French and Romanian verbless relative adjuncts are incidental adjuncts which have been described as elliptical relative clauses. We show that this analysis is not empirically adequate and propose an alternative non-elliptical analysis. We analyze verbless relative adjuncts as sentential fragments whose head can be a cluster of phrases. They are marked by a functor phrase which displays selection properties with respect to the head phrase and makes an essential contribution to the semantics of the adjunct. The analysis relies on the interaction of grammatical constraints introduced by various linguistic objects, as well as on a constructional analysis of verbless relative adjuncts distinguishing several subtypes. 'A man, the brother of which has come yesterday'

c. Un livre [dont on parle beaucoup]

'A book which one talks about' d. Un livre [dont il est vrai qu'il coûte cher] 'A book of which it is true that it is expensive'

VRAs' dont shares some of its properties with the complementizer dont. For instance, it cannot be embedded within the fronted constituent as well. However, it

Introduction

Both French and Romanian have verbless adjuncts whose form is reminiscent of relative clauses. These verbless adjuncts are exemplified in (1) for French and in (2) for Romanian. They are characterized by the presence of a fronted constituent (shown in italics) which can either be a prepositional phrase containing a WH form (1a, 2a, 2b) or the form dont in French (1b). We label those constructions Verbless Relative Adjuncts (henceforth VRAs).

(1) a. Trois personnes, [parmi lesquelles Jean], sont venues. French and Romanian VRAs have been described as elliptical relative clauses [START_REF] Grevisse | Le Bon Usage[END_REF][START_REF] Gheorghe | Propozit ¸ia relativȃ[END_REF][START_REF] Gheorghe | Construct ¸ii cu propozit ¸ii relative[END_REF] on the basis of semantic and syntactic similarities with non-restrictive relative clauses (3).

(3) a. Il a écrit de nombreux romans, [dont deux ont été publiés le mois dernier].

'He has written many novels, two of which have been published last month.'

b. El a scris multe romane, [dintre care douȃ au fost publicate luna trecutȃ].

'He has written many novels, two of which have been published last month.'

Part of the data used in this work is based on a corpus study. The French data comes from the French Treebank of Paris 7 [START_REF] Abeillé | Building a treebank for French[END_REF]. Lacking a similar corpus for Romanian, we collected examples from press texts.

The paper is structured as follows. We first focus on the constituency of VRAs. We show that the elliptical analysis of VRAs is not empirically adequate and propose an alternative non-elliptical analysis. Then, we discuss the distributional and functional properties of VRAs before turning to their semantic properties. The analysis is then couched in a constructional version of HPSG (i.e. SBCG, [START_REF] Sag | Sign-Based Construction Grammar: An informal synopsis[END_REF]). The analysis relies on the interaction of grammatical constraints introduced by various linguistic objects, as well as on a constructional analysis of VRAs distinguishing several subtypes.

For reasons of space, properties of VRAs which are the same in both languages are only illustrated for French. Romanian examples are only used when the property is absent or less clear in French.

Constituency

French and Romanian VRAs are constituted of two parts. The first part (labeled the fronted constituent) is reminiscent of the extracted phrase or of the complementizer of a relative clause. The second part (labeled the body) is composed of either a single phrase or of a sequence of phrases which are not related by grammatical functions. We show that an analysis of VRAs as elliptical relative clauses is not empirically supported and propose an alternative analysis.

The fronted constituent

The fronted constituent of VRAs contains lexical items which are found in relative clauses. Those items include forms of the WH lexeme lequel in French and care in Romanian, and the form dont in French. While French lequel and Romanian care are found in interrogative clauses too, French dont is only found in relative clauses apart from its use in VRAs.

The WH forms always appear in prepositional phrases in VRAs. The prepositions heading the fronted constituent all have an abstract partitive meaning similar to that of the preposition among in English. This includes parmi in French and dintre, între, and printre in Romanian.

In both languages, more complex expressions are also found, such as au {premier | second} rang desquels 'in the {first | second} row of which', au sommet desquels 'at the top of which', au sein desquels 'in the middle of which', au centre desquels 'in the center of which' or au nombre desquels 'in the count of which' in French, and în rândul cȃrora 'in the row of which', în mijlocul cȃrora 'in the middle of which' or în fruntea cȃrora 'at the top of which' in Romanian. Although these expressions almost always compositionally denote spatial relations, they are only found with an abstract partitive meaning in VRAs. Note that some of these expressions additionally suggest a ranking among the subparts.

The WH form appearing in the fronted phrase is coreferential with a noun phrase preceding the VRA in the host clause, which we label the licenser (see section 3.1). This is signalled by morphological agreement on the WH form in French: lesquels (MASC) vs. lesquelles (FEM). Agreement cannot be observed in Romanian because both the accusative form care and the genitive plural form cȃrora do not vary in gender.

In French, the fronted phrase can also contain the form dont. Apart from its use in VRAs, the form dont appears only in relative clauses where it has been analyzed as a complementizer [START_REF] Godard | Syntaxe des relatives en franc ¸ais[END_REF].

Like the complementizers que and qui which are also found in relative clauses, the complementizer dont only combines with finite clauses (4a). WH relative clauses on the other hand are not always finite. Unlike prepositional WH forms like duquel 'of which', the complementizer dont cannot be embedded within a filler phrase (4b), and does not show morphological agreement with an antecedent. Finally, complementizer dont marks relative clauses containing a missing constituent which would be marked by the form de (4c) or any proform coreferential with the antecedent of the relative clause, as long as the proform is embedded under a propositional attitude predicate, such as penser 'to think' or être vrai 'to be true' (4d). is unclear whether other selection properties of the complementizer are shared by VRAs' dont. Since an elliptical analysis of VRAs is not empirically adequate (see section 2.3), we argue that it is not the case. Moreover, while complementizer dont is assumed to have no semantic contribution, such a statement is hard to make for VRAs' dont since it forces a partitive semantics (5), although the partitive semantics may also be assumed to be constructionally introduced in VRAs.

(5) a.

The body

The body of VRAs is constituted of either a single phrase or a sequence of phrases.

When the body is a single phrase, it can be either a noun phrase in the citation form (i.e. no prepositional marking in French and Romanian and nominative case in Romanian) or a phrase of any category whose form parallels the corresponding phrase in the host clause. Not every VRA type allows for the two options. In French, WH VRAs do not allow for marked single phrases and dont VRAs disprefer it. Dont VRAs with a single marked constituent are not as bad as their WH VRA counterparts and can be improved with adverbs, such as notamment 'notably' (7).

(7) Un jeune homme annonce à diverses personnes sa mort prochaine, [{*parmi lesquelles | % dont} notamment à un psychiatre qui décide de l'aider]. 'A young man announces his imminent death to several people, {among which | DONT} notably to a psychiatrist who decides to help him.'

In Romanian, dintre is incompatible with preposition or case marking (8a)1 , while no such restriction is found with printre and între as long as the adverb s ¸i 'also ' precedes them (8b) The body of a VRA can also be constituted of a sequence of phrases (i.e. a cluster). Three types need to be distinguished. Clusters of type I mimick the syntax of the host clause. In those clusters, each of the phrases has to be marked like the correponding phrase in the host clause (9a). Clusters of type II contain a noun phrase in the citation form and a predicative phrase expressing a property of that noun phrase (9b). Clusters of type III are only found in VRAs whose licenser is a past participle used to express a functional property assumed by some individuals within a event. For example, un blessé 'an injured person' is the patient of an event in which someone gets hurt. In clusters of that type, the event relation of the cluster is contributed by the past participle. As a result, adverbs, rather than adjectives, are used to modify that relation (9c). Fronted phrases show selection properties regarding the type of the cluster they combine with. For instance, in French VRAs with parmi, at least one phrase in the cluster must be a noun phrase. These properties of fronted phrases combined with properties of clusters of type I can result in ungrammaticality (10).

(10) J'ai parlé à plusieurs personnes hier, [{dont | *parmi lesquelles} à Marie de linguistique].

'I spoke with several people yesterday, of which with Mary about linguistics.'

VRAs are not elliptical relative clauses

VRAs are usually referred to as elliptical relative clauses. However, an elliptical analysis of VRAs faces two kinds of problems. Under an elliptical approach, VRAs are assumed to be relative clauses which have the additional property of having some of their syntactic or phonological material removed. An elliptical analysis is of interest if, and only if, (I) one can reconstruct a relative clause from any VRA in a regular fashion and (II) the semantic properties of VRAs are the same as that of relative clauses. We argue that none of these conditions are verified.

Arguments against syntactic reconstruction

There are at least three options for the reconstruction of a verbal form in VRAs. For an example like (11), the first option is to reconstruct a verbal form of the same lexeme as the verb of the host clause of the VRA (11b). This is the obvious option when the VRA contains a cluster of type I. The second option is the reconstruction of an existential verb (11c). The third option is the reconstruction of a quotation verb (11d). In some cases, none of these options will work.

( Within a syntactic reconstruction approach, the choice of a verbal form is dependent on lexical constraints, such as subcategorization properties, which are not correlated with semantic properties. For instance, it is possible to reconstruct the verb figurer 'to appear' within a parmi VRA but not in a dont VRA, because figurer can subcategorize a PP marked by parmi but not a PP marked by de. The reverse is true for an expression such as faire partie de 'to belong to'.

VRAs do not have the same semantic properties as relative clauses

Non-restrictive relative clauses behave semantically like independent clauses that contain a proform [START_REF] Arnold | Non-Restrictive Relative Clauses in Construction Based HPSG[END_REF]). As a result, their semantic contribution is largely independent from that of their host clause. This is not the case for VRAs, as shown by the contrast in (12). While the sequence of utterances in (12a), which contains a relative clause, is coherent, the sequence in (12b) is contradictory because whales are said both to have and not to have apparent ears. This is so because VRAs are sentential fragments (see section 4.3). Thus, only a syntactic reconstruction which reproduces the content of the host clause is compatible with the semantics of VRAs. However, this kind of reconstruction is most often impossible on syntactic grounds. Another problem faced by the elliptical account is that it predicts that some VRAs should be well-formed, while they are ill-formed for semantic reasons. This is so because the elliptical account assumes that the partitive semantics of VRAs comes from the elided verbal predicate rather than from the fronted phrase. In Romanian, the preposition dintre cannot cooccur with a body containing a referential noun phrase such as a definite one. However, a verb form can be reconstructed without difficulty yielding a well-formed relative clause (13).

Non-elliptical alternative

Non-elliptical analyses differ from elliptical ones in that they do not link form constraints on clusters (such as those exhibited by clusters of type I) to the presence of a syntactic head in the structure. As a result, they make no prediction on the distribution of clusters. We assume that the body of VRAs has exactly the structure it seems to have at first sight: it has a flat structure and has no syntactic head. As for VRAs as a whole, we argue in favor of an analysis in which the body is the head and the fronted phrase is a functor phrase.

The selection properties of VRAs are best attributed to the body. This is so because most of the phrases functioning as the body in VRAs can also function as incidental adjuncts alone with a similar semantics. This is especially the case of those which contain adverbials such as notamment 'notably' (14a) or are coordinated structures (14b). ( 14 The selection properties of VRAs are distinct from those of the fronted phrase. Apart from the French form dont whose category is unclear, the fronted constituent is always a prepositional phrase. A preposition like parmi 'among' in French introduces a semantic relation between two arguments, one of which is typically realized as a complement (e.g. lesquelles in ( 15)). The other argument (the external argument) is usually not realized within the preposition phrase itself. Rather it is selected for by the prepositional phrase. In VRAs, the external argument of the fronted phrase is realized within the body (e.g. Jean in ( 15)). Thus, it is reasonable to assume that the selection properties of the fronted phrase and those of the VRA are distinct and therefore not to analyze the fronted phrase as the head. Following Van Eynde 2003, we use the function functor, which replaces the functions specifier, marker and (prehead) adjunct. Functors select a head and are able to mark it, hence modifying its distribution. The fronted phrase is best analyzed as a functor because (I) it must appear before the body (unlike other adjuncts, such as notamment 'notably'), (II) it displays selection properties, and (III) (at least in certain cases) it modifies the distribution of the phrase it combines with.

Function in the host phrase

VRAs are incidental adjuncts. They are linearized within a host phrase which must contain a noun phrase introducing a sum-denoting entity. That noun phrase is labeled the licenser. The syntactic relation between the VRA and its licenser is submitted to both linear order and locality constraints.

Properties of the licenser

The licenser must denote a plural entity whose subparts are accessible (i.e. an entity which can be described as a sum of entities) [START_REF] Lasersohn | Plurality, Conjunction and Events[END_REF]. This does not entail that the licenser of a VRA will always have plural morphology (16). In most corpus examples however, the licenser is a plural indefinite.

(16) Un important volume de gaz s'est échappé du cratère, [dont environ 25% de dioxyde de soufre].

'A great volume of gaz has been released from the crater, including about 25% of sulfur dioxide.'

The licenser can be a dependent of a head of any category (17a) and assume any function including adjunct (17b). In some cases, it might be tempting to describe a VRA as having two licensers or more (18). This analysis is only possible when the fronted phrase does not make it explicit which of the noun phrase is truly the licenser of the VRA. We will come back to the analysis of these examples later in section (4.3).

(18) J'ai offert des cadeaux à plusieurs personnes, [dont un livre à Marie].

'I have offered presents to many people, among which a book to Mary.'

Ordering and locality constraints

The constraints on the linearization of VRAs need to make reference to the relative linearization of their licenser, as well as to the syntactic structure of their host.

VRAs must follow their licenser (19a). If the licenser is a dependent of a clause's head, the VRA can be linearized anywhere in the clause after the licenser (19b). However, if the licenser is not a dependent of a clause's head, the VRA needs to follow its licenser directly (19c). 'The fact that two people come, among which Mary, has not surprised me.'

Note that if a VRA contains a cluster of type I, the VRA must follow every phrase of the host clause which is paralleled in the cluster. VRAs are also at least compatible with 'comma intonation'. Thus, they are a kind of incidental adjuncts, incidentality being defined as a syntactic property which correlates with both phonological and linearization properties [START_REF] Bonami | Incidental adjuncts: an overlooked type of adjunction[END_REF].

VRAs can be associated with two distinct semantics. Although VRAs always introduce a subpart of the sum individual denoted by their licenser, the referential properties of the introduced subpart are not always the same. VRAs are non-restrictive modifiers which, unlike most other non-restrictive modifiers, must scope under propositional attitude verbs. This is explained by the fact that VRAs are sentential fragments.

VRAs have a partitive semantics

VRAs always introduce an entity which must be interpreted as a subpart of the sum individual denoted by their licenser. Sum individuals are not always composed of atomic parts. As a result, a noun phrase containing a mass noun can function as the licenser of a VRA (16). Quantified noun phrases which do not denote sum individuals are not suitable licensers for VRAs (22). 'Several people have come, among them their dog.'

VRAs can have two distinct semantics depending on the referential properties of the introduced subpart. Exemplifying VRAs introduce a subpart which is referential (i.e. It can be identified independently of the fact that it is a subpart of a sum individual) (24a). This is the case of the noun phrases Marie and Jean in (24a). Partitioning VRAs, on the other hand, introduce a subpart which is not referential but can be defined within the sum individual as having some properties which are not shared by other subparts. The property in question can be a property of the entity which is the subpart or a property of the subevent in which the subpart takes part (24b). One of the most striking differences between exemplifying and partitioning VRAs is that only the latter can introduce a list of subparts which are coextensive with the sum individual denoted by the licenser (24b). Within a noun phrase coordination, it is sufficient that one of the noun phrases be non referential in order for the partitioning semantics to be available (25). 'Take two objects, that bottle and {a | that} knife.'

The semantics of the head of the fronted phrase also plays a role in the semantics of the VRA. In French, parmi is always exemplifying, while dont can be exemplifying or partitioning. In Romanian, dintre is always partitioning, while printre and între can be both exemplifying or partitioning. These lexical properties can be observed in other uses of the prepositions as well ( 26).

VRAs have a non-restrictive semantics

Restrictive modifiers have an intersective interpretation and therefore introduce an implicit 'contrast set', which can be accessed by anaphors like the others [START_REF] Arnold | Non-Restrictive Relative Clauses in Construction Based HPSG[END_REF]). Non-restrictive modifiers, on the other hand, are not intersective modifiers and introduce no such 'contrast set'. VRAs are non-restrictive modifiers of their licenser as well as of their host. The VRA in (27) does not restrict the set of Mary's friends to the one including John. Therefore, there is no possible antecedent for the other friends of Mary. Neither does the VRA in (27) restrict the event denoted by the host clause to the event such that Some friends of Mary came and John came as opposed to another event such that Some friends of Mary came but John didn't.

(27) Certains amis de Marie, [parmi lesquels Jean], sont venus. #Les autres amis de Marie viendront demain. 'Some friends of Mary's have come, among which John. The others friends of Mary will come tomorrow.'

Unlike most non-restrictive modifiers, the content of VRAs is part of the asserted content of the utterance containing them. As a result, VRAs which are linearized within a clause which is itself in the scope of a propositional attitude verb must be interpreted in the scope of that verb too. Thus, (28) entails that Peter believes that vervain can heal ulcers but not that it is actually true or even that the speaker believes it.

(28) Pierre croit que certaines plantes, [dont la verveine], soignent les ulcères.

'Peter believes that some plants, vervain among them, can heal ulcers.'

VRAs are sentential fragments

VRAs are sentential fragments and describe a subevent of the event denoted by their host clause. This is especially clear in partitioning examples where the subpart is not defined by a property of the subpart itself but by a property of the subevent (24b). However, this is also true of exemplifying examples as can be seen by the ungrammaticality of (29) in which a VRA is embedded within a non-event for which no subevent can be defined.

(29) *Aucun représentant de ces quatre pays, [dont le Brésil], n'a participé à la conférence.

'No representative of those four countries, among which Brasil, has attended the conference'

VRAs can appear in declarative, imperative (25) or interrogative clauses. In interrogative clauses, they share their abstracted parameter with the host clause and thus can be used as a hint. In (30), if one can answer the question about France, then one can answer the question about countries of the OECD too. The hint is that knowledge about France is sufficient to answer the question.

(30) En quelle année, plusieurs pays de l'OCDE, [dont la France], ont-ils signé ce traité? 'In which year, several countries of the OECD, among which France, did sign this treaty?'

The fact that VRAs are sentential fragments allows one to account for cases where VRAs seem to have several licensers as cases where VRAs have only one licenser but also introduce a sum-subpart relation because the event they introduce is a subevent of the one introduced by the host. In that kind of implied sub-subpart relation, the corresponding element in the host does not need to denote a sumindividual at all (31).

(31) Paul a offert un cadeau à plusieurs personnes, [dont un livre *(à Marie)].

'Paul has offered a present to several people, among which a book (to Mary).'

HPSG Grammar Fragment

The properties of VRAs are best analyzed as resulting from the interaction of various syntactic and semantic constraints applying on distinct linguistic objects. An HPSG grammar fragment accounting for the properties of VRAs minimally requires (I) a theory of fragments, (II) a theory of clusters, and (III) a theory of locality of selection. Several aspects of the grammar introduced here are constructional in nature. The analysis is couched in a constructional version of HPSG, namely SBCG [START_REF] Sag | Sign-Based Construction Grammar: An informal synopsis[END_REF].

A theory of fragments

Fragments are expressions which convey a semantic content which is not given by their form alone. Rather, the semantic content conveyed by a fragment is a function of (I) the type of the fragment, (II) the semantic content of the constituent(s) in the fragment, and (III) contextual information which can be linguistic in nature or not [START_REF] Fernández | Classifying Non-Sentential Utterances in Dialogue: A Machine Learning Approach[END_REF].

A sentential fragment such as the short question when in (32a) is interpreted as having the same semantic content as the clause when she will come in (32b). This semantic content comes in part from the type of the fragment (short questions have the same content type as interrogative clauses, i.e. a propositional abstract), the semantic content of the constituent(s) in the fragment (when provides the paramater for the propositional abstract), and contextual information (Mary will come functions as the antecedent of the fragment providing the proposition used to build the propositional abstract).

(32) a. Mary will come but nobody knows [when].

b. Mary will come but nobody knows [when she will come].

More generally, fragments are reminiscent of description anaphora, as opposed to instance anaphora. In instance anaphora, what is shared between an anaphoric expression and its antecedent(s) are indices. In description anaphora, what is shared is some aspects of the description of the antecedent(s) which apply to a new entity with a different index. This is the case with one anaphora in English (33) [START_REF] Arnold | Non restrictive relative clauses, ellipsis and anaphora[END_REF].

(33) Here is a small red mugs with flowers and here is a bigger one.

In all of these cases, computing the semantics of the fragment can be achieved by expressing constraints between four semantic representations: two complete ones (the meaning of the antecedent and the meaning of the fragment) and two partial ones (the content which is anaphorically shared between the antecedent and the fragment, and the content which is given by the constituents in the fragment).

We use MRS [START_REF] Copestake | Minimal Recursion Semantics: An Introduction[END_REF]) to represent incomplete semantic representations as the underspecification of a complete semantic representation. In MRS, meaning is represented as bags of elementary predications. Connection between these elementary predications is achieved through index-sharing and labelsharing. MRS representations are suitable to express partial meaning.

For an example such as (34), we want to obtain the four bags of elementary predications in (35). The bags are related by two meta-constraints (bag unification and bag intersection) shown at the bottom of figure ( 35).

(34) Plusieurs personnes sont venues, [dont Marie hier].

'Several people have come, of which Mary yesterday.'

(35)                                            ANTECEDENT A         HOOK IND 1 RELS A ′ message-rel IND 1 ,    come-rel IND 1 ARG1 2   , several-rel IND 2 , person-rel IND 2         VARIABLE B         HOOK IND 5 RELS B ′ message-rel IND 5 ,    come-rel IND 5 ARG1 ind            FRAGMENT C      HOOK IND 3 RELS C ′ message-rel IND 3 , name-rel IND 4
, yesterday-rel

IND 3      CONTENT D         HOOK IND 3 RELS D ′ message-rel IND 3 ,    come-rel IND 3 ARG1 4   , name-rel IND 4
, yesterday-rel

IND 3                                                    • A ′ ∩ D ′ = B ′ • B ′ ∪ C ′ = D ′
Bag unification: Let A, B and C be bags of elementary predications. A is the unification of B and C iff each element R in A, Q in B and S in C appears in either: (I) a pair <R,Q> where R and Q have the same description, (II) a pair <R,S> where R and S have the same description or (III) a triple <R,Q,S> where R is the unification of Q and S. No element appears in more than one tuple.

Bag intersection: Let A, B and C be bags of elementary predications. A is the intersection of B and C iff (I) B is a possible result of the unification of A and B (i.e. using only triples), (II) C is a possible result of the unification of A and C and (III) there is bag A' such that B is a possible result of the unification of A' and B, C is a possible result of the unification of A' and C and A' has more element than A.

The use of condition III in bag intersection is motivated by the fact that VRAs have a greedy interpretation (i.e. they share everything with their antecedent except what is literally introduced by the fragment). Note that in the two meta-constraints, elementary predications can only be unified if they have the exact same type.

The account is integrated within an HPSG grammar using a feature FRAG-MENT. The value of the feature FRAGMENT has two features: ANTECEDENT and VARIABLE which are of type sem-obj (36).

(36

)                 MTR           SEM RELS 1 C-SEM RELS 2 FRAGMENT    ANTECEDENT RELS 3 VARIABLE RELS 4              DTRS SEM RELS 5 , SEM RELS 6 , ...                 • 3 ∩ 1 = 4 • 4 ∪ union 5 , 6 , 2 = 1
Additional constraints on the semantics of fragments come from the syntaxsemantics interface. Constraints can be imposed on by clusters or by the VRAconstruction. Incomplete meaning for the fragment (i.e. bags of elementary predications that cannot be mapped into a connex graph) should be excluded as well.

A theory of clusters

Clusters are sequences of phrases which are not related by functions but nevertheless display constituent properties. Clusters are fragments but the reverse is not always true. The fragment when in (32a), for instance, is composed of a single phrase.

Clusters do not always have the same distribution as a headed phrase with a similar semantic content. For French, it has been noticed that some items or constructions are compatible with clusters which are sentential fragments but not with clauses. This is the case of the conjunction ainsi que 'as well as', which may combine with a cluster but not with a finite clause (Abeillé andGodard 1996, Mouret 2006).

(37) Paul offrira un livre à Marie, ainsi qu'(*il offrira) un CD à Paul.

'Paul will offer a book to Mary, as well as (he will offer) a CD to Paul.' Some cluster types are submitted to form constraints which instantiate lexical knowledge about subcategorization properties of lexical items which are not realized within the cluster.

That property leads [START_REF] Ginzburg | Interrogative Investigations: the form, meaning and use of English interrogatives[END_REF] to analyze sentential fragments as single daughters of a phrase with full clausal properties including the syntactic category VERB. This is problematic for VRAs because sentential fragments and clauses do not have the same distribution. We use the definition given by Mouret 2006 (38). The feature CLUSTER allows one to select or subcategorize for a sign which is a cluster.

(38) cluster-cxt ⇒ phrasal-cxt &       MTR   SYN   CAT cluster CLUSTER 1     DTRS 1 list sign      
Several constraints can be expressed on clusters, such as the fact that they must contain a noun phrase in the citation form or that their form instantiates knowledge about the subcategorization of a word which is not present in the structure (39).

(39

) NP-cluster-cxt ⇒ cluster-cxt &        MTR        SYN       CAT       CLUSTER contains          SYN     CAT noun CASE nominative MRKG det                                       
We will assume that VRAs with only one phrase in the body have a unary cluster body because it allows one to express generalizations in a simplified way.

A theory of locality of selection

The selection properties of VRAs and the selection properties of their fronted phrase are submitted to the same kind of locality constraints. When a VRA modifies a clause, the licenser of the VRA must be a direct dependent of the clause's head. When a fronted phrase modifies a cluster, the phrase introducing a subpart of the plural entity denoted by the antecedent must be a direct daughter of the cluster.

In order to state these locality constraints on selection, we introduce a setvalued feature ANCHORS which contains indices of semantic entities which are accessible to adjunct selection. This feature was originally proposed by [START_REF] Kiss | Semantic constraints on relative clause extraposition[END_REF] to analyze extraposed relative clauses. The two following constraints on the propagation of anchors are introduced. Constraint (40) ensures that only direct dependents of a clause's head are accessible via the anchor set on the level of the clause. In (40) and ( 41), c stands for the predicate contains which is a relation expressing that a list contains some element. In both constraints, the element contained in the antecedent of the constraint in universally quantified.

(40

)         word DEPS c          SEM     HOOK    anchor LABEL 1 IND 2                         ⇒      MTR      SEM     ANCHORS c        anchor LABEL 1 IND 2                     
Constraint (41) ensures that only direct daughters of a cluster are accessible via the anchor set on the level of the clause. Another virtue of the anchor constraints is that they restrict semantic selection to material which is literally introduced in the cluster. Thus, reconstructed semantic relations are not available for semantic selection.

(41

)         cluster-cxt DTRS c          SEM     HOOK    anchor LABEL 1 IND 2                         ⇒      MTR      SEM     ANCHORS c        anchor LABEL 1 IND 2                     

A theory of VRAs

We analyze VRA constructs as subtypes of the head-functor construct as defined in [START_REF] Van Eynde | On the Notion 'Determiner[END_REF][START_REF] Sag | Sign-Based Construction Grammar: An informal synopsis[END_REF]. Functors have two main properties. They select the head sign and contribute a mark to the construct (42).

(

) hd-func-cxt ⇒ hd-cxt &                MTR   SYN VAL 1 MRKG 2   DTRS   SYN   CAT SELECT 3 MRKG 2     , 3 HD-DTR 3 SYN VAL 1                42
The VRA construct itself is defined in (43). The head of the construct is a sentential fragment. It is selected for by the fronted phrase which contributes a sum-subpart relation which is characteristic for the construction. The sum-subpart relation is assumed to have a partitioning subtype and an exemplifying subtype. The construction itself contributes a second subpart relation which links the event denoted by the host clause to that introduced by the sentential fragment. The construction also selects a nominal licenser. Notice the use of the set ANCHORS to express the locality of selection of the fronted phrase and of the VRA construct.

(43) VRA-cxt ⇒ phrasal-cxt & hd-fun-cxt &                                                              MTR                    SYN      CAT 1   SELECT SEM ANCHORS contains( IND 2 )   VAL 3      SEM HOOK IND 7 C-SEM     RELS    sum-subpart-rel SUBPART 7 event SUM 6 event                           HD-DTR 4                      SYN    CAT 1 VAL 3 MRKG none    SEM B    HOOK IND 7 ANCHORS contains( IND 8 )    FRAGMENT    ANTECEDENT A HOOK IND 6 VARIABLE C    GAP {}                      DTRS            SEM           HOOK LTOP 5 RELS      sum-subpart-rel LABEL 5 SUBPART 8 SUM 2                           , 4                                                             
WH-VRA-construct is a subtype of VRA-construct. The fronted phrase of a VRA-construct contains a WH form which is coreferential with the nominal antecedent of the VRA-construct (44).

(44

) WH-VRA-cxt ⇒ VRA-cxt &            MTR   SYN   CAT   SELECT   SEM ANCHORS contains IND 1           DTRS   WH HOOK IND 1   , sign           
The prepositions functioning as the head of the fronted phrase of a WH-VRAconstruct have the following lexical properties (45). They have an argument structure containing two elements, one of which is an internal argument realized as the complement of the preposition. The other argument is the external argument of the preposition and is not realized as a dependent of the preposition. Rather the preposition selects for a phrase which contains an anchor coindexed with its external argument. Finally the preposition has to introduce a sum-subpart relation between its two arguments: the internal argument denoting a sum and the external a subpart of that sum. Prepositions may differ regarding the exact type of sum-subpart relation. Some introduce an exemplifying relation (Fr. parmi), some a partitioning one (Ro. dintre), some an underspecified one (Ro. printre and între).

(45) PARMI-word ⇒ word &                                                                              ARG-ST 1         syn    cat noun VAL MRKG det    SEM HOOK IND 3         , 2         SYN    CAT noun VAL MRKG det    SEM HOOK IND 4         SYN           CAT       preposition XARG 1 SELECT SEM ANCHORS contains( IND 3 )       VAL 2           SEM          HOOK LTOP 5 RELS     
exemplifying-sum-subpart-rel

LABEL 5 SUBPART 3 SUM 4                                                                                           
We assume that dont is a marker which has no argument structure but introduces an underspecified sum-subpart relation, although it could also be introduced constructionally. Dont selects for a phrase which (I) contains an anchor for the subpart argument of its sum-subpart relation and (II) selects for a phrase containing an anchor for the sum argument of its sum-subpart relation.

                                                    SYN            CAT      SELECT      SYN | CAT | SELECT | SEM | ANCHORS contains IND 4 SEM | ANCHORS contains IND 3           VAL MRKG dont            SEM           HOOK LTOP 5 RELS                 sum-subpart-rel LABEL 5 SUBPART 3 SUM 4                                                                               
With the entry in (46) for dont, the only thing that must be stated in the subtype DONT-VRA-cxt is that the mother of the construct has a feature MRKG whose value is dont (47). Subtypes of VRAs must include constraints on the syntax of the head. For example, French WH VRAs must constrain one of the phrases in the cluster to be a noun phrase and link the index of that noun phrase to the subpart feature of the sum-subpart relation expressed by the fronted phrase.

Conclusion

VRAs are incidental adjuncts. Like other incidental adjuncts, they are licensed within a phrase, as long as their selection properties are satisfied. Adjacency between VRAs and their sum-denoting licenser is not always required, but locality constraints can be formulated nonetheless. VRAs are not elliptical relative clauses. They are sentential fragments which function as adjuncts with two different kinds of partitive semantics (exemplifying vs. partitioning). The partitive semantics is enforced by the presence of a fronted phrase which displays selection properties regarding the phrase it combines with to form the VRA. The body of a VRA can contain a cluster of phrases. Clusters are submitted to internal form constraints which cannot be explained by reconstruction because their distributional properties are distinct from those of their alleged source. Instead, the instanciation of subcategorization knowledge without the realization of a head must be allowed under description anaphora.

  three people(FEM), [among which.FEM John], AUX come 'Three people, among which John, have come.' b. Trois personnes sont venues, [dont une hier]. three people(FEM) AUX come, [DONT one.FEM yesterday] 'Three people have come, one of them yesterday.' (2) a. Au venit trei persoane, [{ printre | între } care (s ¸i) Ion]. AUX come three people, [{among | among} which.ACC (also) John] 'Three people have come, among which (also) John.' b. Au venit trei persoane, [dintre care una ieri]. AUX come three people(FEM), [among which.ACC one.FEM yesterday] 'Three people have come, one of them yesterday.'

  (4) a. * Un livre [dont parler] a book [DONT talk.INF] 'A book which we should talk about' b. Un homme, [le frère { * dont | duquel } est venu hier] a man, [the brother { DONT | of.which } AUX come yesterday]

  (9) a. Certains ont parlé à mes amis, [dont Marie *(à) Marc]. 'Some have spoken with my friends, Mary with Mark.' b. Je vends dix jeux, [dont la plupart encore dans leur boîte]. 'I sell ten games, the majority of them still in their original box.' c. L'accident a fait douze blessés, [dont cinq grièvement]. 'The accident left twelve injured, five of them critically.'

(

  12) a. Non, tu te trompes! Bien que beaucoup de mammifères, [dont les baleines sont un exemple], aient des oreilles apparentes, les baleines n'en ont pas. 'No, you're wrong! While many mammals, of which whales are a example, do have apparent ears, whales do not have any.' b. Non, tu te trompes! Bien que beaucoup de mammifères, [dont les baleines], aient des oreilles apparentes, les baleines n'en ont pas. 'No, you're wrong! While many mammals, whales among others, do have apparent ears, whales do not have any.'

( 13 )

 13 Au venit mai multe persoane, [dintre care {*Maria | o amintim pe Maria}]. 'Many people have come, among which {Mary | one mentions Mary}.'

  (15) plusieurs personnes, [[parmi lesquelles] Jean] several people.FEM.PL [among which.FEM.PL John(MASC.SG)] 'several people, among which John'

  (17) a. Des représentants de plusieurs pays, [dont le Brésil], y assistent. 'Representatives of several countries, among which Brasil, attend it.' b. Je l'ai attendu plusieurs heures, [dont une sous la pluie]. 'I have been waiting for him for several hours, one of which in the rain.'

(

  19) a. ([*Dont Marie]), plusieurs personnes sont venues, ([dont Marie]). 'Several people have come, among which Mary.' b. J'ai demandé à plusieurs personnes hier, [dont Marie], de m'aider un peu. 'I asked several people yesterday, among which Mary, to help me a bit.' c. Des représentants de plusieurs pays, ([dont le Brésil]) se sont réunis, ([*dont le Brésil]). 'Representatives from several countries, among which Brasil, have met.' The relation between a VRA and its licenser obeys the right roof constraint which generally applies on rightwards non-local relations such as extraposition or right dislocation. (20) *Que deux personnes viennent ne m'a pas étonné, [dont Marie].

( 21 )

 21 Plusieurs, ([*dont Marie un livre]), m'ont offert des cadeaux, ([dont Marie un livre]). 'Several have offered me presents, of which Mary a book.'

(

  22) *Tout étudiant doit venir, [dont Marie]. 'Every student must come, among which Mary.' VRAs cannot introduce any other semantic relation between their licenser and the phrase introducing the subpart. Meronymy and possession, for instance, are ruled out (23). (23) *Plusieurs personnes sont venues, [dont leur chien].

(

  24) a. {*Deux | trois} personnes sont venues, [dont Marie et Jean]. '{Two | three} people have come, among which Mary and John.' b. Trois personnes sont venues, [dont une lundi et deux mardi].'Three people have come, one on Monday and two on Tuesday.'

( 25 )

 25 Prends deux objets, [dont cette bouteille et {un | *ce} couteau].

  (26) a. Avem {majoritatea | spionii} printre noi. 'We have {the majority | spies} among us.' (partitioning or exemplifying) b. {majoritatea | *spionii} dintre copii 'the {majority | spies} of the children' (partitioning only)

(

  46) DONT-word ⇒ word & 

  (47) DONT-VRA-cxt ⇒ VRA-cxt & MTR SYN MRKG dont

  Au total, dix livres ont été commandés, [(*dont) tous pour toi]. 'In total, ten books have been ordered, all of them for you.' b. Au total, dix livres ont été commandés, [(dont) deux pour toi].'In total, ten books have been ordered, two of them for you.'The left edge of the fronted phrase must coincide with the left edge of the VRA. It cannot be linearized in or after the body (6a) or be preceded by adverbials (6b).

(6) a. *Plusieurs personnes, [Jean parmi lesquelles], sont venues. 'Several people, among which John, have come.' b. *Plusieurs personnes, [notamment parmi lesquelles Jean], sont venues. 'Several people, among which notably John, have come.'

  11) a. Plusieurs ont eu un cadeau, [dont Marie un livre]. 'Several have had a present, of which Mary a book.' b. *Plusieurs ont eu un cadeau, [dont Marie a eu un livre].

'Several have had a present, of which Mary has had a book.' c. *Plusieurs ont eu un cadeau, [dont est Marie un livre]. 'Several have had a present, of which is Mary a book.' d. *Plusieurs ont eu un cadeau, [dont on cite Marie un livre]. 'Several have had a present, of which one mentions Mary a book.'

† Part of this work has been presented in Bucharest at the 11 th Conference of the English Department. Many thanks to A. Abeillé, D. Arnold, O. Bonami, D. Godard, J-M. Marandin, the audience of the HPSG09 Conference and three anonymous reviewers for helpful discussions or useful suggestions.

Adverbs such as mai ales 'especially' can improve the acceptability of (8a).


Direct quotation raises three major problems for grammatical modelling: (i) the variety of quoted material (which can be a non linguistic behavior, or a sign in a different language), (ii) the embedding of an utterance inside another one, (iii) a special denotation, the content of the quotation being the utterance itself. We propose a unary rule, which turns the quoted material into a linguistic sign whose content is itself a behavior, which entertains a resemblance relation to the behavior demonstrated by the speaker. Syntactically, direct quotation comes in two varieties: it can be the complement of a quotative verb, or constitutes a head sentence, modified by an adjunct containing a quotative verb whose complement is extracted and identified with its local features.

Introduction

Quotation has recently been amply studied for its implications for the philosophy of language (see [START_REF] Cappelen | Language Turned on Itself[END_REF] and references cited therein), semantics (see e.g. [START_REF] Geurts | Quotation in context[END_REF][START_REF] Potts | The dimensions of quotation[END_REF]) or the foundations of grammar (e.g. [START_REF] Postal | Skeptical Linguistic Essays[END_REF]), as well as for its stylistic and pragmatic effects (particularly in the French tradition). On the other hand, few studies address the question of its grammatical features in any detail. We take up this question for French direct quotation, which we briefly define by comparison with other varieties of quotation. After summarizing [START_REF] Clark | Quotations as demonstrations[END_REF] view of (direct) quotation as 'demonstration', and explaining how it helps understanding its paradoxical pragmatic properties, we propose an HPSG analysis. First, a unary rule, the quotation phrase, turns the quoted material (be it linguistic or not) in a linguistic sign, whose content is a behavior; it accounts for the fact that the quoted material is inserted into the syntax of French, whether it is linguistic or not, and whether it is in French or not, as well as for the special semantic and pragmatic properties of the quotation. Second, the quotation can have two grammatical functions: it is the complement of a quotative verb, or a head clause, modified by an adjunct containing a quotative verb whose complement is extracted, and identified with it. † Aspects of the research reported here were presented at a seminar of the SFB 441 Project A5 at the University of Tübingen (March, 2008), and at the first Congrès Mondial de Linguistique Franc ¸aise (Paris, July 2008) in addition to the HPSG 2008 Conference. We thank for their comments and suggestions the audiences at these events, and in particular Anne Abeillé, Doug Arnold, Tibor Kiss, Frank Richter, Manfred Sailer, and Jan-Philip Söhn, as well as three anonymous reviewers. This research was partially supported by the ANR project PRO-GRAM (http://pro-gram.linguist.jussieu.fr/).

2 What is quotation?

Varieties of quotation

A quotation is an expression in mention, for which the responsible agent is different from the speaker; it is typically signaled by quotes (on writing) or a special prosody (in oral speech). Quotations vary in their pragmatic status. In direct quotation (1a), the speaker reports the speech acts of an agent adopting the perspective of that agent. Thus clause types within the quotation reflect the agent's illocutionary acts, not the speaker's; and indexicals take their reference from the reported speech situation, not from the utterance situation. Hence, the first person possessive determiner mon in (1a) refers to Marie, not to the speaker. Direct quotations contrast with so-called 'indirect quotations' [START_REF] Cappelen | Language Turned on Itself[END_REF], where speech acts are reported from the speaker's perspective, and indexicals are interpreted with respect to the utterance situation; here, reference to Marie is taken up by the third person possessive determiner (1b).1 They also contrast with so-called 'free indirect speech' (1c), where indexicals take their reference in the utterance situation, but clauses types within the quotation do report the quoted agent's illocutionary acts. In (1c), the interrogative clause reports a question that Marie (not the speaker) asks, but it is a third person determiner that refers to her. Finally, they contrast with cases of 'pure quotation' or 'pure mention' (1d), where the quoted material does not stant for a linguistic instance but for a linguistic type: in (1d), blue refers to the word 'blue', not to some agent's utterance of that word. In the remainder of this paper we will concentrate on direct quotation.

(1) a. Marie a dit : "Mon frère est arrivé".

Marie said: "My brother has arrived." b. Marie a dit que son frère était arrivé.

Marie said that her brother had arrived. c. Marie s'interrogeait. Son frère était-il arrivé ?

Marie was wondering. Did her brother arrive? d. Le mot anglais blue veut dire "bleu". The English word blue means 'blue'.

Direct quotations occur in at least four different constructions: as the complement of a quotative verb (1a); as the head clause with a quotative adjunct, as in (2); as a syntactically integrated part of a sentence, such as the NP le Président in (3), variously characterized as mixed quotation [START_REF] Davidson | Quotation. Theory and Decision[END_REF], 'textual island' (Authier 1992), hybrid quotation [START_REF] Brabanter | Hybrid Quotation[END_REF], or subclausal quotation [START_REF] Potts | The dimensions of quotation[END_REF]; or as a stand-alone utterance ( 4), an open quotation in the sense of [START_REF] Recanati | Open Quotation[END_REF].

(2) a. "Mon frère est arrivé", annonce Marie. "My brother has arrived", Marie announces. b. "Mon frère est arrivé", comme a dit Marie.

"My brother has arrived", as Marie said. c. Selon Marie, "il n'y a pas pire menteur que mon frère."

According to Marie, "nobody is a worse liar than my brother."

(3) Marie annonce que le "Président" est arrivé.

Marie announces that the "President" has arrived.

(4) " They raise three major problems for grammatical modelling. First, the quoted object can be non-linguistic, as in (5). Second, an utterance seems to be embedded in the utterance of another agent. Third, the quotation seems to have a special denotation, its content being the quoted utterance itself, rather than an ordinary content type (e.g. [START_REF] Delaveau | La Voix et les bruits. Note sur les verbes introducteurs du discours rapporté[END_REF][START_REF] Potts | The dimensions of quotation[END_REF]. We briefly explain the theory of quotation which, in our view, accounts best for these properties, before proposing an HPSG analysis, at least for quotations that are amenable to a grammatical representation.

(5) a. Paul a fait : The car went . . .

Direct quotation as demonstration

We adopt Clark and Gerrig's view (1990) of quoting as "demonstration": they contrast quotation, as a mode of communication, both with with describing (the usual one) and monstrating (see deictic elements). Demonstration is similar to mimicking, the speaker imitating the original behavior of another agent. Demonstration has two properties. First, it is a pretend act rather than an illocutionary act: in (1a) the speaker does not assert that Marie's brother has arrived, but pretends to be Marie making that assertion. This explains the formal and pragmatic properties of direct quotation. On the one hand, the sentence type conforms to what is required by the original illocutionary act : affirmative in (1a) and (2), interrogative in (6a), imperative in (6b); and indexicals are shifted: in the utterance situation the speaker pretends to be in, Marie is speaking, not him. On the other hand, the speaker does not take responsibility for the act: he does not assert the quotation in (1a) or (2), does not ask a question in (6a), or give an order in (6b).

(6) a. Qui vient, a demandé Marie.

Who is coming, Marie asked b. Allez vous laver les mains, a dit Marie.

Go wash your hands, Marie said Second, demonstration is selective: the speaker chooses among the aspects of the original situation which ones he wants to reproduce. This is worth emphasizing, because it goes against a common view which contrasts direct quotation, said to faithfully reproduce the original behavior, and indirect quotation, which is said to be unfaithful. This common view is mistaken, resulting from a confusion between the two dimensions of the typology of quotations. The point is clear in (7) which illustrates two extreme cases, where either the phonetic realization or the content is highlighted. Thus, a quotation is a sign (partially) reproducing a sign or behavior.

(7) a. Il a dit infractus et pas infarctus.

He said 'infractus' instead of 'infarctus' b. Marie a dit en chinois : "le Président est arrivé".

Marie said in Chinese: "The President has arrived."

Quotation in HPSG

Accounting for these observations within an HPSG grammar is not a trivial task.

Here, we provide a rather direct encoding that is heuristically useful, but encounters some foundational problems. These problems as well as a possible solution are outlined in the appendix. In our preliminary account, we take quite literally the idea that the content of a quotation can be a linguistic sign. First, we assume that the content of a quotation is a behavior; linguistic signs are particular subtypes of behavior, so that when the quoted behavior is linguistic, the content of the quotation is a sign. A partial hierarchy of behavior objects is given in Figure 1, whose specifics will be justified shortly. We will not commit ourselves to any specific feature geometry for behaviors, except for the assumption that each behavior has a LOCUS feature indicating the individual who is the locus of the behavior; in linguistic signs the LOCUS coincides with the speaker (8). The second move is to introduce quotations in syntactic trees. This is not an easy task, because of the formal diversity of the quoted material (e.g. [START_REF] Delaveau | La Voix et les bruits. Note sur les verbes introducteurs du discours rapporté[END_REF][START_REF] Clark | Quotations as demonstrations[END_REF][START_REF] Postal | Skeptical Linguistic Essays[END_REF]). It can be a sentence (1a), a word (7a), an ungrammatical sentence (9a), a realization of an utterance containing repairs or stuttering (9b), a sign in a different language (9c), a nonlinguistic sign (5a), or even a non-sign (5b). This suggests to [START_REF] Postal | Skeptical Linguistic Essays[END_REF] that quotative complements should be treated as an open slot, providing in turn a strong argument in favor of a constraint-based approach to syntax. While Postal's analysis is elegant in the general case, it remains that we need a syntactic analysis of at least some quotations. In the IQC construction, the quotative clause can be linearized in the middle of the quoted material (10a). This works only if the quoted material is linguistic (10b) and in the same language (10c), but when it does, the point of insertion is constrained syntactically; e.g. it cannot occur in the middle of a word (10d). To account for this data we assume the unary construction in (11).3 This construction takes any behavior, and turns it into a linguistic sign whose content is itself a behavior. The demonstration ( 2 ) and the behavior that is actually referred to ( 1 ) are not identified, because we know from (7b) that they can differ in important ways; rather, there is a background assumption that the demonstration resembles some aspects of the quoted behavior. We assume that, for a French grammar, signs in French (fr-sign) are the only behaviors with a linguistic analysis in terms of the familiar HPSG feature geometry. Thus only these are amenable to a syntactic analysis making the insertion of an IQC possible.

(11

)       quotation-ph CONTENT 1 behavior CONTEXT BACKGROUND resembles( 2 , 1 )       2 behavior

Complement quotation

Let us now turn to the analysis of complement quotation as in (1a), or (5). Interestingly, quotative verbs can select properties of the quoted behavior, even when that behavior is not linguistic or homolinguistic. While quotation verbs are quite diverse, three classes can be identified from that point of view. Verbs such as dire 'say' can take any complement as long as it is a linguistic sign: it can be in any language (7b) and of any linguistic category (7a), but a non linguistically conventionalized sound emission will not do (12). Verbs such as affirmer 'state', demander 'ask' or ordonner 'order' select an utterance with a specific illocutionary type (13a,b), but the language is not constrained (13c). Finally faire 'do' accepts all behaviors, linguistic or otherwise (5). This data motivates the details of the hierarchy in Figure 1, and is accounted for by the lexical entries in ( 14). These give rise to the analysis in Figure 4 for (2).

(12) *Paul a dit "hips" Paul sait "hips" (=Paul hiccupped) (13) a. Paul affirma : "Marie n'est pas là". Paul stated: "Marie is not there." b. *Paul affirma : "Est-ce que Marie est là ?"

Paul stated: "Is Marie there?" c. Paul affirma : "Marie is there".

S NP

Marie VP H HEAD verb CONT announce(m, 1 ) H annonce      quotation-ph CONT 1 sign BKGND resembles( 2 , 1 )      2 S Le Président est arrivé
      ARG-STR NP 1 ,   CONT 2 ling-sign LOCUS 1   CONT say( 1 , 2 )       b. affirmer 'state':       ARG-STR NP 1 ,   CONT 2 assertion LOCUS 1   CONT state( 1 , 2 )       c. faire 'do':       ARG-STR NP 1 ,   CONT 2 behavior LOCUS 1   CONT do( 1 , 2 )      
(15) Marie annonce : "Le Président est arrivé." Marie announces : "The President has arrived."

Note that, contrary to traditional grammar but in line with Authier-Revuz (1992) and [START_REF] Postal | Skeptical Linguistic Essays[END_REF], we assume that quotations are ordinary complements. This account directly for a number of important obervations. Quotations linearize like complements: they must follow the verb but can be followed by a complement (16a). They can be embedded (16b). They can be (pseudo-)clefted (16c). Finally, they obey selectional restrictions (12-13).

(16) a. Paul a lancé : "donne-moi la main" à Marie, avant de traverser.

Paul called out "give me your hand" to Marie, before crossing the street. b. Je crois que Paul a lancé à Marie : "Donne-moi la main".

I think that Paul called out to Marie : "Give me your hand." c. Ce que Paul a dit, c'est "laisse-moi tranquille".

What Paul said was "Leave me alone."

With most verbs, the quotation is an object. However, some intransitive verbs can also introduce a quotation: s'exprimer 'to express oneself', acquiescer 'to agree', sourire 'to smile' etc. [START_REF] Delaveau | La Voix et les bruits. Note sur les verbes introducteurs du discours rapporté[END_REF]. Such verbs combine with a manner adverb or PP, typically ainsi 'this way', which we analyze as a complement. Thus, the quotation is also a complement with these verbs, although not an object.4

IQCs as adjuncts with extraction

Sentences containing IQCs contrast strongly with sentences containing quotative complements. Parts of the quotation may precede the IQC, but there is no evidence that any part of the quotation is a complement of the quotation verb: in particular, no IQC can be followed by one of the verb's complements (17a). The IQC construction cannot be embedded (17b); and the quotation can not be (pseudo-)clefted (17c). On the other hand, the quotation respects the same selectional restrictions with respect to the quotative verb as quotative complements do-compare (18a) with ( 12) and ( 18b) with (13b).

( This is made explicit in the construction in (20), which is used in a simple example in Figure 3. Notice that this analysis allows one to account for selectional restrictions such as those in (18) in much the same way as one accounts for selectional restrictions imposed by the verb in a relative clause on the noun modified by the relative clause: selectional restrictions are passed from the verb's lexical entry through SLASH and MOD to the head.

(

) head-IQC-ph→head-adj-ph ∧     S IC + SLASH {}     quotation-ph SYNSEM 1 H     S MOD 1 [LOC 2 ] SLASH { 2 }     20
That IQCs are extraction constructions is confirmed by three properties that oppose them to other adjunct clauses. First, IQCs give rise to two types of subject inversion (see [START_REF] Kayne | Subject inversion in French interrogatives[END_REF], for the basic description of inversion patterns in French): simple affixal subject inversion (21a), and subject NP inversion (21b); complex inversion is ruled out (21c). Notice that in subject NP inversion, the subject can be followed by a complement of the verb; as [START_REF] Bonami | Constituency and word order in French subject inversion[END_REF] shows, this can only occur in extraction contexts. Second, IQCs belong to a family of incidental clausal constructions of French, traditionally called incises, which share the property of being embedded without a formal mark of embedding (initial complementizer, preposition, or wh-phrase). In some incidental clauses, the host clause corresponds to a pronoun within the incidental clause (22a). But this is incompatible with (direct) quotation: if the host is a direct quotation, as indicated by the reference of the first (21) a. "Le Président est arrivé", annonc ¸a-t-elle à la presse.

    S CONT 3 say(p, 4 ) SLASH {}     1      quotation-ph CONT 4 BKGRND resembles( 5 , 4 )      H 5 S H Je dors !      MOD 1 [LOC 2 ] CONT 3 SLASH 2 [CONT 4 ]      disait Paul
"The President has arrived", she announced to the Press. b. "Le Président est arrivé", annonc ¸a Marie à la presse.

"The President has arrived", Marie announced to the Press. c. * "Le Président est arrivé", Marie annonc ¸a-t-elle à la presse.

(22) a. Son i frère, Marie i l'a dit, est arrivé.

(litt.) Her brother, Marie said so, has arrived. b. *Mon i frère est arrivée, Marie i l'a dit.

My i brother has arrived, Marie i said it.

(23) a. "Je n'en peux plus", semblait croire pouvoir dire Paul. "I am worn out", Paul seemed to believe to be able to say. b. *"Je n'en peux plus", Paul semblait le dire.

"I am worn out", Paul seemed to say it.

(20) accounts directly for the properties discussed so far except the distribution of subjects. We adopt a version of the linearization approach to extraction-triggered inversion of [START_REF] Bonami | Constituency and word order in French subject inversion[END_REF]. The head feature INV takes one of the values in (24a); an np-inv value triggers noncompaction of VP complements (while all other dependents are compacted in French). ( 24b) makes sure that no preverbal subject, be it affixal or phrasal, is possible in IQCs, ruling out complex inversion.6

(24) a. Most of the quotative verbs which occur in IQCs are the same ones that take a quotative complement (except for the gap status of the argument). However, some verbs are possible in IQCs that may not introduce a quotative complement [START_REF] Cornulier | Considérations illustrées de quelques arbres et enrichies de plus de mille exemples sur les incises en franc ¸ais contemporain[END_REF][START_REF] Delaveau | La Voix et les bruits. Note sur les verbes introducteurs du discours rapporté[END_REF][START_REF] Burston | Les verba dicendi dans la presse d'information[END_REF], as illustrated in ( 25) and ( 26). Many of these verbs are propositional attitude verbs turned into speech verbs by metaphorical extension (25). Others are originally intransitive verbs reporting a linguistic or otherwise expressive behavior (26). To account for such cases, we assume that verbs like imaginer or hoqueter have a lexical entry where they subcategorize for a quotation gap. The entry in ( 27) allows the verb to occur in IQCs, but not with a complement quotation, because the second argument is a gap. Marie gasped: "I can't stand it anymore."

(27) imaginer 'imagine':

         ARG-STR NP 1 ,      gap CONT 2 assertion LOCUS 1      CONT imagine and state( 1 , 2 )         
We finally discuss the prosodic and linearization properties of IQCs. IQCs have an incidental prosody. Incidentals are phrases which are prosodically autonomous, and tend to be separated from the rest of the sentence by some feature on their right boundary [START_REF] Fagyal | Prosodic boundaries in the vicinity of utterance-medial parentheticals in French[END_REF][START_REF] Mertens | Quelques aller-retour entre la prosodie et son traitement automatique[END_REF][START_REF] Delais-Roussarie | La prosodie des incidentes en franc ¸ais[END_REF]. IQCs have the same positional freedom as other incidental adjuncts, such as adverbs [START_REF] Bonami | Integrating Linguistic Dimensions: The Scope of Adverbs[END_REF], with one difference: IQCs cannot be the first element of an utterance (although they can begin a clause).

( (litt.) "I promised to do it" said the President. "and", added he, "I will do so."

In some (but by no means all) constructions, incidentality correlates with other properties, in particular pragmatic properties. For example, integrated relative clauses (so-called 'restrictive RCs') are part of the main content, whereas incidental relative clauses ('nonrestrictive RCs') convey conventional implicatures [START_REF] Potts | The Logic of Conventional Implicatures[END_REF]. This is not the case with IQCs: they are part of the main content, as shown by the fact that they can be denied with the usual means.

(29) A: "Le Président est arrivé", a annoncé Marie.

"The president has arrived", Marie announced. B: C'est faux ; c'est le chef de cabinet qui l'a dit ! That's not true-the chief of staff said that!

We follow [START_REF] Bonami | Integrating Linguistic Dimensions: The Scope of Adverbs[END_REF] analysis of incidental adjuncts: incidental adjuncts are clause modifiers, which may linearize in various positions due to the absence of compaction of the head VP daughter inside the French sentence. Adjunct phrases are always compacted, and non-head daughters are compacted in a general way: the only phrases that are not compacted are complement VPs marked as [INV np-inv]. Figure 4 illustrates this general analysis in the case of a modal adverb.

We thus take ICQs to be incidental adjuncts. To account for their placement properties, we need to be more precise about the phonology and word-order domains of quotation phrases. When a French sentence is quoted, the IQC may linearize anywhere among the main constituents of that sentence. This follows directly if the quotation phrase (which dominates the quotative sequence, see ( 11)) inherits the DOM elements of its daughter. When what is quoted is not a French sentence (i.e. is a non linguistic sign, or a sign in a foreign language), there is no syntactic analysis for the quoted element, and thus no DOM value to inherit. As a consequence, the IQC may only linearize at the right edge of the quotation (30-31). In addition, the quotation needs not have a PHONOLOGY that conforms to French phonotatics-it may even involve no sound production. To account for this, we operate a distinction between homolinguistic and non-homolinguistic quotation phrases (32). French homolinguistic quotations are quotations of a French sign. Their phonology is normal French phonology, and their DOM value is inherited from the embedded sign. Non-homolinguistic quotations can be the quotation of any type of behavior. They have a single object on their domain, whose phonology is of a special type any-phon, which is a placeholder for any type of realization (that does not need to conform to French phonotactics).

(30) a. "Pshhhhhhh", fit le pneu de la voiture. The car's tire went "pshhhhh". b. *"Pshhhh, fit le pneu de la voiture, "shhhh" (31) a. "Ich bin hungrich", dit Paul.

"Ich bin hungrich", Paul said. b. *"Ich bin", dit Paul, "hungrich". le pneu de la voiture. 7 That constraint may be generalized to other types of incidental clauses, such as the ones in (i-ii). We leave this issue to a future study.

S DOM [ NP Le Président],[ S dit-elle],[ V est],[ V arrivé] SLASH {}     homoling-q-ph SS 3 DOM [ NP Le président],[ V est],[ V arrivé]     4 S DOM [ NP Le Président],[ V est],[ V arrivé] NP Le Président VP DOM [ V est],[ V arrivé] H V H est V arrivé S    DOM [ V dit-elle] MOD 3 [LOC 2 ] SLASH { 2 }    V SLASH { 2 } H dit-elle
(i) Paul a, semble-t-il, répondu à Marie.

Paul has, it seems, answered Marie.

(ii) *Semble-t-il, Paul a répondu à Marie. In section 1, on the basis of Clark and Gerrig's view of quotation as demonstration, we proposed a semantics for quotation that can be summarized as in (34b).

(34) a. Marie a dit "Mon frère est arrivé." Marie said "My brother has arrived." b. ∃u[resembles(u, "Mon frère est arrivé") ∧ say(m, u)]

Marie produced an utterance that resembles the utterance the speaker produces when he says "Mon frère est arrivé."

This analysis was then encoded in HPSG, using the unary quotation-ph defined in (11). This HPSG analysis has three problematic features. First, the argument of the say relation is taken to be a sign, whereas entities occurring as component parts of CONTENT values are normally segregated to a subhierarchy of semantic objects (sem-obj). Using nonsemantic objects as arguments to relations is bound to pose problems when an explicit model-theoretic semantics for CONTENT values is constructed. Although it is customary in HPSG studies to leave aside the construction of such an explicit semantics, when possible one should avoid proposing analyses that hamper such a construction. Second, since non-linguistic behavior can be quoted, the proposed analysis forces us to model explicitly non-linguistic behavior as part of the HPSG type hierarchy. Although such an extension is quite limited as presented here (in Figure 1 we only introduced a few new types, and did not propose a featural analysis of non-linguitic behaviors or of non-homolinguistic signs), it modifies the very definition of the empirical domain modelled by an HPSG theory. Such a move should be thouroughly motivated, and it is not clear that quotation is a sufficient motivation. Finally, there is a more directly analytic problem with the proposed analysis: it does not give us the right logic for quotations. When a quotation occurs in the scope of negation or a quantifier, the resembles relation can be embedded in that scope, as illustrated in (35-36). In effect, quotations behave like indefinite NPs whose restrictor is the resembles relation. We now outline an alternative analysis. 8 The general idea is to keep the CON-TENT value of the quotation distinct from the quoted sign in the feature structure, but to equate them via a metaconstraint on the model theoretic interpretation of CONTENT object. To make this idea precise, we need to be explicit about the interpretation of HPSG descriptions. Let • ling be the interpretation function that maps HPSG descriptions to feature structures (or other appropriate model objects).

• ling maps the CONTENT value of a sign to a feature structure, which is the HPSG equivalent of a logical form for that sign. So one still needs to provide a modeltheoretic interpretation of that object; let us call • sem the function providing that interpretation.

Whereas HPSG descriptions are interpreted in a very specific domain (of feature structures or other appropriate objects), CONTENT values are interpreted in an very general domain, containing (models of) individuals, properties, propositions, etc. Since this domain is very general, we can assume that it also includes as a component part the domain of feature structures; that is, the domain of • ling is a proper part of the domain of • sem . Then we can take quotations to have feature structures of type sign as their interpetation via the • sem interpretation function. This allows us to cleanly separate CONTENT values from signs in the syntax of HPSG descriptions (and in the linguistic interpretation • ling of these descriptions) while keeping the intuition that the CONTENT of a quotation is a sign. Specifically, we replace the definition of quotation-ph in (11) with the one in (37). The metaconstraint linking the two interpretation functions makes sure that the semantic interpretation of the index u ′ coincicides with the linguistic interpretation of the quoted sign.9

(37) homoling-q-ph →

              PHON fr-phon CONT 1 STORE          1      ∃-rel IND u RESTR resembles(u, u ′ )               DOM 2               3 sign DOM 2
Metagrammatical constraint: u ′ sem = 3 ling Notice that we are assuming a treatment of scope along the lines of [START_REF] Ginzburg | Interrogative Investigations. The Form, Meaning, and Use of English Interrogatives[END_REF]. The new analysis is illustrated in Figure 6. On this analysis, nonlinguistic behaviors need not be modelled explicitly. The type hierarchy in Figure 1 is dropped in favor of a more conventional hierarchy of (homolinguistic) signs.

          CONT 1        QUANTS 2 NUCLEUS     say-rel ACT m QUOTED u            STORE {}           NP Marie CONT 1 STORE {} CONT 1 STORE {} dit            homoling-q-ph CONT 2      ∃-rel IND u RESTR resembles(u, u ′ )      STORE { 2 }            3 S

Le Président est arrivé

where u ′ sem = 3 ling .

Figure 6: The final analysis of direct quotation Selectional restrictions of quotative verbs need not be encoded explicitly as typing requirements on CONTENT values, as in ( 14), but can be assumed to be verified at the level of model-theoretic semantic interpretation. 10 The Non-homolinguistic quotations are treated as a lexical entry11 with a special phonology (38). The mimicking relation is not made explicit for nonhomolinguistic quotations, because nonhomolinguistic behavior is not modelled explicitly.

(38) other-quotation →word ∧

          PHON any-phon CONT 1 STORE        1     ∃-rel IND u RESTR {}                     

  [speaker frowns] Paul went . . . b. La voiture a fait : [speaker moves his hand in a zigzag]

Figure 1 :

 1 Figure 1: Hierarchy of quotable behaviors

  (9) a. Paul a écrit : "Marie est content", avec une faute d'accord. Paul wrote "Marie est content", making an agreement mistake. b. Paul a dit : "Marie croy. . . savait que je viendrais". Paul said: "Marie believ. . . knew that I would come." c. Paul a dit : "I'm asleep!" Paul said: "I'm asleep!" (10) a. Le Président, dit Marie, est déjà arrivé. (litt.) The President, said Marie, has already arrived. b. *Pshhhhh, fit le ballon, shhhh. (litt.) Pshhhhh, went the balloon, shhh. c. *The President, dit Marie, has already arrived." d. *Le Pré, dit Marie, sident est déjà arrivé.

Figure 2 :

 2 Figure 2: Sample analysis for a complement quotation construction

Figure 3 :

 3 Figure 3: A simple IQC

  b. head-IQC-ph → NHD-DTRSINV postverbal-subj

(

  25) a. "Maintenant, je me transforme en boule de feu", imagina Paul. "Now I transform into a fireball", Paul imagined. b. *Paul imagina : "Maintenant je me transforme en boule de feu." Paul imagined: "Now I transform into a fireball." (26) a. "Je n'en peux plus", hoqueta Marie. "I can't stand it anymore", Marie gasped. b. *Marie hoqueta : "Je n'en peux plus."

Figure 4 :

 4 Figure 4: Bonami and Godard's (2007) analysis of incidental adjuncts

Figure 5 :Figure 5

 55 Figure 5: Analysis for (28b)

  Mon frère est arrivé". Voilà ce qu'a dit Marie. My brother has arrived. That's what Marie said.

Much of the recent semantic and philosophical literature focuses on hybrid and open quotation, which pose important semantic problems. However, they are syntactically quite uninteresting: from a syntactic point of view, hybrid quotations are plain constituents that get the same distribution they would have if used rather than mentioned; and open quotations are simple clauses. Here we concentrate on the other cases, that is, quotative complements (1a) and incidental quotative clauses, or IQCs (2a). 2

  Le Président, dit Marie, est déjà arrivé. c. Le Président est, dit Marie, déjà arrivé. d. Le Président est déjà arrivé", dit Marie. e. "J'ai promis de le faire", a dit le Président. "Et, a-t-il ajouté, je le ferai".

	28) a. * Dit	Marie,	"Le	Président	est	déjà	arrivé".
	Says	Marie	the	President	is	already	arrived
	b.

The term 'indirect quotation' is a convenient misnomer here. There is literally no quotation in (1b), whose syntax and compositional semantics are strictly parallel to that of non-speech related attitude reports. Rather, the sentence reports that a speech act whose content is described by the subordinate clause took place.

See[START_REF] Desmets | French reportive comme clauses: a case of parenthetical adjunction[END_REF] for an HPSG analysis of reportive comme clauses and (Bonami and Godard, to appear) for a comparison between comme clauses and IQCs.

It is natural to assume that quotation marks in writing are the exponent of this construction, when present.

These intransitive quotative verbs can also combine with a manner adverb, followed by a quotation, as in (i). We take this to be an instance of open quotation, where it is an independent clause, anaphorically linked to the adverb.(i) Marie s'est exprimée ainsi : "Puisqu'il le faut, j'irai."Marie expressed herself in this way: "Since it is necessary, I will go."

Of course bare relative clauses and IQCs are quite different semantically: bare relative clauses are intersective modifiers, whereas, clearly, IQCs semantically embed the head they combine with.

(24b assumes inversion to be mandatory, as it is in formal standard French. Inversion is only optional in informal standard French (i). Nonstandard varieties also allow the construction in (ii), where the IQC is introduced by a complementizer.(i) "J'en peux plus", Paul m'a dit.(ii) "J'en peux plus", qu'il a dit.

We are indebted to Frank Richter and Manfred Sailer for suggesting this approach

The formalization of this metaconstraint is far from trivial, and depends heavily on controversial assumptions on the foundations of HPSG. We leave this issue for future work.

Alternatively, selectional restrictions can be verified syntactically by using a subtyping of indexes.

Or alternatively, as a phrase with an empty DTRS list.