Sum: ARG-ST on phrases?

[Adam Przepiorkowski]

Dear HPSGers,

Some time ago, I sent to this list a query about arguments for or against
having ARG-ST on phrases, in addition to having it on words.

I am very grateful for replies to this query to:

David Baxter,
Tibor Kiss,
Bob Levine,
Detmar Meurers,
Stephen Nightingale, and
Steve Wechsler.

Among the answers, there were no arguments *against* having ARG-ST on
phrases.  The arguments, of various strengths, *for* ARG-ST on phrases come
from tough constructions in English (Levine), purpose infinitives in
English (Baxter), Japanese verbal conjunctions (Nightingale), German case
assignment in topicalization constructions (Meurers; he doesn't advocate
the ARG-ST on phrases analysis, though), quantifier scope in German,
Japanese and Korean (Kiss), and possibly from binding facts discussed by
Manning (Wechsler).

There are also two additional arguments from Polish, one concerning
predication from within a non-predicative PP, the other to do with case
agreement between an adjective and a numeral prhase it modifies.

These two arguments, as well as (parts of) replies to my original query can
be found in:

http://www.ipipan.waw.pl/mmgroup/argst.html

Further comments, remarks, bibliographical references, etc., are welcome.

Best,

	Adam

--
           ,
ADAM PRZEPIORKOWSKI
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Polish Academy of Sciences    |office: (+48 22) 363709 ext. 43
ul. J. Ordona 21              |fax:    (+48 22) 376564
01-237 Warszawa               |home:   (+48 22) 6438372
Poland                        |email:  adamp at ipipan.waw.pl
----------------------------------------------------------------------
URL:  http://www.ipipan.waw.pl/mmgroup/ap.html
----------------------------------------------------------------------