Why and how to differentiate complement raising from subject raising in Dutch

In Dutch V-final clauses the verbs tend to form a cluster in which the main verb is separated fromits syntactic arguments by one or more other verbs. In HPSG the link between the main verb and itsarguments is canonically modeled in terms of argument inheritance, also known as argumentcomposition or generalized raising. When applied to Dutch, this treatment yields anumber of problems, making incorrect predictions about the interaction with the binding principlesand the passive lexical rule. To repair them this paper proposes an alternative, in which subjectraising and complement raising are modeled in terms of different devices. More specifically, whilesubject raising is modeled in terms of lexical constraints, as for English, complement raising ismodeled in terms of a more general constraint on headed phrases. This new constraint not onlyaccounts for complement raising out of verbal complements, it also deals with complement raising outof adjectival and adpositional complements, as well as with complement raising out of PP adjunctsand subject NPs. It is, hence, a rather powerful device. To prevent overgeneration we add a numberof constraints. For Dutch, the relevant constraints block complement raising out of CPs, V-initialVPs and P-initial PPs. For English, the Empty COMPS Constraint is sufficient to block complementraising entirely.