined by this noun with regard to their syntactic properties.</Paragraph>
    <Paragraph position="6"> Furthermore, we assume that the preposition in in (11b) in opposition to in in (11a), which subcategorizes the saturated NP, selects first the noun Verbindung (which does not realize its complement) and then in selects the complement of Verbindung, the PP mit diesem Problem. That is, by virtue of an appropriate lexical principle of grammar specifying the valence of prepositions, the complement of the noun Verbindung is raised by in to become the complement of in, and be realized by in syntactically.</Paragraph>
  </Section>
  <Section position="5" start_page="0" end_page="0" type="metho">
    <SectionTitle>
4 HPSG Formalization
</SectionTitle>
    <Paragraph position="0"> Avoiding redundancies in the lexicon, we specify only one lexical entry for in, thereby underspecifying information about its argument. In Figure 7 we can see the relevant part of the lexical entry of the preposition in in AVM notation.</Paragraph>
    <Paragraph position="1">  preposition in ('in') The only information about potential arguments of in which this lexical entry provides is that in can take only one argument, and this argument has to be a noun. Here, information about the valence properties neither of that noun nor of the preposition in will be specified.</Paragraph>
    <Paragraph position="2"> The syntactic selection properties of in are licensed by a lexical constraint on the mapping of the elements of the ARG-ST list to the valence lists. For prepositions, the principle on mapping of the elements of the ARG-ST list to the valence lists is traditionally assumed to have the form as in Figure 8.  That is, the ARG-ST value is assumed to be identical with the COMPS value. In order to facilitate prepositions to subcategorize nouns which are complement-unsaturated, and then select the complements of those nouns, the above principle has to be reformulated in the way shown in Figure 9. Here, the list of complements syntactically selected by a preposition is a concatenation of its own ARG-ST list and the list of complements of its argument.4 It has to be mentioned that the raising of more than one nominal complement result in ungrammatical constructions like those in (12).</Paragraph>
    <Paragraph position="3">  To avoid this problem, we have restricted the ARG-ST value of prepositions to the lists containing either one saturated element, or to the lists containing one element with a singleton COMPS list. Additionally, we have specified the LEX value of the second disjunct to be a14 with the idea of marking objects that have realized none of their complements. This restriction rules out the selection of relational nouns that have already realized one of their complements (cf. 13).</Paragraph>
    <Paragraph position="4"> 4We assume, as Meurers (1997) does, that argument raising takes place only with respect to the valence attributes, and not with respect to the ARG-ST list.</Paragraph>
  </Section>
  <Section position="6" start_page="0" end_page="0" type="metho">
    <SectionTitle>
5 An Example
</SectionTitle>
    <Paragraph position="0"> The structure in Figure 10 exemplifies the interaction of the above assumptions in the licensing of a PP headed by a raising preposition. Due to the ARG-ST Mapping Lexical Principle for Prepositions in Figure 9, the preposition in, which takes one nominal argument with one unrealized complement can be licensed. Thus, the syntactic and semantic properties of that complement are determined not by the preposition, but by the noun. Thereby, ungrammatical PPs such as those in (9) can be blocked.</Paragraph>
    <Paragraph position="1"> Both the noun and its unrealized complement are mapped to the COMPS list of in and, according to the constraints on the head-complement-structures for prepositions, they are syntactically selected by in.</Paragraph>
    <Paragraph position="2"> The first complement that in selects is the noun.</Paragraph>
    <Paragraph position="3"> By virtue of selectional requirements of restrictive adjectives as well as prepositions modifying nouns, that are specified as combining with complementsaturated nouns only, the modifying of complement-unsaturated nouns is blocked. The same restriction holds for determiners and quantifiers in German.</Paragraph>
    <Paragraph position="4"> These constraints, existing in the grammar independently of the principles on the CPs syntax, explain the apparent lexical fixedness of the P a0 N a0 sequences (cf. (6a) and (6b)) without additional stipulations.</Paragraph>
    <Paragraph position="5"> Further on, the preposition in selects the complement of the noun as its own complement, forming a PP.</Paragraph>
    <Paragraph position="6"> Exactly the same lexical entry for preposition in and the same set of principles license PPs headed by non-raising prepositions such as the PP in einer engen Verbindung mit den Beratern ('in close connection with the advisers').</Paragraph>
  </Section>
class="xml-element"></Paper>