%
% GENERATED FROM https://www.coli.uni-saarland.de
%    by   : anonymous
%    IP   : coli2006.lst.uni-saarland.de
%    at   : Mon, 05 Feb 2024 15:43:09 +0100 GMT
%    
% Selection : Author: Andreas_Kathol
%




@InProceedings{Avgustinova:2000_2,
      AUTHOR = {Avgustinova, Tania},
      TITLE = {Arguments, Grammatical Relations, and Diathetic Paradigm},
      YEAR = {2000},
      BOOKTITLE = {7th International Conference on Head-Driven Phrase Structure Grammar, July 22-23},
      PAGES = {23-42},
      EDITOR = {Flickinger, Dan and Kathol, Andreas},
      ADDRESS = {University of California, Berkeley, USA},
      PUBLISHER = {CSLI Publications},
      URL = {http://cslipublications.stanford.edu/HPSG/HPSG00/hpsg00avgustinova.pdf},
      ANNOTE = {COLIURL : Avgustinova:2000:AGR.pdf}
}

@InCollection{De Kuthy:1998_1,
      AUTHOR = {De Kuthy, Kordula},
      TITLE = {Linearization versus Movement: Evidence from German Pied-Piped Infinitives},
      YEAR = {1998},
      BOOKTITLE = {Lexical and Constructional Aspects of Linguistic Explanation},
      EDITOR = {Webelhuth, Gert and Koenig, Jean-Pierre and Kathol, Andreas},
      ADDRESS = {Stanford},
      PUBLISHER = {CSLI Publications},
      URL = {ftp://lt-ftp.dfki.uni-sb.de/pub/papers/local/De_Kuthy98a.ps.gz},
      ABSTRACT = {The paper starts out with the question whether the pied-piping of infinitives in German relative clauses should be analyzed in a linearization-based account or as an unbounded dependency construction. It is then shown that there is clear empirical evidence for a UDC approach. Two different theories for the pied-piping construction are provided: one based on the relative clause analysis of Pollard and Sag (1994, chapter 5), the other on the new proposal for relative clauses by Sag (1997).},
      ANNOTE = {COLIURL : Kuthy:1998:LVM.pdf Kuthy:1998:LVM.ps}
}

@InProceedings{Kordoni:2001,
      AUTHOR = {Kordoni, Valia},
      TITLE = {Linking Experiencer-Subject Psych Verb Constructions in Modern Greek},
      YEAR = {2001},
      BOOKTITLE = {Proceedings of the 7th International Conference on Head-Driven Phrase Structure Grammar (HPSG'00), July 22-23},
      PAGES = {198-213},
      EDITOR = {Flickinger, Dan and Kathol, Andreas},
      ADDRESS = {University of California, Berkeley, USA},
      PUBLISHER = {CSLI Publications},
      URL = {http://cslipublications.stanford.edu/HPSG/HPSG00/hpsg00kordoni.pdf},
      ABSTRACT = {This paper focuses on the semantic properties and the syntactic behaviour of Modern Greek (hence MG) Experiencer-Subject Psych Verb Constructions (hence ESPVCs). MG ESPVCs include verbs like miso (hate), agapo (love), or latrevo (adore), which feature a nominative experiencer in agreement with the verb and an accusative theme (see examples (1)-(3)). MG ESPVCs include also predicates like fovame (fear), which feature an experiencer-subject in agreement with the verb and either an accusative theme (example (4)), or a theme as the object of a prepositional phrase (example (5)). We should underline here that examples (4) and (5) below convey the same meaning. That is, they do NOT differ semantically. 1. O Gianis misi to sholio. 2. the Gianis.N hate.3S the school.A 3. John hates school. 4. 5. O Gianis agapa tin Maria. 6. the Gianis.N loves.3S the Maria.A 7. John loves Mary. 8. 9. O Gianis latrevi tin musiki. 10. the Gianis.N adore.3S the music.A 11. John adores music. 12. 13. I Maria fovate tis kategides. 14. the Maria.N fear.3S the storms.A 15. Mary is afraid of the storms. 16. 17. I Maria fovate me tis kategides. 18. the Maria.N fear.3S with the storms.A 19. Mary is afraid of the storms. 20. The challenge that constructions like the ones in (4) and (5) pose lies on the split syntactic realization of the experienced (hence EXPD) semantic role (i.e., the theme), which in constructions like (4) is syntactically realized as the object of the sentence, while in constructions like (5) it is syntactically realized as the object of a prepositional phrase. Our aim is to propose a unified linking account of the MG ESPVCs. This unified account 1. is based on the assumption that the individual denoted by the object NP (or PP) of the MG ESPVCs is entailed to be semantically underspecified, and 2. makes use of Wechsler's (1995) Notion Rule, Davis and Koenig's (2000) linking theory, as well as Markantonatou and Sadler's (1996) proposal for the linking of indirect arguments.},
      ANNOTE = {COLIURL : Kordoni:2001:LES.pdf}
}

@InProceedings{Müller:2000_4,
      AUTHOR = {Müller, Stefan},
      TITLE = {The Passive as a Lexical Rule},
      YEAR = {2000},
      BOOKTITLE = {Proceedings of the 7th International Conference on Head-Driven Phrase Structure Grammar (HPSG'00), July 22-23},
      PAGES = {247-266},
      EDITOR = {Flickinger, Dan and Kathol, Andreas},
      ADDRESS = {Berkeley, University of California, USA},
      PUBLISHER = {CSLI},
      URL = {http://cslipublications.stanford.edu/HPSG/1/hpsg00mueller.pdf},
      ABSTRACT = {In this paper I show that object to subject raising approaches as suggested by Pollard (1994) and Müller (1999) are problematic since they cannot account for adjective formation in a satisfying way. The approach by Heinz and Matiasek (1994), which is a formalization of Haider's (1986) ideas, cannot account for modal infinitives and control. I develop a lexical rule based approach and it will be shown that this approach also extends to tricky cases of remote passive.},
      ANNOTE = {COLIURL : Muller:2000:PLR.pdf}
}