<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<modsCollection xmlns="http://www.loc.gov/mods/v3">
<mods ID="muller-2019-complex">
    <titleInfo>
        <title>Complex predicates: Structure, potential structure and underspecification</title>
    </titleInfo>
    <name type="personal">
        <namePart type="given">Stefan</namePart>
        <namePart type="family">Müller</namePart>
        <role>
            <roleTerm authority="marcrelator" type="text">author</roleTerm>
        </role>
    </name>
    <originInfo>
        <dateIssued>2019</dateIssued>
    </originInfo>
    <typeOfResource>text</typeOfResource>
    <genre authority="bibutilsgt">journal article</genre>
    <relatedItem type="host">
        <titleInfo>
            <title>Linguistic Issues in Language Technology</title>
        </titleInfo>
        <originInfo>
            <issuance>continuing</issuance>
            <publisher>CSLI Publications</publisher>
        </originInfo>
        <genre authority="marcgt">periodical</genre>
        <genre authority="bibutilsgt">academic journal</genre>
    </relatedItem>
    <abstract>This paper compares a recent TAG-based analysis of complex predicates in Hindi/Urdu with its HPSG analog. It points out that TAG combines actual structure while HPSG (and Categorial Grammar and other valence-based frameworks) specify valence of lexical items and hence potential structure. This makes it possible to have light verbs decide which arguments of embedded heads get realized, somthing that is not possible in TAG. TAG has to retreat to disjunctions instead. While this allows straight-forward analyses of active/passive alternations based on the light verb in valence-based frameworks, such an option does not exist for TAG and it has to be assumed that preverbs come with different sets of arguments.</abstract>
    <identifier type="citekey">muller-2019-complex</identifier>
    <location>
        <url>https://aclanthology.org/2019.lilt-17.3</url>
    </location>
    <part>
        <date>2019</date>
        <detail type="volume"><number>17</number></detail>
    </part>
</mods>
</modsCollection>

%0 Journal Article
%T Complex predicates: Structure, potential structure and underspecification
%A Müller, Stefan
%J Linguistic Issues in Language Technology
%D 2019
%V 17
%I CSLI Publications
%F muller-2019-complex
%X This paper compares a recent TAG-based analysis of complex predicates in Hindi/Urdu with its HPSG analog. It points out that TAG combines actual structure while HPSG (and Categorial Grammar and other valence-based frameworks) specify valence of lexical items and hence potential structure. This makes it possible to have light verbs decide which arguments of embedded heads get realized, somthing that is not possible in TAG. TAG has to retreat to disjunctions instead. While this allows straight-forward analyses of active/passive alternations based on the light verb in valence-based frameworks, such an option does not exist for TAG and it has to be assumed that preverbs come with different sets of arguments.
%U https://aclanthology.org/2019.lilt-17.3

Markdown (Informal)

[Complex predicates: Structure, potential structure and underspecification](https://aclanthology.org/2019.lilt-17.3) (Müller, LILT 2019)

• Complex predicates: Structure, potential structure and underspecification (Müller, LILT 2019)

ACL

• Stefan Müller. 2019. Complex predicates: Structure, potential structure and underspecification. Linguistic Issues in Language Technology, 17.