Toward a generative dependency grammar

Lingua 36 (1975), 121-145 0 North-Holland Publishing

Company

TOWARD A GENERATIVE DEPENDENCY GRAMMAR

Heinz VATER University of Cologne, West Germany Received

June 1974

The notion of valence and the relation of dependency connected with it were introduced into the theory of grammar by Tesnihre. Later, J-lays, Gaifman, and Baumgirtner showed that dependency grammar and constituent grammar are not only complementary but (at least weakly) equivalent. Robinson worked out d model of a generative grammar with a deep structure built on dependency relations rather than on phrase structure relations. Robinson argues that the concept of head cannot be formalized within the framework of a phrase-structure categorial component, but that it ca.n be formally specified fo, each phrase, if dependency rules generate the structural strings of categories, thus supplying additional information needed for some of the transformations. In this paper,’ an attempt has been made to overcome the shortcomings in Robinson’s model by modifying her dependency rules and adding semantic specifications to the dependents of V, taking into account some of the considerations that led Fillmore to make up his ‘cases’.

1. Introduction

Baumgartner (19’70: 52) calls constituency and dependency the two basic relations of grammar. Both of th I were explicitly applied to grammatical analysis at the same time, amely in the early thirties, the constituency relation underlying Bloomfield’s constituent structure grammar, the dependency relation being the central relation in Tesniere’s valence grammar.2 The constituency relation is a part-whole relation (Heringer 1970: 42); according to Baumgartner (1970: 53), it is associative and noncommutative and presupposes contiguity. r This paper is an expanded version of a paper read at the Eighth Linguistic Colloquium, Louvain, September 1973. 2 Bloomfield introduced the notion of ‘constituent’ and the procedure of constituent analysis in his book Language,1933. The results of Tesni&re’s work were published in the small pamphlet of 1953 and, after his death, in the famous book of 1959, Eliments de syntaxe structurale; however, as Guiraud (1971: 1) writes, this book “was conceived and launched in the early thirties, more than 25 years before its publication”.

122

l-i. Vater,l’P;ward a generative dependency grammar

The dependency relation, on the other hand, is a relation between a governing element and its dependents. It is an implication relation (Baumgartner 1970: 54). In its broader sense, it means (as Baumgartner (19701: 62) shows) that an element presupposes (or: governs) a certain number of other special elements; in its narrower sense it means (related to the constituency relation) that an element presupposes the occurrence of another element in linear contiguity (1970: 54). Hays (1964) Gaifman (1965), and Baumgartner (1965, 1970) show that constituent grammar and dependency grammar are weakly equivalent; they complement each other and can be ‘translated’ into each other. Generative grammar developed out of American structural linguistics, in which grammatical relations were solely viewed as constituency relations, and immediate-constituent (IC) analysis was the only efficient and relevant way of analyzing sentences. In spite of all its new insights (and in spite of the polemics agains t ‘taxonomic’ structuralism), generative grammar owes very much to its predecessor, and it seems to be justified to say that generative grammar, in its classical form,3 is nothing more than a constitu.ent-structure grammar which is no longer static but dynamic (i.c. state,’ in terms of rules for the generation of sentences rather than in terms of procedures for analyzing sentences) and supplemented by transfer-mational rules. Only recently, dependency grammar (henceforth ‘IX’) aroused the transformationalists’ interest. Hays ( 1964) formalized dependency relations using dependency rules and (:xpanded dependency grammar by adding transformations. Baumgartner (1970) outlined an integrated constituency-dependency model, with a syntactic component based on constituent relations and a semantic component based on dependency reLs-ions. For Robinson (1970), an integrated generative dependency model is not only possible but also desirable: A dependency-based deep structure would have all the advantages of a constituent-based deep structure and, at the same time, avoid some of its disadvantages. She lists two major deficiencies in constituent-struc‘Luregrammar (or, as8she calls it, ‘phrase-stru.cture grammar’, henceforth PSG’). The first deficiency concerns the notion of tzeud (197@ 259): PSG affords no formal way of recognazing or specifying the head of a phrase in a P-marker, though the term head is often invoKed by tran:formationalists as if it were welldetjned.

3 One could consider the period of 1957 to 1968, i.e. from the publication to the publication of Fillmore 1968 and the works ot’gcncrativc semantics of generative grammar,

al-

of Chomsky 1957 as the ‘classi~:al p:riod

H. Vater/Toward a generative dependency grammar

1:!3

As an example, Robinson quotes ROSS’ ‘Complex NP Constraint’ (1967: 127), according to which no element of an embedded sentence may be moved out of a dominating NP if the NP has ‘a lexical head noun’. The second deficiency, as Robinson (1970: 260) sees it, is that PSG creates a problem by creating nonterminal phrase caterogies that label nodes the part-of-speech categories of the morphemes to which speech and thought are and immediately related. Unless preventive measures are devised, transformations many of these nodes wholly *‘acuous, producing derived P-makers cluttered with less phrases.

remote from so intimately may render labels for wortl-

A phrase-structu*.e base for L ansformations tilLlS “not only fails to s:lpply one kind of information needed in deep structure, but also supplies irrelevant information and misinformation in the derived structures” (1970: 284). Ross’ solution LOthe problem, the ‘S-pruning convention’, by which every embedded S is deleted if it does not branch, is based on1 the failure of S to dominate at least two constituents rather than on the failure to dominate a characteristic category. But the characteristic category (or ‘head’) of a phrase cannot be defined in a phrase structure grsrmmar. Tnus, in the derivation of the phr*:se a ~~~llort~cut (cf. (1)) the Spruning convention will delete S after the relative clause reduction tra; isformation, but none of the other nodes above the Adj. (ii)

(1 Hi)

,~Np\,, Det

-CL ---3

lllicGh,rt--F,, s

I I

s

I

S

I

VP

I *;l.j c +ich

ye i low

Robinson suggests building the base of a generative grammar on dependency relations rather than on phrase structure relations, i.c. generatiq the basic syntacik structures by means of dependency rules (D rules). .

H. VaterlToward a generative dependency grammar

124

A system capable of remedying the defects of PSG while retaining its virtues is that of dependency grammar (DG). In a dependency characterization, two elements of a sentence are directly related if one depends on (conversely, is governed by) the other. The relationship is transitive, irreflexive, and antisymmetric. In any well-formed string: (la) (b) (c) (d)

One and only one element is independent; all others depend directly on some element; no element depends directly on more than one other; and if A depends directly on B and some element C intervenes between them (in linear order of string), then C depends directly on A or on B or on some other intervening element.

These, informally presented, are axioms of the theory, which was advocated by Tesnisre (1953, 1959), and formalized by Hays (1964) and by Gaifman (1965). Unlike the ‘is a’ relation of PSG, the ‘depends on’ relation is defined directly on terminal elements of a string, so that DG uses only terminal categories and no occasion arises for puring ranterminal nodes from D-markers. At the same time, DG preserves the notion of phrase, adding to it the notion of governor. A phrase consists c fan element plus all of its direct and indirect dependents. For example, in a DG, an NP means ‘an N-governed phrase’, and in a D-marker, the governing N is explicitly distinguished for every NP.This explicitly distinguished element tills the role of head. I{’ the element governs no dependents, then the head and the phrase are CUZXtensive. For example, proper nouns may be, and typically ;re, both N and NP. (Robinsol. lY’!O: 260)

In section 2 a brief review of Robinson’s model will be given. Following this is a discussion on the notion of valence (section 3) and on the question of how semantics can be included into a generative dependency grammar (section 4). In section 5 a revised model is proposed that can incorporate both valence and semantics.

2. Robinson’s model Robinson adopts Hays’ and Gaifman’s formal characterization of dependency rel,ations. There are three kinds of dependency rules (D idles): (20 * (Ci> (2i) Ci( *) (2iii) Ci (Cj * Ck).

(2i) states that a category Ci occurs without a governor; (ii) states that Ci OCCUIS without dependents, and (iii) states that Ci occurs with a dependent Cj on the left and a dependent Ck on the right. According to Robinson ( 1970: 265),

H VaterlToward Qgenerative dependency grarnmar

125

. . . every dependency

structure is convertible to a phrase structure by a simple technique of adding a distinguished duplicate to every occurrence of a category in a D-marker. That is, where A occurs, A* is added directly beneath it. This is equivalent to rewriting the original DG as a hybrid dependency/phrase-structure grammar (D-PSG) by making a distrinction between each category considered as governor and the occurrence of that category in the string it govems, and by substitutiird arrows for parentheses in the notation so that A(*B C) becomes A 4 A* B C (where A* is taken as a unit symbol).

The rewriting of D rules as D-PS rules alleviates the application of transformational rules, which thus can be formulated in the conventional way inspite of the fact that they now apply to a dependency deep structure rather than a constituent deep structure. (3) shows Robinson’s D rules, (3’) the ccrresponding D-PS rules. T is the highest gov,rnor in the hierarchy of a sentence; it stands for ‘sentence type’, but at the same time also “bears the tense feature”’ (1970: 365). A sentence, for Robinson, is thus a ‘T-governed phrase’.. (3) D rules

0) (ii) (iii) (iv)

*U) T (N * V) V (“IN]) N (* [T])

(3’) D-PS rules (i) tt:T p (ii) T + N T* V (iii) V --, V* (N) (iv) N -+ N* cT)

Lexical elements zre introduced by lexical rules of the type (4). (4) Lexical rules T: {declarative, interrogative} (i.e. ‘sentence type’) V: (inherit, despise, lose > N : (people, money )

Sentence (5) can be derived by means of the Y!r&es (3) as WI-:lll as by means of the D-PS rules (3’). (5) People who inherit money despise it.

In the first case, D-marker (6) is derived, in tht: other case, BPS-marker (7) .

H “ater/Toward a generative dependency grammar

1126

I 1 N

I

N

I

T

I

V

i

N

i

I I

I I

I

I

I

V

T

=N

\

N

V

\

N

I

N*

N*

T"

V*

N”

T*

V*

‘L nsformations are formulated in the usual way, with the structural descri#ion on the left side or’ the arrow and the structural change on the right side. (8) is an example .Dfa permutation transformation (cf. Robinson 1970: 277). (8) (A" BX) 1 23-213

n (E;), A* stands for a single governkg element, B for a phrase, and X for a XJariablesubstring ,that can ,J: zero. The structural change is formulated in terms of indices repri:.,enting the entities of the structural description.

H. Crater/Toward a generatire dependency

grammar

127

Since there are no nonterminal categories in DG, the D-markers of two stages in the derivation of cTye!Zo\iJ eat would be much simpler than the corresponding P-markers, and still contain all the relevant information. VP, as a nonterminal category does not occur in DG, and the problem of pruning does not arise (cf. (9)). (98

(ii)

I

Sa

I

yeUtow _,I_

c&t --

Robinson (1970) has the merit of offering the first detailed description of a generative grammar based consistentl;* on dependency relations, thus avoiding some of the imperfections oi’PSG.4 Robinson shows in a convincing way that her approach leads to solutions that are not only simpler but also more appropriate, as illustrated by (9,. However, there are obviously some shortcomings in Robinson’s modei that make its application to the analysis of natural lar,uage~ difficult or less effective in some aspects. These shortcomings can be enumerated as following: (a) Robinson’s rule (3ii) generates ‘J :md N as dependents ofT.This amounts to the old subject-predicate .Inalysis (with the modification that subject and predicate are considered dependents of T rather thaz immediate constituents of S). Fillmore (1963) - and before him Tesnikre (1359), Johansen (1957), and other linguists -- collected convincing evidence for the fact that all N in a sentence, including the subjectN are dependents of V. This problem will be discussed in greater detail in section 3. of this article. (b) Robinson-s model consid :rs syntax only, thus excluding semantic problems. Again, this is different from Fillmore’s system, in wlkll semantics plays an important role. Although Fillmore’s ‘cases’ are prob4 Robinson’s two papers of 1967, which treat the same topic, have not been available seems that they are preliminary versions of her 1970 paper.

to me; it

i2b

H. Vat&o

ward a generative dependency grammar

lematic and for several reasons r:annot ?X considered as a satisfactory solution to the problem (as will be shown in section 4), they are an interesting and important attempt to cover the interrelation between syntactic and semantic problems. In ehis respect, Robinson’s approach is also less satisfactory than that of Chomsky 1965, in which semantic considerations (in terms of ‘selectional features’) play an important part in the description of the cooccurrence restrictions of verbs. (c) The lexicon is reduced to a set of lexical rules of the Chomsky 1957 type, which means a step backwards from Chomsky 1965, Fillmore 1968 and other treatmens after 1965. The disregard of the lexicon is apparently due to the neglect of semantics. (d)The intruduction of the T-element has to be rated positive insofar as it is a terrninal element, as opposed to S, which is not. The T-element is disadvantageous, on the other hand, in that it combines various dif. 4, cmefit filnctiions; it “bears the featuizs of sentence type and tense and intonation” (Robinson 1970: 282). These functions cannot really be attached to one category and should rather be separated. In section 5 some proposals will be made on how to overcome the shortcomings in Robinson’s model, and a revised model will be presented.

3. Valence According to Tesniere, the basic grammatical relation is the conytexion, which connects the words of a phrase ( 1959: 11 f): La phrase est un ensemble organisi dont les elements constituants sont les mots. Tout mot qui fait partie d’une phrase cesse par lui-&me d%tre isolk comme dans le dictionnaire. Entre lui et ses voisins, l’esprit apercoit des conqexions, dont l’ensemble forme la charpente de la phrase. [. . .] I1resulte de ce qui precede qu’une phrase du type Alfred parle n’est pas composie de deux elements I” Alfred, 2” parle, mais bien de trois elements, 1” Alfred, 2” parle et 3” la connexion qui les unit et sans laquelle il n’y aurait pas de phrase.’

Although Tesniere calls the ‘connexion’ an element, the following quotation (1959: 13) makes it tear that the ‘connexion’ is a relation rather then an element; it is a dependency relation, uniting a governing element (rbgissant) with a governed element (strbordonne’).6 ’ Here, as in the following quotations from Tesnikre, the prominence of words and phrases is Tesniere’s. 6 Tesniere’s terms ‘regissant’ and ‘subordonne’ correspond to Robinson’s terms ‘head’ and ‘de penden t’, respectively.

H. VaterlTowcrd a generative dependency

grammar

129

Les connexions structurales ktabhsent entre les mots des rapports de dbpendence. Chaquc connexion unit en principe un terme strpf%eur h un terme infirieur. Le terme supthieur reqoit lc nom de kgissant. Le terme infhieur reqoit le nom de subordonng.

A ‘connexion’ can be diagraphed as a ‘stemma’. The stemma corresponding to Tesniere’s example Alfred park is (10). A word can be a dependent and, at the same time, a head, as shown by ami in stemma (11). A head can have several dependents, whereas a dependent can only be governed by one head (cf. ( 12)). (10)

parle

(11)

parle

frappe

(12)

I

\

ami / Alfred

I mon (Tesnihre

1959: 14 b

(1959:

141

(1959:

\ Bernard

15)

According to Tesnikre, the verb is the head of a sentence (as demonstrated by the stemmas (10) through ( i 2)). The dependents of the verb (which essentially are noun phrases) are called actants ‘players’. Since the players, in turn, can govern other elements (cf. (11)) and I(13)), the sentence can be viewed as a hierarchy of dependency relations (‘connexions’). ,chaMe

(13)

1

arni

/\ mon vie il

Ahanson /\ cette j"fie

I

fort ( Tesnike

1959:15)

The number of players a verb requires is defined, with a lerrn borrowed from chemistry, as its valence. 7 Thus, within the class of verbs. avalent, monovalent, divalent and trivalent verbs zan be distizguisheii. “‘on tion

peut ainsi comparer

le verbe B une sorte d’atome crochu susceptible

d’exercer

son attrac-

sur un nombre plus ou moins klevC d’actants, selon qui’il comporte un nombre pius ou mains dev6 de crochets pour les maintenir dans sa dkpendance. Le nombre de crochets que prisente un verbe et par cons&uent le nombre d’actants qui’il est susceptible de rigid, constitute ce que PIOUS appellerons la valence de verbe” (Tes&re 1959: 238).

130

H. Vater/Toward a generative dcpende, icy grammar

Beside: the ‘actants’, there are circonstauts in the sentence, which describe the Arcumstances of the action or event (i.e. time, place, manner, etc.). Ti,t:ir number is virtuaily unlimited and they do not determine the valence of a verb, since they can 1Jeadded to any verb. Tesnihre says that the ‘actants’ are in principle always nouns, whereas the function of ‘circonstant’ is always assumed by adverbials.8 In addition, he gives two criteria for the delimitation of ‘actant’ and ‘circonstant’; formally they are distinguished by the fact that the former can occur as a dependent of a ,\rerb without the use of any connecting element, whereas the latter, if it is a noun, requires a preposition to connect it with the verb. The other criterion, referring to the content of the rela!.ion, states that an ‘a&ant is indispensable to the meaning of the verb (“indispensable pour complbter le sens du verbe”, 1959: 128), whereas this is not the case with a ‘circonst an t’. Neiither of the criteria is really valid. The first is not valid because therms are players that are connected with the verb Ly means of a preposition (like in (14)); the second criterion does not apply, because there are adverbials that cannot be deleted without rendering the sentence incomplete or ungrammatical (as in (15)) and thus have to be considered as players (actants) too. (141 ) Je me souviens de Jean.

(ii) * Je me souviens Jean. (1 Si ) Je demeure i la campagne. (ni) *Je demeure.

The same is true for English, German, and many other languages. The followers of Tesni&re, such as Erben, Brinkmann, Heringer, Helbig and Scher.kel saw this flaw and tried to redefine the two categories, taking into account the fact that adverbials can act as players.9 Heringer (1968) ’ “I. . . J nous avons vu que les actant!; sont en principe toujours des substantifs” (TesniZre 1959: 106). “I_ . .] la fonztion de circonstant est toujours nssum;e par un mot de I’esphe adverbe ou par un groupe de mots kquiwllent &un adverbe [. . .I” (TesniGre 1959: 125).

9 Erben’s distinction of the two kinds of verb complements is more adequate than Tesnikre’s; he admits the possibility of adverbial and prepositional objects occurring as ‘actants’ (which he calls ‘Erggnzungsbestimmungen’). On the other hand, he does not really give strict criteria for the delimitation and thus cannot always analyze his examples in a satisfactory way, as e.g. in the sentence Erschleudert ihvz den Hartdschuh ins Gesicht ‘He slings the glove into his face’ (Erben 1958. 177), where he considers ihm as an ‘Ergfnzungsbestimmung’, although it is a possessive dative, which is rea’:y not dependent on the verb (cf. the paraphrase Er schleudert den Handschuh in sein Gesicht, where it is completely obvious that schleudem has three rather than four players). Brinkmann, like Tes&re, excludes adverbials from being ‘actants’ (which he calls ‘Mitspieler’). Brinkmann’s system of valence is really a step back from Tesni‘ere insofar as he restores the special status of the subJect: he defmes valence as the number of slots a verb can have in addition to the subject slot (1962: 2 10f).

H. Vater,/?‘oward a generative dependency

graInmar

131

argues that both types of compicments, ‘actants’ and ‘circonstants (in his terminology ‘Erganzungsbestimmu~igen and ‘Angaben’) can either occur in a special case or with a preposition,10 the onI;r distinctive crilerion being the necessity of occurrence: ‘Erganzungsbestimmungen’ are necessary syntagms, ‘Angaben’ are not (1968: 427). Helbig and Schenkel (1969) dinstinguish between Mitspielevn ‘players’, which are required by a verb, and .freie Ajzgaben “free complements’, which are not. In addition, they make a distinction between obligatory and o(=:tional players; obligatory players have to accompany the verb, optional players can be missing. l l In the hierarchical structure of a sentence, which Tesniere was concerned with (as opposed to its linear structure, which roughly corresponds to Chomsky’s surface structure12), there is no special p,iace for the subject of the sentence, ‘subject’ just being the function of one of the players. This is not an arbitrary decision or the consequence of the fact that a dependency grammar does not allow for interdependency rel+ tions as Hjelmslev 1943 does (e.g. for the relation between subject and predicate). It reflects the fact, described in detail by Johansen 1957 and Fillmore 1968, that the notion of subject does not represent a specal conceptual function of a noun in relation to a verb (as e.g. ‘agent’ or ‘inlo “Die syntaktische Abh’tigigkeit kann bei Angaben wie bei Erganzungsbestimmungen entweder kasuell oder prlpositional bezeichnet sein” (Heringer 1968: 43 1). l1 Helbig and Schenkel devote great attention to the question af ellipses, which is al crucial problem in valence theory. Already Tesniere saw that the valence of b verb can be unsaturated: “Certaines valences peuvent rester inemploy& ou libres” (I 159: 238f). That is the reason why Helbig and Schenkel, in the second edition of their valence dictionary, 1973, adopt the difference between deep and surface structure and the use of the transformations to determine the difference between obligatory and optional players. They now explain optional valence a>)the result of deletion transformations: “In der Tiefenstruktur gibt es folglich keine fakultativ : Valenz: eine fakultative Valenz entsteht erst in der Oberflachenstruktur durch eine Elimil lierungstransformation auf Grund bestimm ter kontextueller Merkmale . ..” (1969: 36). ‘Frei, : Angaben’ (free co,nplements), on the other hand, are now considered as reduced sentence s; in proposing this analysis the authors follow Steinitz (1969: 31)ff). Thus, the adverbial!; in tk : two sentences Er wohnte in Dresden ‘He lived in D.’ and Er starb in Dresden ‘He died in D.’ ar : explained as a player in the first sentence but as a free complement in the second sentence. i n the second case, there is a paraphrase Er starb, als er in Dresden war ‘He died, when he was in D.‘, which justifies the derivation of the adverbial from an underlying embedded sentence; the same kind of paraphrase does not exist for the first sentence (* Er wohntz, als er in Dresden war ‘He lived, when he was in Dresden’; it has to be kept in mind th;rt Ger. wohnen has a much more restricted meaning than E live and that it does not occur wihout a local adverbial). l2 Tesnikre: (1959: 19) mentions that underlying the linear structure of each sentence there is a hierarchical structure. To speak a language means to transforlrn the hierarchical structure into a linear structure; to understand a language, on the other hand, means to transform the linear structure into a hierarchical structure.

132

H. VaterlToward a generative dependency grammar

strument’ or ‘cause’). l3 It is rather defined by formal features (according to Johansen e.g. by the positions it can occupy within a sentence) or as the result of a transformation that attaches one of the players directly to S (as Fillmore 1968 sees it); that means, it has to be considered as a surface structure function rather than a deep structure function. This explains, at the same time, such different linguistic phenomena as the ones demonstrated by the examples (16) through (18). (16i) (ii) (iii) (17i) (ii) (18i) (ii:, (iii)

John gave the books to my brother. The books were given to my brother by John. My brother was given the books by John. Pa dette sted har vejen tidligere krydset en nu nedlagt jernbanelinie. Pi dette sted har en nu nedlagt jernabelinie tidligere krydset vejen.’ ’ Mne kholodno. (‘1 am cold’) ?Gich schaudert. (‘I am terrified’) Pi
The examples in (16) are taken from Fillmore (1968: 35ff); they show that noun phrases that are in quite different semantic relations to V can be made the subject of the sentence, namely the agent (in (i)), the object (in (ii)) and the goal (in (iii))? (16) shows that the choice of the subject depends on the application of certain transformations (like passivization). The relation expressed by kryd#se ‘to cross’ in ( i 7) is symmetric, which means that both players, vejlrn ‘the way’, and en nu nedZagtjernbanelinie ‘a torn-up railroad’, are in exactly the same relation to the verb and therefore can be exchanged. (17) shows quite distinctly that the choice of the subject with symmetric verbs is arbitrary: each of the players can become the subject. (18) ‘Eiststhree sentences from three different languages, Russian, German, and Italian, which have one thing in common: they lack a subject. (18i) and (1 Sii) show that monovalent verbs in Russian and German do ” Johansen’s important and extremely interestmg article on the notion of subject is, unfortunately, not well known, because it was written in Danish. It anticipates some of Fillmore’s ideas, especially the one that ‘subject’ can be defined (if one words it in the terminology of generative ammar) in terms of surface structure relations rather thar in rerms of deep structure relations. gr 4 The example is from Johansen (1957: 22); the spelling has been changed according to the new spelhng conventions of Danish. (17i) translates ‘At thi! point, the road used to cross a railroad that has been torn up’, and (17ii) ‘At this point, a . ail oad that has been torn up used to cross the road.’ l5 Fillmore later replaced the Dative case with the three cases of ‘Experrencer’, ‘Object’, and ‘Goal’. According to Fillmore 197 1, the noun phrase to my brother has to be interpreted as ‘Goal’, because “where there is a transfer or movement of something to a pcr~n, the receiver as destination is taken as the Goal” (1971: 42).

H. Vater/Toward I: generative dependency grammar

133

not necessarily require their only player to become the subject of the sentence (which is a requirement in English). Instead, the player of khol~dtzo ‘cold’ occurs in the dative, the player of sclzatrdern ‘to be terrified’ in the accusative .16 In a DG, with the verb being the governor and noun phrases being its players, there is no need for explaining sentences like (18i) and (l&i) as incomplete or exceptional. The explanation would be that certain transformations (like the ‘subjectivalization transformation’ as Fillmore calls it) have not applied. The case is similar for the avalent verb piojjrre in ( 18iii). In Italian, as in some other languages, avalent verbs do not require that a certain position in the sentence (usually the position before the verb) has to be filled with either a player or an expletive pronoun (like it in English’). Again, sentences like (18iii) look completely natural in a DG, in spite of the fact that they do not occur with a subject, not even a ‘logical’ one, because it is completely natural for an avalent verb to occur by itseif in a sentence (or, of course, with free complements). Tesniitre’s chief merit (and that of his followers like Heringer, Helbig and Schenkel) is the attempt to show that there is a hierarchical order in each sentence, which has little to do with its linear order, and is not necessarily identical with the logical order of the thou;:hts underlying a sentence either. Y~e model he constructed, with the verbs 3s the central element of the sentence and other elements (including the subject-noun) being its dependents, covers some important linguistic facts that could not be explained by traditional grammar nor even by a PSG-type grammar. Thus, it does not seem to be coincidental that various attempts have been made to combine the idea of valence (which is based on the dependency relation) with the the:ory of generative grammar. Greatly simplifying, one could say that the deficiencies in Robinson’s model are due to the fact th:,t she constructed a dependency grammar that does not accommodate the valence of the verb. The deficiencies in Fillmore’s model, on the other hand, are just the opposite, namely ‘he handles the verb valence witLout using dependency relations but, instead, uses constituency relations expressed by PS rules (cf. 1968: 24).

16

Also Ger. kalt requires the dative (Mir ist kalt), whereas in E the nominative has to be used am cold). Ger. schaudern admits the dative alternatively with the accusative (Mir schaudert).

II. Vaterl’loward a generative dependency grammar

134

4. Semantic restrictions A generative dependency model, like any grammatical model, has to incorporate semantics. Semantics deals with the nqaning of lexical eiitries and their combinations (i.e. the syntactic strings generated by the syntactic component). The semantic analysis of syn’sctic strings includes the discovery of semantic ambiguities and anomalies.17 Semantic anomalies are cases, where a stT:lng, though syntactically well-formed, cannot be interpreted semantically, or at least not in a normal way, for instance in the combination spinster insecticide (Katz/Fodor 1963 : 199) This means that each governing element in a dependency grammar not only has to have the number and categorial status of its dependents (i.e. its valence) specified, but also their semantic properties. In other words, semantic as well as syntactic restrictions control the combinability of two elements in a dependency I relation. The character of these semantic restrictions will be discussed in the following paragraphs. As in the previous sections, we confine ourselves to the relations between verbs and their dependents; the semantic restrictions on relations between other elements are analogous. Fillmore undertook not only to include information concerning the valence of the verb into the framework of generative grammar but also ccmbined his concept of valence with semantic considerations. Therefore, it is worthwhile to have a look at his model and to investigate how hc handles semantic restrictions on the valence o+erbs. As is well known, he describes these semantic restrictions in terms of ‘cases’. Each of- the cases l8 determines a specific semantic relationship between an NP and its governing VP. In (19i), John functions as the agent of the action expressed by the verb, the door as its (affected) object, and key as its instrument. (19i) (iii (iii) (iv)

John oipened the door with the key. John opened the door. The key opened the door. The door opened.

” Cf. Katz and Fodcr (1963: 176) and, for criticism of Katz and Fodor’s approach, Weinreich (1966: 3!37ff). ” Fillmore 1968 lists and explain:; the following seven cases (1968: 24ff): A(gentive), I(nstrumental), D(ative), F(actitive), L(ocative), O(bjective), and. B(enefactive); he mentions an eighth case (1968: 32), T(ime), without applying it to his analyses. Fillmore (1971) introduces some new cases, which partially absorb old cases such as D and F: “[...] I have lately become comfortable with the following cases: Agent, Experiencer, Instrument, Object, Source, Goal, Location, and Time” (197 1: 42). Later in the same article Fillmore introduces the case of Path (Soft !,

H. Vater/Toward a generative dependency grammar

135

The ‘cases’, which each dominate a NP, are essentially restricted to deep structure. By certain transformations (namely subjectivalization, passivization, subject copying and objectivalization) the NPs are made subjects, indirect or direct objects of sentences, and their case lables are deleted. In (19i) and (19ii) Jo/r/z, the NP dominated by the agentive-case, has been made the subject of the sentence, in (19iii) the key, the NP dominated by the instrumental, and in (19iv) the door, the NP dominated by the objective. Sometimes, however, the ‘cases’ are kept in the surface structure, usually in all instances where the preposition connected with them is not deleted (as e.g. with t/w key in (19i)). The verb to open has,>according to Fillmore, the ‘case frame (120) (cf. Fillmore 1968: 27). (20) open [-That

mearis

that

O(I)(A)] open

. must

take

a9

objective,

as

proved

by

(19i\i);

in

ad_

dition it can take an agentive (cf. ( 19ii)) or an instrumental (cf. ( 19iii)) or both of them as in (19i). Fillmore’s case frames can be interpreted as information on the valence of verbIs. At the same time, the case frames include semantic information, indicated by the different labels A, I? 0, etc. In other words, the case frames combine information of the kind supplied by Chomsky’s ‘strict subcategorization features’, namely information concerning the number, categorial status and optionality or necessity of presence of the categories governed by V,19 with semantic information of a relational nature. Thus, (20) states that open requires an obligatory NP functioning as the (affected) object of the action expressed ‘0; the verb, and two optional NPs, o e of which functions as the agent of the action, whereas the other one functions as its instrument.:;!o Indirectly, Fillmore’s case frames contain a third type of information, namely the kind supplied by Chomsky’s ‘selectional features’ (cf. Choms-

I9 Cf. Chomsky 1965 : 95ff. The expression ‘categories governed by V’ defines the range of a verb’s strict subcategorization in terms of DC. For Chomsky 1965, it should read ‘categories dominated by VP’ (or, more exactly, ‘by Predicate-Phrase’). It has to be kept in mind ,that DG does without nonterminal categories such as VP or Predicate-Phrase. *’ The fact that the bearer of a case function like agent or instrument in an NP, is expressed by Fillmore in the following way : “We may regard al! of the case categories as therefore rewritten as K + NIP” (1968: 33); i.e. all cases (which are treated as categories) are expanded to the same string, which violated the requirements for PS rules (K stands for ‘case form’ and includes prepositions).

136

H. VaterlToward a generative dependency grammar

ky 1965: 95ff): according to Fillmore’s conventions, A and D are always connected with the feature [+Animate], whereas I always is [ -Animate] (cf. Fillmore 1968: 24ff). For the frame feature (20), this means that one of the optional NPs, namely the one functioning as an agent, has to be animate, whereas the other optional NP, functioning as an instrument, has to be inanimate. As has been shown, three different types of information are combined in Fillmore’s frame features, one type referring to syntactic properties of a verb’s environment and two types referring to its semantic properties. There seem to be strong arguments against this fusion. The main agguments are listed as following. (a) Fillmore’s ‘cases’ are relations stated in terms of categories. They are generated as categories by rewrite rules (though not in a completely formalized way) and rewritten as strings of categories (namely K + NP), although they are obvio*usly not of the salme kind as ‘4, P, or S, and sometimes even are referred to as relations, as in Fillmore’s statement that “NP’s made subjects and objects may be said to have lost their ‘original’ case relation to the sentence” (1968: 87). A relation can only be expressed as a relation between categories (such as Chomsky’s ‘subject of, which is defined as NP immediately dominated by S) or as a contextual feature of a category, but no: as a category itself. (b) The ‘cases’ combine inherent pro:perties with contextual ones. A case like A contains the inherent syntactic property of being a N *l and the inherent semantic property of being animate along with the contextual (semantic) property of being some verb’s agent. Animateness is an inherent property of a.noun, whereas the property of being an agent cannot by any means be considered as inherent to a noun. It is a qality imposed on a noun by the governing verb. fc) It has been shown by Huddleston (1970) and Zoeppritz (9.97 1) that the association of: certain cases with specific inherent semantic features does not take thz facts of languages into account. Zoeppsitz (197 1: 67f) mentions examples like (21), where - according to Fillmore’s own arguments - the winch has to be interpreted as agentive rather than instrumental, though wind is clearly inanimate. In addition, one can find examples, where the restriction ‘Animate’ is too bro(ad, leaving cases of necessarily human agents out of consideration, such as the agent of *’ If-determiners are derived from inherwt features of N, as Postal (1966) suggests, and if attn%utive adjectives arc derived from predicative adjectives, as is usually done, then there is no need for a category NP in deep structure, a\d N rather than NP occurs as a dependent of V.

H. VaterlTowgrd a generative dependency

grammar

1 37

write in (22). Finally, iakoffs famous example (1968: 16), here quoted as (23), shows that the instrumental case does not exclude tlhc feature [ +Animate]. I21i) (ii) (iii) (220 (ii) (23)

John blew out the candle. The wind blew out the candle. *John blew out the candle with the wind. Eugene wrote a poem. * The elephant wrote a poem. James Bond broke the window with the Russian spy.

Besides, Fillmore’s requirement that each case type can only occur once in a proposition, excludes sentences expressing symme’tric relationships from being generated.22 (24i) (ii) (25) (ii)

Sweden borders Norway borders John is married Mary is married

on Norway. on Sweden. to Mary. to John.

In sentences like (17), (24), and (35), one would have to postuiate two identical cases, i.e. two 0 III (17) and (24) and two A in (25). All the contradictions and inadequacies pointed qut can be avoided, if one gives up thz concept of ‘s z~se’and disintegrates the different components of the ‘case_’ This means that each ‘case’ l~s to be decomposed into - the category N, - information on the function of’ in relation to the action or state expressed by the governing V, - inherent semantic features of N. This solution takes into account that there are N governed by V, with inherent semL,ntic features and with certain semantic functions imposed on them by the governing V. For each V, the number of N it governs has to be stated (along with the other governed elements belonging to other categories like A or S) and, in addition, some information has to be given on the kind of semantic relationship connecting v and N, preferably in terms of contextual semantic features; finally, those inherent semantic features of N that are required to fulfill a special function (like agent or instrument) in relation to a specific verS hayre to be identified22 Fillmore’s restriction is justified for verbs like resemble, at least in cases, where the second is generically understood as in John resembles a horse (Fillmore 19’71: 39).

nounphrase

I 38

H.. V&er/Toward a generative dependency grammar

We propose to handle these kinds of information, which have to be specified for each verb in the lexicon, by two types of contextual features: (a) Valence features specify the number and the categorial type of elements governed by the verb; e.g. [ -- N,N] would mean that the verb in question governs two nouns. (b) Complementation features specify the type of what we called ‘semantic function’ of the governed elements in relation to the action or state expressed by the governing verb; [+-+Agent] means that one of the governed nouns functions as the verb’s agent. Inherent semantic features of the noun that necessarily co-occur with these semantic functions have to be indicated as specifications of the (simultaneous) environment. For this the formalism used in generative phonology (e.g. by Chomsky and Nalle 1968) can be adopted. An agent that has to be human, thus, would be indicated as [+-Is]. The valence features correspond roughly to Chomsky’s strict subcategorization features, differing in that N rather than NP occur as dependents of V, and that all N-dependents, not only those of the predicate phrase have to be specified. The complementation features take over the main role of Fillmore’s cases, by characterizing the type of semantic function a noun has in relation to the verb. Basically, no restriction on the number of occurrences of these functions should be specified; the verb to border, thus, can (or even has to) occur with two dependents being in the same kind of semantic relation to it, which can be expressed by the complementation feature. -Anim -Anim --_ +_+Pat +_+Pat

23 ’

There has to be a convention for the lexicon stating that the order of complementation features corresponds to the order of valence features. in other words, the first complenientation feature within the ‘frame’ refers to the first valence feature, the second complementation feature to the second valence feature, etc. If necessary, the simultaneous semantic environment of a complementation feature has to be specified. To write requires a human agelit, a human experiencer, and an inammate patient ;B thus, it would h;ve the following valence and complementation features: t3 The feature [ + _+Pat(ient)] has beer, adopted l‘iam Nilsen 1972. 24 The feature [+ _+Exp(eriencer)] corrtsponds to Fillmore’s newly introduced case of Experiencer, which occurs with verbs expressin! a “genuine psychological event or mental state” (1972 42) and, with these verbs, replaces the old &tive.

H. VaterlToward a generative dependency +Human (26) writt’:

_N,N,N,+_+Agent,

+Human +_+Experiencer,

grammar

-Animate +__+Patient

13;

1.

It goes without saying that in cases where the occurrence of a complementation feature is unconditioned, no environment has to be indicated. Of course, each V has not only contextual but also inherent features. A detailed description of the in erent semantic features of verbs or other categories is beyond the scope of this investigation. One can assume that one of the main divisions among the class of verbs falls be tween verbs expressing an action and those not expressing an action: to take care of this division a feature [*Action] is suggested. The illustration of the V-lexicon in section 5 concentrates especially on verbs of communication, without giving an exhaustive survey and without listing all relevant features of that area. It is possible that one could dispense of complementation features of tlie type suggested if one relies on a convention stating that each of the dependent nouns has to be interpreted in agreemert with certain inherent features of the verbs; i.e. with a verb of action (cortaining the feature [+Action]) one of the governed nouns would havt; to be interpreted as an agent. This has been proposed by Boeder and Gunther.25

5. A revised generative dependency model Robinson’s model of a generative dependency grammar can be effectively applied to the study of languages, if it is modifiell to incorporate valence and expanded to include semantics. In the follclwing example, a sketch of such a revised model is given. For a more Mailed description of a generative dependency grammar of the type suggested Ihere see Vater 1973. Instead of the D rules (3) and the corresponding D-PS rules (3’) the modified rules (27) and (27’) are proposed. 2s Cf. Giinther 1973 (forthcoming). Boeder (197 1: 19ff) does not even acknowledge the existence of players (which he calls ‘arguments’) in deep structure; instead, he derives them from contextual features of the governing verb by means of segmentalization transformations. This allows him to differentiate between arguments that have to show up as segments (like the second argument of to watch in We watched the birds) and those that do not Irave to (as the second argument of to plow in The farmer is plowing) and those that can never occur at all (1ik.e the argument designating the meal in the verb to dine). In the first case the verb contains the feature [+ [+Segment] ] for the argument in question, in the second case I he fealture features [+___[*ggment] 1, and in the third the feature [+ - [ -Segm] 1. Part of tire contextual of verbs is introduced by redundancy rules, among them the feature [+_ [+Agent] 1.

If. Vater/ To ward a generative dependency

140

(27) D rules (0

(ii) (iiia) (iiib) (iiic) (iiid) (iiie) (iiif’) (iiig) (iiih) (iiij) (iiik) (iiil) (iinm) (iv)

* CT)

T (*V) V (*) V (* N) V (” N N) V (* N N N) V (* N N N N) V (* T) V (* T T) V (* N T) V (* N N T) V (* N N N Tj V (* N T T) V (* N N T T) N (* [T] )

(27’) (i) (ii) (iiia) (iiib) (iiic) (iiid) (iiie) (iiif) (iiig) (iiih) (iiij) (ink) (iiil) (iiim) (iv)

grammar

D-PS rules

#T # T --*T* V V + V* V -+ V’ N V-+V*‘i\JN V + V* N N N V --*V” N N N N V + V* # T # V + V* # T # # T #I V-+V*N#T# V -+ V’ N N # T # V+Y*NNN#T# V -+ V* W # T # # T # V-+V”NN#T##T# V --, N” (#‘T#)

T has been kept as the head of a sentence, but it is now interpreted as a terse-bearing element only, the characterization of the sentence type beng provided in a different way.26 As with Robinson (1970), embedded sentences are generated in cases where T is a dependent. If T is a dependent of V, the result is a subject or object clause; if it is a dependent of N, the result is a relative clause. Adjectival dependents have not been included in the rules, because at present it does not seem to be clear, whether they really occur as dependents of V or not. In cases like The milk turned sour, He fell ill, turn and fall have to be considered as linking verbs rather than full verbs.27 Likewise, adverbials have not been considered here. Rule (ii) generates V as a dependent of T and rules (iiia) through (iiim) generate the dependents of V. It is assumed that in English (as well as in German and Danish) no more than four dependents occur with V, and that no more than two of them can be embedded s,entences. There might very well be languages that allow more than four d.ependents of V or more than two sentence embeddings. In that case., further rules would have to be added. Unfortunately, it has not been possible to fuse the

26 If one accepts Ross’ suggestion that evrery declarative sentence is governed by a performative clause in its deep structure, then superfir:ially independent declarative sentences are the result of ‘performative deletion’ (Ross 1970: 249). In expanding this treatment to questions and imperatives, as Ross himself proposes (1970. 249, 261, and 263, fn. 19), one can dispense with a sentence type element altogether, sentence: type being determined exclusively by the kind of overning performative clause in deep structure. 5 ’ For treatments of this topic see Bach 1967 and Bald 1g72.

H. Vater/Toward a generative dependency grammar

141

single rules of (iii) to one complex rule; this would require a; special mechanism that still has to be worked out. Rule (iv) can, of course, only be applied, if, among the rules of (iii), one has been chosen that contains the symbol N. In the lexicon, the number and type of dependents have to be stated for every verb; this is done in terms of ‘valence features’ (cf. section 4). There is a general lexicon rule - similar to the one used in ‘classical’ (i.e. PSG based) generative grammar - stating that a lexical entry can be inserted into a special D marker only if it meets the requirements of that D marker; e.g. only a verb that governs two noun phrases can be inserted into a D marker to which rule (iiicj has been applied. Semantic properties are expressed in terms of features, as proposed by Katz and Fodor (1963), Weinreich (1966), Bierwisch (1967 11,and others. Semantic properties imposed on nouns by their governing verbs (such as ‘agent’, ‘patient’, ‘experiencer’, and ‘instrument’) are expres ;ed by socalled ‘complementation features’ (which form one type of ~~ritextual features) of the verbs rather than by ‘cases’ (cf. section 4). ‘I’llis has essentially two advantages: fa) The quality of being an agent, an instrument, etc. is appropriately described as a property imposed on a noun or an embedded sentence by the governing verb rather than an inherent quality of a noun. or an embedded sentence. (b) The fact that e.g. an agent has to be animate for one verb, but human for another or even inanimate for a third, can be controlled by matching requirements for the complementation features of’ V, as suggested in section 4 of this paper; i.e. for one verb the feature [+_+Agent] has to be matched with the inherent noun feature [+Animate], for another one with the inherent noun feature [+Humanl, for a third one with the feature [-Animate], etc. As inherent features of V, [+Act(ion)], [+ Com(munication)], [+- Ling(uistic)], [+-Fact(ive)l, [+Vol(ition)], and [LOrd(er)] are assumed within this presentation,28 and for nouns features like [+Count(able)], [+Concr(etejl, I+-AnimbWl, and 28 According to Miparsky and Kiparsky (1970), the feature [+Factive] characterizes verbs whose complements are true propositions, whereas this is not presupposed with nonfactive verbs. The feature [+Linguistic] has been adopted from Wunderlich 1969 to characterize verbs of linguistic communication as opposed to verbs of nonlinguistic communication such as to smile, to wave, to whistle, etc. (see also Ross 1970). It is assumed that factive and nonfactive verbs are always verbs of linguistic communication, i.e. [ +-Factive] is derived from [+Linguistic].. For the features [*Volition] and [&Order] cf. Vater 1973; verbs of order have the features [+Vsl, +Ord], whereas volition verbs that do not imply an order have [+Vol, -Ord].

H. Vater/Towarda generative dependency grammar

142

fkHum(an)]. These features are sufficient to characterize the most relevant properties of verbs and nouns illustrated in the lexicon (28). An exhaustive description of inherent semantic features cannot be given in this article, for reasons mentioned in the previous section. ie of' the V-lexicon

(2Q) (i)

(ii) stab +Act,-Corn, +__N,N(N), + __-+Agent, +_+Pat

(iii) hit -Anim (iv) border (on)

-Anim + - +Pat I .

-Act, -Corn, + - NJ, + - +Pat, +Anim

(v) know

-Act, +Com, +_N,N/T,

+___+Exp, +_+Pat

+Anim -p +_+Pat +Com, +_N,N,IT, +_+Exp,

(vi) see

I .

1.

1. +H --( '"-)I_ 1

+Hum (vii) read -Act. +hm,

+Ling, -Fact, +__N,N/T, +_+Exp,

-Anim -+_+Pat

urn

(viii) whistle (at)

+Hum

+com, +Ling, - :wt, +_N,N,N/T,

+_+A&

+_fExp,

+Hum +Com, +Lkg, 1tdct, +-NJ,

(x)

+_+Ag,

wish

+_+Pat

+Com, +Ling. + \rol, -Ord, +__N(N)T, +_+Ag, -Concr + - +Pat

J.

+Hum ( +_+Exp

)

1 .

+IIum (xii)

+_+Pat

-Co ncr

+Hum (xi)

-Concr

+Hum

--

(ix)

+_+Exp

+Act, +Com, -Ling, +.--N(N), +_+Agent,

+Com, +Ling, +Vol, +Ord, +_N,N,T, -Concr + - +Par 1 .

+_+Ag,

+Anim +__+Exp,

.

H. Vater/Toward a generative dependency

grammar

143

TO plrsh, to stab, and to hit are action verbs that do not express cornmunication. They differ in the requirements for their agents; ~II.S/Ztakes an animate agent, stab a human and hit a concrete agent (i.e. hit includes inanimate agents as wind, storm, or lightning). To bo,rder is a nonaction and noncummunication verb, both of whose noun complements function as patients, which have to be inanimate (allowing for concrete as well as abstract nouns). All of the following verbs are communication verbs. To know, to see, and to read are verbs of nonactive communication, i.,e. they express the passive aspect of communication, the reception of a message. Each of them has an experiencer and a patient (which can be: a noun or an embedded sentence). To read is a verb of linguistic communication (i.e. it presupposes the form of communication to be linguistic). To see is [+- Linguistic], i.e. it is not specified for the feature 11Linguistic]. The communication process expressed by saw in Joirn skll~ the letter can refer to the shape of the letter (or to its mere presence) as well as to its content. In the same way, to know can be used for linguistic as well as for nonlinguistic communication (cf. John lino~s French vs John knows Mary). To smell, on the other hand, would be an example of a vlerb of nonactive? nonlinguistic communication. Verbs (viii) through (xii) are verbs of active communication. birowhistle (at sb.) stands for verbs of nonlinguistic communication; it has d human agent and an (optional) animate experiencer. To telr!is a nonfactive verb of linguistic communication. It has a human agent, a human experiencer (the adressee), and an embedded sentence as a patient. To regret is a factive verb of linguistic communication: John regrets hming written the letter presupposes that John really wrote the letter (cf. Kiparsky and Kiparsky 197 1: 147). To wish and to order are both verbs of volition and, as such, nonfactive. To wish has the feature [-Order], whereas to order has [+Order]. To wish has an optional experiencer, which is typically human; the function of patient can be carried out by a noun or an embedded sentence. The experiencer of to order (the one who has to carry out the command or order) has to be characterized as animate rather than human, since one can give orders to animals also, as in ,Mw Wdered the dog to sit down. To tell can be used as a verb of command, because it has [Nolition] and [&Order], which means that it is unmarked (in the Jakobsonian sense) ir’urthese features. Transformations can be handled easily, i’fone adrjpts Robinson’s technique of transposing the dependency rules *ofthe deep structure into hybrid D-PS rules, as previously mentioned. The inclusion of semantic

144

H. Vuter/Towarda generative dependency grammar

features, especially of complementation features, necessitates an additional requirement: features like [+_+Agent], [+_sPatient], etc., which originally are contextual features of V, have to be transferred to the appropriate N functioning as a player of V. This is necessary in order to specify the structural description of some transformations, especially subjectivalization processes, properly. As shown by Fil’lmore, the restrictions for subjectivalizations reveal a hierarchy among nouns: if there are an agent, an instrumental and a patient (which corresponds to Fillmore’s ‘object’), the agent normally becomes the subject of the sentence; if there are an instrument and a patient, the instrument is more likely to become subject, etc. These facts have to ble stated in the structural descripand in the restrictions for tralnsformations, and this can be done in most efficient way, if contextual l?eatures like ‘agent’ are incorporated into 2nd thllc sat t,f?e tim_e ffancfnrmnfinns are treated Iike --m-v lrnlrnc .‘_a...“l, Wm..-, ..l_“) u. II.“.VI IS._ SW** apply ent noun feztures. A feature transfer like this has been advocated nk (1969: 20).

967. Have and Be in English Synt;nx. Lg. 43,462-85. 972. Studlen zu den kopulativcn Verben des Englischen. Miinchen: Hueber. er, K., 1965. Spracherklarung mit den Mitteln der Abhangigkeitsstruktur. Beitrage g~~~~~kund InformationsverarLeitung 5, 31 -53. er, K., 1970. Konstituenz und Dependenz. In: H. Steger (ed.), Vorschhige fur eine tschen. Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft, 52-77. 1967. Some semantic universals of German adjectivals. Found. of Language 3, L.. 1933. Language. New York: Holt. 197 1. Neue Forschungen zur Kasustheorio. Biuletyn Fonograficzny 12, 3-27. H., 1962. Die deutsche Sprache. Dusseldorf: Schwann. tures. ‘Tht! Hague: Mouton. 65. Aspects of the theory of syntax. Cambridge, Mass.: M.LT. Press. Halle, 1968. The sound pattern of English. New York, London: Harper. hen Grammatik. Berlin: Akademie-Verlag (5 th ed. 1962). cas for case. In: E. Bach, R. Harms (eds.), Universals in linguistic theoRinehart and Winsto rl, l-88. for case grammar. Monograph Series on Languages and Linmiire

and transformational grammar. Language Sci. 15, l-5. Deutschen. Forthcoming. : A formalism and some observations. Lg. 40, 51 L-525. Worterbuch zur Valenz und Distribution deutscher Verben. ie (2nd, rev. ed. 1973).

H. Vater, ‘Toward a generative dependency

g,*ammlu-

145

Heringer, H.-J., 1968. Prtipositionale Erginzungsbestimmungen im Deutschen. Zeitschrift f‘tir Deutsche Philologie 87,426 -457. Heringer, H.-J., 1970. Einige Er.gebnisse und Probleme der Dependenzgrammatik. Der Deu tschunterricht 22 (4), 42-98. Hjelmslev, L., 1943. Omkring sprogteoriens grundlaeggelse. Copenhagen: Festkrift Kdbenhavn Universitet (2nd ed. CopenIiagen 1966: Akademisk Forlag). Huddleston, R., 1970. Some re narks on case grammar. Linguist. Inq. 1 (4), 50 l-5 1 1, Johansen, H., 1957. Om den tr;.ditionelle Brug af Ordet ‘Subjekt’. Dan&e Studier 52, ? 40. Katz, J.J., J.A. Fodol, 1963. TIE structure of a semantic :hcory. Lg. 39, 1’70 2 10. Kiparsky, P., C. Kiparsky, 1971. Fact. In: M. Bierwisch, K.L‘. Heidolph (eds.), PIogress m I inguistics. The Hague: Mouton,, 143-173. Lakoff, G., 1968. Instrumental ldverbs and the concept cf deep structure. Found. of 1 ;tnguagc 4, 4-29. Menk, A., 1969. Untersuchungen zur Form abhingiger Stitze des Ost-Aamenischen. Kirel (disc) Nilsen, D. L.E., 1972. Toward a semantic specification of deep case. Thie Hilgue: Mout,.)n. Postal, P., 1966. On so-called prcmouns in English. Monograph Series on Languages anrl 1.111guistics 19, 177 -206. Robinson, J., 1967a. A dependency-based transformational grammar. (Research report KC- 1889). Yorktown Heights, N.Y.: IBM Watson Research Center. Robinson, J., 1967b. Methods for obtaining correspondi,ig phrase strut ture and depcndenck grammars. Grenoble: Deuxi&ne Confkrence lntemationale sur 1~ Trilitement Autornatique de\ Langues. 23-25 August 1967. Robinson, J., 1970. Dependency structures and transformational rules. Lg. 46, 25’1, 85. Ross, J., 1967. Constraints on variables in syntax. Cambridge, Mass.: M.I.T. (duct. dis\. j. Ross, J., 1970. On declarative sentences. In: R. Jacobs, P. Rosenbaum (cd\.), Reading\ in I*.ngli\h transformational grammar. Waltham, Mass.: Ginn and Co., 222 - 72.

Steinitz, R., 1969. Adverbialsyntax. Studia grammatica X. Berlin: Akadcmie-Verlag. Tesnikre, L., 1953. Esquisse d’une syntaxe structurale. Paris: Klincksier:k. Tesni&e, L. 1959. Eliments de syntaxe structurale. Paris: Klincksieck. Vater, H., 1973. Dgnische Subjekt- und Objektstiizc: Ein Reitrag zur generativcn Pqwndew grammatik. Tiibingen: Niemeyer. Weinreich, U., 1966. Explorations in semantic theory. In: ‘Th. Sebcok (cd.!, Current trt:ndg In linguistics, III, 395-477. The Hague: Mouton. Wwnderlich, D., 1969. Bemerkunpell zu den verba lc:endi. Muttersprache 79, 97 - IO7 Zoeppritz, M., 1971. On the requirc.:ment that a~~~~\I\~‘sbe animate. 13cltrLigc /iIr l.insul\t Ih irnd Informationsverarbeitung

21, 65-78.