Studies in German Grammar [Reprint 2016 ed.] 9783110882711, 9783110131284

Citation preview

Studies in German Grammar

Studies in Generative Grammar T h e g o a l of this series is to publish t h o s e texts that a r e representative of recent advances in t h e theory of f o r m a l grammar. T o o m a n y studies d o not reach t h e public they deserve b e c a u s e of t h e d e p t h a n d detail that make t h e m unsuitable for p u b l i c a t i o n in article f o r m . W e h o p e that the present series will m a k e these studies available to a w i d e r a u d i e n c e t h a n has hitherto been possible.

Editors: J a n Koster H e n k van Riemsdijk

Other books in this series: WimZonneveld A Formal Theory of Exceptions in Generative Phonology 2.

11. Luigi Rizzi Issues in Italian Syntax ^ Osvaldo Jaeggli Pieter Muysken Topics in Romance Syntax Syntactic Developments in the Verb ^ Hagit Borer Phrase of Ecuadorian Quechua Parametric Syntax

3. Geert Booij Dutch Morphology

14. Denis Bouchard On the Content of Empty Categories

Henk van Riemsdijk 15. Hilda Koopman A Case Study in Syntactic MarkedThe Syntax of Verbs ness 16. Richard S. Kayne Jan Koster Connectedness and Binary Locality Principles in Syntax Branching Pieter Muysken (ed.) 17. Jerzy Rubach Generative Studies on Creole Cyclic and Lexical Phonology: Languages the Structure of Polish 7.

Anneke Neijt Gapping

8.

Christer Platzack The Semantic Interpretation of Aspect and Aktionsarten

9. Noam Chomsky Lectures on Government and Binding 10. Robert May and Jan Koster (eds.) Levels of Syntactic Representation

18. Sergio Scalise Generative Morphology 19. Joseph E. Emonds

A Unified Theory of Syntactic Categories 20. Gabriella Hermon

Syntactic Modularity

JindPich Toman (ed.)

Studies in German Grammar

1985 FORIS PUBLICATIONS Dordrecht - Holland/Cinnaminson - U.S.A.

Published by: Foris Publications Holland P.O. Box 509 3300 AM Dordrecht, The Netherlands Sole distributor for the U.S.A. and Canada: Foris Publications U.S.A. P.O. Box C-50 Cinnaminson N.J. 08077 U.S.A.

CIP-DAT A Studies Studies in German grammar / Jindfich Toman (ed.). - Dordrecht [etc.] : Foris. - (Studies in Generative Grammar ; 21) With bibliogr. ISBN 90-6765-112-5 bound ISBN 90-6765-113-3 paper SISO duit 837.4 UDC 803.0-56 Subject heading: German language ; generative grammar.

ISBN 90 6765 112 5 (Bound) ISBN 90 6765 113 3 (Paper) © 1984 Foris Publications - Dordrecht. No part of this publication may be reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopy, recording, or any information storage and retrieval system, without permission from the copyright owner. Printed in the Netherlands by ICG Printing, Dordrecht.

Contents

Preface

ix

A Technical Note

xi

Introduction

1

Part One: Studies on Syntax Hans den Besten The Ergative Hypothesis and Free Word Order in Dutch and German

23

Hubert Haider The Case of German

65

Jürgen Lenerz Diachronic Syntax: Verb Position and COMP in German

103

Susan Olsen On Deriving V-l and V-2 Structures in German

133

Henk van Riemsdijk On Pied-Piped Infinitives in German Relative Clauses

165

Ken Saflr Missing Subjects in German

193

Wolfgang Sternefeld On Case and Binding Theory

231

Part Two: Studies on Word-Syntax GisbertisFanselow What a Possible Complex Word?

289

VI

Contents

Tilman N. Hôhle On Composition and Derivation: The Constituent Structure of Secondary Words in German

319

Marga Reis Against Höhle's Compositional Theory of Affixation

377

Jindfich Toman A Discussion of Coordination and Word-Syntax

407

Appendix: German (and Germanic) Generative Syntax: A Bibliography in Progress

433

Index of Names

451

About thirty years ago there was much talk that geologists ought only to observe and not theorise; and I well remember someone saying that at this rate a man might as well go into a gravel-pit and count the pebbles and describe the colours. How odd is it that anyone should not see that all observation must be for or against some view if it is to be of any service. Ch. Darwin to W.W. Bates on November 22, 1860

Preface

In April 1979, the Scuola Normale Superiore in Pisa hosted the annual GLOW conference which was preceded this time by a series of lectures by Noam Chomsky, a guest professor at the Scuola. When the conference was over, a number of participants from Holland and Germany felt the need for a more intensive discussion of new theoretical developments which had been proposed in Pisa. The result was a spontaneous series of meetings, originating in Nijmegen, Holland, and then involving a number of universities in Germany. Although the loose group of participants had no formal status and although the membership fluctuated according to personal interests and physical constraints - long travelling distances were often involved - the group eventually found itself meeting regularly for more than three years in Nijmegen, Cologne, Göttingen, Münster and Frankfurt, under the name RDGG (Recent Developments in Generative Grammar), and, in more recent times, it continues its activities in Constance, Regensburg, Passau and Vienna. What is special about this group, with which most of the authors of this collection have been associated at some point, is that it is not attached to any particular body, hence enjoys no institutional support, and is thus carried by (and concerned with) its own enthusiasm only. Much of the initial work in the group consisted in a discussion, originally prepared at Nijmegen by Jan Köster, of Chomsky's Pisa Lectures; this discussion was then continued after the appearance of Chomsky's Lectures of Government and Binding, mainly in Cologne under the special care of Tilman Höhle. Apart from this, many presentations of current individual research were given in the meetings. Some of them can be found in the syntax section of the proceedings of the Linguistisches Kolloquium at Münster 1982 (Kohrt & Lenerz, eds., 1983), some were published in other places, and some more recent ones appear in the present collection. Though, as mentioned above, most of the authors represented in this volume have been actively participating in the meetings of the RDGGGroup, the volume should not be regarded as its 'official anthology'. The choice of contributions was determined mainly by a rather specific wish

X

Preface

to present an extensive body of work on German. In this sense, only certain aspects of the group's work are visible in the present book. The reader will note that contributions vary in scope and goal. Besides analyses of narrowly delimited phenomena, there are also some rather broad and to a certain extent exploratory discussions of the overall framework. As editor, I felt it inappropriate to be too restrictive as far as space is concerned in the latter cases. Neither did I function as referee in any strict sense, nor make any theoretically relevant intrusions into the papers submitted. I did, however, encourage authors to submit papers on wordstructure so that "word-syntax" might also be represented. The collection covers a number of topics, yet many interesting areas are not dealt with. The reader is therefore referred to recent collections on German syntax edited by Werner Abraham (see the bibliographical appendix at the end of this volume) in which he will find a number of studies relevant to the generative grammar of German. Attention should also be paid to other current work of authors represented in this volume as well as to a number of other researchers working at the present time in the area of German generative grammar (among others Arnold Evers, Günther Grewendorf, Terence McKay, Arnim von Stechow, Thilo Tappe, Thérèse Torris, Craig Thiersch). Finally, a collection of studies on verb position in Germanic languages to be edited by Hubert Haider and Martin Prinzhorn also deserves mention. The decision to publish this collection in English was motivated by a number of reasons, one of them being the rather deplorable fact that in much of the current research on generative grammar outside Germany, German seems to enjoy the status of an extremely exotic language. Unfortunately, in executing this intention, it became obvious that for many authors whose native language is German, English is rather exotic, too, at least at the level of its practical command. I am therefore sincerely indebted to Jean Boase-Beier, Philip LeSourd and Sue Olsen for their kind support in stylistically improving the texts of those contributors who are not native speakers of English. Despite their utmost efforts, a number of awkward places will inevitably have remained; as editor, I claim responsibility for them. My final thanks go to the editors of the series Studies in Generative Grammar for their readiness to accept this collection for publication, to Henk La Porte, the publisher, for his interest and endless patience, and to Wolf Thümmel for his positive response to my wish to publish the articles by T. Höhle and M. Reis in English here. They both appeared originally in the Zeitschrift für Sprachwissenschaft (Göttingen) of which he is the editor. Jindfich Toman, Universität Regensburg

A Technical Note

The examples in this volume appear in italics and are generally accompanied by a gloss which provides relevant grammatical information, and by a translation which appears in " ". In glosses, words connected by a hyphen correspond to a single graphic word in the example, hence ins is glossed as 'into-the'. Furthermore, dative and genitive non-prepositional objects are often rendered by 'to' and 'of respectively in the gloss in order to make it easily readable; hence Gib ihm allés may be glossed as 'give to-him everything'. In all articles, glosses within the text are generally contained in " . Note that in articles on word-structure, the so-called linking morpheme, perhaps best approximated by the example of o in gasometer, is left in the gloss in its full form to illuminate the structure as fully as possible: Liebesbrief 'love-s-letter'. The same practice is adopted for prefixes and suffixes where necessary: Einzeller 'one-cell-er' / "monocellular organism". In cases in which the gloss and the translation would be identical or near identical, translations are usually omitted. This is also done in cases in which the only difference would consist in the position of the finite verb. The reader is hence asked to translate such glosses as 'because he him sees' as "because he sees him".

Introduction

i. A brief glance at the nineteen-fifties might lead one to conclude that generative studies of German began to develop not much later than studies on the generative grammar of English and that they even share the same birthplace. There are at least a few references which indicate that some of the earliest work done at MIT, or to be more precise, in MIT's Group for Mechanical Translation, was also concerned with the analysis of German (Chomsky & Lukoff 1955, Lees 1957, Matthews & Rogovin 1958). Yet despite these common points in the early stages, the subsequent history of the generative theory of German grammar parallels the American development only in part. In retrospect, several reasons for the divergences emerge. Some of them, especially those related to the actual content of research, can be identified relatively well, whereas others, in particular those related to institutional aspects of research and its social context, remain a matter of speculation.1 As far as institutional aspects are concerned, it seems clear that despite the enthusiasm and energy invested in generative grammar in the sixties, the development of generative studies in both parts of Germany was adversely affected by the absence of a permanent center which would provide a balanced combination of both research and education of students. This basic problem was, in some sense, to be expected, given the structure of German, and, in general, European universities, which are usually open to rather inhomogenous groups of students and whose philosophical faculties, i.e., schools of letters, are predominantly concerned with the education of secondary school teachers. Consequently, the point of departure of research is in most cases very different in character from that of American graduate schools, some of which might perhaps be more adequately seen as performing the function of specialized research institutes. Given this background, it is not entirely surprising that generative studies of German had their origins outside the university domain: in

2

Jindfich Toman

The German Democratic Republic, the Arbeitsstelle fur strukturelle Sprachwissenschaft of the East Berlin Academy of Sciences was the first research group to pursue the study of the generative grammar of German systematically.2 However, after its activity in the generative field was terminated, no comparable successor stepped in. In West Germany, a noncentralized informal group of linguists emerged in the late sixties, who invested much energy and interest in the annual meetings of the Linguistisches ¡Colloquium from 1967 on. 3 Yet this important initiative came to a standstill after several years, and one may speculate that the reason for this lay not only in a change in the "methodological climate" of the late sixties but perhaps also in the fact that the range of interests it represented was too wide. In addition, many of the participants seem to have devoted a great deal of energy to making themselves feel comfortable with a subject which most of them could not discuss in university courses at that time. Nevertheless, the institutional impact of this group was remarkable. Out of some 20-30 active participants before 1970, about 75% became full professors at German universities in the course of time. Only a fraction of them, however, continued to work in the field of generative grammar. On the level of the actual content of research, i.e., on the level of the internal history of the discipline, several points have become relatively clear today. Although it is certainly true that some early studies such as Bierwisch (1963) have managed not to assimilate the structure of German to that of English completely (compare, for instance, Bierwisch's insightful treatment of infinitival complementation, of the verbal complex, etc.), the overall impression is that the early phase of generative grammar, especially as disseminated in the universities, only rarely succeeded in overcoming its dependence on work done on English. Thus many textbooks would assume base rules essentially identical to those of English, paying not much attention to such phenomena as the Vorfeld, or assuming without question the existence of the phrasal category labelled VP (see section II for more discussion). The difference between the American and German developments became very apparent around and after 1970, i.e., during the period characterized by the influence of Generative Semantics. Whereas the European reception of Generative Semantics was intensive and fairly uncritical, this model played a rather different role in the group around MIT in that it speeded up the development of the Extended Standard Theory towards a restrictive theory of grammar. Drawing in part on studies which approached the question of a restrictive theory of grammar by way of examining certain basic principles of grammar, then seen as constraints on rule application (Ross 1967), linguistics at MIT was characterized during the seventies by a complete reinvention of the theory. Whereas the so-called

Introduction

3

"projection problem", i.e., the problem of uniquely mapping a limited amount of data onto (a) grammars), had been formulated earlier, it was only now that a framework was being developed which was explicitly so designed as to reduce the set of possible grammars sanctioned by the theory. Unfortunaly it is no exaggeration to say that the beginnings of this fascinating conceptual development which were reflected, for instance, in Chomsky's Conditions on Transformations and Conditions on Rules (Chomsky 1972, 1974), were almost completely neglected by those who had so far been interested in generative grammar in Germany; after Generative Semantics lost its attraction (for its inventors as well), work associated with generative grammar virtually disappeared from the German scene. Today, mass-produced text books, especially for students in German departments, still end their surveys of grammatical models with Chomsky's Aspects (cf. Heringer et al. 1982). Whatever the reasons for this development might be - they cannot have been purely intellectual -, there are several aspects which are particularly striking. It is out impression that to many linguistst in Germany, the seventies appeared to be a period of "healthy" return to pluralism in linguistics. We suspect, however, that this return to normality can also be seen as a way of admitting that the life of a scholar is a risky one. Although most linguists would go along with other scientists and scholars in saying that science, and scholarship, should not be seen as an activity resulting in the formulation of eternal truths, they may in fact have considerable difficulty in facing a number of practical consequences which this statement implies. It is probably true to say that the desire of a whole generation of linguists for a return to normality resulted partly from difficulties in keeping step with new reformulations of the theory and partly from such problems as that of teaching a discipline which was permanently changing. But whereas these factors may often have been apparent in practical matters of scholarship, there were also a number of problems which might ultimately be referred to as cultural. One of the problems that unfortunately separated many linguists from generative grammar is the fact that generative grammarians do not claim to study language in its "full richness", or, to put it perhaps more precisely, that their conception of language does not coincide with the tradition according to which language is seen as a multi-faceted phenomenon that falls within the scope of a general science of communication. (Within generative semantics some appeal to this conception was made; at one point Lakoff suggested that linguistics should be "the study of natural language in all its manifestations" (Lakoff 1976: 151), thus implying that the scope of inquiry is defined by the "richness" of the object studied rather than by a particular theory.) Contrary to this, most grammarians

4

Jindrich Toman

working in the framework of the Extended Standard Theory and the variants of it which evolved during the seventies do not even claim to study language and substitute for this word the word "grammar" in the technical literature. This is a justifiable step, given the fact that the word "language", and, similarly, such words as "game", "work", "art", "life", are too vague and consequently cause confusions unless given a technical definition, i.e., unless incorporated into a particular theory. But this supposed narrowness of generative grammar has often been completely misunderstood and the resulting confusion has often contributed to its rejection, particularly in circles which expect linguistics to adress social or even political problems. A further important question which provoked a certain amount of confusion and misunderstanding was the so-called problem of data. In some sense, the question can be seen as a variant of the problem discussed in the last paragraph. The problem of data can easily be demonstrated using the discipline of word-formation as an example. A naive interpretation, not unusual in the discipline itself, assumes that anything recognizable as a word falls within the scope of word-formation. One of the conclusions is then that this discipline must be so rich in its apparatus as to accout for any list of words. However, even simple considerations show that such a list of words may be quite inhomogenous, including anything from archaisms and lexical idioms to slips of the tongue. If, on the other hand, the object of study is the faculty for productively creating new words and for understanding such words even in the absence of previous exposition, the choice of the data "sanctioned" by this perspective will differ substantially from an arbitrary list. (In fact, it is not even a priori clear that particular hypotheses concerning this word-formation faculty will be decided by facts from word-formation.) In this sense, the choice of relevant, and exclusion of irrelevant, data will always be a matter of theory. It seems clear that there can be no simple relation between a theory which makes appeal to highly abstract principles and the range of "proper" data. But precisely the failure to realize this results in confusion, enhanced by a common conception of language as a transparent means of communication. 4 Again, we believe that this clash of attitudes basically represents a cultural problem which is always inherent in disciplines which appeal to abstract principles that are not self-evident on the basis of direct evidence or easily reconcilable with experience. The few instances in which the general reading public is exposed to these problems seem, in fact, to confirm this impression. For instance, the widely-read Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung has recently published an analysis of the language of social sciences by Uwe Porksen, a professor at the University of Freiburg. In his opinion, modern linguistics is one of the areas in which documents of pseudo-

Introduction

5

wissenschaftliche Trivialliteratur can be collected in large numbers as demonstrated by, among other things, the following example he has found in the technical literature: Die verwendeten kontextfreien Regeln können als Sonderform kontextabhängiger oder kontextsensitiver [...] Regeln angesehen werden, bei denen der Kontext gleich Null ist. [The context-free rules applied here can be seen as a special case of context-dependent, or context-sensitive, rules [ . . . ] in which the context equals zero.] (Pörksen 1984)

This is, in Pörksen's view, esoterism, wrapping up obvious trivialities in inflated language. However, the reader can take comfort from a remembrance of better times: Wer in den fünfziger Jahren Geisteswissenschaften studierte, hatte keine Mühe, die Sprache der Fachvertreter Porzig, Brinkmann, Glinz zu verstehen. Sie redeten und schrieben gemeinsprachlich. Die wissenschaftliche Sprache als Begriffsinstrument, Nomenklatur und Darstellungstechnik hatte nur eine untergeordnete Funktion. Die Mühen lagen in der Unvertrautheit mit dem Objekt oder in seiner Kompliziertheit, also in der Sache, nicht in der Sprache. [Those who studied humanities in the fifties had no trouble understanding the language of Poizig, Brinkmann or Glinz, the representatives of the [linguistic] discipline. They spoke and wrote in everyday language [gemeinsprachlich]. Scientific language as an instrument of conceptualization, a nomenclature, a technique of representation, had only a subordinate function. Problems resided in unfamiliarity with the object of study or in its complexity, i.e., in the thing itself, not in the language.] (ibid.)

While we would not like to do Pörksen an injustice by belittling his observations, especially those made in connection with the language of psychology and sociology, we find that the above and similar statements rather naively assume a good orderly world in which there is God-given clarity as to what the things themselves are and what the language of description is. This sort of faith in the immediate accessibility of the objects of study is guided by a rather problematic view that these objects of study are data rather than theories. It is our impression that the cultural determination of this view has its roots in the nineteenth century, i.e., in a culture in which science was predominantly based on a pretheoretical world of everyday experience. But whether sience can be an "objective" extension of this naive faith in experience remains controversial at the very least.

6

Jindrich Toman

II. The relatively large amount of attention which has been paid in generative grammar to such questions as the relation between the data and the theory, the proper scope of inquiry, and related problems could of course not lead to solutions of particular linguistic problems as posed by individual languages. Solutions to problems of this nature have been reached largely on the basis of specific innovations within the theory itself. Superficially, one might of course be struck by the fact that among the innovations of the late seventies there are such concepts as the "configurationality parameter" or "abstract case", and one might believe that it is such notions that make the present theory of generative syntax more attractive from the point of view of a language such as German. It is not clear to us whether this is really the case, and in fact it would appear that precisely within a theory of grammar that aims at relatively abstract principles, progress will not systematically result from the fact that the new theory seems to be more "fitting" to the data of some particular language, i.e., from the direct impact of facts. That this is not an absurd claim will hopefully become clear in the course of the following review of one of the central aspects of German syntax, which might be called the problem of the clausal onset. (This problem is dealt with in one form or another in a number of current studies, including the papers by Lenerz, Olsen and van Riemsdijk in this volume.) As Höhle (1983) has pointed out in an extensive survey of German constituent order, the relevant generalizations about the so called "topological", i.e., positional properties of German clause types have been known for more than a century. As a result of this tradition, the following division of the German clause into a number of the so called "topological" fields has emerged: Vorfeld - finite verb - Mittelfeld - Schlußfeld - Nachfeld (There is a certain terminological variation in the literature with respect to names of the particular "fields".) The basic insights are descriptively correct: in a typical declarative clause, the finite verb occupies the position after the first major constituent, and the non-finite verbal element(s), if present, form(s) the Schlußfeld [end-field]. The second position and the Schlußfeld are often said to form the Satzklammer [sentence bracket] in this terminology, and this verbal bracket has traditionally been recognized as a prominent characteristic of the clausal syntax of German. The Vorfeld [front-field] is generally reserved for a single major constituent, whereas the postulation of a Nachfeld [after-field] is suitable for expressing the

1

Introduction

generalization that heavier constituents may leak through the Schlu pfeld and appear in the absolute coda of the clause, as is typical with all sorts of extraposed complement or adverbial clauses. All these particular "fields" pose descriptive problems of their own and many interesting facts could be presented at this point to set up a more detailed statement of relevant distributional regularities. More interestingly, however, we note that many pieces of information available in this traditional framework could easily be accomodated in a positional framework by formulating the corresponding base rules. In fact, there is at least one generative grammar of German into which many of the relevant topological generalizations have been incorporated, namely the fragment of German grammar written by Klima in 1965: Klima's Grammar of German (abbreviated) Base rules: S

# Vorfeld - VP# W (Kn)

Vorfeld

VP

(R) Kn Topic (SP) V - Aux

Sp -»• (NomO) (Nom2) (Nomi) ^ j ^ J ^

Aux

(Passive) (M) (M) (Passive) Perfect (M) (M) (Perfect)

Topic

es

Transformations: Topicalization - conditional: [X1 - sp - X 2 ] s

#

es

1

2

3

4

5

1

4

3

0

5

XJ

(Loc)

8

Jindrich Toman Finite verb placement (in independent sentences): '

V

'

X1 J

M

L

W

#

T°PicJ Vorfeld

+ T - X2

#

Perfect Passive

1

0

2

3

4

1

3

2

0

4 (Klima 1965: 318 f f . )

(W = interrogative phrase, Kn = subordinating particle, R = relative conjunction, Sp = verbal specifier(s), Adj = predicate adjective, T = finite tense and person, M = modal verb, Norn 0 = nominative N P , . . . ) Clearly, a number of details in Klima's formulations are not really transparent; ignoring pure technicalities, we note that relative and interrogative pronouns are base generated. Furthermore, Klima, without any comment, is also breaking with tradition in not accepting the V P node for German. (Or, to be more precise, his VP-node is not a sister node of a subject NP; it would seem to correspond to the S-bare node in more recent frameworks.) More interesting in the present context is the fact that this set of rules makes provision for a special, hierarchically distinguished position with no particular categorial status, namely the Vorfeld. Postulating such an ad hoch entity was incompatible with the format of rules then accepted. The other basic aspect of Klima's system is the presence of two transformations which account for the distribution of the material in the clausal onset. One of them is Topicalization, i.e., the substitution of a major constituent for the base-generated expletive particle es by a major constituent, and the other is the right-adjunction ( ? ) of the finite verb onto the first major constituent of the clause. These two transformational rules appear in some form in practically all the subsequent literature, although occasional neglect of this line of approach can also be attested. Thus even today statements can be found in the literature to the effect that in a clause such as: (1)

Dergriine

Hundhat

the green dog

ihn

wieder gebissen.

has him again

bitten

"The green dog has bitten him again"

Introduction

9

the NP der grüne Hund is in the subject position of the clause. This is a claim which is incompatible with a transformational filling of the Vorfeldposition (or of its equivalents such as COMP).5 We might admire Klima's exploitation of the "topological" tradition and note that his proposal has a number of modern aspects. Nevertheless, one of the problems of his proposal consists in the fact that one cannot really find out whether there was a "higher order" motivation in setting up the base rules in this way. As far as we can judge - we may of course be mistaken at the point at which this fragment of German grammar was written, accounts of the clausal onset as given in Bach (1962) and Bierwisch (1963), i.e., accounts without any special, categorially unspecified position such as the Vorfeld, were reasonable alternatives. In other words, the grammar under discussion indicates Klima's familiarity with the "topological" tradition, yet, to exploit the motto of this book, it is not really clear whether this is for or against some view. During the seventies, analyses of the structure of the clausal onset became seemingly even more complicated. As is well known, there are certain striking aspects of the distribution of the Finite verb in a German clause which are usually phrased in terms of a difference between the main and the dependent clause. As we shall see shortly, the emphasis on main and dependent clause is somewhat misleading, but nevertheless acceptable as a figure of speech. The finite verb must be clause-final in a dependent clause, whereas it must follow the first major constituent in main clauses. Thus (1) contrasts with (2): (2)

..., weil ihn der grüne Hund wieder gebissen hat because him the green dog again bitten has

This distributional fact has been described in a number of frameworks, occasionally without much insight into the basic regularities. Greenberg's influential essay on word order universals (Greenberg 1963) is particularly striking in this respect (see Höhle 1983 on this). According to Greenberg, German has a dominant word order SVO. As Höhle points out, this statement is not only dubious as far as the idea of "dominant word order" is concerned but is also untenable when Greenberg's own criteria for his word typology are consequently applied to the full range of relevant facts of German. Within the generative tradition itself, arguments were given in favor of an account in which the entire verb complex is base-generated in clausefinal position, and the occurrence of the finite verb in the second position is derived by verb movement. In some sense, a pre-generative account of this type can be found in Matthews & Rogovin (1958). In this essay written from the point of view of mechanical syntax recognition, the

10

Jindrich Toman

finite verb in main clauses is moved to the end of the clause so that it might be connected with the so-called separable prefix: "[...] the finite verb of the main clause is located, placed at the end of the sentence, and its original position marked. This is done in order to connect the verb stem with a possible separable prefix. The finite verb from the main clause is moved so that all clauses, dependent and independent, may be treated alike by the rules which follow." (Matthews & Rogovin 1958: 117)

Among thè rules which follow in Matthews & Rogovin's system is a lexical search rule which can give appropriate information about such strings as abfallen 'away-fall'/"fall away" only when the separable prefix and the verb itself form a single complex, i.e., when they form a lexical item. This is the case clause-finally. In other words, Matthews & Rogovin describe a procedure by which a kind of representation is constructed which is necessary to identify discontinuous constituents. In the subsequent literature clause-final position of the finite verb was accepted (or explicitly argued for) in Bach (1962), Bierwisch (1963) and, as we have seen, in Klima (1965). This approach further propagated to Koster (1975), Evers (1975), Thiersch (1978), Safir (1981) and many others. We may digress to note that none of these descriptions is technically completely flawless. In particular one of the most compelling arguments for the clause-final position of the finite verb, namely the fact that the clause-final stranding of the so-called separable prefix is easily accounted for if a movement rule moves just the verb and the prefix is left in situ, has - to the extent that we are familiar with the literature - never been worked out in sufficient detail. Most of the present accounts not only assume that the movement rule is able to move a nonphrasal category (and leave a trace) but also that it can analyze the interior of a compound and move a part of it, leaving effectively a trace inside a word. One should therefore point to alternatives which do not treat the verb and the separable prefix as a compound, i.e., as a minimal projection in the sense of word-syntax, but as a projection which is [-maximal, -minimal] ; cf. Hóhle (this volume), Wunderlich (1983); review also Safir (1981: 427) in this context. Problems of this sort, however, seem to be technicalities and would probably not suffice to make out of this area of syntax more than an interesting puzzle. Our impression is that a really new perspective has emerged only after the syntax of the verb shift and the syntax of the COMP-position have been explicitly related. This unification proceeded in several steps and, to remind the reader of the point of departure of this discussion, it has not really been a result of a confrontation with new sets of facts but was largely motivated by theoretical considerations. The first of these steps was probably taken inHuber&Kummer(1974). 6

Introduction

11

At the point at which these authors discuss the position of the finite verb, they have not yet decided between the SOV and SVO word order alternative. They therefore formulate both a rule of verb-final placement and verb-second placement, later choosing the former. Noticeably, they do not make the application of these rules dependent upon the distribution between root and non-root sentences but upon the presence or absence of the complementizer. They note the dependence of the clause-final occurrence of the finite verb on the presence of the complementizer in the clause and formulate the verb-final placement in such a manner that it applies in the presence of the complementizer; the alternative, the verbsecond rule, is made dependent on the absence of the complementizer. None of thé rules has a format that would today be regarded as acceptable (the "Boolean" format of the structural description is used and context predicates are licensed rather liberally; furthermore rule-particular conditions on application are permitted), yet these deficiencies do not obscure the basic insight, namely the complementary distribution of the complementizer and the finite verb. It is further worth noting that Huber & Kummer also entertained certain rudimentary ideas about rule typology and interpreted their rules in consonance with them. Thus they divide transformations into two groups according to whether they make reference to the complementizer (as a context predicate, in a more recent terminology), or not. They thus explicitly reject the idea of conditions on rule application which are phrased in terms of "root clause" and "embedded clause". Finally, they also suggest (withput any elaboration) that the complementizer should be regarded as a kind of a sentential operator. A much more elaborate discussion of COMP-syntax and the movement of the verb into the second position is to be found in a number of studies by den Besten (among others den Besten 1975,1983). Den Besten regards the fact that a finite verb and a lexical complementizer are mutually exclusive in the clausal onset as non-accidental. He then suggests that verb movement into the second position should be viewed as an instance of a Complementizer Attraction Transformation, i.e., as an instance of a rule in whose structural description the COMP node is referred to. He considers the alternatives of moving the finite verb into COMP or adjoining it to COMP, vacillating between adjunction and substitution at various stages of his studies, and deciding on the latter solution in den Besten (1983). (The finite verb would be dominated by a COMP node under the adjunction analysis as well.) One of the interesting aspects of his approach is the fact that he attempts to treat verb placement in a comparative perspective which should also throw some light on certain inversion phenomena in English (Subject-Aux Inversion) and in French (the inversion of a subject clitic and V).

12

Jindrich Toman

Although the implications of den Besten's work are quite important and the basic insights are interesting in themselves, especially once the implications for English and French are considered, the problem concerning the nature of the COMP-node and the verb movement rule are far from resolved. The reason for this is, among other things, the question as to whether and to what degree the complementary distribution of the finite verb and a lexical complementizer is a natural state of affairs and, consequently, to what degree wh-movement and V-movement form a natural class of movements. This problem has been addressed in a number of studies which all seem to look for something one might call a "deeper motivation" for verb movement and which are typically no longer concerned with the question of the data. In them, the main problem is the depth of generalization. One of such "higher order" comments on the problem of verb movement has been offered by den Besten himself. The core of this explanation consists in considering lexical complementizers and finite verbs as characterized by the feature [tense]. Given then the base rule: (3)

S -» [±wh]

[±tense] S

wh-movement (inclusive of topicalization) and verb second rule are then instances of movement into positions characterized by what den Besten calls a morpho-syntactic feature. The proper formulation of verb movement is therefore relabelled as "Move Tense": (4)

X

-

[+T]

-

Y

-

[y+T]

-

Z

1

2

3

4

5

1

4

3

e

5 (den Besten 1983: 117)

This is in consonance with a general rule-schema for the so called Complementizer Attraction Transformations, which is: (5)

X

-

[+F1]

-Y

-

[ c +F1]

-Z

1

2

3

4

5

1

4

3

e

5

where C is some constituent, and F is some morphosyntactic feature. (den Besten 1983: 115)

13

Introduction

The rule schema also ewers wh-movement since [+wh] is plausibly regarded as a morphosyntactic feature. In this theory then, the clausal onset is characterized by particular distributional properties which concern a class of certain morphosyntactically distinguishable elements. Consequently, rules conditioned by these features form a natural class. However, the question as to why German happens to characterize its COMP with a morphosyntactic feature [Tense] remains unanswered. This state of affairs is certainly not a general property of SOV languages. Whereas den Besten's position stresses the morphosyntactic nature of conditioning of the relevant movement rules, Evers (1981) has suggested an approach which is conceptually somewhat different. For him, the finite verb and wh-words move into the COMP, which is basically similar to den Besten's approach, but the "higher order" motivation of the unitary nature of these movements is rather different; both wh-movement and verb movement are seen as instances of a syntactically explicit scope marking: wh-movement and V-second shift a scope-bearing constituent into a position minimally c-commanding its scope. (Evers 1981: 15)

He then assumes a complex constituent outside S which incorporates a position for a tense index and for operator-like elements:

(6)

Topic"

< ± tense >

quantified expression. The tense index must not remain bare; roughly, it must be covered by a complementizer constant (German daß, Dutch dat) or it must be absorbed by the finite verb, and this enforces verb movement. This survey has by no means covered all possibilities for a natural account of the clausal onset. Most notably there are analyses which exploit particular notions of Chomsky (1981); thus Olsen (this volume) sees the motivation for verb movement in the theory of case marking whereas Safir (1981, summarized in Olsen (this volume)) essentially refers to the theory of government. Finally, Koopman's (1983) study deserves mention in this context, too. Koopman presents evidence that verb movement rules operative in the languages of the Kru family (Ivory Coast) have the same properties as the rules described as NP-movement and wh-movement in

14

Jindrich Toman

the Government & Binding Theory. She thus concludes that no specific principles referring exclusively to verbs are needed. This brief review illustrates several points which we believe are interesting. Rather than a history of discoveries, we see a history of inventions which is guided by concerns about the depth and naturalness of description. This history centers around the question of the internal structure of the clausal onset and a unified account of wh-movement and verb movement. In Klima's account a certain reflex of the previous grammatical tradition can be detected, yet on the whole it is difficult to decide whether this is to the good or not. (We think in particular about the postulation of the Vorfeld). Huber & Kummer take an important step in that they make verb movement dependent on the presence of the lexical complementizer. The mainstream of the subsequent work, then, represents various "inventions" which are meant, among other things, to give a unitary account of the phenomena under discussion. Whereas it is quite likely that conceptualization of other "inventions" will continue for a while, it is unlikely that this central issue of German (and Germanic) syntax will be settled by a simple analysis of facts. The discussion will probably be dominated for a while by a further reinterpretation of known facts in new theoretical perspectives. In this sense, of course, the discussion can be seen as remaining at a merely speculative stage. But the predicate "speculative" does not, as might be thought, necessarily involve a negative judgement; the kind of speculation involved always relates to a certain range of facts: all claims put forth make certain empirical predictions. And it is this central fact which makes the enterprise an empirical one.

III. Since about the early seventies, problems of word-structure have begun to attract the attention of an increasing number of linguists working within the generative framework. These new studies are often referred to as lexicalist studies, but it seems to us that the actual expansion of this field, which occurred only in late seventies, does not ultimately result so much from the Lexicalist Hypothesis as initiated and discussed in the work of Chomsky and Jackendoff as from the fact that a certain agreement has been found as far as the format for word-structure rules is concerned. This, again, relates in some degree to the reception of X-theory and its adaptation to the domain of word-structure. It is rather paradoxical that although the existence of special lexical rules had been assumed for a long time, they were not explicitly formulated. For instance, Aronoff (1976), an influential study which besides Halle's Prolegomena to a Theory of Word-Formation (Halle 1974) indicated that the study of word-structure

Introduction

15

could be pursued as a study of principles of word-formation, contains only one passage which might be regarded as an explicit formulation of a wordformation rule (Aronoff 1976: 63). Previous attempts to formalize word-formation rules can be found in Jackendoffs work (Jackendoff 1975), yet the format of his redundancy rules, a rule type that can be traced back to Chomsky's Aspects, was far from convincing. For instance, the correspondence of subcategorization properties between a certain word and a word lexically related to it was solved in a purely descriptive manner. Thus the fact that in English a verb with a subcategorization frame (a) has a corresponding nominalization with a subcategorization frame (b): (7)

a. NP b. NP's

(NP) V ((P) N P )

was expressed by the following statement which is meant to form the syntactic part of a redundancy rule (the double headed arrow is to be read as "is lexically related to"): c. +[NP*

(NP 2 )] «

+[NP 1 's

((P) N P 2 ) ]

As one may notice, the crucial work in relating the arguments of the two subcategorization frames is done by superscripting, for which, however, no theory is formulated. Hence the superscripting remains a purely descriptive device. The last pages of Jackendoff (1975) indicate some uncertainty about the course he was pursuing. Here he suggests an alternative to redundancy rules. In particular, he regards phrase structure rules of the familiar format as a viable basis for the formalization of word-structure rules. This alternative, which had also been entertained in a rudimentary form in Aspects (Chomsky 1965: 187), has subsequently dominated most studies on word-structure, there being only a few dissident voices. On the basis of what has been said so far, the expansion of studies on word-structure (or word-syntax, as we have called this subdiscipline) would seem to be a result of the fact that an adequate explicit notation has emferged. In view of the discussion in the previous section, in which theoretical "inventions" and factual "discoveries" were contrasted, one might believe that we are facing yet another factor that may push a discipline forward, namely formalism. Although this idea might perhaps be correct in some sense, it should not be interpreted mechanically. To see the reason for this we must be more precise as regards our previous observation that there were no viable word-formation rules prior to the late seventies. A more careful review of older generative literature on German

16

Jindrich Toman

word-formation reveals that rules phrased in the "modern" format, i.e., in the format of phrase structure rules, were offered by Mötsch (1968/ 1981). Motsch's article can not be assessed in terms of its practical impact as it was not published until 1981, but a conceptual assessment is possible. Mötsch proposed the following rule schema for word formation rules: (8) (P) X

(f) (Mötsch 1968/1981: 110)

where X stands for a lexical category, S for a suffix, P for a preposition and A is a symbol that triggers lexical insertion. Although the rule would seem to have a number of desirable properties, being among other things recursive, we note that it is in fact no more than an abbreviation of certain structural possibilities deducible from a correct selection of data. This, of course, had to be so given the state of the art in the domain of phrase structure rules at the time the proposal was made. In particular, there was no possibility to refer to such notions as the head of a construction in the phrase structure rules. Thus, taking the rule schema by Motsch seriously, one would never be able to work out why, say, an adjective-noun compound generated in accordance with this schema is itself a noun. Given the notion "head", however, and the principle that all head projections carry morphosyntactic features of the head (both in complex words and in maximal projections) - which, of course, is one of the principles introduced by the X-theory this information is supplied automatically. Hence it turns out that the choice of an adequate notation is not only a part of the "history of inventions" in the strict technical sense of this word but also a reflex of basic theoretical concepts. The introduction of a certain format of rules for word-structure remains unmotivated as long as a theoretical basis of this notation is absent. Had Motsch's article been published in 1968, it would have been unclear for what reasons his proposal should be accepted. An explicit theory of phrase structure rules did not exist at that point. Simplifying somewhat, one may say that the new study of wordstructure comprises the following domains: (i) the study of principles governing the base rules for word-structures and (ii) the study of operations on base-generated word-structures. In this sense, one might draw the following parallel between the syntax of maximal projections and wordsyntax:

Introduction

17 d-structure

(9)

move a s-structure Logical form

(10)

Sound Shape d-structure 'percolate' s-structure

Logical form

Sound Shape (Morphology Proper)

(The parallel is of course an approximation only. Certain principles (such as those of case marking, and of binding (?)) remain restricted to the syntax of major projections, at least in German.) One of the first discussions of phrase structure rules for the base generation of (complex) words can be found in Williams (1981), and another explicit proposal for this type of rules is put forward in Selkirk (1982). As for German, some work has been done in this domain, too (Toman 1980 and this volume). However a more intriguing and to a large extent unexplored area is represented by operations on base-generated word-structures. Among other things, these operations involve systems of percolation of features within complex words. This is a necessary component of word-syntax to the extent that information associated with particular subconstituents of a complex word must be associated with the entire product of the word formation process. In this context attention should be drawn to Selkirk's (1982) definition of percolation; see also some rudimentary proposals concerning argument inheritance in Toman (1980). An important study in this field is also Lieber (1983), an article based on her 1980 dissertation. Lieber examines essentially (in our terminology) the principles that govern theta-role inheritance within complex words. Although diverging in a number of points, these studies preserve a common conceptual core and can thus in principle be evaluated with respect to the differences in their empirical content, which is a fortunate situation for the whole field. Despite the fact that the field of word-syntax is expanding, we must concede that there are not very many studies of this type on German, so far. In particular, studies on the realization of argument structure within

18

Jindrich

Toman

complex words remain to be done. Again, we see that the fact that German is rich in productive compounding patterns, and that word-formation studies have a long tradition in Germany, does not automatically lead to the construction of interesting theories. It seemed therefore particularly important to include studies relating to word-structure in the present volume. Hohle's 'article, accompanied by critical comments by Marga Reis, represents one of the first attempts in this area. Its original version goes back to the mid-seventies. Fanselow's contribution is also important in that it implements a modular perspective and attempts to explain the absence of certain products of word-syntax by reference to principles of semantic interpretation. Importantly, these principles are general in the sense that they are applicable both at phrasal level and at the level of words. Should these studies be an impetus for a further discussion of principles of word-structure, the goal of the word-formation section of this volume would certainly be reached.

NOTES 1. An informative account of the early stage of generative grammar in Germany, inclusive of a bibliography, is Vater (1972); see also Bechert (1983). 2. The work done in this group is reflected in the publications of the series studio grammatica as far as volume 10. 3. See Wunderlich (1971) for a programmatic statement. 4. It is by no means self-evident that this conception is based on a genuinely naive intuition, an "anthropological constant". Notice that the decline of the rhetorical tradition, i.e., of the supporting communicative discipline, in the late 18th and early 19th centuries largely coincides with impressive advances in historical linguistics, i.e., in a field which is free of the communicative point of view. 5. We may digress briefly to note that a consequent execution of this line of approach in a system with traces implies that, amohg other things, the simplest declarative clause type such as (a) will be represented as (b): a. b.

Karl schläft Karl sleeps [ [Kar^schläftj] tj t, ] ]

Although opinions on this structure may vary, it seems to us that critics should not spend time on the question of whether such a structure should cause a problem because of its string-vacuity. Note that the rules involved are not systematically stringvacuous, it is only particular instances of their application that yield a string vacuous output Hence in the course of language acquisition other data will be available to the child - for instance clauses such as Karl schläft nicht 'Karl sleeps not' / "Karl does not sleep" which will make it possible for him to conclude that (b) is a possible representation of (a). 6. The manuscript of this book was submitted to the publishers in 1972 (W. Huber, p.c.).

Introduction

19

REFERENCES Aronoff, M. 1976. Word Formation in Generative Grammar. Cambridge, MA.: MIT Press. Bach, Emmon. 1962. "The Order of Elements in a Transformational Grammar of German." Language 38: 263-269. Bechert, Johannes. 1983. "Some Remarks on General and Comparative Linguistics in West Germany from 1950 to 1977." Papiere zur Linguistik no. 28: 63-76. Besten, Hans den. 1975. "A Note on Designating Lexical Delenda." Unpublished. University of Amsterdam. [Printed in Dutch in Spektator 5: 415-432.] Besten, Hans den. 1983. "On the Interaction of Root Transformations and Lexical Deletive Rules." On the Formal Syntax of the Westgermania, ed. by W. Abraham, 47-131. Amsterdam: Benjamins. Bierwisch, Manfred. 1963. Grammatik des deutschen Verbs. Berlin: AkademieVerlag. (studia grammatica, 2.) Chomsky, N. & F. Lukoff. 1955. "Construction of the German Verb Phrase." Mechanical Translation Group Memo, Aug. 12, 1955. Research Laboratory of Electronics, MIT. [Quoted in Lees 1957: 6.] Chomsky, Noam. 1965. Aspects of the Theory of Syntax. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press. Chomsky, Noam. 1972. "Conditions on Transformations." A Festschrift for Morris Halle, ed. by Stephen R. Anderson & Paul Kiparsky, 232-286. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston. Chomsky, Noam. 1974. "Conditions on Rules of Grammar." Linguistic Analysis 2: 303-351. Chomsky, Noam. 1977. "On wh-Movement." Formal Syntax, ed. by P.W. Culicover et al., 71-132. New York: Academic Press. Chomsky, Noam. 1981. Lectures on Government and Binding. Dordrecht: Foris. Evers, Arnold. 1981. "Verb Second Movement Rules." Wiener Linguistische Gazette no. 26: 15-34. Halle, Morris. 1973. "Prolegomena to a Theory of Word Formation." Linguistic Inquiry 4: 3-16. Heringer, Jürgen et al. 1980. Syntax: Fragen, Lösungen, Alternativen. München Fink. Höhle, Tilman. 1983. "Topologische Felder." Universität Köln. Unpublished. Huber, Walter & Werner Kummer. 1974. Transformationelle Syntax des Deutschen I. München: Fink." Jackendoff, Ray. 1975. "Morphological and Semantic Regularities in the Lexicon." Language 51: 639-671. Klima, Edward S. 1975. "Constituent Structure and Word-Order Rules for German." Quarterly Progress Reports - Research Laboratory of Electronics (MIT), no. 77: 317-322. Koopman, Hilda. 1983. The Syntax of Verbs: From Verb Movement Rules in the Kru Languages to Universal Grammar. McGill University, Montreal. [Dissertation draft] Köster, Jan. 1975. "Dutch as an SOV Language." Linguistic Analysis 1: 111-136. Lakoff, George. 1974. "[A Dialogue with George Lakoff.]" Discussing Language, ed. by Herman Parret, 151-178. The Hague: Mouton. Lees, Robert B. 1957. "Structural Grammars." Mechanical Translation 4: 5-10. Lieber, Rochelle. 1983. "Argument Linking and Compounds in English." Linguistic Inquiry 14: 251-285.

20

Jindrich Toman

Matthews, G.H. & Syrell Rogovin. 1958. "German Sentence Recognition." Mechanical Translation 5: 114-120. Mötsch, Wolfgang. 1968/1981. "Dei kreative Aspekt in der Wortbildung." Wortbildung, ed. by L. Lipka & H. Günther, 94-118. Dannstatt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft. Pörksen, Uwe. 1984. "Die Inflation der neuen Wörter." Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung, no. 134, June 13, 1984, p. 25. Ross, John R. 1967. Constraints on Variables in Syntax. Doctoral dissertation. Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Safir, Ken. 1981. "Inflection-Government and Inversion." The Linguistic Review 1: 417-467. Selkirk, Elisabeth O. 1982. The Syntax of Words. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press. Thiersch, Craig L. 1978. Topics in German Syntax. Doctoral dissertation. Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Toman, Jindrich. 1980. Wortsyntax. Eine Diskussion ausgewählter Aspekte deutscher Wortbildung. Dissertation. Universität Köln. [Published under the same title by Niemeyer, Tiibingen 1983.] Vater, Heinz. 1971. "Linguistics in West Germany." Language Sciences no. 16: 6-24. Williams, Edwin.-1981.'"On the Notions 'Lexically Related* and 'Head of a Word'." Linguistic Inquiry 12: 245-274. Wunderlich, Dieter. 1971. "Vorwort." Probleme und Fortschritte der Transformationsgrammatik. Referate des 4. Linguistischen Kolloquiums Berlin 6.-10.0ktober 1969, ed. by D. Wunderlich, pp. 7-9, München: Hueber.

Parti

Studies on Syntax

The Ergative Hypothesis and Free Word Order in Dutch and German* Hans den Besten Universiteit van Amsterdam

1. INTRODUCTION

The syntax of both Dutch and German is characterized by a certain amount of freedom of word order. To be more precise: in the so-called Mittelfeld or 'middle field', i.e. the stretch of linguistic material between COMP or the preposed finite verb (in main clauses) and the VP-final verb, the Nominative Subject NP can be preceded by other argument NPs. The freedom of word order in German is sometimes attributed to the presence of morphological case in this language. However, such a common sense explanation will not do in the case of Dutch, since the latter language does not have morphological case at its disposal and yet allows a fair amount of freedom of word order. This implies that the German morphological case system may not even suffice as the beginning of an explanation for those instances of free word order in German which are not shared by Dutch. Whatever the merits of considerations based upon morphological case, those instances of free word order which Dutch and German syntax have in common call for an explanation. One might want to hypothesize that these West Germanic languages are nonconfigurational in that they lack a VP. There is a fair amount of literature on this topic, especially in the field of German syntax. I refer to Haider (1981 and 1982), Tappe (1982), Thiersch (1982) "and den Besten (1982). Haider and Tappe argue against a syntactic VP, whereas Thiersch and den Besten favor a configurational analysis. In this essay I will follow the latter line of thought and show how an analysis involving a VP, Move NP and a parameter concerning Case Assignment can provide us with a satisfactory account of certain inversions of NPs that give Dutch and German syntax such a non-configurational appearance. This does not imply that all other instances of free inversions of two NPs in Dutch and German can be described in terms of * This paper combines and partly revises two earlier papers of mine: den Besten (1981b) and (1982). Since the 1981 paper is in German and since the 1982 one appeared in a working papers series with a limited distribution, I hope that this paper will make the ideas contained in the above-mentioned essays available for a wider public.

24

Hans den Besten

Move NP. (It is my impression that at least some of them cannot.) However, the above statement does imply that one cannot simply refer to the permutability of NPs in the Dutch and German Mittelfeld when arguing for nonconfigurationality. The pertinent sets of facts require further analysis before they can be used as an arugument to that effect. Furthermore it should be taken into account that the free word order phenomena in Dutch and German are not that 'free' at all. In many cases no inversion is possible and where inversion is possible all sorts of conditions keep the pertinent permutations within certain well-defined limits. Overviews of these conditions can be found in Lenerz (1977) and Abraham (1982). These studies also show that certain NP orders should be considered basic, whereas the respective inverse orders can be viewed as 'derived'. It is only for such reasons that one may use words like 'inversion' or 'permutation' when referring to the pertinent phenomena. Since such concepts seem to make little sense in a nonconfigurational account, the adherents of the idea of nonconfigurationality must find a different way to go about it, whereas a configurational Move NP account will not meet any problems here. Finally note that evidence in favor of a VP in Dutch and German is not completely absent (compare Thiersch 1982) and I will argue in this paper that there also is a 'small VP', which leads even further away from a 'flat S' analysis. To become a little more concrete, let us now turn to some observations. Given what can be found in the literature three types of phenomena can be distinguished which involve reordering of NPs. The first type comprises Topicalization and WH Movement, rules moving elements to COMP, and will not concern us here, because it does not pertain to the Mittelfeld. The second type involves what might be called S-internal and VP-internal Topicalization (cf. Thiersch 1982). Examples of the latter type are: (1)

a.G Ich glaube, daß diesen Baum^QQ ein Förster^JQM gefällt hat. I believe that this tree a forester cut-down has b .G Schenken Sie Ihre Stimme unserer Partei. Give you your vote to-our party

(Throughout this paper G will be used as an indication for German and D as an indication for Dutch.) I have relatively little to say about such cases and they will not be dealt with in this paper. Examples like (la) seem to me to be fairly restricted in usage. Examples like (lb) are much more natural, although DAT ACC is the unmarked order. 1 Finally, there is a set of inversion phenomena which - unlike the S-

The Ergative Hypothesis and Free Word Order in Dutch and German

25

internal and VP-internal Topicalizations - are shared by Dutch and German syntax. This set of inversions involves permutations which - unlike the inversion in (la) - require little effort and sound quite natural: (2) G D

..., daß unserem Nachbar etwas schreckliches passiert ist ...,dat onze buurmaniets verschrikkelijks overkomen is that to-our neighbour something terrible happened has

Something similar can be observed in passivized sentences. This phenomenon, which I will call Nominative-Dative Inversion, was a residual problem for the analysis of passive in Dutch and German vs. English presented in den Besten (1981c). In the pertinent paper it was claimed that the distinction between syntactic and lexical passives which obtains in English (cf. Wasow 1977) is also relevant for the syntax of Dutch and German, even though most of the diagnostics that are relevant for English do not (or hardly) give the required results for Dutch and German. An account was given for the difference between English on the one hand and the continental West Germanic languages on the other hand as regards Indirect Object NPs - which do passivize in English whereas they do not in Dutch or German (with some well-defined exceptions). The general idea underlying this solution was that Vs assign structural Case (Accusative) to the nearest NP but Oblique Case to an NP that is further removed. Thus Case Assignment will yield (3a) for English and (3b) for German and Dutch: 2 (3)

a. [yp V NP NP ] +acc. +obl. b. [yp NP NP V ] +obl. +acc.

Since Oblique NPs may not nominativize, the differences in passivization between English and German/Dutch can be easily accounted for. Finally, it was assumed that NPs can acquire Nominative Case by moving into (NP,S) position. Such an analysis creates a problem for the description of the Dative Nominative order in examples like (4) below and (2) above: (4)G D

..., daß dem Museumjy^j die t/raej^oM geschenkt worden ist ...,dat het museum^p^de wamnOM geschonken is that to-the museum the urn donated (been) has

Den Besten (1981c: 81) briefly considered the possibility of there being Nominative NPs in (NP, VP) position but immediately rejected that idea as being 'too radical a position to defend'. Nevertheless, this is the position I am going to defend in the present paper.

26

Hans den Besten

In sections 3 and 4, I will present an analysis for Nominative-Dative Inversion according to which NPs in Object position may acquire Nominative in situ and do not have to move to the (NP,S) position. This implies that Nominative-Dative Inversion is a misnomer and should be DativeNominative Inversion. Section 3 is preceded by a section on the theoretical assumptions from which I will start. These assumptions will be extended and partly changed in section 4. Section 5 will present an extension of the analysis for Nominative-Dative Inversion and section 6 contains some suggestions as to how to derive certain instances of Nominative-Accusative Inversion in Dutch and German. The core of the analysis, which was first developed in den Besten (1981b), is in fact a variant of Burzio's Ergative Hypothesis (Burzio 1981), as will be shown in section 4. The upshot of all this will be that the Ergative Hypothesis can provide us with a configurational account for some free word order phenomena. I think that before I start a warning is in order: Throughout this paper I will deal with Dutch and German as if they were dialects. Whenever necessary, differences will be pointed out and whenever possible, specific arguments will be based upon phenomena present in one language but not in the other. Nevertheless, I hope I have avoided overgeneralizations.

2. SOME THEORETICAL ASSUMPTIONS

In order to come to grips with the phenomenon of Nominative-Dative Inversion, we need a system of Case Assignment rules for Dutch and German. As a preliminary remark, let me point out that according to the description alluded to above, when the structures in (3) were discussed, the assignment of Dative to an Indirect Object - at least if a Direct Object is present - may be regarded as being structural. At this point Dutch and German coincide. German, however, makes extensive use of lexically governed Oblique Cases which cannot be structurally assigned and are dependent upon specific lexical items which are marked for this in the Lexicon. Compare (5): (5)

Wirgedenken derTotenQen We commemorate the dead

Such lexical Oblique NPs can also cooccur with Accusative Direct Objects and are ordered between the Direct Object and the verb. As for verbs like helfen "help" which assign Dative Case, it may well be that the pertinent Dative NPs occupy the same position as the structural Dative NPs (see below). It may not be without significance that there are still some

The Ergative Hypothesis and Free Word Order in Dutch and German

27

verbs of the helfen type in Dutch, albeit marginally (compare den Besten 1981c and Everaert 1982). Now, it is not unreasonable to assume that there is one governor per structural Case. Since V is the governor for Objective/Accusative, a structural Case, a second structural governor is called for and V (or 'small VP') is the evident choice to make. Thus, we may substitute the following structures for those in (3): (6)

a. t y p t v V

(English)

b. [

(German, Dutch)

w

NP ] NP ] +acc. +obl. NP [ y NP V ]] +obl. +acc.

Given a structure like (6b) it is possible to analyze verbs like helfen in German as requiring, not: assigning, Dative NPs, which will be realized outside of the small VP. But this problem is not an urgent one, and I will leave it at this suggestion. The structures in (6) are not a real novelty. (6a) can be found in Chomsky (1981), and as for (6b), I have come across similar analyses for Dutch in Daalder and Blom (1976), Verkuyl (1979) and de Haan (1979), although these studies were not concerned with Case Assignment and had different reasons for deciding in favor of layered VPs. The paper by Daalder and Blom (1976) is quite interesting in this respect because they base their account upon considerations of superiority, claiming that bound anaphors require antecedents that are in a superior position. Since Indirect Objects can be antecedents for anaphoric Direct Objects, they conclude that Indirect Object NPs must be outside a small VP. However, these considerations require rephrasing in the framework of the present Binding Theory (Chomsky 1981). Evidence for a V in Continental West Germanic can be found in data about Verb Raising. The structural description for Verb Raising in the respective languages and dialects of Continental West Germanic can be generalized as in (7) (compare den Besten and Edmondson 1983): (7)

X - Vn - V - Y

(n > 0 ) .

The V n is either raised to the left or to the right of the V to its immediate right and is adjoined to it (compare Evers 1975). Additional rules necessary to derive all possible word orders in the verbal complex in West Germanic will be disregarded here, and we will concentrate upon those dialects that are supposed to be right-adjoining (cf. den Besten and Edmondson 1983). A couple of Flemish dialects of Dutch allow V Raising (vide Vanacker 1970):

28

Hans den Besten

(8)

a. ...,da'k snavonds moeste [y mijn kousen afdoen] that -I in the evening had-to my stockings off-put b. En ge zoudt nogmoeten [y uw eigen pintje betalen] And you would yet have to your own beer pay

In these dialects therefore, the two objects can get separated by Verb Raising, as is also the case in the following Zurich German example (Lotscher 1978): (9)

Mer hand em Hans wele tdor fen [y es veto schanke] we have the John want be-allowed-to a bike give "We wanted to be allowed to give John a bike"

Arguments for a small VP in English could be constructed on the basis of the rule of V n Deletion, which is triggered by Sub-Deletion, (n > 0). This rule yields sentences like those in (10): (10)

a. John bought more books than Peter did [y e] [j^p e records] b. Peter [y sends Mary] more flowers than John does [y e] [^p e letters]

Compare Chomsky (1980) and (1981) for other arguments. Yet structures like (6a) have some annoying consequences in that there cannot be a unique structural definition for Direct Objects any longer, and objections have been raised against the small VP analysis for English by Czepluch (1982) who proposes an alternative. Whatever the best analysis for English may be, the small VP seems to be acceptable in the case of German and Dutch. Returning now to (6b), the structure proposed, we can see that the assumption of there being one governor per structural Case implies that structural Case Assignment is constrained by a condition of strict locality in the sense that the first branching node dominating the Case assigner a must also dominate the Case-receiving position (3. This means that Case Assignment requires a type of government not unlike the original conception of government as can be found in Bennis and Groos (1980), an overview of Chomsky's Pisa Lectures in 1979. In order to distinguish this type of government from the present definition in Chomsky (1981), we might call it 'strict government' or 'Case government' but I will continue to use the shorter name, assuming that the above remarks will suffice to keep things apart. The following definitions are needed: (11)

a. a governs |3 iff a minimally c-commands 0 and there is no S- or NP-boundary between a and J3.

The Ergative Hypothesis and Free Word Order in Dutch and German

29

b. a minimally c-commands ß = j ) e f a c-commands ß and there is no 7 such that a c-commands 7, 7 c-commands ß, and 7 does not c-command a. c. a / 7 = [ ±N,±V], V, Tense (or: INFL). (12)

a c-commands ß iff the first branching node dominating a also dominates ß (compare Reinhart 1976).

These definitions allow the following Case Assignment rules: (13)

If a governs NPj, NPj becomes Nominative, if a = Tense (or: INFL) Objective , if a = V Oblique , if a = P, V, or a marked verb

('Objective' can be equated with Accusative Case and 'Oblique' corresponds with Dative Case in the unmarked case.) Finally, there is the Case Filter, barring any N that does not bear Case: (14)

*N, if N does not bear Case.

Note that the above set of rules does not require strict adjacency between the governor and the Case-receiving NP (compare Stowell (1981) and Chomsky (1981) for strict adjacency). It is very difficult to make strict adjacency work for Dutch and German syntax in view of examples like the following Dutch one (which can be easily transposed into German) even if one were to make use of Stowell's dual verbal position inside the VP (Stowell 1981): (15)

..., dat ik [yp Karel^j^j that I Charles toegestuurd heb] sent have

gisteren die uitgave^QQ per luchtpost yesterday that publication by airmail

Strict adjacency may be required for Exceptional Case Marking, as is pointed out in Chomsky (1981) -although we need a refined defintion to cover cases like the following: (16)G ..., daß er [g den Johann^QQ [yp ein Lied singen]] hörte that he John a song sing heard but I will not go into this matter here. I would like to conclude this section by making a few additional assumptions about Tense/INFL and past participles.

30

Hans den Besten

It is a well-known fact that it is very difficult to find evidence in favor of an INFL or AUX in either Dutch or German syntax. I will therefore assume that there is no INFL in Dutch and that the Case assigner for Nominative is COMP. I will not have to change my Case assignment rules, though, since we may assume that a feature [+Tense] is present in the COMP of finite clauses. Here I follow an analysis which was first proposed in den Besten (1978) (and repeated in den Besten (1981a)). Arguments can be found in den Besten (1983: App. II). According to this analysis the rule of Finite Verb Preposing, which applies to most root sentences and to some subordinate clause types, puts the finite verb in the position of the [+Tense] COMP, thereby precluding the presence of a lexical complementizer in this position, as is nicely shown by the following pair of subordinate clauses: (17)

a.G ...,alsob die Kinder nich geschrien hätten as if the kids not cried had b.G ..., als hätten die Kinder nicht geschrien e

(Similarly for Dutch.) I do not want to conclude from what is said above that the finite COMP in Dutch and German is in fact the INFL of these languages (as does for instance Platzack (1983) who speaks about CONFL), but suffice it to say that the feature [+Tense] in COMP will do for the rule assigning Nominative in Dutch and German. As for past participles, I will assume that they are not capable of assigning Case, in accordance with Chomsky (1981). Whenever a Direct Object is governed by a past participle it must be moved into the Case-acquiring Subject position, unless it can receive Case in a different way: (18)

NP [+Case]

INFL

BE

t

V+ed

NP [-Case]

The schema in (18) is meant for English, the corresponding schema for Dutch and German should be as follows: (19)G COMP

NP NP V+r [+Case] [-Case] h

WERDEN (D: ... V+t/d WORDEN)

I

(For Move NP in an SOV language, see den Besten (1981c)) As is commonly assumed, the participle is not a Case-assigner because it is not a V. There are two ways to express this: Either the past participle is an adjective or it is an intermediate category [+V] (compare Rouveret

The Ergative Hypothesis and Free Word Order in Dutch and German

31

and Vergnaud (1980) and Chomsky (1981)). In Dutch arguments can be found in favor of this intermediate category [+V]. These arguments concern the abovementioned rule of Verb Raising (Evers 1975). The Standard Dutch instantiation for schema (7) is given in (20): (20)

X-V-V-Y=»l

- e - 3+2 - 4

This rule generates VO strings on the basis of an underlying OV word order: (21)

..., dat hij ooit eens met jou heeft proberen te praten that he once with you has try to talk

Participles seem optionally to obey rule (20): (22)

a. ...,dat er hier ongelukken gebeurd zijn / zijn gebeurd that there here accidents happened have/have happened b. ...,dat zij de hele ochtend gedweild heeft/ heeftgedweild that she the whole morning mopped has / has mopped c dat het voorstel veranderd moet worden / moet worden that the proposal changed must be / must be veranderd changed

However, if a past participle were a V,the following paradigm would pose a problem, since rule (20) would then generate both (23a) and (23b) and the ungrammatical (23c), whereas it would not be able to generate the grammatical (23 d): 3 (23)

a. ..., dat hij het boek toegestuurdgekregen heeft that he the book sent obtained has b. ..., dat hij het boek toegestuurd heeft gekregen c.*..., dat hij het boek heeft gekregen toegestuurd d dat hij het boek heeft toegestuurd gekregen

If past participles constitute a special category [+V], though, they may obey syntactic rules of their own so that the examples in (22) and (23) can be correctly characterized. Finally, note that the rule inverting auxiliaries and past participles does not apply to adjectives, not even when their morphology is participial: (24)

a. ..., dat zij al wakker is / *is wakker that she already awake is / *is awake

32

Hans den Besten b. ..., dat hij op Marieke verliefd is / *is verliefd that he with Mary in-love is / ""is in-love

(Verliefd = stem verliev plus participial -d.) In den Besten (1981c) it was incorrectly inferred from data like (22) and (24) that past participles are verbs. However, such data only shows that past participles are not adjectives. We may therefore stick to the conclusion that past participles belong to a special subcategory [+V].

3. NOMINATIVE-DATIVE INVERSION

3.1 A hypothesis As has already been noted in section 1., there are sentences with intransitive verbs in German and Dutch which evidence an inversion of the Subject (the Nominative) and the Indirect Object (the Dative). The same applies in the case of a passivized ditransitive verb. Compare the following examples: (25)

(26)

a.G ..„daß deine Geschichten^Q^ meinem Bruder^^j D ..., dat jouw verhalen^Q^ mijn broer^^j that your stories (to) my brother gefielen bevielen pleased b.G ..., daß meinem Bruder^^j deine Geschichten^Q^ D ..., dat mijn broer^^j youw verhalen^Q^ gefielen bevielen me nem dieses jß^NOM ' Onkel^^j m n 00/M dit V DAT this book (to) my uncle ist is been has b.G...,daß meinem Onkel^^j dieses Buch^Q^ oom D ...,dat mijn DAT ^ worden ist is

a.G ..., daß D ...,dat that worden

nicht niet not

nicht niet

zugeschickt toegestuurd sent

zugeschickt toe Sestuurd

Note that Dutch freely makes use of such sentences, even though there is hardly any morphological case left in this language.4

The Ergative Hypothesis and Free Word Order in Dutch and German

33

The following labelled bracketings represent two hypotheses about the structure of sentences like (25b) and (26b). For ease of exposition only German lexical items are inserted in these structures: (27)

a. [$ DATj NOMj [yp ej [y nicht gefielen] ] ] b. [ s DATj [ V p ej [y NOMj nicht gefielen] ] ]

(28)

* r„ r>AT. MOM. N m A. fr-, e j zugeschickt worden isf] ] ] zugeschickt worden is/] ] ]

Structure (27a) embodies the claim that the Nominative is base-generated in Subject position, i.e., the (NP,S) position. According to this idea the Dative is inverted with the Subject by means of some sort of Topicalization rule. The labelled bracketing in (27b) represents the alternative hypothesis to the effect that the Nominative (the Subject) is basegenerated in Direct Object position, i.e., in the (NP,V) position. The Dative on the other hand is put into Subject position by Move NP. Both hypotheses reappear in (28a) and (28b). According to (28a), NP¿ has been moved out of Direct Object position into Subject position, while the Dative has been 'topicalized'. According to (28b) the logical object stays in Direct Object position, where it will become a Nominative, while the Dative shows up in Subject position by means of Move NP. The first hypothesis, i.e., the hypothesis represented by (27a) and (28a), is the position taken in Koster (1978: 3.2.2.3.) and den Besten (1981c: 81). It is based upon the perhaps somewhat simpleminded assumption that Subjects are Subjects and so should be generated in Subject position - an assumption which is not completely incomprehensible given the syntax of languages like English. The second hypothesis comprises two claims: A) a Nominative may show up in Object position, where it has started in D-Structure, B) a Dative may show up in Subject position. The former claim is strongly reminiscent of the Ergative Hypothesis (Burzio 1981). We will come back to this in section 4. The latter claim may be false in that there does not need to be an (NP,S) position in such structures or because the (NP,S) position may stay empty. These claims will be investigated in section 3.2 and section 3.3 respectively. 3.2 The Nominative in (NP,V) position? The hypothesis that Nominatives can appear in Direct Object position can be tested by means of the rule of was fur Split (G) and wat voor Split (D) respectively. However, a digression about the syntax of was für/wat voor NPs is in order.

34

Hans den Besten

The syntax of the Dutch wat voor NPs is discussed in Bennis (1983). As far as I can see, his arguments and conclusions carry over to German. Consider the following examples: (29)

a.D Wat voor romansheeft hijgeschreven? what for novels has he written? "What kind of novels has he written?" b.D Watheeft hij voor romansgeschreven?

A sequence wat voor N constitutes an NP. For instance the Direct Object in (29a) may become a Nominative in a passive structure: (30)D Wat voor romans zijn er door hem geschreven? what for novels have-been there by him written? The fact that wat voor romans is now a Nominative can be deduced from the observation that the finite verb is plural and therefore must agree with a plural Nominative. The plural is expressed in the morphology of the noun romans "novels". Since zijn 'are, have been' agrees with the plural romans and not with the singular noun wat "what", we may conclude that wat voor is a lexically frozen specifier expression and that the noun following this specifier is the head of the pertinent NP. This argument can be replicated for German, though this will not be done here. The conclusion that wat voor N/was für N is not an NP consisting of a nominal head wat/was followed by a PP complement voor¡für NP is corroborated by the observation that in German the 'preposition' für, which usually assigns Accusative Case, does not govern the Case expressed on the linguistic material following it, which consists of an optional indefinite specifier ein "a", an optional sequence of one or more APs and an obligatory noun plus possible postnominal complements. The Case expressed will always be the Case required by the element the was für NP is governed by. For further arguments I refer the reader to Bennis (1983). The lexically frozen specifier wat voor/was für permits subextraction of wat/was, as can be seen in (29b). In the paper quoted above, Bennis (1983) claims that this is due to a two step restructuring process which transforms an underlying structure like (31) into two separate constituents, an NP wat and a PP voor romans:

The Ergative Hypothesis and Free Word Order in Dutch and German NP

(31) SPEC NP

A wat

(32)

P

I

voor

PP

NP P

N N

ZX

romans

wat

35

voor

A N

romans

Considerations which may lead to a restructuring analysis relate to constraint on movement rules. Subextraction of the NP wat/was out of the larger NP wat voor N/was für N would violate both the Left Branch Constraint and Subjacency (the pertinent bounding nodes being NP and S). Furthermore, Bennis observes that in the case of wat voor Split in Dutch the remnant voor X may undergo PP Extraposition: (29)

b.' Watheeft hij geschreven voor romans?

Such examples are certainly not ungrammatical, although I think they require a question mark. Yet, since I do not know whether I can accept all of Bennis' arguments and since I believe his ideas can be implemented in a different way, I stick to the subextraction analysis for wat voor and was für Split. I will assume that extraction of wat/was will change the status of the remnant NP from [+N, -V] 3 into [-V] 3 , due to the presence of the preposition voor/für which now turns into a semi-governor. The constituent [-V] 3 being an NP and a PP at the same time is now elligible for the rule of PP Extraposition in Dutch. Its dual status may explain why such constructions are not completely acceptable. The switch from [+N, -V] 3 into [-V] 3 can explain why no Subjacency effects are found. And finally the Left Branch Condition is suspended because the trace of wat/was is licenced by the preposition voor/für. This means that the trace of wat/ was is subject to the ECP (for this notion, see Chomsky (1981)). However, it may be surmised that the preposition voor/für alone will not suffice as a proper governor, since it is a weak governor which does not assign Case. This supposition is confirmed by the distribution of wat voor and was für Split. Subextraction of wat/was is permitted on the condition that the pertinent NP be strictly governed by V. This can be deduced from the following data: (33)

a. SU: *Wat hebbenvoormensenje moeder bezocht? *Was haben für Leute deine Mutter besucht? what have for people your mother visited?

36

Hans den Besten

b.

(34)

a. 10:

b.

"What sort of people have visited your mother?" Wat voor mensen hebben je moeder bezocht? Was für Leute haben deine Mutter besucht? *Watheb jij voor mensen je stuk gestuurd? •Was hast du für Leuten deinen Aufsatz geschickt? what have you for people your paper sent? "What kind of people have you sent your paper to?" Wat voor mensen heb jij je stuk gestuurd? Was für Leuten hast du deinen Aufsatz geschickt?

(35)

a. DO: Watheb jij in Italie voor musea bezocht? Was hast du in Italien fur Museen besucht? what have you in Italy for museums visited? "What sort of museums did you visit in Italy?" b. Wat voor musea heb jij in Italie bezocht? Was fur Museen hast du in Italien besucht?

(36)

a. PredN: Wat zijn dat voor groentes? Was sind das für Gemüse? what are that for vegetables? "What kind of vegetables are these?" b. Wat voor groentes zijn dat? Was für Gemüse sind das?

As can be seen, the Dutch wat voor and the German was fur examples are completely parallel as to grammaticality judgements. As for the starred sentences, it should be noted that the examples in (34a) are slightly better than those under (33a), although certainly not as good as those in (35a) or (36a). Other examples with split Indirect Objects which I have tried to construct, though, sound equally bad or even worse, as is the case in (37): (37) D *Wat zou je nou voor mensen zo'n plaat kunnengeven? what would one for people such a record can (inf.) give "To what kind of people could one give such a record?" Again, w/z-Movement of the full NP is grammatical. Finally, note that the ungrammatically of the examples in (34) can not be blamed upon a condition to the effect that a stranded voor NP should be adjacent to the verb, since stranded Direct Object voor NPs can be separated from the verb by other arguments:

The Ergative Hypothesis and Free Word Order in Dutch and German (38)

37

a.D Wat heb je voor boeken naar Groningen gestuurd? what have you for books to Groningen sent? b.D Wat hebben zij voor cadeaus aan Karel gegeven? what have they for gifts to Charles given?

Thus, the difference between (34a) on the one hand and (35a) and (36a) on the other hand may be attributed to the different hierarchical positions for Indirect Object NPs and Direct Objects/Predicate Nominals respectively.5 Tree diagram (39) is a schematic representation of the above data:

This schema clearly demonstrates the fruitfulness of the small VP hypothesis. Furthermore, it shows that the preposition voor/fiir does not suffice to licence the trace of wat/was. Apparently, another proper governor must have access to that preposition. We might say that (35a) is grammatical because the V properly governs the trace of wat/was through the head of the new category [-V] 3 , i.e., through the P voor/fiir. We may assume that this is possible because V governs the maximal projection dominating voor/fiir, i.e., NP/[-V] 3 . Now, if government may trickle down to the head of [-V] 3 , the gap in [-V] 3 will be licenced by a chain of governors (V,P). Such a chain cannot be constructed in the case of (33a) since the relevant higher governor of the trace of wat/was does not govern [-V] 3 . In this respect the data in (34) constitute a riddle. Example (34b) shows that the trace of an Indirect Object NP is properly governed, either by V or - if we follow the definition of government in Chomsky (1981) - by V. Thus one would expect (34a) to be grammatical. However, they are only marginally acceptable, if at all. It is imaginable that V cannot become member of a chain (V,P) because V and P have a different status, V being a category of the type X and P being a category of the type

38

Hans den Besten

X. On the other hand the reason why (V,P) cannot constitute a chain of governors in the case (34a) may be that V does not strictly govern the relevant [ - V ] 3 . 1 would like to leave the matter at this suggestion and now turn to the question of whether Nominatives (Subjects) may show up in (NP,V) position. Given the above discussion it will not come as a surprise that wat voor ¡was für Split is ungrammatical if the Nominative precedes the Dative, whereas it is grammatical if the Nominative follows the Dative. This can be predicted on the basis of the hypothesis indicated in (27b) and (28b). Consider the following Dutch data: (40)

a. *Watzijn(er) voorrare verholen jouw vader verteld? what have-been (there) for strange stories your father told? "What sort of strange stories have been told to your father?" b. Wat zijn (er) jouw vader voor rare verbalen verteld? c. Wat voor rare verbalen zijn (er) jouw vader verteld?

(41)

a. *Wat zouden (er) voor boekenPeter nou bevallen? what would (there) for books Peter now please? "What sort of books would please Peter, I wonder." b. Wat zouden Peter nou voor boeken bevallen? c. Wat voor boeken zouden Peter nou bevallen?

Thus, we may conclude that Nominatives can show up in Object position. This need not be completely surprising in the case of passive structures like (40). However, the results as regards verbs like bevallen en overkomen (in 41) and (2) respectively) are not a complete novelty either. These verbs have ergative (nonagentive) Subjects in the sense of Burzio (1981). And Köster (1978: 3.2.2.3.) who defended the hypothesis corresponding to (27a) and (28a) had to assign the pertinent Nominatives the functional label DO in order for his account to work. For a discussion of the theory, see section 4 below. Finally note that also intransitives without Indirect Objects allow Nominatives in (NP,V) position. This will certainly be true in existential sentences. The following Dutch sentence contains an ergative verb, and wat voor Split is grammatical, as is predicted: (42)

Wat zijn *(er) voor dingen gebeurd? what have *(there) for things happened? "What kind of things have happened?

I will assume that in this sentence the obligatory dummy locative er 'there' licences the empty (NP,S) position, most probably from a clitic

The Ergative Hypothesis and Free Word Order in Dutch and German

39

position immediately behind the COMP which contains zijn "are". Although German always drops the corresponding expletive es "there" in enclitic position (compare the paper by Safir in this volume), a direct translation of (42) sounds less felicitous (compare (43a). However, whenever extra material is inserted between the finite verb and the stranded für NP, the sentence improves, as is shown in (43b, c, d): (43)

a. V.Was sind ßr Sachen passiert? what have for things happened? b. Was sind da ¡hier für sachen passiert? what have there/here for things happened? c. Was sind gestern für merkwürdige Sachen passiert? what have yesterday for weird things happened? d. Was sind hier denn gestern eigentlich für Sachen passiert? what have here then yesterday actually for things happened?

(Da in (43b) need not be an expletive, but it may be one.) As is predicted, nonergative (agentive) intransitive verbs yield less felicitous results with wat voor/was für Split: (44)

a.D ?* Wat hebten (er) eigenlijk voormensengeprotesteerd? What have (there) actually for people protested? "What kind of people actually protested?" b.D Wat voormensen hebben (er) eigenlijkgeprotesteerd?

Notice that the optional presence of er 'there' need not imply that voor mensen is not in Subject position, since er is assumed to be in an enclitic position on COMP. Er is allowed even if the indefinite Subject is followed by two Object NPs. Nevertheless, examples of the type are not completely out (compare the remarks about split Indirect Objects above). But they are certainly not as good as examples with ergative verbs. Thus I conclude that wavering judgements as regards (44a) do not necessitate a change in the hypothesis we have tested in this section. 3 3 The Dative in (NP,S) position? Arguments to the effect that Datives may show up in (NP,S) position are more difficult to construct. I do not know of any based upon the syntax of German. Thus, I have to rely completely upon Dutch data in this section. As has been argued in section 3.2, indefinite nonagentive NPs may show up in DO position. In that case Dutch requires an expletive element er "there" to licence the Subject gap:

40

Hans den Besten

(45)

...,dat *(er) iets roars gebeurd is that ""(there) something strange happened has

If this analysis of the syntax of er with ergative verbs is correct, the optionally of er in the following examples can be explained on the assumption that the Dative may move into Subject position: (46)

a. ...,dat (er) mijn oom iets heel moots gegeven zal worden that (there) my uncle something very beautiful given will be b. ...,dat (er) Karel iets roars overkomenis that (there) to -Charles something strange happened has

A possible counterargument against this analysis can be found in de Haan (1979: 4.4.3.) where de Haan deals with Koster's hypothesis concerning the syntax of Nominative-Dative Inversion. His arguments are restricted to passive constructions but they can be replicated for ergative ones. De Haan's arguments are based upon the syntax of R-Movement, a rule which can move a so-called R-pronoun (for instance er there = it5) out of a PP (compare van Riemsdijk (1978)). Consider the following examples: (47)

dot het boek er^Mary ej voor werdgegeven that the book itj Mary ej for was given (de Haan 4, (144b)) b. *..., dot « j het boek Mary ej voor werd gegeven that it j the book Mary ej for was given (de Haan 4, (144c)) a

De Haan argues that the Subject position constitues a non plus ultra for the R-pronoun. Now consider the following example: (48)

..., dot erj Mary het boek ej voor werd gegeven that itj Mary the book ej for was given

De Haan concludes from this example that (a) the Subject phrase het boek is not in (NP,S) position but in DO position, (b) the Indirect Object phrase is still in 10 position, and (c) there is no Subject position in (48). These arguments are directed against Koster (1978) who proposed an analysis according to which the Indirect Object phrase can be moved across the Subject position in sentences like (48); (cf. (28a)). However, they also constitute a problem for my analysis according to which the Dative phrase Mary in (48) may show up in Subject position. Yet I think this problem is only apparent. The syntax of R-pronouns

The Ergative Hypothesis and Free Word Order in Dutch and German

41

is much more complicated than is argued in de Haan (1979). I refer the reader to Bennis (1980). Furthermore, if we follow de Haan (1979) and van Riemsdijk (1978) in assuming that there is an R-landing site between the Subject and the Indirect Object position, the following examples demonstrate that the Dative may show up in (NP,S) position: (49)

a. ..., datMaiy er^het boek ej voorgegeven is b dat Mary er^ een mooi boek e j voor gegeven is that Mary it j a nice book ej for given has-been

Example (49b) is also grammatical in the order ... er 10 SU ..., of course. And I have to add that I strongly prefer an indefinite Subject in (48). Sentence-initial R-pronouns seem to be licenced by indefinite Subjects in the first place. The upshot of all this is that we may accept the conclusion that Dative NPs may show up in Subject position.

4. CHAIN GOVERNMENT AND THE ERGATIVE HYPOTHESIS

The theory as sketched in section 2 does not allow the nominativization of an NP in (NP,V) position, because such an NP is not governed by Tense (COMP). Therefore the theory has to be changed in order to be able to incorporate the analysis proposed in section 3.2. Consider the structure for (26) in which I will leave out all lexical material except werden/worden. To simplify the structure I have also left out the perfective auxiliary. The arrows indicate Case Assignment: (50)

S

s

COMP NP k

VP V V

[+V] e [+V]

twerd-i ( word-)

42

Hans den Besten

The Dative NPj (the 10) is generated as a sister of the [+V]1 and receives its Case from that constituent. This requires a slight extension of the Case Assignment rules and the definition of Government in section 2. The node [+V] governs NPj but cannot assign Case to it. Now there are two options for NPj to receive Case: Either NPj is moved into Subject position, where it will become Nominative if COMP (Tense) assigns Case there, or NPj acquires this Case in Object position, while NPj moves into (NP,S) position. In the former case (26a) is derived, in the latter case it is (26b) that is derived. It follows from the analysis that the term NominativeDative Inversion which I have frequently used above is a misnomer. It should be: Dative-Nominative Inversion. This is in accordance with the fact that DAT NOM is the unmarked order (compare Lenerz (1977)). According to the definition of Government in section 2, NPj is governed by [+V] but not by werden/worden 'be' (V) or Tense. However, Tense (COMP) governs werden/worden and werden/worden governs [+V], This observation permits the following addition to the theory: (51)

a. If NPj is governed by a category a which cannot or may not assign Case, NPj will acquire its Case from the first Case-assigner up by which it is chain-governed, b. a chain-governs p iff a governs 7 j , 7 j governs 72, ..., 7 n _ j governs 7 n , and 7 n governs 0 (n > 1).

In (50) NPj is chain-governed both by werden/worden (V) and Tense (COMP). However, werden/worden cannot be a Case assigner and therefore the chain-governor Tense (COMP) will assign Case to NPj in situ. The reason why werden/worden cannot be a Case assigner will become clear if we consider the syntax of passives in structures of control: (52)

a.D *Hi]\ hoopt [g e [ y p [ y hej hopes e worden]\\ be b . D i / j / j hoopt [5 PROj[yp[y hej hopes PRO; worden]]] be

hij-Jhem^ niet ontslagen te zullen hej/himj not fired to will

ej ej

niet ontslagen te zullen not fired to will

One could claim, given the ungrammatically of (52a), that this is not due to illicit Case marking of the Direct Object by worden "be", which is not a Case assigner at all, but to the control properties of hopen "hope" which have been violated in the pertinent structure. Therefore, one might claim that worden has assigned Case (probably a Nominative) to PROj

The Ergative Hypothesis and Free Word Order in Dutch and German

43

in Object position, and that the PROj has been moved into Subject position afterwards in order to escape government at S-structure. However, it is highly improbable that PROs can be Case-marked in German or Dutch. If this were possible it should also be possible to get Dative PROs in (NP,S) position, while keeping a Nominative NP in Object position. But such constructions are completely impossible: (53) D *Hij hoopt [g PR^DAT he hopes PROj worden]]] be

tvP

e

^ o e ^NOM toe8estuurd ej that book sent

te to

The sole way to express the content of this sentence would be to use the kriegen/krijgen "passive" construction of German and Dutch, which has already been exemplified in the sentences under (23): (54)D Hij hoopt [g PRO [yp dat boek^Q he hopes PRO that book

toegestuurd te krijgen]] sent to get

We may therefore conclude that werden/worden is not a Case assigner. This is in accordance with the observation that the corresponding copula werden/worden "become" does not really act as a Case assigner either. This verb seems to assign Case given sentences like (55) in German: (55)

Er versuchte [§ PRO he tried PRO

[yp ein guter - zu kommen I try to come d. Ich sehe ihnacc I see him e. Ernom wird gesehen he is seen

The exceptional case marking example (8b) illustrates the occurrence of an accusative instead of nominative, while (8e) illustrates the Acc.-toNom. alternation in passive. Genitive and dative do not alternate with other cases in a structure-dependent manner.1 As shown in (6), only the structural Cases behave as predicted by EPP, BG and absorption. This gives the cue for all solution of the dilemma sketched in 1.1 to 1.3. 3.3 The Principles 3.3.1 The Functionality Principle (FP) FP is a well-formedness condition on lexical entries. A functional element has at least one argument. FP is the equivalent of EPP in the cases not covered by BG. It is manifested most clearly with that class of verbs that do not assign any 0-role. Nevertheless, according to FP there has to be an argument, an expletive argument. (9)

a. Es klopft it knocks "There is a knock (at the door)" b. Es kracht it cracks "There is a cracking noise "

72

Hubert Haider

3.3.2 The Realization Principle (RP) If a functional element F assigns structural indices then one of them has to be realized externally. 3.3.3 Externally realized index The index i of an argument is realized externally with respect to a functional element F (with index set k) if the index i, iek, is not realized by F^. The prototypical case of an external index is the realization of nominative: The index belongs to the index set of the finite verb but it is realized by INFL. Other instances are discussed in section 4.5. For the choice of the proper index for external realization cf. 4.3.2. 3.4 The derivative status of EPP, BG and Case Absorption Principle RP, which by the way is similar to the 'un-accusative law' in Relational Grammar, determines the distribution of structural indices. In a grammatical system without lexical indices there is no way to circumvent it. Since FP holds for any system, FP and RP in combination yield EPP in a purely structural system. If there are lexical indices too, FP may be fulfilled without affecting RP. These are the cases which violate EPP in German: (10)

Mir (jat graut to-me dreads "I dread"

Grauen is a verb with a single argument, thus fulfilling FP, and a lexical index. Since there is no structural index, RP does not apply and no external argument occurs. Burzio's Generalization is a direct consequence of RP and the ©-criterion. Take an ergative verb. Such a verb may have only one argument, an object. If this object bears a structural index it will be realized externally, i.e., not as objective case but rather as the external case, e.g., nominative. Clearly in this case there is no 0-role for the subject, since then the 0-criterion would require two arguments, a subject and an object. So the object with its structural index is realized as subject exactly in those cases where there is no 9-marking of the subject. Thus it becomes obvious that BG again holds only for structural cases and all the apparent exceptions involve lexical indices.

The Case of German

73

The classical case for BG, however, is absorption. It should be obvious by now that absorption is a misnomer. There is no absorption but a transfer. The crucial property of passive is the suppression of the externally realized argument of the active verb. (11)

hit

=> be hit (A^) s = structural index

As indicated in (11), passive converts a transitive verb into an intransitive, more precisely into an 'ergative' verb. If the verb has two structurally indexed arguments and one of them is deleted or suppressed by passive, the remaining structural index falls under RP and has to be realized externally. Hence it is not the participle that makes the case of the object dissappear by a mysterious process of "absorption", but rather the distribution of structural cases, i.e. RP, makes it impossible for an index to be realized as objective if there is no other externally realized index. Again it is easy to see how apparent counterexamples in German arise. If the remaining argument bears a lexical index, RP will not apply: helfen: A^, A^ 1 1 (help)

geholfen werden: A^ L = Dative 2 (be helped)

Absorption is a consequence of RP for structural indices and hence dispensable as an independent principle. 3.5 EPP and BG hold in full generality only for structural cases As has been shown in confronting English with German, EPP and BG hold in full generality only for structural cases. This is reflected by their status as theorems in the system proposed here. EPP is a theorem of the combination of FP and RP (and the orginal projection principle), BG a theorem of RP and the 0-criterion. FP seems to be a basic principle for any grammatical system: it requires that a structure that contains a verb also has to contain an argument. This is a reflection of the basic function-argument distinction which has been known since Frege (cf. Dummet 1981, sect. 12). The atomic sentence consists of a function element and an argument. RP, on the other hand, goes together with a specific property of a case system. It is highly plausible, then, that there may be languages with a case system that does not involve any structural indices. 3.6 English: A system without lexical case Pace Kayne (1981), I assume that English has only structural case. Thus

74

Hubert Haider

RP applies in its full generality and rules out the examples given in (12). (12)

a. b. c. d.

*Him was helped * Was given a book to Mary * Was laughed at John IThe station was waited at

In (12a-c), RP requires that an index be realized externally. If there are two objects, as in (12b) either of the two will do. If the argument is a prepositional argument, RP still holds and requires (12c) to be realized as (13). (13)

John was laughed at

Since RP only holds for arguments, prepositional adverbials will not be affected, hence (12d) is less natural than (13). For this account to become fully satisfactory one problem has to be solved. The system I propose allows passive for any verb with an externally realized thematic argument, i.e., transitive or intransitive. Why is there no passive with intransitives in English? 3.7 Excursus on the lack of passive with intransitives in English What would happen in this case? If there is only one argument, this will be suppressed by passive, yielding a verb without a theta-marked argument, thus invoking FP. FP then requires that an argument must occur. Since there is no 9-role left this argument has to be expletive. So, why is there no passive with an expletive subject? (14)

*Therefit was danced * There/it was whistled

There is indeed no deep reason. The reason is one exceptional feature of English: it is the only Germanic language that has lost its verb-second property. Old English was still a verb-second language, but due to a restructuring in Middle English the position of the verb became stable (cf. Haider 1983a and 1984b). A comparison with Norwegian or Dutch reveals the exceptionality of English. (15)

a. Dutch: dat er gedanst wordt b. Norwegian: at detble danset

Both Dutch and Norwegian are languages with the typical Germanic

The Case of German

75

verb-second root-sentences. The important difference lies in the position of the expletive element in presentative constructions: in English it is the subject position; in German, Dutch, Norwegian, and the other Germanic languages the expletive element occupies an A-position sentence-initially (cf. Platzack 1983, Haider 1983a): (16)

a. English: S

b. other Germanic languages S

Since there is the subject, it is the target for verb-agreement. But agreement depends in this construction on a non-subject NP. Thus there must be able to transmit agreement features. This ability requires that there itself does not have inherent agreement features. In the other Germanic languages the expletive element is not a subject, the original subject is still in its position and agreement does not involve the expletive element.2 Due to the fact that the expletive element occupies a COMP-position in German, it cannot be embedded: (17)

a. Es steht ein Mann an der Ttir it stands a man at the door "there stands a man at the door" b.*daP es ein Mann vor der Tiir steht

If the expletive element in English does not have inherent agreement features it cannot appear as subject in isolation, since there would be no way to determine the morphology of the finite verb. A comparison with Dutch shows that there is the relevant expletive element. In Dutch the expletive particle is er, the cognate of English there, and not het, the cognate of it. (18)

*dat het gedanst wordt

(cf. 15a)

Since it in English as an expletive element is tied to a co-occurring sentential constituent, only there is left, but there cannot occur in isolation. Hence there is no passive with intransitive verbs since there is no expletive element available.

76

Hubert Haider

3.8 On the lack of expletive subjects in German passives Since I have argued that English lacks passive when there is no argument left because there is no available expletive element, it may come as a surprise that German does not allow an expletive element in passive: (19)

a *daß es getanzt wurde that it/there danced was b. daß getanzt wurde

Obviously FP is not at work in (19b). This implies first of all that there is no verb proper involved in (19b), since the projection principle together with FP would require an argument to surface; FP requires that a verb has at least one argument and the projection principle sees to it that no argument position gets lost in the course of the derivation. Hence the participle in (19) cannot be of category V, as in the English verbal passive. If the participle is not verbal then it is a deverbal derivative, i.e. an adjective. This offers a way to escape FP: If the process of argument reduction is a lexical process for German passive, then this process allows a recategorization of the derived item, an option which is not available for a purely syntactic process: The formation of the participle may map a verb on an adjectival participle and delete the external argument. (For a discussion of adjectival Passive in English I refer the reader to Wasow (1978).) In case the verb does not have more than one argument, the participle will be left without any argument. Now it is important to recognize that FP is not at stake here. FP would only forbid us from entering this derivative item into the lexicon as an adjective. This can be checked by considering lexicalized participles. If they are adjectival, they may only be derived from verbs with more than one argument. If, however, they derive from intransitive verbs, they may only be entered as non-functional elements such as adverbs. (20)

a. ein gewiefter Bursche a shrewed guy b. er spricht gelassen he talks self-possessed "He talks in a calm manner"

The participle in (20a) is related to MHG wifen "to bend". The participle in (20b) however, literally the participle of "let", can not be related with the transitive verb lassen "let", as is clear from its meaning: its semantics corresponds rather to the intransitive interpretation in the sense of laisser faire "one who does not care".

The Case of German

11

The implication that passive in German is a copula construction with a derived adjectival participle is welcome for two reasons. First, there are instances of bare subjectless constructions with non-functional elements in copula-constructions: (21)

a. daß zu/offen ist that open/shut is "that it is open/shut" b. daß Krieg/Nacht/Sonntag ist that war/night/sunday is "that there is war/night/sunday" c. daß rot¡grün ist that red/green is "that it is red/green (on a traffic light)"

(21a) is especially informative, since zu "shut" is an adverbial particle. Secondly passive in German is a strictly local phenomenon definable on the information represented in the lexical entry of the main verb. Given that passive involves a lexical process, it is confined to the lexically available information. This accounts immediately for the fact that passive with small clauses or exceptional case-marking verbs bears the stigma of deviation. (22)

a.

Wir wähnten ihn gesund und wohlbehalten "We considered him healthy and in good condition" b. V.Er wurde gesund und wohlbehalten gewähnt c. Wir hörten ihn die Tür zuschlagen "We heard him slam the door" d. V.Er wurde die Tür zuschlagen gehört

The clear cases, however, which would entail a non-local passive cannot be checked in German, since there are no infinitival complements with zu "to" and exceptional case-marking as in (23a). What looks like a counterexample, namely the marginal construction with the verb versprechen "promise", is first of all a case of verb-raising (witness the ungrammatically of (23c), i.e., non-adjacency, and (23d), i.e., extraposition). Secondly, versprechen is not an ECM verb but a control verb: (23)

a. Hej is believed ej to have left b P.Der Wagen wurde mir zu reparieren versprochen the car was to-me to repair promised "(They) promised me to repair the car"

78

Hubert Haider c *Der Wagen wurde mir zu reparieren gestern versprochen d *Der Wagen wurde mir versprochen zu reparieren

So far, the reason why expletive subjects need not and must not occur in German seems clear. If in German, unlike English, the formation of a participle will invariably lead to recategorization, then intransitive verbs will necessarily end up as 8-less items which can occur only in copular constructions, just like adverbial particles (cf. 21a). This account is by no means at variance with the unmarked option for adjectival copula constructions, namely the presence of a nominative NP, either referential or not. (24)

daß es kalt ist "that it is cold" daß der Raum kalt ist "that the room is cold"

The logic of the system is simple. As a consequence of FP, no basic functional element can be without an argument; and, as a consequence of the 9-criterion, without a 9-role to be assigned to the argument. But a functional element can be stripped of its argument, so that either the element becomes non-functional (e.g., passive of an intransitive verb in German) or an expletive element will appear (e.g., the middle-construction in German, cf. Haider (1985)). (25)

a. daß er tanzt "that he dances' b. daß getanzt wird c. daß er gut lebt "that he lives well" d. daß es sich hier gut lebt that it REFL here well lives "that one lives well here"

Although the 0-role for the subject of live has disappeared in (27d), there is nevertheless an argument, though expletive, as required by the Projection Principle. The Projection Principle also applies in (27b), but the first level where it can apply is the output of the lexical process, i.e., the lexical level, and at this level there is no argument left. Thus we are justified in drawing a distinction between lexically expletive arguments, required by FP, and syntactically expletive elements required by the Projection Principle. These may sometimes fall together. Dutch exemplifies the distinction very well: the lexical expletive element is het, the syntactic one is er.

The Case of German (26)

79

a. dat het (*er) warm is b. dat (*het) ergedanst wordt

If we take the 9-criterion seriously, the presence of an argument in the lexicon requires the assignment of a 0-role. We can now reserve the empty 0-role to a certain class of verbs and adjectives, including, for example, weather verbs. That adjectives do assign 9-roles is obvious and will be of importance for section 4 3 . (27)

Es ist warm hier im Zimmer "It is warm here in this room" *Es ist intelligent hier im Zimmer "It is intelligent here in the room

The ungrammatically is a consequence of the fact that intelligent contrary to warm requires a referential argument. Thus we get the following array: (28)

a. items with specific 0-roles: tanzen "dance", intelligent "intelligent" b. items with the zero 6-role: klopfen "knock", warm "warm",.... c. non-functional items

Thus with regard to passive German is actually the converse of English. Since passive is adjectival there is no need for an expletive element. FP does not apply unless the participle is entered into the lexicon. Thus (29a) becomes fully parallel with (29b): (29)

a. Es steht ein Mann vor der Tür (There is a man at the door ) b. Es wird getanzt a'. *daß es ein Mann vor der Tür steht "that there is a man at the door" b'. *daß es getanzt wurde

In (29)a, b), es occupies an A-position (presumably COMP) and hence is not in the domain of the 9-criterion or the projection principle. In (29a', b') however, es, being an NP in sentence-internal position, must be mapped onto an argument; but there is none available, hence its ungrammaticality. In Norwegian or Swedish, however, due to the verbal status of the participle the default argument required by FP is available, and the expletive element is assigned to it.

80

Hubert Haider

4. THE CASE SYSTEM O F GERMAN

First I want to draw a distinction between Case on arguments and on nonarguments. For non-arguments, I assume that morphological realization does not depend on government, but rather that there is a direct connection between morphological Case and thematic function, similar to the realization of lexical Case on arguments, but with the difference that lexical Case on arguments is not tied to unique thematic values. In addition, I will demonstrate the importance of the notion 'external argument' for another module of grammar, the binding theory, using as an example the binding properties of reflexives. This approach will solve an apparent problem in a straightforward manner: NP is an opaque domain for reflexives in attributive APs. 4.3.2 discusses the proper choice of one of two structural arguments for external Case realization. 4.4 is devoted to the discussion of the close relation between Case and 9-roles, i.e., Case as a visibility criterion for 0-role assignment. The final part illustrates how the proposed system works for German. 4.1 Case of arguments vs. non-arguments There are four morphologically distinct Cases in German: Nominative, Accusative, Dative and Genitive. In terms of the system presented here, Nominative and Accusative are structural, Dative and Genitive are lexical. This distinction holds for arguments only. Adnominal Genitive may be considered as structural. All four Cases appear with verbal arguments, depending on the choice of the verb. In APs only Dative and Genitive occur. 3 (30)

a. ein seiner Fra«¿ a t treuer Mann a to-his wife faithful man "a man faithful to his wife" b. ein dieses Gastsgen würdiger Empfang a of-this guest worthy reception "a reception worthy of this guest"

In PPs all Cases except NOM appear; the same holds for adverbial NPs. 4.1.1 Bare NPs As (31) exemplifies, NPs occur in argument positions as well as in nonargument positions, e.g. as adverbials: (31)

a. Sie hórtenden ganzen Tagaccdieselbe Schallplatteacc they listened the whole day the same record "They listened to the same record the whole day long"

The Case of German

81

b. Ergoß ihr fat die Blumen he watered to-her the flowers "He watered the flowers for her " c. Eines tageSgtn erschien ein Fremder "One day (there) appeared a stranger " The realization of ACC on both NPs in (31a) could be taken as an indication that both bear a structural index which is realized in both instances as the default Case ACC by virtue of being governed by V. But it is easy to see that adverbial ACC does not need to be governed, since it occurs also within APs and NPs (cf. Toman (1983)): (32)

a. die Ereignisse letzten Sommeracc the events last summer "the events of the last summer" der Flirt vorigen Dienstagacc the flirtation previous Tuesday "the flirtation on the previous Tuesday" b. die diesen Sommeracc sehr günstige Witterung the this summer very favorable weather "the very favorable weather of this summer" die diesen Sommeracc sehr teuren Urlaubsreisen the this summer very expensive holiday excursions "the very expensive holiday excursions this summer"

The fact the ACC does not occur with NP-internal NP-complements shows clearly that adverbial ACC is not realized in the same fashion as ACC on arguments, since for complements of N, at least, the structural Case is Genitive. I will interpret Case on basic A-elements as a direct reflex of a thematic function, not in need of a context of realization. Thus it may appear freely, a property which is very apparent with adverbial DAT, called free dative in traditional grammars. The specific thematic functions are roughly: (33)

a. DAT - in traditional terms dativus commodi (31b), dativus incommodi (34a), dativus ethicus (34b); 4 b. ACC - measure (time or weight), (34c), (34d); c. GEN - locality or point of time (no longer productive), cf. (34e, f).

(34)

a. Er zündete ihr¿^das Haus an. "He set (for) her (disadvantage) the house on fire"

82

Hubert Haider b. Laßt mir fat den Hund in Ruhe! leave to-me the dog in peace "Leave (my) dog alone " c. Sie studierte die ganze Nachtacc "She studied the whole night" d. Das kostet keinen Dollaracc "That does not cost a dollar" e. Ein Mann kam des Wegesgen "A man came the way (long)" f. Fines Tagesgen sah ich sie wieder "One day I saw her again"

4.1.2 Prepositional adverbials Since prepositional adverbials are A-elements as well, we expect to find the same thematically bound realization of Case as with adverbial NPs, which is indeed the fact: for some PPs, there is a ACC- DAT alternation with a corresponding semantic difference: ACC is directional, DAT is local: (35)

a. Sie tanzen in diesem^ Saal "They dance in this ballroom" b. Sie tanzten in den Saalzcc "They danced into this ballroom" c. Sie schwammen nur an diesem fa^ Ufer "They only swam at this bank" d. Sie schwammen an dieses UferiCC "They swam to that bank"

Again, it is a specific thematic function that goes together with a specific Case form. This account entails that there are two sources for ACC: realization of a structural index under government in an A-position and realization as a thematically bound Case in a basic A-position. For matters of Case assignment it is therefore important that there be strict complementary distribution. To maintain full complementarity it is neccessary to assume that the accusative in prepositional objects is structurally governed and realized, since prepositional objects are verbal arguments. This assumption receives support from the fact that a preposition that allows Case variation in prepositional adverbs, e.g., DAT - ACC, only allows ACC in prepositional objects. Given that P is a structural governor, one might wonder why there is no preposition stranding in German. But in terms of Kayne's (1983) directionality requirement for government, the solution is very simple.

The Case of German

83

It is sufficient to point out that in German, since it is OV, directionality is right-left, but prepositions govern left-right, hence the extraction site would not be properly governed and would violate ECP. 4.2 The externally realized argument Since external realization concerns structural indices only, there are three ways for an index to become external. It may be realized as Nominative, or Accusative, or stay unrealized. The standard case is nominative: one structural index is realized by Infi. The second possibility is ACC as in (36): (36)

a. Ich sah ihn^QQ das HOUS^QQ betreten "I saw him enter the house" b. daß ich ihn das Haus betreten sah

RP is satisfied if the index of ihn is realized by the matrix verb, i.e., externally with respect to the internal verb. PRO is the third case. Its index is not realized at all, hence trivially externally. 4.3 Externally realized argument and the Binding Theory In German reflexives are bound to the externally realized argument. (37)

a. Er-y spricht ungern mit ihrj über sichy*j "He doesn't like to speak to her about himself/*herself" b. Ungern sieht Marie Antoinettej den einzigen Verläßlichen^QQ *sichjsie verlassen. "Reluctantly MA. saw the only trustworthy (man) leave •herself/her" c. £>j bat ihnj [PROj *sich^/ihn^ zu besuchen] "He asked him to visit *himself/him." (cf. Reis 1981)

(37b, c) illustrate the opacity effect of the external argument.5 But an opacity effect also holds for anaphors within attributive APs: (38)

a. £>j schätzt die auf sichten stolzen Husaren^ he esteems the of themselves proud husars b. Petersi sich treue Frau^ Peter's to-herself faithful wife c. Eri liest ein Buch über s/cAj He reads a book about himself

84

Hubert Haider

Although the reflexive may be bound to an antecedent outside the NP as (38c) shows, the NP is an opaque domain for attributive APs. This is a strong indication that an external argument is involved. We saw in sect. 3.1.8 (ex. 25) that adjectives assign 9-roles, so we know that there are arguments which get case indices from adjectives. What happens to a structural index? According to RP its case must be realized by another governing element or remain unrealized. In the copular construction case realization paralles that with verbal arguments: INFL assigns NOM. (39)

a. treu:

A*, A^

b. weil ernom seiner Frau^ because he to-his wife

treu ist faithful is

The copula in (39b) is the lexical realization of INFL and has no thematic influence. The 0-roles of er and seiner Frau are determined by the adjective. Now let us analyze the attributive version: (40)

a. der seiner Frau treue Mann the to-his wife faithful man b. der Mann, der seiner Frau treu ist the man who to his wife faithful is

(40b) is the paraphrase of (40a) by means of a sentential attribute, displaying again the pattern of (38b). In this situation there are two options available: Either to attempt to derive (40a) and (40b) from a common structure or to attempt to analyze the two structures as different instances of a basic function. The latter option is chosen here, since if it is successful, there is no need for an abstract derivational analysis. Both constructions involve a predicative relation between the AP and an element outside the AP. In (39b) it is a full NP whereas in (40a) it is a part of the NP that contains the AP. How is it possible for a non-maximal N-projection to function as an argument? The solution depends on a relativized notion of argument. The difference between sentential predication and predication inside NP traditionally called attribution) lies in the domain. If the domain of predication is the sentence, the terms involved are of the type of the terms which occur in that domain, i.e., maximal projections. If the domain is a nonsentential maximal projection, however, not all the terms involved can be maximal projections. What, then, is the external argument of an attributive AP?

The Case of German

85

Since the NP itself is ruled out by a general i-inside-i constraint (Chomsky 1981: 212), the remaining possibilities are the head or part of the projection of it. The choice of one of these alternatives on empirical grounds is not easy, but the following observations may bear on the issue. It is a well known fact, that attributive APs may not only modify the head but also the head inclusive of other attributes, as illustrated in (41): (41)

a. moderne russische Romane modern Russian novels b. russische moderne Romane Russian modern novels

The difference between (41a) and (41b) becomes transparent in elliptical constructions: (42)

a. Liest er auch alte russische Romane? "Does he also read old Russian novels?" b. Nein, nur moderne! "No, only modern (ones) " (i.e., Russian novels) c. Nein, nur französische! "No, only French (ones)" (i.e., novels)

(43)

a. Liest er auch russische alte Romane? "Does he also read Russian old novels?" b. Nein, nur moderne! "No, only modern (ones) " (i.e., novels) c. Nein, nur französische! "No, only French (ones)" (i.e., old novels)

The difference between (42b, c) and (43, c), respectively, is accounted for if the attributes are not sisters as in (45), but from a branching structure in which one modifies the other by modifying the N that contains it; cf. (44): (44)

(45)

86

Hubert Haider

Let us assume now that both APs in (44) or (45) contain an anaphor: We expect then that the interpretations will differ if it is not the head that functions as the antecedent. (46)

eine [mit sich multiplizierte] [nur durch sich und 1 teilbare] natürliche Zahl (mit sich multipliziert = multiplied with itself, i.e. square) (nur teilbar = divisible only by one and itself, i.e. prime) "a square prime number"

(46) is ambiguous, it can be assigned either to (44) or (45). The respective interpretations are (47a) and (47b). (47)

a. an element of the set of squared primes, i.e., {4, 9,25,49,...}) b. an element of the set of numbers which are both square and prime, i.e., the set {11.

Given that the observation is valid, this would entail that the antecedent of an anaphor contained in an attributive AP is that portion of the projection of the modified head that is c-commanded by the AP. If the ambiguity of (46), however does not depend on the assignment of different syntactic structures but is rather of a genuine semantic nature, the general problem remains unaffected: The anaphor requires a head within the domain of the NP which contains the attributive phrase. In this case the head of the NP has to be taken as the unique antecedent. 4.3.1 Adjectives are ergative6 The question why ACC does not show up within APs finds a simple answer if A cannot assign more than one structural index. Clearly, according to RP, the presence of an argument marked ACC implies that there is an additional external argument. If there is only one structural index it will never be realized within AP, due to RP. In fact, it will not be realized at all: if the index is borne by N', there is no way to realize it under government, since NP as a maximal projection blocks government from outside. If it were possible to realize the index on N', this would lead to the paradoxical consequence that the head of the NP might get two different cases by percolation: the case of the whole NP and the case of N'. Burzio (1981) has shown that in a language with two different auxilaries, there is a correlation between 'ergative' predicates and selection of be (essere in Italian, sein in German). This correlation allows an account of the fact that adjectival participles in German only occur attributively but not in copula construction:

The Case of German (48)

87

a. seine mich&cc beleidigenden Worte his me insulting words b* Seine Worte waren michacc beleidigend His words were me insulting c. Seine Worte waren beleidigend His words were insulting.

ACC is excluded only for primary adjectives, not for participials ones, as (48a) shows.7 But it is precisely these that are impossible in predicative constructions involving the copula sein. If sein is bound to ergative predicates the ungrammaticality of (48b) is a direct consequence.8 If primary adjectives are analyzed as ergative functional elements we get full parallelism in the distribution of sein : (49)

a. ergative verb (e.g., eintreffen "arrive") die eingetroffenen Gäste - die Gäste, die eingetroffen sind the arrived guests the guests that arrived are b. 'ergative participle', i.e., passive participle - die Ameise, die zertreten ist die zertretene Ameise the ant that trodden-on is the trodden (on) ant die Ameise, die jemand zertreten hat the ant that s.o trodden-on has (ergative) adjective der alte Mann - der Mann, der alt ist the old man the man who old is

From this point of view it becomes immediately transparent: - why both in APs and in passive there is no ACC; - why both with APs and with passive 'be' occurs; - why be occurs in the tense paradigm of certain verbs; - why adjectival participials cannot occur predicatively with ACC; - why the NP is an opaque domain for attributive APs. 4.3.2 External argument vs. externally realized argument In the proceeding sections 'external' referred to the mode of case realization. In this section the relationship between a lexical entry and its projection in syntactic structure will be made more precise. RP requires that one structural index be realized externally. This does not necessarily mean that any structural index will be realized as nominative, as can be seen with transitive verbs: (50)

a. £ > n o m sieht einen Tischacc "He sees a table"

88

Hubert Haider b. £ ' « n o m Tisch sieht ihnÄCC "A table sees him"

The fact that (50a) is not synonymous with (50b) requires that the choice of the structural index be made dependent on the thematic structure of the verb. The external argument is projected on a specific 8-role. This can be made precise by implementing a notion similar to Williams' (1981: 87) notion of external argument: structural indices may be distinguished in the lexical entry by marking one as the designated argument, or, as we will see in sect. 4.4, as the 9-role that is realized by an NP whose index is realized externally (cf. Williams 1981: 82). As a consequence, the choice induced by RP is no longer free: the NP whose index is realized externally will be related to a specific 9-role. I shall use Williams' notation for indicating the designated argument, i.e., underlining it. (51)

a .schlagen:

Q4_s, Ths) - hit: ( £ s , Th s )

(51) is taken from Williams (1981: 93) with the structural indices added to the 0-roles. It is the representation of a lexical entry with two structural arguments and the specification of the designated argument. The case index of the designated argument must be realized externally. 4.3.3 External realization without designated arguments This theory offers the option of leaving the external argument unspecified. According to RP, there will nevertheless be an externally realized argument if a structural index is involved. It seems that this is the very difference between ergative and non-ergative verbs. Take for instance helfen "help" and zustoßen' "happen". Both occur with two arguments, one in NOM and the other with DAT. (52)

a. daß ernom ihrdai hilft that he to-her helps "that he helps her" b. daß ihm¿at ein Unglücknom zustieß that to-him a misfortune happened "that he suffered a misfortune"

But the superficial similarity is misleading. Actually the two verbs are syntactically dissimilar: (53)

a. das ihm zugestoßene Unglük * der ihm geholfene Mann the to-him happened misfortune the to-him helped man

The Case of German

(54)

b. Ein Unglück zugestoßen ist ihm noch nie. a misfortune happened has to-him never yet c. Unglück zugestoßen ist ihm keines. misfortune happened has to him none

*Ein Mann geholfen hat ihm noch nie. a man helped to-him has never yet *Mann geholfen hat ihm keiner. man helped has to-him none

a. der angekommene Linguist the arrived linguist b. Ein Linguist angekommen ist bisher nicht. a linguist arrived is so-far not

*der getarnte Linguist the danced linguist *Ein Linguist getanzt hat bisher nicht. a linguist danced has so-far not *Linguist getanzt hat bisher keiner. linguist danced has yet none (cf. Grewendorf 1982)

c. Linguist angekommen ist bisher keiner. linguist arrived is yet none

(55)

89

a. helfen: (0® ©L) - unterlaufen: (0^ 0®) ("help) ("happen") b. tanzen: (0^) - ankommen: (9s) ("dance") ("arrive") c. schlagen: (0®,0 S ) ("hit") — d. schenken: ( 0 | , 0 ^ , 0S) ("give s.th. as a present to someone")

The difference between the two types of verbs in (53) and (54) can be related to the notion external argument. As illustrated in (55) 'ergative' verbs lack an designated argument. Thus we get the impression that for these verbs the objects turns out syntactically as subject, which in a sense is accurate. RP requires that the structural index be realized externally, hence as NOM in finite clause. But ergative verbs have only one structural index and lack a designated argument. Thus they look like deficient variants of transitive verbs, since only with transitive verbs does a structural index on a non-designated argument occur. Unterlaufen is the ergative version of a verb like (55d) and ankommen of (55c). (53a) and (54a) show that the externally realized argument of an AP cannot be the designated argument. (53b) and (54b) document the constraint against placing the designated argument together with a non-finite verb-form in front of the finite verb in root-clauses. (53c) and (54c) are

90

Hubert Haider

examples of object incorporation. Again the designated argument cannot be incorporated. (For details of the analysis and further ramifications I refer the reader to Haider (1985)). The interesting insight that this approach offers is that ergative verbs are a by-product of a mechanism that is necessary for verbs with more than one structural index. If there is only one, it may be handled either like the designated argument of transitives or like the non-designated one. 4.4 6-roles and case-indices Czepluch (1982/83: 16f.) discusses a single-case condition whose effect is that the arguments of a verb must be distinctively case-marked, i.e., there cannot be two realizations of the same case-form for one verb. He claims that "a verb that case-marks two objects must assign one case structurally and the other lexically" (Czepluch 82/83: 16) and adds the following schema: (56)

a obi obj V b. *.... obj obj V c. *.... obi obi V

(Czepluch's (49))

It is very easy to see that there is no constraint on the mode of case assignment, as (56b, c) seem to indicate but on distinct case realizations, since (56c) is falsified by (57): (57)

weil ich mir¿at der Tatsache oQn bewußt bin,... because I to-myself of-the fact aware am'

(In Czepluch's terms both DAT and GEN are oblique; cf. (Czepluch (1982/83: 8).) As a condition on surface realization the single case condition would be empirically unsatisfactory. In essence, Czepluch's proposal is a uniqueness condition and therefore highly reminiscent of another uniqueness constraint, the 0-criterion. If we juxtapose the ©-criterion and a formulation of the single-case condition, we note immediately a surprising relation: they can be collapsed. (58)

0-Criterion:

Each 0-role is assigned to one and only one argument and each argument bears one and only one 0-role ("0-role •»• argument")

The Case of German (59)

91

Single-case condition: Each C-index is assigned to one and only one argument and each argument bears one and only one C-index ("argument C-index")

By transitivity, (58) and (59) may be collapsed into (60): (60)

Case-Condition: Each 0-role occurs with a (unique) C-index

Now (59) follows from (60) and the ©-criterion. As an interesting consequence of (60), we note that it is not possible to have non-binary branching for objects in a system without lexical case: (61)

*

VP

V

NP

NP

In (61) both objects would surface with the same 'case'. It lends support to our approach that both Czepluch (1982/83) and Kayne (1982) have arrived at the same conclusion for English dative-construction on independent grounds. The case-condition is actually Chomsky's visibility condition (Chomsky 1981: 334): (62)

A chain must be case-marked or headed by PRO

First of all, in (62) the reference to PRO can be dropped since in our framework PRO bears a case-index and functions as external argument.9 Thus (62) reduces to (63): (63)

A chain must be assigned a case index

Now, (63) is the partial reinterpretation of (60) in terms of chains. Its complete reinterpretation, containing also the chain-reinterpretation of the ©-criterion is (64): (64)

The Case Condition: (cf. Chomsky 81:335) Given the structure S, there is a set k of chains, k = {Cj I , where Cj = (aZj a ^ j ) , with i a case-index, such that (i) if a is an argument of S, then there is a C/ e k such that a = of. 1 and a 0-role is assigned to Cj by exactly one position P;

92

Hubert Haider (ii) If P is a position of S marked with the 0-role R, then there is a Cj e k to which P assigns R, and exactly one of. in Cj is an argument '

If it is required that the lexical indices within a lexical entry be different, then RP takes care of the structural indices, since there may be at most two, kept distinct by assigning one to the designated argument. Then (64) become equivalent with (60). (60) has interesting typological consequences. There is the intuitively familiar correlation of lack of morphological case with strict word order and of relatively free word order with morphologically well articulated case systems. This correlation can be viewed as a consequence of (60). If there are no morphologically distinct realizations, the uniqueness requirement leads to an articulated structure in terms of which the case positions are kept distinct. The more articulated a structure has to be, the more rigid a serialization will appear. If, on the other hand, the arguments are distinguished by differing morphological case-realizations, structural distinction becomes less crucial and a system may lack certain structural configurations, a difference which is reflected in greater freedom of word order (cf. sect. 5). 10 4.5 Externally realized arguments in German For German I assume that (65) is the basic sentence pattern. (65) COMP INFL

S NP*

VC (= verb cluster)

Arguments for INFL in COMP go back to den Besten (1981) and are based on V-second phenomena. Further evidence and argumentation can be found in Haider (1982, 1984b) and Platzack (forthcoming). I assume furthermore that subjects and objects are not separated by the boundary of a maximal projection in German. Arguments to this end have been collected in Haider (1981) and (1982) and in a more compelling presentation in Haider (1983b, 1984b) They are based on the lack of ECP-assymmetries between subject and objects in German. 11 It is interesting to note that the case system presented here is independent of these assumptions. What is more interesting, however, is that this system yields the correct results for German if implemented in a

The Case of German

93

structure like (65) and gives insight into some important differences between English and German.

4.5.1 Externally realized arguments of V There are three possibilities for externally realized arguments of V: - NOM - ACC (in ECM-contexts) - PRO The straightforward instances are NOM and PRO. RP may be satisfied either by having INFL as the case-realizing element or by leaving the caseindex unrealized and thus not realized by V itself. Some qualifications have to be made for exceptional case marking. As mentioned above, the only type of exceptional case-marking found in German is that in which verbs take bare infinitival complements, i.e., cases involving verbs of perception (as in English) and the causative verb lassen "let". As in the case of English (cf. Williams 1983), the evidence for German does not support the assumption of a clausal complement for verbs of perception (cf. Haider 1982). Like modals, perception verbs occur in the verb cluster in German:

Vj

sehen

kommen For our purposes, what has to be ruled out is the possibility that the structural index of N P j is realized by V j , thus counting as external for V2, and that the index of NP2 realized by V2 is the regular ECM-external argument. This problem occurs only if an ECM-verb is embedded in an infinitival complement, since in a finite clause the argreement requirement rules out ACC on both N P j and NP2How is the pronoun in (67) to be ruled out?

(67)

weil er sich wünschte PRO/*Ä«i sie2 ihn3 ohrfeigen zu sehen because he to-himself wished PRO/*himj her2 him 3 slap to see

The solution is easy to find if case is assigned compositionally by VC in these cases, since then RP applies to the union of indices of both verbs

94

Hubert Haider

and requires an external realization, external with respect to both verbs. When the indices are realized and the NPs are mapped onto the respective 6-roles, nothing precludes the external argument of the embedded verb from appearing as ACC, since this case is not realized by the embedded verb itself. 4.5.2 Externally realized arguments of A Again there are the same three options as in 4.5.1. The NOM appears in finite copular constructions, the PRO-option in the infinitival. (68)

a. Sienom war schön "She was beautiful" b. Sie versuchte [PRO schön zu sein] "She tried to be beautiful"

ACC as well as NOM occur in predicative constructions: (69)

a. Er aß das Fleischroh "He ate the meat raw" b. £ > n o m aß das Fleisch nackt12 "He ate the meat nude"

It is instructive to note that the predicative relation is impossible with lexical cases. (70)

a. Er sah sie nackt "He saw herj nudej" b *Er half ihr(jat nackt "He helped herj nudej"

(70b) is ungrammatical in the interpretation that nackt refers predicatively to the DAT. On the assumption that the NP of which something is predicated qualifies also as the external argument of the predicative adjective, it must be structural case by necessity, since externalization is triggered by RP. For A there is also a fourth option for externally 'realized' argument: for attributive APs it is that portion of the projection of the head that is c-commanded by the AP. 4.5.3. The derivative notion 'subject" In English 'subject' covers a set of elements consisting of i) the NP that triggers agreement in finite sentences, ii) the NP that is case-marked by the matrix-verb in ECM contexts, iii) PRO and iv) the prenominal genitive in NPs. The uniting bond is conceived of as a structural relation

The Case of German

95

[NP,S] or to include the genitive [NP, X m a x ] . This interpretation is too narrow for German: it does not include the external argument in attributive APs although they display the same opacity effects as the subjects. It is too broad, on the other hand, since the structural relation [NP,S] holds for any argument in German. On the evidence of his reanalysis of 'small clauses', Williams (1983) suggests to replace the notion 'subject' by 'external argument': (71)

The subject of a predicative phrase XP is the single argument of X that is located outside of the maximal projection of X.

(71) is still too close to the model of English: it replaces one structural notion by another structural one. In German, (71) covers the AP-cases but not the regular sentential arguments since they are all contained in the same maximal projection. What is different though, is the way case is realized. If 'external argument' is defined in the way I have proposed it, it becomes immediately clear why subject in English appears to be a structural relation. Due to the fact that English has only structural cases, they have to be kept distinct in structural terms. This is attained by separating the arguments into different projections. (72)

S NP

INFL

VP ( = V m a x ) NP

In English the position [NP,S] is the only one where an NP can get case assigned by INFL, hence fulfilling RP. NOM cannot be assigned into VP, due to the fact that VP, as a maximal projection, blocks government qua maximal projection. Thus for a system with structural cases only, to be the externally realized argument is equivalent to being the NP in the structural relation [NP,S], Williams' definition (71) is based on the parallelism between AP and VP and neglects the possibility that the presence of VP is required by a specific property of the case system of the grammar, viz. the lack of morphological cases. The fact that NOM can be realized only in a unique structural configuration is the reason for NP-movement in English.

4.5.4 Case-assignment, structure, and word order That word order is highly dependent on the way the case-system works is easy to demonstrate on the basis of English and German. Let us examine the word order in passives.

96

Hubert Haider

(73)

a. daß man der Frau¿at den Knaben^cc übergab (=73b) b. that they gave the woman the child c. daß der Frau(jat der Knabenom übergeben wurde (=73d) d. that the woman was given the child e.*that was given the woman the child

In German the objects are contained in the same maximal projection as the subject, and thus RP is satisfied if ACC changes into NOM in (73c). In English, however, the NP has to be moved out of a maximal projection and placed in a position where the structural index can be realized externally. Thus in German the word order does not change in passive while in English it is impossible not to change word order. Passive is only one example of a nominative being preceded by an object in German. Since NOM can be realized on any NP in (65), we expect to find any permutation of case marked NPs in German sentences, which is indeed the case: with constrastive stress any arrangement is possible, a difference between English and German which is frequently neglected (cf. Haider 1982). Under neutral stress any sequence is possible too, depending on the choice of the verb. The only exception is genitive, for which I have not been able to find an example where it comes first without carrying stress. Genitive on objects has already become archaic. (74)

a. NOM - DAT: b. NOM - ACC: c. DAT - NOM: d. DAT - ACC: e. ACC - NOM:

f. ACC - DAT:

daßerihrhüft that he to-her helps daß der Mann ein Auto kauft that the man the car buys daß dem Mann das Auto gefällt that to-the man the car likes daß er dem Mädchen eine Puppe gab that he to-the girl a doll gave daß den Kritiker eine solche Aufführung nicht beeindruckt that to-the critic a such performance not impresses "that such a performance does not impress the critic" daß der Mann ein Auto seinem Fahrrad vorzieht that the man a car to-his bicycle prefers

The fact that the word order under neutral stress is dependent on subclasses of verbs invites the conclusion that serialization is effected by two different factors. Either there is a rigid structure which imposes a specific serialization, or the syntactic structure allows any order. Then this free-

The Case of German

97

dom of choice may be used by other modules which induce a preferred serialization in unmarked case. Thus the serialization in passive reflects the unmarked DAT-ACC order (74d) in active sentences. (74e) is a case of Instrument-flip verbs, which reflect the general observation that Agent and Instrument are often exchangeable (cf. the suffix -er, for instance; for a typological study cf. Dressier (1980)). (75)

a. Jemand beeindruckt ihn mit etwas s.o. impresses him with s.th b. Etwas beeindruckt ihn s.th. impresses him

In (75a) the Instrument is contained in the PP, whereas in (75b) it is the subject. In general it seems to be a module related to cognitive-perceptual strategies that is responsible for the serialization patterns in systems where serialization is not constrained structurally. For different proposals to that end I refer to Haider (1982) and literature cited there.

5. SUMMARY

I propose a way of handling Case that depends crucially on the distinction between case indices, supplied by a lexical element, and their realization in the syntactic structure. The system is general and parametrized (it has different kinds of indices) and thus allows insight into the unity underlying implementation of case in superficially different systems like those of English and German. The conceptual merits of this proposal are: - a general, not language specific, notion of case-realization; - the replacement of redundant, language specific generalizations by two conditions, which allow derivation of the replaced conditions as theorems in a specific setting; - the elimination of the ill-understood notion of 'case-absorption'; - insight into the dependencies between case-morphology, structure, and word order. Finally I would like to stress that the proposals I made fit into the GB framework (Chomsky 1981) with only a few modifications, some of which are inviting, as, e.g., the indices which I interpret as abstract Case. These are already used in Chomsky's definition of the 0-criterion for technical reasons. In combination with the visibility condition (Chomsky 1981: 334) the reinterpretation advocated here makes the relationship

98

Hubert

Haider

between 9 - a s s i g n m e n t and Case immediately transparent: since Case is a function that maps 6 - r o l e s onto arguments, and thus a function in the technical sense o f a unique mapping, syntactic systems without distinct morphological Case-realizations are bound to be more structured than those with morphologically differentiated Case systems. These are able to execute their function with less highly articulated structures and thus allow more options for serialization, referred to in traditional terms as free word order.

NOTES 1. Some authors suggest the so-called Rezipienten-Passiv (passive of recipient) as a counterexample, on the basis of the superficial paraphrase relation between (i) and (ii): (i) (ii)

daß ihm fat ein Buchnom geschenkt wurde that to-him was presented a book daß ernom ein Buch ^geschenkt kriegte that he a book presented got

As I pointed out in Haider (1984a), subsuming (ii) under passive means giving up the syntactic notion of passive, since constructions of the type (ii) differ radically from standard passive in syntactic terms. In particular we note that: a) b) c)

d)

(ii) has a thematic subject (*Es kriegte ihm geholfen. 'It got to-him helped.'); (ii) conserves the ACC; (ii) is productive only with transitive verbs: *Er bekommt begegnet he got met *Die Partei bekommt beigetreten. the party got joined (cf. Fanselow 1982) DAT does not alternate in regular passive

It is preferable to analyze (ii) as an (extended) predicative construction. 2. In Swedish another option is available: there does not transmit agreement in presentative constructions but induces 3rd p. sg. on the finite verb, there is an expletive subject for intransitive passive (cf. Platzack forthc.). 3. There are a few exceptions: los "rid o r ' , wert "worth", satt "fed" up with", whose accusative dates back to a merger of GEN with ACC for the pronoun es, traditionally called 'accusative-by-mistake' (cf. Duden § 1214). For los the best account is adverbial, since it does not occur attributively. The ACC of wert is an adverbial accusative of measure, satt also seems to be reanalyzed as adverbial. First, the copula alternates with haben, which indicates that satt haben is treated as a verb. Secondly, the attributive usage togehter with the accusative is low in acceptability: (i)

ich habe ihniCC satt "I am fed up with him"

The Case of German (ii)

99

V.der mich satte^p Nachbar "the neighbor who is fed up with me"

4. For a detailed presentation and analysis see Abraham (1983). 5. It is not enough that the anaphor be bound by an external argument. It must be bound by the closest external argument, the external co-argument. 6. This concise statement was made by G. Fanselow. 7. It is worth noting that what is now an aspectual marker in English resulted from reanalysis of a participial construction in Old English parallel to (48b). Its ungrammatically in German is the cue for the triggering of reanalysis. The predicative version of (48a) in a copulative construction was possible only with the reinterpretation of the adjectival praticiple as a purely verbal form, the progressive form. 8. In German there is an interesting alternation of haben/sein with an adjectival infinitive: (i) (ii)

Er hat_ die Aufgabe zu lösen 'he has the task to solve' Die Aufgabe war zu lösen 'the task was to solve'

In (i) haben implies the presence of the external argument of lösen, sein in (ii) its absence. 9. There is good evidence indeed that PRO must bear a case index (cf. Sternefeld, this volume). In predicative construction, the predicative NP gets Case by agreement with the noun it is predicated on. (i) (ii) (in)

£ > n o m wurde ein guter Vaternom "He became a good father " Sie nannten ihnacc einen Verräteracc 'They called him a traitor" £ > n o m wurde ein Verräter nom genannt. "He was called a traitor"

Predicative NPs marked NOM occur in infinitives too: (iv) (v)

Er versuchte (PRO ein guter Vater zu sein) he tried a good father to be Er erwartete (PRO ein Heldnom genannt zu werden) he expected to be called a hero

Examples (iv-v) show that Case-agreement is not simply a copy-mechanism, copying morphological CASE-form. The rule is rather that NP gets NOM if it is predicated of the external argument, ACC if predicated on a non-external structural argument, and otherwise inherits the lexical index. If the status of the external argument is crucial we expect immediately that NOM should show up even if an NP is predicated of an NP marked ACC, provided it is an external argument, i.e., Case is realized by the matrix V. The expectation is borne out, cf. Duden § 1473: (vi)

Laß michacc dein treuer Heroldnom sein. "Let me be your faithful herald" (vii) Laß den wüsten Kerlacc ihr Komplizenom sein. "Let the brutal guy be her accomplice" 10. This approach entails that sentential arguments bear case-indices too, since they are assigned a 9-role. Since these case-indices cannot be realized, sentential arguments occur at a position where case cannot be realized: finite clauses are ob-

100

Hubert Haider

ligatorily extraposed. This treatment is very similar in spirit to Stowell's (1981) proposal. Why non-extraposed infinitivals are much more acceptable than finite clauses is an open question. 11. Consequently, PRO is governed in German. This implies that the PRO-theorem cannot be derived in the way Chomsky proposes. But the distribution of PRO can be determined by means of the functional definition of empty categories. An empty category with unrealized case and 9 - r o l e is PRO. Thus PRO is excluded from positions other than that of the subjects of infinitivals, since in other position case will be realized, e.g., in object position or inside PP. (i)

John seems (PRO to be happy]

(i) is excluded by the 9-criterion. Since PRO is assigned a 9-role by happy and seem does not assign 9-roles, John will not receive a 9-role. 12. For arguments to the effect that predication does not violate the 9-criterion despite the superficial impression that the object in (69b) is assigned two 9-roles, one by essen "eat" and one by nackt "nude", I refer the reader to Williams (1983: sect. 7).

REFERENCES Abraham, W. 1983. "Der Dativ im Deutschen." Manuscript, Rijksuniversiteit Groningen. Besten, H.d. 1981. "On the Interaction of Root Transformations and Lexical Deletive Rules." Groninger Arbeiten zur Germanistischen Linguistik (GAGL) 20: 1-78. Besten, H.d. 1982. "Some Remarks on the Ergative Hypothesis." Groninger Arbeiten zur Germanistischen Linguistik (GAGL) 21: 61-82. Burzio, L. 1981. Intransitive Verbs and Italian Auxilliaries. Ph.D. dissertation. MIT. Chomsky, N. 1980. "On Binding." Linguistic Inquiry 11: 1-46. Chomsky, N. 1981. Lectures on Government and Binding. Dordrecht: Foris. Chomsky, N. 1982. Concepts and Consequences of the Theory of Government and Binding. Cambridge. MA.: MIT Press. Czepluch, H. 1982/83. "Case Theory and the Dative Construction." The Linguistic Review 2: 1-38. Dressier, W.U. 1980. "Universalien von Agenswortbildungen." Brenscheider, G. & Ch. Lehmann, eds.: Wege zur Universalienforschung. 110-115. Tübingen: Narr. Duden. 1973. Vol 4: Grammatik der deutschen Gegenwartssprache. 3rd ed. Mannheim: Bibliographisches Institut. Dummet, M. 1981. The Interpretation of Frege's Philosophy. London: Ducksworth. Fanselow, G. 1982. Universale Grammatik und deutsche Syntax. Ms. Universität Konstanz. Grewendorf, G. 1982. "Reflexivierung in deutschen A.c.I.-Konstruktionen - kein transformationsgrammatisches Dilemma mehr." Ms. Technische Universität Berlin. [Also in GAGL 23: 120-196.] Haider, H. 1981. "Empty Categories: On Some Differences Between German and English." Wiener linguistische Gazette 25: 13-36. Haider, H. 1982. "Dependenzen und Konfigurationen: Zur deutschen V-Projektion." Groninger Arbeiten zur Germanistischen Linguistik (GAGL) 21: 1-60. Haider, H. 1983a. Deutsche Syntax, generativ. Eine Einführung in die Theorie von Rektion und Bindung. Ms. Universität Wien.

The Case of German

101

Haider, H. 1983b. "Connectedness Effects in German." Ms. Universität Wien. Haider, H. 1984a. "Mona Lisa lächelt stumm. Über das sogenannte Rezipientenpassiv." Linguistische Berichte 89: 32-42. Haider, H. 1984b. "Topic, Focus and Verb-Second." Groninger Arbeiten zur Germanistischen Linguistik 25: 72-120. Haider, H. 1984c. "A Unified Account of Case- and 6-Marking. The Case of German." Ms. Universität Wien. Haider, H. 1985. "Über sein und nicht sein. Zur Grammatik des Pronomens sich." W. Abraham, ed.: Erklärende Syntax des Deutschen. Tübingen: Narr. pp. 221252. Kayne, R. 1981. "On Certain Differences Between French and English." Linguistic Inquiry 12: 349-371. Kayne. R. 1983. "Connectedness." Linguistic Inquiry 14: 223-249. Platzack, C. 1983. "Germanic Word Order and the COMP/INFL Parameter." Working Papers in Scandinavian Syntax (Trondheim), 2. Platzack, C. (forthcoming) "Existential Sentences in English, German, Icelandic, and Swedish." To appear in F. Karlsson, ed.: Papers from the 7th Scandinavian Conference on Linguistics. Reis, M. 1976. "Reflexivierung in deutschen A.c.I.-Konstruktionen. Ein transformationsgrammatisches Dilemma." Papiere zur Linguistik, no. 9, 5-82. Reis, M. 1982. "Zum Subjektbegriff im Deutschen." Abraham, W., ed.: Satzglieder im Deutschen. Tübingen: Narr. Pp. 171-212. Stowell, T. 1981. Origins of Phrase Structure. Ph.D dissertation. MIT. Toman, J. 1983. Wortsyntax. Eine Diskussion ausgewählter Probleme deutscher Wortbildung. Tübingen: Niemeyer. (Linguistische Arbeiten, 137.) Wasow, T. 1978. "Transformations and the Lexicon." Culicover, P.W., T. Wasow & A. Akmajian, eds.: Formal Syntax. New York: Academic Press. Pp. 327360. Williams, E. 1981. "Argument Structure and Morphology." The Linguistic Review 1: 81-144. Wilhams, E. 1983. "Against Small Clauses." Linguistic Inquiry 14: 287-308.

Diachronic Syntax: Verb Position and COMP in German* Jürgen Lenerz Universität Köln

1. THE PROBLEM»

Given a proper modularization of the grammar of German, we do not have to assume much syntactic change from Old High German (OHG) to modern New High German (NHG). In fact, the characteristic verb positions of NHG (1) are to be found in OHG (2) already, namely V/1, V/2 and V/end; cf. Behaghel (1932: 10ff.): (1)

a. NHG: Kommst du heut'nicht, kommst du morgen\ come you today not, come you tomorrow "If you don't come today, you'll come tomorrow!" b. Gestern kam er yesterday came he "He came yesterday" c. ..., weil er gestern kam because he yesterday came "because he came yesterday"

(2)

a. OHG: uuarun thö hirta in thero lantskeffi uuahhante... (T. 6,1) were there herdsmen in the country watching "There were herdsmen in the country on watch" Bruthlauft istgawisso garo (Möns. 15,18) b. wedding is certainly ready "Certainly, all preparations have been made for the wedding" c. Täz öuga äl sihet unde al bechennet (Nc., 342,17) the eye all sees and all recognizes 'The eye sees everything and recognizes everything"

Some slight modifications have occurred, of course, but they do not affect the syntactic structure proper. Verb-initial (V/l) sentences in OHG for instance were primarily used in lively narration. Similar uses of V/l * I want to thank the co-authors of this book for much valuable and challenging criticism. My special thanks go to Sue Olsen for revising my English.

104

Jürgen Lenerz

sentences are common to Germanic languages. The standard narrative form in Old Icelandic is V/l, cf. Heusler (1964: 173,§508); it is still randomly possible in NHG (3c), even in modern English (3d): (3)

a. OHG: (see), quimit ther brutigomo (Möns. 20,8) (look) comes the bridegroom! "Look, there comes the bridegroom!" b. OIcel: Reijt pörprpapanvestr ...til Helgafels rode Thor from there westward ... to Helgafels 'Thor rode westward from there ... to Helgafels" c. NHG: Kommt da ein Kerl herein und fragt mich,... comes there a guy in and asks me "Aguy comes in and asks me,..." d. Said the president: ...; Wrote the TIMES in 1982: ...

Apart from this, V/l signaled conditional or consecutive clauses. The iltocutionary function of V/l sentences as yes/no-questions became standard in Middle High German (MHG); in OHG, a question particle (inu) was used, normally in initial position, cf. Behaghel (1928: 431f.). Notice that this modification does not affect the syntax proper; - it only concerns the illocutionary function of a syntactic pattern, which itself remained unchanged. Additional modifications concern the extraposition of nominal constituents and the reordering within the verbal complex. Both are stylistic rules, operating after the S-structure. Thus, extraposition of predicative nominals, subject and object NPs was more common in OHG than in MHG and NHG, although it still seems to be acceptable in colloquial use: (4)

a. OHG: dhasz dhu firstandes heilac chiruni (Isid. S. 19,157=111,2) "That you may understand holy whispering" b. MHG: Als diu sunne an sich ziuhet den viuhten hift,... (Meister Eckh. 567,41 = Predigt 54b) as the sun to itself pulls the damp air "like the sun attracts the damp air" c. NHG: Jetzt hat die Zeitung übernommen der Herr K. (Lambert 1976, 191) now has the newspaper taken over the Mr. K. "Now Mr. K. has taken over the newspaper"

Similarly, reordering within the verbal complex used to be less restricted than in standard NHG; however, present dialects of German and other Westgermanic languages still allow for a wide range of possibilities, cf. den Besten/Edmondson (1981):

Diachronic Syntax: Verb Position and COMP in German (5)

105

a. OHG: in dhes dagum seal Juda werdhan gihaldan (Isid. 71,651 = IX,6) in these days shall J. become saved "In these days, J. shall be saved" (instead of:... gihaldan werdhan) b. MHG: daz drte tage solte hän gewert,... (Berth. 1,10,20) that three days should have lasted "That should have lasted three days" (instead of:... gewert hän solte)

Stylistic reorderings like those in (4) and (5) do not concern the syntactic structures of German as such, and the synchronic variation in non-standard varieties of Modern German reflects all the possibilities in the diachronic development from OHG to standard NHG. Hence, we may consider the diachronic development and the synchronic variation in this area of stylistic reorderings as merely two sides of the same coin: any cohesive description of present-day German has to account for this kind of variation, and it may simply be applied then to the description of earlier stages of German. So apart from a change in function and some stylistic variation, the basic word order of OHG remains the same until today. There is only one exception, to which I will return immediately: verb-final (V/final) sentences without a complementizer. As far as 'normal' V/1, V/2 and V/end sentences are concerned, it is assumed in current theories of German syntax that all these structures may be derived from the same underlying structure, the difference in the position of the finite verb following from general principles. The finite verb is in complementary distribution with sentence initial complementizers like daß that', ob 'if, wenn 'when'/"if", "when", interrogative pronouns and relative pronouns. Thus, an analysis which considers complementizers and finite verbs as but two instances of the same kind of constituent will 'explain' their typical arrangement: finite verbs occur in initial position (V/l or V/2) if and only if there is no lexical complementizer, - otherwise the verb remains in its base generated final position. Several proposals have been developed on the basis of this observation 1 . They carry over to the description of OHG and MHG syntax without much difficulty. So as regards this part of the syntax there does not seem to be any need for an independent theory of syntactic change: if everything that changes keeps well within the range of permissable synchronic variation, the theory defining the limitations of possible changes is trivially empty - the simplest case. Accordingly, any description of diachronic change should attempt to provide such analyses which do not force us to assume any syntactic change in the strict sense.

106

Jiirgen Lenerz

There is, however, one group of examples which do not fit easily into this pattern, namely verb final sentences without an initial complementizer (V/final). In the following, I will discuss the properties of these examples and various possible analyses with regard to their implications for a theory of syntactic change. Sentences like (6) used to be quite common in the earliest records of Germanic languages, and SOV is assumed to have been the unmarked order in Pro to-Germanic.2 OHG still allows veib-flnal sentences (7); although some instances may be explained by Latin influence, there are many indigenous examples, cf. Behaghel (1932: 13,15,23ff.): (6)

a.

b. OE:

(7)

ek Hlewagastir holtingar horna tawido I H. H. horn made "I, H. from H. made this horn" (runic inscription: 'Horn from Gallehus', ~400) & he his feorh generede (AgsChr. 755) & he his life saved "And he saved his life"

a. OHG: erino portun ih firchnussu (Isid. 19,157 = 111,2) iron doors I shatter "I shatter iron doors" b. ..., min tohter ubib fon themo tiuuale giuueigit ist (T. 85,2) my daughter badly from the devil tormented is "My daughter has been tormented badly by the devil" Kundta imo, er iz wôlt (O.1,25,10) c. told him, he it wanted "He told him that he wanted it"

In later stages of German, however, indépendant V/final sentences became almost obsolete in prose but were still used to a considerable extent in poetry. Their stylistic value varies, but it may generally be assumed that they had an 'archaic' connotation. They are more frequent in narration than in direct speech; beginnen 'to begin' and sprechen 'to speak' appear quite often in final position (8e-g), and waenen 'to believe' takes verb-final clauses as complements (8a-d); cf. Horacek (1964: 64ff., 152ff.) for details: 3 (8)

a. OHG: warm si iz intriatin believe (l.sg.) they it feared "I believe they were afraid of it"

(0.1,27,11)

Diachronic Syntax: Verb Position and COMP in German

107

b. OHG: Ih wän, er therero dato hintarquami thräto (O.II, 12,3) I believe he of-them deeds was-frightened very "I believe he was shocked very much by their acts" c. MHG: ich waen der schade von im geschah (Willehalm 85,9) I believe the damage from him happened "I believe he was responsable for the damage" d. MHG: ich waene, wir verraten sin (Tristan 18256) I believe we betrayed are "I believe we have been betrayed" e. OHG: er sliumo sar tho zin sprah (O.IV, 16,36) he quickly at once then to them spoke "He then spoke quickly to them at once" f. MHG: zuo den frouwen er dt5 sprach: ... (Wernhers Maria 3198) to the women he then spoke "Then he said to the women: ..." g. MHG: der helt zuo sinen friwenden lüto ruofen began: ... (Nib. 215,4) the hero to his friends loudly to call began "The hero began to call loudly to his friends: ..." Some of these uses survived up to Early New High German (ENHG): (9)

ENHG:

Er doch Gott und sein Wort veracht (Hans Sachs XV; 139,35) he though God and his word despised "But he despised God and his word"

In modern German, similar examples appear only in poetic use, having a distinctly old-fashioned touch, cf. Horacek (1964: 162ff.): (10)

a. NHG:

b. NHG:

c. NHG:

Nach dem Fenster noch das bleiche stille Antlitz sah (Schiller XI, 239,81) to the window still the pale quiet face looked "The pale quiet face was still looking at the window" Hier alles sich vom Studenten nährt (Goethe, Urfaust, 266) here everything itself from the student feeds-on "Here everybody earns his living from the students" Der Dichter auch der Töne Lockung lauscht (George, Hymnen S.15) the poet also the (gen.) sounds enticement listens "The poet also listens to the enticement of the sounds"

108

Jürgen Lenerz

Clearly, V/final sentences are dying out in the history of German. Their fairly widespread use in OHG and MHG, however, does not allow us to dismiss them as mere 'poetic license': This is justified by the fact that they exhibit certain regularities which they share with 'normal' syntactic patterns and they ought to be considered in relation to these, keeping in mind that they obviously play a central role in the syntactic change from OHG to NHG.

2. POSSIBLE SOLUTIONS As we observed above, all through the history of German the position of the finite verb can be explained by the presence vs. absence of a complementizer. The V/final sentences (6-10) do not have a complementizer. If we want to keep their analysis in harmony with that of 'normal' sentences, there are three general possibilities: (A) We may assume that V/final sentences, too, have a 'lexically' filled COMP node which prohibits fronting of the verb. This complementizer, however, is later deleted or it does not have a phonological matrix and is hence 'inaudible'. (B) V/final sentences may be assumed to have a COMP node which is filled by a preposed constituent; hence the finite verb cannot move to this position. (C) V/final sentences may be assumed to lack a COMP node altogether; hence, the finite verb does not have any position to move to. In the following, I will discuss the implications which these proposals have for a diachronic grammar of German in particular and for a theory of syntactic change in general. 2.1 Proposal A At first sight, alternative A seems fairly ad hoc since it simply stipulates an 'inaudible' complementizer whose only task appears to be the explanation of the fact it was designed to explain. So in order to justify 'inaudible' complementizers in V/final sentences, we would like to find independent evidence for their existence. Before doing so, however, I want to point out the theoretical advantages of this solution which make such a search worthwhile: The assumption of a lexical but inaudible (i.e. phonologically empty) complementizer enables us to explain the final position of the verb in V/final sentences (6-10) on the basis of the same rules as in the regular cases (1) and (2) throughout the history of German. Consequently, a theory of syntactic change would not have to say much about these cases since they would behave quite regularly under this analysis, and the

Diachronic Syntax: Verb Position and COMP in German

109

diachronic change would not be a syntactic one but would take place in the phonological deletion rules or in the lexicon: either the rule deleting the 'inaudible' complementizer would be eliminated within the course of development of German or the lexicon would lose a lexical item with the strange property of not having a phonological matrix. Notice that the optional deletion of a complementizer is not an uncommon case. That may be deleted in English subordinate complement clauses and relative clauses under certain conditions which are also subject to some diachronic change, cf. Bever/Langendoen (1971).4 Given the theoretical advantage of alternative A one would like to find independent evidence for an 'inaudible' complementizer in V/final sentences. To my knowledge, there are the following possible arguments: First, in relative clauses in OHG, MHG and even in ENHG, an overt lexical complementizer may be missing. The use of such asyndetic relative clauses decreases in the history of German as does the use of V/final sentences in general. The lexical complementizer preventing V/l placement in relative clauses is normally a relative pronoun or a relative particle (OHG the, NHG wo); in the asyndetic clauses it may either have been deleted or it may be a 0-complementizer lacking a phonological matrix; cf. Behaghel (1928: 492ff.) for further examples:5 (11)

a. OHG:

in dróume sie in zélitun then weg

sie fáran scoltun (O.I, 17,74) in dream they them told the way they travel should "In a dream they told them the way (that) they should travel" b. MHG: ... diu sich geltchen kunde dergrózen súl the itself liken could to the big pillar "which could be likened to the big pillar dázwischen suont (Pz. 589,28) there between stood (that) stood there between them" c. ENHG: ... die fies war wollEine Von den grosten freiiden this was well one of the greatest joys "This was indeed one of the greatest joys Ich mein Leben Entpfiinden... (El.v.Orl. 360,10) I my life experienced (that) I have experienced in all my life"

Secondly, some coordinating conjunctions like und 'and', aber 'but' and adverbial conjunctions like jetzt 'now' and OHG thanan 'thence' may be considered to have been re-interpreted as complementizers in V/final sentences, thus filling the place of an 'inaudible' complementizer:

110

Jürgen Lenerz

(12)

a. OHG:

Thanan tho Zacharias uuardgitruobit thaz sehenti, ... (T. 2,4) from then on there Z. was dimmed the seeing,... "But Z's eyesight was dimmed from then on" b. OHG: getäten sie mih pögen [...] unde iro made they me bow and their "They made me bow and their werch ieo ze erdo sähen (Np. 195,6 = Ps. 56,7) works always to earth looked acts kept looking down" c. MHG: Im wart daz guot gar genomen [...]; und er dehein widermiiete an stnem libe nie gewan darumbe (Berth. I, 227,17) him became the good all taken and he no against-mood on his body never won therefore "All his goods were taken away from him, but he did not become insubordinate because of this" d. ENHG: Aber der pferdle [...] kheine zu bekommen gewest sind (Paumgartner 123) but of the horses none to get been are "But none of the horses was to be gotten" e. NHG: Jetzt ich also nichts mehr weiß, als... (Opitz 47, 37) now I consequently nothing more know but... "So, now I don't know anything else but..."

The examples with und 'and' often have an adversative meaning; they are fairly frequent even in earlier NHG. They are crucial for my argument since und never appears in the middle field (unlike most other adverbial conjunctions). Thus, und cannot be argued to have been preposed into a COMP-position; being base generated in its initial position, und may have become a complementizer only by re-analysis (13):6 (13)

a.

(13) und

re-interpretation COMP

S

b. COMP und

'fin If this analysis carries over to the other examples in (12) we have to suppose that a structure like (13a) with a 0-complementizer was originally

Diachronic Syntax: Verb Position and COMP in German

111

underlying all V/flnal sentences. There is more evidence for a re-interpretation along these lines. Probably all complementizers of NHG have originated either from elements immediately preceding or immediately following the COMP position; for more examples cf. Fleischmann (1973: 14ff.). Thus, MHG [all die wile] [cOMP^ flZ l • hat antworten können, cf. fn. 2)

(9)

(geldst gehabt hat) 'solved have has' More than one modal is permitted per clause (cf. (6)), modal verbs and perfect combine and can appear in either order (cf. (7) and (8)) and two perfects may even occur in the same clause (9). Edmondson's analysis lines up the verb forms in the correct underlying order that will not have to be altered in subordinate clauses and in main clauses the only change that need occur is that the finite verb (always the final verb of the string) will be fronted. This analysis neatly captures the difference between the German "auxiliaries" and "main" verbs, 4 namely the modals and the two perfect verbs are generated as a sister node to a VP with affixes (INF or PART) that must be placed on the verb of that VP, while main (lexical) verbs are inserted into a phrase marker with an appropriate complement structure as laid down for the verb in the lexicon. Under this analysis, both main verbs and auxiliaries belong to the syntactic category V but there is a basic syntactic difference between the two expressed in the manner of genesis. While it is questionable whether the combination INF + werd- should be labeled " F u t " , 5 nevertheless, Edmondson's phrase structure rules correctly predict the main distributional differences between werden

138

Susan Olsen

'become' and the modals: the former always occurs next to the tense element, i.e. is forbidden in combinations like (6) and (8) above (*werden + modal ¡*werden + Perf), and, in fact, only occurs in the present tense (kommen wird 'come wiW/*kommen wurde 'come will-past'). To derive our original sentence (la) from its underlying structure similar to (lc), Edmondson postulates three transformational rules affix hopping, topicalization and verb placement. Besides being extrinsically ordered (in the order just given), these rules carry additional conditions applying to context as well as manner of application. For example, affix hopping is obligatory, topicalization optional and verb placement obligatory. Furthermore, the latter two must be restricted to root sentences. The base rules yield the phrase marker (10) which is transformationally altered to (11) by affix hopping. (11) may then undergo topicalization (12) and verb fronting (13). The latter rule moves the node immediately dominating a tense morpheme to second position, i.e., to the right of the first constituent of the sentence (which, if topicalization applies (cf. 12), will no longer be the subject of the sentence; Edmondson 1982: 73-81). (10)

Deep Structure

S

N:

Karl

VP VP NP

TM

Perf V

Präs

PART hab-

etwas kaufen 'Karl something buy PART have Pres' (11)

Affix Hopping

S N

Karl

VP

139

On Deriving V-l and V-2 Structures in German (12)

Topicalization

etwas VP V

Perf hab-

Präs

[ \ kaufen PART (13)

Verb Placement NP

I

etwas

, ,

hab- Präs kaufen PART

(Etwas hat Karlgekauft 'something has Karl bought') This account relies crucially on the ordering of the transformations involved. A reversed order of verb fronting applying before topicalization would yield an incorrect result such as (14): (14)

* Etwas Karl hat gekauft something Karl has bought

Edmondson believes that the transformational rule of topicalization can be allowed to apply iteratively to derive the word order shown in (16) from (15). (15)

Die Länder der EG mußten gestern in Brüssel erneut die endgültige Entscheidung über die Europawahlen für 1979 verschieben The countries of-the E(uropean) C(ommunity) had-to yesterday in Brussels again the final decision about the European-elections for 1979 postpone

(16)

Die Länder der EG mußten in Brüssel gestern

erneut...

In (16) in Brüssel is preposed around gestern. Regardless of how many times topicalization applies, or to which constituents, the verb fronting

140

Susan Olsen

rule applying after topicalization will always place the verb after the first constituent of the sentence. According to Edmondson, these two rules interact to produce all possible word order variants of a declarative sentence (Edmondson 1982: 135-139). The generalization that will need to be formalized in the formal statement of Edmondson's verb preposing rule is difficult to state formally since it seems to require a listing of the different constituent types that may occur in sentence initial position; his formalization of the rule using a variable (Edmondson 1982: 74) to indicate the first constituent is at any rate not adequate. But most importantly, it has been demonstrated by Reis (1980: 71-73) and Lenerz (1977: 109-111) that such iterative use of a topicalization rule does not capture the nature of constituent order regularities in German. Topicalization (or, spoken traditionally, the initial field) is a completely different phenomenon from word order patterns exhibited by constituents following the tensed verb in V-2 structures (i.e. in the middle field). 6 Topicalization and the scrambling of elements in the middle field do not overlap in either the type of constituent affected nor the conditions under which the movement takes place. Topicalization will front prepositional phrases, infinite parts of the verbal complex and negative adverbs, all of which cannot be postponed to the front of the middle field (Reis 1980: 71-73). The reordering of elements in the middle field is most likely a rightward stylistic movement (Thiersch 1978: 46-59) that places a less definite, heavier or more rhematic constituent to the right of a neighboring constituent (Lenerz 1977: 39-63). It is necessary, then, for reasons of empirical adequacy to restrict topicalization to a single application preposing a constituent of the sentence around the subject. Verb fronting applying after optional topicalization will account for the V-2 structures of main clauses with and without inversion in German. Further reordering of middle field constituents will have to be accounted for by a separate movement rule. Notice that within this analysis V-l sentences like our original ( l b ) will have to be derived by yet another movement rule. Since the first verb fronting rule makes specific reference to second position of the sentence, the two verb frontings cannot be collapsed. Thus, we have a base with verb final order, an optional topicalization rule and two verb movement transformations yielding verb initial and verb second main clauses.

4. THE REVISED EXTENDED STANDARD THEORY (REST)

Work in GG has stressed from the beginning that the goal of linguistic inquiry is not mere description of linguistic phenomena but an explanation

On Deriving V-l and V-2 Structures in German

141

of such. According to this line of thought, the complex and seemingly disparate data of a given language find an explanation when it can be shown that they follow from general rules and principles independently motivated in the grammar. Following this logic, it has been an enduring challenge to linguists working within GG to limit the power of generative grammars. If the individual grammars are to be directly derived from a universal grammar, this source grammar determining the possible form of individual grammars must be highly restrictive. This task - reducing the class of possible grammars - has been the motivating power and the guiding line behind research within GG since its conception. Progress along these lines reached a breakthrough in the 70's and can be traced in its progression almost step by step from Chomsky (1973) through his subsequent works (1975, 1976, 1977) to Chomsky (1980 and 1981), the latter two comprising the topic of sections 5 and 6. The most important developments characterizing REST were the X theory of syntax limiting the structure of the base rules and providing the COMP node, the reduction of the transformational component to one optional schema (move a ) free of all construction specific conditions along with the assumption that this moved category leaves behind a trace of its original position and the refinement of a few general conditions - the Specified Subject Condition, the Prepositional Island Condition and Subjacency - which rule out unwanted overgeneration by the simplified transformational component. Lenerz (1981) makes the most concrete proposal for the derivation of V-2 and V-l structures in German in accordance with this conception of GG that the author is aware of. 7 Under his proposal a German sentence has the following underlying structure provided by the base of the grammar:

(1?)

tsIcOMptx

][±W - ] H S ••••]] -Tps +Tps

(Lenerz 1981: 173)

where the verb is generated in the final position of S. The postulation of the COMP node finds justification in the fact that German has clause initial complementizers and shows wA-movement to the front of the clause. The internal structure of COMP consists of an initial position that carries the feature [+X] and a second position characterized by the feature [+tense], this is the position of the complementizer further classified as [±W]. Lexicalization of the first position in the base will yield the expletive es and of the second will give warum 'why', ob 'whether' in accordance with the feature [+W] or daß 'that', weil 'because' for [-W]. All syntactic rules are optional. If lexicalization does not take place, the

142

Susan Olsen

category remains empty and can function as a landing site for 'move a'. An empty category in COMP which is not transformationally filled will receive no interpretation and hence be rejected by the interpretative rules. 'Move a ' can move a constituent from S into a position in COMP if the two categories are compatible in feature structure. Thus, a X can be moved into the first position and a finite verb into the second. The possible COMP structures that can be produced by the base number eight as given in (18), where es and daß appear as a result of lexicalization, "e" appears where no lexicalization occurs and "- - -" indicates that the category has not been expanded at all. [cOMpt" 1 *] [ ±W 11

(18) a. b. c. d. e. f. g. h.

es daß es e e daß e e - - - da/i --e es --e —

sentence type V-2 V-2 V-f V-l relative clause (V-f) (Lenerz 1981: 173)

(18e) will automatically yield a verb final structure. Verb movement can apply in cases (b), (d) and (f) since in these cases the [+tense] position is empty. In (b) and (d) such movement will derive V-2 clauses and in (f) a V-l clause. There are no further possibilities for verb movement given the principles of REST. Movement of X can occur in (c), (d) and (h) producing a V-2 structure in (d) as already noted and a relative clause in (h) if X is a ¿-pronoun. Although such movement is in principle possible in (c), it will not yield a grammatical structure. Neither is (a) a possible structure of German. To rule out these structures, Lenerz proposes the following filter: < 19 )

* t c O M P ^ t ^ ] ] ' whenX5 fc 0

This filter expresses the generalization that if [±W] is lexicalized in the base, i.e., if a complementizer such as daß is present, the X position cannot be filled, neither lexically as in (18a) nor by transformation as in (18c). The structure yet to be explained is (18g) which is not well-formed. This case falls under the same principle that ensures that the X constituent replacing "e" in (18h)is a relative (=d-) pronoun. Lenerz (1981: 176-177) discusses the interpretative principle responsible for this. The idea is that the COMP structure of (18g and h) will be taken as an indicator of a

On Deriving V-l and V-2 Structures in German

143

relative clause modifying a head noun and the general rules of pronominalization will dictate what type of NP can appear there. Thus, from the base structures (18) in accordance with the rules and principles just presented sentences (20) - (24) follow from the analysis, while the configurations (25) - (27) will be ruled out: (25) and (26) fall under filter (19) and (27) will receive no interpretation by the rules of IF. (20) = (18e)

daß die Mühle am rauschenden Bach klappert that the mill at-the rushing brook clatters

(21) = (18b)

es klappertj die Mühle am rauschenden Bach t j

(22) = (18d)

die Mühlex klappertj t- am rauschenden Bach tj

(23) = (180

klappertj die Mühle am rauschenden Bach t j

(24) = (18h)

die-x t j am rauschenden Bach klappert

(25) = (18a)

*es daß die Mühle am rauschenden Bach klappert

(26) = (18c)

*die Mühle• daß t j am rauschenden Bach klappert

(27) = (18g)

*es die Mühle am rauschenden Bach klappert

Ulis analysis offers an account of why the finite verb in German is restricted to three positions of the sentence, final, second or first position: it is base generated in final position and the only other position of the sentence with the feature [+tense] is the second position of COMP to which it can move in the syntax if no complementizer is present in the base. If the first position of COMP is not expanded by the optional base rules, the [+tense] position of COMP automatically becomes the first position of the sentence. The significant generalization captured in a principled way by this analysis is the correlation of the presence of a complementizer with V-f order and the complementarity of this clause type with V-l and V-2 structures where no complementizer occurs. In the latter case the tensed verb must move to fill the empty complementizer position, otherwise the sentence will be rejected in logical form on the grounds that an empty category in COMP is not interpretable. In summary, the constellation of facts concerning the position of the finite verb in German as shown in (1) follows under this analysis in a principled way from the general principles of REST and two language specific assumptions: namely that the underlying structure of German is as in (17) and that filter (19) places a well-formedness constraint on

144

Susan Olsen

surface configurations derived by the transformational process 'move a ' acting upon this base structure. The most important result of this analysis as compared to that of section 3 is that the form of the grammar under REST places rigid constraints on syntactic processes. The analysis under ST - in covering the same range of data - was forced to make use of three individual rules, extrinsically ordered and each carrying construction specific conditions on the application of the rule. Within REST, however, V-l and V-2 structures fall out as two subcases of the same highly constrained generalization of finite verb fronting to COMP. Furthermore, one additional fronting process yields all V-2 structures, i.e., "normal" main clause declaratives, "topicattzed" declaratives and constituent questions, depending on the choice of X. (28)

a. Die Mühle klappert am rauschenden Bach b. Am rauschenden Bach klappert die Mühle c. Wo klappert was? where clatters what

Lenerz' analysis within the framework of REST covering the same range of empirical data as the analysis under ST clearly provides the more optimal solution conceptually, thus bringing us a step closer to the ultimate goal of linguistic theory, i.e., an explanation and not merely a description of the configurations found in natural languages.

5. THE GOVERNMENT AND BINDING THEORY (GB)

In the government and binding theory of Chomsky (1980 and 1981) the basic restrictive structure of the syntactic component developed in REST was taken over with one exception: a newly formulated universal "projection principle" reduces the importance of the PS rules in individual grammars emphasizing a more central role of the lexicon. The projection principle states that all syntactic representations (i.e., representations at the level of LF, D- and S-structure) are projected directly from the lexicon and thus reflect the subcategorizational properties of lexical items. The function of the PS rules is now reduced to basically setting language specific parameters like the order of major constituents. In the GB theory universal grammar takes on a modular structure in that it is made up of a system of extremely simple autonomous principles (modules) which interact to yield the complex constructions of natural language. For instance, general conditions constraining antecedent-anaphor (and trace) configurations are reformulated as the binding theory and a theory of thematic relations between a lexical category and its comple-

145

On Deriving V-l and V-2 Structures in German

ments is developed as well as a theory of abstract Case. Government basically the simple intuition that a lexical head has a special relationship to its complements - is the structural notion that underlies these individual subsystems of principles defining their domain in a consistent manner. Safir (1982) believes the principle of government can be invoked to explain the second position of the inflected verb in German. The principle of government seems to Safir the logical place to search for an explanation of this phenomenon because of the "matrix-subordinate" asymmetry of verb order in German. He postulates that this asymmetry reduces to the fact that subordinate clauses are governed by the lexical element of the matrix sentence which selects them, while main clauses are not selected and hence not governed. To enable him to use the notion government to predict the placement of the verb in German, the following principle is proposed. (29)

The Head Uniqueness Principle (HUP) S must have a unique governed head

(cf. Safir 1982: 427)

Safir considers INFL the head of S. Whenever S is governed its head (=INFL) will also be governed by virtue of percolation (which states that if a maximal projection is governed by a category, its head is also governed by that category). Safir terms this hypothesis the inflection government theory (IGT). At some point in the derivation, the verb of the sentence must be related to INFL, the tense features of the sentence. If this association occurs early in the derivation, say at D-structure, in such a way that the rightmost verb is cliticized to the INFL node at this level, given Safir's assumptions, the need for INFL to be governed (= HUP) will regulate the position which the inflected verb assumes in German. Figure (30) depicts a base structure of German after the attraction of V to the INFL node. (30)

Verb cliticization: -S

COMP

S

(cf. Safir 1982: 427)

146

Susan Olsen

When S occurs as a complement to a lexical category, it will be governed by that category and the principle of percolation of government predicts that the INFL head of S is also governed satisfying HUP so that no reordering occurs in this context: (31)

Government of INFL by matrix verb V

gesagt 'said' VP

INFL/V

The INFL/V node of a matrix sentence, however, is not governed in its base position: a matrix clause has no lexical head which governs it and NP and VP of S are maximal projections which limit the domain of their governing heads to within their boundaries and, thus, cannot govern INFL. This base structure, then, will be ruled out by HUP unless it is reorganized by the transformational component of the syntax in such a way that will enable INFL/V to be governed. Safir postulates that a lexically filled COMP may act as a governor but that this government is constrained by adjacency. In other words, INFL/V must move to a position adjacent to COMP in order to be governed and, in addition, a category from S must move into COMP since COMP must be lexical in order to count as a governor. Thus, general principles of the grammar force the following configuration: (32)

INFL/V

In this manner IGT provides an account of V-2 structures in matrix clauses in German and also predicts the V-f structure of subordinate clauses. If 'move a ' is incorrectly applied to INFL/V in a subordinate context, the structure of (33) would result:

147

On Deriving V-l and V-2 Structures in German V

(33)

s

V gesagt

COMP dap

S INFL/V:

S NP

VP

INFL

In this configuration, HUP is violated since INFL is not uniquely governed: as a result of the movement, the INFL/V node has been doubled and both nodes are now governed by percolation. As needed, HUP forbids the movement of the inflected verb in such contexts. The structure of this theory is appealing in that the necessary configurations follow from general principles and assumptions independently motivated by other grammatical phenomena (HUP is the only construction specific assumption used). Furthermore, these general principles that make up Safir's IGT - the principle of government, percolation, and 'move a ' - are postulated as belonging to the system of rules and principles that comprise UG and thus are available to be of use in the explanation of similar phenomena in other languages. Safir, in subsequent sections of his article, applies the IGT to subject auxiliary inversion in English and to two inversion processes in French. The questions Safir addresses are surely of considerable linguistic interest. Second position constraints have been observed to play a role in a wide sampling of languages, related and unrelated. In order for the IGTor something similar to it - to provide the intended cross linguistic explanation for second position phenomena in natural language, however, it must first be motivated by the linguistic data it purports to explain. The following empirical problems arise in applying the IGT to the derivation of V-2 and V-l structures in German. 1. HUP rules out V-l structures. If we accept the principles of the IGT, sentences like (34) will be systematically ruled out by central principles of the grammar. (34)

Hat Hans sich wieder verliebt? has Hans reflexive again fallen-in-love?

The inflected verb in this matrix sentence must move from its position (cf. (32)) where INFL/V is not governed to a position next to COMP

148

Susan Olsen

where INFL can be governed. But COMP must be lexically filled to count as a governor, which isn't the case here. Consequently INFL/V will not be governed and the sentence will be ruled out by HUP. Safir brushes over the problem by stating that COMP is filled with an "abstract question element that allows the fronted verb to be governed" (1982: 427). That this step constitutes merely an ad hoc adjustment and offers no solution can be seen by examining V-l structures other than questions. (35)

Hört der Lärm nicht auf, so werden wir uns beschweren stop the noise not particle, then will we reflexive complain

(36)

Ist diese Aufgabe auch schwer, wir können sie trotzdem lösen is this exercise particle difficult, we can it still solve

(37)

War das eine Hetze! was that a rat-race

(38)

Nehmen Sie Ihre Beleidigung zurück! take you your insult back

Apart from yes-no questions, unintroduced conditional and concessive clauses as well as exclamations and commands exhibit V-l placement. Accounting for such structures in terms of "abstract elements" in COMP which permit COMP to be considered lexical is clearly an ad hoc solution void of any explanatory power. 2. The purported matrix-subordinate asymmetry of verb order upon which the IGT is based is spurious. V-f position is not restricted to subordinate contexts; neither is V-2 or V-l order limited to matrix environments. (39)

a. Daß der Hans CDU gewählt hat! that Hans CDU voted has b. Ob wir heute einen Parkplatz finden? whether we today a parking space find c. Warum wir nicht länger bleiben? why we not longer remain

(40)

a. Karl sagt, er kommt sofort Karl says, he comes immediately b. Der Vorsitzende meint, der Termin läßt sich nicht verschieben the chairman thinks, the deadline lets itself not be-postponed

On Deriving V-J and V-2 Structures in German (41)

149

Der Vorschlag, jeder Student soll höhere Studiengebühren bezahlen, ist auf heftige Kritik gestoßen the suggestion, each student should higher tuition pay, has into vehement criticism run

The inflected verb in (39a), for example, remains in its D-structure position even though it is not governed in this position as required by HUP. In fact, there is no way that it can ever be governed in this structure. If it moves to the front of S in search of a governor (42) results: (42)

*Daß hat der Hans CDU gewählt!

Thus, an account based on the premises of IGT will systematically reject such grammatical sentences. Furthermore, V-2 structures occur in subordinate contexts as demonstrated in (40) and (41). Safir notes the existence of such sentences and attempts to incorporate them within the IGT by terming them "opaque" complements (1982: 429-431): by virtue of some vague feature they are opaque to percolation of government which in turn forces the fronting of INFL/V and movement of a constituent into COMP, otherwise the structure will violate HUP. But what sense does it make to term the S complements in (40) and (41) and others like them "opaque" to government? If so, then they are only optionally "opaque" as (43) and (44) demonstrate (43)

a. Karl sagt, daß er sofort kommt b. Der Vorsitzende meint, daß der Termin sich nicht verschieben läßt

(44)

Der Vorschlag, daß jeder Student höhere Studiengebühren bezahlen soll, ist auf heftige Kritik gestoßen

The notion "opacity" has in reality no content other than serving as an ad hoc descriptive device reconciling such structures to HUP. It can hardly be overseen that the relevant aspect of these structures, determing V-f order in (43) and (44) and V-2 order in (39) - (41) is the presence vs. absence of the complementizer, an aspect of the structure which IGT completely ignores. The "matrix-subordinate" asymmetry of verb position in German crumbles upon such observations, the true regulating principle being the presence or absence of a complementizer in the base. If a complementizer is chosen in the base, the inflected verb remains in its base generated final position. If no complementizer occurs, verb fronting results obligatorily. 3. Sternefeld (1982: 3) points out a further technical problem with the IGT. Ironically, HUP either prohibits simple intransitive declaratives or

150

Susan Olsen

assigns them unwanted S-structures, cf. the structure underlying Hans kommt: (45) COMP I Hans^

INFL/V kommt-

NP i

VP

INFL/V J

In (45) kommt 'comes' must be fronted since it is ungoverned in its base position. In addition, the subject Hans must move into COMP in order for a lexically filled COMP to govern the fronted INFL. Note that the resulting structure will not pass HUP, however, since it doesn't have a unique head: the INFL node has been doubled and both are governed, the first by a lexical COMP and the second by the fronted INFL/V. The intermediate subject trace counts as null for the adjacency condition on government (Safir 1982: 434-435). The only configuration which would satisfy HUP would be one in which Hans is moved to COMP but INFL/V remains in place. Trace being null for adjacency, INFL/V will be governed by the lexically filled COMP. But now IGT fails to predict the V-2 nature of intransitive declaratives in German and consequently assigns Hans kommt (= V-f under IGT) and Hans kommt sofort (= V-2) radically different Sstructures. For these reasons we reject the IGT and will abandon an attempt to account for the position of the verb in German on the basis that the INFL node must be governed (although the node INFL and the notion government will assume roles in a different context in the theory of verb movement developed in the next section). The IGT has simply not provided us with a reason to give up the successful features of the model outlined in section 4. On the contrary, the central assumption of Lenerz' analysis that the position of the finite verb in German is intimately connected to the structure of the second position in COMP will serve as the basis for the analysis to which we immediately turn. From the IGT we will retain the idea of D-structure cliticization of V onto INFL and the mobility of the INFL/V node.

On Deriving V-l and V-2 Structures in German

151

6. FINITE VERB MOVEMENT IN GERMAN

In this section we will attempt a different account of verb placement in German using the principles of the GB framework. More precisely, this approach will center on the properties of the INFL node and their interaction with Case theory. Basically, the INFL node has two functions in the grammar: it carries the tense features of the sentence and is responsible when finite - for assigning nominative Case to the subject by virtue of the presence of an agreement feature (AGR). The structure of INFL is thus (46): (46)

[ I N F L [±Tense],(AGR)]

(Chomsky 1981,52)

The principle of Case theory regulating nominative Case assignment is (47): (47)

NP is nominative if governed by AGR

(Chomsky 1981: 170)

It is generally assumed (at least for English) that in the unmarked case a governor is adjacent to the NP it Case marks (cf. Chomsky 1981: 94, among other references in the literature). Let us assume that this adjacency requirement applies to nominative Case assignment in German as well. In this case a question arises: if we assume that the underlying sentence structure of German is NP VP INFL, then INFL (or AGR) will not be able to assign Case to the subject NP, since it is not adjacent to it. 6.1 Government Indexing between COMP and INFL It has been observed often in the literature that there is a close relationship between COMP and INFL although this relationship is usually left in vague terms: Lenerz (1981), for instance, considers both positions to have a [+tense] feature in common. The fact is that the value of the tense feature in INFL correlates with the lexical form of the complementizer that appears in COMP. In English that appears when INFL is [+tense] and for when INFL is [-tense], for example. To make this discussion more precise, let us assume a matrix verb which selects a S complement subcategorizes for a specific type of COMP, the head of S. (Cf. Bresnan 1970 and Reuland 1983). In German the choice will be [±W]: a matrix verb can take either a declarative ([-W] or interrogative ([+W]) S complement, the former occurring either tensed or untensed, the latter just tensed. (There are no nontensed w/z-clauses in German of the type John knows what to do.) The feature value of [±W] will be chosen for the complementizer position of COMP in the base, but the value of INFL must also be known

152

Susan Olsen

before the complementizer can be lexicalized. When [-W] occurs and INFL is realized as [+tense] daß 'that', weil 'because' are possible lexicalizations; [-tense] restricts the choice to um 'in order to', ohne Vithout', anstatt 'instead of or no expansion at all and INFL itself will be realized as zu. The feature [+W] must occur with a tensed INFL and can be spelled out as ob 'whether', warum 'why'. The most natural way of expressing this matching of tense features between INFL and COMP is by government indexing. (48)

X COMP1

S NT

VP

INFL1

COMP as the head of S governs the head of its complement S, i.e. INFL. 8 The government of INFL by COMP is expressed by the assignment of an identical superscript to INFL by COMP. The idea is that identical superscripting will allow INFL to transfer the value of its [±tense] feature to COMP. This step ensures that when INFL is tensed, daß and not urn will be a possible choice of a complementizer characterized as [-W]. (49)

a. daß er kommt b. *um er kommt c. um zu kommen

'that he comes' 'for he comes' 'for to come'

Returning to the problem of Case assignment, INFL governs the subject NP in (48) but cannot assign it nominative Case because VP intervenes between NP and INFL violating the adjacency condition on Case assignment. There is a way, however, for NP to receive Case, namely from the adjacent COMP cosuperscripted with INFL. Let us .assume that the first position of COMP as described in section 4 (i.e., [+X]) has not been generated by the base rules but that the [±W] position has with the feature [-W]. In this case, COMP will properly contain this one element, the [-W] complementizer. Since the complementizer is the sole content of COMP, the COMP node can be equated with it, which will be expressed by identical indexing:

On Deriving V-l and V-2 Structures in German (50)

153

S COMP1

S

1 +AGR daß Since COMP and INFL carry the same superscript, all three elements are now identically indexed and a chain is created. This chain allows for the transmission of features between INFL and the complementizer. We can think of the elements of such a chain as "sharing" the features that originally belonged to INFL. The feature complex [-W/+tense] will trigger the lexicalization of daß for example. Furthermore, all of the features of INFL, not just tense, will be accessible to the complementizer position of COMP by means of chain transmission, this includes the agreement feature AGR. Since AGR is now a feature of COMP and adjacent to NP, its nominative Case can be assigned to NP by the general principles of Case assignment. Government is also a necessary requirement for Case assignment. The notion of government being assumed here is that discussed by Reuland (1983, especially pp. 121-124). Given the following configuration, where order is irrelevant, (51)

[xnZX?]Y?

Reuland states: "Some Z in the domain of X° can be governed by Y° just in case Y° governs the relevant projection of X and Y is coindexed (Reuland 1983: 123) with X°" In (50) COMP (= Y°) governs its complement S and is coindexed with its head, INFL (= X°), and can therefore, under this definition of government, govern into the domain of S. Since [-W] is the only position dominated by COMP, it is identified with and coindexed with COMP, thus the [-W] i /COMP i /INFL i chain passes AGR (= nominative Case) onto the subject, in accordance with both the requirements of Case assignment: adjacency and government. Thus, recognizing the role of adjacency in the assignment of Case has forced us to give formal expression to the relationship between COMP and

154

Susan Olsen

INFL (one of a head governing the head of its complement), which in turn accounts for the matching of tense features between these two positions. Moreover, the adjacency condition on Case assignment provides the grammar with a principled explanation for a rigid constraint on word order in German, namely in the unmarked case (i.e., apart from possible later stylistic reordering) the nominative NP occurs immediately next to the complementizer (or, spoken traditionally, at the very front of the middle field),9 for only here can it receive Case. Nominative Case assignment proceeds in the manner described however only when COMP is base generated with no other position besides that of the complementizer. If the first position (= [+X]) of COMP should be expanded when a lexicalized complementizer is present, the COMP node and the lexicalized complementizer will not be equated and cannot share an index, for in this case the [±W] position is no longer the sole content of the COMP node but is properly contained in COMP, and thus no indexing is possible. 10 In such a configuration the transmission of tense and agreement features between COMP and INFL will be blocked. Hence, the sentence will ultimately be rejected by the Case filter since the subject of a tensed sentence will receive no Case. Given the principle of government indexing which is needed independently to match the lexicalization of the complementizer to the inflectional features of the sentence, the grammar no longer has need for the ad hoc filter (19) of section 4. (19>

* I COMP * [ ± W 1 ] '

when

* * 0

All improper constructions (i.e., (25) - (27) of section 4) are now ruled out by the deeper principles of Case theory, i.e., the Case filter. We have thus developed a theory of nominative Case assignment for German which has provided us with some positive results beyond the data for which it was originally conceived: we now have a principled explanation for the limitation of a nominative NP in the middle field of the German sentence to the position next to the complementizer and have eliminated the need in the grammar for the ad hoc filter (19), subsuming the cases it was conceived to cover under the more general Case filter. 6.2 V-l and V-2 Clauses The simple fact that the subject of a tensed sentence must be assigned nominative Case has even further ramifications for the grammar. Up to this point we have dealt with V-f configurations in which a complementizer occurs in COMP. We are now in a position to extend this analysis to V-l and V-2 structures and to show that these configurations as well follow from the adjacency condition on nominative Case assignment.

155

On Deriving V-l and V-2 Structures in German

Under the option that the complementizer position of COMP is generated but not lexicalized in the base, the INFL/V node must move to fill this empty position. (52) COMP INFL

INFL/Vj

In this configuration INFL can directly assign nominative Case to the subject NP. By virtue of its movement it is coindexed with its trace in S. Since INFL/V in COMP is coindexed with the head of S (i.e., its trace) it can govern into the domain of S, cf. (51) above. If the first position has not been generated in COMP, a V-1 structure results. The first position may be generated, however, no deeper principle rules against it if the INFL/V node itself occupies COMP and assignment of Case is done directly from INFL Thus, (53) is a possible structure: (53) COMP INFL/Vj

NP

VP

INFL

J

If the subject is the constituent moved into COMP by 'move a', as in (53), its trace will receive (and transmit) Case according to the general assumptions of the GB theory. (52) and (53) are the configurations underlying V-l and V-2 structures in German. In summary, Case assignment from COMP observes the adjacency condition in V-f structures as well as in V-l and V-2 structures. The subject NP must also be governed by its Case assigner if nominative Case assignment is to proceed successfully. Government of the subject NP from COMP (i.e., into the domain of S) is guaranteed in the former case by the coindexed chain INFLVCOMPVl-W]1 arising under government indexing, in the latter by the coindexing of INFL with its trace under 'move a'. Thus, V-f, V-2 and V-l orders are exactly the configurations predicted by an analysis which assumes a NP VP INFL underlying structure of S and has at the same time a COMP node that heads S. The independently

156

Susan Olsen

motivated principles of cosuperscripting between a governor and the head of the complement it governs (i.e. COMP and INFL in the case at hand), coindexing under 'move a', transmission of features under coindexing and Case theory motivate the resulting configurations. Government plays a central role in this analysis insofar as it provides the basis of the cosuperscripting between COMP and INFL and underlies the theory of Case assignment. 6.3 Lack of Verb Fronting in Infinitival Clauses In the preceding account the fronting of a tensed verb has been subsumed under the theory of nominative Case assignment. (54)

a. Er he b.*Er c. Er

sagt, daß Hans die Rechnung bezahlt hat says that Hans the bill paid has sagt, Hans die Rechnung bezahlt hat sagt, Hans hat die Rechnung bezahlt

In German the complementizer can never be absent in V-f tensed clauses (54b), the absence of a complementizer automatically triggers the fronting of INFL/V (54c). This fact follows from the Case filter. Hans can only receive Case from INFL (= 54c) or from a lexical complementizer by transmission of features from INFL (= 54a). Sentence (54b) is ruled out by the Case filter. More precisely, if no complementizer position has been generated in the base for (54b), this sentence is ruled out by the Case filter for reasons just cited. If a complementizer position has been generated but simply left empty by the failure of 'move a' to apply to INFL/V in the syntax, the structure will be doubly rejected by the Case filter and the interpretative rules of LF. On the other hand, a nontensed verb in German is never fronted but always remains in its underlying sentence final position so that we have paradigm (55). (55)

a. Karl arbeitet tag und nacht, um PRO viel Geld zu verdienen Karl works day and night in order PRO much money to earn b. Karl behauptet, PRO viel Geld zu verdienen Karl claims PRO much money to earn c.*Karl behauptet, PRO zu verdienen viel Geld

It remains to show that these configurations also follow from our analysis. Once again, there are two possibilities for the complementizer [±W] position for COMP that correspond to the optionality of the syntactic rules of the base: it may or may not be generated. The former case is illustrated in (56) and the latter in (57).

On Deriving V-l and V-2 Structures in German (56)

157

S COMP1

S NP

VP

PRO

INFL1 [-tense ]

urn By government indexing the [-tense] feature of INFL is transmitted to COMP. The [-W, -tense] feature combination can be lexicalized as the complementizer um 'in order to'. No AGR is present when INFL is nontensed and therefore there can be no nominative Case assignment. Furthermore, due to the lack of AGR in INFL, the subject NP is not governed by COMP* and can therefore be PRO. Movement of INFL/V to COMP is blocked by the presence of the lexical complementizer. If no complementizer position of COMP is generated in the base, coindexing between COMP and INFL occurs but it will not go further down to a [-W] position (that doesn't exist). (57)

S

NP

VP

INFL1

PRO Consequently there will be no further transmission of features. In this case, too, we have no nominative Case assignment and movement of INFL/V cannot take place, since there is no complementizer position in COMP available for INFL/V to assume.11 6.4 Obligatory Complementizer Subject clauses in German must be introduced by a complementizer - V-2 structures never occur in such cases. (58)

a. Daß Karl CDU gewählt hat, erstaunt mich that Karl CDU voted has, surprises me b *Karl hat CDU gewählt, erstaunt mich

The same restriction holds in English

158

Susan Olsen

(59)

a. That Bill was lying annoyed us b *Bill was lying annoyed us.

Topicalized object clauses observe the same restriction in both languages as well. These clauses occur sentence initially and outside the subcategorization domain of the matrix verb. We assume - following the discussion of Chomsky/Lasnik (1977 : 434-438) - that "perceptual strategies" will require an indication of subordination in such cases in order to avoid false processing as an independent clause, hence the performance requirement of the presence of a lexical complementizer. Infinitival subjects are not introduced by a lexical complementizer, but here the lack of a subject plus the infinitival nature of the verb can be taken as the marker of subordination. (60)

Morgens in aller Ruhe zu frühstücken, ist schön mornings in complete peace to have breakfast is nice

Such a condition is not placed on object clauses inside the matrix S in either language, because upon confrontation with the matrix verb and by virtue of the hearer's knowledge of its subcategorization, the dependent nature of the clausal structure is clear: (61)

a. Hans sagt, Karl hat CDU gewählt Hans says Karl has CDU voted b. John said Bill was lying

This cue is not present in the case of a sentential subject or a topicalized object clause. 6.5 Remaining Questions Our account of the movement of the inflected verb in German has turned on the inherent connection between the introductory position of a clause (i.e., COMP) and the inflectional node of the sentence (INFL). This inherent connection has been characterized as one of government of INFL by COMP and was given formal expression in the form of government indexing. The [±W] position of COMP can serve as a landing site for INFL/V if the, former isn't explicitly occupied by a lexical complementizer. From these natural assumptions follows, in addition, a coherent theory of nominative Case assignment observing the condition of adjacency. It is important to note that this account does not claim that INFL/V moves in order to assign Case. Syntactic processes are optional and when [±W] is empty, INFL/V may move. If it does, then Case is assigned directly. In

On Deriving V-l and V-2 Structures in German

159

V-f clauses, INFL/V doesn't move and Case can still be assigned by feature transmission. Movement and Case assignment are two separate principles (modules) although they frequently interact. Having presented our analysis, we will end on a note of caution. Firstly, German has a number of cases where an impersonal subject in a tensed sentence is optional. (62)

Mir ist (es) kalt m e ^ is (it) cold 'I am cold'

(63)

Mir war (es) komisch zumute me datwas funny in spirits 'I was in a funny mood'

The simplest assumption for our theory is that the presence of the subject NP in the underlying syntactic structure is optional in these cases and when present obligatorily receives its nominative Case in the manner explicated above but when absent, INFL simply retains AGR not being able to transmit it. There is one class of cases, however, where a nominative subject is systematically impossible in a tensed sentence: the impersonal passives. (64)

Gestern wurde (*es) getanzt/getrunken/geredet/gesungen yesterday was (*it) danced/drunk/talked/sung

Nominative Case marking will have to be suppressed throughout this class of cases (hence, the predictive power of our theory fails here, i.e. (65) can't be ruled out by the Case filter). (65)

*Gestem viel getanzt wurde yesterday a lot danced was

Secondly, there are two cases discovered by Lenerz (1977) for which the underlying order of the nominative NP is not that predicted by this theory of adjacency of Case assignment. These are an exceptional class of verbs termed "psychological" verbs by Lenerz and passive sentences; here a nominative occurs in the unmarked case not next to COMP but after a dative or accusative. Den Besten (1981) develops an interesting theory of exceptional Case marking from INFL into the V by "chain" government to cover just these cases. It remains to be seen if such an account of exceptional nominative marking is compatible with the general theory of nominative assignment proposed here.

160

Susan Olsen

7. CONCLUSION

In the foregoing we have offered a brief summary of three stages in the development of the theory of generative grammar, ST, REST, and GB theory, and discussed a limited sample of the structure of linguistic theory at each of these stages as it applied to one quite restricted aspect of German grammar. The standard theory in section 3 proved to be too permissive in scope to yield any substantial results along the lines of the goals set forth by linguistic theory. REST of section 4 provided a more principled framework for the investigation of V-l and V-2 clauses in German and we were indeed able to retain many of the basic insights of Lenerz' analysis of the German sentence structure provided by this framework. The IGT was rejected in section 5 for its failure to cover the empirical data of German but in section 6 the principles of the government and binding theory were reapplied to yield an account of verb movement in German in terms of the interaction of COMP and INFL and of INFL's role in assigning Case to the lexical subject of a tensed sentence. Section 6 ends on a note of caution: more work must be done on German within the framework of the GB theory before we know whether this approach to verb position in German in terms of the dual function of INFL as a carrier of verbal inflection and nominative Case assigner is a step forward in the analysis of German in line with the goals of linguistic theory. The analysis of section 6 was fleshed out here, however, because only by the careful formulation of a particular analysis and by carrying the reasoning through to all of its consequences can it be seen if we are on the right track in the attempt to discover the principles underlying the structure of language.

NOTES 1. Chomsky (1981a) provides a discussion of this concept as well as some results of fixing the values of certain parameters in different ways. 2. The position of a finite verb at the front of a verbal complex, e.g. weil er nicht hat schwimmen können 'because he not has swim can'/"because he couldn't swim", is a variant of the verb final order in (lc). 3. Cf. Engel (1970: 73-81) and (1972: 41-43) and Reis (1980) for more detailed description of what constituents are (and are not) permitted in this position. 4. Cf. Reis (1976) for arguments supporting the distinction between auxiliary and main verb in German and Höhle (1978) for the same position within a lexicalist framework. Wasow/Akmajian (1981) provides an interesting discussion of this topic. 5. Cf. Vater (1975) for an opposing view. 6. See also Engel (1970) and (1972) for a description of each field. 7. This account is based on ideas that originated in den Besten (1977) and Thiersch (1978). 8. Chomsky (1981) assumes that COMP is the head of S and INFL the head of S.

On Deriving V-l and V-2 Structures in German

161

Cf. Reuland (1983) for a defense of these assumptions and the extended notion that a head governs the head of its complement. 9. Cf. Engel (1970: 43-48) and (1972: 49-51) where it is assumed that nominative NPs head the middle field in the underlying order of constituents. Engel's (1972: 49) formula - where I have placed his unstressed pronominal class in parentheses due to the clitic nature of these elements - is ( N | A j D j ) N2 N3 D2 A2 D3 A3 P. With this formula he indicates that definite and indefinite nominative NPs (N2 and N3 respectively) occur before all other nominal constituents in the German sentence. Lenerz (1977: 97-120) also considers SU OBJ (i.e., subject versus all other objects) the unmarked order of the middle field constituents, apart from two exceptional cases mentioned in section 6.5. 10. The logic of the argument is similar to that applied to the ECP cases (as reviewed for example in Reuland 1983: 106): (i)

whox did John say [g

i j that ] [g f j won] ]

The trace in subject position must be properly governed by a coindexed COMP, but when that is present it prohibits COMP from taking on the index of t j since the latter is properly contained in COMP. 11. Under the analysis presented in this section, relative clauses cannot have the structure proposed by Lenerz (1981), cf. (18h) of section 4, with the relative pronoun occupying the first position of COMP and the [±W] position not generated; I assume rather that a relative pronoun functions just like a lexical complementizer in the [±W] position of COMP. Interrogative W-clauses propose the following problem for the type of analysis being developed in this paper. (Cf. Reis (1983) for a discussion of this problem as well as a critical stance in general with regard to the framework being applied here.) (i)

Wer hat das gesagt?

(ii)

Wer das gesagt hat?

'Who has that said?'

Why do we find unembedded W-clauses in German with both V-2 and V-f order? When such clauses occur dependently only V-f order occurs: (in)

Weißt du, wer das gesagt hat ?

(iv)

* Weißt du, wer hat das gesagt ?

In (i) the W-phrase seems to be acting like a X constituent in the first position of COMP, in (ii) and (iii) like a complementizer (i.e., a [+W] element).

REFERENCES Bach, E. 1962. "The Order of Elements in a Transformational Grammar of German." Language 38: 263-269. Bartsch, R., J. Lenerz and V. UUmer-Ehrich. 1977. Einfuhrung in die Syntax. Kronberg: Scriptor. Bechert, J., D. Clement, W. Thümmel and K.H. Wagner. 1970. Einfährung in die generative Transformationsgrammatik. München: Hueber. (Linguistische Reihe, 2.)

162

Susan Olsen

Bierwisch, M. 1963. Grammatik des deutschen Verbs. Berlin: Akademie Verlag. (Studia grammatica, 2.) Bresnan, J. 1970. "On Complementizers: Toward a Syntactic Theory of Complement Types." Foundations of Language 6, 297-321. Chomsky, N. 1957. Syntactic Structures. The Hague: Mouton. Chomsky, N. 1964. Current Issues in Linguistic Theory. The Hague: Mouton. Chomsky, N. 1965. Aspects of the Theory of Syntax. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press. Chomsky, 1970. "Remarks on Nominalization." Jacobs, R. & P. Rosenbaum, eds.: Readings in English Transformational Grammar. Waltham, Mass.: Ginn & Co., 184-221. Chomsky, N. 1971. "Deep Structure, Surface Structure and Semantic Interpretation." Steinberg, D. & L. Jakobovits, eds.: Semantics. Cambridge University Press, 183-216. Chomsky, N. 1973 "Conditions on Transformations." Anderson, S. & P. Kiparsky, eds.: A Festschrift for Morris Halle. New York: Höh, Rinehart and Winston, 232-286. Chomsky, N. 1975. Reflections on Language. New York: Pantheon. Chomsky, N. 1976. "Conditions on Rules of Grammar." Linguistic Analysis 2: 303-351. Chomsky, N. 1977. "On Wh-Movement." In: Akmajian, A., Culicover, P. & T. Wasow, eds.: Formal Syntax. New York: Academic Press, 71-132. Chomsky, N. 1980. "On Binding." Linguistic Inquiry 11: 1-46. Chomsky, N. 1981. Lectures on Government and Binding. Dordrecht: Foris. Chomsky, N. 1981a. "Principles and Parameters in Syntactic Theory." Hornstein, N. & D. Lightfoot, eds., Explanations in Linguistics, London: Longman, 32-75. Chomsky, N. and H. Lasnik. 1977. "Filters and Control." Linguistic Inquiry 8: 425504. den Besten, H. 1977. On the Interaction of Root Transformations and Lexical Deletive Rules. Ms. den Besten, H. 1981. "Government, syntaktische Struktur und Kasus." Kohrt, M. & J. Lenerz, eds.: Sprache: Formen und Strukturen. Tübingen: Niemeyer, 97-107. (Linguistische Arbeiten, 98). Edmondson, J. 1980. "Gradienz und die Doppelte Infinitiv-konstruktion." Papiere zur Linguistik 22, 59-82. Edmonson, J. 1982. Einführung in die Transformationssyntax des Deutschen." Tübingen: Narr. (Tübinger Beiträge zur Linguistik, 141.) Emonds, J. 1976. A Transformational Approach to English Syntax. New York: Academic Press. Engel, U. 1970. Regeln zur Wortstellung. Forschungsbericht des Instituts fürDeutsche Sprache 5, Mannheim, 7-148. Engel, U. 1972. "Regeln zur "Satzgliedfolge". Zur Stellung der Elemente im einfachen Satz." Linguistische Studien I, Düsseldorf: Schwann, 17-75 (Sprache der Gegenwart). Esau, H 1973. "Order of Elements in German Verb Constellation.''Linguistics 98: 2040. Funkkolleg Sprache. 1973. Frankfurt: Fischer. Höhle, T. 1978. Lexikalistische Syntax: Die Aktiv-Passiv-Relation und andere Infinitivkonstruktionen im Deutschen. Tübingen: Niemeyer (Linguistische Arbeiten, 67.) Huber, W. and W. Kummer. 1974. Transformationelle Syntax des Deutschen, I. München: Finck. (UTB, 134.)

On Deriving V-l and V-2 Structures in German

163

Koster, J. 1975. "Dutch as an SOV Language." Linguistic Analysis 1: 111-136. Leneiz, J. 1977. Zur Abfolge nominaler Satzglieder im Deutschen. Tübingen: Narr. (Studien zur deutsche Grammatik, 5.) Lenerz, J. 1981. "Zur Generierung der Satzeinleitenden Positionen im Deutschen." Kohrt, M. & J. Lenerz, eds.: Sprache: Formen und Strukturen. Tübingen: Niemeyer, 171-182 (Linguistische Arbeiten, 98.) Reis, M. 1976. "Zum grammatischen Status der Hilfsverben." Beiträge zur Geschichte der deutschen Sprache und Literatur (Tübingen) 98: 64-82. Reis, M. 1980. "On Justifying Topological Frames: 'Positional Fields' and the Order of Nonverbal Constituents in German." DRLA V 22/23: 59-85. Reis, M. 1983. "Les phrases tétues de l'allemand. COMP, propositions principales et surbordonnées, W-mouvement et le RESTe." DRLAV (Paris) 28: 97-132. (Also German Ms., University of Cologne.) Reuland, E. 1983. "Governing -ing." Linguistic Inquiry 14: 101-136. Safir, K. 1982. "Inflection-Government and Inversion." Linguistic Review 1: 417 467. Sternefeld, W. 1982. Government and V-2 in German. Ms. Thiersch, C. 1978. Topics in German Syntax. Ph.D. dissertation, MIT. Vater, H. 1975. Werden als Modalverb. Tübingen: Narr, 71-148. (Studien zur deutschen Grammatik, 1.) Vater, H. 1982. Strukturalismus und Transformationsgrammatik. Tier: WVT. Wasow, T., and A. Akmajian. 1981. "The AUX in German and the History of English." Steele, S. ed.: An Encyclopedia of AUX. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT press, 260-302. (Linguistic Inquiry Monographs, 5.)

On Pied-Piped Infinitives in German Relative Clauses* Henk van Riemsdijk Tilburg University

1. A QUESTION

Among the more curious phenomena in German syntax, we find sentences of the following type: (1)

a. Jetzt hat er sich endlich den Wagen, [den zu kaufender now has he to-himeself finally the car which to buy he sich schon lange vorgenommen hatte, leisten können to-himself already long planned had afford been-able-to "Now he has finally been able to afford the car which he had planned to buy for a long time." b. Man hat Maria, [mit der in den Urlaub zu fahren]aich one has Maria with whom in the vacation to drive I meinem Kollegen erst vor zwei Tagen empfohlen hatte, gestern to-my colleague just ago two days recommended hat yesterday abend tot in ihrem Zimmer aufgefunden evening dead in her room found "Maria, with whom I had just two days ago recommended to my colleague to go on a vacation, was found dead in her room last night."

These constructions contain relative clauses, usually non-restrictive ones, in which the relative pronoun is contained in an infinitival complement clause. What is remarkable is that the whole infinitival clause, a in the examples in (1), is moved under wh-movement. Alongside (1) we also find * This article is a somewhat revised translation of my 'Zum Rattenfängereffekt bei Infinitiven in deutschen Relativsätzen', which appeared in Groninger Arbeiten zur Germanistischen Linguistik Nr 21, 1982. The stimulus for the paper was a discussion during the First (and hopefully not last) Vienna Round Table on Comparative Syntax, June 1981. I would like to thank the participants of that workshop, and in particular the 'locals', for having effectively dispelled my original scepticism towards the analysis which I present here in section 2. In addition I would like to thank Guglielmo Cinque, Hubert Haider, Tilman Höhle, and Thilo Tappe for their comments on earlier versions of this article.

166

Henk van Riemsdijk

the variant, apparently more common among those languages that have wA-movement, in which the relative pronoun is extracted from its infinitival clause by 'long' w/z-movement and moved along into the complementizer position next to the head of the relative clause:1 (2)

a. Jetzt hat er sich endlich den Wagen, den er sich schon lange zu kaufen vorgenommen hatte, leisten können b. Man hat Maria, mit der ich meinem Kollegen erst vor zwei Tagen in den Urlaub zu fahren empfohlen hatte, gestern abend tot in ihrem Zimmer aufgefunden

It is, of course, a well-known fact that large constituents containing the relative pronoun may be moved along under w/z-movement. Ross, to whose (1967) dissertation we owe most of what we know about this phenomena, has given it the name 'pied-piping'. Usually, however, such a pied-piping constituent is a complex noun phrase or prepositional phrase, but not a sentential constituent as in (1). I will refer to this type of piedpiping as 'pied-piping of infinitivals', in short PPI. In fact, this type of pied-piping does not exist in many languages. French and Dutch do not have this possibility, English only marginally,2 but Italian does (cf. Longobardi (1980), Cinque (1981)). However, the Italian version of PPI is fundamentally different from the German one in at least one respect. We will return to this difference below. The German variant of PPI has a number of mysterious properties. 3 It is the purpose of this article to list and discuss these properties and to try and explain at least one or two of them. In particular we will address the question as to whether a in the examples in (1) is a verb phrase (VP) or a complete sentence (S). In other words, what is the structure of a sentence like (la)? There are three logical possibilities, as given in (3). 4 (3)

a. Jetzt hat er sich endlich den Wagen, [yp den zu kaufe n]yp er sich schon lange fg[g PRO[ype]]] vorgenommen hatte, leisten können b. Jetzt hat er sich endlich den Wagen, fg [g PRO den zu kaufen] ] er sich schon lange fg e] vorgenommen hatte, leisten können c. Jetzt hat er sich endlich den Wagen, tstcOMP [5 PRO [e]j zu kaufen]] er sich schon lange fg e] vorgenommen hatte, leisten können

Arguments will be presented to the effect that a = S, thereby eliminating (3a). and furthermore that w/z-movement must have taken place within that S, thereby eliminating (3b). Before turning to these arguments, however, let us briefly pause to

On Pied-Piped Infinitives in German Relative Clauses

167

think about the position of a itself. (3) does not specify whether a is in COMP or whether it in some other way occupies a sentence initial position. In view of the fact that w/z-movement of an overt w/j-phrase is always obligatory in German relative clauses, it seems reasonable to assume that a in effect does undergo w/i-movement and hence is in COMP. This instance of wft-movement we will call 'external wA-movement'. Note that interna] w/2-movement cannot be invoked to satisfy the obligatoriness of wA-movement in relative clauses since it cannot guarantee that a will end up in a sentence initial position. In view of these considerations we will assume without further discussion that external w/z-movement applies and that a is in COMP. 5

2. THE ANSWER If it can be shown that the relative pronoun inside a must be in COMP, in other words, that such sentences evidence what we may call 'internal w/2-movement', then it must a fortiori be the case that a = S. Most of the arguments to be presented below have this structure.

2.1 Position While the linear order of constituents is relatively free in German, there are nevertheless a number of cases where there is at least a strong preference for one of the possible orders. This is particularly true for unstressed (i.e. clitic-like) pronouns, as in (4).

(4)

a.

Ich nehme es mit

ihm auf

I take it with him up "I challenge h i m "

bP.*Ich nehme mit ihm es auf In PPIs the contrast goes the other way:

(5)

a. ?* Mohammed Ali ist ein Mann, es mit dem Mohammed Ali is a

man

aufnehmen zu

it with whom u p take

to

wollen, reiner Wahnsinn wäre want sheer madness would-be " M A . is a m a n , to challenge whom would be sheer madness"

b.

Mohammed Ali ist ein Mann, mit dem es aufnehmen zu wollen, reiner Wahnsinn wäre

The assumption that internal wft-movement has taken place within the

168

Henk van Riemsdijk

pied-piped constituent immediately accounts for the difference between (4) and (5). Since wA-movement is to COMP, a must contain a COMP and hence must be S. It may be useful, at this point, to dwell briefly on the internal structure of pied-piped phrases in general in German. For it might be argued that the ungrammatically of (5a) derives from the much more general fact that a moved wA-phrase ( N ° parteieri) ) (N regierung) ) )

But (20) cannot be correct. A theory allowing for structures like (20) would have to include an elaborate apparatus blocking the many phrasal configurations that may not appear as front forms within compounds, and it would have to block inflected phrasal nodes.

What is a Possible Complex Word

305

Finally, there is a clear testing ground for the two theories. There are compositional combinations which are blocked for some reasons other than the semantic ones we have considered, but which are freely generable as phrasal combinations. Among these are various combinations with a noun denoting a property of humans in the head position. Compounds with a head of this kind appear to be unacceptable in German if the modifier denotes some (evaluative) property predicated over the humans for which the head noun itself is true. Thus, combinations like Intelligentprofessorin 'intelligent-professor-suffix' or Schlechtpolitiker 'bad-politician' are unacceptable as complex words, although one can find the phrases intelligente Professorin or schlechter Politiker in German. Similarly, one cannot combine agentive nouns with verbs predicted over the actors expressed by the agentive noun, cf. the examples *Schießsoldat 'shoot soldier' *Regierminister 'govern minister' or *Lackiermaler 'varnish-painter', which are all ungrammatical. The exact nature of this constraint is unclear to me, as we find certain exceptions to it like Jungpolitiker 'young politician', Wanderprediger 'wander preacher'/ "itinerant preacher". But we can be sure that the constraint is not syntactic or morphological in nature, because if the adjective or verb is not predicated of the people for which the head noun is true, composition is not restricted at all, cf. Fahrlehrer 'drive instructor', not an instructor who is driving but who teaches someone how to drive. Similarly Schönredner 'beautiful speaker', Schnellfahrer 'fast driver' are grammatical and do not denote beautiful speakers or drivers who are fast, respectively, but persons look like, we can be sure that there is some semantic constraint on the composition of nouns denoting human beings. Now, the two theories clearly make different predictions with respect to the possibility of appearance as a front form of combinations like *Schlechtpolitiker or * Schönlehrerin. The phrasal theory predicts that these should be possible as front forms, for there is no constraint on their formation as phrases. The semantic theory, however, will predict that just the opposite should hold, because there does not seem to be any way of overcoming this constraint comparable to the morphological observations exploited above. Therefore, the answer to the question whether Intelligentprofessor is possible as a front form will decide between the two approaches. It will not come as a surprise that the predictions made by my approach are fulfilled, Schönlehrerinschule 'beautiful teacher school' or Intelligentprofessorenseminar 'intelligent professor seminar' are unacceptable, too. So we have to discard the phrasal theory.

306

Gisbert Fanselow

4. BEYOND LOGICAL TYPE SEMANTICS

We have seen in the above paragraph that distinctions among word meanings made by the theory of logical types are a useful tool for analyzing natural language and predicting certain configurations of data. But as the examples that we discussed last indicate, there appear to be constraints on the formation of compounds which are not readily expressed in terms of logical distinctions. This should not surprise us however. Natural language predicates have domains for their denotata that are much more restricted than (13) indicates. Not every logically conceivable property will work as a possible noun-meaning; e.g., there appears to be an empty intersection of the sets of the one-place properties expressible by nouns and verbs, respectively. Not much is known about the relevant parameters at present, at least not much that could be expressed in a Montaguestyle semantics; but recent research in artificial intelligence and the pathology of semantic behavior (see e.g. Stachowiak 1979) is promising. Now it is conceivable, and probable in fact, that constraints imposed on natural language denotata going beyond logical types will interact with our principle (14) to prohibit any application of semantic rules that would lead out of the domain of what it is appropriate for nouns or verbs to denote. In other words, we may expect these restrictions to constrain the productivity of word formation rules severely. Let us see whether this prediction is borne out. Consider again, in this respect, agentive nouns in German such as Soldat 'soldier' or Präsident 'president'. We will not find a single item among them that would denote a property that, for logical reasons, could be true of the individual for exactly one moment only. The property of 'being a soldier' or 'being the president' is true for its bearer for some more or less extended interval. At least there are no logical reasons which would exclude this. This is not true, however, for all German nouns let alone for the whole lexicon of the German language itself. Nouns like Startpunkt 'start point' can be true of objects (i.e., moments of time?) only for a single instance, and the same appears to hold for the whole verb class of verlieren 'lose', erlangen 'obtain', aufwachen 'awake', entdecken 'discover', which normally are termed 'punctual verbs'. Let us assume, then, that the relevant property in fact constitutes a constraint imposed on the range of denotata available for agentive nouns. If that is true, we must closely examine the formation of agentive nouns to see whether the predictions made by (14) are correct. The most productive rule of agentive noun formation is suffixation of -er. This suffix attaches to nouns and verbs, giving either agent nouns (Lyriker 'lyricist' Schwimmer 'swimmer'), instrument nouns (.Bomber 'bomb-er', Sender 'transmitter'), or action nominals (Hopser 'jump-er'/"jump"). It is not

What is a Possible Complex Word

307

possible, however, to combine -er with every verb. It will not attach to the so-called ergative verbs like kommen 'come' (see e.g. Burzio 1981 for this observation), verbs with prepositional objects (like denken an 'think o f ) and sentential complements (cf. Koch 1976 for these observations). It does not appear to combine with non-native stems if used agentively *Regiererj'govern-er', *Riskierer 'risk-er', *Ruinierer 'ruin-er', but Kopierer 'copy-er' as an instrumental noun. However, there is a further constraint as yet unpredicted. Punctual verbs, in the sense alluded above, hardly ever combine with -er to give an agentive noun. Many punctual verbs are ergative (aufwachen 'awake', platzen 'burst') but quite a number are not, as we can see from the fact that they form passives (erlangen 'obtain', erschlagen 'slay', erschrecken 'terrify'). 13 For neither group it is possible to form agentive nouns by suffixing -er to the verb. This is just what we would expect, as (14) will block any derivation of agentive nouns which would denote a punctual property. Yet we might suspect that another sort of constraint is at work here. There must be some process blocking the relevant suffixation of the nonnative class of verbs, so why shouldn't there be another syntactic/ morphological constraint blocking -er suffixation for the punctual class of verbs? Such an account of the ungrammatically of Erschlager, Erlanger or Erschrecker would, however, run into serious difficulties. Note that our semantic approach will let (14) block -er derivation only if er does not contribute to the meaning of the construction. On the other hand, if -er had the semantic effect of mapping punctual predicates into state predicates, then the restriction against punctual agentive nouns would no longer be applicable, and (14) would fail to block the derivation. It is a well-known fact that the internal temporal or aspectual structure of -er derivation is not constant. The same holds for compounds in general. Bayern-hasser 'Bavarianshater' appears to fall into the same aspectual class as hassen itself. But we can also find the addition of a perfective aspect {Artikel-schreiber 'articlewriter'/"sb. who has written an article") or of a habitual/frequentative aspect (Raucher 'smoker'). As one can easily verify by considering the noun Fahrer 'driver', all three possibilities may be found for a single verb (see Fanselow 1981 for some elaborations of this point, and its relation to the state of affairs in compounds). Now two of the aspectual options for er-nouns, the habitual and the perfective one, will invariably cause V+er to express a stative predicate. For example, the property of having written an article (expressed by Artikelschreiber) is true of an x at any time t if, at some time t' before t, x wrote an article. The morpho-syntactic account of the ungrammatically of Erschrecker or Erschlager will predict that even the perfective and habitual readings

308

Gisbert Fanselow

of er-derivata of punctual verbs will be blocked. The semantic account involving (14) and the prohibition of punctual agentive nouns, however, claims that these derivata should be possible. Again, the approach we envisaged appears to be on the right track, as it is possible to form Verlierer 'looser'/"sb. who lost sth.", Entdecker 'discoverer'/"sb. who has discovered sth.", with a perfective reading, or Kindererschrecker 'child-terrifyer'/"sb. who habitually frightens children", or Aufwacher 'awaker' with a habitual one. We can therefore conclude that (14) in fact interacts with non-logical constraints on meaning14. Let us now discuss two further examples which point in the same direction. Prepositions can occur in German compounds, but in general they do so only as front parts; we find examples like Vorzug 'before train'/"pilot train", Überproduktion 'over-production', Hinterhaus 'behind-house' and perhaps zuwinken to-wave'/"to beckon to" 1 5 , but there are no examples with the positions exchanged, *Zugvor, *Produktionsüber, *Haushinter, *Winkzu are not acceptable. Again, one should look for a principled reason for this arrangement of data. In (13), it was stated that prepositions could denote two-place-relations. This was a horrific overstatement, of course; I do not think that languages might exist which could express the relation of loving by a preposition. Instead, a principled distinction appears to exist within the class of prepositions between locative/ temporal ones on the one hand and non-locatives on the other. The nontemporal locative prepositions will correspond mostly to spatial relations (in, on, under would be cases in point), with the possible addition of some standard non-geometric orientations for the coordinate system (e.g., nórdlich 'to the north o f , which is a preposition in German). If we now consider a prepositional compound like Hausvor 'house before', we will see that the only interpretation we might assign to this compound by using (8) or some proper extension of it expresses the property of being in front of a house. But the notion 'house' is not a geometric one nor does it fall into the class of thematically or temporally definable relations, so if these are the most prominent governing principles for prepositional denotations, Hausvor or its denotation will clearly fall out of the licensed class and will thus be blocked by (14), a correct result. Let us now turn to a matter of speculation. Carter (1976) has formulated some careful principles that might constrain the domain of what a verb might mean. According to him, the meaning of a verb must be definable in terms of some semantically primitive predicate (such as 'swim'), and of the semantically primitive operators HAVE, BE, BEGIN and CAUSE, to which I would like to add existential quantification over variables in order to have to say something about the intransitive use of verbs such as eat. If this is basically true, as I believe it is, we arrive at interesting and quite unexpected predictions about the productivity and interpretations of word formation processes generating verbs.

What is a Possible Complex Word

309

First, consider the case of verbs deriving from an adjectival base by means of a zero affix, with umlaut on the stem vowel in most cases (glätten vs. glatt16 'smooth'), a highly productive process in German. According to Carter, basic adjectives and basic verbs correspond to sets of possible denotata which are disjoint, i.e., a possible A-meaning would not be appropriate for a verb, and vice versa. Let us assume that this is the case. The verbs derived from some adjectival base cannot be identical in meaning to the adjective for this reason, for otherwise the verb-adjective dichotomy and (14) would be violated. From the same considerations it follows that the semantic structure of the verb cannot be 'BE (meaning of A)'. A combination of HAVE and the adjectival bases' meaning does not yield a sensible result. Thus, what remains are semantic structures containing the adjective's meaning and the operators BEGIN and/or CAUSE, everything else being ¡incompatible with the general constraint on verbal meanings. And German de-adjectival verbs are in fact either inchoative (involving BEGIN e.g., faulen 'rotten' + inf.'/"to rot" or reifen 'ripe + inf.'/"to ripen") or causative (röten 'red + inf.'/"to redden"), thus neatly fulfilling the predictions made by the conjunction of Carter's findings and principle (14). Let us finally see which interpretation our semantic rule system might assign to a N+V compound, a form generally impossible in German. A verb like mädchenküssen 'girl kiss' could be interpreted in just two ways, either by conjoining the properties of 'kissing' and of 'being a girl', or by forming the plural quantificatum of girl and subsequent application of the Ar/ss-relation to that item, which would give the property of 'kissing at least two girls". Both meanings clearly are not licensed by Carter's principles, because their definitions involve two semantically primitive predicates (kiss and girl), and not just one; hence (14) will serve once more to block this unwanted type of composition. Two things are to be added in this connection Japanese appears to be a language which allows for compounds with verbal heads (Makino 1976). It even allows compounding with raising verbs. Therefore we must find some parametrization of the constraint on verbal meaning that would predict the interlinguistic variation we can find, but I do not as yet know what such a parametrization might look like. A more destructive counterexample might be derived from the observation that certain (in fact nearly all) German verbs appear to show a semantic structure which violates Carter's constraints. Thus reiten might be analyzed as 'moving on a horse, a donkey or similar animals', fahren 'drive' as 'moving on a train, a car, a bus, a lorry, etc.'. Obviously enough, these paraphrases contain more than one semantic primitive predicate and thus stand in sharp contrast to Carters claims. The argument, however, overlooks the principal dichotomy with res-

310

Gisberí Fanselow

pect to linguistic knowledge, the one between the grammatical system and the conceptual system. Analyses like the ones I have given for reiten and fahren are relevant for inferences drawn within the reach of the conceptual system, but they play no role in the domain of the grammatical system. This is not true, however, of the primitive operators that Carter discusses. For example, the analysis of hide as 'CAUSE (BE imperceptible)' (or something less ridiculous of this nature) is important for the interaction of semantics with the grammatical system, because the interpretation of a syntactic structure involving nearly or again necessarily involves this semantic structure. (21), it appears, is ambiguous with respect to the two readings indicated in (21a,b), a fact which is easily represented if hide has a structured interpretation of the kind I have given. (21) (21a)

Bill hid the treasure again Again it was the case that Bill caused the treasure to be imperceptible (21b) Bill did sth. which caused the treasure to be imperceptible again

Therefore, I believe that the meagre meaning analyses for verbs compatible with Carter's suggestions are those that interact with the grammatical system, whereas the more elaborate ones are of importance only within the conceptual system and invisible at the point where the two components of the language faculty interact. Only (13) and (14), as I pointed out above, seem to regulate that interaction; hence the possibility of more elaborate paraphrases of the reiten type does not have unwelcome consequences for the system developed here.

5. SOME CONSEQUENCES FOR ARGUMENT LINKING AND CONCLUDING REMARKS

If what I have said so far is correct, the above paragraphs have demonstrated that a semantic approach to word formation combining a restricted range of semantic operations and constraints on word meaning can predict and explain a not inconsiderable set of data: the confinement of Quantifier+A" compounds to modifier positions only, the same constraint on dvandva-compounds in German, the necessity of an exocentric interpretation for Zweiachser/1 two-axler'-type compounds in German, the impossibility of certain -er derivations, and limitations on verbal and prepositional compounding. Furthermore, my theory will also make apparently correct predictions for the problem of argument-linking and its constraints which has recently raised some interest among researchers (Hohle 1982; Lieber 1983; Toman 1983).

What is a Possible Complex Word

311

Let us consider, for instance, a compound of the type V+N. The 'Argument-linking Principle' proposed by Lieber (1983) will imply together with standard feature percolation conventions that V cannot have one of its thematic roles linked outside of the compound, a correct prediction, as *Waschmaschine der Hemden 'wash machine theg e n shirtsg en is unacceptable. This fact will follow from my proposal without any need for the stipulation of 'Argument-linking principles'. The V+N branching can be interpreted only by functional application and conjunction, as these are the only processes (8) provides for. It is easy to see, however, that functional application is inappropriate in this case. Because there is no noun that would take some verb meaning as an argument, the verb would have to be the functor if we wanted to interpret V+N by functional application. But by (13), verbs can only accept NP-meanings (or propositions) as arguments, so N must denote an NP-meaning. By feature percolation the same will hold for the compound itself. Applying a verb meaning to some NP-denotation will never yield an NP-denotation, because the verb can only be interpreted as some n-place property, which corresponds to functions of NP-meanings. Therefore, functional application cannot be used to interpret the V+N type of compound. Therefore, the only option left open is the conjunction of two properties. Now consider a compound like Suchhund 'search dog'. As Hund denotes the one place-property of 'being a dog', the verbal meaning can only be conjoined to it in the case that it denotes a one-place property, too. But as suchen 'search' denotes a two-place property, we have to close one of the two argument-places of suchen before we are able to combine the meanings of suchen and hund. It happens to be the object argument place of suchen which is closed in the interpretation of Suchhund, but this choice is by no means necessary, as the interpretation of drawbridge demonstrates. Therefore, we are in the position to conclude that for a V+N-compound all but one of the arguments of V must be closed in some way 17 before the interpretations of V and N can be combined, and as the argument must be closed within the compound, there is no way to link them to some NP outside of it. In a similar way, we can predict that the nominal element in N+V-compounds in English18 will not correspond to an internal argument of the verb 19 , as compounds like hand-weave, knife-slice demonstrate. A more sophisticated type category correlation will certainly necessarily require that the internal arguments of two or three-place relations are subcategorized by the verb or adjective in question. Perhaps this does not have to be stipulated at all 20 . The relevant property encoding the subcategorization frame of the verb, and therefore the semantic type of the verb, will, however, percolate up to the whole compound itself in forms like knifeslice. If the nominal part functioned as one of the internal arguments of

312

Gisbert Fanselow

the verb, the processes involved in interpreting the verbal compound would reduce the n-place property expressed by the verb to some (n-1)place property, which is prohibited by (14) and the percolated subcategorization feature. In principle, we can derive most of the implications of Lieber's Argument Linking Principle without any further stipulations, but I cannot demonstrate this here because of limitations of space. Let me instead conclude by pointing out two problems left unsolved so far. First, although the argument linking properties of verbal elements as front forms are rather clear, relational nouns appearing as front forms pose a number of problems. My approach correctly predicts that conjunctions should be readily applicable, if the head of the compound is also relational, as examples like Anfangs kapitel 'begin chapter' demonstrate. However, one cannot find examples of compounds interpreted by the conjunction of two 2-place properties, if at least one of the compound's parts is verbal. For X+V, this might follow from the envisaged constraint on verbal meanings, but it is not yet clear to me what would exclude forms like Hafikollege 'hate colleague' interpreted as 'the set of x such that x is a colleague of y, and x hates y \ Furthermore, arguments of the front form have readily percolated up to the compound itself in compounds like Fanclub von Reagan 'fanclub of Reagan'. Of course, much still needs to be done before we can speak of a reasonable model of natural language interpretation, in particular in the domain of phrase denotations. Nevertheless, the simple principles I have proposed above appear to me to have empirical consequences which are so farreaching that we can at least hope to be on the right track.

NOTES 1. The 'linguistic' task, however, is not the only function a Montague Grammar might serve. In particular, automatic natural language-to-logic translation might be useful in philosophy, for it provides an algorithm for checking the validity of arguments given in natural language. This was pointed out to me by Urs Egli. 2. Among these certainly are the treatment of believe contexts (see Barwise & Perry 1981). This may lead to more or less drastic revisions of the possible-world part of Montague Grammar, but it will leave the overall framework I am using in this article intact. The principle of surface compositionality may also be misleading in certain aspects, see Williams (1981) and his remarks on transformational grammarian, and Strauss (1982) for a critical comment. Note that I am using the term 'Montague Grammar' somewhat loosely, as most people do. It refers, then, to all papers, written in the spirit of Montague (1973), and not only to those which adhere closely to the general theory presented in Montague (1970). 3. Bach's treatment of the control problem appears to me to be a case in point (Bach 1979).

What is a Possible Complex

Word

313

4. I suspect that it might be advantageous to take the exact content of the stereotypic relation out of semantics proper and let it be fixed in pragmatics. I have declined to execute this idea here, because it would complicate the exposition of the ideas presented in this paper. Banishing stereotypes to pragmatics would have a noun like Nagel-fabrik denote 'factory which is somehow related to nails'. I suspect that the fact that this relation must in nearly all cases be a stereotype of nail or factory need not to be stipulated at all, but rather seems to be a consequence of a general constraint on noun-meanings proposed in Lutzeier (1981), see Fanselow (in prep.) for this point. 5. It is, however, not clear to me how to predict the fact that not all NN-denotata are also expressible in the form N of NP, as is implicated by my approach (Fabrikgeige, *Geige der Fabrik 'factory violin, violin of the factory', Strajienlampe, *Lampe der Strafie 'street lamp'). 6. The reader familiar with Montague Grammar will have missed 'Quantifying in' in (8). There does not appear to be any reason why one should use this rule in the interpretation process for compounds or derivatives. For phrasal branchings, it is necessary in Montague (1973) to express the binding of pronouns, scope ambiguities and ambiguities with intensional contexts (see, believe). The first two can be approached in a different way (see Cooper 1983) and the last involves problems which are inaccessible to Montague Grammars in general, so I do not see any reason to include widescope quantification in (8). 7. Tilman Hohle and Marga Reis have pointed out that in proper noun + common noun combinations there is another interpretation open to us. Thus, Biographenbrandt 'biographer-Brandt' refers to Brandt insofar as he is a biographer. This interpretation certainly is conjunctive; for some reason unknown to me it is normally blocked for individual names as modifiers (an exception would be Heidi-Kind 'Heidi-child', which I owe to Marga Reis) but freely available for names on the group level in the sense of Bennett (1974), cf. die IGM-Gewerkschaft 'IGM-trade union' die NATO-Allianz 'the NATO-alliance'. The present fragment will not generate the relevant conjunctive interpretations, because proper name denotata are functions from properties to truth values, and thus cannot be simply conjoined with properties. This is not in itself false. The reader familiar with Montague Grammar will probably have noticed that the processes given in (8) will only yield the restrictive interpretations of A+N and N+relative clause constructions. Appositive adjectives and relative clauses appear to be functions on full NP-denotata, and there are several possible ways to formulate the rule of appositive interpretation (see, e.g., Cooper 1983). Note that this rule which takes properties (expressed by the adjective or the relative clause) and NP-denotata as inputs, giving a conjunctive interpretation, will also yield the correct interpretations for the conjunctive readings of IGM-Gewerkschaft or Heidi-Kind, which are all appositive in nature. The rule in question will also account for the compound type Spottsokrates 'mock-Socrates' discussed by Brekle (1970). 8. Following the critical remarks in Chomsky (1977), I do not believe all elements of the nominal specifier class to belong to a single semantic category. In particular, I do not include the articles the and a in the class of quantifiers. See Reinhart (1976, 1983), Fodor, Sag (1982) and Heim (1982) for data and arguments which show that these articles behave quite differently from quantifiers like every in matters of syntax and logical form. Taking up some of the ideas developed in Heim (1982), I suggest proceding in the following way. Corresponding to the bare-plural formation rule discussed above, there is a semantic rule forming NP-denotata from noun-properties by predicating the noun's denotation of some variable. Thus, the property expressed by small unicorn would be transferred to AP (unicorn (x 3 ) & small (x 3 ) & P ( x 3 ) ),

314

Gisbert

Fanselow

for some value of x 3 . The function of a or the, then, would be to signal obligatorily (in the singular case) whether the discourse referent referred to by x 3 is already in the universe of discourse or not;see Heim (1982) for an elaboration of the familiarity theory of definiteness/indefmiteness. Tilman Höhle has brought to my attention the fact that the classification of numerals like three as quantifiers might be problematic in more traditional Montague semantics. The reason for this lies in constructions like die drei Mädchen 'the three girls'. If drei functions as a quantifier, i.e., if it maps properties to NP-denotata, then we cannot construe the meaning of die as a quantifier, too, as is done in Montague (1973), because drei Mädchen already has a NP interpretation in my analysis. A problem will result, of course, only if there was reason to treat the and a as quantifiers, but there appears not to be any, cf. the references given above. Note, furthermore, that adjectives standing before numerals in noun-phrases like herrliche drei Wochen 'marvelous three weeks' can only be interpreted as non-restrictive in nature, i.e. as operating on NP-denotata, which again is unproblematic if drei is a quantifier. 9. I owe this example to Marga Reis. It is not very clear to me whether examples like Zehnkampf 'ten fight', 'decathlon' which were brought to my attention by Jürgen Lenerz, are instances of the Allmacht-type (fight composed of ten contests) or rather of exocentric Dreirad-type (sth. which is composed of then fights/contests). In fact, the Allmacht-type is severely restricted, thus, you cannot even form Vierbund 'four-alliance' following the example of this existing (and lexicalized) Dreibund 'three-alliance'/"triple alliance". In fact, Craig Mabrey has pointed out to me that forms like Allmacht have not entered the German language by a compounding process, but by a direct translation from the Latin model. 10. Schmidt-Genscher-Konflikt, or rather the first part of it, is an instance of the conjunctive rule rather than of the modifying rule X -» YX generating determinative compounds like Nagelfabrik 'nail factory'. Other examples not involving proper names can be found in German readily, cf. Fluß-Meer-Verbindung 'river-sea-connection' or Heizungs-Lüftungs-System 'heating-ventilating-system' or Luft-See-Rakete 'air-sea-missile'. See Toman (this volume) for arguments that Schmidt-Genscher should not be generated by the modifier-head rule. My semantic account involving (8) and (14) will also block the free use of Flu ß-Meer in the dvandva sense, which is demonstrated in Fanselow (1982). One might believe that the free use of Schmidt-Genscher or Flu).I -Meer is blocked by the assumed fact that there is no feature percolation convention for the conjunctive branching, i.e., Fluß-Meer would be without any features and thus not combinable with any element in phrasal syntax. Even this proposal would have to assume that the feature '+ Front form' will percolate up, which is necessitated by words like Heizungs-Lüftungs-System, where both Heizungs and Ltiftungs are front forms, and must be front forms, because Heizungs-Lüftungs-System would otherwise be unacceptable. Furthermore, in all conjunctive branchings in phrasal syntax, there is percolation of the features of both items, and it would be quite surprising if this percolation convention would not also hold in word syntax. Note in this respect that it is not true that two (+ singular) features add up to (+plural) in conjunctive structure, as has been suggested to me in an attempt to falsify my explanation of the dvandva array of data. If one conjoins two nouns (cf. der Bürgermeister und Parteivorsitzende 'the mayor and party leader') the result will be in the singular if the two conjoined elements are; two singulars will only give one plural for noun phrases, and phrasal categories do not come into play within the limits of word formation. Proper noun combinations like Baden-Württemberg (a German state formed by the union of two former states, Baden and Württemberg), or Regensburg-Stadtam-

What is a Possible Complex Word

315

hof (the ward 'Stadtamhof, which is part of the city of Regensburg) which are possible in German outside of modifier positions also are not dvandvas, see Fanselow (1981) for arguments which demonstrate this. 11. I owe the Sanskrit data to Josef Bayer. Dvandvas may also occur in the neuter singular (see Whitney 1879), which appears to me to be unproblematic because this morphological form corresponds to mass nouns which can be taken to be plural in semantics. 12. Exocentric derivative forms can also be found in German with respect to the dvandva compounds we considered. Thus it is possible to say der schmidt-genschersche Konflikt 'the Schmidt-Genscher-adjectival suffix conflict', schmidt-genschersche being a relational exocentric adjective. The same is possible for the er-suffix deriving adjectives, cf. Köln-Bonner Eisenbahn 'Cologne-Bonn-adj. suff. Railway'/ "railway operating between Cologne and Bonn". The latter process, however, might be rather restricted in nature, as was pointed out to me by J. Toman. The problem of the derivations with bahuvrihi and dvandva-type compounds is more extensively treated in Fanselow (1982). 13. I owe most of what I have said about agentive er-nominalizations to Oh Ye-OK. A more elaborate treatment can be found in her doctoral dissertation, which is in preparation. Even all the constraints discussed above, though they overlap to a certain extent, will not account for all the data. Thus, it is unclear why Amerikahasser 'america hater' is OK and Amerikalieber 'america lover' is not. Note that certain ergative verbs form nominalization with the suffix -ling (Ankömmling 'arrive-suffix') which normally abstracts over objects only (Prüfling 'test-suffix'/"testee"), which I believe to be an interesting and surprising confirmation of Burzio's claim that the subjects of ergative verbs are underlying objects. 14. The acceptability of Aufwacher with a habitual reading might appear to be problematic because aufwachen is an ergative verb, but German appears to allow for the intransitive use of ergative verbs to a certain extent in certain constructions as well, a point for which I argue in Fanselow (1983a). 15. See Fanselow (1983a) for some arguments that forms like zuwinken should not be analyzed as P+V-compounds. 16. The -en at the end of the citation form of glätten and all other verbal derivations is of course nothing but the normal infinitive declension, and not, as Fleischer (1975) suggests a verbal affix. 17. As was noted by Toman (1983) and Höhle (1982), there are some unclear cases of the argument of a verb filled outside of a V+N compound (such as Wartezeit auf den Arzt), which are rather bad, but significantly more acceptable than *Wartezimmer auf den Arzt 'waiting room for the doctor'. It is rather unclear what could account for this. Arguments of the modifier part filled outside the compound are better for nominal modifiers, as was noted in the text; Beschleunigungsgrad der Partikeln 'acceleration-degree of particles'/"the degree of acceleration of particles" (Toman's example) is a case in point. But the examples are only good for certain semantically function-like nouns such as Grad 'degree', otherwise the construction becomes rather dubious. We might reduce examples with Grad and similar nouns to the fact that percolation of arguments out of compounds is possible to a much greater degree in derivation than in phrases. 18. English, then, will not strictly obey the constraint on verbal meanings envisaged above for German. 19. There appears to be a 'marginal strategy' (Lieber 1983) for some speakers of English which permits forms like flower-arrange, with flower to be interpreted as the

316

Gisbert

Fanselow

internal argument of arrange. In terms of our proposals, this marginal strategy would be nothing but a relaxation of the percolation rule responsible for the subcategorization features. 20. See Chomsky (1981:37f) for the relation of thematic marking to subcategorization.

REFERENCES Arbib, M., Caplan, D. & J. Marshall, eds. 1982. Neural Models of Language Processes. New York: Academic Press. Augst, G. 1975. Untersuchingen zum Morpheminventar der deutschen Gegenwartssprache. Tübingen: Narr. (Forschungsberichte des Instituts für deutsche Sprache, 25). Bach, E. 1979. "Control in Montague Grammar." Linguistic Inquiry 10: 515-531. Barwise, J. & J. Perry. 1981. "Semantic Innocence and Uncompromising Situations." Midwest Studies in Philosophy 6: 387-403. Behaghel, O. 1917. Die deutsche Sprache, 4th ed. Leipzig: Freytag. Bennet, M. 1974. Some Extensions of a Montague Fragment of English. Bloomington: Indiana University Linguistics Club. Brekle, H. 1970. Generative Satzsemantik und transformationeile Syntax im System der englischen Nominalkomposition. München: Fink. Brekle, H. 1973. "Zur Stellung der Wortbildung in der Grammatik." Flexion und Wortbildung. Akten der 5. Fachtagung der indogermanischen Gesellschaft [...], ed. by H. Rix, p. 26-39. Wiesbaden: Reichert. Burzio, L. 1981. Intransitive Verbs and Italian Auxiliaries. Doctoral dissertation. Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Carter, R. 1975. "Some Constraints on Possible Words." Semantikos 1: 27-66. Chomsky, N. 1977. Essays on Form and Interpretation. New York: North Holland. Chomsky, N. 1980. Rules and Representations. New York: Columbia University Press. Chomsky, N. 1981. Lectures on Government and Binding. Dordrecht: Foris. Chomsky, N. 1982. The Generative Enterprise. Dordrecht: Foris. Cooper, R. 1983. Quantification and Syntactic Theory. Dordrecht: Reidel. Culicover, P. 1976. "A Constraint on Coreferentiality." Foundations of Language 14:109-118. Fanselow, G. 1981. Zur Syntax und Semantik der Nominalkomposition. Tübingen: M. Niemeyer. Fanselow, G. 1982. Über die Nicht-Existenz semantischer Regeln für die Nominalkomposition. Ms. Universität Konstanz. Fanselow, G. 1983a. Deutsche Syntax und Universale Grammatik. Ms. Universität Konstanz. Fanselow, G. 1983b. On certain Adjectival Constructions in German. Ms. Universität Konstanz. Fanselow, G. (in preparation) Universale Grammatik und deutsche Wortbildung. Fleischer, W. 1975. Wortbildung der deutschen Gegenwartssprache. Tübingen: M. Niemeyer. Fodor, J. & I. Sag. 1981. "Referential and Quantificational Indefinites." Linguistics and Philosophy 5: 355-398. Gueron, J. 1981. "Logical Operators, Complete Constituents, and Extraction Transformations." Levels of Syntactic Representation, ed. by J. Koster & R. May, 65-143. Dordrecht: Foris.

What is a Possible Complex

Word

317

Heim, I. 1982. The Semantics of Definite and Indefinite Noun Phrases. Doctoral dissertation. University of Massachusetts at Amherst. Higginbotham, J. &. R. May. 1981. "Questions, Quantifiers and Crossing." The Linguistic Review 1:41-80. Höhle, T. 1982. "Über Komposition und Derivation: Zur Konstituentenstruktur von Wortbildungsprodukten im Deutschen." Zeitschrift für Sprachwissenschaft 1: 76-112. [Also in this volume.] Kamp, H. 1975. "Two Theories about Adjectives." Formal Semantics for Natural Language, ed. by E. Keenan, 123-155. Cambridge University Press. Kean, M. - L . 1982. "Three Perspectives for the Analysis of Aphasie Syndroms." In Arbibet al., 173-202. Koch, S. 1976. "Bemerkungen zu er-Nominalisierungen." Leuvense Bifdragen 65: 69-77. Kratzer, A. 1981. "The Notional Category of Modality." Words, Worlds and Contexts, ed. by H. Eikmeyer & H. Rieser, p. 38-74. Berlin: de Gruyter. Lieber, R. 1980. On the Organization of the Lexicon. Doctoral dissertation. Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Lieber, R. 1981. "Morphological Conversion within a Restrictive Theory of the Lexicon." The Scope of Lexical Rules, ed. by M. Moortgat, H. v.d. Hülst & T. Hoekstra, 161-200. Dordrecht: Foris. Lieber, R. 1983. "Argument Linking and Compounds in English." Linguistic Inquiry 14: 251-286. Lightfoot, D. 1979. Principles of Diachronic Syntax. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Lutzeier, P. 1981. Wort und Feld. Tübingen: Niemeyer. Makino, S. 1976. "Nominal Compounds." Japanese Generative Grammar, ed. by M. Shibatani, p. 483-498. New York: Academic Press. (Syntax and Semantics, 5.) Marcus, M. 1982. "Consequences of Functional Deficits in a Parsing Model." In Arbib et al. May, R. 1977. The Grammar of Quantification. Doctoral dissertation. Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Montague, R. 1970. "Universal Grammar." In Montague 1974. Montague, R. 1973. "The Proper Treatment of Quantification in Ordinary English." In Montague 1974. Montague, R. 1974. Formal Philosophy. Selected Papers of Richard Montague, ed. by R. Thomson. New Haven: Yale UP. Partee, B. 1979. "Montague Grammar and the Well-Formedness Constraint." Syntax and Semantics, vol. 10, ed. by F. Heny & H. Schnelle, 275-313. New York: Academic Press. Reinhart, T. 1976. The Syntactic Domain of Anaphora. Doctoral dissertation. Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Reinhart, T. 1983. "Coreference and Anaphora: A Restatement of the Anaphora Question." Linguistics and Philosophy 6:47-88. Schnitzer, M. 1982. "The Translational Hierarchy of Language." In Arbib et al., 237-270. Stachowiak, K. 1979. Zur semantischen Struktur des subjektiven Lexikons. München: Fink. Stechow, A. von. 1980. "Modification of Noun Phrases: A Challenge for Compositional Semantics." Theoretical Linguistics 7:57-111. Strauss, S.L. 1982. "On Relatedness Paradoxes and Related Paradoxes." Linguistic Inquiry 13:649-652.

318

Gisbert Fanselow

Toman, J. 1983. Wortsyntax. Eine Diskussion ausgewählter Probleme deutscher Wortbildung. Tübingen: Niemeyer. Toman, J. 1985. "A Discussion of Coordination and Word Syntax." This volume. Whitney, W.D. 1879. Sanskrit Grammar. Reprint, Delhi 1977. Williams, E. 1981. "On the Notions 'Lexically Related' and 'Head of a Word'." Linguistic Inquiry 12:245-274. Zepic, S. 1969. "Zum Problem der automatischen Erzeugung deutscher Nominalkomposita." Linguistische Berichte 2:14-24.

On Composition and Derivation: The Constituent Structure of Secondary Words in German Tilman N. Höhle Universität Tübingen 0. INTRODUCTION

The theory of word formation that I would like to sketch here is in two respects a "lexicalist" theory.1 First of all in a general sense, inasmuch as it is not a "transformationalist" theory. This finds justification in the observation that the products of word formation - morphological elements formed from other morphemes or morpheme complexes - typically display structural and semantic properties that differ distinctly from those of syntactic phrases. (For discussion cf., e.g., Toman (1980) and Vögeding (1981).) Secondly in a more specific sense. It is usually assumed that a grammar contains a set of lexical entries, where a lexical entry is an n-tupel of characterizations of n different types of properties exhibited by a morpheme or morpheme complex. Usually a morpheme (morpheme complex) displays at least phonological, logical ("semantic") and categorial properties. Hence, its lexical entry will consist (in part, at least) of a phonological, a logical, and a categorial characterization. The latter specifies above all the syntatic category and the selectional properties of the element (cf. Höhle 1978: 14f.).2 With this background, it is natural to represent the difference between free and bound morphemes in the same manner as the differences between intransitive and transitive verbs or between "full" verbs and "helping" verbs, namely as differences in their selectional properties. Transitive verbs differ from intransitive verbs in that they select an accusative object; "helping" verbs, as opposed to full verbs, select (a class of) other verbs (for more precise discussion cf. Höhle 1978: 77-92). Accordingly, bound morphemes select other morphemes (or classes of morphemes), to which they are thereby bound, while free morphemes do not. * An earlier version of this article has appeared as Höhle (1982a). While the text has largely been kept unchanged, some clarifying remarks are contained in added notes (indicated by a letter after the note, e.g., note 2a). Susan Olsen has done an admirable job in translating the original version and correcting the amendments, thereby contributing to a less cryptic formulation of numerous passages.

320

Tilman N. Hohle

These are minimal assumptions. It is my theory that, in connection with a few additional assumptions which I consider to be well-founded and/or unproblematic, these assumptions are at the same time sufficient to account for the essential features of compositions and affixal derivations. 21

1. A LEXICALIST THEORY OF WORD FORMATION

I suggest assigning compounds an internal constituent structure in such a way that e.g. Schwimmbad 'swimm-bath'/"bathing establishment" is to be represented as (la) and denkfaul 'think-lazy'/"mentally lazy" as (lb): (1)

a- t N [ v s c / i w i ' w w ] [ N W ] ] b. [A[vdenk][Afaut]}

Along the same lines, I would like to assign affixal derivations an internal constituent structure such that e.g. Vermeidung 'avoid-ing'/"avoidance" is to be represented as (2a) and vermeidbar 'avoid-able' as (2b): (2)

a. [ N [ v vermeid] [N ung] ] b. [A [ v vermeid] [A bar] ]

A few remarks are necessary here. 1.1 Compounds The representation of compounds as in (1) is widely accepted in the literature. This is intuitively reasonable since the noun Schwimmbad is obviously formed on the basis of the verb schwimm- 'swim' and the noun Bad 'bath'. On the other hand it is not self-evident that compounds have the structure shown in (1). In a lexicalist theory such a structure presupposes an extension of the usual phrase structure rules to a rule like (3): (3)

X° -

Y°~Z°

Here X, Y, Z are variables ranging over syntactic categories; the superscript "0" indicates in accordance with X-theory (cf., e.g., Jackendoff 1977), that the expansion takes place at the zero-bar level, so that Y° and Z ° are lexical elements or derive recursively from lexical elements by (3). If X and Z have the value A (Adjective) and 7 = V (Verb), we obtain structures like (lb) ( and 2b).

321

On Composition and Derivation

An alternative would be to postulate a special word formation rule in place of (3) which would operate on lexical entries as well as on its own output, generating secondary morphological elements. This rule could take approximately the form of (4) : (4)

If ip is an element of the category Y° and \p is an element of the category Z°, then VM!/ is an element of the category .

An instantiation of (4) would be: if schwimm is a V and bad an N, then schwimrri~bad is an N. According to this suggestion Schwimmbad is not to be analyzed as (la) but without internal constituent structure as in (5):

(5)

schwimmTbad]

Analogously for other compounds. It is not clear from the start whether analyses like (1) in connection with a rule like (3) differ empirically from analyses like (5) in connection with a rule like (4) and, if so, whether one has advantages over the other. Certain stress phenomena to be discussed in section 9 indicate however that (1) is more adequate than (5). I will assume therefore that for word formation constructions with the category feature [+7V] - i.e., secondary adjectives and nouns - rule (3) and structure (1) are to be adopted. (The situation is somewhat different with verbs in that their formation possibly obeys in part other principles;I will comment on this only in passing.) 1.2 Derivations Whereas representations of compounds as in (1) are largely accepted, an analysis of derivations as in (2) is definitely unusual. Chomsky/Halle, e.g., have (6) for blackboard but (7) for analyzable (somewhat simplified in each case): (6)

(7)

[ N [ A black] [NZ>o]]

This means that fad is bound to a subsequent element

2. The first member of the n-tupel is a natural number indicating the bar level of projection, O < i < m, where m is the maximal level. (The value of m may vary with the type of category.) The second member CF is a set of specified categorial features. There may be a universal set of features ([±N] and [±V] among them) which each category may draw upon. Categories capable of bearing inflexion will have a third member, IF, a set of (specified) inflexional features; and there may exist more members. There is no reason to assume that every category is characterized by the same features differing only in their specifications (as + or -) or even by a constant number of specified features. Plausibly, a language learner will postulate a specified feature for a given linguistic element only if observable grammatical properties of the element lead him to do so. An element that does not display properties relevantly expressed by some specified feature will not be characterized by such a feature. Thus, the (uninflected) stems of adjectives, nouns and verbs that are relevant for word fomation may differ from the corresponding inflected words just by having an empty IF. Similarly, the CF of a prefix like un- may be empty if un- never displays properties relevantly expressed by a (specified) categorial feature. This does not imply that such a prefix is a member of no category. 16b. Fahrt 'travel-rV'journey" from fahr- 'travel' is about the only example that does not involve a mutation of the verbal stem which is unpredictable from the system of German phonology. 16c. Replacement of the accusative by the (postnominal) genitive is also blocked by a dative: (i)

dein ewiges Den-Kindern-süße-Bonbons-Schenken 'your enternal [to]-the-children-sweet-candies-give' "your continual giving the children sweet candies"

(ii)

*dein ewiges Den-Kindern-Schenken süßer Bonbons 'your eternal [to]-the-children-give [ofl sweet candies'

(iii)

dein ewiges Schenken süßer Bonbons "your eternal give [of] sweet candies' "your continual giving of sweet candies (to someone)"

Prepositional phrases expressing a goal, however, do not block such a replacement: (iv)

(v)

dein Den-Bail-in-die-Ecke- Werfen 'your the-ball-in-the-corner-throw' "your throwing the ball into the corner" dein In-die-Ecke- Werfen des Balk 'your in-the-corner-throw [of] the ball' "your throwing of the ball into the corner"

On Composition

and

375

Derivation

16d. This is to be expected since in general verbs that are not (part of) the determinans of a complex word do not serve as the determinatum of a compound; cf. note 15b. While some speakers find the distinction between (91) and (92) somewhat subtle, the verbal character of (non-lexicalized) infinitives comes out very clearly when the first component of the secondary word cannot be interpreted as an object of the verb: (i)

a. Herbstsauberung (der Kasernen) (iv) 'autumn-clean-ing ([of] the barracks)' "cleaning (of the barracks) in autumn" b. *Herbstsdubern 'autumn-clean'

a. Dauerverfolgung 'duration-pursue-ing' "continous pursuit" b. * Dauerverfolgen 'duration-pursue'

(ii)

a. Stallfütterung 'stable-feed-ing' "stall-feeding" b. *Stallfiittern 'stable-feed'

a. Sonderbeobachtung 'special-watch-ing' "special observation" b. * Sonderbeobachten 'special-watch'

(iii)

a. (die) Kinderarbeit '(the) child-er-work (feminine)' "(the) child labour" b. *(das) Kinderarbeiten '(the) child-er-work (neuter)'

(v)

REFERENCES Aronoff, Mark. 1976. Word formation in generative grammar. (Linguistic Inquiry Monographs, 1.) Cambridge, Mass., & London: MIT Press. Chisholm, David. 1973. "Lexicality and German derivational suffixes: A contribution to the Magnuson-Ryder theory of prosody". Language and Style 6: 27-38. Chisholm, David. 1977. "Generative prosody and English verse". Poetics 6: 111-153. Chomsky, Noam, and Morris Halle. 1968. The sound pattern of language. New York & al.: Harper & Row. Höhle, Tilman N. 1976. Die Aktiv-Passiv-Relation im Deutschen. Grundlagen einer lexikalistischen Syntaxtheorie! Ms. Köln. Höhle, Tilman N. 1978. Lexikalistische Syntax: Die Aktiv-Passiv-Relation und andere Infinitkonstruktionen im Deutschen. Tübingen: Max Niemeyer. (Linguistische Arbeiten, 67). Höhle, Tilman N. 1982a 'Über Komposition and Derivation: zur Konstituentenstruktur von Wortbildungsprodukten im Deutschen". Zeitschrift für Sprachwissenschaft 1: 76-112. Höhle, Tilman N. 1982b. "Explikationen für 'normale Betonung' und 'normale Wortstellung' ". Satzglieder im Deutschen. Vorschläge zur syntaktischen, semantischen und pragmatischen Fundierung, ed. by Werner Abraham, 75-153. Tübingen: Gunter Narr. (Studien zur deutschen Grammatik, 15). Holst, Friedrich. 1974. Untersuchungen zur Wortbüdungstheorie mit besonderer Berücksichtigung der Adjektive auf -gerecht im heutigen Deutsch. Hamburg: Selbstverlag. Hust, Joel R. 1978. "Lexical redundancy rules and the unpassive construction". Linguistic Analysis 4: 61-89.

376

Tilman N. Höhle

Jackendoff, Ray. 1975. "Morphological and semantic regularities in the lexicon". Language 51: 639-671. Jackendoff, Ray. 1977. X syntax: A study of phrase structure. Cambridge, Mass., & London: MIT Press. (Linguistic Inquiry Monographs, 2). Kiparsky, Paul. 1966. Über den deutschen Akzent. Untersuchungen über Akzent und Intonation im Deutschen, 69-98. Berlin: Akademie-Verlag. (Studia grammatica, 7). Kiparsky, Paul. 1975. "Stress, syntax, and meter". Language 51: 576-616. Kiparsky, Paul. 1977. "The rhythmic structure of English verse". Linguistic Inquiry 8: 189-247. Langacker, Ronald W. 1973. Language and its structure. Some fundamental linguistic concepts. 2nd ed. New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich. Latour, Bernd. 1976. " "Innerparteilich" - "Parteiintern". Zur Konkurrenz zweier gegenwartssprachlicher Wortbildungsmuster". Deutsche Sprache 4: 336-350. Siegel, Dorothy, 1978. "The adjacency constraint and the theory of morphology". Proceedings of the Eighth Annual Meeting of the North Eastern Linguistic Society, ed. by Mark J. Stein, 189-197. Amherst, Mass.: Dept. of Linguistics, South College, University of Massachusetts. Strauss, Steven L. 1979. "Against boundary distinctions in English morphology". Linguistic Analysis 5: 387-419. Toman, Jindrich. 1980. Wortsyntax. Ms. Köln, [appeared as Wortsyntax. Eine Diskussion ausgewählter Probleme deutscher Wortbildung. Tübingen: Max Niemeyer 1983. (Linguistische Arbeiten, 137)]. Vögeding, Joachim. 1981. Das Halbsuffix "-frei". Zur Theorie der Wortbildung. Tübingen: Gunter Narr. (Studien zur deutschen Grammatik, 14). Williams, Edwin. 1981. "On the notions 'Lexically Related' and 'head of a Word' ". Linguistic Inquiry 12: 245-274. Wurzel, Wolfgang Ullrich. 1970. Studien zur deutschen Lautstruktur. Berlin: Akademie-Verlag. (Studia grammatica, 8).

Against Höhle's Compositional Theory of Affixation* Marga Reis Universität Tübingen

0. INTRODUCTION In his recent article 1 , Höhle has presented a "strictly lexicalist" theory of word formation, the characteristic feature of which is the "compositional theory of affixation" (p. ). This theory claims, essentially, that compounds as well as affixal derivations are generated by the same phrase structure rule (1), (1) being an extension of the usual phrase structure rule format (in X notation) to the level of lexical elements. This amounts essentially to making two important claims about the syntax of words: first, that compounds and affixal derivations have internal structure; second, that they are structured in the same way, cf. (2):

(1) (X, Y, Z: variables over syntactic categories such as V, N, A; superscript 'zero-bar-level', cf. Toman 1980:27ff.) (2a)

[ N [ySchwimm][ N bad]] 'swim-bath' "bathing establishment"

(2b) [ A [ v denk][ A faul] ] 'think-lazy' "mentally lazy"

Let us first interpret the "compositional theory of affixation" as being a theory of word structure only. By adopting it, we have to commit ourselves minimally to the following assumptions: (Al)

Affixes are lexical items that are subcategorized as to lexical category (V, N, A).

* An earlier version of this article (Reis 1983) appeared as a rejoinder to Höhle 1982 (also reprinted in this volume). In preparing the English version, the content has been virtually kept unchanged. I have, however, taken the opportunity to remove a number of technical and minor factual errors, to add a few clarifying remarks (marked by "[ ]"), and to reformulate numerous passages which were in need of stylistic improvement. I should like to thank Susan Olsen and Page Woodworth who assisted me with the English version of this paper.

378

Marga Reis

(A2)

If there are any differences between roots 2 and affixes (compounds and derivations), they are non-categorial in nature (i.e., they do not involve phrase structure categories).

(A3)

No rule operating after lexical insertion makes essential use of the root-affix (compound-derivation) distinction.

(A4)

Phrase structure rule (1) provides for the internal structures of all conceivable (German) words (which means inter alia that words having an internal structure VV : baggerölbarzel(23c) A-*V : bleichschwärzglättweit(23d) V^A : (23e) A-HM Gut Naß Rot Deutsch (230

397

"(to) excavate" (from Bagger "excavator") "(to) oil" (from Ol "oil") "(to) behave like (from the proper name Barzet) Barzel" '(to) "(to) '(to) '(to)

bleach" blacken" smooth" widen"

"(the) good" "water" "(the) red" "German (language)"

(from bleich "pale") (from schwarz "black") (from glatt "smooth") (from weit "wide")

(from gut "good") (from naß ' V e t " ) (from rot "red") (from deutsch "German")

(N-*A): angst, cf. mir ist angst "I am frightened" (from Angst 'fright') klasse, cf. er ist ein klasse Tennisspieler "he is a marvellous tennis-player" (from Klasse 'class')

The descriptive categories to be used are obviously the same: - Just as with affixal patterns, the affixless types may differ in productivity. E.g., the type illustrated by (23f) is practically unproductive today, likewise (23e), with the exception of deadjectival words for colours and languages. Type (23b), on the other hand, is clearly productive, and so are, although to a much more limited degree, the patterns (23a,c), at least with simplex bases. - Just as with affixal patterns, the derivational relationships in affixless types are 'oriented', as can already be inferred from the difference in productivity between (23a) and (23b), or (23c) and (23d). - There is no difference in the type of base restrictions: The categorial restrictions are just as constitutive for the affixless types as they are for affixal patterns, but again, noncategorial restrictions, such as the restriction to simplex bases mentioned above, are nothing unusual. - Neither is there a significant difference in the semantic patterning: Just as an affixal type may be associated with several semantic subtypes, cf. the various semantic series formed by adjectives in -ig, so may an affixless type, cf. (23b), which collects instrumental, ornative,

398

Marga Reis

locative verbs among others, or (23c), the members of which may be inchoative or causative, etc. - Even the inflectional properties of affixless derivations seem to be (almost) as predictable as in the case of affixal derivations, the determining factor being the categorial nature of the base. Thus, confining ourselves to nominal derivations, where there is an inflectional choice, we note that deadjectival nouns are neuter and follow the strong declension; deverbal nouns, at least if they belong to the productive subtype taking simplex bases, are masculine, follow the strong declension, and, as a rule, take the plural allomorph -s (cf. Treff, Schwenk "pan (shot)", Dreh "twist", Stau)41. These parallels seem to be incompatible with a theory such as Höhle's, in which the difference between affixal and affixless derivation is made out to be fundamental (cf. also p. 362). This contradiction can be resolved, to be sure, by distinguishing carefully between aspects of 'word structure' and 'word formation' proper. Höhle's claim concerning the fundamental difference between the two types of derivation is apparently aimed at 'word structure', while the parallels described above involve more or less aspects of word formations proper, hence have no (immediate) bearing on Höhle's claim. But granting this, as I think we should, amounts to also admitting that Höhle's theory is much more limited than it at first appears (cf. also (HA5)), for there is no way in the theory, as it stands, to account for the aspects of word formation characteristic of affixless derivations. The formal means that are available in the case of affixal derivations are out of the question, since there are, by definition, no affixes, hence no lexical entries; and the ensuing question how these facts could otherwise be accounted for in the lexicalist model, has by no means a ready, let alone an obvious solution 42 . Only one thing is clear: As long as affixal derivation is conceived of in the way it is in Höhle's theory, there can be no description of the word formation aspects of affixless derivations compatible with this theory through which the parallels to affixal derivations are brought out. 4.2.

Summing up the discussion of 4.1, we have seen that, as far as affixless derivations are concerned, a) word structure does not in any way reflect the process of word formation; b) the descriptive devices provided by the strictly lexicalist theory fail to account for the relevant aspects of word formation. The situation is probably the same in the case of the 'clipping' pattern, which is by no means marginal. In other words (HA5) cannot be valid for the whole domain of word formation.

Against Höhle's Compositional Theory of Affixation

399

Does this, by itself, constitute a conclusive objection against a strictly lexicalist description of composition and (affixal) derivation? Since a modular approach to word formation (proper) is a feasible, and possibly necessary way beyond traditional divisions (cf. also Toman 1980), the answer is 'no' - as long as the strictly lexicalist description of composition and derivation works. But we have already seen (§3) that, contrary to (HA5), it does not work: Regarding compositional types, the only relevant aspect of word formation proper that can be accounted for is their productivity (via phrase structure rule (1)), but not the various restrictions it is subject to; just like the above mentioned aspects of affixless word formation (cf. (b)), they have to be described elsewhere in grammar. Remarkably enough, the discrepancy between word structure and word formation characteristic of affixless derivations (cf. (a)) is also not without paralles in the domain of compounds, cf. the examples in (24) (with the exception of Hausmann which has become lexicalized by now, they all are - attested - ad hoc formations): (24)

Hausmann 'house-man'/"(male) house wife" Vorschußbrennesseln 'advanced-stinging nettles'/"criticism in advance" Geisterpferd 'gho st-er-horse'/' 'horse going in the wrong direction on the autobahn" Arbeitsbegräbnis 'work-s-funeral' "funeral where business is transacted", "working funeral"

As to their structure, Hausmann, etc. are no doubt compounds. The relevant word formation process, however, is analogy, the analogy being based on single lexicalized items (Hausfrau "housewife", Vorschußlorbeeren 'advance-laurels'/"praise in advance", Geisterfahrer 'ghost-er-driver'/ "driver going in the wrong direction on the autobahn", Arbeitsessen 'work-s-meal'/"meal where business is transacted", "working-lunch"), which also, together with one or both of the apparent constituents, figure crucially in the semantic interpretation. Given the possibility of modularization, it would seem natural to relegate cases such as these to an "analogical" component of word formation, thereby systematically restricting the strictly lexicalist description to that part of word formation which is rule-governed (cf. Toman 1980: 6f.). In drawing the line this way, one could also hope to get rid of the problem posed for (HA3) by productive free roots, since the new words formed by them usually have the close semantic ties to already existing words of the same form that are characteristic of analogical productivity. I believe that this is the right course to take. But if so, this will further limit the empirical import of a lexicalist theory of word formation, for in

400

Marga Reis

the domain of affixal derivation - no doubt a prime target of this theory rule-governed word formation processes are rather the exception, analogical processes the rule. As has been convincingly shown by Motsch 1977, even a highly productive process such as adjective formation in -ig belongs to the latter category, a certain influence of categorial facts notwithstanding. As far as I can see, this is also the case for other highly productive types such as formations in -ung, -bar, -isch, -heit, -er, etc., at least if we confine ourselves to their nontranspositional functions. But then one might indeed wonder how large (or small) a domain of facts Hohle's theory is still going to cover: nearly everything treated under the heading 'compositional and derivational processes of word formation' seems to call for a non-lexicalist account.

5. CONCLUSION

The results of the preceding sections show that the compositional theory of affixation, if interpreted as a theory of word formation proper, is untenable: Neither of the assumptions (HA1) - (HA5) can remain without modification. If interpreted as a theory of word structure, there also remain problems. However, since they seem to be limited to (Al), the arguments against (HA2) - (HA4) leaving (A2) - (A4) unaffected, a 'compositional theory of suffixation' or, even better (taking into account the necessity of a lexical feature [±affix], a Svord theory of suffixation' might still be maintained. How the lexicalist theory has to be modified accordingly is a question I shall have to leave open. Neither do I know, apart from some vague ideas concerning the general direction 43 , what kind of theory might ultimately come to terms with the facts of word formation cited here that Hohle's theory was not able to account for. This is no doubt unsatisfactory - theories cannot, after all, be refuted just by facts, but only by better theories. In this sense, further deliberations on the subject matter are not only hoped but urgently called for.

NOTES 1. Wherever mistakes are impossible, I shall refer to Hohle's article (Hohle 1982) throughout by just supplying page references based on the English version of his paper in this volume p. 319-376. I owe a great deal of thanks to Tilman Hohle for a long and pleasant discussion of this reply to this article. Wherever possible his comments have been taken into account. As for the numerous issues that remain unsettled, I sincerely hope that he will take them up in a further rejoinder. [See now the clarifying notes added to the original version of this paper, in this volume.]

Against Höhle's Compositional

Theory of Affixation

401

2. My use of the term 'root' is unorthodox: It is meant to cover not only simple lexical morphemes such as Haus 'house', but also complexes of lexical morphemes such as Haustür 'house door'/"front door". [2a. Wortgebildetheit "word-formed-ness'/'Svord structure" vs. Wortbildung Svordform-ing7"word formation (proper)" are the terms by which Dokulil (1968:205) aptly characterizes the 'analytic' vs. 'processual' aspect of word formation, without, however, clarifying their relationship. — It is one of the main defects of the present article that, apart from making obvious the 'reality' of this distinction, it does not provide a principled account for their relationship either.] 3. Höhle's approach is radically different from Aronoffs (1976), according to whom affixes are exponents of word formation operations. Differences in detail notwithstanding (e.g., concerning the treatment of zero suffixes and prefixes), there are, however, clear parallels to Toman 1980, Lieber 1981. 4. The few exceptions to (3) within the [+N] domain of word formation — formations in ge- (cf. Gebrüll 'ge-r oar '/ ''roaring'' etc., where the rightmost constituent of the noun is verbal) and perhaps also the compositional subtype Berlin-Wèst — can probably be treated by just listing them as such. — Concerning the verbal domain of word formation, for which (3), on first sight, does not hold, cf. Höhle, p. 373, note 16.

5. The problem of zero affixes is taken up in §4. 6. Cf. also Williams 1981:249. - Note that even if prefixes were only assigned an arbitrary category X (which would be sufficient for lexical insertion into structures generated by (1), the usual requirement on insertion being 'nondistinctness'), the problem of learnability would persist, there being no obvious linguistic motivation for setting prefixes apart by anything else but strong boundary symbols. 7. This is so because words may be formally or semantically related without necessarily having the same lexical category. Accordingly, the criterion 'similarity to free forms' generates the following types of unclear cases: a) semantic similarities of prefixes to several free forms having different categories (e.g. knall-, which may be grouped with [j^nctf] 'bang' or with [yknall] '(to)bang'); b) formal similarity without corresponding semantic similarity (e.g., Heiden(angst) 'heathen-n-(-fright)'/ "mortal (fright)"; stock (konservativ) 'stick(-conservative)'/"ultra(conservative)"); conflict between semantic and formal similarity: Is Bomben- (cf. Bombenerfolg "tremendous success"), Höllen- (cf. Höllenlärm "tremendous noise"), Riesen- (cf. Riesenerfolg "tremendous success") knall- (cf. knallrot "glaring red") to be related synchronically to the respective nouns Bombe "bomb", Hölle "hell", Riese "giant", Knall "bang", or rather to the corresponding adjectives bomb-ig "huge", "tremendous", höll-isch "tremendous" "terrible", ries-ig "tremendous", "very big", knall-ig "glaring"? - In comparison to 'similarity to free forms', the semantic function taken over by the prefix (e.g., the typically intensifying function of super- 'super'/hyper'hyper'¡hoch- 'high'/stink- 'stink'/sc/ze;/?- 'shit', if applied to adjectives) might even be the overriding factor in category assignment (provided it takes place at all)), relating prefixes to the lexical category parallel in function to the class of intensifying adverbs such as sehr "very", überaus "exceedingly", although these usually do not figure in word formation. 8. A few additional examples are listed in Fleischer (1975:49): mißlich 'dis4y'/ "awkward", and three formations from ur-'proto-' (ur-bar "cultivated", ur-ig/urtüm-lich "original", "earthly"). 9. The only process in which these types of constituents take part, albeit in a restricted way, is coordination, cf. Stachel- und Heidelbeeren 'prick and heidel berries'/"gooseberries and huckleberries", IHeidel- und Stachelbeeren 'heidel

402

Marga Reis

and prick-berries'/"huckleberries and gooseberries", *Him- und später wachsende Beeren 'him and later growing berriesV'raspberries and benies that grow later", Stief- undPflege-miitter 'stief and care-e-mothers7"step-mothers and foster-mothers", ''.ebenso paus- wie rotbäckig 'as paus- as red-cheek-y'/"having cheeks as chubby as they are red". Nothing pertinent follows from this, however, since coordination on the X°-level does, in general, not presuppose categorial identity (cf. E - und Teegeschirr 'eat- and tea dishes'/"dinner ware and tea service", ebenso riipel- wie flatterhaft 'as boor-as flutter-/ifl//7"(somebody being) as rude as (he is) flighty"). 10. In: J. Bopp: Vatis Argumente. - In: Kursbuch 58 (1979), p. 1-20 passim. 11. Concerning this possibility, it should be especially interesting to investigate the relative chronology of the origin and development of the prefixoids Bomben-, Höhle p. 375) does not affect the redundancy rule in question. 12. From these standard cases I distinguish, on the one hand, formation types such as Sympi 'symp-y'/"sympathizer" (from Sympathisant "sympathizer") or Emanze 'emanz-e7"feminist" (from Emanzipation "emancipation") that involve more than affixal derivation pure and simple, and, on the other hand, cases of analogical productivity which is semantically rather than categorially governed. This 'non-standard' domain seems to be so large, however, that the relevance of Höhle's theory might be called into question (cf. §4.2 below). 13. While there are a few productive prefixes (such as stock-, haupt-, ultra-) that combine with either adjectives or nouns only, there seems to be (as I hope to show in another paper, in preparation) a still active tendency in German to extend all prefixes taking one type of nominal base to taking the other [+NJ type as well. 14. Thus the prefix a- 'un-\ which is of limited productivity, precedes only [-native] constituents. Note, however, that this does not constitute a base restriction in the proper sense, since the compositional regularity, by which also the [±native] feature of the right constituent is passed on to the whole, leads us to classifying the bases of cases such as ahistorisch ("ahistorical") as native, -isch not being a nonnative suffix. 15. Tausendsassa 'thousand-sassa7"jack-of-all-trades", Jungfer 'young-/er7"spinster", Schlauberger Wy-berger' ¡"smaxi aleck" are rare examples (even they, however, rather belong to the 'semi-motivated' compounds). — With affixal derivation, however, no such asymmetry occurs cf. drollig 'droll-yV'funny", tüchtig 'tiicht-y'/ "competent", emsig 'ems-y'/"bustling" etc., on the one hand, and unwirsch 'unwirsch'/"ctoss", "disgruntled", unbedarft 'un-fteda//f7"simple-minded", Ungetüm 'un-^efiiwV'monster", etc., on the other. 16. As noted in § 1, the bound morphemes of the type illustrated in (5a) do not have to be categorially marked, nor do they necessarily have separate lexical entries. Matters are, of course, different for nonnative cases such as naut-, etc. 17. I owe a number of examples to a seminar paper by M. Siebenkotten/G. Schönfelder, University of Cologne. — Cf. also Carstensen 1981:17ff. 18. Bound productive roots usually occur in initial position, so that the 'distinctive' problem concerns more or less only prefixes. It would immediately disappear, if — in accordance with § 1 — prefixes were not assigned a category label. It is, however, unclear, whether bound productive roots are really systematically excluded from second position: The -muffel pattern (Krawattenmuffel etc. (cf. (7d)), for example, was familiar to me before I got to know and to use the free noun Muffel "grumbler", "boor". 19. Cf. also Vögeding (1981:72), to whom I owe a number of pertinent observations concerning § 2. 20. I owe this example to a seminar paper by M. Gust/M. Klinge, University of Cologne.

Against Höhle's Compositional

Theory of Affixation

403

21. It is unclear to me whether these restrictions have to be formulated from left to right (being imposed by the 'bound compounds') or vice versa. Either option, however, gives rise to serious problems: On the one hand, 'bound compounds' have no lexical entires of their own; on the other hand, there are certain types of second constituents (for example -ling, -haft, adjectival roots in general) that systematically do not combine with 'bound compounds', although they combine easily with normal free compounds. I do not see how this could be described by means of the formal possibilities of lexical entries. Moreover, in view of the fact at least some of the so called 'bound compounds' seem to be systematically impossible as free compounds, cf. *Allwetter 'all-weather', *Gutart 'good-nature', *Hochkarat 'high-carat' (vs. Allwetter-kleidung "all-weather-clothes", gutart-ig "good-natured", hochkarät-ig (es Gold) "high carat (gold)"), one might well doubt whether analyzing synthetic formations in terms of 'bound compounds' can, in principle, be correct. 22. It is only in coordination and deletion processes (cf. also Höhle p. 355) that prefixes and roots seem to interact significantly; even there, however, there are notable restrictions, cf.: deinerseits un-, andererseits hochzufrieden ' on the one hand un-, on the other hand high-satisfied' "dissatisfied on the one hand, highly satisfied on the other" *ungekonnt und -interessant ' un-able and -interesting' "incompetent and uninteresting" *Erz- und sonstige Katholiken 'arch- and other catholics' "archcatholics and other catholics" The differences between prefix derivation and compounds seem, at any rate, more important: The typical intensifying and emotive functions of prefixes have, as far as I know, no parallel in first constituents of true compounds; prefixation may lead to relational nouns contrary to what the generalized compositional regularity predicts (cf. Fanselow 1981:141ff.), cf. Hauptgericht 'head-dish7"main course", Lieblingsgericht 'darling-s-dish'/"favourite dish", while true compounds follow the compositional regularity in this respect. The most important difference is, of course, the categorial difference already discussed in § 1. 23. While some modifications are in order (as to typical semantic differences between roots and affixes cf. Plank 1981:15ff.) and some of these correlations still await closer investigation (e.g., those concerning stress patterns), Höhle's result does not seem to be significantly affected by them. 24. Since this selectional restriction (formulated from left to right) holds for all nonnative suffixes yielding [+N] words (cf. Fleischer 1975:189ff., 283), it is apparently systematic (cf. also Plank 1981:132). Occasional puns (Benehm-ität instead of Benehm-en "behavior", schauder-ös instead of schauder-haft "dreadful") and the few lexicalized exceptions such as Flötist 'flute-ist'/"flute-player", Harfenist 'harp/j-ist'/"harpist" do not provide serious counterexamples, since the freely productive processes involving nonnative suffixes obey the above mentioned restriction in every case. 25. We leave aside for the moment the existence of bound roots, cf. § 2. 26. Cf. Schultink 1980; Plank 1981, too, is a mine of pertinent facts and ideas (cf. especially chapter 3, p. 127ff.). — Unfortunately, a thorough study of the ordering regularities in question is still a desideratum for German.

404

Marga Reis

27. This statement is based on a first examination of all derivational patterns yielding [+N] words listed by Fleischer 1975. Whether these patterns are equally productive with compositional and derivational bases still remains to be investigated. 28. Naturally, we are concerned here with systematic, i.e., grammatical restrictions only. (As to the weU-known phenomenon that grammatically well-formed word formations may not be acceptable, cf. Mötsch 1977:183ff.). 29. Since second constituents of true bound compounds may form a series (cf. -farb(e) "colour" in lachs-/creme-/eierschalen-/. . .farben/farbig 'salmon-/cream-/ eggshell-/. • .-colour-en/y'/ "salmon-coloured, . . 0> the absence of bound suffix derivations cannot be easily explained away. 30. There are occasional free uses of affixes {-zig Male, '-ty times'/"umpteen times", all diese -ismen "all these -isms", cf. Vögeding 1981:69). But -zig in this use is idiomatic, and since -ismus can by no means be freely inserted into N positions, it can hardly count as a properly derived word or noun respectively. 31. The normal affixation processes are, of course, always position-preserving. But so is, too, it seems, the diachronic process of suffix extension or suffix combination, cf.-erei, -erisch, earlier -haftig). (The only dubious case is, possibly, provided by the history of the ge.. .e affix). 32. Let us note in passing that there is another problem involving productivity that Höhle's theory, as it stands, cannot account for: There is a gradual transition between unproductive and productive elements, viz. elements forming no series and those forming (longer and longer) ones. Since this constitutes a significant part of the problem with 'affixoids', Höhle's claim that "the form of a lexical entry is flexible enough to capture precisely and adequately all the degrees of transition between bound and free morphemes, i.e., the transition between derivation and composition (often discussed in the literature" (p. 332) is only half justified. 33. Thus, there is no noticeable interaction between roots and affixes such as Mann "man", Gerät "equipment", "tool", "instrument" vs. -er, although they all are productively used in forming names for professions and instruments. 34. The problems connected with the assumption of zero suffixes within derivational morphology are well-known. Within lexicalist theory matters become worse, because affixes are considered to be on a par with words, and there simply are no words without some phonological realisation. — This has been overlooked by Toman (1980: §3If.), who claims that lexicalist theory confirms the hypothesis that the formations in question are derivations by a zero-morpheme. 35. There are a number of exceptions to this, for example the suffixal derivations in -ei, -al, which are always stressed on the suffix (cf. Höhle p. 359), or suffixless derivations form verbs starting with 'atonic' prefixes (be-, ent-, er-, ver-, zer-), this inherent atonic property winning out over the general stress rule for nouns, cf. Betreff "reference" (from be-treff "(to) refer"), Entscheid "decision" (from entscheid-" (to) decide", Verschleif) "wear (and tear)" (from verschleiß- "(to) wear out"), etc. - Note that, if this atonic property is deduced from the phonological shape of the prefix (the decisive characteristics supposedly being the presence of underlying e, cf. Kiparsky 1966:72), the stress rules must be able to identify prefixes as such, for bound first constituents like Ren(tier) "rein-deer", Eben(holz) 'ebenwood'/"ebony", Eber(esche) 'eAer-asch'/"niountain ash", Tele(kommunikation) 'tele-communication' are always stressed. 36. If this description is accepted — as I think it should be — the participles and verbs exhibiting rück- (cf. rückblickend 'back-looking'/"in retrospect", rückvergüt"(to) re-fund", rückbild- '(to) back form'/"(to) form a back formation" etc.) can be plausibly explained as back formations from the respective complex nouns.

Against Höhle's Compositional

Theory of Affixation

405

37. There are also problems of factual detail. For example, deverbal derivations in -e exhibit the stress pattern typical of nominal constituents, cf. Übernahme 'overtake-« 7 "takeover" (from übernehm- '(to) over-take'/ "(to) take over"), Übergabe 'over-gift-e7"delivery" (from Übergeb- '(to)over-give'/ "(to)hand over"), and they also choose the rück allomorph, cf. Rückgabe 'back-gift-e7"return" (from zuriickgeb'(to) back give7"(to) return"), Rücklage(n) 'back-put-e'/"reserve funds" (from zurückleg- '(to) back-put'/"(to) lay aside"). Since the derivational status of the -e is some what questionable, I am, however, quite certain that a solution in accordance with Höhle's theory can ultimately be found. 38. It does not matter at this point, whether the first constituents are correctly categorized or not; but as to VZ constituents cf. Höhle p. 351-356. — Höhle (pers. comm.) does not agree with the categorizations supplied in the text above, but, as far as I can see, the problems in question will arise no matter which categorization is chosen. 39. If no such redundancy rule were posited, we could not explain why there is not a single analogical formation with a purely nominal base (such as *Bekampf 'öe-flght', Kampf 'fight' being a simplex noun) among the nouns with initial Be-, Ver-, Ent-, Zer-, etc. Note that with verbal 'prefixes' that are stressable (i.e. the converbs, "VZ constituents" in Höhle's terminology) such analogical extensions are nothing unusual (cf. Aufgalopp 'up-gallop7"triaI gallop", Abgas 'away-gas'/"wastegas", Umweg '(a)round-way'/"detour", etc., Galopp, Gas, Weg clearly being simplex nouns), although, in the absence of a detailed historical investigation of nominal vs. verbal prefixes, nothing further can be said on the difference to formations in Be- etc. — The possibility of directly deriving past participles in be- etc. (cf. also Höhle p. 357) does not affect the redundancy rule in question. 40. In my comments to (23a-f), I am following Fleischer 1975. — I am concentrating on clear cases of affixless derivation, thereby avoiding side issues such as the controversial boundary between this word formation type and so-called 'conversion' (as exemplified by nominalized infinitives, etc.). 41. The only exception I know of is die Schau "the show", for which, however, several innocuous explanations can be offered. 42. That there is a word formation process which consists in nothing but "recategorization" is also acknowledged by Höhle, cf. p. 373, note 16. - A lexicalist theory of affixless derivation that could be consistent with Höhle's approach is presented by Lieber 1981. 43. Which is towards a non-compositional, 'holistic' approach, cf. Mötsch 1977, and, in particular, Plank 1981.

REFERENCES Aronoff, Mark. 1976. Word formation in generative grammar. Cambridge, Mass., & London: MIT Press. (Linguistic Inquiry Monographs, 1.) Buck, Carl D. 1963. Comparative grammar of Greek and Latin. 9th ed. Chicago & London: The University of Chicago Press. Carstensen, Broder. 1981. "Wörter der siebziger Jahre." Jahrbuch der Deutschdidaktik 1980. Ed. by H. Müller-Michaels. 8-31. Kronberg/Ts.: Scriptor. Dokulil, Milo?. 1968. "Zur Theorie der Wortbildung." Wissenschaftliche Zeitschrift der Karl-Marx-Universität Leipzig, Gesellschafts- und sprachwissenschaftliche Reihe, 17: 203-211. Fanselow, Gisbert. 1981. Syntax und Semantik der Nominalkomposition. Ein Ver-

406

Marga Reis

such praktischer Anwendung der Montaguegrammatik auf die Wortbildung im Deutschen. Tübingen: Max Niemeyer. (Linguistische Arbeiten, 107.) Fleischer, Wolfgang. 1975. Wortbildung der deutschen Gegenwartssprache. 4th ed. Tübingen: Max Niemeyer. Fleischer, Wolfgang. 1978. "Regeln der Wortbildung und der Wortverwendung." Deutsch als Fremdsprache 15:78-85. Grimm, Jacob and Wilhelm. 1973. Deutsches Wörterbuch. Vol. 5. Rev. by R. Hildebrandt. Leipzig: Hirzel. Höhle, Tilman N. 1982. "Über Komposition und Derivation: Zur Konstituentenstruktur von Wortbildungsprodukten im Deutschen." Zeitschrift für Sprachwissenschaft 1:76-112. Kiparsky, Paul. 1966. "Über den deutschen Akzent." Untersuchungen über Akzent und Intonation im Deutschen 69-98. Berlin: Akademie-Verlag. (Studia grammatica, 7.) Lieber, Rochelle. 1981. "Morphological conversion within a restrictive theory of the Lexicon." The scope of lexical rules ed. by M. Moortgat, et al., 161-200. Dordrecht: Foris (Linguistic Models, 1). Mötsch, Wolfgang. 1977. "Ein Plädoyer für die Beschreibung von Wortbildungen auf der Grundlage des Lexikons." Perspektiven der Wortbildungsforschung. Beiträge zum Wuppertaler Wortbildungskolloquium vom 9. bis 10. Juli 1976. ed. by H.E. Brekle and D. Kastovsky, 180-202. Bonn: Bouvier. (Gesamthochschule Wuppertal, Schriftenreihe Linguistik, 1.) Ohmann, Emil. 1944. "Die Zusammensetzungen mit rück und zurück im Deutschen." Neuphilologische Mitteilungen 45:104f. Plank, Frans. 1981. Morphologische (Ir-jRegularitäten. Aspekte der Wortstrukturtheorie. Tübingen: Gunter Narr. (Studien zur deutschen Grammatik, 13.) Reis, Marga, 1983. "Gegen die Kompositionstheorie der Affigierung." Zeitschrift für Sprachwissenschaft 2:110-131. Rohrer, Christian. 1967. Die Wortzusammensetzung im modernen Französisch. Phil. Diss., University of Tübingen. Schultink, Henk. 1980. "On stacking up affixes, mainly in Dutch words." Linguistic Studies [Festschrift B. Siertsema], ed. by D.J. van Alkemade et.al., 229-242. Amsterdam: Rodopi. Toman, Jindiich. 1980. Wortsyntax, unpubl. ms. Cologne. [Published as Wortsyntax. Eine Diskussion ausgewählter Probleme deutscher Wortbildung. Tübingen: Niemeyer 1983. (Linguistische Arbeiten, 137.)] Vögeding, Joachim. 1981. Das Halbsuffix "-frei". Zur Theorie der Wortbildung. Tübingen: Gunter Narr. (Studien zur deutschen Grammatik, 14.) Williams. Edwin. 1981. "On the notions "lexically related" and "head of a word"." Linguistic Inquiry 12:245-274.

A Discussion of Coordination and Word-Syntax Jindrich Toman

1. INTRODUCTION

Recent studies on word structure indicate a certain consensus of opinion on a number of points. Among other things, it is assumed that the internal structure of words can be accounted for by a variant of X-Theory, which means that such notions as the "head of a construction", "type (i.e., bar level) of a category" etc. are also made use of at the level of words. The approach further implies that word structure is always base generated, i.e., not derived transformationally as was sometimes assumed in earlier trasformational studies on word formation (and on compounding in particular). This, however, does not mean that operations which have base generated word-trees as their input are excluded. Obviously, it is necessary to account for the fact that certain morphological and syntactic properties which may characterize constituents of a complex word appear to be among the properties which characterize this word as a whole. It is mostly for this reason that in addition to base rules the so called "feature percolation" has been proposed in the literature in order to account for the transfer of properties from the subconstituents to the entire complex word. As "feature percolation" in certain cases performs work similar to that of "move a " one must assume that it is essentially comparable to transformational operations on base generated structures. There are also arguments in the literature indicating that base generated word-structure may function as input to movements by which the logical forms of words is constructed; see Pesetsky (1983). This all means, putting it somewhat informally, that there is after all "more syntax" inside words that one might assume and that this "wordsyntax" is not necessarily completely devoid of theoretical interest, as occasionally suggested. One may note, for instance, that recursive application of base rules in word-syntax will result in fairly complex structures; cf. Carden's (1983) observations on recursive centre-embedding in compounds. In a number of recent studies on word-syntax, various proposals for the rule schema for headed structures have been made:

408

Jindrich Toman

(1)

a. X° -> b. X°

X°

(Höhle 1982; see also Höhle, this volume) (Toman 1983) 1

A proper formulation of this schema could certainly be a subject of a study in itself; one might wonder about reasons which make particular authors propose distinct formulations, but more importantly, one might wish to know in what way (1) relates to the general rule schema for phrases which was originally proposed in the absence of considerations relating to word structure (Chomsky 1970, Jackendoff 1977). The answer to this question might be looked for in the idea of parametrization. In other words, one might attempt to deduce the format of (1) from general principles of phrasal architectonics as envisaged in Core Grammar rather than postulating lexical rules which differ radically from other rules of the grammar (in this context, see Jackendoffs discussion implying the possibility of abandoning redundancy rules (Jackendoff 1975, especially p. 668)). The basic idea of the parametric approach is that under one parametrization, the syntax of maximal projections follows; another parametrization yields the syntax of minimal projections, i.e., wordsyntax. Although it seems heuristically more convenient to see the syntax of minimal projections as deduced from the syntax of maximal projections, - there are, after all, no languages which have a syntax of minimal projections while lacking that of maximal projections-, a more appropriate perspective of course is that just outlined, i.e., one consisting in two distinct parametrizations of a single set of universal statements. In Toman (1983), we have attempted to formulate a "word- syntax" of German by parametrizing rule schemata of X-Theory, noting, not surprisingly, that a number of parameters has to be stipulated. For instance, the claim incorporated in rule schema (1), namely that wordtrees permit only of binary branching, does not follow from any principle of Core Grammar as discussed so far. Hence when instantiating the general construction schema of Core Grammar phrase -*• head ((n) modifiers(sj), the relative order being subject to language particular instantiations, we must fix the number of modifiers as n = l , if we are aiming at a wordsyntax. But it is precisely at points such as this that the study of wordsyntax turns out to be of general interest because this arbitrary parameter of word-syntax forces one to discuss the question as to whether all branchings, i.e., also branchings in maximal projections, could be seen as binary. If so, then of course no specific parameter would have to be referred to in word-syntax. There is no doubt that many other questions could be discussed in connection with particular steps involved in a parametric approach to word-syntax. Notice, for instance, that minimal bar value, i.e., zero, is claimed by some authors to hold uniformly on the major projection line

A Discussion of Coordination and Word-Syntax

409

of words (Toman 1983), whereas other studies accept a negative bar value on the major projection line and regard this as a convenient way of accounting for different levels of affixation (Moortgat 1982). In this paper, however, we will not embark upon a detailed discussion of such problems; instead, we will pursue an "expansionistic" course at this point by simply extending the scope of word-syntax so as to see as much of it as possible. To the extent that one takes X-Theory seriously, one will note that (1) is not the only rule schema entertained. It is generally agreed that a rule schema for coordination is needed as well; Jackendoffs proposal for it is: (2)

X1

X1 - (conj - X1)*

(Jackendoff 1977: 53)

A brief inspection of German word-structures suggests that a variant of this schema must be effective in the word-syntax of German as well: (3)

Hals-Nasen-Ohren-Klinik throat-nose-ear-clinic "ear, nose and throat clinic"

A paraphrase of this compound is based on the intuition that constituents Hals, Nasen, Ohren are not subordinated with respect to each other; they are all sisters, which, as a whole, modify Klinik, the head of the compound. In other words, (4), but not (5) or (6), seems to be a reasonable approximation to the structure of (3): (4)

N°

A\

N° N° N° N°

(5)

N° N° N° N°

N° N° N° N°

As this type of structure has been neglected in studies on word-syntax so far, we will spend the rest of this paper in identifying some of its properties and in proposing some ways of accounting for them in a principled manner. On the whole, the following types of facts seem relevant to the present discussion of coordination and word-syntax:

410

Jindrich Toman

(7)

a.

Katz-und-Maus-Spiel cat and mouse game b. Huhn-oder-Ei-Frage chicken or egg question

(8)

a. b. c. d. e.

f.

(9)

Hals-Nasen-Ohren-Klinik throat nose ear clinic Nickel-Zink-Batterie nickel zinc battery Element-Klasse-Relation element set relation Verb-Nomen-Kontinuum verb noun continuum Luft-Luft-Rakete air air missile "air-to-air missile" deutsch-belgisch-hollandisch German belgian dutch

a. Luft- und Wasser-Verschmutzung air- and water polution b. Kupferfdrderung und-verarbeitung copper-mining and -refining

(coordinations with overt coordinating particles)

(implicit coordinations)

(coordinations generated by deletion)

2. EXPLICIT COORDINATIONS

It is coordinations with explicit coordinating particles which might suggest that the existence of word internal coordination is an obvious matter; cf. also English hit-and-run attack. But notice that with the exception of coordinative compound numerals, such as dreiundzwanzig threeand-twenty'/"twenty three", which certainly constitute a special subgroup of coordinations, compounds such as Katz-und-Maus-Spiel, cf. (7), are not very common. Typically, a coordination at the level of wordsyntax will lack an overt coordinating particle, cf. (8). In order to give an account of structures with overt coordinators, we will return to the rule schema (lb). Discussing the formulation for the schema that is responsible for headed structures, we had suggested (Toman 1983: 47f.) that its proper formulation should express the idea that the modifier position in complex words may also be occupied by material of certain syntactic complexity:

A Discussion of Coordination and Word-Syntax (10)

411

a.

Ohne-Mich-Standpunkt without me attitude b. Muskel-nach-Muskel-Methode muscle after muscle method c. Rund-um-die-Welt-Tarif round about the world rate d. Wer- war- das- Frage who was it question

(Cf. also English area-by-area directory, coast-to-coast flight, once-inlife opportunity, What-I-don't-know-won't-hurt-meattitude, etc.) The nature of these formations is not entirely clear: in particular, it is not clear under what conditions maximal phrases in the modifier position can be involved. Notice, for instance, that complete NPs with determiners such as the article are in general impossible: (11)

a. *ein Die-Menschen-Hasser a the people hater b. ein Menschenhasser a people-hater / "misanthropist"

This might be taken as a point of departure for a sort of functional analysis which might claim that the modifier position may be occupied by material capable of functioning as a single lexical unit. It is certainly true that frozen syntactic fragments like dritte Welt 'third world' can freely appear inside compounds, cf. Dritte-Welt-Laden 'third-world-store'/ "a store in which products from developing countries are sold", yet prepositional structures like Muskel-nach-Muskel in (10b) are certainly not frozen expressions. Quite on the contrary, this latter pattern is particularly productive although the prepositional phrases in it, too, appear to remain impoverished, i.e., non-maximal. Given these facts, it thus seems that a provision for fragments and complex, though not maximal, units in the rule schema (1) is necessary in any case, hence the sequence of dots in (lb); see also fn. 6. But once such a "liberal" position is available, it is then always possible to generate complex phrases with overt coordinating particles in them. By this token we have a way of accounting for structures like those in (7). For completeness one might add that the rule schema (lb) might be seen in conjunction with the following descriptively based markedness convention which focuses on the nature of the material in the dotted position and its relation to the head:

412

Jindrich Toman

(12)

Bar-value in modifier position: unmarked equals minimal ... in the context : head minimal marked equals non-minimal... in the context: head minimal (cf. Toman 1983: 47)

The convention expresses the intuitive generalization that the modifier position is typically occupied by a minimal phrase. In this sense the nonstandard notation with dots in (lb) is intended to indicate a position which is to be interpreted in accordance with (12).

3. IMPLICIT COORDINATIONS

3.1 Structural Considerations It thus seems that the basic domain of description is characterized by the type Hals-Nasen-Ohren-Klinik, Nickel-Zink-Batterie, finnisch-deutsch (cf. (8)), i.e., by coordinations in which no coordinating particle is visible. From the formal point of view, these structures confront us with a "ridiculous" problem, however. Ignoring orthography, we note that when two conjuncts are involved, such as Mund-Rachen in Mund-Rachen-^ Raum, the structural description ofMund-Rachen-Raum 'mouth-larynxspace' is indistinct from that of Herzmuskelschwäche 'heart-muscle weakness' if no coordinating particles are present in the structure: (13)

N°

Mund

Rachen Raum

(14)

N°

Herz

muskel schwäche

This problem does not arise in ternary and higher coordinations since ternary nodes cannot be generated otherwise than by application of the rule schema for coordination; rule schema (1), on the other hand, yields only binary nodes. It is of course possible to entertain the idea that there is an invisible coordinating particle in (13), but not in (14); in terms of structure the following candidates for (13) come to mind given the schemata (1) and (2):

413

A Discussion of Coordination and Word-Syntax (15)

a.

b.

N°

coord

N°

N°

N°

coord

N°

N°

Although the idea is not entirely absurd, it is certainly not without problems. Would we for instance like to say that there is not only a zeround ("and") but also a zero-oder ("or")? To see this problem more clearly consider an ad hoc compound such as: (16)

metallic-bleifrei-Frage metallic lead-free question "the question as to whether to choose a car with a metallic finish or one which runs with unleaded gasoline"

As the question denoted by (16) involves a disjunction between two options, one would be forced to assume an empty disjunction word in order to obtain the adequate reading. An analogous problem arises with compounds such as: (17)

Luft-Luft-Rakete air air missile "air-to-air missile"

Notice that the relevant subpart of (17) shows properties typical of a coordination: just as there is no upper bound on the number of conjuncts in a coordination, there is no upper bound on the number of points along a path; furthermore, there is prosodic prominence on the last item in the list of points enumerated (see below on this). Should we assume a structural account with underlying zero elements in analogy to zero coordinating particles, we would have to extend the set of empty particles accordingly because items such as und, oder are semantically inadequate in the present case of a path (or, vialis) interpretation for Luft-Luft. - On the whole, problems of this sort are reminiscent of the well-known problem which can often be encountered in NN-compounds, namely the lack of an adequate function word expressing the relation between the subconstituents of the compound in question, cf. Knoblauchsack 'garlic bag' on the reading "a bag for garlic". In this case, the function word becomes "audible" in the paraphrase as a preposition. However, setting up

414

Jindrich Toman

prepositions underlyingly in order to satisfy semantics is a somewhat dubious solution. There is a general agreement in the literature that an adequate account of the semantic structure of such compounds is not a matter of structure and we assume that an analogous conclusion should be made in the case of coordinations in words. There are various possibilities one might consider at this point to make the structure of (13) distinct from (14). For instance, a global device might look back up the derivational history in order to disambiguate a given structure in each phrase type. (A binary structure would be identified as a coordination if it was generated by the rule schema for coordination.) Although this would be a departure from the "localistic" spirit of a restrictive theory of grammar, the move is not necessarily objectionable as long as a general theory of global rules is available, i.e., as long as the notion "a possible global rule" has been defined. Another possibility might consist in devising an auxiliary mechanism based on diacritic marks which would encode the information that the coordinate substructure in (13) was generated by a rule schema for coordination, and not by (1), and propagate this information along the derivation so that it becomes locally available at every point in it. Yet another possibility consists in abandoning Jackendoff s rule schema for coordination, cf. (2), and following Williams' (1978) approach. To simplify somewhat, Williams suggests that coordinations be generated in such a way that all the conjuncts appear "in a column" in deep structure, i.e., vertically; a later (low) level serialization rule converts columns to linear sequences:

(is) rx"

X

X X X

X

X

X

X

X In this system the "ridiculous" problem, i.e., the non-distinctness of structure in binary phrases does not arise if standard assumptions about the organization of the grammar are made. Interestingly, this approach also accomodates, with minimal adjustments, certain facts of prosody typical of coordination. To see this, let us first briefly review some facts about stress assignment in coordinate compounds. As far as compounds are concerned, a headed structure will typically carry prosodic prominence on the modifier, hence:

A Discussion of Coordination and (19)

a. 'Holztisch wood table "wooden table" b. 'Luftdruck air pressure

Word-Syntax

415

(not Holz'tisch)

(not

Luft'druck)

Coordinative compounds, on the other hand, show prosodic prominence on the last constituent, similarly to prosodic contours in enumerations, lists and the like:2 (20)

a. schwarz-weiß-'rot (not 'schwarz-weiß-rot) black white red b. Nord-'West (not 'Nord-West) north west c. Freund-'Feind-Verhältnis (not 'Freund-Feind- Verhältnis) friend enemy relationship

Given these differences 3 , one would expect minimal pairs differing in stress and showing a corresponding difference in meaning; such pairs can be easily produced, in fact: (21)

a. grün-'gelb green yellow b. 'grün-gelb

(22)

a. air b.

Luft-'Schiff-Rakete ship missele 'Luftschiff-Rakete

"green & yellow; e.g., having green and yellow stripes" "greenish yellow, i.e., yellow with a green tinge"

"air-to-ship missile" "air-ship missile" (airship in analogy to, say, spaceship)

These facts can be interpreted in the vertical approach in such a way that stress is assigned to the whole column and then copied onto each conjunct, which is another way of saying that each conjunct receives stress simultaneously. A later rule which must follow the serialization rule will convert this sequence of equally stressed sister nodes to a sequence with prominence on the last constituent. We leave open the question as to whether this latter rule should be seen as an instance of Nuclear Stress Rule or whether some kind of rhythmic adjustment is involved. All this, in turn, means that coordinate and headed structures will always be unambiguous at the appropriate level of representation and that the rules of semantic interpretation will always employ correct information

416

Jindfich Toman

for appropriate readings. The non-distinctness problem is not a problem any longer. 3.2 Assignment of thematic roles In the following section we would like to show that compounds containing coordinate constituents, the most productive pattern, are essentially on a par with other compounds as far as the argument structure is concerned. In showing this, we will assume that compounds do constitute a domain in which thematic roles are assigned. First,however, some general remarks on elementary relations between constituents should be discussed.4 3.2.1 Towards a dissociation of elementary relations 3.2.1.1 The first question is whether the head of a compound case-marks the compound-internal complement. Although it is true that there exists a kind of morphology in German that appears to be close to "compound internal" inflection, namely the so called linking morphemes (Fugenelemente, Fugenmorpheme), it is in our opinion problematic to associate this phenomenon with case marking synchronically. What we have in mind is the presence of forms like (e)s, (ejn, and the like, compound-interally: Verteilungsweise 'distributions-mode'/ "the mode of distribution", rabewchwarz 'raven-n-black'/ "jet black", etc. Notice that in order to claim that this is a visible reflex of word-internal case-marking one would have to claim that each noun in German is characterized by membership in two declinations: a declination defining the morphology of nominal forms in minimal projections, and a declination performing an analogous task in maximal projections. The reason for this double distinction is the fact that the "case marking" within a compound does not necessarily coincide with the case marking that is encountered in major projections. Thus the feminine noun Verteilung has zero genitive inflection in major projections (der Verteilung) whereas it requires, as all nouns ending in ung,s- "inflection" in minor projections. In addition, there is no clear way of predicting the form of this word-internal inflection; see Wurzel (1970: 95-104) for some discussion.5 We are thus inclined to regard German compounds as a domain which is free of word-internal case assignment phenomena. As we would like to claim that the same environment is a domain of theta-role assignment (see below), we must accept the consequence that case-assignment and theta-role assignment are independent.6 (Strictly speaking, our interpretation of linking morphemes in German does not imply that case-marking is excluded word-internally in every language. If, for instance, such complex words as Romance verb-clitic combinations are to be accounted for in word-syntax, then case marking

A Discussion of Coordination and

Word-Syntax

417

of pronominal clitics would have to proceed word-internally. In languages like Czech we further observe noun-adjective compounds whose first constituent bears the inflection of the oblique case otherwise required by the adjective in maximal projections, e.g.: (23)

ohnivzdomy fire-dat-resistent

(24)

To vzdoruje ohni This resists fire-dat

At the same time we note, however, that traditional grammars of Czech are reluctant to assign compound status to these formations despite the fact that their distribution is the same as that of simple words and despite a stress pattern typical of compounds. The reasons for doing so are not clear to us. Nevertheless the word-internal inflection seems to be the reason for uneasiness. Clearly, a simple observation of facts is unlikely to result in a motivated decision on word-internal case either in Romance or in Czech.) 3.2.1.2 The next question is whether subcategorization obtains within complex words. It seems that it is necessary to assume that affixes which function as heads subcategorize for their complements, e.g., the suffix bar in deverbal adjectives like lesbar 'readable', hörbar 'audible', etc., subcategorizes for a certain type of transitive verbs; in other words, one can plausibly claim that affixes subcategorize for their modifiers (see also Höhle, this volume). On the other hand, in compounds like Papierkorb Vaste-paper basket' there is no reason to assume that the head noun subcategorizes for a nominal modifier. The only set of facts which makes the question of subcategorization in compounds interesting in the context of this section are compounds with deverbal heads. At first sight it would seem that one can reasonably claim that in compounds like Autovermietung 'car-renting'/"renting of cars" the incorporated noun is subcategorized by the verb, hence the reading indicated. The fact that this compound may also have other readings, e.g., "renting (of something) in a car", might then be explained structurally by positing different structures for each reading:

418

Jindrich Toman

(25)

N°

N°

V°

Auto

vermiet

I

I

N°

Iung

N°

I

Auto

V°

I

vermiet

N°

I

ung

In (25), Auto 'car' is interpreted as a direct object, in (26) as a local complement. This correlation is based on the fact that in (25), but not in (26), the verb relates to its complement in a manner strongly reminiscent of proper government. We would like to claim, however, that this explanation is spurious. Notice that it does not extend to compounds which may have several readings, but in which it is not possible to claim differences in structure. Thus taking a deverbal noun which is derived by Ablaut we find that a single structure underlies compounds with various readings:

In (27), the object reading should be excluded, which is not the case. The compound has (at least) two readings, one of them being the objectreading: (28)

a. Der Computerentwurf ist befriedigend the computer-draft is satisfactory i: "The design of the computer is satisfactory" ii: "The design made by the computer is satisfactory"

Cf. also: (28)

b. Der Computerentwurf Ihrer Villa ist befriedigend "The computer-made design of your villa is satisfactory"

3.2.1.3 On the basis of the previous examples one might still perhaps conclude that subcategorization holds in case (25), but is "somehow"

A Discussion of Coordination and Word-Syntax

419

out of effect in a case like (27). Contrary to this, we would like to say that only theta-role assignment, the third relation relevant in our context, is at work. More specifically, we would like to claim that theta-role assignment is independent of subcategorization and free in its application. This being the case it follows that it can then be effective inside complex words. The fact that theta-role assignement is independent of subcategorization does not necessitate the postulation of different syntactic structures in cases like (25-26); the fact that it is free in application accounts for different readings: if a theta-role is assigned, the direct object reading obtains, if no theta-role is assigned, the incorporated noun has an adverbial or similar reading (see Boase-Beier & Toman 1983). Finally we note that this approach can in fact be independently motivated. As the following table shows, there is evidence in the literature that all three relevant relations discussed above can be dissociated independently of word-formation facts: (29)

Dissociation of case-marking, theta-marking & subcategorization Does case-marking imply theta-marking? No,a can case-mark b without theta-marking b (empty prepositions case-mark without theta-marking). Does theta-marking imply case-marking? No, a can theta-mark b without case-marking b (a verb theta-marks an object of an empty preposition without case-marking it). Does subcategorization imply theta-marking? No, a can subcategorize for b without theta-marking it (any time when a minor category is subcategorized for). Does theta-marking imply subcategorization? No, a can thetamark b without subcategorizing for b (a VP theta-marks the subject without subcategorizing for it). 7

Although this dissociation table seems to confirm the independent status of each of the relations involved, it would certainly be interesting to see whether a markedness metrics could be devised which would state in which situations dissociation is the natural state of affairs and in which it is not. Chomsky (1981: 37) states that subcategorization entails thetamarking and this might well be the unmarked case when arguments are subcategorized for. Similarly, typical associations of a lexically inherent case such as the dative and a theta-role, e.g., goal or experiencer, can often be found. A further investigation into the relations between theta-marking, case-marking and subcategorization might in fact throw doubts on the status of the Projection Principle (Chomsky 1981) as an independent

420

Jindrich Toman

principle of grammar. Given the fact that in Autovermietung, Auto does not have to be interpreted as the theme of vermieten, one might wonder why this must be so in: (30)

Sie vermieten Autos they rent cars

In other words, the question is why do clauses lack the freedom of interpretation typical of compounds, i.e., why cannot (30) be interpreted as, say, "they rent something by means of cars (or, in cars, or while cars are passing)". Obviously, in the clausal construction given, neither casemarking nor subcategorization can be suspended. We speculate that, given such a situation, theta-marking cannot be dissociated in such a way as to apply freely or non-directionally. If this contention were true, the Projection Principle would seem to be redundant; in addition, no special provisions for its suspension in word-formation (cf. the freedom of thetaassignment in compounds) would be necessary. 3.2.2 Questions of argument structure Having said all this, let us now return to compounds containing coordinate constituents as subparts. An examination of some data suggests that compounds with coordinative subconstituents can be divided into classes according to the type of the head. Hence we find compounds whose heads are deverbal like: (31)

a. Mutter-Kind-Beziehung mother child relation b. Freund-Feind-Verhaltnis friend enemy relationship c. Kosten-Nutzen-Analyse expenses profit analysis d. Links-Rechts-Unterscheidung left right distinguishing

We also find compounds whose heads are not deverbal but still express a certain distinct relation: (32)

a. Leib-Seele-Dualismus body mind dualism b. Ham-Samen-Rdhre urine semen duct (i.e., urethra) c. Saure-Base-Gleichgewicht acid base balance

A Discussion of Coordination and Word-Syntax

421

d.

Verb-Nomen-Kontinuum verb noun continuum e. Blut-Him-Schranke blood brain barrier f. Hitler-Stalin-Pakt Hitler Stalin treaty g. Hell-Dunkel-Rhythmus light dark rhythm The next group is set up on the basis of head nouns which do not impose any particular relation (non-relational nouns): (33)

a. Herr-Knecht-Situation master serf situation b. Mund-Nasen-Rachen-Raum mouth nose larynx space c. Leib-Seele-Problem body mind problem d. Magen-Darm-Trakt stomach bowel tract

And finally, we may assign an independent status to the type Luft-LuftRakete, see (17), in which the relevant substructure receives a "path" (or, "vialis") interpretation. We have already noted that the subconstituent Luft-Luft has some properties typical of coordinations. The first two groups seem to be very similar in that the head noun determines the semantic relation in which the modifier relates to the head. Thus Unterscheidung or Analyse impose the same theta-role on the coordinate subconstituent as they do in Vokalunterscheidung 'vowel discrimination' or Blutanalyse 'blood analysis', and, of course, as in Vokale unterscheiden '(to) distinguish vowels' or Blut analysieren '(to) analyze blood'. Röhre in (32b) or Dualismus in (32a) do not of course assign thematic roles and must be hence regarded as belonging to a separate group, yet this may be a product of theories presently entertained which make a sharp distinction between theta-roles and selectional properties. In any case, nouns such as Dualismus, Rhythmus etc. do clearly select the type of their complements in a manner comparable to the selection of arguments suiting particular theta-roles. As we have observed in connection with examples (25-26), theta-role assignment in compounds with deverbal, and in general with relational, heads is free in application, cf. different readings of Autovermietung. We would thus expect to find a corresponding variety of readings in cases such as in (33), for instance. On the whole, we find that this expectation is fulfilled.

422

Jindrich Toman

(34)

a. Links-Rechts-Asymmetrie der Körperteile left right asymmetry of-the body-parts b. Freund-Feind-Verhältnis der benachbarten Staaten friend enemy relationship of-the neighboring states

(Cf. also English mother-child relationship of old ladies and their dogs) In these cases the theta-role of Asymmetrie and Verhältnis is realized word-externally just as in the case of: (35)

Autovermietung von Schreibmaschinen car-renting of typewriters

This phrase may be interpreted as "renting of typewriters by means of cars, i.e., of a car service, or in cars, etc.". Crucially, the incorporated noun is interpreted as an adverbial whereas the proper internal argument corresponding to the direct object of vermieten "rent" is realized externally. As one can readily see, this is the type of interpretation in (34), too. In (34a), the incorporated coordination is interpreted "with respect to right/left", in (34b) and in the English example as "in the manner o f ' . On the whole, we can see that the structural aspects of the compounds examined here follow, once a rule schema for coordination is assumed together with the rule schema for headed structures. And as for theta-role there are no new problems which make the group under investigation radically different from compounds with a "headed semantics" or from coordinations in major projections. In this sense word-syntax turns out to be an adequate theory in an area for which it was not originally constructed. Before we conclude this section, however, we would like to point to a problem for which we have no clear explanation. For reasons we do not claim to fully understand, nominal coordinations in word-syntax are often restricted to non-head positions (for some discussion of this problem see also Fanselow, this volume). In fact, most of the examples we have discussed so far involve "incorporated" coordinations in compounds. Nevertheless, this is not the only non-head position which permits of NN-coordinations in certain cases: (36)

a. die Beziehung Mutter-Kind the relationship mother-child b. der Pakt Hitler-Stalin the treaty Hitler-Stalin

(But: *die Rakete Luft-Luft) NN-coordinations as head-projections are severely restricted though:

A Discussion of Coordination and Word-Syntax (37)

423

a. *Er sah die Mutter-Kind he saw the mother-child "He saw the mother and the child" b. *Sie interessiert sich fur Leib-Seele she interests herself for body-mind "She is interested in body and soul"

Although a similar distributional pattern can be found in Japanese too (Kageyama 1982), a complete uniformity across languages cannot be maintained. As Fanselow notes (this volume), this restriction does not seem to hold in Sanskrit. If this is correct, then the problem may be identified as a language specific one, which indicates in our opinion that the ungrammaticality of (37) cannot reflect any fundamental semantic regularity.

4. COORDINATIONS WHICH CANNOT BE BASE-GENERATED8

4.1 Deletion in complex words Let us now consider the following type of coordinations: (38)

Luft- und Wasserverschmutzung air- and water-pollution "air-pollution and water-pollution"

(39)

Kupferfôrderung und -verarbeitung copper-mining and -refining "copper-mining and copper-refining"

(40)

wasser- und hitzebestàndig water- and heat-resistent "water-resistent and heat-resistent"

In the context of coordination and word-syntax, it seems natural to ask the question in what sense, if at all, word-syntax can explain the properties of this kind of coordination. The intuitive feeling is that these coordinations are very different from those we have been dealing with so far. In this section we will therefore explicate this intuition at some length. It seems to us that one can argue that coordinations like those in (38-40) are indeed different in that they cannot be base-generated. In other words, we will argue that (38-40) derive by a deletion type transformation in the input of which the mutilated compounds appear in their

424

Jindrich Toman

full form, i.e., we are going to argue that Luft- in (38) is a remnant of Luftverschmutzung, -Verarbeitung in (39) a remnant of Kupferverarbeitung and wasser- in (40) a remnant of wasserbeständig. Provided that our arguments hold water, one might conclude that this phenomenon is orthogonal to questions of word-syntax. After all, we have suggested right at the beginning that all word-syntactic structures are base-generated. Nevertheless, this does not mean that facts like those illustrated in (38-40) are completely uninteresting in the context of wordsyntax. For note that if deletion is really involved, then it must "eat into" complex words. But this appears to be inconsistent with an idea that has been formulated in a number of ways and which has most recently been referred to as the "Word Structure Autonomy Condition" (Selkirk 1982: 70). (We assume that Jackendoffs Strong, or Extended, Lexicalist Hypothesis (Jackendoff 1972: 13) and Postal's (1969) Lexical Island Hypothesis are variations on the theme of Word Structure Autonomy, namely inaccessibility of word-internal material to processes of grammar which are formulated in a general manner, i.e., in a manner not specific to word-syntax.) We will discuss this apparent counterexample later in this section. The plausibility of a deletion analysis seems to be strengthened by the following observations. First, we note that the conjuncts can be modified: (41)

... weil das importierte Bier neben Ascorbin- auch andere because the imported beer beside ascorbic- also other schwefelige Säuren enthält sulphureous acids contains "because imported beer contains besides ascorbic-acid also other sulphureous acids"

(42)

... weil sie die Wideraufnahme der Inlands- und des größten Teils because they the resuming of internal- and of-the larger part der Auslandsflüge angekündigt haben of-the foreign-flights announced have "because they have announced re-opening of internal flights and of the larger part of foreign flights"

(43)

...als sich Enver Hodxa von der Sowjet- Union ab-, und when himself Enver Hodxa from the Soviet-Union away and China zugewandt hat to-China turned has "when E.H. turned away from the Soviet Union and towards China"

A Discussion of Coordination and

Word-Syntax

425

/The relevant verbs are sich von femandem abwenden and sich jemandem zuwenden./ At first sight, these seem to be typical cases of deletion over unbounded domains. Notice, in particular, that in (42) the right conjunct is not only separated from the left conjunct by complex material, but, crucially, it is also in a structurally different position. If the competing account is one under which these structures would be base-generated, we would have to claim that the underlined sections consist of full-fledged syntactic material base generated inside words. In other words, (42) would roughly have the following structure: (42*)

N

N°

der

N

Inlands-und des größten Teils der Auslands-

Flüge

Although this appears highly problematic, the reader will recall that in the previous section we have in fact argued that it is possible to generate complex syntactic material in the modifier position of a compound. Thus, although it is improbable that such complex structures as (42) or (43) could be base-generated, one might still claim that these are the marked base-generated structures envisaged in (lb), cf. also (10). We must therefore give some positive evidence showing that this kind of syntactic material cannot possibily be base-generated in the modifier position of a complex word. This proof seems possible once certain facts about casemorphology are taken into account. Notice that case-morphology is realized on the head of a complex word as can conveniently be seen in: (44)

die Teile des kleinen Flugzeugs the parts of-the small-en air-plane-s "the parts of the small air-plane"

426

Jindñch Toman

Thus whereas case morphology is visible both on the head noun and the article and adjective modifying it, the modifier position inside a complex word does not show any inflection, s, the genitive suffix of strong masculin nouns can under no circumstances appear inside the compound: *(des) Flug-s-zeugs. The internal modifier does not "agree" in case with its head. The same can be observed in cases in which a "syntactic fragment" is contained in the modifier position inside a compound: (45)

Er widmete die Aufmerksamkeit den Dritte- Welt-Problemen he dedicated the attention to-the third-world-problems

(46)

*Er widmete die Aufmerksamkeit den Dritten- Welt-Problemsn

In (45), en is the appropriate suffix of the dative plural; we may assume that it is assigned by the verb to the whole NP and that it becomes realized by downward percolation onto the head of this NP. Crucially, the material in the modifier position of the compound may not be affected by the morphological realization of the case and although it appears to be a syntactic fragment it will be inflected by nominative inflection, presumably the citation form of the expression dritte Welt. Were it possible to base-generate in the modifier position syntactic material comparable in complexity to the relevant subparts of coordinations in (41-43), we would expect the case morphology to be distributed in a manner analogous to its distribution in (45), i.e., the case required by the verb would be realized on the head only and the whole stretch of material in the presumed modifier position would be in the nominative case. This, however, is contrary to the facts: (47)

*Er gibt rote Seide- und blaue Wollestoffen keine Chance he gives red-nom silk- and blue-nom wool-cloths-dat no chance

(48)

Er gibt roten Seide- und blauen Wollstoffen keine Chance he gives red-dat silk- and blue-dat wool-cloths-dat no chance "He sees no chance for red silk-cloths and for blue wool-cloths"

This contrast shows that what is assumed to be base-generated in the modifier position under a non-deletion theory must be inflected for dative as required by the verb, which of course is inconsistent with the earlier examples in which the syntactic material in the modifier position is protected from external case assignment and appears in the nominative, viz. (45-46). The facts are handled naturally once we assume that roten Seidein (48) is a remnant of a full dative NP roten Seidestoffen.

A Discussion of Coordination and Word-Syntax

All

Notice furthermore that the deletion theory also naturally accounts for such points as the distribution of linking morphemes if deletion takes place as indicated: (49)

a. Kalbsftptf und Schweineleber calf-s-liver and pork-liver b. Kalbs- und Schweineleber

(50)

a. Verkehrsprobleme und yflfäfyftlösungen traffic-s - problems and traffic-s-solutions b. Verkehrsprobleme und -lösungen

Notice, incidentally, that examples (49b) and (50b) indicate that the linking morpheme is not just between the two constituents of a compound but is adjoined to the left constituent. Another class of facts conveniently explained by the deletion analysis is represented by the following examples: (51)

weder Luft- noch Wasserverschmutzung neither air- nor water-pollution

(52)

sowohl Luft-als auch Wasserverschmutzung as well water- as also air-pollution "both water- and air-pollution"

(53)

teils Luft-, teils Wasserverschmutzung "part air, part water pollution"

Under the deletion analysis the variety of coordinating particles presents no particular problem. 4.1 Some problems with the deletion analysis Whereas the deletion analysis has some merits both empirically, see the above analyses, and conceptually - note that we are presenting a theory which says that there is more syntax in words than is usually assumed and so we are not surprised to find syntactic processes affecting maximal as well as minimal projections - there are points which seem to make it too unconstrained. To see this, consider the following judgements: (54)

a. trink-und eßbar drink- and eatable "drinkable and edible"

428

Jindrich Toman b. arbeits- und mittellos work- and means-less "without job and means" c. Beamten- und Bürokmtentum official- and bureaucrat-dom "officialdom and bureaucracy"

(55)

a. *Lehr- und Tänzer teach- and danc-er "teacher and dancer" b. *Einfuhr- und Anwendung introduc- and application "introduction and application"

These examples show that there exist two classes of suffixes. Words derived with the first class, which includes -bar, -los, -tum, behave as compounds with respect to deletion, whereas words derived with the second class, which includes -er, -ung, -ig, etc. remain opaque. One way of establishing the difference between these two classes might consist in associating different types of boundaries with each: the first class would be characterized by a strong boundary (#), the second by a weak boundary (+). This distinction can be motivated in absence of the process studied here. As Kiparsky (1975: 613) observes, double cross suffixes also behave differently from single cross suffixes with respect to their metrical properties; see also Höhle (this volume) for further observations on the phonology of #-boundaries in German. One way of accounting for the fact that (55) is ungrammatical whereas (54) is not might consist in making the deletion rule sensitive to boundaries, i.e., in making its structural description mention the symbol #. This, however, would seem to assign this kind of deletion a special status. Instead, we would likfe to argue that the relevant restriction can be formulated in a more general manner. As to its proper formulation we can offer the following observations at the moment. For one thing, we see that some kind of a condition on remnants of deletion is necessary at the descriptive level as shown by (56): (56)

a. weder Beobachtung noch Beobachter neither observation nor observers b. *weder Beobachtung noch -er

The contrast shows that a single-cross suffix cannot be left over after deletion has taken place. Unfortunately, this cannot be explained by the bound nature of suffixes because certain doublecross suffixes seem to qualify as well-formed remnants after all:

A Discussion of Coordination and Word-Syntax (57)

eisenartige oder -haltige Materialien iron-like or -containing materials

429

(Höhle's example)

Consequently, a particular provision seems to be necessary to block such deletions. On the other hand, we find deletions which are ungrammatical despite the fact that the remnant left over qualifies as a well-formed word, cf. (55). Clearly, the relevant point in (55) is that a single-cross suffix has been deleted. The relevant condition must thus state what a permissible target of deletion is.9 The conjunction of these two points of view results in the following generalization: (58)

Both targets and remnants of deletion must have word status.

(Together with Höhle we assume that the strong boundary (#) is an adequate marking for word status.) We see that under this formulation the internal structure of words such as compounds or words derived by strong affixes is interpreted as transparent, whereas material introduced by weak boundaries cannot be factor ized by the deletion rule. Thus the idea that words are islands seems basically correct. The only point which has to be made explicit is that word-complexes consisting of material which has word status of its own are transparent.

5. SUMMARY

We have argued in this article that word-syntax, a theory of base-generated word-structure, can be extended with only minimal descriptive adjustments and at no conceptual cost to account for the most productive patterns of coordination in German compounds. Most of the problems which this domain of data presents can be solved by mechanisms which have independent motivation (cf. Williams' account of coordination or the dissociation of case-marking, theta-role assignment and subcategorization). We have also shown in section 4 that certain coordinations which superficially seem to be similar to base-generated coordinations must in fact be derived by deletion. In the course of this discussion we have also shown that the old idea that words are islands is essentially correct.

NOTES 1. See also rule schemata discussed in Hülst, Hoekstra & Moortgat (1980), Lieber (1983), Selkirk (1982) and in a number of further studies.

430

Jindfich

Toman

2. Thus note that in Peter, Josef und Hans sind Bauern "Peter, Joseph and Hans are farmers" Hans receives prominence within the coordination. 3. The situation is more complicated if toponymies are included; cf. Schaff hausen. (But see also 'Oberhausen.) As these toponymies form a distinct class which can be characterized by a pattern of accentuation generally following the Nuclear Stress Rule, it is permissible to view them as a system of their own and not to discuss them in our context. 4. For ease of exposition we will refer to "case-assignment", "Theta-marking" and "subcategorization" as relations. This licence may be tolerated in view of the fact that such mechanisms establish specific relations between linguistic entities. 5. In fact, if the idea of word internal inflection is to be taken seriously, we would also have to accept a double classification of verbs on the basis of differences in conjugation in maximal and in minimal projections. Notice that there is a linking e in such compounds as Les-e-buch 'read -e-book'/"reader, anthology". But note, on the other hand, Lesart 'read-mannerV"reading, interpretation" or les-bar 'readable'. A number of subregularities and details relating to the distribution of linking morphemes is described in the Duden-Grammatik, pp. 450-458. 6. We also note that when incorporated, non-maximal phrases appear in the nominative, presumably the citation form, and do not receive the word internal "case inflection". Interesting contrasts can be constructed at this point. Thus take direkte Aktion 'direct action' which, if not preceded by the article, forms the genitive case in the following manner: direkter Aktion. If incorporated, the phrase will be in the nominative: Direkte-Aktion-Zeitschriften 'direct-action-journals'. However, if it is only the noun Aktion that occupies the modifier position, it will be associated with the linking morpheme, e.g., Aktionszeitschriften, s being the appropriate form in the given case. Interestingly, s must not appear if more than a simple noun is in the modifier position, hence 'Direkte-Aktions-Zeitschrift en. - The observation provides no arguments against word-internal case marking, though. It only confirms our analysis of such fragments as Direkte-Aktion, dritte-Welt, etc., as non-minimal fragments. Were they minimal, we would expect linking morphems. 7. The discussion relates to a more general question about whether modules of Core Grammar carry over to word-syntax. In other words, do principles of Case Theory, Theory of Thematic Roles, Binding and Bounding apply in word-syntax, too? To appreciate the question one has to realize that one of the ideas behind word-syntax is a certain nivellization of differences between major and minimal projections. Hence the null hypothesis would always consist in applying all the principles of Core Grammar "across syntaxes". Intriguing as this topic may be, we will not address it on this occasion. 8. This section summarizes some points from Toman (1981). For a study of comparable phenomena in Dutch see Bakker (1968, chapter 5); cf. also Booij (1983a, b) and Höhle (this volume, in particular section 5.3 and 5.4). 9. In an extensively documented study, Steglich (1902) brings a number of examples in which single-cross affixes, inclusive of inflection, are deleted in the same manner as double-cross suffixes: (i)

weder mit boss- noch mit guten Dingen (Hans Sachs, 16th cent.) neither with evil nor with good-dat things-dat "neither with evel things nor with good things"

(ii)

O blindt-! O eytelheit! (A. Gryphius, 17th cent.) O, blind- O, vainness "O, blindness! O, vanity!"

A Discussion of Coordination (iii)

and

Word-Syntax

431

Was wart- undzweifeln wir! (D.C. Lohenstein, 17th cent.) what wait- and despair-lps. pi. we "Why do we wait and despair!"

In (i), adjectival inflection is deleted, in (ii) a full derivational affix (heit), in (iii) verbal inflection. None of these examples is acceptable in the contemporary language. The study shows that this deletion was a popular poetical license in the 17th and 18th centuries. In some cases the metre may have made this kind of deletion acceptable; cf. the metrical structure of the last example in the deleted and in the full form. The data seems to provide a typical case of an extension of a core process beyond the core domain; see also Bakker (1968: 150) for examples of irregular deletion in humoristic verse in Dutch.

REFERENCES Bakker, DAI. 1968. Samentrekking in nederlandse syntactische groepen. Leiden: Universitaire Pers. Boase-Beier, J. & J. Toman. 1983. "Komposita und Kontext." Arbeitsbericht 29, DFG-Projekt "Nominalkomposita". Regensburg. Booij, G.E. 1983a "Conjunctiereductie in gelede woorden, een terreinverkenning." Spektator 13,1983/84: 3-19. Booij, G.E. 1983b. Coordination Reduction in Complex Words: A Case for Prosodic Phonology. Vrije Universiteit Working Papers in Linguistics, No. 3. Amsterdam. Carden, G. 1983. 'The Non -Finite=State-ness of the Word Formation Component." Linguistic Inquiry 14: 537-541. Chomsky, N. 1970. "Remarks on Nominalization." Readings in English Transformational Grammar ed. by R.A. Jacobs & P.S. Rosenbaum, 184-221. Waltham, Mass.: Ginn & Co. Chomsky, N. 1981. Lectures on Government and Binding. Dordrecht: Foris. Duden-Grammatik der deutschen Gegenwartssprache. 4., völlig neu bearbeitete und erweiterte Auflage. Mannheim: Bibliographisches Institut 1984. (Duden, Bd. 4.) Fanselow, G. 1985. "What is a Possible Complex Word?" (This vol.) Höhle, T.N. 1982. "Über Komposition und Derivation: Zur Konstituentenstruktur von Wortbildungsprodukten im Deutschen." Zeitschrift für Sprachwissenschaft 1: 76-112. (See also an English version of this article in the present volume.) Hoekstra, T., H.v.d. Hülst & M. Moortgat. 1980. "Introduction" /to/ Lexical Grammar, ed. By T. Hoekstra, H. v.d. Hülst & M. Moortgat, 1-48. Pordrecht: Foris. (Publications in Language Sciences, 3.) Jackendoff, R. 1972. Semantic Interpretation in Generative Grammar. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Jackendoff, R. 1975. "Morphological and Semantic Regularities in the Lexicon." Language 51: 639-671. Jackendoff, R. 1977. X Syntax: A Study of Phrase Structure. Cambridge, MA.: MIT Press. (Linguistic Inquiry Monographs, 2.) Kageyama.T. 1982. "Word Formation in Japanese." Lingua 57: 215-258. Kiparsky, P. 1975. "Stress, Syntax, and Metre."Language 51: 576-616. Lieber, R. 1983. "Argument Linking and Compounds in English." Linguistic Inquiry 14: 251-282. Moortgat, M. 1982. "Synthetic Compounds and Interpretation." Unpublished. Leiden: Instituut voor nederlandse lexicologie.

432

Jindfich Toman

Pesetsky, D. 1983. "Morphology and Logical Foim." Unpublished. University of Southern California, Los Angeles. Postal, P. 1969. "AnaphoricIslands." CLS5: 205-239. Selkirk, E.O. 1982. The Syntax of Words. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. (Linguistic Inquiry Monographs, 7.) Steglich, W. 1902. "Über die Ersparung von Flexions- und Bildungssilben bei copulativen Verbindungen." Zeitschrift für deutsche Wortforschung 3: 1-52. Toman I. 1981. Koordination und Wortstruktur. Arbeitsbericht 14, DFG-Projekt "Nominalkomposita". Universität Regensburg. Toman, J. 1983. Wortsyntax: Eine Diskussion ausgewählter Probleme deutscher Wortbildung. Tübingen: Niemeyer. Williams, E. 1978. "Across-the-Board Rule Application." Linguistic Inquiry 9: 31-43. Wurzel, W.U. 1970. Studien zur deutschen Lautstruktur. Berlin: Akademie-Verlag, (studia grammatica, 8.)

Appendix

GERMAN (AND GERMANIC) GENERATIVE SYNTAX: A Bibliography in Progress. The bibliography contains a selection of recent books and articles relating to the generative syntax of German. A few nongenerative studies which might be of interest have also been included. Finally, in response to the growing interest in comparative grammar of Germanic languages, we have included a small number of generative studies on Dutch and Scandinavian languages, too. Completeness was not aimed at;as it is intended to publish this bibliography in an updated form again, information about new titles, especially on those about Germanic languages other than German, will be appreciated. J.T.

Abbreviations: BLS Proceedings of the n-th Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society CLS Papers from the n-th Regional Meeting of the Oiicago Linguistic Society GAGL Groninger Arbeiten zur germanistischen Linguistik NELS Proceedings of the North Eastern Linguistic Society PART ONE: GENERAL ITEMS General Bibliographical Sources Germanistik. Internationales Referatenorgan mit bibliographischen Hinweisen. Tübingen: Niemeyer. (Four issues per annum; covers almost exclusively studies on German. Delay: minimal.) Bibliographie Linguistique/Lingutstic Bibliography. The Hague: Nijhoff. (Appears annually; titles on Dutch and on Scandiavian languages included. Delay: three years.) Bibliographical Sources on Generative Grammar in the 60's Clement, D. & Grilnig, B. 1972. "Bibliographie" in Langages, no. 26 ("La grammaire generative en pays de la langue allemande"): 166-142. (This issue of Langages is dedicated to generative studies on German).

434

Appendix

Vater, H. 1971. "Linguistics in West Germany." Language Sciences, no. 16: 6-24. Conferences in Whose Proceedings Studies on Germanic Generative Grammar May Be Found Linguistisches Kolioquim. (Proceedings now published annualy by Niemeyer, Tübingen, in the series Linguistische Arbeiten; catalogued usually under editors' names; also under Linguistisches Kolioquim.) Linguistics in the Netherlands. (Earlier volumes irregular; publishers vary. Usually catalogued under editors' names. Recent volumes include: Linguistics in the Netherlands 1983, ed. by H. Bennis & W.U.S. van Lessen Kloeke; Linguistics in the Netherlands 1981, ed. by S. Daalder & M. Gerritsen; Linguistics in the Netherlands 1980, ed. by S. Daalder & M. Gerritsen: Linguistics in the Netherlands 1977-1979, ed. by W. Zonneveld & F. Weerman; Linguistics in the Netherlands 1974-1976, ed. by W. Zonneveld.) Scandianavian Conference on Linguistics. (Annually. Publishers vary. Also catalogued under editors' names or under Papers from the n-th Scandinavian Conference of Linguistics. Series includes: Papers from the First Scandinavian Conference of Linguistics, ed. by Ö. Dahl, Göteborg 1974; Papers from the Second/.../, ed. by E. Hovdhaugen, Oslo 1975; Papers from the Third /.../, ed. by F. Karlsson, Turku 1976; Papers from the Fourth /.../, ed. by K. Gregersen, Odense 1978. Some recent grammars of German Clement, D. & W. Thiimmel. 1975. Grundzüge einer Syntax der deutschen Standardsprache. Wiesbaden: Fischer Athenäum Taschenbuch, 2057. Duden. Grammatik der deutschen Gegenwartssprache. 4., völlig neu bearbeitete und erweiterte Auflage. Hrsg. und bearbeitet von Günther Drosdowski /.../. Mannheim: Bibliographisches Institut, 1984. (Duden, Band 4.) Engel, U. 1977. Syntax der deutschen Gegenwartssprache. Berlin: E. Schmidt (Grundlagen der Germanistik, 22.) /2., überarbeitete Aulage 1982./ Heidolph, K.E., W. Flämig & W. Mötsch. 1981. Grundzüge einer deutschen Grammatik. Berlin: Akademie-Verlag. Heibig, G. & J. Buscha. 1979. Deutsche Grammatik: Ein Handbuch für den Ausländerunterricht. Leipzig: VEB Verlag Enzyklopädie. PART TWO: PARTICULAR STUDIES Abraham, W. 1983a. "The control relation in German." W. Abraham, ed., 1983, 217-242. Abraham, W. 1983b. "Die Unterscheidung von direktem und indirektem Objekt in kasuslosen westgermanischen Sprachen und im Deutschen." Deutsch als Fremdsprache 20: 263-270. Abraham, W., ed. 1982. Satzglieder im Deutschen. Vorschläge zur syntaktischen, semantischen und pragmatischen Fundierung. Tübingen: Narr. (Studien zur deutschen Grammatik, 15.) Abraham, W., ed. 1983. On the Formal Syntax of Westgermania. Papers from the 3rd Groningen Grammar Talks. Amsterdam: Benjamins. (Linguistik aktuell, 3.) Abraham, W., ed. 1985. Erklärende Syntax des Deutschen. Tübingen: Nan. (Studien zur deutschen Grammatik, 25.) Altmann, H. 1981. Rechtsversetzung, Linksversetzung, freies Thema und verwandte Konstruktionen. Tübingen: Niemeyer. (Linguistische Arbeiten, 106.)

Appendix

435

Andrews, A. 1976. "The VP Complement Analysis in Modem Icelandic." NELS 6: 1-22.

Andrews, A. 1982a. "The Representation of Case in Modern Icelandic." The Representation of Grammatical Relations, ed. by J. Bresnan, 472-503. Cambridge, MA.: The MIT Press. Andrews, A. 1982b. "Long Distance Agreement in Modern Icelandic." The Nature of Syntactic Representation, ed. by P. Jacobson & G. Pullum, 1-33. Dordrecht Reidel. Askedal, J.O. 1983. "Kohärenz und Inkohärenz in deutschen Infinitfügungen." Lingua 59: 177-196. Bayer, J. 1983. "COMP-Node in Bavarian Syntax." (To appear in The Linguistic Review.) Bech, G. 1983. Studien zum deutschen verbum infinitum. 2., unveränderte Auflage mit einem Vorwort von C. Fabricius-Hansen. Tübingen: Niemeyer. (Linguistische Arbeiten, 139.)/Originally Kopenhagen 1955/1957./ Bennis, H. 1976/77. "Het kwantitatieve er in komparatief konstrukties." Spektator 6: 384-387. Bennis, H. 1978/79. "Appositie en de interne struktuur van de NP." Spektator 8: 209-228. Bennis, H. 1980. "er-Deletion in a Modular Grammar." Linguistics in the Netherlands 1980, ed. by S. Daalder & M. Gerritsen, 58-68. Bennis, H. 1982/83. "De PRO-drop-parameter en subjectloze zinnen in het Nederlands." Spektator 12: 409-427. Bennis, H. & L. Haegeman. 1983. "On the Status of Agreement: COMP and INFL in Flemish Dialects." (to appear). Bennis, H. & T. Hoekstra. 1983. De syntaxis van het Nederlands. Een inleiding in de regeer- en bind-theorie. Dordrecht: Foris. Berendsen, E. 1983. "Objectsclitica in het Nederlands." De Nieuwe Taalgids 76: 209-224. Bergenholtz, H. see Ulvestad, B. & H. Bergenholtz. Besten, H. den. 1976. "Surface Lexicalizations and Trace Theory." Green Ideas Blown Up, ed. by H.C. van Riemsdijk, 4-28. Universiteit van Amsterdam. (Publikaties van het Instituut voor Algemene Taalwetenschap, 13.) Besten, H. den. 1978a. "On the Presence and Absence of wA-Elements in Dutch Comparatives." Linguistic Inquiry 9: 641-671. Besten, H. den. 1978b. "Case of Possible Syntactic Interference in the Development of Afrikaans." Amsterdam Creole Studies, II, ed. By P. Muysken, pp. 5-56. University of Amsterdam. (Publikaties van het Instituut voor Algemene Taalwetenschap, 20.) Besten, H. den. 1981a "A Case Filter for Passives." Theory of Markedness in Generative Grammar. Proceedings of the 1979 GLOW Conference, ed. by A. Belletti, L. Brandi & L. Rizzi, 65-122. Pisa: Scuola Normale Superiore. Besten, H. den 1981b. "Government, syntaktische Struktur und Kasus." Akten des 15. Linguistischen Kolloquims, vol. 1, ed. by M. Kohrt & J. Lenerz, 97-107. Tübingen: Niemeyer. (Linguistische Arbeiten, 98.) Besten, H. den 1983a. "On the Interaction of Root Transformations and Lexical Deletive Rules." /With Appendix I & II./ W. Abraham, ed, 1983. 47-131. Besten, H. den et al. 1983b. "Ijslandse eilanden. Ingebedde topikalisaties en bevroren posities daarbinnen." Instituut voor Algemene Taalwetenschap. Universiteit van Amsterdam. Besten, H. den. 1985. "The Ergative Hypothesis and Free Word Order in Dutch and G e r m a n . " T o m a n , ed. 1985, 23-64.

436

Appendix

Besten, H. den & J.A. Edmondson. "The Verb Complex in Continental West Germanic." W. Abrahams, ed., 1983,155-216. Bishop, H.M. & K.C. Kossuth. 1979. "Wie es sich verhält: Some Referential and Syntactic Functions of German es without Antecedent." BLS 5: 28-39. Blom, A. 1976/77. "Het kwantitatieve er." Spektator 6: 387-95. Blom, A. & S. Daalder. 1977. Syntaktische Theorie en Taalbeschrijving. Muiderberg: Coutino. Blom, A. see also Daalder, S. & A. Blom. Booij, G.E. 1977. Dutch Morphology: A Study of Word Formation. Lisse: de Ridder. Braunmüller, K. 1977. Referenz und Pronominalisierung. Zu den Deiktika und Proformen des Deutschen. Tübingen: Niemeyer. (Linguistische Arbeiten, 46.) Breckenridge, J. 1975a. Rules Which Nothing Undergoes: An Investigation of Impersonal Passives and Object Raising Constructions in German. B.A. Thesis, Harvard University. Breckenridge, J. 1975b. "The Post-Cyclicity of es-Insertion in German." CLS 11: 81-91. Clement, D. 1982. Elaboration d'une syntaxe de l'allemand. Frankfurt a.M: P. Lang. Daalder, S. 1976/77. "Over relatieve zinnen met ingesloten antecedent." Spektator 6: 401-407. Daalder, S. & A. Blom. 1975/76. "De structured positie van reflexieve enreciproke pronomina." Spektator 5: 397-413. Daalder, S. see also Blom, A. & S. Daalder. Ebert. R.P. 1973. "On the Notion 'subordinate clause' in Standard German." You Take the High Node and III Take the Low Node, ed. by C. Corum et al., 164177. Chicago Linguistic Society. Ebert, RJ*. 1975a. "Subject Raising, the Clause Squish, and German scheinenconstructions." CLS 11: 177-187. Ebert, R J . 1975b. "A Functional Explanation of the Development of Extended Prenominal Participial Constructions in German and Why it Fails." Papers from the Parasession on Functionalism, ed. by R.E. Grossman et al., 150-155. Chicago Linguistic Society. Ebert, R.P. 1976. Infinitival Complement Constructions in Early New German. Tübingen: Niemeyer. (Linguistische Arbeiten, 30.) Edmonson, J.A. 1979. "Deutsche Wortstellung, gradiente Regelen und die doppelte Infinitivkonstruktion." Arbeitspapiere zur Linguistik 4. (Technische Universität, Berlin.) Edmonson, J.A. 1980. "Gradienz und die doppelte Infinitiv-Konstruktion im Deutschen." Papiere zur Linguistik no. 22: 59-82. Edmonson, J.A. 1982. Einführung in die Transformationssyntax des Deutschen. Tübingen: Nan. (Tübinger Beiträge zur Linguistik, 141.) Edmondson, J.A. & M. Lindau. 1974. "A Study of Swedish Pronominalization." UCLA Papers in Syntax no. 5: 1848. Edmonson, J.A. see also Besten, H.d. & J.A. Edmonson. Eisenberg, P. 1976. Oberflächenstruktur und logische Struktur. Untersuchungen zur Syntax und Semantik des deutschen Prädikatadjektivs. Tübingen: Niemeyer. (Linguistische Arbeiten, 36.) Embleton, S. 1979. "German Evidence for a Universal Clause Union Rule." Canadian Journal of Linguistics 24: 48-51. Engdahl, E. 1980a. The Syntax and Semantics of Questions in Swedish. Doctoral dissertation. University of Massachusetts, Amherst. Engdahl, E. 1980b. "tWi-Constructions in Swedish and the Relevance of Subjacency." Cahiers Linguistiques d'Ottawa 9: 89-108.

Appendix

437

Engdahl, E. 1980c. "Unbounded Dependencies with Bound Anaphors." The Nordic Languages and Modem Linguistics, ed. by E. Hovdhaugen, 251-262. Oslo: Universitetsforlaget. Engdahl, E. 1983. "Parasitic Gaps, Subject Extractions, and the ECP." Trondheim. (Working Papers in Scandinavian Syntax, 6.) Erteschik-Shir, N. & S. Lapin. 1979. "Dominance and the Functional Explanation of Island Phenomena." Theoretical Linguistics 6: 41-86. Esau, H. 1973. "Order of the Elements in the German Verb Constellation." Linguistics no. 98: 20-40. Everaert, M. 1980. "Inherent Reflexive Verbs and the zich/zichzelf Distribution." Utrecht Working Papers in Linguistics 10: 1-48. Everaert, M. 1981. "Zieh." Linguistics in the Netherlands 1981, ed. by S. Daalder & M. Gerritsen, 73-83. Amsterdam: North Holland. Everaert, M. 1982. "A Syntactic Passive in Dutch." Utrecht Working Papers in Linguistics 11: 38-74. Evers, A. 1975. The Transformational Cycle in Dutch and German. Doctoral dissertation, Utrecht. (Distributed by The Indiana University Linguistics Club, Bloomington, Ind.) Evers, A. 1981a. "Verb Second Movement Rules." Wiener Linguistische Gazette no. 26: 15-34. Evers, A. 1981b. "Two Functional Principles for the Rule Move V." GAGL 19: 96-110. Evers, A. 1982. "A Proposal for Sentence Qualifying Verbs." GAGL 21: 103-110. Evers, A. & T. Schölten. 1980. "A Dutch Answer to the Luiseno Argument." Utrecht Working Papers in Linguistics 9: 87-101. Evers, A. see also Schölten, T., A. Evers & M. Klein. Fanselow, G. 1981a Zur Syntax und Semantik der Nominalkomposition. Ein Versuch praktischer Anwendung der Montague-Grammatik auf die Wortbildung des Deutschen. Tübingen: Niemeyer. (Linguistische Arbeiten, 107.) Fanselow, G. 1981b. "Neues von der Kompositafront." Studium Linguistik no. 11: 43-57. Fanselow, G. 1982. Universale Grammatik und deutsche Syntax. Eine Anwendung der Government-and-Binding-77ieorie auf die Syntax des Deutschen. Unpublished. Universität Konstanz, Juni 1982. (248 p.) Fanselow, G. 1984a. "On the Sentential Nature of Prenominal Adjectives in German." Unpublished. Universität Passau. Fanselow, G. 1984b. "On the Configurationality of German Language." Unpublished. Universität Passau. Fanselow, G. 1984c. Deutsche Sprache und die Frage der Existenz nichtkonfigurationaler Sprachen. Unpublished. Universität Passau. (375 p.) Fanselow, G. 1984d. Das konzeptuelle System der Sprachfähigkeit. Unpublished. Universität Passau. (168 p.) Fanselow, G. 1985. "What is a Possible Complex Word." J. Toman, ed., 1985, 289-318. Felix, S. 1983. 'Tarasitic Gaps in German." GAGL no. 22:1-46. Fries, N. 1982. "S-double-bar: Zur Analyse von Komplementsätzen mit Korrelat im Deutschen." Unpublished. University of Thessaloniki. Grewendorf, G. 1983. "Reflexivierung in deutschen A.c.I.-Konstruktionen. Kein transformationsgrammatisches Dilemma mehr." GAGL no. 23: 120-196. Grewendorf, G. 1984a. "Reflexivierungsregeln im Deutschen." Deutsche Sprache 12: 14-30. Grewendorf, G. 1984b. "Anaphern bei Objekt-Koreferenz im Deutschen. Ein Problem für die Rektions-Bindungs-Theorie." W. Abraham, ed, 1985.

438

Appendix

Greaves, L. 1974. Extraposition in German: The Relation of es-lnsertion and daß -Elision to Extraction. B.A.-Thesis, Harvard Univesity. Groos, A. & H.C. van Riemsdijk. 1981. "Matching Effects in Free Relatives: A Parameter of Core-Grammar." Theory of Markedness in Generative Grammar. Proceedings of the 1979 GLOW Conference, ed. by A. Belletti, L. Brandi & L. Rizzi, 171-216. Pisa: Scuola Normale Superiore. Haaften, Ton van, R. Smits & J. Vat. 1983. "Left Dislocation, Connectedness, and Reconstruction." W.Abraham, ed., 1983, 133-154. Haan, G.J. de. 1980. "Onafhankelijke PP-komplementen van nomina." Spektator 9: 173-174. Haegeman, L. & H.C. van Riemsdijk. (forthcoming) "Meaning Preservation and the Organization of Grammar: Some Similarities between Züritüütsch and West Flemish." (GLOW-Conference, Copenhagen, April 1984.) Haegeman L. see also Bennis, H. & L. Haegeman. Haider, H. 1978. "Syntax in Kontrast." Wiener Linguistische Gazette no. 17: 45-64. Haider, H. 1979a. Wider die Transformationen. Argumente für eine interpretative Syntax. Dissertation. Universität Wien. Haider, H. 1979b. "Komposita: Regelreanalyse statt Transformation." Wiener Linguistische Gazette no. 21: 27-52. Haider, H. 1981a. "Empty Categories: On Some Differences Between English and German." Wiener Linguistische Gazette no. 25: 13-36. Haider, H. 1982a. "Dependenzen und Konfigurationen: Zur deutschen V-Projektion." GAGL no. 21: i-ü & 1-59. Haider, H. 1982b. "Die lexikalistische Hypothese hält: Derivationsmorphologisches aus Deutsch und Eskimoisch." Unpublished. Universität Wien. Haider, H. 1983a. Deutsche Syntax generativ - Eine Einführung in die Theorie von Rektion und Bindung. Unpublished. Universität Wien. (220 p.) Haider, H. 1983b. "Connectedness Effects in German." Unpublished. Universität Wien. Haider, H. 1985b. "Über sein und nicht sein: Zur Grammatik des Pronomens sich." W. Abraham, ed., 1985, 221-252. Haider, H. 1984. "Mona Lisa lächelt stumm: über das sogenannte Rezipientenpassiv." Linguistische Berichte no. 89: 32-42. Haider, H. 1985a. "The Case of German." 7. Toman, ed., 1985, 65-101. Harbert, W. 1977. "Clause Union and German Accusative plus Infinitive Constructions." Grammatical Relations, ed. by P. Cole and J.M. Sadock, 121-149. New York: Academic Press. (Syntax and Semantics, 8.) Harbert, W. 1983. "COMP Accessibility and the Projection Principle." NELS 13: 89-104. Hellan, L. 1983. Anaphora in Norwegian and the Theory of Binding. Trondheim. (Working Papers in Scandinavian Syntax, 5.) Höhle, T.N. 1978. Lexikalistische Syntax. Die Aktiv-Passiv-Relation und andere Infmitkonstruktionen im Deutschen. Tübingen: Niemeyer. (Linguistische Arbeiten, 67.) Höhle, T.N. 1980. "Empirische Generalisierung vs. Einfachheit. Zur Zuordnung zwischen formalen und logischen Eigenschaften von Sätzen im Deutschen." Empirische Rechtfertigung von Syntaxen, ed. by D. Clement, 61-71. Bonn: Bouvier. Höhle, T.N. 1982a. "Markiertheit, Linking, Regelformat. Evidenz aus dem Deutschen." Silben, Segmente, Akzente, ed. by Theo Vennemann, 99-139. Tübingen: Niemeyer.

Appendix

439

Höhle, T.N. 1982b. "Explikationen für 'normale Betonung* und 'normale Wortstellung'," W. Abraham, ed., 1982, 75-153. Höhle, T.N. 1982c. "Zur Konstituentenstruktur von Wortbildungsprodukten im Deutschen." Zeitschrift für Sprachwissenschaft 1: 76-112. Höhle, T.N. 1983a. "Topologische Felder." Pt. I & II. Unpublished. Universität Köln. Höhle, T.N. 1983b. "Subjektlücken in Koordinationen." Unpublished. Universität Köln. Höhle, T.N. 1985. "On Composition and Derivation: The Constituent Structure of Secondary Words in German." / Toman, ed., 1985, 319-376. (A slightly revised version of Höhle 1982c). Hoekstra, T. van 1978. "De status en plaats van het object." Aspekten van woordvolgorde in het Nederlands, ed. by J.G. Kooij, 40-69. Leiden. Hoekstra, T. van 1982. "Government and Left-Right Asymmetry between Dutch and English." Unpublished. University of Leiden. Hoekstra, T. van & M. Moortgat. 1979. "Passiefen het lexicon." Forum der Letteren 20: 137-161. Hoekstra, T. van see also Bennis, H. & T. van Hoekstra. Holmberg, A. 1983. The Finite Sentence in Swedish and English. Trondheim. (Working Papers in Scandinavian Syntax, 3.) Huber, W. 1982. Infinitivkomplemente im Deutschen. Transformationsgrammatische Untersuchungen zum Verb lassen. Dissertation. Freie Universität, Berlin. Huber, W. & W. Kummer. 1974. Transformationelle Syntax des Deutschen; I. München: Fink. Jakobs, J. 1983a. Syntax und Semantik der Negation im Deutschen. München: Fink. (Studien zur theoretischen Linguistik, 1.) Jakobs, J. 1983b. Fokus und Skalen. Zur Syntax und Semantik der Gradpartikeln im Deutschen. Tübingen: Niemeyer. (Linguistische Arbeiten, 138.) Kerstens, J. 1978/79. "Over wA-verplaatsing en cl-verplaatsing in het Nederlands." Spektator 8: 340-359. Kirkwood, H.W. 1977. "Discontinuous Noun Phrases in Existential Sentences in English and German." Journal of Linguistics 13: 53-66. Kirkwood, H.W. 1978. "Options and Constraints in the Surface Ordering of Noun Phrases in English and German." Journal of Pragmatics 2: 225-245. Klein, M. see Schölten, T., A. Evers & M. Klein. Kloeke, W.U.S. van Lessen. 1982. Deutsche Phonologie und Morphologie: Merkmale und Markiertheit. Tübingen: Niemeyer. (Linguistische Arbeiten, 117.) Koch Christensen, K. 1983. The Categorùl Status of Norwegian Infinitival Relatives. Trondheim. (Working Papers in Scandinavian Syntax, 4.) Kohrt, M. 1974. "Command and Rightward Movement Rules." Linguistische Berichte no. 30: 26-32. Kohrt, M. 1975. "A Note on Bounding." Linguistic Inquiry 6: 167-171. Kohrt. M. 1976a. Koordinationsreduktion und Verbstellung in einer generativen Grammatik des Deutschen. Tübingen: Niemeyer. (Linguistische Arbeiten, 41.) Kohrt, M. 1976b. "Extraposition in German: Evidence for Global Rules." Linguistic Inquiry 7: 729-732. Kohrt, M. 1978. "The Long and Winding Road to German SOV Aller-Retour, Taking the Short Cut." Linguistische Berichte no. 57: 69-73. Kohrt, M. 1979. "Verbstellung und doppelter Infinitiv im Deutschen." Leuvense Bqdragen 68: 1-31. Koopman, H. 1983. The Syntax of Verbs: From Verb in the Kru Languages to Universal Grammar. Dissertation draft. (334 p.)

440

Appendix

Kossuth, K.C. see Bishop, H.M. & K.C. Kossuth. Koster, J. 1975. "Dutch as an SOV Language." Linguistic Analysis 1:111-136. Koster, J. 1978. Locality Principles in Syntax. Dordrecht: Foris (Studies in Generative Grammar, 5.) Koster J. 1983/84. "Subjectsporen in het Nederlands." Spektator 13: 156-166. Kummer, W. see Huber, W. & W. Kummer. Kratzer, A. 1981. 'The Notional Category of Modality." Words, Worlds, and Contexts, ed. by H. Eikmeyer & H. Rieser, 38-74. Berlin: de Gruyter. (Research in Text Theory, 6.) Kvam, S. 1979. "Diskontinuierliche Anordnung von eingebetteten Infinitivphrasen im Deutschen. - Eine Diskussion der topologischen Einheiten Kohärenz und Inkohärenz."DeutscheSprache7: 315-325. Kvam, S. 1980. "Noch einmal diskontinuierliche Infinitivphrasen. - Bemerkungen zu einem Aufsatz von Dieter Wunderlich." Deutsche Sprache 8: 151-156. Kvam, S. 1983. Linksverschachtelung im Deutschen und Norwegischen. Eine kontrastive Untersuchung zur Satzverschränkung und Infinitivverschränkung in der deutschen und norwegischen Gegenwartssprache. Tübingen: Niemeyer. (Linguistische Arbeiten, 130.) Lang, E. 1977. Semantik der Koordinativen Verknüpfung. Berlin: Akademie-Verlag, (studia gramma tica, 14.) Lange, K.-P. 1978. "Subjekt-Inversion im Mittelfeld des deutschen Sates." Deutsche Sprache 6: 193-202. Lapin, S. see N. Erteschik & S. Lapin. Lenerz, J. 1977a. Zur Abfolge nominaler Satzglieder im Deutschen. Tübingen: Nan. (Studien zur deutschen Grammatik, 5.) Lernez, J. 1977b "Zum Einflus des 'Agens' auf die Worstellung im Deutschen." Akten des 11. Linguistischen Kolloquiums, vol. 1. ed. by H.W. Viethhen et al., pp. 133-142. Tübingen: Niemeyer. (Linguistische Studien, 49.) Lenerz, J. 1978. /Rezension von H. Pütz 1975/ Beiträge zur Geschichte der deutschen Sprache und Literatur (Tübingen), 100: 125-132. Lenerz, J. 1981a "Zu neueren Entwicklungen der generativen Transformationsgrammatik: die REST." Unpublished. Universität Münster. Lenerz, J. 1981b. "Zur Generierung der satzeinleitenden Position im Deutschen." Akten des 15. Linguistischen Kolloquiums, vol. 1, ed. by M. Kohrt & J. Lenerz, 171-182. (Linguistische Arbeiten, 98.) Lenerz, J. 1981c. "Zum gegenwärtigen Stand der Wortstellungsforschung." Beiträge zur Geschichte der deutschen Sprache und Literatur (Tübingen), 103: 6-30. Lenerz, J. 1984. Syntaktischer Wandel und Grammatiktheorie. Eine Untersuchung an Beispielen aus der Sprachgeschichte des Deutschen. Tübingen: Niemeyer. (Linguistische Arbeiten, 141.) Lenerz, J. 1985. "Diachronic Syntax: Verb-Position and COMP in German." J. Toman, ed., 1985, 103-132. Levin, L. & J. Simpson. 1981. "Quirky Case and the Structure of Icelandic Lexical Entires." CLS 17: 185-196. Leys, O. 1979. "Zur Systematisierung von es."Deutsche Sprache 7 : 28-34. Lindau, M. see Edmonson, J.A. & M. Lindau. Link, G. 1974. "Quantoren-Floating im Deutschen." Syntax und generative Grammatik, ed. by F. Kiefer & D.M. Perlmutter, vol. 2, 105-127. Frankfurt/M.: Athenaion. Lötscher, A. 1978. "Zur Verbstellung im Zürich-Deutschen und in anderen Varianten des Deutschen." Zeitschrift für Dialektologie und Linguistik 45: 1-29.

Appendix

441

Lötscher, A. 1981. "Abfolgeregeln fOr Ergänzungen im Mittelfeld." Deutsche Sprache 9:44-60. Lötscher, A. 1983. Satzakzent und funktionale Satzperspektive im Deutschen. Tübingen: Niemeyer (Linguistische Arbeiten, 127.) Lowenstamm, J. 1976. "Relative Clauses in Yiddish: A Case for Movement." University of Massachusetts Occasional Papers in Linguistics, ed. by J. Stillings, vol. 2: 117-134.1Also in Linguistic Analysis 3: 197-216./ Malch, D.L. 1976. "The Penthous Principle vs. The primacy Constraint: VO Order in German." Linguistische Berichte no. 44: 48-51. /see Reis, M. 1976a./ Maling, J. 1977. "Old Icelandic Relative Clauses: An Unbounded Deletion Rule." NELS1: 175-188. Maling, J. 1980. "Inversion in Embedded Clauses in Modem Icelandic." Islenskt mal ogalmenn malfraedi 2: 175-198. Maling, J. & A. Zaenen. 1978. "The Nonuniversality of a Surface Filter." Linguistic Inquiry 9: 475-497. Maling, J. & A. Zaenen. 1981. "Germanic Word Order and the Format of Surface Filters." Binding and Filtering, ed. by F. Heny, 255-278. Cambridge, MA.: The MIT Press. McCray, A.T. 1981. "Sentence Initial Elements in German." CLS 17: 205-220. McCray, A.T. 1982. 'The Left Dislocation Structure in German: Some Overlooked Sentence Types." CLS 18: 336-347. Moortgat, M. see Hoekstra, T. van & M. Moortgat. Nedjalkov, VP. 1976. Kausativkonstruktionen. Tübingen: Narr. (Studien zur deutschen Grammatik, 4.) /Originally in Russian, 1971./ Neijt, A. 1979. Gapping: A Contribution to Sentence Grammar. Dordrecht: Foris. (Studies in Generative Grammar, 7.) Ogulnick, K.A. 1983. Allomorphy in Linguistic Theory. Indiana University Linguistics Club. Olsen,S.1981. Problems of setm /scheinen Constructions and their Implications for the Theory of Predicate Sentential Complementation. Tübingen: Niemeyer. (Linguistische Arbeiten 96.) Olsen, S. 1982. "On the Syntactic Description of German: Topological Fields vs. X-bar-Theory." Sprachtheorie und angewandte Linguistik: Festschrift für A. WoUmann, ed. by W. Welte, 29-45. Tübingen: Narr. Olsen, S. 1985. "On Deriving V-l and V-2 Structures in German." J. Toman, ed., 1985,133-163. Perlmutter, David M. 1978. "Impersonal Passives and the Unaccusative Hypothesis." BLS 4: 157-189. Platzack, C. 1980. "The Swedish Past Participle. Some Arguments for a Lexical Redundancy Rule." Studia Linguistica (Lund) 34: 43-78. Platzack, C. 1982/83. "Transitive Adjectives in Swedisch: A Phenomenon with Implications for the Theory of Abstract Case." The Linguistic Review 2: 39-56. Platzack, C. 1983. Germanic Word Order and the COMP/INFLParameter. Trondheim. (Working Papers in Scandinavian Syntax, 2.) Plessis, H. du. 1977. "wA-Movement in Afrikaans." Linguistic Inquiry 8: 723-726. Pütz, H. 1975. Über die Syntax der Pronominalform es im modernen Deutsch. Tübingen: Nan. (Studien zur deutschen Grammatik, 3.) Reis, M. 1973. "Is there a Rule of Subject-to-Object Raising in German?" CLS 9:519-529. Reis, M. 1974. "Syntaktische Hauptsatz-Privilegien und das Problem der deutschen Wortstellung." Zeitschrift für germanistische Linguistik 2: 299-327.

442

Appendix

Reis, M. 1976a. "Penthouse Prinzip, Primacy Constraint und deutsche Wortstellung: Eine Erwiderung." Linguistische Berichte no. 46: 61-70. Reis, M. 1976b. "Zum grammatischen Status von Hilfsverben." Beiträge zur Geschichte der deutschen Sprache und Literatur (Tübingen), 98: 64-82. Reis, M. 1976c. "Reflexivierung in deutschen A.c.I.-Konstruktionen. Ein transformationsgrammatisches Dilemma." Papiere zur Linguistik no. 9: 5-82. Reis, M. 1980. "On Justifying Topological Frames: 'Positional Field' and the Order of Nonverbal Constituents in German." DRLA V: Revue de linguistique, no. 22/ 23: 59-85. Reis, M. 1982. "Zum Subjektbegriff im Deutschen." W.Abraham, ed., 1982,171-211. Reis, M. 1983a. "Les phrases tetues de 1'Allemand. Sur COMP, phrases principales et subordonnes, w-mouvement et le RESTe." DRLA V, Revue de linguistique no. 28: 97-132. Reis, M. 1983b. "Gegen die Kompositionstheorie der Affigierung." Zeitschrift für Sprachwissenschaft 2: 110-131. Reis, M. 1985. "Against Höhle's Compositional Theory of Affixation." J. Toman, ed., 1985, 377-406. (A revised version of Reis 1983b.) Reis, M. & H. Vater. 1981. "Beide." Wege zur Universalienforschung, ed. by G. Brettschneider & C. Lehmann, 365-391. Tübingen: Narr. Reuland, E. 1979. Principles of Subordination and Construal in the Grammar of Dutch. Dissertation. University of Groningen. Reuland, E. 1980. "V-Raising in Dutch: Anomalies Explained." CLS16: 269-281. Reuland, E. 1981a. "V-Hebung und strikte Subkategorisierung." GAGL no. 19. Reuland, E. 1981b. "Empty Subjects, Case and Agreement and the Grammar of Dutch." Binding and Filtering, ed. by F. Heny, 159-190. Cambridge, MA.: MIT Press. Reuland, E. 1983. "On the Subject of Nonargument Subjects." W. Abrahm, ed., 1983, 3-46. Riemsdijk, Henk v. 1976. "The Phonology and Syntax of the Preposition met (Vith') in Dutch." Green Ideas Blown Up, ed. by H. van Riemsdijk, 143-153. Universiteit van Amsterdam. (Publikaties van het Instituut voor Algemene Taalwetenschap, 13.) Riemsdijk, Henk v. 1978a. A Case Study in Syntactic Markedness: The Binding Nature of Prepositional Phrases. Lisse: de Ridder. (Also: Dordrecht: Foris. (Studies in Generative Grammar, 4.)) Riemsdijk, Henk v. 1978b. "On the diagnosis of w/i-Movement." Recent Transformational Studies in European Languages, ed. by J. Keyser, 189-206. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Riemsdijk, Henk v. 1981. "The Case of German Adjectives." Grammatical Categories: Auxiliaries and Related Puzzles, vol. 1, ed. by F. Heny & B. Richards. Dordrecht: Reidel. Riemsdijk, Henk v. 1982. "A Note on Case Absorption." Wiener Linguistische Gazette no. 27/28: 71-82. Riemsdijk, Henk v. 1983. "Correspondence Effects and the Empty Category Principle." Studies in Generative Grammar and Language Acquistion, ed. by Y. Otsu, et al. Tokyo: International Christian University. Riemsdijk, H. van. 1985. "On Pied-piped Infinitives in German Relative Clauses." / Toman, ed., 1985, 165-192. Riemsdijk, Henk v. & F. Zwarts. 1974. "Left Dislocation and the Status of Copying Rules." Unpublished. MIT & Universiteit van Amsterdam. Riemsdijk, Henk v. see also Groos, A. & H. van Riemsdijk.; Haegeman, L. & H. van Riemsdijk.

Appendix

443

Ross, J.R. 1974. "Some Cyclically Ordered Transformations in German Syntax." Papiere zur Linguistik no. 7: 50-79. Ross, J.R. 1979. "Wem der Kasus schlägt." Linguistische Berichte no. 63: 26-32. Safii, K. 1982. "Inflection, Government and Inversion" The Linguistic Review 1: 417-467. Safir, K. 1985. "Missing Subjects in German." J. Toman, ed., 1985, 193-229. Schölten, T., A. Evers & M. Klein. 1981. Inleiding in de transformationele-generatieve taaltheorie. Groningen: Wolters Noordhoff. Schölten, T. see also Evers, A. & T. Schölten. Siebert-Ott, G.M. 1983a. Kontroll-Probleme in infiniten Komplementkonstruktionen. Tübingen: Narr. (Studien zur deutschen Grammatik, 22.) Siebert-Ott, GM. 1983b. "Bemerkungen zu den Elementen einer Theorie der Kontrolle." GAGL no. 22: 127-143. Simpson, J. see Levin, L. & J. Simpson. Smits, R. see Haaften, T. v., R. Smits & J. Vat. Stechow, A. von. 1980. "Wie interessant ist die Syntax-Forschung heute?" Studium Linguistik no. 8/9: 32-59. Sternefeld, W. 1982a. Konfigurationelle und nichtkonfigurationelle Aspekte einer modularen Syntax des Deutschen. Universität Konstanz. (Bericht des SFB 99, no. 76.) Sternefeld, W. 1982b. "Government and V/2 in German." Unpublished. Universität Konstanz. Sternefeld, W. 1985. "On Case and Binding Theory."/ Toman, ed., 1985, 231-285. Straten, G. v. 1984. "Beziehungen zwischen morphologischem und abstraktem Kasus." Syntaktische Struktur und Kasusrelation, ed. by H. Czepluch & H. Jansen, 69-84. Tübingen: Narr. (Tübinger Beiträge zur Linguistik, 234.) Strauss, S.L. 1982. Lexicalist Phonology of English and German. Dordrecht: Foris. (Publications in Language Sciences, 9.) Tappe, H.-T. 1981. "Wer glaubst du hat recht? Einige Bemerkungen zur COMPCOMP-Bewegung im Deutschen." Akten des 15. Linguistischen Kolloquiums, vol. 1, ed. by M. Kohrt & J. Lenerz, 203-212. Tappe, H.-T. 1982. "VP and Coherent Infinitives in German." Unpublished. Universität Göttingen. Tappe, H.-T. 1984. "Überlegungen zu Passiv und Kasustheorie im Deutschen." Syntaktische Struktur und Kasusrelation, ed. by H. Czepluch & H. Jansen, 85106. Tübingen: Narr. (Tübinger Beiträge zur Linguistik, 234.) Taraldsen, K.T. 1978. "The Scope of wA-Movement in Norwegian." Linguistic Inquiry 9: 623-640. Taraldsen, K.T. 1981a. 'The Theoretical Interpretation of a Class of 'Marked' Extractions." Theory of Markedness in Generative Grammar. Proceedings of the 1979 GLOW Conference, ed. by A Belletti, L. Brandi & L. Rizzi, 475-516. Pisa: Scuola Normale Superiore. Taraldsen, K.T. 1981b. "Case-Conflict in Norwegian Topicalization." NELS 11: 377-398. Taraldsen, K.T. 1983. Som. Trondheim. (Working Papers in Scandinavian Syntax, 1)

Thiersch, C. 1978. Topics in German Syntax. Doctoral diss. Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Thiersch, C. 1982. "A Note on Scrambling and the Existence of VP." Wiener Linguistische Gazette no. 27/28: 83-96. Thrainsson, H. 1979. On Complementation in Icelandic. Doctoral dissertation. Harvard University. (Also: New York: Garland Press, 1982.)

444

Appendix

Toman, J. 1983. Wortsyntax: Eine Diskussion ausgewählter Probleme deutscher Wortbildung. Tübingen: Niemeyer. (Linguistische Arbeiten, 137.) Toman, J. 1985. "A Discussion of Coordination and Word-Syntax." J. Toman, ed., 1985,407-432. Toman, J., ed. 1984. Studies on German Grammar. Dordrecht: Foris. (Studies in Generative Grammar, 22.) Tracy, R. 1984. "Fallstudien: Überlegungen zum Erwerb von Kasuskategorie und Kasusmarkierung." Syntaktische Struktur und Kasusrelation, ed. by H. Czepluch & H. Jansen, 271-313. Tübingen: Narr. (Tübinger Beiträge zur Linguistik, 234.) Ulvestad, B. & H. Bergenholtz. 1979 & 1983. "Es als 'Vorgreifer' eines Objektsatzes." Deutsche Sprache 7: 97-116, & 11: 1-26. Vat, J. 1980. "Zieh en zichzelf" Linguistics in the Netherlands 1980, ed. by S. Daalder & M. Gerritsen, 127-138. Amsterdam: North-Holland. Vat, J. 1981. "Left Dislocation, Connectedness and Reconstruction." GAGL no. 20: 80-103. Vat, J. see also Haaften, Ton van, R. Smits & J. Vat. Vater, H. 1980, "Quantifier Floating in German." The Semantics of Determiners, ed. by J. van der Auwera, 232-249. London: Croom Helm. Vater, H. 1982. Strukturalismus und generative Grammatik. Trier: WVT. Vater, H. see also M. Reis & H. Vater. Velde, M. van de. 1977. "Der Nebensatztyp 'ein Umstand, den zu berücksichtigen er vergißt' im Deutschen und im Niederländischen." Studio Germanica Gandensia 18: 73-118. Velde, M. van de. 1979. Zum Vorfeld im heutigen Deutschen. Dissertation. Gent. Vögeding, 1981. Das Halbsuffix -frei. Zur Theorie der Wortbildung. Tübingen: Narr. (Studien zur deutschen Grammatik, 14.) Voorst, J. van 1983. "Anaphor Binding and Directional PP's in Dutch." CLS 19: 368-395. Wagner, F. 1977. Untersuchungen zur Reflexivkonstruktion im Deutschen. Frankfurt/M.: Lang. Weber, H. 1977. Kleine generative Syntax des Deutschen: I. Traditionelle Syntax und generative Grammatik. Niemeyer: Tübingen. (Germanistische Arbeitshefte, 11.)

Wunderlich, D. 1980. "Diskontinuierliche Infinitivphrasen im Deutschen. Anmerkungen zu einem Aufsatz von Sigmund Kvam "Deutsche Sprache 8: 145-151. Wunderlich, D. 1984a. "Zur Syntax der Präpositionalphrasen im Deutschen." Zeitschrift für Sprachwissenschaft 3: 65-99. Wunderlich, D. 1984b. "Über die Argumente des Verbs." Unpublished. Universität Düsseldorf. Zaenen, A. 1979. "Infinitival Complements in Dutch." CLS 15: 378-389. Zaenen, A. 1980. Extraction Rules in Icelandic. Doctoral dissertation. Harvard University. Zaenen, A. see also Maling, J. & A. Zaenen. Zeh, M. 1980. Kasuszuweisung und Prinzipien der satzsemantischen Interpretation. Ein Beitrag zur Grammatik des Deutschen. Dissertation. J.W. Goethe-Universität, Frankfurt/M. Zimmermann, I. 1984. "Die Rolle des Lexikons in der Grammatik. Überlegungen zu grammatiktheoretischen Entwicklungen anhand des Passivs und der Subjektanhebung im Deutschen, 1." Deutsch als Fremdsprache 21:8-17. Zwarts, F. 1978. "Extractie uit prepositionale woordgroepen in het Nederlands." Proeven van Neerlandistiek, ed. by A. van Berkel, 303-399. Groningen: Nederlands Inst. Zwaits, F. see also Riemsdijk, H.v. & F. Zwarts.

Index of Names

Abraham, Werner vi, 24,99 Akmajian, Adrian 11,160 Andrews, Avery 61 Aoun, Joseph 186, 225,227, 241 Aronoff, Mark 14,15, 367, 369,401 Äugst, Gerhard 302 Bach, Emmon 9,10,135,194, 312 Bakker, D.M. 430,431 Baltin, Mark 128 Barwise, J. 312 Bäuerle, Rainer 289 Bartsch, Renate 134 Bayer, Josef 189,289, 315 Bean, Marian Callaway 123,128 Bech, Gunnar 275, 263, 272, 273 Bechert, Johannes 18,134 Behaghel, Otto 103,106, 293 Bennet, Michael 301, 313 Bennis, Hans 28, 34, 35,41, 227 den Besten, Hans 11, 12, 13, 23, 25, 26, 27, 30, 32, 33, 45, 47, 51, 57,60,92, 104, 159, 160, 188, 197, 214, 216, 219,225,227,259 Bever, Thomas G. 109 Bierwisch, Manfred 2,10,135,194 Boase-Beier, Jean vi, 419 Booij, Geert 430 Bopp, J.402 Blom, Alied 27 Breckenridge, Janet 196,223 Brekle, Herbert 289, 294, 313 Breznan, Joan 151, 207 Brinkmann, Hennig 5 Buck, Carl D. 394 Burzio, Luigi 26, 33, 38, 45, 46, 67, 69, 72, 86, 219, 226, 233, 238, 240, 254, 259,279,315 Carden, Guy 407 Carstensen, Broder 391,402

Carter, Richard 308, 309, 310 Chisholm, David 368 Chomsky, Noam 1, 3, 14, 15, 28, 29, 30, 35, 37, 50, 65, 67, 68, 69, 70,85, 91, 97, 100, 117, 133, 134, 189, 141, 144, 151, 158, 160, 194, 198, 199, 200, 201, 202, 203, 204, 206, 214, 223, 224, 227, 231, 232, 233, 234, 239, 240, 241, 243, 244, 247, 265, 278, 283, 290, 291, 292, 294, 313, 316, 321,367,372,408,419 Cinque, Guglielmo 165, 166, 181, 188, 190 Clément, Danièle 134 Cooper, Robin 313 Culicover, Peter 289 Czepluch, Hartmut 28, 90,91 Daalder, Saskia 27 Dokulil, Milos 401 Dressier, Wolfgang 97 Dummet, Michael 73 Edmonson, Jerold 27,104,134,137,138, 140 Egli, Urs 312 Emonds, Joseph E. 135 Engel, Ulrich 135,160,161 Esau, Helmut 135 Everaert, Maxtin 27,62 Evers Arnold vi, 10, 13, 27, 31,181, 231, 262 Fanselow, Gisbert 18, 98, 99, 293, 294, 299, 307, 313, 314, 315, 403, 422, 423 Felix, Sascha 115 Fleischer, Wolfgang 388, 390, 395, 401, 403,404,405 Fleischmann, Klaus 111 Fodor, Janet Dean 313

446

Index of Names

Fourquet, Jean 1 1 8 , 1 2 2 , 1 2 7 Frege, Gottlob 73 Freidin, Robert 199 Gadler, H. 260 Glinz, Hans 5 Greenberg, Joseph 9 , 1 0 Grewendorf, Günther vi, 89, 2 5 4 , 2 5 5 Griesbach, Heinz 138 Grimm, Jacob & Wilhelm 381 Groos, Anneke 28 Gruber, Jeffrey 199 Gueron, Jacqueline 188, 189, 292 Gust, M. 402 de Haan, G.J. 2 7 , 4 0 , 4 1 Haider, Hubert vi, 23, 4 7 , 74, 75, 78, 92, 93, 96, 97, 98, 165, 188, 232, 234 Halle, Morris 1 4 , 1 8 6 , 321, 367 Haller, Luise 289 Heim, Irene 313, 314 Heringer, Jürgen 3 Heusler, Andreas 103 Higginbotham, James 289 Hoberg, Ursula 260 Höhle, Tilman v, vi, 6, 9 , 1 0 , 1 8 , 1 6 0 , 1 6 5 , 187, 188, 208, 275, 289, 292, 298, 310, 313, 314, 315, 319, 325, 356, 366, 367, 372, 373, 377-390, 393396, 398, 400, 401, 402, 403, 404, 305,408,428,429,430 Hoekstra, Teun 62, 1 8 5 , 1 9 1 , 4 2 9 Holst, Friedrich 368 Horacek, Blanka 106, 107, 111, 124, 129 Huber, Walter 1 0 , 1 1 , 1 4 , 1 8 , 134 van den Hülst, Harry 429 Hust, Joel R, 322 Huybregts, Riny 1 8 4 , 1 9 0 Jackendoff, Ray 14, 15, 199, 322, 408, 409,414,424 Kageyama, Taro 423 Kamp, J A.W. 296 Kayne, Richard 73, 82, 91, 185, 186, 190,191,198,203,226 Kean, Mary-Louise 292 Kiparsky, Paul 355, 3 6 8 , 4 0 4 , 4 2 8 Klima, Edward S. 7, 8, 9 , 1 0 , 1 4

Klinge, M. 4 0 2 Koch, S. 307 Kohrt, Manfred v Koopman, Hilda 13 Koster, Jan v, 10, 33, 38, 40, 117, 135, 186,194, 232,244,246,296 Kratzer, Angelika 297 Kummer, Werner 1 0 , 1 1 , 1 4 , 1 3 4 Lakoff, George 3 Lambert, Pamela Jean 104 Langacker, Ronald W. 324 Langendoen, D. Terence 109 Lasnik, Howard 1 3 3 , 1 5 8 Latour, Bernd 370 Lee, Duk Ho 123 Lenerz, Jürgen v, 6, 24, 42, 47, 53, 54, 127, 128, 134, 140, 141, 142, 150, 159, 160, 161, 189, 259, 260, 261, 2 8 9 , 3 1 4 , 371 LeSourd, Philip vi, 289 Loetscher, Andreas 28, 262 Lerner, Jean-Yves 262 Lieber, Rochelle 17, 292, 298, 299, 310, 311,312,315,401,405,429 Lightfoot, David 290 Longobardi, Giuseppe 1 6 6 , 1 8 4 Lukoff, F . 1 Lutzeii, Peter 313 Mabrey, Craig 289, 314 Makino, Seiichi 309 Mailing, Joan 221, 227 Manzini, Rita 224 Marcus, Mitchell 291 Matthews, G.H. 1 , 9 , May, Robert 1 1 7 , 1 8 6 , 2 2 4 , 2 8 9 , 292 McKay, Terence vi Milsark, Garry 225 Montague, Richard 296, 298, 312, 313 Moortgat, Michael 4 0 9 , 4 2 9 Mötsch, Wolfgang 1 6 , 4 0 4 , 4 0 5 Muysken, Pieter 178 Nanni, Debbie L. 187 Noordhof, H. 190 Öhmann, Emil 395 Olsen, Susan vi, 103, 127, 128, 319, 370, 377

Index of Names

447

Partee, Barbara 296 Perlmutter, David 45 Perry, J.312 Pesetsky, David 195,407 Plank, Frans 403,405 PJatzack, Christer 30, 75, 92, 98, 116, 117,127,128 Pörksen, Uwe 4 , 5 Porzig, W. 5 Postal, Paul 424 Prinzhorn, Martin vi Pütz, Herbert 226 Reinhart, Tanya 29, 243, 289, 292, 313 Reis, Marga vi, 18, 66, 83, 127, 140, 160, 161, 253, 255, 261, 277, 289, 313, 314,366,377 Reuland, Eric 151,153,161,225, 227 van Riemsdijk, Henk 6, 40, 41, 45, 186, 178,180,184,188,189 Rizzi, Luigi 212, 214, 248, 267, 268 Rogovin, Syrell 1, 9,10 Rohrer, Christian 394 Ross, John R. 2,166 Rouveret, Alain 30,198, 200 Safir, Ken 10, 39, 117, 145, 148, 149, 194, 198, 200, 207, 212, 219, 220, 222, 225,227 Sag, Ivan 313 Schnitzer, M. 291 Schönfelder, G. 402 Schultink, Henk 403 Schulz, Dora 128 Selkirk, Elisabeth 17,424,429 Shannon, Ann 127 Siebenkotten, M. 402 Siegel, Dorothy 367 Sportiche, Dominique 227,241 Stachowiak, Franz 306 Staudacher, Peter 289 von Stechow, Arnim vi, 238, 301,303 Steele, Susan 117

146, 147, 203, 204, 223, 224,

259, 289,

Steglich, Wilhelm 430 Sternefeld, Wolfgang 99, 149, 238, 259, 262,289 Stillings, Justine T. 187 Stowell, Timothy 29, 100, 185, 186, 215, 225,278 Strauss, Steven L. 312, 371 Tappe, Thilo vi, 23, 47, 165, 177, 191,262,276 Thiersch, Craig vi, 10, 23, 24, 47, 140,160,194, 214, 262 Thümmel, Wolf vi, 134 Torris, Thérèse vi Toman, Jindnch 17, 81, 128, 222, 289, 292, 310, 314, 315, 319, 341, 366, 369, 377, 399, 401, 408,409,410,412,419,430

188, 134,

226, 325, 404,

Ullmer-Ehrich, Veronika 134 Vanacker, V.F. 27 Vater, Heinz 18,134,160 van de Velde, Marc 123,177,186,189 Vergnaud, Jean-Roger 31,186,198, 200 Verkuyl, Hendrik 27 Vögeding, Joachim 319, 368,402,404 Wackernagel, Jacob 114,120 Wagner, Karl-Heinz 134 Wasow, Thomas 25, 76, 117,160 Whitney, William Dwight 315 Williams, Edwin 17, 45, 88, 93, 95, 100, 184, 188, 218, 226, 236, 251, 292, 299, 312, 371, 372,401,414,429 Woodworth Page 377 Wunder, Dieter 127,128 Wunderlich, Dieter 18 Wurzel, Wolfgang-Ullrich 316, 367,416 Ye-ok, Oh 289 Zaenen, Annie 221,227 Zepiö, Stanko 302 Zimmermann, Ede 289