Volume 9, Issue 1
  • ISSN 1876-1933
  • E-ISSN: 1876-1941
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes


Van Trijp ( 2013 , 2014 ) claims that Sign-Based Construction Grammar (SBCG) and Head-Driven Phrase Structure Grammar (HPSG) are fundamentally different from Fluid Construction Grammar (FCG). He claims that the former approaches are generative ones while the latter is a cognitive-functional one. I argue that it is not legitimate to draw these distinctions on the basis of what is done in FCG. Van Trijp claims that there are differences in the scientific model, the linguistic approach, formalization, the way constructions are seen, and in terms of processing. This paper discusses all these alleged differences. Van Trijp also claims that his cognitive-functional approach is superior in terms of completeness, explanatory adequacy, and theoretical parsimony. In order to facilitate a discussion and comparison, I introduce the reader to basic assumptions made in FCG and the analyses suggested by Van Trijp: I first deal with the representations that are used in FCG, talk about argument structure constructions, the combination operations fusion and merging that are used in FCG, I than discuss the analysis of nonlocal dependencies and show that the suggested FCG analysis is not explanatorily adequate since it is not descriptively adequate and that a full formalization of approaches with discontinuous constituents is not more parsimonious than existing HPSG analyses either. After the discussion of specific analyses, I then provide a detailed comparison of FCG and SBCG/HPSG and discuss questions like the competence/performance distinction, mathematical formalization vs. computer implementation, fuzziness and fluidity in grammars, and permissiveness of theories. I conclude that HPSG, SBCG, and FCG belong to the same family of theories and that all claims to the contrary are unjustified.


Article metrics loading...

Loading full text...

Full text loading...


  1. Bildhauer, F.
    (2008) Representing information structure in an HPSG grammar of Spanish. Unpublished dissertation, Universität Bremen.
    [Google Scholar]
  2. Bildhauer, F. & Cook, P. H.
    (2010) German multiple fronting and expected topichood. In S. Müller (Ed.), Proceedings of the 17th International Conference on Head-Driven Phrase Structure Grammar, Université Paris Diderot (pp.68–79). Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.
    [Google Scholar]
  3. Bird, S. & Klein, E.
    (1994) Phonological analysis in typed feature systems. Computational Linguistics20(3), 455–491.
    [Google Scholar]
  4. Boas, H. C.
    (2003) A constructional approach to resultatives. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.
    [Google Scholar]
  5. (2014) Lexical approaches to argument structure: Two sides of the same coin. Theoretical Linguistics40(1–2), 89–112.
    [Google Scholar]
  6. Bouma, G. , Malouf, R. , & Sag, I. A.
    (2001) Satisfying constraints on extraction and adjunction. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory19(1), 1–65. doi: 10.1023/A:1006473306778
    https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1006473306778 [Google Scholar]
  7. Bresnan, J.
    (2001) Lexical-functional syntax. Oxford, UK/Cambridge, USA: Blackwell.
    [Google Scholar]
  8. Brew, C.
    (1995) Stochastic HPSG. In S. P. Abney & E. W. Hinrichs (Eds.), Proceedings of the Seventh Conference of the European Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics (pp.83–89). Dublin: Association for Computational Linguistics. doi: 10.3115/976973.976986
    https://doi.org/10.3115/976973.976986 [Google Scholar]
  9. Briscoe, T. J. , & Copestake, A.
    (1999) Lexical rules in constraint-based gram- mar. Computational Linguistics25(4), 487–526.
    [Google Scholar]
  10. Cappelle, B.
    (2006) Particle placement and the case for “allostructions”. Constructions online1(7), 1–28.
    [Google Scholar]
  11. Chomsky, N.
    (1965) Aspects of the theory of syntax. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  12. (2008) On phases. In R. Freidin , C. P. Otero , & M. L. Zubizarreta (Eds.), Foundational issues in linguistic theory: Essays in honor of Jean-Roger Vergnaud (pp.133–166). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. doi: 10.7551/mitpress/9780262062787.003.0007
    https://doi.org/10.7551/mitpress/9780262062787.003.0007 [Google Scholar]
  13. Copestake, A.
    (2002) Implementing typed feature structure grammars. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.
    [Google Scholar]
  14. (2007) Applying robust semantics. InProceedings of the 10th Conference of the Pacific Assocation for Computational Linguistics (PACLING) (pp.1–12).
    [Google Scholar]
  15. Crysmann, B.
    (2002) Constraint-based co-analysis: Portuguese cliticisation and morphology-syntax interaction in HPSG. Saarbrücken: Deutsches Forschungszentrum für Künstliche Intelligenz und Universität des Saarlandes.
    [Google Scholar]
  16. (2013) On the locality of complement clause and relative clause extraposition. In G. Webelhuth , M. Sailer , & H. Walker (Eds.), Rightward movement in a comparative perspective (pp.369–396). Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Co. doi: 10.1075/la.200.13cry
    https://doi.org/10.1075/la.200.13cry [Google Scholar]
  17. De Kuthy, K.
    (2002) Discontinuous NPs in German. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.
    [Google Scholar]
  18. Demberg, V. , & Keller, F.
    (2008) A psycholinguistically motivated version of TAG. InProceedings of the 9th International Workshop on Tree Adjoining Grammars and Related Formalisms TAG+9 (pp.25–32). Tübingen.
    [Google Scholar]
  19. Dowty, D. R.
    (1989) On the semantic content of the notion ‘thematic role’. In G. Chierchia , B. H. Partee , & R. Turner (Eds.), Properties, types and meaning (pp.69–130). Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers. doi: 10.1007/978‑94‑009‑2723‑0_3
    https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-009-2723-0_3 [Google Scholar]
  20. Engdahl, E. , & Vallduví, E.
    (1996) Information packaging in HPSG. In C. Grover & E. Vallduví (Eds.), Edinburgh working papers in cognitive science, Vol. 12: Studies in HPSG, Chapter1 (pp.1–32). Edinburgh: Centre for Cognitive Science, University of Edinburgh.
    [Google Scholar]
  21. Flickinger, D. P.
    (1987) Lexical rules in the hierarchical lexicon. Unpublished dissertation. Stanford University.
    [Google Scholar]
  22. Gazdar, G.
    (1981) Unbounded dependencies and coordinate structure. Linguistic Inquiry12, 155–184.
    [Google Scholar]
  23. Goldberg, A. E.
    (1995) Constructions: A construction grammar approach to argument structure. Chicago/London: The University of Chicago Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  24. (2006) Constructions at work: The nature of generalization in language. Oxford/New York: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  25. (2014) Fitting a slim dime between the verb template and argument structure construction approaches. Theoretical Linguistics40(1–2), 113–135.
    [Google Scholar]
  26. Günther, C. , Maienborn, C. , & Schopp, A.
    (1999) The processing of information structure. In P. Bosch & R. van der Sandt (Eds.), Focus: Linguistic, cognitive, and computational perspectives (pp.18–42). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Originally presented ata conference held in 1994, Schloss Wolfsbrunnen, Germany.
    [Google Scholar]
  27. Guzmán Naranjo, M.
    (2015) Unifying everything: Integrating quantitative effects into formal models of grammar. InProceedings of the 6th Conference on Quantitative Investigations in Theoretical Linguistics (pp.301–306).
    [Google Scholar]
  28. Haider, H.
    (2000) OV is more basic than VO. In P. Svenonius (Ed.), The derivation of VO and OV (pp.45–67). Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Co. doi: 10.1075/la.31.03hai
    https://doi.org/10.1075/la.31.03hai [Google Scholar]
  29. (2016) On predicting resultative adjective constructions. Unpublished manuscript. Universität Salzburg.
  30. Höhle, T. N.
    (1999) An architecture for phonology. In R. D. Borsley & A. Przepiórkowski (Eds.), Slavic in Head-Driven Phrase Structure Grammar (pp.61–90). Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications,.
    [Google Scholar]
  31. Jackendoff, R. S.
    (2011) What is the human language faculty? Two views. Language87(3), 586–624. doi: 10.1353/lan.2011.0063
    https://doi.org/10.1353/lan.2011.0063 [Google Scholar]
  32. Kathol, A.
    (2000) Linear syntax. New York/Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  33. Kathol, A. , & Pollard, C. J.
    (1995) Extraposition via complex domain formation. In H. Uszkoreit (Ed.), Proceedings of the 33rd Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (pp.174–180). Cambridge, MA: Association for Computational Linguistics. doi: 10.3115/981658.981682
    https://doi.org/10.3115/981658.981682 [Google Scholar]
  34. Kayne, R. S.
    (1994) The antisymmetry of syntax. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  35. Keller, F.
    (1995) Towards an account of extraposition in HPSG. In S. P. Abney & E. W. Hinrichs (Eds.), Proceedings of the Seventh Conference of the European Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics (pp.301–306). Dublin: Association for Computational Linguistics. doi: 10.3115/976973.977020
    https://doi.org/10.3115/976973.977020 [Google Scholar]
  36. Kiefer, B. , Krieger, H.-U. , & Nederhof, M.-J.
    (2000) Efficient and robust parsing of word hypotheses graphs. In W. Wahlster (Ed.), Verbmobil: Foundations of speech-to-speech translation (pp.280–295). Berlin: Springer Verlag. doi: 10.1007/978‑3‑662‑04230‑4_20
    https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-662-04230-4_20 [Google Scholar]
  37. Koenig, J.-P. , & Michelson, K.
    (2010) Argument structure of Oneida kinship terms. International Journal of American Linguistics76(2), 169–205. doi: 10.1086/652265
    https://doi.org/10.1086/652265 [Google Scholar]
  38. Konieczny, L.
    (1996) Human sentence processing: A semantics-oriented parsing approach. Unpublished dissertation. Universität Freiburg, iIG-Berichte 3/96.
    [Google Scholar]
  39. Kuhn, J.
    (1995) Information packaging in German: Some motivation from HPSG-based translation. Unpublished manuscript. Universität Stuttgert.
  40. (1996) An underspecified HPSG representation for information structure. In J. Tsuji (Ed.), Proceedings of COLING-96. 16th International Conference on Computational Linguistics (pp.670–675). Copenhagen, Denmark: Association for Computational Linguistics. doi: 10.3115/993268.993285
    https://doi.org/10.3115/993268.993285 [Google Scholar]
  41. Labelle, M.
    (2007) Biolinguistics, the minimalist program, and psycholinguistic reality. Snippets14, 6–7.
    [Google Scholar]
  42. Levine, R. D. & Meurers, W. D.
    (2006) Head-Driven Phrase Structure Grammar: Linguistic approach, formal foundations, and computational realization. In K. Brown (Ed.), The encyclopedia of language and linguistics (pp.237–252). Oxford: Elsevier Science Publisher B. V. (North-Holland), second edition. doi: 10.1016/B0‑08‑044854‑2/02040‑X
    https://doi.org/10.1016/B0-08-044854-2/02040-X [Google Scholar]
  43. Marslen-Wilson, W.
    (1975) Sentence perception as an interactive parallel process. Science189(4198), 226–228. doi: 10.1126/science.189.4198.226
    https://doi.org/10.1126/science.189.4198.226 [Google Scholar]
  44. Meurers, W. D.
    (2001) On expressing lexical generalizations in HPSG. Nordic Journal of Linguistics24(2), 161–217. doi: 10.1080/033258601753358605
    https://doi.org/10.1080/033258601753358605 [Google Scholar]
  45. Meurers, W. D. , Penn, G. , & Richter, F.
    (2002) A web-based instructional platform for constraint-based grammar formalisms and parsing. In D. Radev & C. Brew (Eds.), Effective tools and methodologies for teaching NLP and CL (pp.18–25). Association for Computational Linguistics.
    [Google Scholar]
  46. Müller, S.
    (1996) The Babel-system, An HPSG fragment for German, a parser, and a dialogue component. InProceedings of the Fourth International Conference on the practical application of prolog (pp.263–277). London.
    [Google Scholar]
  47. (1999a) Deutsche Syntax deklarativ: Head-Driven Phrase Structure Grammar für das Deutsche. Tübingen: Max Niemeyer Verlag. doi: 10.1515/9783110915990
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110915990 [Google Scholar]
  48. (1999b) Parsing of an HPSG grammar for German: Word order domains and discontinuous constituents. In J. Gippert & P. Olivier (Eds.), Multilinguale Corpora: Codierung, Strukturierung, Analyse. 11. Jahrestagung der Gesellschaft für Linguistische Datenverarbeitung (pp.292–303). Prague: enigma corporation.
    [Google Scholar]
  49. (2002) Complex predicates: Verbal complexes, resultative constructions, and particle verbs in German. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.
    [Google Scholar]
  50. (2005a) Resultative constructions: Syntax, world knowledge, and collocational restrictions: Review of Hans C. Boas: A constructional approach to resultatives. Studies in Language29(3), 651–681. doi: 10.1075/sl.29.3.06mul
    https://doi.org/10.1075/sl.29.3.06mul [Google Scholar]
  51. (2005b) Zur Analyse der scheinbar mehrfachen Vorfeldbesetzung. Lin- guistische Berichte203, 297–330.
    [Google Scholar]
  52. (2006) Phrasal or lexical constructions?Language82(4), 850–883. doi: 10.1353/lan.2006.0213
    https://doi.org/10.1353/lan.2006.0213 [Google Scholar]
  53. (2007) Head-Driven Phrase Structure Grammar: Eine Einführung. Tübingen: Stauffenburg Verlag.
    [Google Scholar]
  54. (2013a) The CoreGram project: A brief overview and motivation. In Duchier & Y. Parmentier (Eds.), Proceedings of the Workshop on High-level methodologies for grammar engineering (HMGE 2013), Düsseldorf (pp.93–104).
    [Google Scholar]
  55. (2013b) Grammatiktheorie. Tübingen: Stauffenburg Verlag, second edition.
    [Google Scholar]
  56. (2015a) The CoreGram project: Theoretical linguistics, theory development and verification. Journal of Language Modelling3(1), 21–86. doi: 10.15398/jlm.v3i1.91
    https://doi.org/10.15398/jlm.v3i1.91 [Google Scholar]
  57. (submitted). German sentence structure: An analysis with special consideration of so-called multiple fronting. Berlin: Language Science Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  58. (2016) Grammatical theory: From transformational grammar to constraint-based approaches. Berlin: Language Science Press. doi: 10.26530/OAPEN_611693
    https://doi.org/10.26530/OAPEN_611693 [Google Scholar]
  59. Müller, S. , & Kasper, W.
    (2000) HPSG analysis of German. In W. Wahlster (Ed.), Verbmobil: Foundations of speech-to-speech translation (pp.238–253). Berlin: Springer Verlag. doi: 10.1007/978‑3‑662‑04230‑4_17
    https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-662-04230-4_17 [Google Scholar]
  60. Müller, S. , & Wechsler, S. M.
    (2014a) Lexical approaches to argument atructure. Theoretical Linguistics40(1–2), 1–76. doi: 10.1515/tl‑2014‑0001
    https://doi.org/10.1515/tl-2014-0001 [Google Scholar]
  61. (2014b) Two sides of the same slim boojum: Further arguments for a lexical approach to argument atructure. Theoretical Linguistics40(1–2), 187–224.
    [Google Scholar]
  62. Orgun, C. O.
    (1996) Sign-based morphology and phonology. Unpublished dissertation. University of California, Berkeley.
    [Google Scholar]
  63. Paggio, P.
    (2005) Representing information structure in a formal grammar of Danish. In T. Washio , A. Sakurai , K. Nakajima , H. Takeda , S. Tojo , & M. Yokoo (Eds.), New frontiers in artificial intelligence: Post-proceedings (pp.93–102). Berlin: Springer Verlag. doi: 10.1007/11780496
    https://doi.org/10.1007/11780496 [Google Scholar]
  64. Penn, G.
    (2004) Balancing clarity and efficiency in typed feature logic through delaying. In D. Scott (Ed.), Proceedings of the 42nd Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (ACL’04), Main Volume (pp.239–246).
    [Google Scholar]
  65. Phillips, C.
    (2003) Linear order and constituency. Linguistic Inquiry34(1), 37–90. doi: 10.1162/002438903763255922
    https://doi.org/10.1162/002438903763255922 [Google Scholar]
  66. Pollard, C. J. , & Sag, I. A.
    (1987) Information-based syntax and semantics. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.
    [Google Scholar]
  67. (1994) Head-Driven Phrase Structure Grammar. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  68. Pullum, G. K. , & Scholz, B. C.
    (2001) On the distinction between generative-enumerative and model-theoretic syntactic frameworks. In P. de Groote , G. Morrill , & C. Retor (Eds.), Logical aspects of computational linguistics: 4th International Conference (pp.17–43). Berlin: Springer Verlag. doi: 10.1007/3‑540‑48199‑0_2
    https://doi.org/10.1007/3-540-48199-0_2 [Google Scholar]
  69. Reape, M.
    (1991) Word order variation in Germanic and parsing. DYANA Report Deliverable R1.1.C, University of Edinburgh.
  70. (1994) Domain union and word order variation in German. In J. Nerbonne , K. Netter , & C. J. Pollard (Eds.), German in Head-Driven Phrase Structure Grammar (pp.151–198). Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.
    [Google Scholar]
  71. (2000) Formalisation and abstraction in linguistic theory II: Toward a radical linearisation theory of German. Unpublished manuscript.
    [Google Scholar]
  72. Richter, F.
    (2004) A mathematical formalism for linguistic theories with an application in Head-Driven Phrase Structure Grammar. Tübingen: Eberhard-Karls-Universität.
    [Google Scholar]
  73. (2006) A web-based course in grammar formalisms and parsing. URL: milca.sfs.uni-tuebingen.de/A4/Course/PDF/gramandpars.pdf, Retrieved on24 November 2011.
  74. Ross, J. R.
    (1967) Constraints on variables in syntax. Ph. D.thesis, MIT, reproduced by the Indiana University Linguistics Club.
    [Google Scholar]
  75. Sag, I. A.
    (1997) English relative clause constructions. Journal of Linguistics33(2), 431–484. doi: 10.1017/S002222679700652X
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S002222679700652X [Google Scholar]
  76. (2012) Sign-Based Construction Grammar: An informal synopsis. In C. Boas & I. A. Sag (Eds.), Sign-Based Construction Grammar (pp.69–202). Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.
    [Google Scholar]
  77. Sag, I. A. , & Wasow, T.
    (2011) Performance-compatible competence grammar. In R. D. Borsley & K. Börjars (Eds.), Non-transformational syntax: Formal and explicit models of grammar: A guide to current models (pp.359–377). Oxford, UK/Cambridge, MA: Blackwell Publishing Ltd. doi: 10.1002/9781444395037.ch10
    https://doi.org/10.1002/9781444395037.ch10 [Google Scholar]
  78. Sag, I. A. , Wasow, T. , & Bender, E. M.
    (2003) Syntactic theory: A formal introduction. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications, second edition.
    [Google Scholar]
  79. Schabes, Y. , Abeillé, A. , & Joshi, A. K.
    (1988) Parsing strategies with ‘lexicalized’ grammars: Application to Tree Adjoining Grammars. Technical Report MS-CIS-88-65., University of Pennsylvania Department of Computer and Information Science. doi: 10.3115/991719.991757
  80. Shieber, S. M. , & Johnson, M.
    (1993) Variations on incremental interpretation. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research22(2), 287–318.
    [Google Scholar]
  81. Steels, L.
    (Ed.) (2011) Design patterns in Fluid Construction Grammar. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Co. doi: 10.1075/cal.11
    https://doi.org/10.1075/cal.11 [Google Scholar]
  82. (2013) Fluid Construction Grammar. In T. Hoffmann & G. Trousdale (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of Construction Grammar (pp.153–167). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  83. Steels, L. , & De Beule, J.
    (2006) A (very) brief introduction to Fluid Construction Grammar. Paper presented at the Third International Workshop on Scalable Natural Language Understanding (ScaNaLU 2006) June 8, 2006, New York City. doi: 10.3115/1621459.1621473
    https://doi.org/10.3115/1621459.1621473 [Google Scholar]
  84. Steels, L. , & van Trijp, R.
    (2011) How to make construction grammars fluid and robust. In L. Steels (Ed.), Design patterns in Fluid Construction Grammar (pp.301–330). Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Co. doi: 10.1075/cal.11.16ste
    https://doi.org/10.1075/cal.11.16ste [Google Scholar]
  85. Tanenhaus, M. K. , Spivey-Knowlton, M. J. , Eberhard, K. M. , & Sedivy, J. C.
    (1995) Integration of visual and linguistic information in spoken language comprehension. Science268(5217), 1632–1634. doi: 10.1126/science.7777863
    https://doi.org/10.1126/science.7777863 [Google Scholar]
  86. (1996) Using eye movements to study spoken language comprehension: Evidence for visually mediated incremental interpretation. In T. Inui & J. L. McClelland (Eds.), Information integration in perception and communication (pp.457–478). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  87. van Trijp, R.
    (2011) A design pattern for argument structure constructions. In L. Steels (Ed.), Design patterns in Fluid Construction Grammar (pp.115–145). Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Co. doi: 10.1075/cal.11.07tri
    https://doi.org/10.1075/cal.11.07tri [Google Scholar]
  88. (2013) A comparison between Fluid Construction Grammar and Sign-Based Construction Grammar. Constructions and Frames5(1), 88–116. doi: 10.1075/cf.5.1.04van
    https://doi.org/10.1075/cf.5.1.04van [Google Scholar]
  89. (2014) Long-distance dependencies without filler-gaps: A cognitive-functional alternative in Fluid Construction Grammar. Language and Cognition6(2), 242–270. doi: 10.1017/langcog.2014.8
    https://doi.org/10.1017/langcog.2014.8 [Google Scholar]
  90. Walther, M.
    (1999) Deklarative prosodische Morphologie: Constraint-basierte Analysen und Computermodelle zum Finnischen und Tigrinya. Tübingen: Max Niemeyer Verlag. doi: 10.1515/9783110911374
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110911374 [Google Scholar]
  91. Wellens, P. , van Trijp, R. , Beuls, K. , & Steels, L.
    (2013) Fluid Construction Grammar for historical and evolutionary linguistics. In M. Butt & S. Hussain (Eds.), Proceedings of the 51st Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (System Demonstrations) (pp.127–132). Association for Computational Linguistics.
    [Google Scholar]
  92. Wetta, A. C.
    (2011) A construction-based cross-linguistic analysis of V2 word order. In S. Müller (Ed.), Proceedings of the 18th International Conference on Head-Driven Phrase Structure Grammar, University of Washington (pp.248–268). Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.
    [Google Scholar]
  93. Wilcock, G.
    (2005) Information structure and minimal recursion semantics. In A. Arppe , L. Carlson , K. Lindén , J. Piitulainen , M. Suominen , M. Vainio , H. Westerlund , & A. Yli-Jyrä (Eds.), Inquiries into words, constraints and contexts: for Kimmo Koskenniemi on his 60th birthday (pp.268–277). Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.
    [Google Scholar]
  94. Winkler, S.
    (1997) Focus and secondary predication. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter. doi: 10.1515/9783110815214
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110815214 [Google Scholar]

Data & Media loading...

This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was successful
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error