File Information
File: 05-lr/acl_arc_1_sum/cleansed_text/xml_by_section/metho/92/c92-1017_metho.xml
Size: 25,789 bytes
Last Modified: 2025-10-06 14:12:54
<?xml version="1.0" standalone="yes"?> <Paper uid="C92-1017"> <Title>TRACE & UNIFICATION GRAMMAR</Title> <Section position="3" start_page="0" end_page="0" type="metho"> <SectionTitle> 2 The TUG formalism </SectionTitle> <Paragraph position="0"> The basis of TUG is formed by a context free grammar that is augmented by PATK ll-styie feature equations. Besides this basis, the main features of TUG are feature typing, mixing of attribute-value-pair and (PROLOG-) ternr unilication, flexible macros, unre~ stricted disjunction attd special rule type~ for argument and head movement,</Paragraph> <Section position="1" start_page="0" end_page="0" type="sub_section"> <SectionTitle> 2.1 Basic rule types </SectionTitle> <Paragraph position="0"> As a very simple example we will look at the TUG version of the example grammar in {Shi84\] z.</Paragraph> <Paragraph position="1"> 9', type daflnition</Paragraph> <Paragraph position="3"> The two main differences to PATR II in the basic framwork are that first, TUG i~ less flexible in that it has a &quot;hard&quot; contextfree backbone, whereas in PArR lI categories of the context frcc part are placeholders for feature structures, their names beeing taken as the value of the cat feature in the structure. Second, TUG has a strict typing. For a feature path to be well defined, each of its attributes has to be declared in tile type definition.</Paragraph> </Section> </Section> <Section position="4" start_page="0" end_page="0" type="metho"> <SectionTitle> 3 For a Jlightly mor~ dctMled d~*eription of the bmdc fea- </SectionTitle> <Paragraph position="0"> tures of TU(I refer to (\[Blo91\]).</Paragraph> <Paragraph position="1"> ACq'ES DE COLING-92, NAmXS. 23-28 Ao{rr 1992 8 7 I'R(XL OV COLING-92, NA~s, Auo. 23-28, 1992</Paragraph> <Section position="1" start_page="0" end_page="0" type="sub_section"> <SectionTitle> 2.2 Movement rules </SectionTitle> <Paragraph position="0"> Further to these more standard UG-features, TUG provides special rule formats for the description of discontinuous dependencies, so called &quot;movement rules&quot;. Two main types of movement are distinguished: argument movement and head movement. The format and processing of argument movement rules is greatly inspired by \[CLW88\] and \[Che90\], the processing of head movement is based on GPSG like slash features.</Paragraph> <Paragraph position="1"> A head movement rule defines a relation between two positions in a parse tree, one is the landing site, the other the trace position. Itead movement is constrained by the condition that the trace is the head of a specified sister (the root node) of the landing site 4. Trace and antecedent are identical with the exception that the landing site contains overt material, the trace does'nt.</Paragraph> <Paragraph position="2"> To formulate head movement in TUG the following format is used. First, a head definition defines which category is the head of which other, e.g. for the V-projection line of the above grammar: v is_head_of vp.</Paragraph> <Paragraph position="3"> vp is_head of s.</Paragraph> <Paragraph position="4"> Second, the landing site is defined by a rule like s' ---> v+s I ...</Paragraph> <Paragraph position="5"> where landing site and root node are linked by a +. To inclnde recursive rules in the head path, heads are defined by the following head definitions. In a structure \[~\[ D1 ... D,\] Di is the head ell(if either Di is_head_of M is defined or Di has the same category as M and eitt*er D~ is_head_of X or X is_head_of Di is defined for any category X.</Paragraph> <Paragraph position="6"> Argument movenmnt rules describe a relation between a landing site and a trace. The trace is always e-commanded by the landing site, its antecedent.</Paragraph> <Paragraph position="7"> Two different traces are distinguished, anaphoric traces and variable traces. Anaphoric traces must find their antecedent within the same bounding node, variable trace binding is constrained by sut~jaceney, c.a. the binding of tim trace to its antecedent must not cross two bounding nodes. Anaphoric traces are found for example in English passive constructions \[s \[np Tim book of this author\]i was read t~\] wbereas variable traces are usually found in wh-constructions and topicalization. Similar to the proposal in \[CLW88\], argument movement is coded in TUG by a rule that describes tim landing site, as for example in 4}Iere, &quot;head of&quot; is a transitive relation ~.t. if x is head of y and y is head of z then x is head of z.</Paragraph> <Paragraph position="9"> This rule states that rip:ante 5 is tile antecedent of an np-trace that is dominated by sl.</Paragraph> <Paragraph position="10"> The first argument in the trace-term indicates whether the landing site is for a variable (vat) or for an anaphoric (aaa) trace. Other than head movement, where trace and antecedent are by definition identical, the feature sharing of argument traces with their antecedents has to be defined in the grammar by feature equations (ante : fx = trace : fx, . . .). Furthermore, it is not necessary that the antecedent and the trace have the same syntactic category.</Paragraph> <Paragraph position="11"> The current version of the formalisms requires that the grammar contains a declaration on which categories are possible traces. In such a declaration it is possible to assign features to a trace, for example marking it as empty: trace(np) I rip:empty = yee.</Paragraph> <Paragraph position="12"> Bounding nodes have to be declared as such in the grammar by statements of the form bounding_node (rip).</Paragraph> <Paragraph position="13"> bounding_node(s) ~ s:tense = yes.</Paragraph> <Paragraph position="14"> As in the second case, bounding nodes may be defined in terms of category symbols and features. The main difference of argument movement to other approaches for the description of discontinuities like extraposition grammars (\[Per81\]) is that argument movement is not restricted to nested rule application. This makes the approach especially atractive for a scrambling analysis of the relative free word order in the German Mi~telfeld as explained in more</Paragraph> </Section> <Section position="2" start_page="0" end_page="0" type="sub_section"> <SectionTitle> 3.1 Basic assumptions </SectionTitle> <Paragraph position="0"> In the following we will sketch tile basic structures of German syntax. According to the position of the finite verb, we distinguish sentences with the verb in the second (a), the first(b) and the last position (c). 6 (1) a. Karl fdhrl nach Hamburg.</Paragraph> <Paragraph position="1"> Karl goes to Hamburg b. Fiihrt Karl nach tlamburg? Goes Karl to Hamburg c .... daft Karl nach llamburg f~ihrt.</Paragraph> <Paragraph position="2"> ... that Karl to Hamburg goes 5The notation Ca*~ : Index is used to distinguish two or more occurrences of the same category in the same rule in tile equation part. : antQ arid : t race are arbitrary names used as index to refer to the two different nps.</Paragraph> <Paragraph position="3"> eEnglish literal translations are given in typewriter font. AcqT/s Dh&quot; C()LING-92, NArqrFS, 23-28 AO~Zf 1992 8 8 PRec. el: COLING-92, NANTES, AUG. 23-28, 1992 We call the sentence types V2-S (a), V1-S (b) and Ve-S (c) respectively. In V1-S and V2-S, compound verbforms build a so called Satzklammer between the finite and the nonfinite parts.</Paragraph> <Paragraph position="4"> (2) Karl ist ,nit dam tug nach Hamburg Karl has with the train to Haatburg gefahren.</Paragraph> <Paragraph position="5"> golle &quot;Karl has gone to Hamburg by train.&quot; Traditionally, according to the position of the verbal elements, we call the position in front of the finite verb the Vorfeld and the positions within the Satzk. laminar the Millelfeld, In accordance with the mentioned eonfigurational analysis of the german sentence, we suppose an unmarked &quot;underlying&quot; structure, that is similar to the order in tim german subordinate clause. This structure contains four different positions for verb arguments, as exemplified by the following sentences. (3) ~'. \[S~ \[X' daft \[s \[NI-&quot; de,&quot; Man,\] \[vv \[N~ der .~n\] \[v, \[NP de, Bnch\] \[v. geg.b~,* hat\] \] 11 \] \] that the man the woman the book given hae &quot;that the man lies given the woman the book&quot; b. \[sz \[s* daft \[s \[NP der Mann\] rye \[v, \[,-' d., ~.~h\] \[v~ \[~ t,, d~n Seh,~.k\] re. g~leyt hat\] l\]l \] \] \] that the man the book into the bookshelf put has &quot;that the man has put the book into the bookshelf' null A sentence always contains the v-projection line VK, V t, VP, S, even if the sentence contains less than three arguments.</Paragraph> <Paragraph position="6"> (4) a. \[s= \[s' daft \[s \[~'v der Man,\] \[vv re, \[vK t.n*t\]\]\]\]\]\] that the ~an\[nom\] dance9 b. \[s s \[s'* daft \[s \[v.&quot; \[Nv dam Mann\] re* \[VK gehol\[e, wild\]Jill\] that the aan\[dat\] helped is &quot;that the nian is helped&quot; c. \[s~ b' daft \[s \[vp Iv' \['~v das ~ud,\] iv. gel~,~n ~i~d\]\]\]\]\]\] that the book\[send read is &quot;that the book is read&quot; d. \[s= \[s, daf\[s \[vv \[v, \[vie geta,,zt wird\]\]\]\]\]\] that danced is &quot;that there is dancing&quot; As is shown in (4a.) vs. (4c.) the nominative may be assigned to a VP-external or a VP-internal position. Adverbials are ehomksy-adjoind to S, VP, V t and VK. An adjunction is only possible, if the right daughter is binarily brandfing.</Paragraph> <Paragraph position="7"> (~) a. \[s~ \[s, daf \[s h~,,te (s \[m. d~,&quot; Mann\] \[w' re' \[wC/ ta,m\]\]\]\]\]\] M.n,,\] \[v' \[v. get, orion wi,q\]\]\]\]\]\] c. Cs~ Is, da~ \[s \[vP \[~, h~ut~ iv, \[~ des Un~a\] Iv. ~l ..... i,~I\]\]11\] d. \[s~ \[s' daft \[s \[vP \[v' \[vK heute \[v J; get.,,~t ~i,4\]\]\]\]\] For a word order that differs from the underlying structure the movement rules of TUG are used. V1-S are formed by head-movement of the finite verb to the position of the complementizer.</Paragraph> <Paragraph position="8"> (6) a, \[ss \[s, daft \[s Peter \[VP \[V 1 die 13ilder \[w .b,,,.u\]\]\]\]\]\] that Peter the pictures copies &quot;that Peter copies the pictures&quot; b. \[s. \[s, ,,,,,tt~ \[s P~te; \[vp \[v, di~ ~il&r \[v. a6 t,\]\]\]\]\]l copies Peter the pictures &quot;Does Peter copy the pictures&quot; This can be formulated ia a rather compact way in TUG by definition of the head relation and rules for the introduction of the landing site of the linite verb. (7) v is~ead_of vk.</Paragraph> <Paragraph position="9"> vk is~head_of v:t.</Paragraph> <Paragraph position="10"> vi isA~ead_of vp.</Paragraph> <Paragraph position="11"> vp isJxead_of s.</Paragraph> <Paragraph position="12"> (8) sl ---> comp, s sl ---> v+s V2-S are formed by occupying the Vorfeld, i.e. the position immediately dominated by S 2 with either a verb argument by argument movement (a), by an adverbial (b) or by a Vorfeld-es (c).</Paragraph> <Paragraph position="13"> (9) a. \[S'~ Pete,', \[S' malt, \[s ti \[Vl' \[V' die Bilder trace(vat,rip).</Paragraph> <Paragraph position="14"> Free word order in PS1xe Miltclfchl is described by &quot;moving&quot; an argument to a chomsky-adjoined position on the V-projection. llere it obeys the same conditions a.s an adverbial and leaves a trace in the original argument position.</Paragraph> <Paragraph position="15"> Acr\[~s DF, COLING 92, NANrJiS, 23-28 ao(rr 1992 8 9 PRec. OF CO\[,ING-92, NAN'H~S, AUd. 23-28, 1992 (11) a. \[sa Is, daft Is der M .... \[vP \[N~&quot; da,g Buch\]i \[vn. der bYan \[v, tl \[v~ gegebe, aatllllll\] that the tan the book the soaan given has b. is, \[s, d~ \[s (uP d~r -~&quot;b \[s \[uP da, ~atl\]\]\]\]\]\]\] that the uoaan\[dat\] the book\[anal the aan\[noa\] given has ~that the man has given the woman the book&quot; So, for scrambling, we basically need the following</Paragraph> </Section> <Section position="3" start_page="0" end_page="0" type="sub_section"> <SectionTitle> 3.2 Alternative approaches </SectionTitle> <Paragraph position="0"> Whereas meet concurrent theories adopt the view that an argument phrase in the Vorfeld is linked to the argument position by a trace - be it by movement or by the slash-feature - the relative free word order in the Miffelfeld is often accounted for by the distinction of phrase structure rules into immediate dominance (ID) rules and linear precedence (LP) rules. ID rules define the hierarchical structure of constituents, LP rules the linear ordering of daughters constituents.</Paragraph> <Paragraph position="1"> In this paradigm the german Miftelfeld inelu'ding the finite verb typically is supposed to form a fiat structure, generated by an ID rule like a ---> np\[no~, np\[akk\], np\[dat\], v\[~ln\], vk\[infin\] r. The elements on the right hand side can then be (partially) ordered by LP statements of the form vf:fi~ < up0 np< vk (a finite verb precedes an NP, a VK follows an NP). As no LP statement is made for the NPs, the rules generate all possible permutations of NPs.</Paragraph> <Paragraph position="2"> (13) Is hat dot Mann der Frau d~ Buch gegeben\] \[8 hat dex Frau der Mann d~ Bach gegeben\] Is hat das Buch der Mann der Fran gegeben\] Is hat der Fran du Buch der Mann gegeben\] \[s hat der Mann du Buch der Fran gegeben\] So, where TUG supposes a fixed unmarked word order, from which marked orders are derived by movement rules (scrambling), GPSG and ItPSG suppose unordered ID rules and express constraints on order explicitly by LP Statements. The same holds for the position of the finite verb in the different german sentence types. As for movement to the Vorfeld the GPSG/HPSG approach using the slash feature and the TUG approach are rather similar, as in fact movement is implemented in TUG by structure sharing.</Paragraph> </Section> <Section position="4" start_page="0" end_page="0" type="sub_section"> <SectionTitle> 3.3 Some more facts on German syn- </SectionTitle> <Paragraph position="0"> tax In the following paragraph we will outline a few descriptive phenomena where we think the use of traces ?But ace \[Reag9\] for an alternative approach using LPitatementa that doC/4 not have to Msume a fiat etructure. as in TUG allows for more elegant formulations of the facts.</Paragraph> </Section> <Section position="5" start_page="0" end_page="0" type="sub_section"> <SectionTitle> 3.3,1 Preposition stranding </SectionTitle> <Paragraph position="0"> In many German dialects, prepositional proforrrm like damd or dsoegsn and question forms like vaornit or wofefen can be used discontinuously. Both the slash analysis and the movement to the Vorfeld are able to describe appropriately sentences like (14b.), where the pronoun part of a prepositional preform is detached from its preposition.</Paragraph> <Paragraph position="1"> (14) a. Damit kann er diese Theorie widerlegen. null Therewith can he thin theory de~ea~ b. Da kann er dices Theorie mit wide~ legen.</Paragraph> <Paragraph position="2"> There can he this theory with defeat &quot;With th~ he ean de~at the theory&quot; Whereas the preceding data give strong evidence for movement into the Vet.reid, preposition stranding in German is not restricted to that position. The da of a discontinuous preform can also occur in the Miftelfeld.</Paragraph> <Paragraph position="3"> (15) a. Er kann diese Theorie damit widerlegen. null He can thin theory therewith defeat.</Paragraph> <Paragraph position="4"> b. Er kann da dieseTheoriemit wider legen.</Paragraph> <Paragraph position="5"> He can there this theory with defeat.</Paragraph> <Paragraph position="6"> Furthermore, it kazan be combined in one sentence with another discontinuity, e. g. discontinuous was //r.</Paragraph> <Paragraph position="7"> (16) a. Was kann er da fiir sine Theorie mit widerlegen.</Paragraph> <Paragraph position="8"> What can he there for a theory with defeat &quot;What a theory can he defeat with this&quot; b. Was~ kann erda/ t/ fdr eine Theorie t/mit widerlegen.</Paragraph> <Paragraph position="9"> Evidently, a formalism who~ slash feature allows only for one discontinuous constituent has to describe da ... mit by LP rules. Therefore, da and mit would have to be of the same constituent as diese Theorie. But in 14 (a) damit obviously forms one constituent. It is unclear how in a flat structure the obligatoriness of da can be expressed, an effect that naturally falls out of the trace approach.</Paragraph> <Paragraph position="10"> AcrEs DE COLING-92. NANTES. 23-28 AOUT 1992 9 0 PROC. ON COLING-92. NANTES. AUo. 23-28. 1992</Paragraph> </Section> <Section position="6" start_page="0" end_page="0" type="sub_section"> <SectionTitle> 3.3.2 The position of pronouns </SectionTitle> <Paragraph position="0"> The word order of personal pronouns in the German sentence is rather restricted as exemplified by the following sentences.</Paragraph> <Paragraph position="1"> (17) a. dai\] der Chef ihn ihr vorstellt that ths boss him\[ace\] hsr\[dat\] presents &quot;that the boss presents her to him&quot; b. daft der Chefihr den neuen Mitarbeiter vorstellt that the boss hsr\[dat\] the nsu collsgue presants &quot;that the boss presents the new collegue to her&quot; c. *dab der Chef den neuen Mitarbeiter ihr vorstellt *that the boss the new colle~le\[ace\] her\[dat\] presents d. *daft der Chef ihr ihn vorstellt *that the boss hor\[dat\] him\[ace\] presents e. daft ihn ihr der Chef vorstellt that him\[ace\] her\[dat\] the boss presents PS *7daft ihnder Chef ihr vorstellt *that his\[ace\] the boss her\[dat\] presents g. *daft ihn ihr er vorstellt *that hi=\[ace\] her\[dat\] he\[sol\] presants Even though it might be possible to describe these restrictions by a set of LP statements, our impression is that this kind of analysis obscurs the rather simple pronoun word order. Furthermore, we cannot see how LP rules could allow for (a) and (e) while excluding (f)a. Ihn may preceed the nominativ NP, but only if there is no dativ pronoun following the latter, s In our analysis, personal pronouns have a fixed position in the sentence either between S 1 and S or between S und VP.</Paragraph> <Paragraph position="2"> (is) a. \[s a \[st daft esl ihrj \[s tier Mann \[vl, tj \[v, t, aibt\]\]\]\]\] b. \[s a \[st daft \[s tier Mann esl ihr i \[vP tj \[Va t, gibt\]\]ll \]</Paragraph> </Section> <Section position="7" start_page="0" end_page="0" type="sub_section"> <SectionTitle> 3.4 ACI-constructions </SectionTitle> <Paragraph position="0"> In ACI-coustructious however a personal pronoun may very well follow a non-nominativ NP. Compare (17e.) and (19).</Paragraph> <Paragraph position="1"> s (f) seems to be somehow acceptable in some dialects but completely agrammatical in others.</Paragraph> <Paragraph position="2"> degAs far as we understand it, also a solution by sequence union \[Rea89\] could not account for these facts. (19) a. Gestern hat Karl den Jungen ihr helfen la88en.</Paragraph> <Paragraph position="3"> Y=sstsrday has Karl the boy her\[dat\] help let &quot;Yesterday Karl has made the boy help her&quot; b. Gestern hat Karl den Jungen \[ve ihr helfen\] lassen.</Paragraph> <Paragraph position="4"> To save an LP analysis as indicated above we would have to say that ihr helfen is part of another constituent as den Jungen, therefore the LP statements do not hold between den Jangen and ihr. The structure of the sentence (19a) might then be sketched as in (19b).</Paragraph> <Paragraph position="5"> But now consider the following sentence: (20) Gestern hat sieh Karl eine L~sung sinfallen l~sen.</Paragraph> <Paragraph position="6"> Yesterday has Karl himself a solution come_to~ind let This sentence, although it repreeents a regular ACIconstruction and consequently must have an embedded VP constituent, shows the same serialization wrt. the pronoun as (17), where all NPs belonged to the same constituent. ID and LP rules therefore lead to a contradiction in handling (19) and (20) tdeg. A TUG description on the other hand can make use of a scrambling analysis in (20). The pronoun sich leaves a trace in the pronoun position of the embedded construction and appears in the appropriate pronoun position of the matrix constituent, thereby maintaining the relevant serialization conditions in both constituents. And a further restriction may be implemented when configurational relations are available: the scrambling of a dative pronoun out of an ACI-coustruction as shown in (20) is sensitive as to whether the accusative of the ACI-verb replaces an external or internal nominative of the embedded verb. Finite cinfallen marks its nominative internally, finite half ca marks it externally. Only internal nominative-accusatives allow being scrambled over, cf. (20) with (21).</Paragraph> <Paragraph position="7"> (21) *Gestern hat ihr Karl den Jungen helfen lassen.</Paragraph> <Paragraph position="8"> *Yesterday has hsr\[dat\] Karl the boy help let Another aspect of the configurational differentiation between external and internal arguments can be made use of in analysing the thematic structure of a sentence. So e.g. the thematic differentiation between wide and narrow scope of a verbal argument depends on its appearing in marked or unmarked position. Compare the readings of (22) and (23) vs. (26), where boldface marks the posodically prominent syllable: 10A description like the one in \[Rea89\] would presumably have to state that verbs like hC/lfen are combined in ACIconstructions by concatenation~ verbs like tin\]allen by sequence union.</Paragraph> <Paragraph position="9"> A~q'ES DE COL1NG-92. NA~'ES, 23-28 AoIYr 1992 9 1 PRec. OF COLING-92, NANTES, AUG. 23-28, 1992 (22) \[ch glaube daft der Kollege dem Vorstand widersprochen hat.</Paragraph> <Paragraph position="10"> I think that the collegue has the board contradicted &quot;I think that the collegue has contradicted to the board.&quot; (23) Ich glaube dab dem Vorstand der Kollege widersprochen hat.</Paragraph> <Paragraph position="11"> I think that the board the collegue contradicted has &quot;1 think that the colluege has contradicted to the board.&quot; (22) is a possible answer to the question what happened on the meelmg yesterday whereas (23) is only allowed in specific contexts such as Wet hat dem Vorstand widersprochen?. Widersprcchen like helfea marks its nominative externally, therefore the dative NP follows the nominative NP in the umnarked word order as shown in (22). If scrambling applies as in (23) this correlates with a change in the thematic and prosodic structure. In the TUG framework this would be achieved in combining the scrambling mechanism with a feature structure that indicates the desired thematic interpretation of the sentence: A straightforward implementation of this observation in the ID/LP format however would come to a halt in the case of (26): (26) Ich glaube dab dem Vorstand die LSsung eingefallen ist.</Paragraph> <Paragraph position="12"> I think that the board the solution come_to_mind has &quot;I think that the solution has come to mind to the board.&quot; Although the nominative follows the dative in (26) the sentence has wide scope interpretation and unmarked prosodic structure 11 , (26) again is a likely answer to the general question Was ist gestern passiert? This clearly contradicts (22)-(23) if only the surface case marking of the arguments can be referred to in the generalization. On the other hand this result is exactly what would be expected by a TUG analysis: Since einfallen marks its nominative internally, no scrambling is involved in (26) vs. (23).</Paragraph> <Paragraph position="13"> 11 John Pheby in \[HFM81\] poatulates the distinction between maxked and unmarked prosodic structure in Gennaaa. \[vSU86\] combine this with a configurational syntax. See also \[Uhm91\] for a reformulation of the relevant obeservations in the framework of \[Pie80\].</Paragraph> </Section> </Section> <Section position="5" start_page="0" end_page="0" type="metho"> <SectionTitle> 4 Parsing with TUG </SectionTitle> <Paragraph position="0"> TUG can be processed by a parser and a generator.</Paragraph> <Paragraph position="1"> Before parsing and generation, the grammar is coatpiled to a more efficient form. The first compilation step that is common to generation and parsing transforms the attribute-value-pair structure to (PRO-LOG) term structure. This transformation makes use of the type definitions. For parsing, TUG is processed by a Tomita parser \[Tom86\]. For usage in that parser the result of the transformation to PROLOG further undergoes several transformations (expansion of head nlovement rules, transformation of argument movement rules, elimination of empty productions, conversion to LR.(K) format and computation of LR tables).</Paragraph> <Paragraph position="2"> This compilation leads to a considerable increase in processing speed that makes it possible to use TUG for the syntactic description in real-timesystems. Especially the seperatc compilation of head movement aml argument movement leads to run time grammars that do not show the usual decrease in efficicncy due to empty productions (traces). In fact, a compiled TUG does not contain empty productions any longer.</Paragraph> <Paragraph position="3"> Parsing time for simple sentences of about 10 words using a grammar of German with rather broad coverage is between 1 and 2 sees. on the average on a SUN SPARC I workstation running Quintus Prolog, even if the sentence contains verb fronting, argument movement to the Vorfeld and scrambling in tile Mittelfeld, null</Paragraph> </Section> class="xml-element"></Paper>