<?xml version="1.0" standalone="yes"?>
<Paper uid="P95-1024">
  <Title>a Theory of Linearization in Head-Driven Phrase</Title>
  <Section position="2" start_page="175" end_page="175" type="metho">
    <SectionTitle>
2 Extraposition via Order Domains
</SectionTitle>
    <Paragraph position="0"> Order domains provide a natural framework for order variation and discontinuous constituency. One of the areas in which this approach has found a natural application is extraposition of various kinds of constituents. Reape (1994) proposes the binary-valued feature EXTRA to order an extraposed VP last in the domain of the clause, using the LP statement in (5): (5) \[--EXTRA\] &amp;quot;~ \[+EXTRA\] Similarly, Nerbonne (1994) uses this feature to account for instance for extrapositions of relative clauses from NPs such as (6); the composition structure proposed by Nerbonne for (6)is given in Figure 3. (6) einen Hund fiittern \[der Hunger hat\] a dog feed that hunger has 'feed a dog that is hungry' The structure in Figure 3 also illustrates the feature UNIONED, which Reape and Nerbonne assume to play a role in domain formation process. Thus, a constituent marked \[UNIONED -Jr-\] requires that the contents of its domain be shuffled into the domain of a higher constituent that it becomes part of (i.e. it is domain-unioned). For instance, in Figure 3, the \[UNIONED +\] specification on the higher NP occasions the VP domain to comprise not only the verb, but also both domain objects of the NP. Conversely, a \[UNIONED --\] marking in Reape's and Nerbonne's system effects the insertion of a single domain object, corresponding to the constituent thus specified. Therefore, in Figure 3, the internal structure of the relative clause domain becomes opaque once it becomes part of the higher NP domain.</Paragraph>
  </Section>
  <Section position="3" start_page="175" end_page="176" type="metho">
    <SectionTitle>
3 Shortcomings of Nerbonne's
</SectionTitle>
    <Paragraph position="0"/>
    <Section position="1" start_page="175" end_page="176" type="sub_section">
      <SectionTitle>
analysis
</SectionTitle>
      <Paragraph position="0"> One problematic aspect of Nerbonne's proposal concerns the fact that on his account, the extraposability of relative clauses is directly linked to the Head-Adjunct Schema that inter alia licenses the combination of nominals with relative clauses. However, whether a clause can be extraposed is independent of its adjunct/complement status within the NP.</Paragraph>
      <Paragraph position="1"> Thus, (7) illdstrates the extraposition of a complement clause (Keller, 1994): (7) Planck hat die Entdeckung gemacht Planck has the discovery made \[dab Licht Teilchennatur hat\].</Paragraph>
      <Paragraph position="2"> that light particle.nature has 'Planck made the discovery that light has a particle nature.' The same also holds for other kinds of extraposable constituents, such as VPs and PPs. On Nerbonne's analysis, the extraposability of complements has to be encoded separately in the schema that licenses head-complement structures. This misses the generalization that extraposability of some element is tied directly to the final occurrence within the constituent it is dislocated from. s Therefore, extraposability should be tied to the linear properties of the constituent in question, not to its grammatical function. null A different kind of problem arises in the case of extractions from prepositional phrases, as for instance in (S): (8) an einen Hund denken \[der Hunger hat\] of a dog think that hunger has 'think of a dog that is hungry' On the one hand, there has to be a domain object for an einen Hund in the clausal domain because this SNote that final occurrence is a necessary, but not sufficient condition. As is noted for instance in Keller (1994), NP complements (e.g. postnominal genitives) cannot be extraposed out of NPs despite their final occurrence. We attribute this fact to a general constraint against extraposed NPs in clauses, except for adverbial accusative NPs denoting time intervals.</Paragraph>
      <Paragraph position="4"> order as PPs in general. On the other hand, the attachment site of the preposition will have to be higher than the relative clause because clearly, the relative clause modifies the nominal, but not the PP.</Paragraph>
      <Paragraph position="5"> As a potential solution one may propose to have the preposition directly be &amp;quot;integrated&amp;quot; (phonologically and in terms of SYNSEM information) into the NP domain object corresponding to einen Hund.</Paragraph>
      <Paragraph position="6"> However, this would violate an implicit assumption made in order domain-based approaches to linearization to the effect that domain objects are inalterable. Hence, the only legitimate operations involve adding elements to an order domain or compacting that domain to form a new domain object, but crucially, operations that nonmonotonically change existing domain objects within a domain are prohibited.</Paragraph>
    </Section>
  </Section>
  <Section position="4" start_page="176" end_page="178" type="metho">
    <SectionTitle>
4 Partial compaction
</SectionTitle>
    <Paragraph position="0"> In this section, we present an alternative to Nerbonne's analysis based on an extension of the possibilities for domain formation. In particular, we propose that besides total compaction and domain union, there is a third possibility, which we will call partial compaction. In fact, as will become clear below, total compaction and partial compatcion are not distinct possibilities; rather, the former is a subcase of the latter.</Paragraph>
    <Paragraph position="1"> Intuitively, partial compaction allows designated domain objects to be &amp;quot;liberated&amp;quot; into a higher domain, while the remaining elements of the source domain are compacted into a single domain object.</Paragraph>
    <Paragraph position="2"> To see how this improves the analysis of extraposition, consider the alternative analysis for the example in (6), given in Figure 4.</Paragraph>
    <Paragraph position="3"> As shown in Figure 4, we assume that the order domain within NPs (or PPs) is essentially flat, and moreover, that domain objects for NP-internal prenominal constituents are prepended to the domain of the nominal projection so that the linear string is isomorphic to the yield of the usual right-branching analysis trees for NPs. Adjuncts and complements, on the other hand, follow the nominal head by virtue of their \[&amp;quot;t-EXTRA\] specification, which also renders them extraposable. If the NP combines with a verbal head, it may be partially compacted. In that case, the relative clause's domain object (El) is inserted into the domain of the VP together with the domain object consisting of the same SYNSEM value as the original NP and that NP's phonology minus the phonology of the relative clause (\[~\]). By virtue of its \[EXTRA &amp;quot;~-\] marking, the domain object of the relative clause is now ordered last in the higher VP domain, while the remnant NP is ordered along the same lines as NPs in general.</Paragraph>
    <Paragraph position="4"> One important aspect to note is that on this approach, the inalterability condition on domain objects is not violated. Thus, the domain object of the relative clause (\[~ in the NP domain is tokenidentical to the one in the VP domain. Moreover, the integrity of the remaining NP's domain object is not affected as--unlike in Nerbonne's analysis-there is no corresponding domain object in the domain of the NP before the latter is licensed as the complement of the verb fattern.</Paragraph>
    <Paragraph position="5"> In order to allow for the possibility of partially compacting a domain by replacing the compaction relation of (4) by the p-compaction relation, which is defined as follows:  The third constraint associated with the Head-Complement Schema ensures that only those elements that are marked as \[EXTRA -t-\]) within the smaller constituent can be passed into the higher domain, while the last one prevents extraposition out of clauses (cf. Ross' Right Roof Constraint (Ross, 1967)).</Paragraph>
    <Paragraph position="6"> This approach is superior to Nerhonne's, as the extraposability of an item is correlated onlywith its linear properties (right-peripheral occurrence in a domain via \[EXTRA +\]), but not with its status as adjunct or complement. Our approach also makes the correct prediction that extraposition is only possible if the extraposed element is already final in the extraposition source. 6 In this sense, extraposition is subject to a monotonicity condition to the effect that the element in question has to occur in the same linear relationship in the smaller and the larger domains, viz. right-peripherally (modulo other extraposed constituents). This aspect clearly favors our approach over alternative proposals that treat extraposition in terms of a NONLOCAL dependency (Keller, 1994). In approaches of that kind, there is nothing, for example, to block extraposition of prenominal elements.</Paragraph>
    <Paragraph position="7"> Our approach allows an obvious extension to the case of extraposition from PPs which are problematic for Nerbonne's analysis. Prepositions are prepended to the domain of NPs in the same way 6It should be pointed out that we do not make the assumption, often made in transformational grammar, that cases in which a complement (of a verb) can only occur extraposed necessitates the existence of an underlying non-extraposed structure that is never overtly realized.  that determiners are to N domains.</Paragraph>
    <Paragraph position="8"> Along similar lines, note that extrapositions from topicalized constituents, noted by Nerbonne as a challenge for his proposal, do not pose a problem for our account.</Paragraph>
    <Paragraph position="9"> (11) Eine Dame ist an der Tiir a lady is at the door \[die Sie sprechen will\].</Paragraph>
    <Paragraph position="10"> who you speak wants 'A lady is at the door who wants to talk to you.' If we assume, following Kathol (In progress), that topicalized constituents are part of the same clausal domain as the rest of the sentence, 7 then an extraposed domain object, inherited via partial compaction from the topic, will automatically have to occur clause-finally, just as in the case of extraposition from regular complements.</Paragraph>
    <Paragraph position="11"> So far, we have only considered the case in which the extraposed constituent is inherited by the higher order domain. However, the definition of the p-compaction relation in (12) also holds in the case where the list of liberated domain objects is empty, which amounts to the total compaction of the sign in question. As a result, we can regard total compaction as a special case of the p-compaction relation in general. This means that as an alternative linearization of (6), we can also have the extrapositionless analysis in Figure 5.</Paragraph>
    <Paragraph position="12"> Therefore, there is no longer a need for the UNIONED feature for extraposition. This means that we can have a stronger theory as constraints on extraposability will be result of general conditions on the syntactic licensing schema (e.g. the Right Roof Constraint in (10)). But this means that whether or not something can be extraposed has been rendered exempt from lexical variation in principle---unlike in Reape's system where extraposability is a matter of lexical selection.</Paragraph>
    <Paragraph position="13"> rI.e. the initial placement of a preverbal constituent in a verb-second clause is a consequence of LP constraints within a flat clausal order domain.</Paragraph>
    <Paragraph position="14"> Moreover, while Reape employs this feature for the linearization of nonfinite complementation, it can be shown that the Argument Composition approach of Hinrichs &amp; Nakazawa (Hinrichs and Nakazawa, 1994), among many others, is linguistically superior (Kathol, In progress). As a result, we can dispense with the UNIONED feature altogether and instead derive linearization conditions from general principles of syntactic combination that are not subject to lexical variation.</Paragraph>
  </Section>
class="xml-element"></Paper>