Corpus Linguistics - Computational Linguistics
Werbung
Corpus Linguistics Syntactic Searching (2) Motivation for syntax Searching w/ syntax Searching w/ syntax Tregex Corpus Linguistics (L615) Syntactic Searching (2) Corpus Linguistics Syntactic Searching (2) Tregex MaltEval MaltEval TIGERSearch TIGERSearch Meurers & Müller 2007 Fronted Particles Extraposition and Subjacency Multiple Fronting From last time: “search for a form of werden and a predicative adjective in the same sentence” Query: References Meurers & Müller 2007 Fronted Particles Extraposition and Subjacency Multiple Fronting References [word = "w[e$\mid$u]rde([n$\mid$t])?" $\mid$ word = "wirst" $\mid$ word = "wird" $\mid$ word="geworden"] []* [tpos = "ADJD"] within s Markus Dickinson Department of Linguistics, Indiana University With much thanks to Detmar Meurers & Sandra Kübler 2 / 44 1 / 44 Searching in tree structures Corpus Linguistics Syntactic Searching (2) Tools for Syntactic Searching Searching w/ syntax Tregex MaltEval TIGERSearch I I STTS does not distinguish between adverbs and predicative adjectives Meurers & Müller 2007 We will look at three tools: I Fronted Particles Extraposition and Subjacency Multiple Fronting References Predicative adjectives project to an adjectival phrase with grammatical function ”PRED” (predicate) Tregex & Tsurgeon: http://nlp.stanford.edu/software/tregex.shtml I MaltEval: http://w3.msi.vxu.se/∼jni/malteval/ I TIGERSearch: http://www.ims.uni-stuttgart.de/projekte/ TIGER/TIGERSearch/ (no longer maintained) But this information is present in syntactic annotation: I Syntactic Searching (2) Searching w/ syntax Tregex MaltEval A problem for this example: I Too many examples of adverbial use Corpus Linguistics TIGERSearch Meurers & Müller 2007 Fronted Particles Extraposition and Subjacency Multiple Fronting References We will focus on Tregex I Other tools are available, including some of the annotation tools mentioned before 3 / 44 Tregex Corpus Linguistics Syntactic Searching (2) 4 / 44 Tregex Basic example Searching w/ syntax Tregex Two different programs are available: I I Tregex: search for patterns Tsurgeon: change trees MaltEval TIGERSearch Meurers & Müller 2007 Fronted Particles Extraposition and Subjacency Multiple Fronting Multiple ways to run Tregex: References 1. GUI (graphical user interface) 2. Command line 3. Within programs Tutorial at: http://nlp.stanford.edu/software/tregex/ The Wonderful World of Tregex.ppt 5 / 44 Corpus Linguistics Syntactic Searching (2) Searching w/ syntax > ./tregex.sh ’VP < VBZ < NP’ examples/atree Pattern string: VP < VBZ < NP Parsed representation: Root VP and < VBZ < NP Reading trees from file(s) examples/atree (VP (VBZ Try) (NP (NP (DT this) (NN wine)) (CC and) (NP (DT these) (NNS snails)))) There were 1 matches in total. Tregex MaltEval TIGERSearch Meurers & Müller 2007 Fronted Particles Extraposition and Subjacency Multiple Fronting References 6 / 44 Tregex syntax Corpus Linguistics Syntactic Searching (2) Tregex syntax Regular expressions Searching w/ syntax README-tregex.txt lists an extensive list of patterns which can be matched (see also: http: //nlp.stanford.edu/∼manning/courses/ling289/Tregex.html) The basic node descriptions include: Corpus Linguistics Syntactic Searching (2) Searching w/ syntax Tregex Tregex MaltEval Label descriptions can be: TIGERSearch Meurers & Müller 2007 Fronted Particles Extraposition and Subjacency I I literal strings regular expressions, within forward slashes (/regex/’) Multiple Fronting I References This can be very slow! Notes: I A << B (A dominates B) I A < B (A immediately dominates B ) I Special I A $ B (A is a sister of B (and not equal to B)) I I A .. B (A precedes B) @ is used to match only the basic category, e.g., @NP matches NP-SBJ I A . B (A immediately precedes B) I ... MaltEval TIGERSearch Meurers & Müller 2007 Fronted Particles Extraposition and Subjacency Multiple Fronting References string (two underscores) matches any node > ./tregex.sh ’@NP < (PP << (DT $ NNP))’ \ examples/wsj_0001.mrg I ! is used to negate a symbol (e.g., !NP) 7 / 44 Tregex syntax Scope of relations Corpus Linguistics Syntactic Searching (2) Searching w/ syntax Tregex Note the use of parentheses to delineate node descriptions I Also: & can is optional in such cases: S < VP & < NP Note here how the VP is sister to NP-SBJ Syntactic Searching (2) Searching w/ syntax > ./tregex.sh \ ’VP < (VBZ < is) $ (NP-SBJ <<# (Vinken > NNP))’ \ Meurers & Müller 2007 examples/wsj_0001.mrg MaltEval TIGERSearch I Chain of relations Tregex MaltEval In a chain of relations, all relations are relative to the first node in the chain. For example, (S < VP < NP) means an S over a VP and also over an NP. If instead what you want is an S above a VP above an NP, you should write S < (VP < NP). 8 / 44 Corpus Linguistics TIGERSearch Meurers & Müller 2007 Fronted Particles Fronted Particles Extraposition and Subjacency Extraposition and Subjacency Multiple Fronting Multiple Fronting Pattern string: VP < (VBZ < is) $ (NP-SBJ <<# (Vinken > NNP)) Parsed representation: Root VP and < VBZ < is $ NP-SBJ <<# Vinken > NNP ... References References 9 / 44 Tregex syntax Boolean operators Corpus Linguistics Syntactic Searching (2) 10 / 44 Tregex example Searching w/ syntax I I e.g., (NP < NN | < NNS) matches an NP node over either NN or NNS e.g., (NP !<< NNP) matches an NP not dominating NNP Syntactic Searching (2) Searching w/ syntax Tregex Operators over relations: & (and), | (or), ! (negation), ? (optionality) Corpus Linguistics Tregex MaltEval MaltEval TIGERSearch TIGERSearch Meurers & Müller 2007 Meurers & Müller 2007 Fronted Particles Fronted Particles Extraposition and Subjacency Multiple Fronting What does this example from the tutorial do? References Extraposition and Subjacency Multiple Fronting References NP <- /NN.?/ > (PP <<# (IN ![ < of | < on])) To specify operator precedence, [ and ] can group descriptions: I e.g., (NP [< NN | < NNS] & > S) matches an NP: I I I over NN or NNS, and under S “Without brackets, & takes precedence over |, and equivalent operators are left-associative.” 11 / 44 12 / 44 Some command-line options Corpus Linguistics Syntactic Searching (2) Tregex GUI Searching w/ syntax Searching w/ syntax Tregex -C only count matches, don’t print -w print whole matching tree, not just matching subtree -f print filename -i <filename> read search pattern from <filename> rather than the command line Corpus Linguistics Syntactic Searching (2) Tregex MaltEval MaltEval TIGERSearch TIGERSearch Meurers & Müller 2007 Meurers & Müller 2007 Fronted Particles Fronted Particles Extraposition and Subjacency Extraposition and Subjacency Multiple Fronting Multiple Fronting References References -s print each match on one line, instead of multi-line pretty-printing -u only print labels of matching nodes, not complete subtrees -t print terminals only 13 / 44 Tsurgeon Corpus Linguistics Syntactic Searching (2) 14 / 44 Tsurgeon example Searching w/ syntax Tregex MaltEval TIGERSearch Apply delete: VP < PP=prep delete prep Syntactic Searching (2) Searching w/ syntax Tregex MaltEval Tsurgeon allows one to modify trees, e.g., to delete PPs directly under VPs Corpus Linguistics Meurers & Müller 2007 Fronted Particles examples/atree: TIGERSearch Meurers & Müller 2007 (VP (VP (VBZ Try) (NP (NP (DT this) (NN wine)) (CC and) (NP (DT these) (NNS snails)))) (PUNCT .)) Fronted Particles Extraposition and Subjacency Multiple Fronting Extraposition and Subjacency Multiple Fronting References examples/exciseNP: References NP < (NP=np < NNS) < (NP=np1 < NN) NB: the = is used to name nodes, within Tregex & Tsurgeon excise np np excise np1 np1 15 / 44 Tsurgeon example examples/renameVerb: Corpus Linguistics Syntactic Searching (2) 16 / 44 Exercises Searching w/ syntax relabel vbz MYVERB example call & output: Syntactic Searching (2) Searching w/ syntax Tregex VBZ=vbz $ NP Corpus Linguistics Tregex MaltEval MaltEval TIGERSearch TIGERSearch Meurers & Müller 2007 Meurers & Müller 2007 Fronted Particles Fronted Particles Extraposition and Subjacency Extraposition and Subjacency Multiple Fronting Multiple Fronting Let’s work through the exercises here: http://www.ling.ohio-state.edu/∼cbrew/inst08/ptb-search.pdf References > ./tsurgeon.sh -treeFile examples/atree \ examples/exciseNP examples/renameVerb (VP (VP (MYVERB Try) (NP (DT this) (NN wine) (CC and) (DT these) (NNS snails))) (PUNCT .)) 17 / 44 References 18 / 44 MaltEval Corpus Linguistics Syntactic Searching (2) MaltEval Command-line call Searching w/ syntax Searching w/ syntax Tregex Tregex MaltEval MaltEval TIGERSearch TIGERSearch Meurers & Müller 2007 For dependency relations, you could adapt Tregex or TIGERSearch, but some tools exist for basic searching Corpus Linguistics Syntactic Searching (2) Fronted Particles Meurers & Müller 2007 Fronted Particles Extraposition and Subjacency java -jar MaltEval.jar -v 1 -g swedish_talbanken05_test.conll Extraposition and Subjacency Multiple Fronting Multiple Fronting Options include: References MaltEval is designed for comparison of parse output to a gold standard, but can be used to visualize & search through dependency trees References -v allows one to turn the visualization mode on -g specify the gold standard file -s specify the parsed file If visualization is turned on, only one of gold/parsed file needs to be specified 19 / 44 MaltEval Initial visualization Corpus Linguistics Syntactic Searching (2) 20 / 44 MaltEval Searching for a dependency label Searching w/ syntax Corpus Linguistics Syntactic Searching (2) Searching w/ syntax Tregex Tregex MaltEval MaltEval TIGERSearch TIGERSearch Meurers & Müller 2007 Meurers & Müller 2007 Fronted Particles Fronted Particles Extraposition and Subjacency Extraposition and Subjacency Multiple Fronting Multiple Fronting References References 21 / 44 TIGERSearch (If time ...) Corpus Linguistics Syntactic Searching (2) Searching w/ syntax Tregex Graphical search interface: I allows searching in two-dimensional tree structures I 2 forms of query design: I I text mode (logical query language): 22 / 44 TIGERSearch graphical interface Corpus Linguistics Syntactic Searching (2) Searching w/ syntax Tregex MaltEval MaltEval TIGERSearch TIGERSearch Meurers & Müller 2007 Fronted Particles Meurers & Müller 2007 Fronted Particles Extraposition and Subjacency Extraposition and Subjacency Multiple Fronting Multiple Fronting References References #n1:[cat="SIMPX"] >∗ [word=("werden"|"wird")] & #n1 >∗ [pos="ADJD"] graphical mode (construct partial trees) I searchable relations: direct dominance, dominance (transitive closure), direct linear precedence, linear precedence (transitive closure) I limited negations 23 / 44 24 / 44 Searching in tree structures Corpus Linguistics Syntactic Searching (2) Passive Example Corpus Linguistics Syntactic Searching (2) Searching w/ syntax Searching w/ syntax Tregex As with POS annotation, you need to know how phenomena are annotated I Goal: search for forms of “werden” + adjectival phrase with grammatical function PRED (predicate) I I I Result: 504 sentences Inspection of the first 20 sentences: 10 correct sentences, 9 with 2 clauses, 1 passive sentence Tregex MaltEval MaltEval TIGERSearch TIGERSearch Meurers & Müller 2007 Meurers & Müller 2007 Fronted Particles Fronted Particles Extraposition and Subjacency Extraposition and Subjacency Multiple Fronting Multiple Fronting References References Restrict search to both occurrences in the same clause I I Result: 244 sentences Inspection of the first 20 sentences: 18 correct, 2 passives (verb complex not restricted to only head) 25 / 44 Limitations of query tools I We can only search for phenomena that are present in the annotation I Generally, we cannot search for phenomena that involve elided or deleted words, phrases, etc. (unless added) There are particular phenomenon involving negation which are not possible in TIGERSearch: I We cannot search for subjectless sentences, e.g. Ihm ist kalt. (To him is cold.) I I Corpus Linguistics Syntactic Searching (2) Searching w/ syntax Tregex MaltEval 26 / 44 Evasive Strategies Meurers & Müller 2007 Fronted Particles Extraposition and Subjacency I Multiple Fronting References Searching w/ syntax Tregex Assumption: we cannot restrict the verb complex to have only a head (to exclude remaining passives) But actually: TIGERSearch allows to restrict a node to have arity one Determinerless PPs: I Query: find all trees which do not have an NX node that has ON as function label I We cannot search for coordinated sentences with a subject gap in the second conjunct I Syntactic Searching (2) Inchoative werden: I TIGERSearch Corpus Linguistics Meurers & Müller 2007 Fronted Particles Extraposition and Subjacency Multiple Fronting References Assumption: we cannot restrict the NX not to have a determiner But actually: TIGERSearch allows to mark a direct dominance relation to be either the left corner or the right corner I query: find all trees which have a KOORD node and a FKONJ with no NX node that has ON as a function MaltEval TIGERSearch query: find all PXs with NPs where the left corner daughter is not a determiner 27 / 44 Meurers & Müller 2007 (If time ...) Corpus Linguistics Syntactic Searching (2) 28 / 44 Fronted Particles: The Issue Corpus Linguistics Syntactic Searching (2) Meurers & Müller 2007 Searching w/ syntax Searching w/ syntax Tregex Tregex MaltEval I TIGERSearch Meurers & Müller 2007 With some knowledge of how queries work, we can look at further syntactic constructions I Fronted particles I Extraposition & subjacency I Multiple fronting Fronted Particles Extraposition and Subjacency Multiple Fronting Until recently, almost all grammarians assumed that verb particles cannot be fronted, unless it is a predicative particle like auf in aufmachen (open make = ‘to open’). References MaltEval TIGERSearch Meurers & Müller 2007 Fronted Particles Extraposition and Subjacency Multiple Fronting References I Sometimes the non-frontability is even used to define particle verbs. I The claim, however, is not correct as the following example illustrates: (1) Los ging es schon in dieser Woche. part went it already in this week (taz, 11.10.1995) ‘It already started this week.’ 29 / 44 30 / 44 Can We Find Such Examples in a Corpus? Corpus Linguistics Syntactic Searching (2) Refining the Treebank Query Searching w/ syntax Searching w/ syntax Tregex I Basic query: Search for verb particle followed by verb. I I I I Reasoning: Since particle and verb are usually written as one word when realized clause finally, this query finds examples for particles in the Vorfeld. Pro: Query doesn’t require syntactically annotated corpus. Con: False positives, requiring extensive manual filtering. Corpus Linguistics Syntactic Searching (2) Tregex MaltEval MaltEval TIGERSearch Meurers & Müller 2007 The query [pos=”’PTKVZ”’] . [pos=finite] wrongly matches relative and interrogative clauses such as: Fronted Particles TIGERSearch Meurers & Müller 2007 Fronted Particles Extraposition and Subjacency Multiple Fronting References A query based on the German treebank TIGER (Brants et al. 2004): (2) dem Anfang der neunziger Jahre Hohn und Spott which beginning of nineties years mock and sneer zuteil wurde part become Extraposition and Subjacency Multiple Fronting References ‘which were mocked at the beginning of the nineties’ [pos=”’PTKVZ”’] . [pos=finite] A query with more explicit reference to specifics of the syntactic annotation is required to exclude such examples. This searches for a node with part of speech particle immediately preceding a finite verb. 31 / 44 A More Explicit Treebank Query #s:[cat=”’S”’] > #part:[pos=”’PTKVZ”’] & #part . [pos=finite] & #s >@l #leftcorner & #leftcorner:[pos= ! (prorel | prointer | conjunction)] Corpus Linguistics Syntactic Searching (2) Searching w/ syntax Tregex MaltEval TIGERSearch Meurers & Müller 2007 Fronted Particles Extraposition and Subjacency 32 / 44 A More Explicit Treebank Query #s:[cat=”’S”’] > #part:[pos=”’PTKVZ”’] & #part . [pos=finite] & #s >@l #leftcorner & #leftcorner:[pos= ! (prorel | prointer | conjunction)] Multiple Fronting 1. Search for a sentence node (#s) that dominates a particle (#part) Corpus Linguistics Syntactic Searching (2) Searching w/ syntax Tregex MaltEval TIGERSearch Meurers & Müller 2007 Fronted Particles Extraposition and Subjacency Multiple Fronting References 1. Search for a sentence node (#s) that dominates a particle (#part) 2. which is adjacent to a finite verb. 2. which is adjacent to a finite verb. 3. Search for the left edge of the #s. 3. Search for the left edge of the #s. 4. The part-of-speech of the left edge may not be a relative pronoun, interrogative pronoun or conjunction. 4. The part-of-speech of the left edge may not be a relative pronoun, interrogative pronoun or conjunction. Caveat: The more elaborate a query, the stronger its dependence on the specifics and quality of the syntactic annotation. References Caveat: The more elaborate a query, the stronger its dependence on the specifics and quality of the syntactic annotation. 33 / 44 A More Explicit Treebank Query #s:[cat=”’S”’] > #part:[pos=”’PTKVZ”’] & #part . [pos=finite] & #s >@l #leftcorner & #leftcorner:[pos= ! (prorel | prointer | conjunction)] Corpus Linguistics Syntactic Searching (2) Searching w/ syntax Tregex MaltEval TIGERSearch Meurers & Müller 2007 Fronted Particles Extraposition and Subjacency 33 / 44 A More Explicit Treebank Query #s:[cat=”’S”’] > #part:[pos=”’PTKVZ”’] & #part . [pos=finite] & #s >@l #leftcorner & #leftcorner:[pos= ! (prorel | prointer | conjunction)] Multiple Fronting 1. Search for a sentence node (#s) that dominates a particle (#part) Corpus Linguistics Syntactic Searching (2) Searching w/ syntax Tregex MaltEval TIGERSearch Meurers & Müller 2007 Fronted Particles Extraposition and Subjacency Multiple Fronting References 1. Search for a sentence node (#s) that dominates a particle (#part) 2. which is adjacent to a finite verb. 2. which is adjacent to a finite verb. 3. Search for the left edge of the #s. 3. Search for the left edge of the #s. 4. The part-of-speech of the left edge may not be a relative pronoun, interrogative pronoun or conjunction. 4. The part-of-speech of the left edge may not be a relative pronoun, interrogative pronoun or conjunction. Caveat: The more elaborate a query, the stronger its dependence on the specifics and quality of the syntactic annotation. References Caveat: The more elaborate a query, the stronger its dependence on the specifics and quality of the syntactic annotation. 33 / 44 33 / 44 A More Explicit Treebank Query #s:[cat=”’S”’] > #part:[pos=”’PTKVZ”’] & #part . [pos=finite] & #s >@l #leftcorner & #leftcorner:[pos= ! (prorel | prointer | conjunction)] Corpus Linguistics Syntactic Searching (2) Searching w/ syntax Tregex MaltEval TIGERSearch Meurers & Müller 2007 Fronted Particles Extraposition and Subjacency A More Explicit Treebank Query #s:[cat=”’S”’] > #part:[pos=”’PTKVZ”’] & #part . [pos=finite] & #s >@l #leftcorner & #leftcorner:[pos= ! (prorel | prointer | conjunction)] Multiple Fronting 1. Search for a sentence node (#s) that dominates a particle (#part) Corpus Linguistics Syntactic Searching (2) Searching w/ syntax Tregex MaltEval TIGERSearch Meurers & Müller 2007 Fronted Particles Extraposition and Subjacency Multiple Fronting References 1. Search for a sentence node (#s) that dominates a particle (#part) 2. which is adjacent to a finite verb. 2. which is adjacent to a finite verb. 3. Search for the left edge of the #s. 3. Search for the left edge of the #s. 4. The part-of-speech of the left edge may not be a relative pronoun, interrogative pronoun or conjunction. 4. The part-of-speech of the left edge may not be a relative pronoun, interrogative pronoun or conjunction. Caveat: The more elaborate a query, the stronger its dependence on the specifics and quality of the syntactic annotation. References Caveat: The more elaborate a query, the stronger its dependence on the specifics and quality of the syntactic annotation. 33 / 44 Extraposition and Subjacency: The Issue Corpus Linguistics Syntactic Searching (2) 33 / 44 Extraposition is a Non-Local Dependency Adjuncts Searching w/ syntax Tregex TIGERSearch (3) [NP Many books [PP with [stories t]] t’] were sold [that I wanted to read]. (4) [NP Many proofs [PP of [the theorem t]] t’] appeared [that I wanted to think about]. Meurers & Müller 2007 Fronted Particles Extraposition and Subjacency Multiple Fronting References (5) Karl hat mir [ein Bild [einer Frau i ]] gegeben, [die schon Karl has me a picture of.a woman given who already lange tot ist]i . long dead is Tregex MaltEval TIGERSearch Meurers & Müller 2007 Fronted Particles Extraposition and Subjacency Multiple Fronting References (6) Karl hat mir [eine Fälschung [des Bildes [einer Frau i ]]] Karl has me a forgery of a picture of a woman gegeben, [die schon lange tot ist]i . given who already long dead is Baltin (1981) and Chomsky (1986, p. 40): I Syntactic Searching (2) Searching w/ syntax Extraposition may cross arbitrarily many NP boundaries (cf. Müller 1999, 2004): MaltEval Corpus Linguistics Relative clause cannot be related to t, since Subjacency excludes crossing of more than one barrier. (7) Karl hat mir [eine Kopie [einer Fälschung [des Bildes [einer Karl has me a copy of a forgery of a picture of a Frau ist]i . i ]]]] gegeben, [die schon lange tot woman given who already long dead is This view is very common, including recent textbooks (Haegeman 1994, p. 422, Klenk 2003, p. 96, Baltin To Appear). ‘Karl gave me a copy of a forgery of the picture of a woman who has been dead for a long time.’ 34 / 44 Extraposition is a Non-Local Dependency Complements Corpus Linguistics Syntactic Searching (2) 35 / 44 Extraposition is a Non-Local Dependency Complements Searching w/ syntax Tregex I I Some proposals assume that extraposed adjuncts, such as those in the previous example, are base-generated and that coreference/coindexation is established via special mechanisms (Kiss 2005). Meurers & Müller 2007 But it is also possible to extrapose sentential complements: References MaltEval TIGERSearch Fronted Particles Extraposition and Subjacency Multiple Fronting Corpus Linguistics Syntactic Searching (2) Searching w/ syntax (9) Ich habe [von [einem Beweis [der Vermutung i ]]] gehört, I have of the proof of the assumption heard [daßes Zahlen gibt, die die folgenden Bedingungen that it numbers exist which the following erfüllen]i . conditions satisfy Tregex MaltEval TIGERSearch Meurers & Müller 2007 Fronted Particles Extraposition and Subjacency Multiple Fronting References (10) Ich habe [von [dem Versuch [eines Beweises [der I have of the attempt of.a proof of.the Vermutung i ]]]] gehört, [daßes Zahlen gibt, die die heard that it numbers gives that assumption folgenden Bedingungen erfüllen]i . the following conditions satisfy (8) Ich habe [von [der Vermutung i ]] gehört, [daßes I have of the assumption heard that Zahlen gibt, die die folgenden Bedingungen it numbers exist which the following erfüllen]i . conditions satisfy ‘I have heard of the attempt to prove the assumption that there are numbers for which the following conditions hold.’ and such extraposition is equally non-local. 36 / 44 Selectional restrictions of the matrix head have to be ensured so that one cannot avoid establishing a relation between the governing noun and the extraposed element. 37 / 44 Can We Find Such Examples in a Corpus? Corpus Linguistics Syntactic Searching (2) A Query Based on the TIGER Treebank Searching w/ syntax #xp:[cat=”’NP”’] >OC [ ] & [cat=(”’NP”’|”’PP”’)] > #xp & discontinuous(#xp) Tregex MaltEval I A basic query using an unannotated corpus: Search for nouns that take sentential complements + daß I Reasoning: I I I I I We know many verbs that govern an object clause. Heavy clauses tend to be extraposed, so looking for nominalizations that actually appear with the complement clause should provide some results. TIGERSearch Meurers & Müller 2007 Fronted Particles Corpus Linguistics Syntactic Searching (2) Searching w/ syntax Tregex MaltEval TIGERSearch Meurers & Müller 2007 Fronted Particles Extraposition and Subjacency Multiple Fronting References 1. Search for an NP node (#xp), that immediately dominates an object clause (OC). Extraposition and Subjacency Multiple Fronting References 2. #xp is immediately dominated by a NP or PP node. 3. #xp is discontinuous, that is, the object clause is usually extraposed. Pro: Query doesn’t require syntactically annotated corpus. Con: False positives, requiring extensive manual filtering. We get 12 hits in the 2003 version of the Tiger corpus (40018 sentences). Can we improve on this with a query based on a treebank? I We get this result in 1.1 seconds + time for typing the query in comparison to several hours that are needed for the manual approach. 38 / 44 A Query Based on the TIGER Treebank #xp:[cat=”’NP”’] >OC [ ] & [cat=(”’NP”’|”’PP”’)] > #xp & discontinuous(#xp) Corpus Linguistics Syntactic Searching (2) 39 / 44 A Query Based on the TIGER Treebank Searching w/ syntax #xp:[cat=”’NP”’] >OC [ ] & [cat=(”’NP”’|”’PP”’)] > #xp & discontinuous(#xp) Tregex MaltEval TIGERSearch Meurers & Müller 2007 Fronted Particles 1. Search for an NP node (#xp), that immediately dominates an object clause (OC). Syntactic Searching (2) Searching w/ syntax Tregex MaltEval TIGERSearch Meurers & Müller 2007 Fronted Particles Extraposition and Subjacency Multiple Fronting References 1. Search for an NP node (#xp), that immediately dominates an object clause (OC). 2. #xp is immediately dominated by a NP or PP node. 2. #xp is immediately dominated by a NP or PP node. 3. #xp is discontinuous, that is, the object clause is usually extraposed. 3. #xp is discontinuous, that is, the object clause is usually extraposed. We get 12 hits in the 2003 version of the Tiger corpus (40018 sentences). We get 12 hits in the 2003 version of the Tiger corpus (40018 sentences). I Corpus Linguistics We get this result in 1.1 seconds + time for typing the query in comparison to several hours that are needed for the manual approach. I Extraposition and Subjacency Multiple Fronting References We get this result in 1.1 seconds + time for typing the query in comparison to several hours that are needed for the manual approach. 39 / 44 A Query Based on the TIGER Treebank #xp:[cat=”’NP”’] >OC [ ] & [cat=(”’NP”’|”’PP”’)] > #xp & discontinuous(#xp) Corpus Linguistics Syntactic Searching (2) 39 / 44 Multiple Fronting: The Issue Searching w/ syntax Tregex I TIGERSearch Meurers & Müller 2007 German is a V2 Language: Usually only one constituent can be placed in front of the finite verb. (11) a. Extraposition and Subjacency Multiple Fronting References Maria stellt Max Peter vor. Maria introduces Max Peter part MaltEval TIGERSearch Meurers & Müller 2007 Fronted Particles Extraposition and Subjacency Multiple Fronting References ‘Maria introduces Max to Peter.’ 2. #xp is immediately dominated by a NP or PP node. b. * Maria Max stellt Peter vor. Maria Max introduces Peter part 3. #xp is discontinuous, that is, the object clause is usually extraposed. I We get 12 hits in the 2003 version of the Tiger corpus (40018 sentences). I Syntactic Searching (2) Searching w/ syntax Tregex MaltEval Fronted Particles 1. Search for an NP node (#xp), that immediately dominates an object clause (OC). Corpus Linguistics We get this result in 1.1 seconds + time for typing the query in comparison to several hours that are needed for the manual approach. 39 / 44 Sometimes this property of German is used as a constituent test: Those elements that can be fronted together form a constituent. 40 / 44 Corpus Linguistics However, sentences with multiple fronted constituents exist (Müller 2003): (12) [Trocken] [durch die Stadt] kommt man am dry through the city comes one on Wochenende auch mit der BVG. (taz berlin, 10.07.1998) weekends also with the BVG (13) [Gezielt] [Mitglieder] [im Seniorenbereich] wollen die targeted members in.the senior.group wants the Kendoka allerdings nicht werben. (taz, 07.07.1999) Kendoka however not advertise Syntactic Searching (2) Searching w/ syntax Tregex MaltEval TIGERSearch Meurers & Müller 2007 Fronted Particles Can We Find Such Examples in a Corpus? #s:[cat=”’S”’] >HD #fin:[pos=finite] & #s >@l #sleftedge & #s > #vf1 & #vf1 >@l #sleftedge & #s > #vf2 & #vf1 . #vf2 & #vf2 . #fin Corpus Linguistics Syntactic Searching (2) Searching w/ syntax Tregex MaltEval TIGERSearch Meurers & Müller 2007 Fronted Particles Extraposition and Subjacency Extraposition and Subjacency Multiple Fronting Multiple Fronting 1. Search for a sentential node that immediately dominates the finite Verb. 2. #s has a left edge #sleftedge. 3. #s immediately dominates #vf1 4. and #vf1 has the same left edge #sleftedge, that is, #vf1 is the left-most node under #s. 5. #s immediately dominates another node #vf2. 6. #vf1 borders #vf2 7. and #vf2 borders the finite verb. References (14) [Wenig] [mit Sprachgeschichte] hat der dritte Beitrag in little with language.history has the third article in dieser Rubrik zu tun, this group to do (Zeitschrift fà 41 r Dialektologie und Linguistik, 3/2002) References 41 / 44 Can We Find Such Examples in a Corpus? #s:[cat=”’S”’] >HD #fin:[pos=finite] & #s >@l #sleftedge & #s > #vf1 & #vf1 >@l #sleftedge & #s > #vf2 & #vf1 . #vf2 & #vf2 . #fin 1. Search for a sentential node that immediately dominates the finite Verb. 2. #s has a left edge #sleftedge. 3. #s immediately dominates #vf1 4. and #vf1 has the same left edge #sleftedge, that is, #vf1 is the left-most node under #s. 5. #s immediately dominates another node #vf2. 6. #vf1 borders #vf2 7. and #vf2 borders the finite verb. Corpus Linguistics Syntactic Searching (2) Searching w/ syntax Tregex MaltEval TIGERSearch Meurers & Müller 2007 Fronted Particles 42 / 44 Can We Find Such Examples in a Corpus? #s:[cat=”’S”’] >HD #fin:[pos=finite] & #s >@l #sleftedge & #s > #vf1 & #vf1 >@l #sleftedge & #s > #vf2 & #vf1 . #vf2 & #vf2 . #fin Corpus Linguistics Syntactic Searching (2) Searching w/ syntax Tregex MaltEval TIGERSearch Meurers & Müller 2007 Fronted Particles Extraposition and Subjacency Extraposition and Subjacency Multiple Fronting Multiple Fronting 1. Search for a sentential node that immediately dominates the finite Verb. 2. #s has a left edge #sleftedge. 3. #s immediately dominates #vf1 4. and #vf1 has the same left edge #sleftedge, that is, #vf1 is the left-most node under #s. 5. #s immediately dominates another node #vf2. 6. #vf1 borders #vf2 7. and #vf2 borders the finite verb. References References 42 / 44 Can We Find Such Examples in a Corpus? #s:[cat=”’S”’] >HD #fin:[pos=finite] & #s >@l #sleftedge & #s > #vf1 & #vf1 >@l #sleftedge & #s > #vf2 & #vf1 . #vf2 & #vf2 . #fin 1. Search for a sentential node that immediately dominates the finite Verb. 2. #s has a left edge #sleftedge. 3. #s immediately dominates #vf1 4. and #vf1 has the same left edge #sleftedge, that is, #vf1 is the left-most node under #s. 5. #s immediately dominates another node #vf2. 6. #vf1 borders #vf2 7. and #vf2 borders the finite verb. Corpus Linguistics Syntactic Searching (2) Searching w/ syntax Tregex MaltEval TIGERSearch Meurers & Müller 2007 Fronted Particles 42 / 44 Can We Find Such Examples in a Corpus? #s:[cat=”’S”’] >HD #fin:[pos=finite] & #s >@l #sleftedge & #s > #vf1 & #vf1 >@l #sleftedge & #s > #vf2 & #vf1 . #vf2 & #vf2 . #fin Corpus Linguistics Syntactic Searching (2) Searching w/ syntax Tregex MaltEval TIGERSearch Meurers & Müller 2007 Fronted Particles Extraposition and Subjacency Extraposition and Subjacency Multiple Fronting Multiple Fronting 1. Search for a sentential node that immediately dominates the finite Verb. 2. #s has a left edge #sleftedge. 3. #s immediately dominates #vf1 4. and #vf1 has the same left edge #sleftedge, that is, #vf1 is the left-most node under #s. 5. #s immediately dominates another node #vf2. 6. #vf1 borders #vf2 7. and #vf2 borders the finite verb. References 42 / 44 References 42 / 44 Can We Find Such Examples in a Corpus? #s:[cat=”’S”’] >HD #fin:[pos=finite] & #s >@l #sleftedge & #s > #vf1 & #vf1 >@l #sleftedge & #s > #vf2 & #vf1 . #vf2 & #vf2 . #fin 1. Search for a sentential node that immediately dominates the finite Verb. 2. #s has a left edge #sleftedge. 3. #s immediately dominates #vf1 4. and #vf1 has the same left edge #sleftedge, that is, #vf1 is the left-most node under #s. 5. #s immediately dominates another node #vf2. 6. #vf1 borders #vf2 7. and #vf2 borders the finite verb. Corpus Linguistics Syntactic Searching (2) Can We Find Such Examples in a Corpus? Searching w/ syntax #s:[cat=”’S”’] >HD #fin:[pos=finite] & #s >@l #sleftedge & #s > #vf1 & #vf1 >@l #sleftedge & #s > #vf2 & #vf1 . #vf2 & #vf2 . #fin Tregex MaltEval TIGERSearch Meurers & Müller 2007 Fronted Particles Corpus Linguistics Syntactic Searching (2) Searching w/ syntax Tregex MaltEval TIGERSearch Meurers & Müller 2007 Fronted Particles Extraposition and Subjacency Extraposition and Subjacency Multiple Fronting Multiple Fronting 1. Search for a sentential node that immediately dominates the finite Verb. 2. #s has a left edge #sleftedge. 3. #s immediately dominates #vf1 4. and #vf1 has the same left edge #sleftedge, that is, #vf1 is the left-most node under #s. 5. #s immediately dominates another node #vf2. 6. #vf1 borders #vf2 7. and #vf2 borders the finite verb. References References 42 / 44 Can We Find Such Examples in a Corpus? #s:[cat=”’S”’] >HD #fin:[pos=finite] & #s >@l #sleftedge & #s > #vf1 & #vf1 >@l #sleftedge & #s > #vf2 & #vf1 . #vf2 & #vf2 . #fin Corpus Linguistics Syntactic Searching (2) 42 / 44 False Positives Searching w/ syntax Searching w/ syntax Tregex Tregex MaltEval TIGERSearch TIGERSearch Meurers & Müller 2007 I The query unintentionally returns relative and interrogative clauses and parts of coordinations. I It also finds examples with adverbs such as indes, jedoch, wiederum: Fronted Particles Extraposition and Subjacency Making the Query More Precise References I References 42 / 44 43 / 44 Corpus Linguistics Syntactic Searching (2) MaltEval #vf2:[! (word= (”’aber”’ | ”’also”’ | ”’auch”’ | ”’allerdings”’ | ”’dagegen”’ | ”’freilich”’ | ”’hingegen”’ | ”’jedenfalls”’ | ”’jedoch”’ | ”’nämlich”’ | ”’schließlich”’ | ”’wiederum”’))] Fronted Particles Extraposition and Subjacency Multiple Fronting Corpus Linguistics Tregex Since the class of such adverbs is small, one can rule them out explicitly by listing them: Meurers & Müller 2007 (15) Hier wiederum mangelt es an here again lacks it of Opferbereitschaft. readiness to make sacrifice Searching w/ syntax I Syntactic Searching (2) MaltEval Multiple Fronting 1. Search for a sentential node that immediately dominates the finite Verb. 2. #s has a left edge #sleftedge. 3. #s immediately dominates #vf1 4. and #vf1 has the same left edge #sleftedge, that is, #vf1 is the left-most node under #s. 5. #s immediately dominates another node #vf2. 6. #vf1 borders #vf2 7. and #vf2 borders the finite verb. Corpus Linguistics TIGERSearch Meurers & Müller 2007 Fronted Particles Extraposition and Subjacency Multiple Fronting References Baltin, Mark (1981). Strict Bounding. In Carl Lee Baker and John J. McCarthy (eds.), The Logical Problem of Language Acquisition, Cambridge: Massachusetts, London: England: The MIT Press. Baltin, Mark (To Appear). Extraposition, the Right Roof Constraint, Result Clauses, Relative Clause Extraposition, and PP Extraposition. Draft of 23.09.2001. In The Syntax Companion (http:// www-uilots.let.uu.nl/ syncom/ ), Utrecht Institute of Linguistics. Bennis, Hans (1991). Theoretische Aspekten van Partikelvooropplaatsing. TABU Bulletin voor Taalwetenschap 21(3), 89–95. References Syntactic Searching (2) Searching w/ syntax Tregex MaltEval TIGERSearch Meurers & Müller 2007 Fronted Particles Extraposition and Subjacency Multiple Fronting References Bierwisch, Manfred (1963). Grammatik des deutschen Verbs. studia grammatica II. Berlin: Akademie Verlag. Brants, Sabine, Stefanie Dipper et al. (2004). TIGER: Linguistic Interpretation of a German Corpus. Research on Language and Computation 2(4), 597–620. Once we also exclude the relative clauses and coordination sentences, we get: nothing! B”uring, Daniel and Katharina Hartmann (2001). The Syntax and Semantics of Focus-Sensitive Particles in German. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 19(2), 229–281. http://www.linguistics.ucla.edu/people/buring/. Chomsky, Noam (1973). Conditions on Transformations. In Stephen R. Anderson and Paul Kiparski (eds.), A Festschrift for Morris Halle, New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston, pp. 232–286. Chomsky, Noam (1986). Barriers, vol. 13 of Linguistic Inquiry Monographs. Cambridge: Massachusetts, London: England: The MIT Press. 44 / 44 44 / 44 Chomsky, Noam (1993). Lectures on Government and Binding – The Pisa Lectures. No. 9 in Studies in Generative Grammar. Berlin, New York: Mouton de Gruyter, 7th edn. Syntactic Searching (2) Grewendorf, Günther (1988). Aspekte der deutschen Syntax. Eine Rektions”=Bindungs”=Analyse. No. 33 in Studien zur deutschen Grammatik. Tübingen: Gunter Narr Verlag. Syntactic Searching (2) Duden (2005). Grammatik der deutschen Gegenwartssprache, vol. 4. Mannheim, Leipzig, Wien, Zürich: Dudenverlag, 7th edn. Searching w/ syntax Grewendorf, Günther (1990). Verb-Bewegung und Negation im Deutschen. Groninger Arbeiten zur Germanistischen Linguistik 30, 57–125. Searching w/ syntax D”urscheid, Christa (1989). Zur Vorfeldbesetzung in deutschen Verbzweit-Strukturen. No. 1 in FOKUS. Trier: Wissenschaftlicher Verlag. Eisenberg, Peter (1994). Grundriß der deutschen Grammatik . Stuttgart, Weimar: Verlag J. B. Metzler, third edn. Eisenberg, Peter (1999). Grundriß der deutschen Grammatik , vol. 2. Der Satz. Stuttgart, Weimar: Verlag J. B. Metzler. Engel, Ulrich (1977). Syntax der deutschen Gegenwartssprache, vol. 22 of Grundlagen der Germanistik . Berlin: Erich Schmidt Verlag. Corpus Linguistics Tregex MaltEval TIGERSearch Meurers & Müller 2007 Fronted Particles Extraposition and Subjacency Multiple Fronting References Grubačić, Emilija (1965). Untersuchungen zur Frage der Wortstellung in der deutschen Prosadichtung der letzten Jahrzehnte. Ph.D. thesis, Philosophische Fakultät, Zagreb. Haegeman, Liliane (1994). Introduction to Government and Binding Theory. No. 1 in Blackwell Textbooks in Linguistics. Oxford, UK/Cambridge, USA: Blackwell Publishers, second edn. Haider, Hubert (1982). Dependenzen und Konfigurationen: Zur deutschen V”=Projektion. Groninger Arbeiten zur Germanistischen Linguistik 21, 1–60. Engel, Ulrich (1994). Syntax der deutschen Gegenwartssprache, vol. 22 of Grundlagen der Germanistik . Berlin: Erich Schmidt Verlag. 3., völlig überarbeitete Auflage. Corpus Linguistics Tregex MaltEval TIGERSearch Meurers & Müller 2007 Fronted Particles Extraposition and Subjacency Multiple Fronting References Haider, Hubert (1990). Topicalization and other Puzzles of German Syntax. In Günther Grewendorf and Wolfgang Sternefeld (eds.), Scrambling and Barriers, Amsterdam, Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company, no. 5 in Linguistik Aktuell / Linguistics Today, pp. 93–112. Erdmann, Oskar (1886). Grundzüge der deutschen Syntax nach ihrer geschichtlichen Entwicklung, vol. 1. Stuttgart: Verlag der J. G. Cotta’schen Buchhandlung. Reprint: Hildesheim: Georg Olms Verlag, 1985. Haider, Hubert (1991). Fakultativ kohärente Infinitivkonstruktionen im Deutschen. Arbeitspapiere des SFB 340 No. 17, IBM Deutschland GmbH, Heidelberg. Fanselow, Gisbert (1987). Konfigurationalität. No. 29 in Studien zur deutschen Grammatik. Tübingen: Gunter Narr Verlag. Haider, Hubert (1993). Deutsche Syntax – generativ. Vorstudien zur Theorie einer projektiven Grammatik . No. 325 in Tübinger Beiträge zur Linguistik. Tübingen: Gunter Narr Verlag. Fanselow, Gisbert (1991). Minimale Syntax. Groninger Arbeiten zur Germanistischen Linguistik 32. Haider, Hubert (1996). Downright Down to the Right. In Uli Lutz and Jürgen Pafel (eds.), On Extraction and Extraposition in German, Amsterdam: Benjamins, no. 11 in Linguistik Aktuell / Linguistics Today, pp. 245–271. Fanselow, Gisbert (1993). Die R”uckkehr der Basisgenerierer. Groninger Arbeiten zur Germanistischen Linguistik 36, 1–74. 44 / 44 44 / 44 Haider, Hubert (1997a). Precedence among Predicates. The Journal of Comparative Germanic Linguistics 1, 2–41. Haider, Hubert (1997b). Projective Economy. On the Minimal Functional Structure of the German Clause. In Werner Abraham and Elly van Gelderen (eds.), German: Syntactic Problems—Problematic Syntax, Tübingen: Max Niemeyer Verlag, no. 374 in Linguistische Arbeiten, pp. 83–103. Haider, Hubert, Susan Olsen and Sten Vikner (1995). Introduction. In Hubert Haider, Susan Olsen and Sten Vikner (eds.), Studies in Comperative Germanic Syntax, Dordrecht, Boston, London: Kluwer Academic Publishers, vol. 31 of Studies in Natural Language and Linguistic Theory, pp. 1–45. Hoberg, Ursula (1997). Die Linearstruktur des Satzes. In Hans-Werner Eroms, Gerhard Stickel and Gisela Zifonun (eds.), Grammatik der deutschen Sprache, Berlin, New York: Walter de Gruyter, vol. 7.2 of Schriften des Instituts für deutsche Sprache, pp. 1495–1680. Corpus Linguistics Syntactic Searching (2) Searching w/ syntax Tregex MaltEval TIGERSearch Meurers & Müller 2007 Fronted Particles Extraposition and Subjacency Multiple Fronting References Hoeksema, Jack (1991). Theoretische Aspekten van Partikelvooropplaatsing. TABU Bulletin voor Taalwetenschap 21(1), 18–26. Jacobs, Joachim (1986). The Syntax of Focus and Adverbials in German. In Werner Abraham and S. de Meij (eds.), Topic, Focus, and Configurationality. Papers from the 6th Groningen Grammar Talks, Groningen, 1984, Amsterdam, Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company, no. 4 in Linguistik Aktuell / Linguistics Today, pp. 103–127. Jacobson, Pauline (1987). Phrase Structure, Grammatical Relations, and Discontinuous Constituents. In Geoffrey J. Huck and Almerindo E. Ojeda (eds.), Discontinuous Constituency, New York: Academic Press, vol. 20 of Syntax and Semantics, pp. 27–69. 44 / 44 Müller, Stefan (2005). Zur Analyse der scheinbar mehrfachen Vorfeldbesetzung. Linguistische Berichte 203, 297–330. http://www.cl.uni-bremen.de/∼stefan/Pub/mehr-vf-lb.html. 27.03.2013. Neeleman, Ad and Fred Weermann (1993). The Balance between Syntax and Morphology: Dutch Particles and Resultatives. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 11, 433–475. Olsen, Susan (1997a). Pr”adikative Argumente syntaktischer und lexikalischer K”opfe: Zum Status der Partikelverben im Deutschen und Englischen. Folia Linguistica 31(3–4), 301–329. Olsen, Susan (1997b). Zur Kategorie Verbpartikel. Beiträge zur Geschichte der deutschen Sprache und Literatur 119, 1–32. Paul, Hermann (1919). Deutsche Grammatik. Teil IV: Syntax, vol. 3. Halle an der Saale: Max Niemeyer Verlag. 2nd unchanged edition 1968, Tübingen: Max Niemeyer Verlag. Reis, Marga (1976). Reflexivierungen in deutschen A.c.I”=Konstruktionen. Ein transformationsgrammatisches Dilemma. Papiere zur Linguistik 9, 5–82. Rohrer, Christian (1996). Fakultativ kohärente Infinitkonstruktionen im Deutschen und deren Behandlung in der Lexikalisch Funktionalen Grammatik. In Gisela Harras and Manfred Bierwisch (eds.), Wenn die Semantik arbeitet. Klaus Baumg”artner zum 65. Geburtstag, Tübingen: Max Niemeyer Verlag, pp. 89–108. Ross, John Robert (1967). Constraints on Variables in Syntax. Ph.D. thesis, MIT. Reproduced by the Indiana University Linguistics Club. Stiebels, Barbara (1996). Lexikalische Argumente und Adjunkte: Zum semantischen Beitrag verbaler Pr”afixe und Partikeln. studia grammatica XXXIX. Berlin: Akademie Verlag. Corpus Linguistics Syntactic Searching (2) Searching w/ syntax Tregex MaltEval TIGERSearch Meurers & Müller 2007 Fronted Particles Extraposition and Subjacency Multiple Fronting References Kathol, Andreas (1996). Discontinuous Lexical Entries. In Philippe Blache (ed.), Third International Conference on HPSG–Abstracts. 22-24 May 1996. Marseille, pp. 43–44. Kiss, Tibor (1994). Obligatory Coherence: The Structure of German Modal Verb Constructions. In John Nerbonne, Klaus Netter and Carl J. Pollard (eds.), German in Head-Driven Phrase Structure Grammar, Stanford: CSLI Publications, no. 46 in CSLI Lecture Notes, pp. 71–108. Kiss, Tibor (2005). Semantic Constraints on Relative Clause Extraposition. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 23(2), 281–334. Klenk, Ursula (2003). Generative Syntax. Narr Studienbücher. Tübingen: Gunter Narr Verlag. Lötscher, Andreas (1985). Syntaktische Bedingungen der Topikalisierung. Deutsche Sprache 13, 207–229. Lüdeling, Anke (1997). Strange Resultatives in German: New Evidence for a Semantic Treatment. In Ralph C. Blight and Michelle J. Moosally (eds.), Texas Linguistic Forum 38: The Syntax and Semantics of Predication. Proceedings of the 1997 Texas Linguistics Society Conference. Austin, Texas: University of Texas Department of Linguistics, pp. 223–233. Müller, Stefan (1999). Deutsche Syntax deklarativ. Head-Driven Phrase Structure Grammar für das Deutsche. No. 394 in Linguistische Arbeiten. Tübingen: Max Niemeyer Verlag. http://www.cl.uni-bremen.de/∼stefan/Pub/hpsg.html. 27.03.2013. Müller, Stefan (2003). Mehrfache Vorfeldbesetzung. Deutsche Sprache 31(1), 29–62. http://www.cl.uni-bremen.de/∼stefan/Pub/mehr-vf-ds.html. 27.03.2013. Müller, Stefan (2004). Complex NPs, Subjacency, and Extraposition. Snippets 8, 10–11. http://www.cl.uni-bremen.de/∼stefan/Pub/subjazenz.html. 27.03.2013. Stiebels, Barbara and Dieter Wunderlich (1992). A Lexical Account of Complex Verbs. Arbeiten des SFB 282 No. 30, Seminar f”ur Allgemeine Sprachwissenschaft. Universit”at D”usseldorf. Uszkoreit, Hans, Thorsten Brants, Denys Duchier, Brigitte Krenn, Lars Konieczny, Stephan Oepen and Wojciech Skut (1998). Studien zur performanzorientierten Linguistik: Aspekte der Relativsatzextraposition im Deutschen. Kognitionswissenschaft. Themenheft Ressourcenbeschränkungen 7(3), 129–133. van de Velde, Marc (1978). Zur mehrfachen Vorfeldbesetzung im Deutschen. In Maria-Elisabeth Conte, Anna Giacalone Ramat and Paolo Ramat (eds.), Wortstellung und Bedeutung: Akten des 12. Linguistischen Kolloquiums, Pavia 1977, Tübingen: Max Niemeyer Verlag, no. 61 in Linguistische Arbeiten, pp. 131–141. Corpus Linguistics Syntactic Searching (2) Searching w/ syntax Tregex MaltEval TIGERSearch Meurers & Müller 2007 Fronted Particles Extraposition and Subjacency Multiple Fronting References 44 / 44 Corpus Linguistics Syntactic Searching (2) Searching w/ syntax Tregex MaltEval TIGERSearch Meurers & Müller 2007 Fronted Particles Extraposition and Subjacency Multiple Fronting References von Stechow, Arnim and Wolfgang Sternefeld (1988). Bausteine syntaktischen Wissens. Ein Lehrbuch der Generativen Grammatik . Opladen/Wiesbaden: Westdeutscher Verlag. Webelhuth, Gert and Farrell Ackerman (1999). A Lexical-Functional Analysis of Predicate Topicalization in German. American Journal of Germanic Linguistics and Literatures 11(1), 1–61. Wunderlich, Dieter (1984). Zur Syntax der Pr”apositionalphrase im Deutschen. Zeitschrift f”ur Sprachwissenschaft 3(1), 65–99. Zifonun, Gisela (1999). Wenn mit alleine im Mittelfeld erscheint: Verbpartikeln und ihre Doppelgänger im Deutschen und Englischen. In Heide Wegener (ed.), Deutsch kontrastiv. Typologisch”=vergleichende Untersuchungen zur deutschen Grammatik , Tübingen: Stauffenburg Verlag, pp. 211–234. 44 / 44 44 / 44
