Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Word Order in German: A Formal Dependency Grammar Using A Topological Hierarchy
Word Order in German: A Formal Dependency Grammar Using A Topological Hierarchy
• One dependent (verbal or non-verbal) of are restrictions that weigh more heavily than
any of the verbs of the main domain (V2, the hierarchical position: pronominalization,
any verb in the right bracket or even an focus, new information, weight, etc.
embedded verb) has to occupy the first
position, called the Vorfeld (VF, pre- hat ‘has’
field).
• All the other non-verbal dependents of the subj
aux
versprochen
verbs in the domain (V2 or part of the ‘promised’
verbal cluster) can go in the Mittelfeld niemand
iobj inf
(MF, middle-field). ‘noboby’ zu lesen
• Some phrases, in particular sentential ‘to read’
complements (complementizer and rela- diesem Mann
‘to this man’
tive clauses), prepositional phrases, and dobj
even some sufficiently heavy noun das Buch
phrases, can be positioned in a field right ‘the book’
of the right bracket, the Nachfeld (NF, af-
ter-field). Like the Mittelfeld, the Nachfeld
Fig. 2. A phrase structure without embedded do-
can accommodate several dependents.
mains for (1a,b)
• When a verb is placed in any of the Major
Fields (Vor-, Mittel-, Nachfeld), it opens a The fact that a verbal projection (i.e. the verb
new embedded domain. and all of its direct and indirect dependents)
In the following section we illustrate our rules does not in general form a continuous phrase,
with the dependency tree of Fig. 1 and show unlike in English and French, is called scram-
how we describe phenomena such as scram- bling (Ross, 1967). This terminology is based
bling and (partial) VP fronting. on an erroneous conception of syntax that
supposes that word order is always an immedi-
2.4 Non-embedded construction and ate reflection of the syntactic hierarchy (i.e.
every projection of a given element forms a
“scrambling” phrase) and that any deviation from this con-
Let us start with cases without embedding, i.e. stitutes a problem. In fact, it makes little sense
where the subordinated verbs versprochen to form a phrase for each verb and its depend-
‘promised’ and zu lesen ‘to read’ will go into ents. On the contrary, all verbs placed in the
the right bracket of the main domain (Fig. 2). same domain put their dependents in a com-
The constituents which occupy the left and mon pot. In other words, there is no scram-
right brackets are represented by shadowed bling in German, or more precisely, there is no
ovals. The other three phrases, niemand ‘no- advantage in assuming an operation that de-
body’, diesem Mann ‘to this man’, and das rives ‘scrambled’ sentences from ‘non-
Buch ‘the book’, are on the same domain scrambled’ ones.
level; one of them has to take the Vorfeld, the
other two will go into the Mittelfeld. We obtain 2.5 Embedding
thus 6 possible orders, among them (1a) and
(1b). There are nevertheless some general
hat ‘has’
restrictions on the relative constituent order in
the Mittelfeld. We do not consider these rules aux
subj
here (see for instance Lennerz 1977, Uszkoreit versprochen
1987), but we want to insist on the fact that the ‘promised’
niemand inf
order of the constituents depends very little on iobj
‘noboby’ zu lesen
their hierarchical position in the syntactic
structure.4 Even if the order is not free, there diesem Mann ‘to read’
‘to this man’ dobj
das Buch
‘the book’
(i) Er fängt gleich zu schreien an.
He begins right_away to shout AN.
‘He begins to shout right away.’ Fig. 3. A phrase structure with an embedded
4
Dutch has the same basic topological structure, but domain for (1a, 1c, 1d, 1e)
has lost morphological case except on pronouns. For
a simplified description of the order in the Dutch
Mittelfeld, we have to attach to each complement dependency tree, and linearize them in descending
placed in the Mittelfeld its height in the syntactic order.
Gerdes & Kahane Word Order in German 4
As we have said, when a verb is placed in one emancipated. We have thus four complements
of the major fields, it opens an embedded to place in the superior domain, allowing more
domain. We represent domains by ovals with a than thirty word orders, among them (1f) and
bold outline. In the situation of Fig. 3, where (1g). Among these orders, only those that
zu lesen ‘to read’ opens an embedded do- have das Buch or zu lesen in the Vorfeld are
main, hat ‘has’ and versprochen ‘promised’ truly acceptable, i.e. those where embedding
occupy the left and right bracket of the main and emancipation are communicatively moti-
domain and we find three phrases on the same vated by focus on das Buch or zu lesen.
level: niemand ‘nobody’, diesem Mann ‘to
this man’, and das Buch zu lesen ‘to read the hat ‘has’
book’. The embedded domain can go into the
aux
Vorfeld (1c), the Nachfeld (1d), or the Mit- subj
versprochen
telfeld (1a,e). ‘promised’
Note that we obtain the word order (1a) a sec- niemand inf
iobj
ond time, giving us two phrase structures: ‘noboby’ zu lesen
diesem Mann ‘to read’
(2) a. [Niemand] [hat] [diesem Mann] [das
Buch zu lesen] [versprochen] ‘to this man’ dobj
c. Ich glaube, dass er das Buch lesen wird therefore depends directly on the antecedent
können. noun and it governs the main verb of the rela-
I believe that he the book read will can. tive clause. As a pronoun, it takes its usual
‘I believe that he will be able to read the position in the relative clause.
book.’
eine Einahmequelle
In related languages like Dutch or Swiss-
German, which have the same topological rel
structure, the standard order in the right "die"
bracket is somewhat similar to the German conj
Oberfeldumstellung. The resulting order gives
rise to cross serial dependencies (Evers 1975, hat
Bresnan et al. 1982) Such constructions have subj inf
often been studied for their supposed com- verpflichtet
plexity. With our subsequent description of die EU inf
the Oberfeldumstellung, we obtain a formal dobj
structure that applies equally to Dutch. Indeed, zu
the two structures have identical descriptions sich erhalten
dobj
with the exception of the relative order of
dependent verbal elements in the right bracket die
(keeping in mind that we do not describe the
order of the Mittelfeld). Fig. 5. Dependency and phrase
structure for (5b)
2.9 Relatives and pied-piping
It is now possible to give the word order rules
Relative clauses open an embedded domain for relative clauses. The complementizing part
with the main verb going into the right of the relative pronoun opens an embedded
bracket. The relative pronoun takes the first domain consisting of the complementizer field
position of the domain, but it can take other (Kathol 1995), Mittelfeld, right bracket, and
elements along (pied-piping) (5). German Nachfeld. The main verb that depends on it
differs from English and Romance languages joins the right bracket. The other rules are
in that even verbs can be brought along by the identical to those for other domains, with the
relative pronoun (5b). group containing the pronominal part of the
(5) a. Der Mann [[von dem] [Maria] [geküsst relative pronoun having to join the other part
wird]] liebt sie. of the pronoun in the complementizer field.
The man [[by whom] [Maria] [kissed is]] In a sense, the complementizer field acts like
loves her. the fusion of the Vorfeld and the left bracket
b. Das war eine wichtige Einnahmequel- of the main domain: The complementizing
le, [[die zu erhalten] [sich] [die EU] part of the pronoun, being the root of the
[verpflichtet hat]]. dependency tree of the relative clause, takes
This was an important source_of_income, the left bracket (just like the top node of the
[[that to conserve] [itself] [the EU] [com- whole sentence in the main domain), while the
mited has]]. pronominal part of the relative pronoun takes
‘This was an important source_of_income, the Vorfeld. The fact that the pronoun is one
that the EU obliged itself to conserve.’ word requires the fusion of the two parts and
hence of the two fields into one. Note that
Before we discuss the topological structure of verbal pied-piping is very easy to explain in
relative clauses, we will discuss their syntactic this analysis: It is just an embedding of a verb
representation. Following Tesnière (1959) and in the complementizer field. Just like the Vor-
numerous analyses that have since corrobo- feld, the complementizer field can be occu-
rated his analysis, we assume that the relative pied by a non-verbal phrase or by a verb cre-
pronoun plays a double syntactic role: ating an embedded domain.
• On one hand, it has a pronominal role in
the relative clause where it fills a syntactic
position. 3 Formalization
• On the other hand, it plays the role of a
complementizer allowing a sentence to A grammar in the formalism we introduce in
modify a noun. the following will be called a Topological
For this reason, we attribute to the relative Dependency Grammar.
pronoun a double position: as a complemen-
tizer, it is the head of the relative clause and it
Gerdes & Kahane Word Order in German 6
i md
[ + vf [ mf ] nf
hat, Vfin: Vfin
i mf md
]
vf [ nf
⇒
Vfin
r
> ] ] vc vc
versprochen, Vpp: + + h + o h u
V V V
i md
mf ] vc
vf [ nf
⇒ o h u
Vfin V
ed r
> f ed ed ] vc vc
f ] h
zu lesen, Vinf: + + + vf ] nf + + o h u
V Y V V
i
ed vf [ mf ]
[ vc Vfin vc nf
⇒ mf o h u nf o h u
V V
r ed ed
das Buch, X:
ed
> >r >r f
f f
niemand, X: + + +
V Y V Y V Y
diesem Mann, X:
i
ed vf [ mf ]
vc vc nf
⇒ mf [ o h u nf o h u
V Vfin X X X V
Creation of a verbal box in the Oberfeld: clusters with more than four verbs are un-
(V, o, vb, h) usual).
Positioning of a verb: (V, [/h, v, -)
References
Creation of a non-verbal phrase: (X, f, xp, ?)
Creation of a domain for a relative clause:9 Bech Gunnar, 1955, Studien über das deutsche
("C", f, cd, "cf") Verbum infinitum, 2nd edition 1983, Linguisti-
sche Arbeiten 139, Niemeyer, Tübingen.
4 Conclusion Bresnan Joan, Ronald M. Kaplan, Stanley Peters,
Annie Zaenen, 1982, “Cross-serial Dependencies
We have shown how to obtain all acceptable in Dutch”, Linguistic Inquiry 13(4): 613-635.
linear orders for German sentences starting Bröker Norbert, 1998, “Separating Surface Order and
from a syntactic dependency tree. To do that Syntactic Relations in a Dependency Grammars”,
we have introduced a new formalism which COLING-ACL’98, 174-180.
constructs phrase structures. These structures
differ from X-bar phrase structures in at least Drach, Erich, Grundgedanken der deutschen Satzleh-
two respects: First, we do not use the phrase re, Diesterweg, Frankfurt, 1937.
structure to represent the syntactic structure of Duchier Denys, Ralph Debusmann, 2001,
the sentence, but only for linearization, i.e. as “Topological Dependency Trees: A Constraint-
an intermediate step between the syntactic and Based Account of Linear Precedence”, ACL 2001.
the phonological levels. Secondly, the nature
of the phrase opened by a lexical element Evers Arnoldus, 1975, The transformational cycle
depends not only on the syntactic position of in Dutch and German. PhD thesis, University of
this element, but also on its position in the Utrecht.
topological structure (e.g. the different be-
Kahane Sylvain, Alexis Nasr, Owen Rambow, 1998,
haviors of a verb in the right bracket vs. in a
“Pseudo-Projectivity: a Polynomially Parsable
major field).
Non-Projective Dependency Grammar”, COLING-
We have to investigate further in various di-
ACL’98, Montreal, 646-52.
rections: From a linguistic point of view, the
natural continuation of our study is to find Kathol Andreas, 1995, Linearization-based German
out how the communicative structure (which Syntax, PhD thesis, Ohio State University.
completes the dependency tree) restricts us to
certain word orders and prosodies and how to Lenerz Jürgen, 1977, Zur Abfolge nominaler Satz-
incorporate this into our linearization rules. It glieder im Deutschen, TBL Verlag Günter Narr,
would also be interesting to attempt to de- Tübingen.
scribe other languages in this formalism, con- Hudson Richard, 2000, “Discontinuity”, in S. Ka-
figurational languages such as English or hane (ed.), Dependency Grammars, T.A.L., 41(1):
French, as well as languages such as Russian 15-56, Hermès, Paris.
where the surface order is mainly determined
by the communicative structure. However, Mel'ãuk Igor, 1988, Dependency Syntax: Theory and
German is an especially interesting case be- Practice, SUNY Press, New York.
cause surface order depends strongly on both Mel'ãuk Igor, Nicolas Pertsov, 1987, Surface syntax
the syntactic position (e.g. finite verb in V2 or of English – A Formal Model within the Mean-
Vfinal position) and the communicative ing-Text Framework, Benjamins, Amsterdam.
structure (e.g. content of the Vorfeld).
From a computational point of view, we are Müller Stefan, 1999, Deutsche Syntax deklarativ:
interested in the complexity of our formalism. Head-Driven Phrase Structure Grammar für das
It is possible to obtain a polynomial parser Deutsche, Linguistische Arbeiten 394; Niemeyer:
provided that we limit the number of nodes Tübingen.
simultaneously involved in non-projective
Reape M., 1994, “Domain Union and Word Order
configurations (see Kahane et al. 1998 for
Variation in German”, in J. Nerbonne et al.
similar techniques). Such limitations seem
(eds.), German in Head-Driven Phrase Structure
reasonable for Germanic languages (e.g. verb
Grammar, CSLI Lecture Notes 46, Stanford.
Tesnière Lucien, 1959, Eléments de syntaxe structu-
9
The quotation marks indicate that the complemen- rale, Kliencksieck, Paris.
tizing part of the relative pronoun is not a real word,
and hence it does not actually occupy the comple- Uszkoreit Hans, 1987, Word Order and Constituent
mentizer field, and must consequently accommodate Structure in German, CSLI Lecture Notes 8,
another element. Stanford, CA.