• Introduction
• Arguments and Modifiers
• Argument Order
• Clause Types
• Comparatives
• Coordination
• Demonyms
• Determiners
• Imperatives
• Interjections
• Possessives
• Pronouns
• Punctuation
• Questions
• Specific Lexical Items
• Tokenization
• request update

er/ci/c’/es gibt

The Dutch adverb er and the Italian adverb ci/c’ are analyzed like English there: normally as a VP/S modifier, but as NP[thr] in the existential construction:

The German existential construction Es gibt X has a different structure; here the pronoun X is syntactically and morphologically unambiguously the object, and the expletive pronoun es is the subject. We analyze it accordingly:

Dutch er is treated as a PP when it is lexically selected by the verb:

so

The English adverb so can function as an anaphoric element in constructions such as do so or think so. In CCGrebank, so then sometimes appears as an argument of the verb with category S[adj]\NP, sometimes as a VP modifier with category (S\NP)\(S\NP). We opt to treat it as an S[adj]\NP argument, also in the case of the corresponding Italian adverb così.

too X for Y

In this construction, for Y is analyzed as a PP argument of too, not of the adjective X. Accordingly with zu X für Y, te X voor Y and troppo X per Y.

her

The German word her (roughly: ago) is analyzed as an adjective with an NP argument:

It’s been X since…

In this English construction, since modifies the verb and is not an argument or modifier of X.

noch/nog

German noch and Dutch nog as in noch ein N, noch einmal, nog een N are analyzed as modifying the NP or VP modifier to their right.

not

The slash of the negation modifier not and its translations should lean towards the negated verb, not towards other verb modifiers:

was für

In the German was für construction (“what kind of…”), für gets category PP/NP and is analyzed as an argument of the wh pronoun: