The Syntax and Semantics of the Left Periphery 9783110912111, 9783110181210

Citation preview

The Syntax and Semantics of the Left Periphery

W G DE

Interface Explorations 9

Editors

Artemis Alexiadou T. Alan Hall

Mouton de Gruyter Berlin · New York

The Syntax and Semantics of the Left Periphery edited by

Horst Lohnstein Susanne Trissler

Mouton de Gruyter Berlin · New York

Mouton de Gruyter (formerly Mouton, The Hague) is a Division of Walter de Gruyter GmbH & Co. KG, Berlin.

© Printed on acid-free paper which falls within the guidelines of the ANSI to ensure permanence and durability.

ISBN 3-11-018121-5 Bibliographic information published by Die Deutsche Bibliothek Die Deutsche Bibliothek lists this publication in the Deutsche Nationalbibliografie; detailed bibliographic data is available in the Internet at .

© Copyright 2004 by Walter de Gruyter GmbH & Co. KG, 10785 Berlin All rights reserved, including those of translation into foreign languages. No part of this book 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 in writing from the publisher. Cover design: Christopher Schneider, Berlin. Printed in Germany.

Content

Theoretical developments of the left periphery Horst Lohnstein and Susanne Trissler

1

The syntactic integration of preposed adverbial clauses on the German left periphery: A diachronic perspective Katrin Axel

23

Decomposing the left periphery Dialectal and cross-linguistic evidence Josef Bayer

59

Head-movement in minimalism, and Y2 as FORCE-marking Ellen Brandner In front of the prefield - inside or outside the clause? Franz Josef d'Avis Uniformity and variation: On the relation of wh-phrases and sentence mood in German Jan Eden

97

139

179

Notes on the syntax and the pragmatics of German Left Dislocation Werner Frey

203

Inflectional morphology and sentence mood in German Horst Lohnstein and Ursula Bredel

235

ET, parasitic gaps, and German clause structure Uli Lutz

265

Verb position, verbal mood and the anchoring (potential) of sentences Andre Meinunger

313

vi

Content

Nonstandard vv/i-questions and alternative checkers in Pagotto Hans-Georg Obenauer

343

The particle Ii and the left periphery of Slavic yes/no interrogatives Kerstin Schwabe

385

Binding by verbs: Tense, person, and mood under attitudes Arnim von Stechow

431

Complementizer selection and the properties of complement clauses in German Angelika Wöllstein

489

Index

519

Theoretical developments of the left periphery Horst Lohnstein and Susanne Trissler

The left periphery of natural language sentences has been intensively studied in generative grammar since the early days. A rich array of perspectives has been unfolded and it is the aim of this volume to collect these views and to present an overview which reflects the general picture of present day investigations. It has grown out of a workshop at the annual meeting of the German Linguistic Society (Deutsche Gesellschaft für Sprachwissenschaft) in Mannheim in the year 2002. The various contributions mainly deal with German, but also take into account languages with properties relevant for universal characterizations of the clausal left periphery. Functional categories constituting the structural configurations of this domain are - at least for the European languages - motivated to a great deal by categories of the morphological system. On the other hand, they offer structural positions which serve as targets for movement processes. Usually, this movement affects the semantic interpretation of the pertinent clauses and leads to systematic effects with respect to information structure and/or illocutionary force determination. As can be seen from the theoretical developments during the last decades, questions of syntactic and semantic structure formation took place along rather different and separate lines and it is a rather intricate matter to bring these two lines of investigation together. In order to do so, the semantic values of the regular syntactical objects and processes have to be formulated and need to be related to intuitive adequate semantic representations by compositional operations. In the following section, we would like to give a short overview of the theoretical developments during the historical course. Starting in the early sixties, Katz and Postal (1964) proposed two morphemes Q and I (abbreviations for question and imperative, respectively) in order to account for the illcutionary force interpretation of declarative in contrast to interrogative and imperative sentence types. Omitting a semantic interpretation which makes use of hypersentences, they claimed that the morphemes - inserted into the phrase marker at d-structure - have lexically determined meaning components coming close to paraphrases like the

2

Horst Lohnstein and Susanne Trissler

speaker asks, requests, demands .... While the Q (resp. I) morpheme was intended only to indicate that the sentence is a question (resp. imperative), the function of the wh-phrase(s) was to specify the questioned elements. This means that Katz and Postal assumed a mood or force marking element at the left periphery together with the lexical make-up of phrases in order to determine the force properties of clauses. Several approaches of today are elaborations of these ideas (see e.g. Cheng 1991). However, Ross (1967) observed that Α-bar movement shifting whphrases to the left periphery cannot apply freely, but is restricted by various constraints, especially the well-known complex NP and the wh-island constraint. While short movement to the next left peripheral landing site is rather unproblematic, long movement, crossing boundaries, seems to be restricted by general principles. A unified account - based on Chomsky's (1973) considerations about boundaries - was presented with Chomsky's (1981) bounding theory which takes NP and IP to be boundig nodes. The generalization was that movement cannot cross more than one bounding node. Then, extraction from a complement clause has to leave an intermediate trace in the left periphery of the embedded structure. For left dislocation constructions not being subject to subjacency it follows that adjunction in the left peripheral base position of the main clause is a grammatical option. In the case of extraction, the trace in the intermediate position together with the trace in the base position of the moved phrase gave rise to considerations about extraction and barriers for government (Chomsky 1986). The empty category principle (ECP) - stating that empty categories have to be properly governed - determined the formal conditions of licensing of traces in base and intermediate positions. Asymmetries between subject and object phrases are reflected with respect to two ways of proper government: object traces are governed lexically, while subject traces are in need to be antecedent governed from the left peripheral position. Beside the formulation of the ECP and more finegrained concepts of subjacency, Chomsky (1986) proposed a consequent generalization of X-bar theory which transfers properties of the phrasal structure of lexical categories to the functional categories IP and CP. Establishing functional categorie as core elements of sentential structure allowed for fruitful investigations of the morphosyntactic properties of clause and NP-structure in general. Pollock's (1989) observations about the distribution of adverbs and finite and infinite verbs in French versus English gave rise to a more detailed elaboration of the functional category IP, which subsumed AGR and Tense as functional elements under a single functional node. The separation of

Theoretical developments of the left periphery these elements and their interpretation as functional heads led to the so called split-IP-hypotheses which could account particularly well for several cross linguistic variations. Rizzi's (1997) investigations of left peripheral occurences of topic and focus constitutents in Italian led to a further extension of the set of functional categories. The resulting structural configurations are suitible to represent an articulated topic focus structure in syntax proper. This so-called split-CP-hypotheses claims that sequences of topic phrases may be grouped around a single focus phrase at the left periphery of the clause. Cinque (1999) assumes a universal inventory of functional heads which is subject to Bakers's mirror principle. It induces a hierarchy of functional positions which determines a universal ordering of the set of functional categories. Beside the positions of adverbial heads, tense, mood, and force play a crucial role in this set. As pointed out by Rizzi (1997), the domain in which force features are settled has a twofold function according to its interface properties: The outer part links the proposition to discourse or higher ordered grammatical categories, while its inner part connects force features to the proposition the sentence expresses. In the minimalist framework (Chomsky 1998, 2001), the derivational objects correponding to the nodes at the left periphery are conceptualized as phases. A phase is a syntactic object derived from a particularized lexical array. Since only CP and vP are phases, the phase object resembles configurations well known from the barriers framework, where adjunction to VP was a syntactic option as well as antecedent government from the left periphery was necessary for licencing traces not lexically governed. Once a phase is completed, no further operation may take place, as the phase impenetrability condition states. Completing the phase at the left periphery closes it off against any further operations. Under the guiding idea of rigorous minimalism, Grohmann (2003) assumes a tripartite clause structure consisting of three Prolific Domains: (i) Θ, for thematic relations, (ii) φ, for agreement properties, and (iii) Ω, for discourse information. The domains are prolific in the sense that they can contain a number of projections. The left peripheral and highest domain Ω is filled with projections relevant for the connection to the discourse and contains projections of various heads: force, topic and focus, similar to Rizzi's (1997) approach. Beside syntactic investigations, semantics has dealt with questions about the semantic structure and objects representing the meaning of declaratives and non-declaratives. Especially since Montague (1974), non-declaratives

3

4

Horst Lohnstein and Susanne Trissler

have become a prominent topic in semantic investigations.The truth and entailment conditions have been assumed to be inappropriate in connection with imperatives and interrogatives and had to be replaced by fulfillment conditions and characterizations of the semantic content of correct answers. It was Hamblin (1976) who proposed the idea to analyze the semantic value of a question as the set of all possible answers to it. His main idea consists in the extension of the combination of functors and arguments. While functional application was understood as to apply one functor to one argument, Hamblin provided a way to combine sets of functors to sets of arguments, thereby deriving the semantic value of a question as a set of possible answers. Karttunen (1976), on the other hand, observed that verbs like say which are compatible with both +wh- and -wh-complemts presuppose the truth of the +wh-complement in contrast to -wh-complements. This observation, among others, lede Karttunen to assume that the semantic value for a question should usefully be restricted to the set of true answers. Because these approaches dealt with the semantic side of questions and the formal properties of sytactic systems not conform with natural language syntax, they attached little importance to the structural properties of natural language sentence type formation. However, Hausser (1980) proposed a theory which discriminates the various clausal types by assigning them different logical types. According to this theory, declaratives are assigned the type for propositions, imperatives denote properties of individual concepts and are of type , while interrrogatives denote functions from indices into sets of functions from answer-intensions into truth values and are, therefore, of type < s , « s , a > , t > > , where α is the type of the answer. This approach diversifies the semantic values of the various sentence types and is hardly relatable to a uniform treatment of the phenomenon of a single mood component. Another approach, developed by Groenendijk and Stokhof (1982, 1997), analyzed questions as index dependent propositions, in contrast to Hamblin and Karttunen, who assumed questions to form sets of propositions. An index dependent proposition induces a partition on the space of indices resulting in the class of possible answers. The semantic value of an index dependent proposition depends on the facts at some index. The formula λί[ a(a) = a(i)] indicates the set of all indices i having the same semantic value for α as the index a. a can be an expression of any type. While this formula captures actual reality, the intension of this expression, the propositional concept λαλϊ[ a(a) - a(i)] captures all possibilities,

Theoretical developments of the left periphery

5

namely the denotation of α at all indices. From this expression, the semantic value of a y/n- or a wh-question is derivable as a partition of incides, which has two parts in the case of y/n-questions and η parts in the case of wh-questions. This semantic object is the same Higginbotham (1993, 1997) develops with the aims of probability theory. A combination of syntactic and semantic theorizing about the left periphery is proposed by the theory of Brandt et al. (1992). There, sentence moods result from the interaction of sentence type features together with lexically determined phrasal features. Only if the latter c-commands the former, sentence mood effects take place, thereby accounting for so-called wh-imperatives and partial wh-movement. Brandt et al. introduce a special operator OFFEN (OPEN) which assigns a proposition a kind of reference which is in need of specification. The theory derives the various sentence moods and illocutionary force by using only the regular grammatical means. Von Stechow (1992, 2001) uses a Hamblin/Karttunen semantics for the representation of question meanings in Transparent Logical Form. The whfeature at the left periphery receives a semantic interpretation of the form Aq λρ[ ρ = q ], deriving a set of propositions by functional application of the left peripheral functional head bearing the wh-feature and the proposition. Lohnstein (2000, 2001) develops a sentence mood theory that makes crucial use of the morphological category verbal mood, the lexical specification of ±wh-phrases and the syntactic processes of Α-bar and head movement. This theory uses the concept of the partition in the sense of Groenendijk and Stokhof (1982, 1997) as a central term to represent the semantic values for sentence moods. It relates systematic kinds of modifications of the partition structure to syntactic movement processes in order to derive the various sentence moods from the interaction of the participating grammatical means in a strictly compositional fashion. We now want to change over from this short overall view to the particular contributions in this volume. They are ordered alphabetically. The paper from KATRIN AXEL The syntactic integration of preposed adverbial clauses on the german left periphery: a diachronic perspective examines the diachonic processes of syntactic integration of preposed adverbial clauses in German. As is documented up to the very early stages of Old High German (OHG), preposed adverbial clauses appear to be in a position left to the initial constitutent of the (declarative) sentence they

6

Horst Lohnstein and Susanne Trissler

modify. This gave rise to the assumption that the verb second constraint usually assumed for German declaratives since the OHG period - is violated in favor of a verb third construction. While this construction is attested until the period of Early New High German (ENHG), it disappears at the end of this period and is ungrammatical in Present Day German. However, there exists a restricted class of adverbial clauses allowing for a verb third construction as the conditional clauses in (1) show. (1)

a.

b.

[Wenn er auch ständig gähnt], sein Verstand arbeitet If he also permanently yawns, his mind works messerscharf. precisely. 'Even if he yawns permanently, his mind works precisely.' [Selbst wenn er schläft], seine Stiefel zieht er nicht aus. Even if he sleeps, his boots takes he not off. 'Even if he sleeps, he does not take off his boots.'

But the core cases of modifying adverbial clauses lead to ungrammaticality if preposed in front of the initial constituent in declaratives as witnessed by the examples in (2). (2)

a.

b.

*Bevor/nachdem/weil sie die Party verlassen hat, ihr Before/after/because she the party left has, her Cocktail-Bedarf war gedeckt. Cocktail need was satisfied. 'Before/after/because she has left the party, her Cocktail demands were met.' Bevor/nachdem/weil sie die Party verlassen hat, war ihr Cocktail-Bedarf gedeckt.

For the OHG adverbial clauses it is assumed that their syntactic status differs from their modern counterparts: although subordinated they are not syntactically embedded clauses. It can be observed that during the ENHG period the use of adverbial clauses as an [adverbial clause - Vfin]-pattern increases drastically. This suggests strongly that the process - from subordination to syntactic embedding - took place during that period. As Katrin Axel proposes, the possibility arose to base-generate the adverbial clause in the specifier position of the C-Domain of the modified sentence.

Theoretical developments of the left periphery

7

This hypothesis is compared with other proposals trying to explain the process of syntactic integration of adverbial clauses: (i) with König and van der Auwera's (1988) proposal that a continuum f r o m parataxis to embedding exists which relates increasing clause integration to increasing V-2 character, (ii) with Lenerz (1984), who investigated the emergence of clausal subordinators from lexical elements, especially prepositions specified by 'dass', which is lost if the complex elements occupy the COMPposition of subordinating clauses. In his contribution Decomposing the Left Periphery - Dialectal and Cross-linguistic Evidence, JOSEF BAYER deals with the organization of the left periphery of embedded and main clauses and its variations in terms of morphology-driven different realizations of feature structure. The general idea is that languages are uniform with regard to the features necessary to be expressed in the structure of certain clause-types but differ in the featural makeup of available lexical forms, which leads to apparently different surface forms for the same feature structure. Bayer focuses on the Cdomain and the features necessary for the representation of yes/no- and whinterrogatives, both as embedded and as root clauses. The main evidence discussed in his paper comes from dialectal data f r o m German and Dutch with doubly filled COMPs, as, for example, in Frog's doch, wia lang dass's no dobleim woin! ('Ask them how long they still want to stay!') and forms of so called CP-recursion in substandard Dutch, as, for example, in Ze weet, wie of dat hij had willen opbellen ('She knows who he wanted to call.'), and from comparisons to the structure of head-final East-Asian and South-Asian languages. Bayer argues that the syntactic architecture of these languages which lack a left-peripheral encoding of the relevant features strongly resembles the surface form of languages like German, Dutch, and English once structural variations induced by morphological variation are taken into account. In the first part of the paper, Bayer takes up the structure and the feature content of embedded interrogative clauses. Based on diachronic and synchronic data from a variety of European languages and a comparison to the realization of corresponding features as (bound) morphemes in Eastand South-Asian languages, he argues that the full realization of an interrogative clause requires the specification of a feature set , where wh is the usual feature of a w/i-expression, and C is a subordination feature known from languages which exhibit doubly filled COMPs. disj (or Q) is a feature for disjunctivity which is derived from the semantics of disjunctive questions. In discussing the advantages of the so-called partition approach for the semantics of questions, Bayer argues that this feature is

8

Horst Lohnstein and Susanne Trissler

necessary for w/z-interrogatives as well. Driven by this feature specifications, the full structure of interrogative clauses expands to something like [disjP SpecdisjP [Disj' Disj [CP c [ IP]]]]» a n d languages differ in their ability to satisfy this structure in one step by an adequate feature specification of available wh-expressions or to require additional steps of Merge. According to Bayer, w/i-expressions in Modern English are specified for the full feature set , with no need to insert an additional element in C, while in variants of German or Dutch which show doubly filled COMPs or CP-recursion, wh-expressions lack the C-feature or even the disj-feature which leads to additional Merge operations to provide these features. The second part of the paper deals with root clauses and the syntactic representation of illocutionary force. Essentially following the idea that verb-second phenomena should be explained as a process of visualization of features of illocutionary force, Bayer argues that while the activation of force features by I-to-C movement of the finite verb seems to be an important factor, there remain a variety of problems for such an approach, among them (i) the existence of embedded verb-second clauses in German (and varieties of English), (ii) the existence of root clauses with the finite verb in final position, and (iii) the ambiguity of clauses with verb-second or verbfirst order with regard to various types of illocutionary force. As Bayer suggests, the answer to the question of how illocutionary features enter the clausal architecture may turn out to require underspecified structures and dynamic interpretation at the interface between clause and discourse. The contribution from ELLEN BRANDNER Head-Movement in Minimalism and V72 as FORCE-marking addresses questions of clausal typing in a minimalist framework under the special perspective of verbal head movement and XP-movement to the left sentence periphery. Both movements are assumed to be necessary for clausal typing, since there do not exist any lexical items to mark explicitly the (illucotioary) FORCE of main clauses in the Germanic V/2 languages. Based on Cheng's (1991) Clausal Typing Hypothesis, Brandner proposes the view that the specification for TENSE and FORCE necessary to be specified for every proposition underlies legibility conditions: TENSE and FORCE values must a) be part of the main projection line and b) have scope over all verbal projections. From these conditions it follows that FORCE elements occur either at the left or the right periphery of the clause. However, another distinction concerns the explicitness of clausal typing. Since Japanese marks interrogatives with the particle -no at the right pe-

Theoretical developments of the left periphery

9

riphery, it does not mark decleratives with any particle, as opposed to Korean marking all sentence types with some particle. While Korean is assumed to be a language explicitly marking the clause type, Japanese is taken not to explicitly mark the clausal type. This characterization is carried over to the differences between V/2 languages on the one hand and English or French on the other. Accordingly,V/2 languages explicitly mark for clausal typing, while English and French do not. The second part of the paper deals with special kinds of V/l sentences whose varying FORCE values are taken to result from underspecification, because no XP-movement in front of the finite verb has taken place in these main clauses. However, it could be assumed that an empty (FORCE-) operator occupies the position left to the moved verb. But this assumption does not hold, because the visible counterparts to empty operators are particles which are heads and therefore cannot occupy XP-positions. Targeting the more general question of how (adverbial) clauses are integrated into a main clause and the notion of varying degrees of subordinateness, FRANZ-JOSEF D'AVIS' In Front of the Prefield - Inside or Outside the Clause? deals with the status of the syntactic position immediately preceding the prefield of German V2-clauses and the syntactic and semantopragmatic properties of a certain class of adverbial clauses, namely conditionals of irrelevance (ICs). ICs can be subclassified into three main types: the alternative type, the universal type, and the scalar type, with ob/whether-clmses, vv/i-clauses, and (auch) wenn...(auch)/(Even) if...clauses as their typical (verb-final) realizations, respectively. Semantically, ICs are characterized as being related to the proposition of the main clause, but irrelevant for the truth of this proposition. ICs can appear in the position preceding the prefield, as, for example, in Ob es regnet oder die Sonne scheint, wir gehen spazieren ('Whether it is raining or the sun is shining, we will go for a walk') which is in contrast with the ungrammaticality of ordinary adverbial clauses in this position, as, for example, *Nachdem es aufgehört hatte zu regnen, Heinz ging spazieren, (lit.: 'After it had stopped raining, Heinz went for a walk.'). This left peripheral position of ICs has to be distinguished from ordinary positions for left dislocation from the main clause, since these left dislocated elements may either be sandwiched between an IC and the prefield, or even precede an IC. In a first step, d'Avis gives a syntactic classification of the various types of ICs, both in terms of their form and their distribution. He shows that, apart from verb-final ICs which are the canonical realization for subordinated clauses, ICs can appear in verb-first and verb-second variants. Re-

10

Horst Lohnstein and Susanne Trissler

garding their distribution, d'Avis shows that ICs are licit in virtually all positions in which an ordinary adverbial clause may appear. Typically, however, at least some types of ICs, in particular alternative and universal ICs, are excluded from filling the prefield position, which is in contrast to the distribution of ordinary adverbial clauses and indicates that ICs cannot be considered to be strictly subordinated clauses. D'Avis concludes that ICs of this type have to be analyzed as parentheticals and as such lack syntactic integration into the main clause. This, however, does not translate into a lack of semanto-pragmatic integration of ICs, as d'Avis argues: In contrast to their potential use as speech act conditionals, normal ICs remain related to the proposition of the main clause which must meet a condition of having an assertive character. D'Avis suggests that ICs, although not syntactically integrated, do not give rise to an illocution of their own, but add to the potential illocution of the main clause in the derivation of the realized illocution. This is shown by the incompatibility of ICs with real information questions as main clauses, and restrictions on the independent use of ob/whether- and wft-clauses. In a further step, d'Avis compares essential properties of Swedish and German ICs. As it turns out, Swedish allows more types of ICs to fill the prefield than German; in effect, all verb-final Swedish ICs may appear in the prefield, indicating that Swedish uniformly treats verb-final clauses as subordinated. In the remaining parts of the paper, d'Avis discusses more fine-grained classifications of ICs and some problems to his hypothesis of IC-integration and -interpretation resulting from the ability of scalar ICs to appear in the prefield and some problematic variants of ICs which seem to resemble left dislocation constructions. The contribution of JAN EDEN Uniformity and Variation: On the relation of wh-phrases and sentence moods in German investigates the various uses of wh-phrases in interrogative, exclamative, and relative clauses and tries to derive a unified semantic representation for the lexical content of the wh-feature. Among the prominent elements in the left periphery are wh-phrases. In many languages, either one or all of these phrases have to be moved to the leftmost position of a sentence, where this sentence is often a constituent question. Therefore, the class of wh-phrases can be defined semantically by their ability to form constituent questions. Free relatives and whexclamatives, on the other hand, also contain wh-phrases without having an interrogative sentence mood. Those wh-phrases can be represented as containing elements from two classes of relative and exclamative wh-lexemes

Theoretical developments of the left periphery

11

distinct from the class of interrogative wh-lexemes, each forming a subset of the latter. Under such a view, one could assume three features ([±wh], [±rel], [±excl]) to distinguish a certain wh-lexeme. Another approach, the one Eden intends to defend, would generate less redundant information, though. If it were possible to derive the differences between constituent questions, free relatives, and wh-exclamatives from other factors than a wh-lexeme's feature set (e.g., from the syntactic environment, intonation etc.), the feature [+wh] could serve as a general feature motivating the movement of wh-phrases rather than determining the mood of a sentence. Those ominous factors have to be identified, of course, and their contribution to the constiution of each sentence mood has to be determined. This paper will utilize the logic of questions proposed by Groenendijk and Stokhof (1982, 1997) and the compositional sentence mood theory of Lohnstein (2000, i.t.v.) to achieve this. Constituent questions will be taken to be the basic mood of all sorts of wh-sentences, which can be modified as a semantic object by means of the embedding structure (in the case of wh-relatives), lexical items, or intonation (in wh-exclamatives). WERNER FREY'S contribution Notes on the syntax and the pragmatics of German Left Dislocation deals with syntactic and information structural properties of a construction which in German linguistics is called Linksversetzung (Left Dislocation), but which has to be distinguished sharply from the English construction Left Dislocation. One important difference between these constructions is the sensitivity of the left peripheral phrase of German Left Dislocation (GLD) to binding relations - a fact which also allows GLD to be differentiated from German Hanging Topic Left Dislocation (HTLD) in a clear way. Since GLD and HTLD can be unambiguously distinguished, it is possible, Frey argues, to differentiate the information structural properties of GLD from those of HTLD. In particular, although both GLD and HTLD are standardly assumed to be topic marking constructions, this paper demonstrates that this is, in fact, only true for the former construction. To prove that GLD necessarily marks an aboutness topic, Frey first shows that, contra the standard assumption, the resumptive pronoun (RP) of GLD may be positioned in the middle field of a German clause. Second, it is demonstrated that the RP cannot appear just anywhere in this area but only in the designated topic position in the middle field. Thus, the RP necessarily has the status of a sentence topic. As regards further information structural properties, Frey shows that (i) GLD has to respect the condition of recoverabiltity for its left peripheral

12

Horst Lohnstein and Susanne Trissler

(LP) phrase, and (ii) that it is a sentence topic promotion device, which (iii) necessarily continues the current discourse unit. GLD differs crucially from the HTLD construction (and from standard V-second clauses) with regard to these properties. In addition, the syntax of GLD is considered. It is demonstrated that GLD is sensitive to the standard islands. After raising some problems for two recent movement analyses of the LP phrase, Frey argues that base generation of the LP phrase, which enters into an A-bar-chain relation with the RP and its trace, avoids such problems. It is an interesting feature of the analysis that the LP phrase is not base generated in its surface position but at the left periphery of the clause containing the RP. This assumption allows Frey to explain the absence of certain island effects. The paper ends with some speculations about the relationship between the syntactic structure of GLD and its information structural properties. T h e contribution of HORST LOHNSTEIN AND URSULA BREDEL

Inflec-

tional morphology and sentence mood in German focuses on questions about inflectional morphology, functional categories, and the properties of ForceP. It is argued that verbal mood delivers basic properties of the illocutionary force of the clause. Especially the truth and falsity of declaratives in German depend crucially on the choice of verbal mood. Only indicative and subjunctive 2 allow for truth value assignment, while imperative and subjunctive 1 do not. For the same reason, the first class of these verbal moods allows for y/n- and wh-interrogatives while the second does not, as Lohnstein (2000, 2001) observed. Based on the elements -a and - t offered by the verbal inflectional system of German, a semantic interpretation for these elements is proposed which assigns to each element a unique meaning being parameterized with respect to the categories of deictic organization: person, tense, and mood. While person is relevant for the predication structure, tense and mood strongly influence the propositional structure. The assigned meanings allow for the derivation of some general properties of the various sentence moods (declarative, y/n-interrogative, whinterrogative, imperative). Lohnstein/Bredel assume that the verbal inflectional categories mood and tense project to syntactic functional categories M(ood)P and T(ense)P, reflecting the restrictions on world and time variables delivered by inflectional mood and tense morphology. Together with principles of X-bar theory, the syntactic processes of Α-bar and headmovement are also interpreted with respect to their contribution to the constitution of sentence mood.

Theoretical developments of the left periphery

13

Under this theory, the semantic category of sentence mood is derivable in a compositional fashion. Based on an analysis of interrrogatives as partitions of possible worlds, the syntactic processes of Α-bar and head movement are interpreted in a way to yield semantic objects suitable to be the preliminary stages of the illocutionary force. The theory points out that the elements of the verbal inflectional system determine basic properties of the semantic category sentence mood and the illocutionary force syntactic sentence types have. These properties amalgamate in the highest projection at the left periphery of the clause. ULI LUTZ' paper on ET, Parasitic Gaps and German Clause Structure takes up constructions with so-called emphatic topicalization (ET) in Southern German and discusses their relevance for German clause structure and the analysis of parasitic gaps. ET constructions, formerly known under the label 'focus constructions,' can be exemplified by standard examples like Den Hans, wann i derwisch' (lit.: the H. if I catch) which can be integrated in more complex clauses as, for example, Den Hans, wann i derwisch', derschlog i 'n! (lit.: the Hans if I catch slay I him). ET differs both from standard topicalization/wh-extraction, which are incompatible with ET, as well as left dislocation, and requires the ET clause either itself to be a root clause or to be positioned in the left periphery of a root clause. A variant with two gaps apparently building up on the ET property of Southern German as, for example, Den Hans, wann i derwisch', derschlog' i. (lit.: the Hans if I catch slay I) has traditionally been analyzed as a parasitic gap construction. While ET constructions are widespread in colloquial Southern German as, for example, Bavarian, Suebian, and Austrian, to name some of the major varieties, both the ET construction and its parasitic gap variant are impossible in Standard German. Lutz gives a descriptive overview of the main properties of ET constructions and their parasitic gap variants, showing that they share a number of features, as, for example, the choice of lexical complementizers which allow for the constructions and categorial options on antecedents, but also differ with regard to a number of features, namely, the scopal properties of the ET constituents and compatibility with wh-clauses. Lutz concludes that ET, while being a root phenomenon, is restricted to the syntax of verb-final clauses and discusses some of the consequences for the structure of such clauses in (Southern) German in terms of traditional topological approaches, standard GB-like structures, and Rizzi-style extensions of the categorial structure of the left periphery.

14

Horst Lohnstein and Susanne Trissler

With regard to the parasitic gap variant of the construction, Lutz shows that it conforms to standard properties of parasitic gaps, the one notable exception being that it is not restricted to NP gaps. This, however, is expected from its ET origins, and only shows that the NP restriction to parasitic gaps is language specific. Furthermore, Lutz argues that the proper analysis of the construction requires the parasitic gap to be in the adverbial clause, which in turn poses another question on German clause structure: given that the Vorfeld of V2 clauses provides a position for exactly one constituent, to be filled by wh-movement or topicalization, parasitic gap constructions of this kind call for a revision of this restrictive view. The contribution Verb position, verbal mood and the anchoring (potential) of sentences from ANDRE MEINUNGER addresses the topic of V/2 embedded clauses in German, which appear - beside their interpretation as marked complement clauses - to have a reading as an assertion made by the speaker. The embedded clauses in (3) show the V/2 pattern which results as is widely assumed - from moving the finite verb from the final to the second clausal position. (3)

a.

b.

Ich glaube, er hat recht. I believe he has right. Ί believe that he is right.' Es ist besser, du kündigst ihm. It is better, you dismiss him 'It is better, you dismiss him.'

However, the are rather sharp restrictions with respect to the verb classes allowing for V2 complement clauses. After discussing various proposals of verb classification using syntactic and morphological criteria for class distinctions, Andre Meinunger claims that a correspondence alignment holds that exactly those predicates and grammatical constructions trigger subjunctive mood in Romance that block V2 in German subordinate clauses. Assuming that clauses marked with subjunctive mood are evaluated with respect to other models than the actual world, the correspondence alignment seems to make plausible that assertions about the real world require exactly those verbs which allow for V/2 complement clauses. To derive for the two examples in (3) that the embedded clauses can be interpreted either as complement clauses or as assertions made by the speaker, movement of the embedded clause to a position higher than the relevant world binding operator is assumed - similar to Stowell's PRO

Theoretical developments of the left periphery

15

analysis for reference times. Moving the embedded clause to a position immediately dominated by the assert operator of the matrix clause anchors the corresponding proposition related to the speaker. Therefore, embedded V/2 complement clauses are assumed to have an interpretation either in their base position (as pure complements) or in a derived position immediately dominated by the assert operator of the matrix clause. W/i-interrogatives, as is well-known, are not exclusively interpreted as "requests for information", that is, as requests to specify the value(s) of the variable bound by the w/z-quantifier. It is generally acknowledged that, besides their interpretation as "standard questions", they can convey other meanings, although it remains largely unclear what nonstandard question interpretations there are and where they have their sources. HANS-GEORG OBENAUER's contribution Nonstandard wh-questions and alternative checkers in Pagotto addresses these questions and develops an analysis in which the syntactic structure, and particularly the left sentence periphery, play a crucial part. This approach thus opposes a common view according to which nonstandard questions simply represent "noncanonical uses" of standard questions, with varying interpretations somehow determined by linguistic context and/or extralinguistic situation. The paper investigates the structural and interpretive properties of nonstandard interrogatives in the North-Eastern Italian dialect Pagotto. Contrary to many well-studied languages, Pagotto has bare vv/i-phrases of standard questions "in situ" (more precisely, in noninitial position). Nonstandard questions, on the other hand, display their bare vv/i-phrases in initial position. On the basis of this contrast, Hans-Georg Obenauer identifies three types of nonstandard questions and argues that they activate higher layers of the left periphery: surprise/disapproval questions, rhetorical questions, and Can't-find-the-value-of-x questions are derived by adding functional structure "on top o f ' the structure derived in standard questions. The three nonstandard question types also differ from each other, namely, with respect to the landing site of the w/i-phrase, in specifiers of individualized functional projections. The paper also analyzes the phenomenon of "alternative checkers" in the same constructions, that is, semantically bleached, grammaticized lexical elements able to check the relevant high layers under locality and economy. When present in the numeration, these elements license noninitial (bare) wh even in nonstandard questions.

16

Horst Lohnstein and Susanne Trissler

As a result, the nonstandard question types analyzed in the paper do not correspond to noncanonical uses of standard questions. Rather, they have each a different syntactic structure extending that of standard questions. The conclusion is that Universal Grammar makes structural means available for syntactic encoding of nonstandard question meaning. Whether these means only concern the left peripery or, in addition, lower domains of the sentence is left as a question for future research. The paper from KERSTIN SCHWABE The Particle li and the Left Periphery of Slavic Y/N Interrogatives deals with questions about interrogativity and information structure. Especially, it focuses on the particle li, which appears in polarity questions of several Slavic languages and marks for interrogativity or focusation depending on its distribution varying in language specific ways. However, there seems to be a general distributional regularity in that li may either occur with V° or with XP. In the latter case, XP is focus marked, as the examples in (4) illustrate. (4)

a.

B.

Citaet li on knigu ? read.3SG Q he book 'Does he read a book?' KNIGUF li on

citaet?

book Q he read.3SG 'Is what he is reading a book?' The rather heterogeneous distribution in the various languages is systematized in terms of Rizzi's (1997) theory about the different types of positions in the left periphery of the sentence offering head and specifier positions for interrogative as well as focus marking. In Russian and Serbian/Croatian, li occurs in Force0 and appears to be a complementizer, while in Bulgarian and Macedonian, it is independent of the properties of ForceP. Instead, it seems to be a marker for clausal typing. In a next step, Schwabe gives a semantic explication for the interrogative and focus meanings in terms of Krifka's (2001b), von Stechow's (1989), and Rooth's (1996) theories of interrogatives and focus respectively. She assumes a question to be a function applying to an answer, and then forms a proposition. In the case of y/n-interrogatives, these operations work in the following way: (5)

Q: Does Peter read a book? λ ί [ read (book) (Peter) ] A: No. λρ [-.ρ] Q(A): λ ί [ read (book) (Peter) ](λρ [—.ρ]) = -π read (book) (Peter)

Theoretical developments of the left periphery

17

The semantic representation of li results from lambda-abstraction of the proposition: (6)

li: λρ λ ί [ f(p) ], where f is restricted to {yes, no}

In the case of identificational focus, the function f applies to a structured proposition consisting of a focus and a background part, where the focus part corresponds to a set of alternatives. ARNIM VON STECHOW'S article Binding by verbs: Tense, Person and Mood under Attitudes provides a theory of variable binding and feature deletion in constructions with attitude verbs. It is assumed that person, tense and mood are features of the verb which are in need to be checked by an individual, a world, and a time variable. A main characteristic of the system consists of the idea that features of semantically bound varables are not interpreted. So, for instance in a sentence like (7a) (from Heim 1994) with the paraphrase in (7b), the 1st person pronoun is interpreted as a variable with the interpretable feature 1st person restricting the denotation to the speaker. (7)

a. b.

Only I did my homework. Everyone χ such that χ is different from me doesn't x's homework.

The feature projects to the maximal projection of the only-DP, which being a generalized quantifier - binds the trace of I as well as the variable for the possessive pronoun. However, the feature 1 st Person does not appear in any relevant sense at some bound variable in the quantificational structure in (7)b. This process of feature deletion - namely that features of bound variables are deleted at LF - corresponds in some sense to the concept of the Minimalist Program, which assumes that uninterpretable features have to be checked and thereby wiped out, too, in order for a derivation to converge. A core topic is that the attitude verb functions as a verbal quantifier which binds the variables in the embedded clause. In (8a), the feature 3rd is not interpreted, but the features Pres and Ind are, because they appear as affixes of variables. (8)

a. b.

Gerd wins. Gerdi hopes hei wins.

18

Horst Lohnstein and Susanne Trissler

In (8b), on the other hand, only the ind and ρ res features of the variables in the matrix sentence are interpreted, while the features of the (bound) variables in the embedded clause are deleted. The matrix verb hopes is assumed to be a (verbal) quantifier that simultaneously binds the individual, world, and time variables in the embedded clause. Von Stechow's article extensively discusses the process of feature deletion in environments of contextually anchored propositions and propositions embedded under attitude verbs. Furthermore, it deals with several questions of (sequences of) tenses, shiftable temporal adverbs, and modals as well as subjunctive in German. ANGELIKA WÖLLSTEIN's contribution Complementizer selection and the properties of complement clauses in German deals with asymmetries between finite and non-finite complement clauses in German with regard to the filling of left-peripheral positions, especially the distribution of lexical complementizers. While finite complement clauses with verb-end structure occur only with overt material (lexical complementizers or wh-phrases) in the left peripheral position(s), non-finite complement clauses do not. Concerning infinitival complementation, another well-known fact is that only infinitival constructions with zu infinitives (can) have sentential properties and therefore alternate with finite complement clauses introduced by a lexical complementizer. Focusing on the question of why lexical complementizers are restricted to finite (complement) clauses, Wöllstein develops an account that relates the occurence of lexical complementizers to the referential properties of the sentential complement. Essentially following the idea that only referential categories extend to functional projections, Wöllstein argues that the infinitival marker zu blocks referentiality. Therefore, complement clauses with zu infinitives do not project clausal functional shells and cannot host a complementizer. The paper effectively joins research on functional projections by Grimshaw (1991), on German clause structure by Haider (1993) and Brandt, Reis, Rosengren, and Zimmermann (1992), and her own joint work with Lohnstein on the aspectual nature of German infinitival markers. The general idea is that the projection of functional shells depends on referential properties of the base (lexical) category, with the condition that the highest (functional) projection must be visible in its head position. It follows that infinitival complement clauses which do not show a visibilization of this functional structure do not project functional structure at all. Since verbal categories have referential properties, the question is how these properties are blocked in infinitival complement clauses. Proceeding from the fact

Theoretical developments of the left periphery

19

that, from the three (supine) infinitival forms of German, the so-called status (the bare infinitive as the 1st status, the zu infinitive as the 2nd status, and the past participle as the 3rd status), only the 2nd status (zu infinitive) can be used for non-finite complement clauses, Wöllstein proposes that the status forms should be analyzed as aspect markers. The aspect marker zu essentially blocks the referential properties of the verbs, with the result that zw-infinitives do not project a functional clausal structure at all and therefore do not have a left-peripheral position to be filled by lexical complementizers. Wöllstein argues this is in line with the fact that zu infinitives do not give rise to sentence mood ('Satzmodus'). A corollary of this analysis is that zu infinitives do not habe root properties, in contrast to infinitives which are based on the 1st or 3rd status. Finally, so-called root infinitives are grammatical if the non-finite verb shows up as a bare infinitive or a past participle, whereas zu infinitives are ungrammatical. W e would like to thank several friends and colleagues who helped with the production of this volume. First of all, we like to thank the participants of the A G 12 at the annual meeting of the DGfS 2002 in Mannheim for their contributions and discussions of the various topics, Amina Hallab and Marco Musienko for their untiring effort in organizing, correcting, and formatting the text over and over again, Heidi Altmann for proof reading and phrasing the English version, Jan Eden for technical support, the editors Artemis Alexiadou and Tracy Hall, and last but not least Ursula Kleinhenz from Mouton de Gruyter, who organized the technical details.

References Brandt, Margareta, Marga Reis, Inger Rosengren, and Ilse Zimmermann 1992 Satztyp, Satzmodus und Illokution. In Inger Rosengren, 1-90, Satz und Illokution I. (ed.), Tübingen: Niemeyer. Cheng, Lisa 1991 On the Typology of Wh-Questions. Ph.D Dissertation, MIT Cambridge: Mass. Chomsky, Noam 1973 Conditions on tranformations. In A festschrift for Morris Halle, Anderson Stephen, and Paul Kiparsky (eds.), 232-286. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston. 1981 Lectures on Government and Binding. Dordrecht: Foris. 1996 Barriers. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.

20

Horst Lohnstein and Susanne Trissler 1998

Minimalist Inquiries: The Framework. MIT Occassional Papers in Linguistics, No. 15. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press. 2001 Derivation by phase. In A Life in Language, Michael Kenstowicz, and Ken Haie (ed.). Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press. Cinque, Guglielmo 1999 Adverbs and Functional Heads: A Cross-Linguistic Perspective. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Grimshaw, Jane 1991 Extended Projections. Ms., University of Brandeis. Groenendijk, Jeroen, and Martin Stokhof 1982 Semantic analysis of wh-complements. Linguistics and Philosophy 5: 175-233. 1997 Questions. In Handbook of Logic and Language, Johann van Benthem, and Alice ter Meulen (eds.), 1055-1124, Amsterdam: Elsevier Scientific Publishing Company. Grohmann, Kleanthes 2003 Prolific Domains. On the Anti-Locality of Movement Dependencies. Amsterdam, Philadelphia: Benjamins. Haider, Hubert 1993 Deutsche Syntax - generativ. Vorstudien zur Theorie einer projektiven Grammatik. Tübingen: Narr. Hamblin, C. L. 1976 Questions in Montague-English. In Montague Grammar, Barbara Pertee (ed.), 247-259. New York: Academic Press. Hausser, Roland 1980 Surface Compositionality and the Semantics of Mood. In Speech Act Theory and Pragmatics, John Searle, Ference Kiefer, and Manfred Bierwisch (eds.), 71-95. Dordrecht: D. Reidel Publishing Company. Heim, Irene 1994 Puzzling reflexive pronouns in de se reports. Paper presented at Bielefeld conference. Higginbotham, James 1993 Interrogatives. In The View from Building 20, Ken Hale, and Samuel Jay Keyser (eds.), 195-228. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT-Press. 1997 The semantics of questions. In The Handbook of Contemporary Semantic Theory, Shalom Lappin (ed.), 361-383. Oxford: Β lack well. Karttunen, Lauri 1977 Syntax and Semantics of Questions. Linguistics and Philosophy 1: 3-44.

Theoretical developments of the left periphery Katz, Jerry, and Paul Postal 1964 Integrated Theory of Linguistic Descriptions. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press. König, Ekkehard, and Johan van der Auwera 1988 Clause integration in German and Dutch conditionals, concessive conditionals and concessives. In Clause Combining in Grammar and Discourse, John Haiman and Sandra Thompson (eds.), 101133. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: Benjamins. Krifka, Manfred 2001 For a structured meaning account of questions and answers In Audiatur Vox Sapientia. A Festschrift for Arnim von Stechow, Caroline Fery, and Wolfgang Sternefeld (eds.), 287-319. Berlin: Akademie-Verlag. Lenerz, Jürgen 1984 Syntaktischer Wandel und Grammatiktheorie. Eine Untersuchung an Beispielen aus der Sprachgeschichte des Deutschen, Tübingen: Niemeyer. Lohnstein, Horst 2000 Satzmodus - kompositioneil. Zur Parametrisierung der Modusphrase im Deutschen. Berlin: Akademie Verlag. 2001 Sentence mood constitution and indefinite noun phrases, In Theoretical Linguistics 272/3. Special Issue "NP Interpretation and Information Structure", Klaus von Heusinger, and Kerstin Schwabe (eds.), 187-214. Lohnstein, Horst, and Angelika Wöllstein-Leisten. 2001 Status als Aspektmarker. Ms., University of Cologne. Montague, Richard 1974 The proper treatment of quantification in English. In Formal Philosophy, Richard Thomason (ed.), 247-270. New Haven, London: Yale University Press. Pollock, Jean-Yves 1989 Verb movement, Universal Grammar, and the structure of IP. Linguistic Inquiry 20: 365-424. Rizzi, Luigi 1997 The fine structure of the left periphery. In Elements of Grammar, Liliane Haegeman (ed.), 281-337. Dordrecht: Kluwer. Ross, John Robert 1967 Constraints on Variables in Syntax. Ph.D. diss., MIT, Cambridge, Mass. Rooth, Mats 1996 Focus. In The Handbook of Contemporary Semantic Theory, Shalom Lappin (ed.), 271- 297. Cambridge, Mass.: Blackwell.

21

22

Horst Lohnstein and Susanne Trissler

Stechow, Arnim von 1989 Focusing and backgrounding operators. In Technical Report 6, Fachgruppe Sprachwissenschaft, Universität Konstanz. 1992 Kompositionsprinzipien und grammatische Struktur. In Biologische und soziale Grundlagen der Sprache, Peter Suchsland (ed.), 175-247. Tübingen: Niemeyer. 2001 Partial wh-movement , scope marking, and transparent logical form. In Wh-Scope Marking, Uli Lutz, Gereon Müller, and Arnim von Stechow (eds.), 447-478. Amsterdam, Philadelphia: Benjamins.

The syntactic integration of preposed adverbial clauses on the German left periphery: A diachronic perspective Katrin Axel

Abstract This paper examines the syntactic integration of preposed adverbial clauses in the history of German. In many Old, Middle and Early New High German documents, preposed adverbial clauses are attested in a position to the left of the initial constituent of the declarative sentence they modify. Thus, they gave rise to a systematic violation of the verb-second constraint, which is generally assumed to have been established as early as in the Old High German period. This left-peripheral placement of adverbial clauses has been largely driven out of the language by the end of the Early New High German period, however; in Present-Day German it is ungrammatical for the core types of adverbial clauses. It will be argued that the historical loss of the verb-third effect after preposed adverbial clauses in German is due to the fact that these clauses underwent a diachronic process from extrasentential adjunction to syntactic embedding.

1. Introduction* The historical development of the left periphery of the sentence, in particular the establishment of the verb-second constraint within the Germanic language family, has been subject to much debate in the last decade. 1 However, German has not been the primary focus of interest. This is possibly because the earliest diachronic study of German in a generative framework, Lenerz (1984), came to the conclusion that German sentence structure has not been subject to substantial syntactic change during its attested history. Moreover, already the older philological literature showed that the verbsecond constraint was established during the earliest attested stage of the

24

Katrin Axel

language, i.e. as early as in the Old High German (= OHG) period, cf. Reis (1901: 215ff.), Biener (1926: 256), Behaghel (1932: 11). There is one syntactic phenomenon, however, which has received repeated attention by 19th and 20th century scholars (e.g. Starker 1883, Behaghel 1929, Horacek 1957, König and van der Auwera 1988, Knaus 1995). During the Old and Middle High German (MHG) periods, preposed adverbial clauses (= preACs) are attested in a position to the left of the initial constituent of the declarative sentence they modify, thereby giving rise to a verb-third effect: 2 (1)

a.

b.

[Dhuo ir himilo garauui frumida], dhar uuasih; When he the-heavens' equipment created there was I (Is 91) OHG 'When he fashioned the heavens, I was there' Quando praeparabat cqlos, aderam; [Da syn meister das sah /, er wonde yn begriffen When his master this saw he wanted him grab (La 140.8) MHG 'When his master saw this, he wanted to grab hold of him'

Unlike most other historical types of verb-second violations that have been discussed in the literature, 3 the verb-third phenomenon in (1) is lost only very late in the history of the language. In fact, it is quite frequently attested until well into the Early New High German period. The aim of this study is to sketch the historical development of adverbial clauses regarding syntactic integration into the left periphery of the sentences they modify. It will be argued that the historical loss of verb-third constructions like (1) is due to the fact that German adverbial clauses underwent a diachronic process from extra-sentential adjunction to syntactic embedding. Before addressing the diachronic issues, I will first give a short overview of the placement of adverbial clauses at the left periphery in PresentDay German in section 2. Section 3 is then dedicated to a detailed discussion of the OHG data: in subsection 3.1, a short summary on verb placement in OHG is given; this serves as a general background for subsections 3.2.1 to 3.2.4, in which four different OHG constructions with preACs are examined and the question of the ± embedded status of OHG preACs is addressed. Sections 4 and 5 deal with the development of preACs in Middle and in Early New High German. Finally, in section 6, it will be shown that existing diachronic models of adverbial subordination cannot fully account

The syntactic integration ofpreposed adverbial clauses

25

for the data and phenomena that have been presented in this article. Alternatively, it will be suggested that lexical changes in the make-up of adverbial subordinators could be related to the development of syntactic embedding.

2. Preposed adverbial clauses in Present-Day German In the course of the history of the German language, the verb-third construction with preACs has become ungrammatical, at least for the core types of adverbial clauses. In Present-Day German (= PDG), preposed temporal, causal or indicative conditional clauses, for example, can no longer be used in the configuration preAC-XP-Vf m , cf. (2).4 In contrast to earlier periods of the language, the relegation of the finite verb to third position appears to be highly semanto-pragmatically restricted to special types of adverbial clauses such as so-called 'wenn ... auch-concessive clauses' (= 'if ... MODAL PARTICLE ... ' constructions with concessive meaning) (3a), certain hypothetical conditionals in subjunctive mood (3b), irrelevance conditionals (3c), and the like.5 (2)

a.

*[SobaldAVenn/Weil es aufheitert/, wir können spazieren As soon as/If/Because it clears up we can for-a-walk gehen. go 'As soon as/If/Because it clears up/is clearing up, we can go for a walk'

(3)

a.

[Wenn er auch kein großer Romancier ist], seine If he MOD. PART, no great novelist is his lyrischen Texte sind wunderbar. lyrical texts are wonderful 'Even though he is not a great novelist, his lyrical texts are wonderful' [Wenn ich in Wien lebte], ich würde jeden Tag If I in Vienna lived I would every day ein Kaffeehaus besuchen. a coffee house visit 'If I lived in Vienna, I would go to a coffee house every day'

b.

26

Katrin Axel c.

[Selbst wenn ich ein Millionär wäre], einen Porsche Even if I a millionaire were a Porsche würde ich nicht fahren wollen. would I not drive want 'Even if I were a millionaire, I would not want to drive a Porsche.'

Like non-sentential adverbs or any other constituents that have not been subject to left-dislocation or similar processes, the core types of preposed adverbial clauses in PDG have to be directly followed by the finite verb in their declarative matrix clause (4a). Another option for the placement of modern preACs, in particular for conditional clauses, is the resumptive structure (4b), where the adverbial clause occurs to the left of a resumptive proform (dann 'then' or so 'then') in the matrix clause. (4)

a.

b.

[Sobald/ Weil/ Wenn es aufheitert], können wir As soon as/ Because/ If it clears up can we spazieren gehen for-a-walk go 'As soon as/If/Because it clears up/is clearing up, we can go for a walk' [Wenn es aufheitert], dann/so können wir If it clears up RESUMPTIVE can we spazieren gehen for-a-walk go 'If it clears up, then can we go for a walk'

This short overview of the PDG data shows that the verb-third construction with preposed adverbial clauses must have undergone a syntactic change. It has become subject to special pragmatic and semantic conditions which were not required at earlier stages of the language.

3. Preposed adverbial clauses in Old High German 3.1. Verb placement in Old High German: a short summary Lenerz' (1984) position that German has not been subject to a substantial syntactic change seems to be confirmed by recent descriptive studies which show that verb position and its correspondence to clause type already seem to be fairly similar to the PDG situation in the major OHG prose texts (cf.

The syntactic integration ofpreposed adverbial clauses

27

Bernhardt and Davis 1997 and Dittmer and Dittmer 1998 on Tatian's Gospel Harmony, Robinson 1997 on the Isidor translation and Näf 1979 on Notker Labeo's translation and commentary of Boethius' Consolatio philosophiae).6 In the core clause types, the predominant productive word orders are: verb-second in (non-conjoined, complementizerless) declarative main clauses (5),7 verb-first in (complementizerless) polar questions (6a) and in imperatives (6b) and verb-second in independent constituent questions with a fronted w/z-operator (7).8 (5)

a.

b.

c.

(6)

a.

b.

(7)

ihgab_iu bilidi (T 553.9) I gave you an-example exemplum enim dedi uobis Dhinera uuomba uuaxsmin setzu ih ubar miin hohsetli Your womb's fruit put I upon my throne (Is 611)9 Ί will put the fruit of your womb upon my throne' De fructu uentris tuiponam super sedem meam In dhemu nemin eyres ist christ chiuuisso chiforabodot, In the name Cyres is Christ certainly presaged (Is 162) 'By use of the name Cyres, Christ is certainly presaged' In persona enim cyri christus est prophetatus, quidis zi uns thesa parabola oda zi allen (T 529.2) say to us this parable or to all? 'are you telling this parable to us, or to everybody?' ad nos dicis hanc parabolam an & ad omnes tuot riuua (T 103.1) do repentance 'Repent!' pcenitentiam agite

uuvo gisahi thu abrahaman? how saw you Abraham 'how can you have seen Abraham?' & abraham uidisti

(T 451.7)

Like the modern language, OHG already displayed asymmetrical word orders in (complementizerless) main clauses on the one hand, and subordinate clauses, which were already introduced by an elaborated set of com-

28

Katrin Axel

plementizers/subordinators, on the other hand. While the former were largely subject to verb fronting to second position, the verb stayed in late position in the latter.10 This asymmetry can clearly be seen in (8a) versus (8b). Note that OHG thanne 'then' is both an adverb and an adverbial subordinator (translating Latin cum in (8b)). In the main clause (8a) the finite verb follows directly after the adverb thanne in first position, thereby relegating the subject pronoun and the direct object to post-verbal position. In the subordinate clause (8b), on the other hand, both the adverb and the subject pronoun precede the finite verb, which is in final position. (8)

a.

b.

thanne thuingit her uueralt fan sunton (T 585.4) then convicts he world of sins 'then he will convict the world (in respect) of sin ' argu & mundum de peccato Inti [thanne her cumitl (T 585.3) And when he comes & cum uenerit ille

3.2. The position of preposed adverbial clauses in OHG At least four word order patterns need to be distinguished regarding the positioning of OHG adverbial clauses modifying declarative main clauses: (i) the order preAS-Resumptive-Vf m , (ii) the order preAS-XP-Vf m , (iii) the order preAS-pronoun-V fin , and (iv) the order preAS-Vf ra . These patterns will be discussed in the following sections. Furthermore, left-peripheral adverbial clauses modifying complement clauses will also be considered. 11

3.2.1. The resumptive pattern Examples for the resumptive pattern are given in (9). (9)

a.

[mit diu her quam zi theru steti] tho when he came to the place RESUMPTIVE quad her zi sinen iungiron (T 597.30) said he to his disciples 'when he came to the place, he said to his disciples' Et cum perueniss& ad locum dixit discipulis suis

The syntactic integration of preposed adverbial clauses

b.

c.

29

Oh [huuanda sie mit dhes iudeischin muotes hartnissu But because they with the Jewish soul's hardness christan arsluogun], bidhiu ni uuellent Christ slew for this reason NEG want sie inan noh quhomenan chilauban. (Is 482) they him already having-come believe 'But because they slew Christ with the hardness of the Jewish soul, that's why they do not want to believe him (to be) already come' Sed duritia cordis iudaici quia ipsi christum interemerunt, inde eum adhuc uenisse non credunt [So si dazhoubethö üferbüreta ]. so When she the head high up raised RESUMPTIVE über slüog iz ten himel. (Ν 1.8.9) over towered it the sky 'When she raised her head high up, it towered over the sky' Quq cum altivs extulisset caput. etiam ipsum cqlum penetrabat.

The resumptive structrure is still quite common in PDG. However, there are differences between the historical and the present state of the language. In OHG (and in MHG), the inventory of pairs of adverbial subordinators and corresponding resumptives was much larger than it is today, cf. e.g. thö-sö (temporal), oba-sö (conditional); wanta-bithiu (causal), mit thiu-thö (temporal), and pairs where the subordinator and resumptive are homonymous sö-sö (temporal), thö-thö (temporal), thanne-thanne (conditional), er-er (temporal, expressing anteriority).12 Since resumptives existed for a much larger set of semantic types of adverbial clauses, the resumptive structure could be realized in a larger number of contexts than today. This is why it proliferated in some texts during the OHG (and MHG) period. In Tatian and in Notker's translation of the Consolatio, for example, the resumptive structure is realized in approximately three-quarters of preACs modifying declarative clauses (if only sentences are considered which do not slavishly follow the Latin source with respect to verb position or use of the resumptive).

30

Katrin Axel

3.2.2. The verb-third pattern

preAS-XP-Vfin

In the OHG prose documents, there is a considerable amount of 'verb-later than-second' word-order that may in many cases be most plausibly traced back to Latin influence. 13 In example (10) from Tatian, both the line break (indicated by slashes) and the Latin word order are likely to have influenced the placements of both finite verbs in later than second position. (10)

scouuuonti ther heilant/ quad In. mit mannon/ looking the Saviour said them with men thiz ist unodi./ (T 359.9) this is impossible 'Looking (at them), the Saviour told them: "With men this is impossible...'" aspiciens autem ihesus./ dixit illis. apud homines/ hoc Inpossibile est./

At first glance, Latin influence may also account for the verb-third construction with preposed adverbial clauses. In the complex sentence in (11) from Isidor, for example, the declarative main clause follows the Latin source by starting off with a fronted PP. 14 (11)

[Innandhiuir chiuuoruan ist], mit dhem unbalauuigom After he converted is with the innocent ist siin samuuist. (Is 677) is his community 'After he has been converted, his community is with the innocent' Dum ad earn conuertitur, cum innocentibus commoratur

However, as the complex sentences in (12) show, violations of the verbsecond constraint after preposed adverbial clauses in the OHG prose documents cannot always be traced back to Latin influence. In (12a) from Isidor, the locative adverbial dhar 'there' occurs in preverbal position even though the subject pronoun ih Τ is inserted post-verbally and independently of the Latin source which makes use of subject-i/rop. 15 Sentences (12a) and (12b) from Notker's Consolatio are part of the commentary; they do not have a corresponding Latin sentence. (12) (=la)

a.

[Dhuo ir himilo garauui frumida], When he the-heavens' equipment created dhar uuas ih\ there was I

(Is 91)

The syntactic integration ofpreposed

b.

c.

adverbial clauses

31

'When he fashioned the heavens, I was there' Quando praeparabat cqlos, aderam; [To si sia des ferspräh. tes si bemalot When she herself for-that answered for-what she accused uuäs...] . diu defensio uuäs iuditialis (Ν II 103.28) was the defensio was iuditialis 'When she answered for what she was being accused ..., the defensio ('defence') was iuditialis ('iudicial').' [Übe däz ungeuuändo geskihet] . tiu geskiht heizet If that by-chance happens the event is-called casus. (Ν V 236.24) casus 'If that happens by chance, this is called casus'

As has already been mentioned, verb-third constructions like those in (12) have no PDG counterparts (note that the adverbial clauses in (12a) and (12b) are temporal, the one in (12c) is an indicative conditional). Within the traditional CP-analysis for the modern Germanic verbsecond grammar, one would have to analyze the adverbial clauses as basegenerated adjuncts at the left sentence periphery: (13)

ICP [Dhuo ir himilo garauui frumida], [cpdhart [c uuasj ich t, tr..

In the limited corpus of OHG prose documents it is not easy to find evidence for what position preACs would occupy within an analysis based on the 'split-Comp hypothesis' following Rizzi (1997). One type of examples, however, can be used as such evidence. In Tatian, adverbial clauses are attested in front of illocutionary particles. OHG polar questions may be clause-typed by the particle inu/eno: (14)

a.

[thanne ih iuuuih santa uzzan seckil...] when I you forth-sent without a-money-bag... eno uuas iu iouuih thes uuan (T 575.1) WH-PART were you anything of-this in-need 'when I sent you forth without a moneybag... did you lack anything? quando misi uos sine saccolo... numquid aliquid defuit uobis

32

Katrin Axel b.

Int ι [obair heilez& ekkorodo iuuara bruoder] And if you greet only your brothers eno ni tuont thaz heidane man (T147.ll) WH-PART NEG do this pagan men? 'And if you greet your brothers only, do not (even) pagans do that?' Et si salutaueritis fratres uestros tantum. nonne & ethnici hoc faciunt.

Assuming that the locus of illocutionary particles is at the leftmost edge of the C-domain, such examples give evidence that OHG preACs could in fact occupy an extra-sentential position (15) (note that in Rizzi 1997, the Cdomain is topped by the force-projection). 16 (15)

[F ORCEP [thanne ih iuuuih santa uzzan seckil—] iouuiht thes uuan ...

[[FORCEP

eno uuas iu

Besides the verb-third effect triggered by preACs modifying main clauses, preACs also give rise to unusual word orders when they modify subordinate clauses (cf. Müller and Frings 1959, Kracke 1911). In (16), the adverbial clauses are positioned to the left of the complementizer thaz which introduces the subordinate clause they modify. 17 Again, this left-peripheral placement is ungrammatical in PDG - this time, however, without exception. Note that preACs are the only material that can be found to the left of the complementizer in OHG dependent clauses. Non-sentential adverbs or complements are not attested in this position. (16)

a.

b.

Fone diu ist ze w iehenne . [übe diu erera zala This is why is to-say if the former statement uuär ist] täz izfrouui fol si. (Ν III. 144.22) true is that it with-joy filled shall-be 'This is why it has to be said that it should be full of joy if what has been said above is true' Quare plenum esse Iqtitiq . si quidem superiora manebunt ! necesse est confiteri. ... neist tes niomannen vuünder. [so der uuint ...NEG-is of-this nobody wonder when the wind uuähet]. täz tiu uuella άη den städ slähet. (Ν IV 211.2) blows that the wave at the shore crashes

The syntactic integration ofpreposed adverbial clauses

33

'Nobody is surprised that the wave crashes at the shore when the wind is blowing' Nemo miratur flamina chori. tündere litus frementi fluctv.

3.2.3. The ambiguous patterns (preAC-pronoun-Vfin

and preAC-Vf,„)

Besides verb-third constructions of the type XP-AC-Vf i n , OHG preACs frequently figure in two constructions which are much more difficult to analyze, i.e. preAC-pronoun-Vf m sequences (17) and preAC-Vf in sequences (18): (17)

a.

b.

(18)

endi [aer huuil uurdi], ih uuas dhar and before time was I was there 'and before time came to be, I was there' ex tempore antequam fieret, ibi eram [oba thu uuili.] thu maht mih gisubiren if you want you can me cleanse 'if you will, you can make me clean' si uis potes me mundare.,

(Is 322)

(T 179.23)

[mitthiu her tho ingieng hierusalem]. wmrd when ('with that') he then entered Jerusalem was giruort al thiu burg (T 397.10) stirred all the city 'And when he entered Jerusalem, the whole city was stirred' Et cum Introiss& hierosolimam commota est universa ciuitas

At first glance, one could be tempted to put the pattern preAS-pronounVfin together with verb-third constructions like in (12). Likewise, one could easily draw a parallel between OHG preAC-V fin orders and our modern German verb-second orders, cf. (4a) above. But even though both these patterns seem to look familiar by now, the verb-third cases with pronouns, cf. (17), and the prima facie verb-second orders, cf. (18), are in fact highly ambiguous as far as their syntactic analyses are concerned (cf. Axel 2002). This is due to the fact that there are still a number of important differences between OHG and PDG main clause word order that become relevant when discussing these word order patterns. In the earlier OHG prose documents (Isidor, the Monsee Fragments and, arguably, Tatian), there are a number of sentences that exhibit X P -

34

Katrin Axel

pronoun-Vf m orders independent of the Latin source (cf. e.g. Behaghel 1932:§ 1431, Friedrichs 1891:10, Fourquet 1938, Reis 1901:219ff., Lippert 1974:57ff„ Tomaselli 1995, Robinson 1997: 16f.):18 (19)

a.

b.

c.

Erino portun ih firchnussu (Is 157) Bronze portals I shatter Portas aereas conteram Dhes martyrunga endi dodh uuir findemes mit His martyrdom and death we demonstrate with urchundin dhes heilegin chiscribes (Is 516) the testimony of the holy scripture Cuius passionem et mortem in suo loco scripturarum testimoniis adprobabimus Auuariu sagem (MXI.18) Again you-2plACC say-lsgNOM 'Again, I tell you' Iterum dico uobis

Sentences like in (19) have received different analyses in the literature which essentially vary in how they answer the question whether verbfronting has occurred in such cases. Lenerz (1984: 168 and 1985) considers such examples as relics of archaic main-clause verb-final orders where the finite verb remains in its base position.19 This analysis can, however, fairly safely be rejected for the following reason: XP-pronoun-V fm orders also occur in sentences with subject pro-drop as in (19c). Subject pro-drop, however, appears to be largely parasitic on verb fronting in OHG20 for reasons that are still unclear. According to the analyses of Tomaselli (1995) and Roberts (1996) on the other hand, verb-fronting to the C-domain does take place in XPpronoun-Vfm clauses, but the intervening pronouns must be analyzed as syntactic clitics.21 Thus, within such a clitic analysis, the order XPpronoun-Vfm does not represent a real violation of the verb-second grammar of OHG. Tomaselli argues that the clitic is base-generated at the left periphery of the I-domain and dragged along to the C-domain by successive leftward verb-movement of the finite verb to C°, cf. (20a). In Roberts' analysis, which is based on a split C-hypothesis following Rizzi (1997), the West-Germanic pronoun clitics are argued to gravitate to the C-system. More precisely, the verb-third effect shows up because in non- contexts, verb-fronting only targets Fin0, which is deeper than the base position for clitics [Spec,FinP], cf. (20b).

The syntactic integration of preposed adverbial clauses (20)

a.

35

[cpXP [ c [c°] [ipNP [pcl+V... Α ι ι (adapted from Tomaselli 1995: 358)

b.

[ C pXP

. . . [FinP

CI [Fin V]] [IP ... (adapted from Roberts 1996: 159)

Coming back to the preAS-pronoun-Vf m sequences, it can no be longer decided where the position of the adverbial clause is in such cases. The adverbial clause could either be in a left-peripheral adjoined position like in (13), or occupy a position within the C-domain like the sentence-initial non-sentential XPs in (19). In the latter case, the intervening pronouns would necessarily have to be analyzed as syntactic clitics just like in analysis (20a) or (20b). The overall distribution of preACs, however, suggests that the former analysis is more likely to be correct. In fact, there are no attested examples which unambiguously show that OHG adverbials could occupy a sentenceinternal position within the C-domain. The critical examples are, of course, AC-V f i n sequences like in (21). (21) a. (= 18)

b.

[mitthiu hertho ingieng hierusalem]. when ('with that') he then entered Jerusalem uuard giruort al thiu burg was stirred all the city (T 397.10) 'And when he entered Jerusalem the whole city was stirred' Et cum lntroiss& hierosolimam commota est universa ciuitas Inti [oba sie todliches uuaz drinkent] And if they deadly anything drink niterit iz in. (T 693.26) NEG-hurts it them 'And if they drink anything deadly, it will not hurt them' & si mortiferum quid biberint non eos nocebit

Unfortunately, examples like (21) are just as ambiguous as the p r e A C pronoun-Vfm cases. It has to be taken into account that verb-first order in sentences with declarative sentence mood is attested fairly frequently (and often independently of the Latin original) in the OHG prose documents (cf. Maurer 1924) and in characteristic syntactic environments that are not

36

Katrin Axel

shared by PDG verb-first declaratives. 22 In negated sentences, for example, the finite verb carrying the proclitic negation ni may occur in sentenceinitial position (22a). 23 Moreover, in the Old High German Tatian, the finite verb often occurs in sentence-initial position in copular sentences (22b) (cf. Maurer 1924) and in the historical precursors of our modern passive constructions (22c). In the latter cases, the verb-first characteristic seems to correlate with the strongly rhematic character of such sentences. 24 (22)

a.

b.

c.

ni quad ih fan iu allen NEG speak I of you all Ί was not speaking of all of you' Νon de omnibus uobis dico uuas tho zit nah sehsta. was then hour after the-sixth 'It was about the sixth hour' hora erat quasi sexta; uuardtho giheilit ther kneht in thero ziti. was then healed the servant at that hour 'The servant was healed at that very hour' & sanatus est puer in ilia hora ;

(T 553.21)

(T 275.29)

(T 183.7)

Ignoring the difficult question what analysis such OHG declaratives should receive, 25 one can argue just on distributional grounds that preACs-V f m sequences should be analyzed as extra-sentential adjunction of a preposed adverbial to a verb-first main clause. In fact, the main clauses of virtually all the attested pre-ACs-V fin constructions in Isidor, Tatian, and in Notker's Boethius in which verb placement can be argued to be independent of Latin exhibit characteristics that qualify them as verb-first declaratives in independent contexts. 26 Thus, it must be concluded that there is no unambiguous evidence that OHG preACs could occupy a sentence-internal exposition.

3.2.4. Subordination vs. embedding The previous sections have led us to conclude that OHG adverbial clauses had a different syntactic status from their modern counterparts. Although they were subordinate clauses (they were introduced by a set of adverbial subordinators and the finite verb was in late position), they were not syntactically embedded clauses. This gave rise to a number of exceptional

The syntactic integration ofpreposed adverbial clauses

37

word order patterns like the verb-third effects in the context of declarative main clauses. Not being capable of syntactic embedding, adverbial clauses stood apart from other types of subordinate clauses like complement clauses. It has repeatedly been stated that OHG had not yet developed real hypotactical structures and that a PDG-like set of complementizers had yet to be innovated (e.g. Fleischmann 1973, Abraham 1993). This view, however, does not seem to be fully empirically adequate. Complement clauses, for example, show characteristics of embedding already in the earlier prose documents, cf. the following example from the Monsee Fragments, where a wh-phrase has been extracted from the complement clause: (23)

huuaz uellet ir daz ih. iu tuoe. [cpwhati want you [cpt; that I you t; do... 'What do you want me to do for you?' quid uultis utfaciam uobis?

(M XIV.24)

Now, w/i-extraction can of course not be used as a test for ± embedding of adverbial clauses. 27 However, the absence of any unambiguous cases where adverbial clauses occupy a sentence-internal C-position on the one hand, and the fact that adverbial clauses could clearly occupy a sentence-external position in particle-introduced interrogative clauses on the other hand, both strongly suggest that OHG adverbial clauses were not syntactically embedded clauses. This 'deficiency' made them prone to induce a violation of the already fairly strict verb-second grammar of OHG. Viewed from the present state of the language, where this violation of the verb-second constraint is no longer tolerated, the question arises, of course, at which point in the history of German the adverbial clauses started to be attested in a sentence-internal C-position.

4. Preposed adverbial clauses in Middle High German The MHG period can be considered a period of stagnation as far as the syntactic integration of preACs is concerned. This is all the more surprising if one takes into account that some other unusual word patterns that existed in the OHG period are no longer attested in MHG texts. For example, verbfirst declaratives appear to be largely driven out of the written language (cf.

38

Katrin Axel

Maurer 1924, Önnerfors 1997: 225t). The pattern XP-pronoun-V fm is already absent from the late OHG texts.28 Let us take a section of the MHG part of the Lancelot (La I, pp. 1-65):29 30 More then twenty percent of preACs modifying declarative clauses (roughly 280 cases altogether) give rise to a verb-third effect like in (24). Almost 80 percent display the resumptive construction (25).31 (24) =(lb)

a.

b.

(25)

[Da syn meister das sah], er wonde yn begriffen When his master this saw he wanted him grab (La 140.8) 'When his master saw this, he wanted to grab hold of him' [als schier als der konig Ban gescheiden was von syner as soon as the king Ban departed was from his burg zu Trebe] dem truchseßsen was nit vergeßsen castle at Trebe the seneschal-ΖΜΓ was not forgot (La I 7.7) 'As soon as the king Ban had departed from his castle at Trebe, the seneschal recalled...'

Und [da er zu im kam], da was der eber And when he to him came RESUMPTIVE was the boar gefangen ( L a i 18.19) caught 'And when he came to him, the boar had been caught'

It should be noted that adverbial clauses are virtually the only category that systematically violates the otherwise fairly strict verb-second grammar of MHG. Complements, most other types of subordinate clauses, and most non-sentential types of adverbials do not regularly figure in verb-third constructions.32 In the analyzed section of the MHG Lancelot, verb-third constructions as in (24) are often attested in dependent complex sentences. In PDG, the highly specialized set of adverbial clauses which are still used in verb-third constructions cannot be embedded under main clause predicates that may select complementizerless verb-second clauses (26).33 This makes them different from MHG verb-third constructions with preposed adverbial clauses, which occur frequently after such predicates (27):

The syntactic integration of preposed adverbial clauses

39

(26)

? ? Der Kritiker sagte, wenn er auch kein großer The critic said if he MOD. PART, no great Romancier ist, seine lyrischen Texte sind wunderbar novelist is his lyrical texts are wonderful 'The critic said, even though he is not a great novelist, his lyrical texts are wonderful'

(27)

Er sprach zu im, [als schier als er zu land kern], er He said to him as soon as he into the-country came he deth yn ansprechen von verrettery would him charge with treason (Lai 31.28) 'He ... said, he would charge him with treason as soon as he came into his country'

Like in OHG, adverbial clauses are often found to the left of the complement clause they modify: 34 (28)

Und Claudas sichert im zuhant, [als schier als Trebe wiird And Claudas assured him at once as soon as Trebe was gewännen], das er im das lant wolt offgeben, (La I 4.24) won that he him the country wanted cede 'And Claudas assured him that he would cede him the country as soon as Trebe was seized'

Behaghel (1929) observes that preAC-V fm sequences are almost completely absent from his MHG corpus, whereas the verb-third and the resumptive construction are frequently attested. This result is confirmed by some 19th and 20th century scholars' observations on various lyrical and prose texts (cf. Pieritz 1912: 40ff„ and 9Iff. on King Rother and St. Trudpert Song of Songs, Schulze 1892: 13-44 and 43 on Parzival and I wein and Fassbender 1908: 24ff. on Berthold's sermons). To summarize, the data from the MHG prose Lancelot and the results of the philological literature would suggest that the distribution of preACs is similar in OHG and MHG: the verb-third and the resumptive pattern are well attested, whereas evidence for a C-internal placement of adverbial clauses seems to be lacking. 35

40

Katrin Axel

5. Preposed adverbial clauses in Early New High German The Early New High German (ENHG) period witnesses a major change in the distribution of preACs. This change can be seen in Figure 1, which shows the diachronic development of preAC-placement36 modifying declarative clauses in the texts of the Bonn ENHG corpus (the corpus contains a total of approximately 2700 sentences with preACs).37 100 Ξ

}}. Alternative questions conform by and large to the same apparatus and should not concern us here. How do constituent questions fare with respect to the partition approach? Constituent questions rest on partition as well, the difference being that ρ contains a VARIABLE. This amounts to quantifying into ρ such that the computation runs through the set of individuals which are suitable to replace the variable in p. (26) - John knows who smiled - is then true iff John knows for each individual that may be a potential smiler whether he/she smiled or not. In case there are only two discourse relevant individuals, say, Anna and Clara, (26) means that John knows for each of them whether he/she smiled or not. This leads to the set of alternatives in (28):

Decomposing the left periphery (28)

71

Set of alternatives {smiled (Anna) & smiled (Clara), smiled (Anna) & -ismiled (Clara), -ismiled (Anna) & smiled (Clara), —ismiled (Anna) & —ismiled (Clara)}

As Karttunen has already pointed out, the problem of this approach seems to be its rigidity. If I know where I can find a gasoline station in my neighborhood, I may be able to identify only one such location although there may be others which I have not seen or heard about before. And, of course, there are lots of places where one cannot find gasoline at all, and which are therefore totally irrelevant. We would still not wish to say that in such a situation the statement I know where I can find a gasoline station in my neighborhood is wrong. I believe (with others) that examples of this kind are not a serious challenge to the partition approach if one tries to develop a semantic account without mixing in pragmatics directly. Consider the statement of a police inspector who says I know who killed the victim. In that case, he better knows the EXACT set of people who have committed the crime and be able to exclude other relevant persons (i.e., potential suspects). All that follows from such examples is that the standards of what we are willing to see as knowledge are not independent of general values we attribute to states of affairs. In my view, this does not undermine the partition approach. It rather shows that model theoretic semantics does not (and perhaps should not try to) provide an exhaustive theory of meaning. For relevant discussion of this point, see Groenendijk and Stokhof (1982). Considering example (26) again and ignoring the pragmatic problems associated with propositional attitudes, the partition approach gives an interesting result because the propositions which are yielded by replacing the variable by a constant are disjunctively connected, as can be derived from the simple example in (28): If both Anna and Clara smiled, it cannot be true that Anna smiled and Clara did not smile, etc. Given that the semantics of constituent questions involves disjunction, the relation to disjunctive ('yes/no" and 'alternative') questions is quite obvious. Both types of questions rest on the same basic mechanism, namely the alternative of true and false, essentially the law of the excluded third. Thus, it is expectable that ANY type of question carries a disjunctive operator, be it openly spelled out as a morpheme or covertly expressed as a feature which is part of a more comprehensive expression such as a wh-phrase.

72

Josef Bayer

In the next sections, I want to reconsider the data presented so far under the perspective that disjunctive questions and constituent questions essentially rest on the same syntactic and semantic architecture, and that constituent questions appear to be more complex for the simple reason that they involve an operator-variable relation which alternative questions lack.

7.

Capturing syntactic variation

7.1. Doubly-Filled-Comp (DFC) Languages In languages which disobey the DFCF, wh is unspecified for the categorial feature . Thus, a separate lexical element - that, daz, che, que, dass is merged before wh-movement takes place. (29)

men shal wel knowe who that I am

(=1)

According to the semantic considerations in the previous section, the whphrase is a complex of a number of things: It is a variable which is restricted by the feature ; secondly, this variable seems to be bound by an existential operator; third, there is a feature for disjunction which I will call in order to distinguish it from ? in the tree (21). If the whphrase comprises in the numeration, one may say that that the whphrase moves to a scope position in order for to become interpretable. Alternatively, could be generated in SpecCP and attract a whphrase. 9 The pure complementizer that cannot achieve proper typing. Let us assume with Chomsky (1995) that the wh-phrase moves as a whole for reasons of morphological integrity, and that the operator actually leaves a copy behind which then serves as a variable that gets bound by an operator that is ultimately adjoined to IP. (29) is then represented by the tree in (30), in which we also assume that the variable in IP is bound by an existential operator.

Decomposing the left periphery (30)

73

disjP

disj

CP

c

IP

3x

who

that

IP

lam

χ PERSON

In languages like modern standard English, which obey the DFCF, the whphrase is assumed to be specified for . Thus, the wh-phrase is moved to the left edge of IP where it does different things: It assigns a whtype to the clause as in (30), an operation we suggested should be identified by taking scope; but it also identifies C. This amounts to saying that there is actually no empty C. In languages which follow the DFCF, C is nothing else but a feature inherent in the wh-phrase. This conclusion should not strike us as strange, given that any phrase is a complex of features. The only novelty here is that C is not necessarily encoded in a lexical head. Thus, while the PF-side looks superficially simpler in such languages, the LF-side is presumably close to what is seen in (30). One consequence of the Minimalist relaxation of X'-theory is that the problems mentioned in section 2 can be solved more easily. If German was and Bavarian wos (both meaning 'what') are radically underspecified, they may be able to acquire the feature by being moved to the left edge of IP. In the face of much cross-linguistic evidence that morphemes corresponding to 'what' are simultaneously used as complementizers (cf. Bayer, 1999), this assumption is not far-fetched at all. The fact that Bavarian wos cannot co-occur with dass although Bavarian is generally a DFC-dialect initially looks like a strange exception. However, once we begin to see that projections may be guided by variable sets of features inherent in lexical items, there seems to be a motivation. Given the lack of lexical properties of was, it is expected that it is this item which breaks out of the DFC-schema.

74

Josef Bayer

7.2. Dutch CP-Recursion In substandard Dutch, of may be unspecified for the feature . Thus, of can co-occur with dat which is specified for . Consider (14), which is repeated here as (31): (31)

Ikvraagme af \of\ dat Γ Ajax de vollende ronde haalt111 I ask me PRT if that Ajax the next round reaches Ί wonder whether Ajax will make it to the next round'

The CP-complement of (31) is then syntactically represented as in (32): (32)

disjP

disj

CP

C

of

dat

IP

Ajax de volgende ronde haalt

We have so far assumed that the wh-phrase may be unspecified for the feature . Therefore, we said, it can co-occur with of, which is specified for but which in turn may be unspecified for (cf. 8.2): (33)

Ze weet [wie [of [dat [ hij had willen opbellen]]]] she knows who if that he had wanted call

Data like (33) lead to the question why wh-movement should apply at all if the disjunctive complementizer of already heads the clause. Recall that there is a generalization according to which languages with a typing particle for questions do not move the 'wh-phrase" to the (left) edge of the clause. 10 Given that Dutch of acts like such a particle, one could expect non-movement of the wh-phrase. However, the sentence Ze weet [of [dat [hij wie had willen opbellen]]] does not sound quite acceptable (unless it is

Decomposing the left periphery

75

intended as an echo, perhaps). If of carries an optional EPP-feature, it is expected that this will be checked by a wh-phrase. There is evidence that the Dutch wh-elements, unlike their German counterparts, are lexically endowed with the core question feature which would be checked by of, in case of is present. While many (not all!) German wh-words can be used as indefinites, Dutch indefinites belong to a distinct morphological class.11 Since both of and the wh-phrase carry the feature , the whphrase will have to lose it in the process of checking. This leads to the tree representation in (34), which shows the structure after feature checking and reconstruction of the wh-phrase: (34)

disjP



opbellen

A corollary of this account is that, in standard Dutch, of and wh- are specified as and respectively. Thus, these items fulfill simultaneously what the substandard variety achieves by extra steps of merge. Insertion of these items in the left periphery is driven by the familiar processes. 0 / is merged with IP because it is a complementizer and as such incorporates ; it has selectional features which require IP to be -(-finite.

76

Josef Bayer

Movement of a wh-phrase achieves various things simultaneously. Since wh- incorporates , wh-movement activates these features in the derivation. Although neither C nor materialize at the PF-side of the derivation, these elements lead to an LF-representation as in (34). Of course, the feature will not be checked off in this case because there is no «/"-complementizer. This leads to the desired result because is an interpretable feature whose single occurrence must not be lost.

7.3. Wh-in-situ The East-Asian languages, and to some extent also South-Asian languages, do not move wh-phrases to the clausal periphery. The wh-phrase appears to remain 'in situ'.12 This fact obviously correlates with the presence of morphemes which correspond to and . Consider the Korean data (10) and (12), which are repeated here as (35) and (36). (35)

akasi -nun [[[ku-ka mwues-ul mek-kess1 -nva\-ko\ waitress-TOP he-NOM what -ACC eat -want-Q -QUOT mwulessta asked 'The waitress asked what he wanted to eat'

(36)

Bill-um [[[John -i wa -.v.v] -nya 1 -ko\ mwulessta Bill-TOP John -NOM come-PAST-Q -QUOT asked 'Bill asked whether John had come'

The complement of (36) shows a mirror image of the colloquial Dutch data in (14)/(32): What we have glossed with Q corresponds to the feature and has scope over IP. This complex is itself in the scope of QUOT, which corresponds to C. A noticeable difference is that the scope between Q and QUOT is reversed in comparison with Dutch of and dat. Why should this be so? I believe the reason is that -ko is really a quotative element rather than a complementizer such as dat. As can be expected, the quotative suffix marks the highest layer of structure in an embedded clause which is selected by a verb of speaking.13 In (35), we see essentially the same constellation, the difference being that there is a wh-phrase in situ. Why does this element not move to the specifier of Q? I assume this follows from the fact that heads in strictly head-final languages like Korean remain syntactically inactive in the sense

Decomposing the left periphery

77

that they do not license specifiers into which material has to move for reasons of feature checking (especially EPP-checking).14 If this is true, the whelement in situ should lack the feature which we have claimed is part of wh-phrases in the standard Western wh-movement languages.15 Let us now take the liberty of replacing Q by disj. Then, the LF-side of the complement clause of (35) looks as in (37):

(37)

quotP

Ignoring the difference that derives from the difference of C and QUOT, this representation is structurally the same as the one in (34).

7.4. Intermediary conclusion If we were on the right track so far, the PF-shape of the CP's left periphery is the result of the lexical ingredients which a language or dialect has at its disposal. Depending on what kinds of features can be integrated into a single item, the left periphery may look more or less complex. Comparison with East-Asian languages reveals surprising similarity. These languages show at the PF-interface structures which are close to structures at the LFinterface, and which are often obliterated in the Western languages due to morphological packing. We have seen that certain non-standard varieties of Germanic show a closer resemblance to these Eastern languages, albeit differences which relate to independent parametrical differences. This re-

78

Josef Bayer

suit conforms to Borer's (1984) hypothesis about parametric variation which locates the source of parametric variation in the lexicon and in the morphology. It also conforms to the Feature Scattering Principle of Giorgi and Pianesi (1997), which says that each feature can head a projection. In line with my own assumptions, Giorgi and Pianesi suggest features can also appear in bundles, in which case they may conform to a single node in phrase structure. Our consideration of a limited amount of variation in the organization of the left periphery of embedded clauses leads to the conclusion that feature scattering or joint projection is a consequence of the lexicon and the morphology of a language. As a case in point we have looked more closely at question complements. It could be observed that invariable ingredients of question complements can be packed in wh-phrases or scattered over positions which can be identified as different forms of C and a feature that was characterized as a disjunctive operator , as well as the restrictive terms that come along with wh-phrases. The analysis is strongly supported by Jayaseelan's (2001b) analysis of questions and question-word incorporating quantifiers in Malayalam, in which it is shown that the language has a clause peripheral head which is occupied by a disjunctive operator (-oo) that is associated with a focused variable. Although the semantics of questions has hardly been touched, it became quite clear that the partition approach is especially equipped to fruitfully combine with our syntactic and morphological findings. In the rest of this article, I will sketch out in a somewhat more speculative fashion how the architecture we have observed in the embedded clause may be expanded in the root clause.

8. How does Illocutionary Force enter the tree? We have committed a terminological crime by calling the embedded CPs we have discussed so far 'questions'. The terminology suggests the act of asking for missing information, but sentences in the interrogative format are not necessarily interrogatives in the sense of speech-act theory. Rather than denoting questions, they only REFER to a question. We are therefore well advised to keep the two things separate. The assumption is that illocutionary force is primarily a root phenomenon, and that the embedded clause primarily does not have a layer of force at all. 16 1 use the qualification 'primarily' because there are apparently exceptions which will play a role in the following discussion.

Decomposing the left periphery

79

How is illocutionary force represented syntactically? In (residual) V2languages, there are clear indications that I-to-C is a core device in establishing force. We will demonstrate this below and also turn to apparent exceptions.

8.1. I-to-C According to my knowledge, Stephen Wechsler was the first to suggest that the verb-second (V2) phenomenon should be explained as a process that visualizes features of illocutionary force; see Wechsler (1990; 1991) for an account of V2 in Swedish, which carries over to German and other V2languages.17

8.1.1. German Consider German. The data in (38) through (42) suggest that V2 is a root phenomenon and is blocked in the subordinate clause. (38)

a.

b. c. (39)

a.

b. c.

Die Frage, ob das Experiment gelingen wird, ist von the question whether the experiment succeed will is of entscheidender Bedeutung decisive importance 'The question whether the experiment will succeed is of decisive importance' *Die Frage, wird das Experiment gelingen, ist von entscheidender Bedeutung Wird das Experiment gelingen? 'Will the experiment succeed?' Die Frage, welches Experiment gelingen wird, ist von the question which experiment succeed will is of entscheidender Bedeutung decisive importance *Die Frage, welches Experiment wird gelingen, ist von entscheidender Bedeutung Welches Experiment wird gelingen ? 'Which experiment will succeed?'

80 (40)

Josef Bayer a.

b. c.

(41)

a.

b. c.

(42)

a.

b. c.

Dem Befehl, von hier aus zwei Schritte nach links zu the order from here out two steps to left to sehen wurde nicht nachgekommen move was not followed 'The order to move two steps to the left from here was ignored' *Dem Befehl, sehe von hier aus zwei Schritte nach links, wurde nicht nachgekommen Gehe von hier aus zwei Schritte nach links! 'Move two steps to the left from here!' Der Ausruf, dass das Ableben des Königs the exclamation that the passing-away (of) the king eine Freude sei, ist zu unterlassen a joy be is to be-suppressed 'One should abstain from shouting that the death of the king is a reason to be happy' *Der Ausruf, ist das eine Freude, dass der König gestorben ist, ist zu unterlassen Ist das eine Freude, dass der König gestorben ist! is this a joy that the king died has 'What good news it is that the king has died!' Der Wunsch, dass das Experiment doch endlich the wish that the experiment PRT finally gelingen möse, blieb unerfüllt succeed may remained unfulfilled 'The desire that the experiment succeed remained unfulfilled' *Der Wunsch, möse das Experiment doch endlich gelingen, blieb unerfüllt Möse das Experiment doch endlich gelingen! 'May the experiment ultimately succeed!'

The verb stays in final position in the a.-sentences. (38a), (41a), and (42a) are introduced by a complementizer, i.e., by an element which is classically seen as occupying the head position into which the finite verb would move if it were empty. Since the verbal form in (40a) is an infinitive, this may be a sufficient reason to not expect V2 to apply. But what about (39a)? The standard post-GB X'-theory assumes that there is an empty C-position into

Decomposing the left periphery

81

whose specifier the wh-phrase has been moved. In this case, we expect the mechanics of I-to-C movement to apply blindly, but, contrary to expectation, (39b) is ungrammatical. One could say that a 'zero" complementizer blocks V2, but this would clearly be ad hoc given that there is one message that is told by all the other examples in the b.-sentences of (38) through (42), and which offers a much better explanation: Suppress I-to-C!

8.1.2. English Roughly the same seems to be true for English, which also shows the V2phenomenon albeit in a more restricted form ('residual' V2). The source of the deviant examples in (43) is McCloskey (2002). a. b. c. d. e. f.

*/ found out how did they get into the building *The police discovered who had they beaten up *How many people should you invite depends on how big your place is *Who your friends are depends on where did you live while you were growing up *I usually know who might they hire */ remember clearly how many people did they arrest

Following the groundbreaking work by Stephen Wechsler, my hypothesis is that I-to-C endows CP with force features that can only be interpreted if CP is a root clause. In the post-Barriers tradition, root clauses are normally called 'CP', although the head of these clauses is not C. The head is filled with the finite verb or, more exactly, with the finiteness features of the verb which - due to generalized Pied-Piping - force the minimal verb to move along. Thus, it is actually misleading to call such clauses CPs. More important, however, is the question why these features of the verb play such a central role, and why the root clause has the privilege of making them visible. In my view, something like the following seems to go in the right direction: The root clause interfaces with the discourse, and as such has to be licensed in a different way than the dependent clause. The most obvious criterion for its distinctness is that it is a potential UTTERANCE. Embedded clauses are not utterances themselves but may only REFER to utterances. Utterances are pragmatic units which must be anchored in some situational model by which, among other things, values for speaker, hearer, place, and time are provided. At least some of these reference points are reflected in

82

Josef Bayer

the features of the finite verb which undergoes I-to-C. Among them are tense, person, and number features. These features can be anaphorically linked to discourse referents and time units. A case in point is tense anchoring to speech time. Another piece of evidence is the fact that in German imperatives (cf. 40c), the finite verb can only occur in fronted position.18 The morphological forms of imperatives are obviously such that their features can find no interpretation unless they head the root clause. Before I move to a speculation as to the implementation of illocutionary force by V1/V2,1 want to turn to apparent counterexamples.19

8.2. Apparent exceptions It is widely known that V2-clauses do appear as dependent clauses. In 8.2.1 and 8.2.2, we present some illustrative examples from German and Hiberno-English.

8.2.1. German (44)

a.

b.

Anna glaubt, 'Don Pasquale' sei die neueste Oper von Anna believes 'Don Pasquale' be the latest opera by John Adams John Adams 'Anna believes 'Don Pasquale' to be the latest opera by John Adams' Die Meinung, 'Don Pasquale' sei die neueste Oper the opinion 'Don Pasquale' be the latest opera von John Adams, muss einer Korrektur unterzogen werden by John Adams must a correction subjected be 'The opinion that Don Pasquale is the latest opera by John Adams must be subjected to a correction'

Both V2-complements of (44) are in subjunctive mood. Since root clauses are normally in indicative mood, this indicates that the activation of force may be obviated. Nevertheless, many speakers can also say (44a) - not (44b)! - with the complement in indicative mood. Therefore, subjunctive cannot be a reason to dismiss the example from the outset.

Decomposing the left periphery

83

Notice further that it has sometimes been claimed that V2 is only possible after bridge verbs, but this would not cover (44b). As de Haan (2001) has shown on the basis of Frisian data, the correlation between bridge verb/extractability and V2 (which in Frisian can arise in the presence of the complementizer dat) is not perfect. So we have to ask what the relevant factor is which allows V2-complements.

8.2.2. Hiberno-English The following Hiberno-English data have been taken from McCloskey (2002). They show a certain liberalism with subject-aux-inversion after the matrix verbs ask and wonder that is missing in standard English. (45)

a. b. c.

d. e. f. g.

h.

He asked me would I cook dinner I wonder what should we do I wondered would I be offered the same plate for the whole holiday Roddy Doyle, The Woman who Walked into Doors, (154) I wondered would the place always look like an abandoned building site ibd. (192) I wondered was he illiterate ibd. (96) I asked Jack was she in his class ibd. (96) I am sure she wasn't far from the truth when she asked was he thinking of throwing her in John McGahern, By the Lake, (40) I wonder how the fuck did he get in there Van Morrison, Interview 1977

Although Standard English, Hiberno-English, Frisian, and German show variation in their ability to license VI- or V2-complements, the general truth seems to be that embedded root properties, if they occur at all, are restricted to certain selecting lexical heads which denote a speech event or a propositional attitude.20 Thus, certain heads of this kind set up a quasiquotational context in which the force features which are activated by I-toC movement can still be interpreted. If this conclusion (which I am unable to defend here with the required care, but see Meinunger (2004) for a thorough investigation) is justified, the embedded root property of V W 2 is not a counterexample to the claim that I-to-C activates force features, and that force features are normally absent in dependent clauses.

84

Josef Bayer

In sections 2 through 7, we have identified three layers of information which are responsible for the formation of a wh-complement: wh, disj, C. The question is now how the clausal architecture is expanded in order to attain force features. If the neutral complementizer C is a pure subordinator, we can ignore it, because the root clause is normally not introduced by C. 21 What about wh and disj? Wh is certainly present in root clauses, and we can assume that it decomposes in analogy to wh in dependent clauses. Root clauses lack a distinctive disj-complementizer like Dutch of. So, the next conclusion could be that disj comes into play by I-to-C movement. The next section is meant to discourage this expectation.

8.3. Word order is not fully decisive In this section, I want to show on the basis of German data that verb placement and word order in general is not decisive for the encoding of a specific speech act. In the course of this demonstration, it will also become clear that it would be unfortunate to associate wh-movement or I-to-C movement directly with the activation of the feature disj. I will show that a direct correlation between I-to-C and force fails in two directions. We will first show that Vl/V2-clauses map onto a multitude of semantic/pragmatic interpretations. We will then show that there are various kinds of root clauses which lack the Vl/V2-property altogether. 22

8.3.1. V1/V2 map onto a multitude of semantic/pragmatic

interpretations

(46) contains a number of VI-root clauses with heterogeneous interpretations: (46)

a.

b.

VI-interrogative 1st das Experiment diesmal gelungen (oder nicht) ? is the experiment this-time succeeded (or not) 'Has the experiment succeeded this time (or not)?' VI-conditional Würde das Experiment misslingen, so wäre das would the experiment fail so would-be this keine Katastrophe no catastrophe 'It wouldn't be a desaster, if the experiment would fail'

Decomposing the left periphery c.

d.

e.

85

Vl-surprise declarative Hat mich doch gestern beinahe ein Hund gebissen has me PRT yesterday almost a dog bitten 'Yesterday I was almost bitten by a dog' VI-reason declarative Otto ist sorgenfrei hat doch sein Vater ein riesiges Otto is sorrow-free has PRT his father a huge Vermögen property 'His father being enormously rich, Otto does not need to worry' Vl-exclamative Ist DAS ein Trottel! is this an idiot 'He is an idiot indeed!'

These examples show that whatever V I does in detail, it cannot be confined to activating the head disj and interrogative force. While disj and interrogative force features could be present in (46a), they would be inappropriate in (46b) where we see a complementizer-less conditional clause, in (46c) which is a declarative with the flavor of a surprise information, (46d) which is a reason clause with root qualities, 23 and (46e) which is an exclamative, an interpretation which is guided by the emphatic stress on the demonstrative pronoun. Consider next examples with V2-order: (47)

a.

b.

c.

d.

V2-declarative John Adams ist nicht der Komponist von 'Don Pasquale' John Adams is not the composer of 'Don Pasquale' V2-exclamative Du bist vielleicht ein Trottel! you are perhaps an idiot 'What an idiot you are!' V2-exclamative Du bist vielleicht ein Trottel! you are perhaps an idiot 'What an idiot you are!' V2-wh-interrogative Wer ist der Komponist von 'Don Pasquale' ? 'who is the composer of 'Don Pasquale"

86

Josef Bayer e.

f.

V2-wh-exclamative Was bist du nur flir ein what are you only for an 'What an idiot you are!' V2-wh-exclamative Was bist du nur für ein what are you only for an 'What an idiot you are!'

Trottel! idiot

Trotteü idiot

(47a) is an unmarked declarative. (47b) is an exclamative due to the emphatic stress on the pronoun du. The non-declarative interpretation is supported by the adverb (discourse particle) vielleicht. If this particle is missing, the interpretation as an exclamative does not vanish but becomes more difficult and obviously relies on the invective Trottel. The same is true for (47c), the difference here being that the stress rests on the finite verb which can only be stressed in second position. 24 (47d) is a constituent question with interrogative force. Although (47e) and (47f) follow the wh-format, they have exclamative force. This interpretation is induced by stress on V2 as in (47e) or stress on the invective in (47f). As before, the exclamative interpretation is supported by a particle; in wh-exclamatives, the relevant particle is nur (the translation of which with English 'only' is inappropriate here because there is no sense of exclusion involved). 25 This list, which may not be exhaustive, shows that VI and V2 cannot do more than prepare the clause to activate force features. 26 The actual pragmatic interpretation depends on additional factors among which intonation, the use of adverbial particles, and, to some extent, lexical choice play a prominent role.

8.3.2. Root clauses without I-to-C The examples in (48) show that there are root clauses with illocutionary force in which I-to-C movement is either suppressed or impossible due to the fact that there is a complementizer or a finite verb form is missing altogether. (48)

a.

V-final exclamative Was für ein Trottel du doch bist! what for an idiot you PRT are 'What an idiot you are!'

Decomposing the left periphery b.

c.

d.

e.

f.

g.

h.

87

V-final exhortation Dass du mir bloß nicht zu spät nach Hause kommst that you me only not too late to home come 'Make sure that you don't get home too late' Infinitival exclamative Neapel sehen und sterben! Naples see and die Infinitival command Alle mal herhören! all once listen 'Everybody listen to me!' Infinitival command Nicht hinauslehnen! not out lean 'Don't lean out!' Infinitival command Aufgepasst! 'Attention, please!' Infinitival command Wohlauf! Noch getrunken den funkelnden Wein! Well still drunk the sparkling wine 'Now then, finish this sparkling wine!' ('Wanderlust', Justinus Kerner) Infinitival wh-interrogative Wo hingehen, wenn man alleine in einer fremden where go if one alone in a foreign Stadt ist? city is 'Where can one go if one is alone in a foreign city?'

(48a) shows that wh-clauses can be interpreted as exclamatives even without I-to-C movement. Once again, there is support by the particle doch and the lexical content of the utterance. (48b) is an example of an unembedded dependent V-final clause which is introduced by a complementizer. Its source may be a sentence type with an elided matrix. (48c) through (48h) are examples of more or less telegraphic speech with bare infinitives or perfective participles whose illocutionary force is likely to unfold on the basis of non-syntactic means.

88

Josef Bayer

8.4. Conclusion We started section 8 with the question how illocutionary force enters the architecture of the left periphery. The German data we have considered exhibit a surprisingly diverse, if not confusing, picture. We have singled out the process of I-to-C as a key factor by which root clauses acquire force features and, thus, turn into utterances. But although I-to-C seems to have a privileged status in grammars with an articulate left periphery and full or residual V1/V2, there are two important messages that derive from our observations: First, I-to-C cannot be sufficient for the determination of force. It rather ENABLES finite clause types to activate force features on the basis of additional factors not all of which fall into core syntax. Second, there are various cases in which force features can be activated without Ito-C, i.e., there must be shortcuts by which these utterances can be accommodated to the pragmatic system. In both types, we could observe that clause-internal particles such as doch, nur, vielleicht, etc. play an important role. Since these particles are not part of the left periphery, the question is how they can help in typing a clause for force. 27

9. General conclusion We have shown that in languages with an articulate left clausal periphery, more goes on in syntax and semantics than occasionally meets the eye. The more perspicuous organization of the clause in head-final languages with an agglutinative morphology could be shown to be partially replicated by dialects and other non-standard varieties of Western languages. These varieties provide evidence for a split CP. With respect to question complements, we found a close link between disjunctive (as well as alternative) questions and constituent questions. It could be shown that the postulated syntactic structure is supported by independently developed results in the formal semantics of questions, especially in the so-called partition approach. Syntactic variation in the PF-realization of the CP-system could be traced back to variation in the feature structure of lexical items. It was assumed throughout that embedded verb-final clauses lack features of illocutionary force. The question, then, is how these features enter the clausal architecture. We could isolate I-to-C movement as an important (albeit not the only) factor in accomplishing an underspecified structure through which force features of various types can be activated. Due to a

Decomposing the left periphery

89

number of different factors which conspire in the determination of force, the picture still looks rather gloomy. It is, in particular, not really clear how the features which play a role in question complements become effective in root clauses with interrogative force. Neither for the fronted finite verb nor for the wh-phrase would it be desirable to associate them directly with disjunctivity and quantification because there are similar, but competing clause types whose interpretation is incompatible with these properties. The general impression is that root clauses leave far more space for semantic and pragmatic interpretation than dependent clauses. Therefore, a research program which aims at a comprehensive account of clause types and their interpretations seems to be well-advised to not shift the entire burden to syntax and instead leave room for underspecified structures and dynamic interpretation.

Acknowledgements I want to thank the audiences of the workshop Syntax und Semantik der linken Satzperipherie, 24th annual meeting of the DGfS, Mannheim and IATL 18, Bar-Ilan University for discussion and valuable comments. An earlier version of this article is available in the internet under http://atar.mscc.huji.ac.il/~english/IATL/18/Bayer.pdf I wish to thank various colleagues for discussion and help at different stages of my research, especially Ellen Brandner, Alice Davison, Nomi Erteschik-Shir, Yehuda Falk, Na'ama Friedman, Alex Grosu, M.T. Hany Babu, Horst Lohnstein, Uli Lutz, Hans-Georg Obenauer, Arnim von Stechow, and Susanne Trissler. None of them must be held responsible for any shortcomings in this paper. This work was supported by the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft via the SFB 471 and the Kurt-Lion Foundation.

Notes 1.

2. 3.

Kathol (2000) even goes as far as arguing in favor of a purely linear organization of the clause by which wh and C form a natural class as typical representatives of the clausal left edge. Notice that in many languages the wh-pronoun for ,what' serves as the most unmarked complementizer; cf. Bayer, 1999. To see that this is not a radical deviation from UG-principles, consider the coordination of pronoun and DP as in [she] and [her husband's former wife]

90

Josef Bayer

which, according to Minimalist assumptions, cannot be more than the coordination of Ν and DP. We do not want a theory which demands that the two have identical structures. 4. We may add as a third reason that wos is a morphologically simplex closed class item, and that this makes it a perfect candidate to serve as a head. Since there is no rule which prevents operators to be morphologically simplex, there is no reason why it could not simultaneously serve as a wh-operator. 5. Thus, we object to Schleicher (1858: 63) who claims that in such cases 'daß steht überflüßig in abhängigen fragen". 6. Standard varieties of German do not allow the constructions to be discussed in the text, but they allow lots of related variations in the domain of prepositional complementizers such as anstatt ('instead'), bevor ('before'), bis ('until'), nachdem ('after'), obwohl ('although'), etc., which may cooccur with the neutral subordinator dass. Notice also other combinations such as sobald ('as soon as') with als or wie ('as'): (i) a. Anstatt hier zu bleiben lief das Kind davon instead here to stay ran the child away 'Instead of staying here, the child ran away' b. Anstatt dass es hier blieb lief das Kind davon instead that it here stayed ran the child away (ii) a. Sobald er aus der Tür trat erfasste ihn die Kälte as-soon he out the door stepped caught him the cold 'As soon as he stepped out of the door, he was caught by the b. Sobald als/wie er aus der Tür trat erfasste ihn die as-soon as/as he out the door stepped caught him the Kälte cold' 7. This does, of course not exclude the possibility that ? merges with IP before the disjunctive head (corresponding to whether in (21)) is applied. I do not intend to take issue with the formal semantics of questions. 8. The facts of Bengali are actually more complex. The language allows in root clauses a clitic ki ('what") which may be sentence-final but may also attach to constituents in clause-medial position. 9. The fact that in-situ 'wh' phrases are often indistinguishable from indefinites (cf. German dass er wen getroffen hat (that he someone met has) versus wen (dass) er t getroffen hat (who (that) he met has) gives some credibility to the idea that is not necessarily lexically inherent in a wh-expression. 10. Cf. Cheng (1991). 11. Compare Dutch and German in the following examples which show that German allows among others, (iib), wh-items, (iia), while Dutch, (i), seems to insist on -wh indefinites :

Decomposing

12.

13. 14. 15. 16.

17. 18.

19. 20. 21. 22. 23.

24. 25. 26.

the left periphery

91

(i) Ik heb iets / iemand gezien I have something / someone seen (ii) a. Ich habe was / wen gesehen b. Ich habe etwas /jemanden gesehen The assumption that the wh-phrase remains in situ has been challenged. At least for South Asian languages, it has been argued the wh-phrase moves to a functionally defined focus field to the left of V. Cf. Jayaseelan (2001a) and Simpson and Bhattacharya (2000; 2003). For reasons of space, I have to leave this aspect aside. For details on quotatives cf. Bayer (1999) and some of the literature reported therein. Cf. Bayer (to appear). Unfortunately I cannot support this theory-driven conclusion with independent empirical evidence. Note that such a distinction is missing in Rizzi (1997). Rizzi assumes a unitary force system which links the sentence either to the preceding discourse or to the immediately dominating clause. Cf. Brandner (2004) for detailed discussion of VI and V2 in terms of force activation. According to my knowledge, there is no grammatical expression (outside perhaps poetry) with an imperative finite verb form in clause-final position: *... von hier aus zwei Schritte nach links gehe! For details on embedded V2-clauses which show that, in fact, nothing is exceptional here, cf. Meinunger (this volume). Interestingly, the selective force of the matrix predicate can operate across an intervening dat-complementizer in Frisian; cf. de Haan (2001). For a refinement of this statement, cf. section 8.3. In the following examples capital letters are meant to signal emphatic stress. Both the surprise and the reason reading disappear when the adversative particle doch is missing. Needless to say that the surprise declarative is odd, if the truth of the proposition is already expected by the hearer. This is an instance of what Höhle (1992) has identified and described as 'VERUM-Fokus'. For details about German exclamatives, cf. d'Avis (2001) and Hasegawa (1999) among others. One of my intuitions is that VI may have something to do with nonveridicality in the widest sense. With respect to negative polarity licensing, only the interrogative in (46a) and the conditional clause in (46b) would qualify, but in each of the other types which have been introduced here, it seems justified to say that the truth of the proposition expressed is under debate (in a certain way). For extensive discussion of non-veridical contexts cf. Giannakidou (1998). Quoting from Önnerfors (1997) and Reis (2000), Brandner (this

92

Josef Bayer

volume) presents VI-sentences which seem to be very close to declaratives such as (i) Soviel zu diesem Argument. Bleibt nachzutragen ... so much to this argument remains to add (ii) Dies war merkwürdig. War es doch der Staatschef, der ... this was Strange was it PRT the prime-minister who Nevertheless, the impression remains even here that the assertive force is not the issue but rather something beyond. Bleibt nachzutragen ... in (i) can be characterized as a quasi adversative statement. War es doch der ... in (ii) is clearly more than assertive as shown by the obligatory presence of the particle doch. None of these examples would be felicitous outside the particular discourse environment in which it occurs. 27. For an interesting suggestion cf. Hasegawa (1999). Hasegawa suggests that there is clause-internal particle phrase (PrtP) through whose specifier a whphrase may move and to whose head the finite verb may adjoin on their way to the left periphery of the clause. In this way, force features can be passed on to the layer of structure in which force seems to be activated.

References d'Avis, Franz-Josef 2001 Über w-Exklamativsätze im Deutschen. Niemeyer: Tübingen. Bayer, Josef 1984 COMP in Bavarian syntax. The Linguistic Review 3: 209-274. 1999 Final complementizers in hybrid languages. Journal of Linguistics 35: 233-271. 2002 Minimale Annahmen in Syntax und Morphologie. Linguistische Arbeitsberichte 79: 277-297. Department of Linguistics, University of Leipzig. to appear Non-nominative subjects in comparison. In Peri Bhaskararao, and Karumuri Venkata Subbarao (eds.), [title to be announced], John Benjamins: Amsterdam. Borer, Hagit 1984 Parametric Syntax: Case Studies in Semitic and Romance Languages. Foris: Dordrecht. Brandner, Eleonore 2004 Head-movement in Minimalism and V/2 as force-marking. This volume. Cheng, Lisa 1991 On the typology of Wh-questions. Ph.D. diss. Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, Mass.

Decomposing the left periphery Chomsky, Noam 1995 The Minimalist Program. Cambridge, Massachusetts: MIT-Press. Cinque, Guglielmo 1999 Adverbs and Functional Heads: A Cross-Linguistic Perspective. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Eden, Jan 2004 Uniformity and variation: On the relation of wh-phrases and sentence moods in German. This volume. Giannakidou, Anastasia 1998 Polarity Sensitivity as (Non)veridical Dependency. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Giorgi, Alessandra, and Fabio Pianesi 1997 Tense and Aspect. From Semantics to Morphosyntax. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Groenendijk, Jeroen, and Martin Stokhof 1982 Semantic analysis of wh-complements. Linguistics and Philosophy 5: 175-233. de Haan, German 2001 More is going on upstairs than downstairs: Embedded root phenomena in West Frisian. The Journal of Comparative Germanic Linguistics 4: 3-38. de Haan, German, and Fred Weerman 1986 Finiteness and verb fronting in Frisian. In Verb Second Phenomena in Germanic Languages, Hubert Haide,r and Martin Prinzhorn (eds.), 77-110. Dordrecht: Foris. Haegeman, Liliane 1992 Theory and Description in Generative Syntax: A Case Study in West Flemish. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Hagstrom, Paul 1998 Decomposing questions. Ph.D. diss., MIT, Cambridge, Mass. Hale, Kenneth, and Samuel J. Keyser 1993 On argument structure and the lexical expression of syntactic relations. In The View from Building 20, Ken Hale, and Samuel Jay Keyser (eds.), 53-110. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT-Press. Hasegawa, Kei 1999 Exklamativsätze im Deutschen und im Japanischen. MA-thesis. Friedrich-Schiller University Jena. Higginbotham, James 1993 Interrogatives. In The View from Building 20, Ken Haie, and Samuel Jay Keyser (eds.), 195-228. Cambridge, Mass.: MITPress.

93

94

Josef Bayer 1997

The semantics of questions. In The Handbook of Contemporary Semantic Theory, Shalom Lappin (ed.), 361-383. Oxford: Blackwell. Höhle, Tilman Ν. 1992 Über Verum-Fokus im Deutschen. In Informationsstruktur und Grammatik, Joachim Jacobs (ed.), (Special issue #4 of Linguistische Berichte) 112-141. Opladen: Westdeutscher Verlag. Hoekstra, Eric 1993 Dialectal variation inside CP as parametric variation. In Dialektsyntax, Werner Abraham, and Joseph Bayer (eds.), (Special issue #5 of Linguistische Berichte) 161-179. Opladen: Westdeutscher Verlag. Jäger, Agnes 2000 Unterspezifikation am Beispiel des Pronomens 'was': Zur Grammatik eines w-Elements. MA-thesis. Friedrich-Schiller University Jena. Jayaseelan, Κ. A. 2001a IP-internal topic and focus phrases. Studia Linguistica 55: 39-75. 2001b Questions and question-word incorporating quantifiers in Malayalam. Syntax 4: 63-93. Karttunen, Lauri 1977 Syntax and semantics of questions. Linguistics and Philosophy 1: 3-41. Kathol, Andreas 2000 Linear Syntax. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Lahiri, Utpal 2002 Questions and Answers in Embedded Contexts. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Larson, Richard 1988 On the double object construction. Linguistic Inquiry 14: 223249. Lohnstein, Horst, and Ursula Bredel 2004 Inflectional morphology and sentence mood in German. This volume. McCloskey, James 2002 Embedding the root. Handout, University of Konstanz. Meinunger, Andre 2004 Verb position, verbal mood and the anchoring (potential) of sentences. This volume. Nishigauchi, Taisuke 1990 Quantification in the Theory of Grammar. Dordrecht: Kluwer

Decomposing the left periphery Önnerfors, Olaf 1997 Verb-erst Deklarativsätze. Grammatik und Pragmatik. Stockholm: Almqvist and Wikseil. Pollock, Jean-Yves 1989 Verb movement, Universal Grammar, and the structure of IP. Linguistic Inquiry 20: 365-424. Reis, Marga 2000 Review of Önnerfors 1997. Studia Linguistica 54: 90-100. Rizzi, Luigi 1997 The fine structure of the left periphery. In Elements of Grammar, Liliane Haegeman (ed.), 281-337. Dordrecht: Kluwer. Reuland, Eric 1990 Head movement and the relation between morphology and syntax. In Yearbook of Morphology 3, Geert Booij and Jaap van Marie (eds.), 129-161. Dordrecht: Foris. Schleicher, August 1858 Volkstümliches aus Sonneberg im Meininger Oberlande. Weimar: Böhlau. Simpson, Andrew, and Tanmoy Bhattacharya 2000 Wh CP-raising in Bangla. In Proceedings of NELS 30, Masako Hirotani, Andries Coetzee, Nancy Hall, and Ji-yung. Kim (eds.), 583-596. 2003 Obligatory overt wh-movement in a wh-in-situ language. Linguistic Inquiry 34: 127-142. Sohn, Ho-min 1999 The Korean Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Stechow, Arnim von 1993 Die Aufgaben der Syntax. In Syntax. An International Handbook of Contemporary Research, Joachim Jacobs et al. (eds.), 1-88. Berlin: de Gruyter. 1996 Against LF pied-piping. Natural Language Semantics 4: 57-110. Wechsler, Stephen 1990 Verb second and illocutionary force in Swedish. In: Parametric Variation in Germanic and Romance. Edinburgh Working Papers in Cognitive Science, #6, Elisabeth Engdahl, Mike Reape, Martin Mellor, and Richard Cooper (eds.), 229-244. 1991 Verb second and illocutionary force. In Views on Phrase Structure, Katherine Leffel, and Denis Bouchard (eds.), 177-191. Dordrecht: Kluwer.

95

Head-movement in minimalism, and V2 as FORCEmarking Ellen Brandner

Abstract This paper discusses the motivation of syntactic movement under a strict economical perspective. Mainly head movement of the verb within the clausal projection will be discussed, but also the nature of the XPmovement that is obligatory in the Germanic V2 construction. It will be argued that head-movement can be analyzed as "self-attachment" of the finite verb to the clausal projection. This is in line with basic assumptions of Minimalism if one adopts the notion of "extended projection", developed by Grimshaw (1991). XP-movement, on the other hand, will be shown not to be triggered by information structural features. The idea to be defended is that V2 is a strategy to specify a FORCE-value in an explicit way. In V2 languages, there is no distinct lexical item (or inflection) that indicates the FORCE-value. Therefore the finite verb must be in a spechead-relationship with a phrase that bears this feature via lexical specification. V2 languages are claimed to belong to the type of "explicit-marking" languages where every FORCE-value (including declarative) must be marked explicitly: Other languages allow the least marked structure to be interpreted as declarative by default, and thus do not require an additional clausal layer in the case of declaratives. The second part of the paper discusses verb-initial structures in German. These have been analyzed in the literature as marginal structures that are exceptional. Verb-initial structures will be treated here as syntactically underspecified clauses. They can acquire a complete interpretation only via non-syntactic means like intonation and discourse influenced strategies. These strategies allow them to express a wide range of interpretations which crucially deviate from the canonical interpretation of a declarative as an assertion.

98

1.

Ellen Brandner

Introduction

In the Minimalist Program (Chomsky 1995), the trigger for movement is located in abstract features, introduced into the structure by the operation MERGE. MERGE may create positions consisting only of abstract features (e.g., Τ and C projections). These features trigger movement of lexical material that bear these features to this position in order to get a well-formed, interpretable structure (after checking). The problem with this mechanism in a strict minimalist view is obvious: in the first step, some structure is built that is not interpretable and in the second step additional operations (movement) have to apply such that the structure is interpretable. Since the features are located ultimately in the lexical items, it is unclear why MERGE should first build the functional structure above the VP-projection and then the inserted (uninterpretable) features build the trigger for the movement of elements that possess these features via lexical means. So the question is why not restrict the operation of MERGE + MOVE only to those cases where the (interpretable) features of the lexical items cannot be interpreted in their base position (i.e., first-MERGE). That means REMERGE should be the only licit operation. The task then would be to find well-motivated restrictions that explain why certain lexical items cannot be interpreted in their base configuration, respectively which elements may bear several features at the same time, such that RE-MERGE is an option. I will suggest that RE-MERGE is only necessary if relevant features (mostly attached to the finite verb via inflection) are not legible in a direct way. If a language has particles that stand uniquely for a given feature value (e.g., typing particles in the sense of Cheng 1991), then no movement is required and the clausal structure of these languages should be simpler. Interpretability is thus closely tied to the lexical inventory of a language and MOVE, i.e., extension of the clausal structure, is in fact a last resort mechanism. The empirical area in which these concepts will be discussed is the verbsecond (V2) phenomenon in German. Section 2 discusses the conceptual problem that arises if one tries to explain the V2 phenomenon by alluding to the general feature checking mechanism. More recent accounts in terms of remnant movement (Müller to appear), Münchhausen-style headmovement (Fanselow 2002), and phrase-structural solutions (Bury 2002) will be shown to be not fully satisfying. In section 3, it will be proposed that V2 is a strategy to encode FORCE-values in an explicit way by means of extension of the clausal structure. The idea is that movement of the finite

Head-movement in minimalism, and V2 as FORCE-marking

99

verb is motivated by the requirement that the necessary features of a clausal projection must be present on the main projection line (legibility). Since FORCE-values are not encoded morphologically on the verb in Germanic languages, additional movement of an XP to the specifier position of the extended projection will deliver the respective value by dynamic spec-head agreement. Dynamic spec-head-agreement will be shown to be equally operative in languages that are traditionally analyzed as wh-in-situ languages, like Hindi/Urdu and Malayalam. These languages are not really wh-in-situ but rather "wh-before the finite verb". The difference to the mechanism suggested for the Germanic languages is that the spec-headconfiguration between the finite verb and the wh-phrase is in the lowest verbal projection. Section 4 brings evidence that one immediate consequence of this analysis is in fact true, namely that VI structures in Germanic are underspecified with respect to their FORCE-value. The traditional way of accounting for Y/N questions as a verb-initial structure with an empty operator in Spec-CP is incorrect; the same holds for so-called VI declaratives. It will be shown that additional non-syntactic devices are necessary in order to get an interpretable FORCE-value. This accounts for the restricted syntactic distribution and for the wide range of possible interpretations of VI structures in the Germanic languages.

2.

Why V2?

2.1. The theoretical problem Since the work of den Besten (1977/1983), V2 languages are described such that the finite verb targets the exposition as its final landing site instead of the 1° (or Tense) position which builds the head of the clause in non-V2 languages. The C°-position is assumed to be the target because of the complementarity between the complementizer and the finite verb in embedded V2-constructions.' Accordingly, the specifier position of C° is the landing site for the constituent that precedes the finite verb, leading to the V2 pattern in (1): (1)

XP Vfin ... where XP is an element of {arguments and adjuncts of any categorial type, adverbs, any wh-constituent, es2}

The flexible nature of this position implies that it must be of a different kind than those specifiers that attract, for example, NPs which have a case

100

Ellen Brandner

feature to check. Especially the fact that adverbs of any kind can appear in this position shows that the attraction mechanism can not be due to a formal syntactic feature that the lexical item can/should check. This casts doubt on the assumption that the position in question is Spec-CP, that is, a genuine operator position. On the other hand, since wh-Phrases must occur in this position in constituent questions, it seems to be the case that, in some instances, there is a triggering feature. This is in line with the observation that in so-called residual V2 languages like English, verb-movement appears only if a wh-phrase (or a negated phrase) is fronted. For this reason, it has been suggested that the category of V2 clauses may sometimes be a TP and sometimes a CP (see Travis 1984 and Zwart 1993 for an early suggestion of this idea). Nevertheless, the general V2 pattern raises the following question: (2)

Given that many (in fact, most) languages of the world can do without V2, why is it that this additional syntactic movement is necessary in Germanic root clauses?

In a Principles and Parameters Framework, this could be expressed as a parameter [ ± V2] and the distinction between V2 languages and others would be on the same level as the distinction between VO and OV languages. However, using a conception of grammar which is obliged to a strict notion of economy in the sense that the pairing between a phonetic form and its interpretation should be done in the most effective and parsimonious way, (2) in fact poses a serious problem: it implies that V2 languages satisfy an interface requirement in a non-optimal way. The task therefore is to find a division between V2 and non-V2 languages which allows both language types to be "optimal solutions" to the problem of the pairing between PF and LF. A more specific question that addresses V2 is the following: (3)

Since V2 consists of two operations, head-movement and XPmovement, it needs to be asked whether there is an intrinsic ordering in these movements.

That is to say: a.

Is the main trigger to be found in a property of the headposition and the additional XP-movement is of an accompanying nature? or

Head-movement in minimalism, and V2 as FORCE-marking b.

c.

101

Is it the other way round, namely that the XP-movement is feature-driven and that the head-movement is only necessary in order to create the specifier position? or Are in fact both movements equally driven by some (maybe different) syntactic requirement(s)?

In a strictly derivational conception, there can only be one answer to this: head-movement precedes XP-movement, since movement proceeds always in a cyclic manner. The word order facts do not allow any other derivation. In current Minimalist analyses, however, this consequence is avoided because the functional structure above VP is generated independently and thus the question in which order the movements are triggered arises again. It will turn out later that the strictly derivational view on the order is tenable and in fact preferable, for both theoretical and empirical reasons.

2.2. The trigger for V2 Let us briefly turn to the question where the trigger for the two movements is possibly located. Possibility (3a) is the traditional answer to this question. It is assumed that some kind of finiteness feature is located higher (i.e., in C°) in V2 languages and thus the finite verb targets the exposition instead of the Imposition. This is the analysis suggested, for example, in Platzack (1986) and much subsequent work. The additional XP-movement is taken as an accompanying constraint that has to be fulfilled independently. Another suggestion to motivate the movement of the finite verb is to assume that V2 languages assign nominative case to the subject under government and therefore the finite verb moves to C° in order to govern the subject (e.g., Koopman 1984). Again, it is a restriction imposed on the finite verb and therefore a solution in the sense of (3 a). That suggestions of this kind face various empirical and conceptual problems has been shown in great detail in Vikner (1995) (see also Brandner 1995) - especially if one considers the fact that V2 languages show a basic asymmetry between root and embedded clauses, i.e., the V2 operation is basically confined to root contexts (see fn 1). In more recent feature-based approaches, an analysis in the spirit of (3b) is favored. It is assumed that information-structural features (henceforth ISfeatures) like [+topic] and [+focus] are located in the Spec-C-position (by

102

Ellen Brandner

definition). These trigger the movement of an IS-marked constituent to Spec-CP and thus verb-movement occurs in order to create the specposition in some kind of altruistic movement (or enlightened self-interest). In a strict version of Minimalism, head-movement must also be triggered. It is therefore assumed that a similar kind of feature is located in C° which can be checked by the finite verb. But note that there is no empirical basis for the assumption of such a feature on the finite verb itself. The morphology of the finite verb is the same - whether there is an operator in Spec-CP or a simple adverb. The idea that IS-features lie at the bottom of the V2 constraint has been very influential in recent years, especially in the context of Rizzi's (1997) split-C-analysis. But as already discussed in Section 2, this presupposes a conception of feature insertion which is not compatible with minimalist assumptions. Note also that the pre-verbal position in V2 clauses does not create an ISposition with an entirely new quality; rather, all IS-values that are realized in this position can also be realized in some lower position, that is, contrastive focus can always be attained in the base position of the constituent via pitch accent.3 (4)

a. b.

David hat von seiner Tante EINEN LASTER gekriegt David has from his aunt a lorry gotten EINEN LASTER hat David von seiner Tante gekriegt a lorry has David from his aunt gotten 'David got a lorry from his aunt'

Both versions receive the same interpretation. Similar considerations apply to topical material which tends to occur in higher positions if no other constraint in the grammar prevents that (cf. the scrambling property of German). Additionally, the insertion of the expletive element es can hardly be motivated with an attraction mechanism, because there is no plausible ISvalue that es could bear.4 Possibility (c) has not been suggested explicitly and the reason is at first sight obvious: since spec-head-agreement can only involve the same kind of feature, (c) is not an option for well-motivated theoretical reasons. However, V2 can also be conceived of as a "conspiracy" phenomenon, see Weerman (1989) for an early suggestion in this spirit. This means that different factors interact such that the outcome is the V2 spec-headconfiguration, but head-movement is not dependent on XP-movement nor vice versa. An analysis of V2 as a conspiracy is put forward in Fanselow

Head-movement in minimalism, and V2 as FORCE-marking

103

(2002). He suggests that verb-movement in V2 languages occurs since the verb possesses some Mood-feature that can only be checked by itself (Münchhausen-style head-movement, i.e., self-attachment to its own projection). XP movement (with the exception of wh- and focus induced movement which is feature-triggered) is not analyzed as real movement. Rather the finite verb "squeezes itself in" between the highest constituent and the rest of the clause. (5)

In [ (X V.fin [ Σ . . . ] ] , α is the uppermost element of Σ , or bears a [+wh] or [+foc] feature

This is illustrated in (6). The focused phrase von seiner Tante moves to the highest position, the so-called IP-internal IS position.5 In an embedded clause, this position immediately follows the complementizer, and in a V2 clause it precedes the finite verb, however, the relative order of the constituents remains: (6)

a.

b.

dass VON SEINER TANTE David einen Laster that from his aunt David a lorry zu Weihnachten bekommen hat for Chrismas been given has '.. .that David got a lorry from his aunt for Chrismas' VON SEINER TANTE hat David einen Laster from his aunt has David a lorry zu Weihnachten bekommen for Chrismas been given 'David got a lorry from his aunt for Chrismas'

If the constituent does not have operator features, no additional projection is necessary and thus the problematic dual status of Spec-CP in the traditional account is avoided. However, the approach presupposes a scrambling operation within the TP projection. This is possible in German but not in the other Germanic V2 languages. Nevertheless, they also allow adverbials, objects, etc. to occur in this position. Additionally, it is again the occurrence of the expletive es that constitutes a major problem. (7)

a. b.

*gestern hat es jemand angerufen yesterday has EXPL someone called *dass es jemand gestern angerufen hat that EXPL someone yesterday called has

104

Ellen Brandner c.

es hat gestern jemand angerufen EXPL has yesterday somebody called 'Somebody has called yesterday'

If there is no real movement of the initial constituent in non-operator V2, then there is also no special position before the finite verb in the expletive construction. This makes even a base-generation approach to expletive insertion impossible since it is clearly not an operator position that hosts the expletive and so there is no possible base position for the expletive.

2.3. No Head Movement? It has been suggested by Chomsky (2001) that V2 should be treated in the phonological component. One of the reasons is the lack of any plausible feature that could trigger XP movement, as discussed in the previous section. Another observation is that the occurrence of V-I movement in French, respectively the lack of it in English, does not lead to any differences in interpretation. A syntactic operation that does not have an effect on the interpretative component should not be a licit operation in narrow syntax. For this reason, Boskovic (2001:172ff) claims that V2 constructions and second position effects in general should be traced back to Wackernagel's law, i.e., ultimately prosodic reasons, as Wackernagel himself (very cautiously) suggested in his (1892) article. However, the main reason is the critical status of head movement within Minimalism: head movement has several properties that cannot be easily integrated into the conception of clausal extension for various technical problems (see Mahajan 2001 for an extensive discussion). I will focus here on the main points: The first problem that is encountered with head-movement is that of cyclicity: head-movement is traditionally taken as an adjunction operation, i.e., the moved head (left) adjoins to another, already projected head. This is the case in a V2 construction where the following structure arises:

Head-movement in minimalism, and V2 as FORCE-marking

105

(8)

CP Spec

C' IP

Vfin

The problems are immediately obvious: the moved head does not ccommand its trace under a strict definition of c-command. Additionally, since Vfin does not project any further it should have the status of a [-(-maximal] projection and thus the relation between the moved element and its trace would violate the Chain Uniformity Condition. Despite these problems, the structure in (8) is nevertheless defended since it is the only structure that allows a feature-driven movement, the ATTRACT-mechanism. The initial MERGE of C° is motivated by the postulation of a feature which can act as an attractor for the finite verb. The finite verb is taken to be specified for this feature and thus movement, i.e., adjunction, must take place. However, exactly this is the point where the system does not operate according to strict minimalist assumptions. The computational system has to find out which features are present in the finite verb, then it has to project the relevant structural layers above VP, and only in the final step, the verb moves to these positions in order to check that feature.6 This is not only redundant, but the mechanism also leads to the aforementioned technical problems. Müller (to appear) proposes a solution for V2 and the head-movement problem in terms of remnant movement. The idea is that XP-movement in V2 already takes place in the VP; more precisely, to the specifier position of vP as an edge position. What is then fronted is a maximal projection and not a separate head with additional, distinct XP-movement. This solution avoids the technical problems of head-movement but the initial movement into Spec-vP must be feature triggered just like in the traditional accounts. Müller also relies on the possibility of scrambling in German and this leads to the problem that the analysis cannot be carried over to the other Germanic languages, at least in a non-stipulative way.7 Additionally, many ad hoc stipulations must be made in the context of expletive insertion, so it does not seem that this approach is superior to the traditional headmovement analysis.

106

Ellen Brandner

Self-attachment would avoid the technical problems of head-adjunction mentioned above. The moved verb projects its own VP and therefore Chain Uniformity is respected since the moved verb is (still) a head. It ccommands its trace under a strict version of c-command, and finally the structure is extended in a cyclic manner. However, self-attachment is excluded according to Chomsky (1995) since it violates the Endocentricity condition: the two projected VPs are identical and therefore count as one projection with two segments. In the end we would have a VP that contains two heads. Bury (2002), based on a proposal by Koeneman (1995), rejects Chomskys objections against self-attachment of the verb and proposes that a specifier in the projection of the self-attached verb avoids the problem of the two-headed VP: the presence of the specifier creates a V' projection and therefore the lower VP is not dominated by a maximal V-projection. The structure then turns out as two separate VPs, each headed by a V (the lower VP of course contains a trace). However, as just said, this presupposes that the specifier of the higher VP is present and this specifier is claimed to be the prefield in V2, it can host anything - as long as it is a phrase. The requirement that there is a phrase before the finite verb is accounted for in purely phrase structural terms. A rather similar proposal was made in Brandner (1995). There I claimed that the lexicalization of a C° head as a finite verb leads to a mismatch in categorial terms and the occupation of the specifier guarantees the identification of the phrase. The proposal by Roberts and Roussou (2002) can be seen in the same spirit: Because of some (spell-out) deficiency of a given head, the specifier of this head must be occupied. Without going into the details, all these proposals have in common that they employ the phrase structural component of the grammar in a "blind way" which leads to the desired effect that there are no restrictions laid upon the nature of the phrase that occupies this position: a welcome result in the context of V2. However, these proposals all predict that V-initial structures in V2 languages should not exist, i.e., they are only V-initial on the surface, and that empty elements like Y/N operators fulfill the phrase structural requirements. I will come back to this issue in detail in Section 4, where I will argue there are no empty operators at work in Vinitial structures in German. The next section is devoted to an account of V2 that neither invokes attracting features nor relies on a "blind" phrase structural component.

Head-movement in minimalism, and V2 as FORCE-marking

107

3. V2 as Force-Marking The idea that V2 has something to do with illocutionary FORCE is not new (see e.g., Wechsler 1990, more indirectly Weerman 1989, see also Lohnstein 2001, Lohnstein/Bredel this volume, and Bayer this volume). Under FORCE-marking I will understand the value that an utterance needs in order to be interpretable as an assertion, a command, a question, etc. This does not necessarily correspond to the formal marking of a clause. A declarative V2 clause in German can be interpreted as a question with the appropriate intonation, a command can be uttered as an interrogative or declarative, as is well known since the work on indirect speech acts (see Searle 1969, Bayer this volume for discussion of the same point). The syntactic encoding can thus be overridden by pragmatic means - at least to a certain degree. Nevertheless, there seems to be a canonical mapping from clause types to utterance types. I will first deal with the canonical cases. The just mentioned flexibility will be made use of in Section 4, where mainly V-initial clauses are treated. In the first part, I will illustrate how the FORCE-value [interrogative] is syntactically encoded, relying on the "clausal typing hypothesis", introduced by Cheng (1991) (see also Brandner 2000). After that, I will show that V2 can be understood as "overgeneralization" of FORCE-marking in that the declarative value is encoded in the syntax in these languages. In other languages, [declarative] is "encoded" merely by the absence of further information, i.e., it is the default value. How the value [declarative] is connected to the interpretation as an assertion and how clauses can deviate from this interpretation with a very parsimonious strategy will illustrate that V2 is nevertheless an optimal way for the pairing between PF and LF, and in this sense it does not violate economy, see the discussion in Section 2. and 3.

3.1. Dynamic spec-head-agreement and projection As already said, I will crucially rely on the generalization that is known as the Clausal Typing Hypothesis (Cheng 1991):

108

(9)

Ellen Brandner

Clausal Typing Hypothesis Every clause needs to be typed. In the case of a wh-question, either a wh-particle in C° is used or else fronting of a wh-word to the Spec of C° is used, thereby typing the clause through C° by spec-head-agreement.

Languages differ in how they deal with lexical items representing the TENSE and FORCE values. The core distinction is between those languages that encode the values with lexical means via the insertion of a relevant particle. Since these can be read off directly from the inserted lexical items, no further operations are necessary. In other languages, there is no lexical encoding of these values on the finite verb and thus specific syntactic configurations are necessary in order to get an interpretable structure. In these languages, the wh-phrase itself must bear the feature-value [interrogative]8 and they "turn it over" to the clausal head via dynamic spec-head-agreement. It is the lexical inventory and thus the (possible) lexical numerations that will make the relevant difference between available clausal structures in the languages. In the following, Cheng's hypothesis will be extended and slightly modified such that the phrase structural difference between particlelanguages and movement-languages is made explicit with its consequences for other components of the grammar. The left periphery is standardly taken as a (maybe complex) CPprojection. As already mentioned, I will not assume that it is the C-node per se which has this property, rather the lexical inventory of a language will determine where the self-attachment of the verb will stop and thus there is no pre-labeling of the left periphery. Therefore, it is expected that we will find left periphery effects on various levels, namely on what has been traditionally termed as VPs, TPs, and CPs - as long as there are no further structure-building processes required. We can derive the left periphery effect by the rather natural assumption that FORCE must take a complete clause as its complement since it can operate only on an already formed proposition. In order to act as a proposition, an event - specified by a fully projected VP - must have a TENSE value. So the background assumptions that are needed can be formulated as in (10): (10)

Besides the characterization of the event via a purely verbal projection, every clause needs (at least): a. a specified value for TENSE (in order to license a proposition) b. a specified value for FORCE (in order to license the utterance) c. TENSE has scope over VP and FORCE has scope over [TENSE]

Head-movement in minimalism, and. V2 as FORCE-marking

109

In order to be interpretable, these values must occur in certain syntactic configurations which I will subsume under the following "legibility conditions": (11)

TENSE and FORCE values must be legible

(12)

Legibility: TENSE and FORCE values must a. be part of the main projection line b. have scope over all verbal projections

(13)

A feature f has scope over all verbal projections iff a. f has a unique lexical realization on a head and m-commands9 all verbal projections, or b. f has a lexical realization on a head of a phrase XP Φ VP, and is in spec-head-agreement with a head m-commanding all verbal projections

The basic idea is that the value can either be read off directly from an inserted particle or that a phrase whose head is a wh-word is in spec-headagreement with the finite verb, much in line with Cheng's clausal typing hypothesis. However, we will see that the more precise phrase structural specifications make the correct typological predictions. Since in all cases the feature f must have scope over all verbal projections, it is predicted that FORCE particles occur either at the left or at the right periphery of the clause. Both cases are attested. Korean is an example for a language that uses the strategy in (a) with a particle to the right, i.e., it employs m-command: Korean (Shin 1993:53) (14)

ku-ka

seoul-e

ka-ass-ta

he-nom Seoul-to go-past-decl 'he went to Seoul' (15)

ku-ka seoul-e

ka-ass-nunya?

he-nom Seoul-to go-past-interr 'did he go to Seoul?' (16)

ku-ka

eti-e

ka-ass-nunya?

he-nom where-to go-past-interr 'where did he go to?'

110

Ellen Brandner

As one can see from the examples, declarative and interrogative FORCE are marked directly by a special particle that must be inserted in a clause final position. The same holds true for embedded clauses and here one can see that every clause must be specified for its own value: (17)

hans-nun [kunye-ka myes-sal i-n ci lul] Hans-top she-nom how-old be-inter-Acc 'Hans asked how old she is'

(18)

hans-nun [kunye-ka sihem-ul hapkyekha-ki-lul ] Hans-top she-nom exam-acc pass-decl(-factive)-acc pala-n-ta pres.decl 'Hans wishes that she would pass the exam'

(19)

mwul-ess-ta ask-past-decl

wish-

hans-nun [kunye-ka sihem-ul hapkyekha-yess-um-ul] Hans-top she-nom exam-acc pass-decl(+factive)-acc a-n-ta know-pres.decl 'Hans knows that she passed the exam'

I will assume that in languages of this type, co-projection in the sense of Haider (1993) is an available option, see also Brandner (1995, 2000). This amounts to say that in Korean, the clausal projection is co-extensive with the verbal projection and that there are no further distinct functional categories which could serve as a landing site for a moved verb. (20) VP/TP/CP

VP/TP/CP

[V° + T° + C°] ka- ass- nunya go Past interr

Head-movement in minimalism, and V2 as FORCE-marking

111

In this structure, the clausal head consists of a complex head, realizing the relevant features for FORCE and TENSE via lexical specification.10 Because of this, no further operations are needed since these values can be read off directly from the structure, i.e., they are legible. Since the verb is in the final (lowest) position, it m-commands all other projections and thus has scope over the entire clause. In addition, Korean is expected to allow adjunction to its root without any restrictions since there are no required spec-head-relationships, i.e., Korean allows free scrambling. This is a property for which Korean is well-known. The structure furthermore predicts that even wh-phrases do not have to occur in a distinct position, rather they are expected to occur in their base position or even in a scrambled one. This prediction is borne out: Korean (Shin-Sook Kim, p.c.) (21) direct object wh-scrambled before the indirect object ecey ku-ka mwues-ul Mira-eykey t cwu-ess-ni? yesterday he-nom what-acc Mira-dat give-Past-Q 'What did he give to Mira yesterday?' (22)

direct object wh-scrambled before the subject ecey mwues-ul ku-ka Mira-eykey t cwu-ess-ni? yesterday what-acc he-nom Mira-dat give-Past-Q

(23)

direct object wh-scrambled before the adverb ku-ka Mira-eykey t mwues-ul ecey cwu-ess-ni? he-nom Mira-dat what-acc yesterday give-Past-Q

The counterpart of Korean seems to be Persian (see, Lotfi no date). Here, we find a sentence-initial Q-particle11 and the language allows wh-in-situ: (24)

Aya pedar khahad raft? Q father will.3s go 'Will father go?'

(25)

Aya ke khalad raft? Q who will.3s go 'Who will go?'

Since the Q-particle has scope over the entire clause, it is expected that neither wh-movement nor verb-movement occurs. It seems to be the case that a focus-like movement of wh-phrases to a preverbal position inside the

112

Ellen Brandner

clause is possible, or even preferred, see Ghomeshi (2001). This conforms with the assumptions made above, because wh-phrases are not expected to occur in a specific position because they have no task to fulfill in the sense that they have to occur in a spec-head-agreement relation with the finite verb.12 The situation is different in German. There is no particle and also no lexical realization in terms of inflection of the FORCE value. In order to deliver a FORCE-value, clause (13a) is invoked. That means that the verb must leave the VP and acquire a FORCE-value via a phrase in its specifier that is endowed with this feature, i.e., a wh-phrase. Now how can the verb leave the VP? I will basically follow Bury (2002) who assumes that self-attachment of the verb is a possible and licit operation in the syntax. However, as just argued, the idea that the specifier in V2 structures evolves from a phrase structural requirement is not adequate and so I will suggest that self-attachment is possible only if the verb "alters" during this process. This means concretely that self-attachment is only licit if the verb acquires additional features which were not present or "legible" in its base position, e.g., TENSE or FORCE values, see next section for further details. The finite verb can thus leave its projection only if this creates a configuration such that the values of these features can be made legible. This will in general be a spec-headconfiguration where the additional moved item can endow the finite verb with this value, by the mechanism of dynamic spec-head-agreement, see Rizzi (1991). The dynamic agreement process will alter the finite verb with respect to its specification and thus it is no more completely "identical" to its trace but enriched with functional information. This in turn means that the maximal projection of this head is also not identical to the lower projection and thus the problem with Endocentricity disappears. If we follow Grimshaw (1991) in her proposal that an extended category does not change its categorial value in an extended projection, the head is still of the category [+verbal] and can thus bind the verbal trace in the lower position. The consequence is that there is no feature checking of the familiar sort. Instead, the values of the relevant features come into the derivation in a dynamic way. To illustrate this, consider (26). Assume that the Tensefeatures are already computed and we have an extended verbal category that corresponds to a proposition.13 The FORCE-value is still lacking and, since there is no particle, the verb attaches itself to the projection VP(+T). This creates a configuration where the finite verb can acquire a feature if a functionally marked phrase moves to its specifier:

Head-movement in minimalism, and V2 as FORCE-marking

(26)

113

VP/FP[Wh]

WH

V+F'

Vfin°

VP(+T)

This is a configuration in which the FORCE-value can reach the main projection line and it is also predicted that this configuration can only occur at the topmost layer, i.e., the left periphery, since by definition there is only extension of the root. This is then the structure for constituent questions in V2 languages and e.g., English (and many other languages with an extension of the root with subsequent movement of a wh-phrase to the specifier of the moved verb). I will come to Y/N questions in this type of languages in Section 4. Until now, Cheng's distinction between the two clausal typing procedures was expressed with merely a different view on the projection of the clause. However, there is one possibility left, namely that the configuration in (26) occurs at the "right edge" of the clause. This should be the case in a language where there is a particle strategy available such that a complex head can be projected, where the "slot" for the FORCE-value can be projected from the base position of the verb, but where there is no lexical realization of the value [wh-question]. It is a well-known fact that many so-called wh-in-situ languages are not really wh-in-situ in that the wh-phrase can stay in its base-position. Rather, we find languages where wh-phrases do not occur in the left periphery but immediately before the finite verb which surfaces characteristically in a clause final position. Interestingly, these languages do not insert a particle in the case of a wh-question although they (can) use particles in Y/N questions. Malayalam would be a case in point, but similar facts hold for Hindi/Urdu and many other languages. This is illustrated with Malayalam in (27). (27)

Malayalam (Hany Babu, p.c.): a. innale awan mira-ykku entu kotuttu yesterdayday he mira-dat what gave b. *innale awan entu mira-ykku kotuttu y'day he what mira-dat gave

114

Ellen Brandner c. d. e.

*awan mira-ykku entu innale kotuttu he mira-dat what y'day gave innale mira-ykku aa pustakam aaru kotuttu y'day mira-dat that book who gave *innale aaru mira-ykku aa pustakam kotuttu y'day who mira-dat that book gave

As can be seen from the data above, even the subject - which is normally rather high in the structure - has to be adjacent to the finite verb if it is questioned, see the contrast between (d) and (e). Note also that in contrast to Korean, there is no particle present which could endow the clause with a FORCE-value according to (13a). Instead, it seems that Malayalam (and with it many other verb-final languages like Turkish, Basque, etc. with a pre-verbal focus, respectively wh-position) also use the spec-head strategy in order to specify the interrogative value in wh-questions. The difference to the Germanic languages is, that there is no extension of the structure to the left periphery, the verb rather stays in the final position. Nevertheless, the basic configuration seems similar, namely that there is a wh-phrase in spec-head agreement with the finite verb and so dynamic agreement could proceed in the now familiar way. What is the structure of a VP in these languages? I would like to suggest tentatively that the basic structure is like in Korean, there is a complex VT/C head that projects directly to a maximal projection. The arguments are adjoined to that projection. However, there is no explicit marking on the C-part of the complex head in the case of wh-questions, although there is a C-slot - in contrast to the Germanic languages. Therefore, there must be (at the final stage of the derivation) a configuration where a wh-phrase is in a spec-head-relationship with the finite verb. In case there is a wh-phrase amongst the arguments, self-attachment of the verb applies until the whphrase is in a spec-head-relation with it. The other arguments then have to "scramble" out of the VP such that the V-final order is preserved on the surface. 14 Another piece of evidence that the suggested solution is on the right track comes from Bangla. As observed by Bayer (1996), clausal complements can appear basically either to the right or to the left of the embedding verb:

Head-movement in minimalism, and V2 as FORCE-marking (28)

a.

b.

115

ora [keaS-be] Sune-che they who come-Fut3 hear-Past3 'they hear who will come' 'who did they hear will come' ora Sune-che [ke aS-be] they hear-Past3 who came 'they have heard who will come'

Only the a. clause allows an interpretation as a matrix question, i.e., who have they heard will come, whereas the b.-version with the embedded clause to the right can only be interpreted as an embedded question. Simpson and Bhattacharya (2000) discuss similar examples and they analyze the a.-version as "clausal pied-piping", i.e., the position immediately before the finite verb attracts the wh-phrases, which in this case also holds for whclauses: (29)

jOn [mery kon boi-Ta poRe-che] bollo John Mary which book read-has.3 said 'Which book did John say Mary read'

The analysis of this contrast in the approach here would be that the whclause - as a subtype of a wh-phrase - must be in the specifier-position of the matrix finite verb in order to endow it with wh-value. In the embedded clause, the wh-phrase is immediately to the left of the finite verb and thus can endow the whole verbal projection (i.e., the embedded clause) with the wh-value. As a properly marked wh-phrase, it is situated in the relevant specifier of the matrix clause and the same procedure gives the wh-value to the matrix clause. Thus, a matrix question interpretation is available. 15 In sum, it seems to be the case that the spec-head-relation between a whphrase and the finite verb is not restricted to the left periphery, as it is familiar from the Germanic languages. Rather, it depends on the availability of complex heads (consisting of the finite verb plus particle(s)) which I assume here to be a pre-condition for co-projection. Since there is no coprojection of V and FORCE in Germanic, the self-attachment of the finite verb leads to an extension of the clausal projection and thus to the effect that wh-phrases appear at the left periphery together with a moved finite verb. Let us briefly discuss an English example. A well-known phenomenon can be accounted for quite easily in the system proposed:

116 (30)

Ellen Brandner a. b.

Who did you meet t ? Who left?

Subject questions do not trigger do-support, i.e., the subject wh-phrase does not require an extension of the structure. The problem for this contrast has always been that Spec-IP is not an operator position and thus should not be able to attract a wh-phrase, i.e., an operator who can bind a variable. Without discussing the several solutions that have been brought forward to account for this pattern (see Pesetsky/Torrego 2001 for a recent account), we can see immediately that the wh-phrase and the finite verb are in the right configuration in order to fulfill legibility. So the simple idea is that the subject in this position can fulfill both requirements simultaneously, namely the Case-requirements and the FORCE-marking via dynamic spec-headagreement with the finite verb in an extended projection. It is required that FORCE-values have scope over Tense-values, which can be interpreted such that a FORCE-value can never appear lower in the clause than a Tense-value, but it does not exclude that both values are at the same level, since in this case neither c-commands the other and, nevertheless, the FORCE-value c-commands all verbal projections. This is completely in line with parsimony of structure in that only that structure is projected which is indispensable. The problem which prohibited this simple solution in earlier accounts is the idea of the projection of clausal structure with uninterpretable features. Since this yields a predefined distinction between A- and A'-positions, Spec-IP is not the right position (per definition) for wh-phrases. A problem which in the system here simply does not arise. An A'-position is not predefined but instead "merges" through dynamic spechead agreement of the finite verb with an operator, i.e., a wh-phrase. What is important to note is the fact that, in all the cases discussed above, it is the spec-head-agreement between an XP and the finite verb that seems to be crucial and not whether it is an IP or a CP (or even a VP). That means that the configuration required in (13b) can be satisfied at all structural layers, depending on language specific restrictions with respect to the lexical items being available in general. In languages with only a Y/N particle, the FORCE-slot on the complex clausal head is "present" but it is not occupied by a lexical item, therefore the spec-head configuration is required. This is then another modification of Cheng's proposal, namely that it is not necessarily a CP-projection which exhibits a spec-head relationship between a wh-phrase and the finite verb.

Head-movement in minimalism, and V2 as FORCE-marking

117

3.2. Explicit and non-explicit marking languages The question now is how V2 comes into the picture. Note that, until now, only the well-known case of wh-movement was discussed. In order to get an idea what happens in a V2 language, we have to consider again Korean, this time contrasted with Japanese. It is well-known that many languages that use the particle strategy do so only in interrogatives. Japanese would be a case in point where declaratives have no particle but interrogatives have a -no particle attached to the finite verb: (31)

Japanese Mary-wa John-ni nani-o ageta-no Mary-top John-dat what-acc gave-interr 'What did Mary give to John?'

(32)

Mary-wa John-ni nani-o ageta-0 Mary-top John-dat what-acc gave-decl (default) 'Mary gave something to John'

We can distinguish between what I will call explicit marking languages like Korean and non-explicit marking languages like Japanese. In the former all FORCE-values are marked whereas in the latter only the deviation from declarative is specified. The idea now is that a parallel distinction can be drawn between languages which do not use particles to encode FORCEvalues but instead use the dynamic spec-head-agreement process, discussed in the previous section. V2 languages, then, are of the Korean-type and English, French, and many other languages behave like Japanese. Since V2 languages belong to the explicit-marking languages, the extension of the verbal projection is necessary even in declarative clauses. The requirement on the phrase that moves to the specifier position is merely that it is not endowed with a feature different from declarative, for instance, any constituent that is not a wh-phrase and that is a licensed element of the clause. Since there is no restriction on whether it is RE-MERGE or MERGE, the base-generation approach to expletive insertion is also a possibility. This is exactly the characterization of V2 that was shown to be adequate in the discussion above. This conception of V2 of course does preclude that the additional position created by the typing mechanism is used for information structural needs. But this is not the reason why a constituent moves to the initial position. The observed IS-effects are a side-

118

Ellen Brandner

effect of the requirement on explicit type marking in that an additional position is made available. Cheng's hypothesis is thus extended to declaratives although - as just shown - not all languages seem to require explicit marking of the declarative value. But what is interesting is that we find the same kind of strategies to encode this value, namely either by particle insertion or by a spec-headconfiguration at the left periphery.

4. VI structures in a V2 language One important consequence of the analysis above is that the VI structures that occur in V2 languages become much more central than in previous analyses. Recall that verbal head-movement occurs because of the need of FORCE-specification. The value is delivered by the subsequently moved constituent. If the second step does not take place, the value cannot be assigned (at least by morpho-syntactic means)16 and thus the structure is underspecified. But the structure with an initial verb is licit from a purely phrase structural perspective and there is no unchecked feature in the technical sense which would rule out the derivation. The question is: how can the grammar deal with these (underspecified) structures? In this section, I will try to show that verb-initial structures fill a systematic gap in the interpretational possibilities a language needs. Whereas declarative-valued structures are canonically interpreted as assertions, the underspecified structure of a VI clause opens up the possibilities for deviating interpretations, e.g., Y/N questions, conditionals, exclamatives, etc. Since there are no syntactic devices to encode these interpretations, they are expected to occur only under restricted conditions. Especially contextually and discourse determined strategies and intonation will play an important role. Since these factors can only operate in discourse, verb-initial structures are confined to root contexts. A prediction that will be shown to be borne out.

4.1. Verb-initial structures in German First, we will have a look at the main occurrences of verb-initial structures and here we have to consider the following cases:

Head-movement in minimalism, and. V2 as FORCE-marking (33)

119

YfN questions a. Hast Du jemanden getroffen? Have you somebody met b. Ruft er nie jemanden an? Calls he never somebody up

Verb-movement in these constructions has the same properties as in V2 structures, it is always the finite verb and particles that are stranded in much the same way as in the other verb-movement constructions in German. We can assume that it is the same kind of head-movement as discussed above. The interpretation and the syntactic structure of Y/N questions will be discussed in detail in section 4.2. Another V-initial structure found in German are the so called VI declaratives, illustrated in (34). Their interpretational possibilities will be the main topic of the next section. (34)

VI declaratives a. Sitzt der wieder nur vor dem Fernseher! sits he again only before the TV He is watching again only TV!' (and doesn't do anything else) b. ...ist die Frauenkirche *(doch) schließlich eines der is the F. prt after all one-of the berühmtesten Bauwerke most famous buildings '(because) after all, the Frauenkirche is one of the most famous buildings' c. Bin ich dann einfach weitergegangen und... ami then just further-gone and... 'and then I just went away...'

Here the same remarks hold that were made above with respect to the properties of head-movement. Hence there is nothing to add in this respect. However, as can be seen from (34b), there are VI declaratives that need further lexical material (so-called modal particles like doch) in order to be well-formed. Additionally, as indicated by " . . . " and the exclamation mark in (34a), these clauses either have an evaluative interpretation or they build a subpart of a larger sequence. This will be discussed in detail in section 4.3.

120

Ellen Brandner

A construction that will be exempted from the following discussion are imperatives, like in (35): (35)

Imperatives a. Bring mir bitte einen Kaffee bring me-dat please a(some) coffee b. Iss nicht mit den Händen Eat not with the hands 'Do not eat with hands'

Imperatives are clearly instances of verb-initial structures in Germanic. However, they differ in one important respect from the other verb-initial structures to be discussed in this section: they show a special inflection on the finite verb which marks them unambiguously as imperatives. This is the only case in Germanic where the inflectional properties of the verb are used to deliver a FORCE-value, namely imperative. Recall that German does not have a FORCE-slot in its clausal projection. That means that the verb has to extend the structure in the now familiar way. Because the FORCE-value can be read off directly from the inflection, no additional movement is induced. The structure of imperatives thus is compatible with the proposed view on German clause structure. Finally, for the sake of completeness, I would like to mention verbinitial structures occurring in German that should actually be analyzed as an elliptical structure, namely the so-called topic-drop phenomenon: (36)

Topic-drop Q: Was ist mit den Hausaufgaben? what is with the homework A: a. 0 hab ich schon erledigt have I already done b. *ich hab schon erledigt c. * hab ich sie schon erledigt Q: Wo ist Meier? where is Meier A: a. 0 ist momentan krank is at the moment sick b. *krank ist momentan c. * ist er momentan krank

Head-movement in minimalism, and V2 as FORCE-marking

121

As can be seen, the pronoun that can be dropped must be located in the prefield, since it can not be dropped in any other position. Hence the term "topic-drop" , since it is not an argumental pro-drop in the strict sense but it is only possible if the argument has been moved to prefield in a first step. Additionally, as can be seen from the construal of the examples, topic-drop is essentially only possible in discourse, when the topic has been mentioned immediately before. As (36) already shows, topic-drop applies not only to subjects but also to objects and thus clearly has to be distinguished from small pro as it is familiar from the Romance pro-drop languages. Furthermore, as opposed to "real" pro-drop, it can apply even to adjuncts, if the context is properly construed: (37)

(context: Mother asks for several possibilities where the child could have lost its pencils): Q. Und in der Schule? and at school? A.

a. b.

0 hub ich sie auch nicht gefunden have I them also not found * hah ich sie dort/da auch nicht gefunden

These few examples should be sufficient to show that these superficially Vinitial constructions must be analyzed as genuine instances of ellipsis. Leaving thus topic-drop and imperatives aside, the basic claim to be defended in the following sections is that V-initial structures are underspecified and thus ambiguous between an interrogative and a declarative interpretation - and they can only be distinguished by non-syntactic means.

4.2. Y/N interrogatives and their interpretation Let us then first examine the Y/N questions in Germanic more closely. As is obvious, the second part of the V2 rule is missing, there is no further constituent placed before the finite verb. The traditional analysis is that there is an empty operator inserted in this spec-position which is responsible for the Y/N question interpretation: (38)

OP hat er das Brot gekauft? has he the bread bought

122

Ellen Brandner

The existence of such an operator seems rather plausible. First, negative polarity items (NPIs) are licensed in Y/N questions, and according to standard wisdom, NPIs are only licensed if they are c-commanded by a respective operator: (39)

hast Du jemals Brot gekauft have you ever bread bought

NPIs are also licensed in the same clause when there is a negative quantifier. This is not the case for non-negative simple quantifiers: (40)

a. b. c.

Keiner/niemand hat das Buch überhaupt gelesen Nobody has the book at all read * Jeder hat das Buch überhaupt gelesen everybody has the book at all read *Einige haben das Buch überhaupt gelesen a few have the book at all read

This suggests that it is the negative part of the quantifier which is involved in the licensing of the NPI. However, consider the following data:17 (41)

a.

c. d.

c.

Jeder [der überhaupt schon mal ein Buch everybody who-rel at all already once a book gelesen hat] wird das verstehen read has will that understand *Einige [die überhaupt schon mal ein Buch Some who-rel at all already once a book gelesen haben] werden das verstehen read have will that understand ?Viele [die überhaupt schon mal ein Buch Many who-rel at all already once a book gelesen haben [werden das verstehen read have will that understand

In (a) and (c), a non-negative quantifier can license an NPI in its restrictor, i.e., the relative clause, but not in the main clause (cf. (40b)). As (41b) shows, this is not generally the case, instead it depends on the type of quantifier. This shows first that it is not always a negative quantifier which can license a NPI and second that the operator position itself cannot save the licensing if it is not the right operator. I cannot suggest a solution to this problem but the data show at least that the postulation of an empty operator

Head-movement in minimalism, and V2 as FORCE-marking

123

in Y/N questions (which at least involve some kind of negativity) is not a necessary precondition for the licensing of an NPI. 18 Another argument for the postulation of the empty Y/N operator is that in many languages there is a lexical realization of it. The following example is from Modern Welsh, taken from Roberts (2000:164): (42)

A ydych chi yn mynd? Prt are you Asp go 'Are you going?'

Cross-linguistic evidence seems to motivate such an operator for Germanic as well, given that the interpretation of the clauses are the same and also the additional effects (licensing of the NPI etc.)· The operator is linked to lexical material in some languages, whereas in Germanic it merely happens to be phonetically empty. I will not follow this kind of reasoning since the "operators" in these languages correspond to the particles that were shown to be crucial for the type of clausal projection a language uses. Assuming that Germanic has an empty counterpart to empty operators would blur the structural differences between the languages that were identified above and which were shown to be crucial for the motivation for verb movement. These particles are syntactic heads and thus cannot correspond to an XP that would be required in this position in Germanic V2. Given, furthermore, the argumentation above concerning parsimony of structure, the natural conclusion for the formation of Y/N questions is that merely the finite verb is fronted and nothing else. Having argued against the postulation of an empty operator, and, in addition, that the finite verb, although in a position where it would be able to satisfy legibility, is not endowed with a feature that could project to the main projection line, nothing seems to remain in the syntactic component which could serve the function of FORCE-marking. This is exactly what I would like to argue for: the structure with a fronted finite verb is not syntactically specified for a given value but instead has to derive its full specification via non-syntactic means. What could these be? What immediately comes to mind is the special intonation contour that is intimately tied to the interpretation as a Y/N question. The easiest way out would be to assume that a verb-initial structure plus this specific intonation contour will lead to the Y/N interpretation. (43)

[Vf in ....] + intonational contour = Y/N interpretation

124

Ellen Brandner

However, a verb-initial clause can not be licensed in an embedded context, even with this special intonation contour:19 (44)

a.

b. c.

Hch frage mich [hat er das Buch gelesen] I ask myself has he the book read Ί wonder whether he has read the book' *Die Frage [hat er das Buch gelesen] wurde nicht the question has he the book read was not beantwortet answered 'The question whether he has read the book has not been answered'

Since embedded clauses do not have direct access to the discourse, (44) indicates that the intonation is not part of the syntax proper. 20 Additionally, since the specific intonation contour can also be laid on V2 structures which then also get a Y/N question interpretation, although a somehow marked one, it cannot be the case that the formula in (44) is part of the syntax proper. See Reis (2000a:220) for similar argumentation. To summarize, there seems to be no genuine syntactic marking of Y/N questions. Instead, last resort non-syntactic means must be engaged in order to assign an interpretation to the underspecified structure. This is exactly what is predicted by the head-movement approach described above. However, the picture only becomes complete if it can be shown that verb-initial structures can be interpreted as other utterance types than Y/N questions, since only this will show that V-initial structures are indeed underspecified. This will be the topic of the next section.

4.3. VI declaratives in Germanic A well-known but not so much discussed fact about Germanic V2 is that VI structures beside Y/N questions appear quite frequently in a wide range of usages. For Icelandic, this has been discussed mainly by Sigurösson (1990) where he claims that in so-called Narrative Inversion (i.e., VI declaratives that typically occur in narratives and which can be distinguished from other verb-initial structures in that in the latter, severe IS-restrictions are laid upon the subject), the specifier position of the highest clausal projection is occupied by an empty "narrative" operator which guarantees the

Head-movement in minimalism, and V2 as FORCE-marking

125

proper interpretation. The same position was also defended in Brandner (1995) for VI declaratives in German. The issue is taken up by Önnerfors (1997) in a broad study about the syntax and pragmatics of VI declaratives in Germanic. 21 Önnerfors shows quite convincingly that the postulation of some phonetically empty material is empirically not justified and in fact a theory-internal problem. 22 Even the attempts to explain VI declaratives via a topic-drop analysis of the expletive cannot be on the right track because they do not have the same distribution (see also Reis 2000a:223). V2 constructions with an expletive can act as "out-of-the-blue" sentences. In this case, all the constituents are rhematic. This is the first property they do not share with VI declaratives where definite or pronominal constituents are fine: (45)

*les hat mich mein Freund/er angerufen EXPL has me my friend/ he called 'My friend/he has called me'

(46)

es hat mich gestern jemand vom Fernsehen angerufen EXPL has me yesterday somebody from the TV-station called 'Somebody from the TY-station has called me yesterday'

(47)

hat er/mein Freund/jemand vom Fernsehen mich angerufen has he/my friend/jemand from the TV-station me called 'he/my friend/jemand from the TV-station has ailed me'

As (47) shows, VI declaratives accept all kinds of subjects in contrast to V2 clauses with an expletive. Given that ellipsis of this kind acts at PF, the version with the pronoun should not be a possible basic structure. The second property which shows that VI declaratives do not have an elided expletive in the preverbal position is the following: The question "what happens?" can be answered with a V2 structure but not with a V I : (48)

Q: A:

Was ist los? what happens es/da steht jemand vor der Tür * steht jemand vor der Tür EXPL/there stands someone before the door 'Somebody is standing in front of the door'

126

Ellen Brandner

I will not offer an explanation for these facts (see Önnerfors 1997 for a pragmatic account), but the examples above show that expletive-deletion cannot be the complete story for VI declaratives. If we have a closer look at the possible interpretations of verb-initial structures, we can see that a whole bundle of different interpretations is possible - beside the narrative contexts to which VI declaratives are normally taken to be restricted. The following classification is based on Önnerfors (1997), cited in Reis (2000a): (49)

[Soviel zu diesem A rgument] Bleibt nachzutragen... [that much for this argument] remains to add... [enumerative]

(50)

Soll sie mit ihm doch glücklich werden! shall she with him Prt happy become 'Let her be happy with him. I don't care' [deontic]

(51)

[Dies war merkwürdig] War es doch der Staatschef, der... [that was strange] was it Prt the prime minister who... 'This was strange. For it had been the prime minister who...' [causal]

(52)

War das ein fröhliches Wiedersehen! was that a happy reunion 'This was a (really) happy reunion' [exclamative]

These examples show that an analysis in terms of an empty operator would run into severe problems if one tries to find a characterization of this operator in terms of its interpretative possibilities. For each interpretation, a separate empty operator would be necessary. Beside Y/N questions and imperatives, already discussed above, there are cases of VI structures which can hardly be analyzed as declaratives. For this reason, they are not further discussed in Önnerfors (1997) who restricts his discussion on "real declaratives". But having in mind that V-initial structures are underspecified, it is expected that there is a whole bunch of additional possible interpretations. First, we find so-called optatives, where the finite verb is in initial position, but in this case, the subjunctive is obligatory 23 (cf. 53b):

Head-movement in minimalism, and V2 as FORCE-marking (53)

a. b.

127

Käme er doch morgen! come.subj. he Prt tomorrow * Kommt er doch morgen! Comes he Prt tomorrow 'If he only would come tomorrow'

The interpretation is equivalent to a conditional plus an exclamative. In "real" conditionals, we always have two clauses. (54)

Kommt er morgen, kommen die anderen am nächsten Tag comes he tomorrow, come the others on the next day [conditional] 'If he comes tomorrow, then the others will come the day after tomorrow'

Concerning (54), the question arises whether the initial VI structure originates from an embedded position. Before discussing this question, I would like to introduce another verb-initial construction with a seemingly embedded clause. This is called the 'confrontative': (55)

Waren die Ärzte früher zu arm, sind sie heute zu reich Were the doctors earlier too poor, are the today too rich [confrontative] 'Whereas the doctors were too poor in former days, they are nowadays too rich'

From a structural point of view, the verb-initial clauses in both examples can be analyzed as embedded. They occupy the preverbal position of the matrix clause which is - according to the V2 constraint - a licit possibility. However, they cannot occur in their putative base position: (56)

l*Die anderen kommen am nächsten Tag, kommt er morgen the others come on the next day, comes he tomorrow 'The others will come the day after tomorrow - if he comes tomorrow'

(57)

*Die Arzte sind heute zu reich, waren sie früher zu arm the doctors are nowadays too rich were they earlier too poor 'The doctors are nowadays too rich whereas they were too poor in former days'

128

Ellen Brandner

(56) would be fine if the embedded clause was a directly marked conditional, either introduced by the complementizer wenn (if) or by subjunctive marking of the finite verb. In this case, both orderings are possible. (58)

a. b. c. d.

Ich bin glücklich wenn er morgen kommt I am happy if/when he tomorrow comes Ich wäre glücklich, käme er morgen I would be happy came-subj he tomorrow Wenn er morgen käme/kommt, bin/wäre ich glücklich If he tomorrow came/come, am/was I happy Käme er morgen, wäre ich glücklich Came he tomorrow, was I happy

Without going into a detailed discussion about the distribution of the subjunctive forms, we can conclude that the mere verb-initial structure without any special inflection only allows the order which directly mirrors the sequence of the single events (cf. (54)). This could be taken as an indication of non-embeddedness in the strict syntactic sense. (55) can be saved by inserting something like während (during, while), which acts in adverbial clauses as a complementizer, accompanied by a verb-final structure: (59)

Die Ärzte sind heute zu reich, während sie früher the doctors are nowadays too rich while they in earlier days zu arm waren too poor were 'The doctors are nowadays too rich whereas they were too poor in former days'

The ungrammaticality of (57) thus clearly results from the embedding of the V-initial structure. The examples suggest that the constructions in (54,55) rather show a kind of parataxis, i.e., the clauses are conjoined in some way instead of being a case of proper embedding of a clausal complement together with topicalization to a clause-initial spec-position. Recall that it was claimed that VI structures should never occur in an embedded position, the reason being that they cannot acquire a FORCEvalue via purely syntactic means.24 Non-syntactic means can only operate in discourse. Thus the fact that the verb-initial clauses in (54,55) with their specific interpretation can only occur at the beginning of the sentence follows. This supports the analysis that in verb-initial structures, there is noth-

Head-movement in minimalism, and V2 as FORCE-marking

129

ing before the fronted finite verb that could deliver a value since then we would expect that this should also occur in embedded contexts. To summarize, the data show that verb-initial constructions in German always have to occur in a non-embedded position where they have direct access to discourse and thus non-syntactic FORCE-marking. The question to which I will now turn very briefly is what the interpretation of VI declaratives may be. In Reis (2000a), it is suggested that the difference between VI and V2 declaratives lies in the status of assertion. In V2 clauses, the event described not only took place but its existence is asserted (see also Lohnstein/Bredel this volume). VI declaratives lack this component, they remain underspecified; instead, the event itself is "foregrounded". There may be a parallel to the difference between definite DPs and bare NPs. Whereas DPs refer to some entity in the world, bare NPs are better characterized as "properties". The bare V-initial structure then corresponds to a property and only the above described additional (sometimes nonsyntactic) means turn it into a full-fledged utterance with a specified illocutionary force. This characterization falls in place with an observation on French wh-insitu, discussed in Cheng and Rooryck (2000). It is well-known that French allows wh-in-situ in root clauses beside the inverted structure with verb movement, see (60). However, the two versions are not interchangeable with respect to the possible answers: (60)

a. b.

Qu 'est-ce que Marie a achete what est-ce que Μ has bought Marie a achete quoi M. has bought what

Rien Nothing ?? Rien Nothing

The answer "nothing" is awkward with a wh-in-situ question. The explanation is that the event described in the clause is presupposed to have taken place, that is, it is asserted that Marie has bought something, the question targets only the value of the variable, lexicalized as the wh-word quoi. Since French is a language with default-assignment of declarative, the structure in the b.-sentence is an assertion. Only the a.-clause with verbmovement, respectively the extension of the clausal projection allows the non-assertive interpretation. The "rien" is a possible answer. A similar characterization holds for V2 clauses in German that are forced into being a Y/N question via intonation. In this case, the answer "yes" is expected, it has the flavor of a rhetorical question but not one for seeking "real" information.

130

Ellen Brandner

If it is true that Verb-initial structures are not tied to an assertion, the range of possible interpretations - from exclamative to evaluative illustrated above - is expected since they all deviate crucially from a simple assertion. That all these "subtypes" of sentence mood are not directly encoded in the syntax seems plausible. Finally, note that English, which does not have the V2 strategy and therefore also no V I declaratives, has to use rather complex strategies to express these values, as can be seen from the translation of the examples. In most cases, one clause is not sufficient. This follows from the assumption that simple clauses in English are by default declarative and there is no way to escape from the assertion interpretation. The strategy of a V2 language to express these subtypes then seems rather economical. Instead of taking the minimal licit structure as the default value as in English, the movement of the finite verb in the first step merely signals "deviation from declarative". Only the second step, namely topicalization of some constituent, gives an unambiguous value. In the case of some unmarked constituent, it is again the value declarative and consequently has the interpretation [assertion]. If there is no topicalization, i.e., a verb-initial clause, the structure remains in an underspecified state and here discourse and pragmatic factors or the addition of modal particles leads to an interpretation which crucially is not assertive. A special intonation contour, respectively. The discourse situation can then yield a Y/N question out of this underspecified structure. In case a specific inflection is added, we obtain an imperative interpretation. So the claim that V I structures in German are underspecified seems to be justified and the theory of headmovement that was discussed above allows these structures from a purely syntactic point of view. The XP-movement in V2 structures is motivated by the conceptual requirement that a clause must be specified with a FORCEvalue and not by a feature-checking mechanism. There are many open questions concerning the exact nature of the non-assertive structures and much more careful examination of the discourse strategies that are involved. I have to leave this open for the moment. But what is important is the fact that the model of head-movement proposed in this paper classifies the verb-initial structures in Germanic V2 as licit syntactic structures. Their interpretation is dependent on non-syntactic factors. At first sight, this may look as if syntax has lost ground since a good deal of the interpretational task has been shifted to discourse, that is, pragmatics. However, I think that this is not necessarily a loss since the division of labor between syntax and pragmatics has been well-founded in traditional approaches and it has to be

Head-movement in minimalism, and V2 as FORCE-marking

131

asked whether the treatment of genuine pragmatic concepts within syntax is really a worthwhile goal for a theory of syntax that is obliged to parsimony in its overall design.

Notes 1.

2.

3.

4.

5. 6. 7.

8.

As Fanselow (2002) correctly points out, this is probably "one of the most misguiding patterns in the recent history of syntax". With the exception of German and Dutch, complementizers can co-occur with embedded V2 in the Germanic languages. However, embedded questions and relative clauses quite consistently resist embedded verb movement, see Vikner (1995). This shows that it is not the mere position that seems to be relevant in the distribution of complementizers and finite verbs. In the dynamic model of clausal projection that I will present in the following, the label of the category will not play a role any further. I will concentrate on root V2 clauses, but I think the analysis is compatible with Meinunger's (this volume) approach to embedded V2. He assumes that embedded V2 clauses are attached very high in the structure such that they can be reached by an Operator which has scope over both clauses. See also Biberauer (2001) for an interesting discussion about embedded V2 in Afrikaans. She shows that the choice of the matrix verb is not the only factor that plays a role in the distribution of embedded V2. es is the expletive that occurs only if no other constituent has been fronted. It can never occur in any other position. For an account in terms of basegeneration see Brandner (1993,1995), for a different view see Cardinaletti (1990) and Vikner (1995). Note that the pitch accent is necessary even if the constituent has moved to the prefield. This is different in wh-interrogatives where a nearly neutral intonation nevertheless forces an interrogative interpretation. Thanks to Markus Bader for pointing this out to me. It is often noted that es is inserted in case no other constituent of the clause is "topical", but this makes it even harder to find any contentful IS-value for the expletive itself. see Frey (2001) for a detailed account of this position in German. The idea that there is no predefined functional structure above VP has been pursued already by Haider (1993). Müller suggests that in the other Germanic languages, Spec-v- is always an operator position, claiming that there is an interpretational contrast with non subject-initial V2s between German and the other Germanic languages. To my knowledge this is empirically not justified. See Bayer (this volume) for an explicit proposal on the feature structure of wh-items.

132 9. 10.

11. 12.

13.

14.

15.

Ellen Brandner I will assume without further discussion that m-command is a relevant notion in UG, see for justification Bayer (2001b). I will not go into the detailed structure of this complex head. Note that it is possible to derive the order of the particles if one assumes that there is a hierarchical structure C-T-V and that V first left-adjoins to Τ and then the V-T complex to C, such that we get the surface order V-T-C. Only at this stage the arguments are merged and the verb does not move any further. This would be basically in line with a Kayne-style anti-symmetry requirement, at least for the functional projections. I have to leave this issue open here. The particle can be omitted in spoken language. This is a property we find in many languages with Q-particles. Irish is maybe a counter-example. It uses the particle strategy and posits the particle in initial position: (i) AnN mbuaileann si a bheanl Q beats he his wife 'Does he beat his wife?' But Irish obligatorily moves wh-phrases to the left periphery. They differ from the Germanic type of question formation in that a cleft strategy is used which is very close to relative clause formation. (ii) Cen fear aN bhfaigheann tu an t-airgead uaidhl which man C get.Pres you the money from 'Which man do you get the money from?' Without going into the details of Irish question formation, see McCloskey (1979) and Oda (2002) for a recent account, it is obvious that there is no simple spec-head-agreement like in the Germanic languages. Note also that Irish does not allow multiple questions in contrast to Persian. Due to space limitations, I will assume here that the subject moves for Casereasons to its final position and thus there is an independent motivation for its occurrence in the highest specifier position. But see Brandner (2000b) for a different analysis of subject movement and the EPP, see also Äfarli/Eide (2000) and Rosengren (2000) for a proposal in terms of predication, although their approaches differ in many respects. See Jayasseelan (2001) for an account in terms of focus movement to a VPexternal FocusPhrase, but see also Kidwai (1999) who approaches the adjacency condition in terms of a morphological requirement. But note that these solutions also require a "rule of obligatory scrambling" which seems not very well motivated. I have to leave the topic for future research A problem might arise through the following German example: (i) [wen er gesehen hat] frage ich mich [whom he seen has] ask I myself Although the embedded clause is in the prefield-position, we do not get a wide scope interpretation, i.e., the whole construction is not interpreted as a

Head-movement in minimalism, and V2 as FORCE-marking

16. 17. 18.

19. 20.

21. 22.

23.

24.

133

matrix question but as a declarative. This is in contrast to the Bangla case discussed. But note that crucially, German embedded wh-questions never allow movement of the finite verb to the left edge, i.e., there is no spec-head relation and thus there is also no FORCE-value in the sense of an utterance type, but merely the satisfaction of selectional requirements of the matrix verb. But see Bayer (2001a) for a case where the wh-phrase in a topicalized embedded clause can have matrix scope. With the exception of imperatives which show a special inflection, see section 4.1. for a brief discussion. Thanks to Markus Bader for discussing these examples with me. See Giannakidou (1998) for extensive discussion on the licensing of NPIs. Her main claim is that these are licensed only in non-veridical contexts. A Vinitial structure is taken here as one which is not marked for [declarative], i.e., it cannot be (canonically) interpreted as an assertion for structural reasons. This syntactic characterization fits very well with non-veridicality. However, as will be shown later, V-initial structures cover more utterance-types that the non-veridical ones. Thanks to Josef Bayer (p.c.) for discussing this point with me. The sequence is fine if the two clauses are taken as separate utterances. But see Cheng and Rooryck (2000) for a different view. They analyze intonation as a syntactic morpheme that also attracts the wh-phrase in wh-in-situ questions in French. However, they have to assume that the intonation morpheme is restricted to root clauses by definition. Reis (2000a, 2000b) discusses the construction in great detail. The postulation of a Y/N operator additionally creates a theory-internal problem: the operator can not bind a variable and thus violates the Bijection Principle, see Koopman/Sportiche (1992). Note that, in this case, the [irrealis] marking is necessary on independent interpretative grounds, see Lohnstein/Bredel (this volume) for more extensive discussion on the inflectional patterns in German and how they relate to sentence mood in a strict compositional approach. Manuela Schönenberger (p.c.) informs me that embedded VI structures are possible in Swiss German: (i) I bi fro chumt er I am happy comes he Ί am happy that/because he comes.' However, they seem to be restricted to "emotive" matrix verbs which would support the idea, advocated in Reis (2000a), that VI do not encode assertions or statements, rather they only "present" the event. The topic clearly deserves more careful examination.

134

Ellen Brandner

References Äfarli, Tor, and Kristin Eide 2000 Subject requirement and predication. Nordic Journal of Linguistics 23: 27-48. Bayer, Josef 1996 Directionality and Logical Form: On the Scope of Focusing Particles and wh-in-situ. Dordrecht: Kluwer. 2001a. Asymmetry in emphatic topicalization. In Audiatur Vox Sapientiae, Caroline Fery, and Wolfgang Sternefeld (eds.), 15-47. Berlin: Akademie-Verlag. 2001b. Two grammars in one: Sentential complements and complementizers in Bengali and other South Asian languages. In The Yearbook of South Asian Languages: Tokyo Symposium on South Asian Languages - Contact, Convergence and Typology, Peri Bhaskarorao, and Karumuri Subbarao (eds.), 11-36. New Delhi: Sage Publications. 2004 Decomposing the left pperiphery: Dialectal and cross-linguistic evidence. This volume. Besten, Hans den 1983 On the interaction of root transformations and lexical deletive rules. In On the Formal Syntax of the Westgermania, Werner Abraham (ed.), 47-131. Amsterdam: Benjamins. Bhatt, Rajesh 1999 Verb Movement and the Syntax of Kashmiri. Dordrecht: Kluwer. Biberauer, Thomas 2001 Reconsidering embedded verb second. Working Papers in English and Applied Linguistics 8: 25-60. Boskovic, Zeljiko 2001 On the Nature of the Syntax-Phonology Interface. NorthHolland: Elsevier. Brandner, Ellen 1993 The projection of categories and the nature of agreement. In The Parameterization of Universal Grammar, Gisbert Fanselow (ed.), 74-121 Amsterdam: Benjamins. 1995 Specifiers and functional projection. Ph.D. diss., University of Stuttgart. 2000a Scope marking and clausal typing. In Wh-Scope Marking, Uli Lutz, Gereon Müller, and Arnim von Stechow (eds.), 45-76. Amsterdam: Benjamins. 2000b (Non-)Triggers for movement. Paper presented at the „Motivating Movement Conference", January 2000 Ulster.

Head-movement in minimalism, and V2 as FORCE-marking 2002

Bury, Dirk 2002

135

On some similarities and differences between Celtic VSO and Germanic Verb-first. Paper presented at the VSO-workshop, May 2002, University of Stuttgart.

Particles, V2 and the ungrammaticality of verb-initial structures. UCL Working Papers in Linguistics 12: 368-387. Cardinaletti, Anna 1990 Impersonal Constructions and Sentential Arguments in German. Padova: Unipress. Cheng, Lisa 1991 On the Typology of wh-Questions. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Working Papers in Linguistics. Cheng, Lisa, and Johan Rooryck 2000 Licensing wh-in-situ. Syntax 3(1): 1-19. Chomsky, Noam 1995 The Minimalist Program. Cambridge, Mass: MIT Press. 2000 Minimalist Inquiries: The framework. Ms., MIT. 2001 Derivation by Phase. In A Life in Language, Michael Kenstowicz, and Ken Hale (eds.) 1-52. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press. Fanselow, Gisbert 2002 Münchhausen-style head movement and the analysis of Verb second. Paper presented at the 2001 Head movement workshop, University of California, Los Angeles. Frey, Werner 2000 Über die syntaktische Position der Satztopiks im Deutschen. In Issues on Topics, Kerstin Schwabe, et al. (eds), 137-172. (=ZAS Papers 20). Ghomeshi, Jila (ed.) 2001 The Syntax of Iranian Languages. Thematic issue of the Canadian Journal of Linguistics 46(1/2). Giannakidou, Anastasia 1998 Polarity Sensitivity as (Non)veridical Dependency. Amsterdam: Benjamins. Grimshaw, Jane 1991 Extended Projections. Ms., University of Brandeis. Haider, Hubert 1993 Deutsche Syntax - generativ. Tübingen: Narr. Haider, Hubert, and Inger Rosengren 1998 Scrambling. Sprache und Pragmatik 49. Lund.

136

Ellen Brandner

Jayaseelan, Κ. A. 2001 Question words in focus positions. In Language Variation Year Book, Pierre Pica, and Johan Rooryck (eds.), 63-93. Kidwai, Ayesha 1999 Word order and Focus positions in Universal Grammar. In The Grammar of Focus, Georges Rebuschi, and Laurie Tuller (eds.), 213-244. Amsterdam: Benjamins. Koeneman, Olaf. 2000 The flexible nature of verb movement. Ph.D. diss., Utrecht University. Koopman, Hilda 1984 The Syntax of Verbs. Dordrecht: Foris. Koopman, Hilda, and Dominique Sportiche 1982 Variables and the Bijection Principle. The Linguistic Review 2: 139-160. Lohnstein, Horst 2000 Satzmodus kompositioneil: Zur Parametrisierung der Modusphrase im Deutschen. Berlin: Akademie-Verlag. Lohnstein, Horst, and Ursula Bredel 2004 Inflectional morphology and sentence mood constitution in German. This volume. Mahajan, Anoop 2001 Word order and remnant VP movement. Ms., University of California, Los Angeles. Meinunger, Andre 2004 Verb position, verbal mood and the anchoring (potential) cf sentences. This volume. Müller, Gereon to appear Verb-Second as vP-First. Journal of Comparative Germanic Linguistics. Önnerfors, Olaf 1997 Verb-erst-Deklarativsätze. Grammatik und Pragmatik. Stockholm: Almqvist and Wiksell. Pesetsky, David, and Esther Torrego 2001 T-to-C-movement: Causes and consequences. In A Life in Language, Michael Kenstowicz, and Ken Haie (eds.), 355^4-26. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press. Platzack, Christer 1986 COMP, INFL, and germanic word order. In Topics in Scandinavian Syntax, Lars Hellan, and Kristi Koch-Christensen (eds.), 185-234. Dordrecht: Reidel.

Head-movement in minimalism, and V2 as FORCE-marking

137

Pollock, Jean-Yves 1989 Verb movement, universal grammar and the structure of IP. Linguistic Inquiry 20: 365^424. Roberts, Ian 2000 Principles and parameters in a VSO language. A case study in Welsh. Ms., University of Stuttgart. Roberts, Ian, and Anna Roussou 2002 The extended projection principle as a condition on the Tense dependency. In Subjects, Expletives, and the EPP, Peter Svenonuis (ed.), 125-155. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Reis, Marga 2000a. Anmerkungen zu Verb-Erst-Satz-Typen im Deutschen. In Deutsche Grammatik in Theorie und Praxis, Rolf Thieroff et al. (eds), 215-227. Tübingen: Niemeyer. 2000b. Review of Önnerfors 1997. Studia Linguistica 54 (1): 90-100. Rizzi, Luigi 1991 Residual Verb-second and the wh-Criterion. Technical Reports in Formal and Computational Linguistics 2. University of Geneva. 1997 The fine structure of the left periphery. In Elements of Grammar: Handbook of Generative Syntax, Liliane Haegeman (ed.), 281337. Dordrecht: Kluwer. Rosengren, Inger 2000 EPP and the post-finite expletive. Working Papers in Scandinavian Syntax 65: 1-34. Shin, Hyo Shik 1993 Kasus als funktionale Kategorie. Tübingen: Niemeyer. Sigurösson, Halldor 1990 VI declaratives and verb raising in Icelandic. In Syntax and Semantics Volume 24, Joan Maling, and Annie Zaenen (eds.), 4169. Simpson, Andrew, and Tanmoy Bhattacharya 2000 Wh-clausal Pied Piping in Bangla. Proceedings of NELS 30, Masako Hirotani, Andries Coetzee, Nancy Hall, and Ji-yung Kim (eds.), 583-596. Travis, Lisa 1994 Parameters and effects of word order variation. Ph.D. diss., MIT, Cambridge, Mass. Vikner, Sten 1995 Verb Movement and Expletive Subjects in the Germanic Languages. New York: Oxford Univ. Press.

138

Ellen Brandner

Wechsler, Stephen 1990

Verb Second and illocutionary force in Swedish. In Edinburgh Working Papers in Cognitive Science, vol. 6: Parametric Variation in Germanic and Romance, Elisabeth Engdahl, Mike Reape, Martin Mellor, and Richard Cooper (eds.), 229-244. Wackernagel, Johann 1892 Über ein Gesetz in der indogermanischen Wortstellung. Indogermanische Forschungen 1: 333-436. Weerman, Fred 1989 The V2 Conspiracy : A Synchronic and a Diachronic Analysis of Verbal Positions in Germanic Languages. Dordrecht: Foris. Zwart, Jan Wouter 1993 Dutch Syntax. Ph.D. diss., University of Groningen.

In front of the prefield - inside or outside the clause? Franz Josef d'Avis

Abstract This paper discusses the status of the position right before the prefield in German with respect to adverbial clauses. An adverbial clause in front of the prefield is under normal circumstances ungrammatical. But there are certain exceptions: counterfactuals, speech act adverbial clauses, and conditionals of irrelevance. It is not at all clear if these clauses are syntactically part of the main clause or if there is a more subtle relation between the clause before the prefield and the main clause. This question is taken up mainly with regard to conditionals of irrelevance (IC). Starting from the positional behaviour of ICs, the relation between IC and main clause is discussed. I will conclude that a class of dependent clauses exists that are not longer syntactically part of the overall construction, but that are nevertheless integrated into the main clause in a pragmatic, probably also in a semantic sense. This class of clauses, for which ICs stand as a relevant example, did not cross the border to real independence, they are not a separate part of the discourse. I will also conclude that a theory of parentheticals is needed that can account for these cases in a general way.

1.

Introduction

The position in front of the prefield, that is, in front of the constituent that fills the position before the finite verb in verb-second (V2-) clauses, is not a position that is normally available for standard cases of adverbial clauses in contemporary German.1 Consequently, the sentences in (1) are ungrammatical. (1)

a.

*Weil er die Stadt mag, er lebt in Frankfurt. because he the city likes he lives in Frankfurt

140

Franz-Josef d'Avis b.

c.

*Nachdem es aufgehört hatte zu regnen, Heinz ging after it stopped had to rain Heinz went spazieren. for a walk *Wenn Heinz Maria wirklich liebt, er wird sie heiraten. if Heinz Maria really loves he will her marry

Besides these standard cases, there exists a diverse group of adverbial clauses that are allowed in a pre-prefield position. This group includes counterfactual conditionals, speech-act adverbial clauses, and conditionals of irrelevance. In this paper, I will discuss the following question: what is the status of the position of Irrelevance Conditionals (ICs) in front of the prefield in German? Is it a position that has to be seen as part of the reference clause, the main clause, or should it be analyzed as being outside in a certain sense, and if so, in what sense? In Section 2,1 will present the relevant data for ICs, followed by an analyzis in Section 3 that assumes the IC, in a certain sense, to be outside the main clause. I call it the IC-as-parenthetical-hypothesis. Starting from the positional behavior of ICs, the relation between IC and main clause is discussed. I will conclude that a class of dependent clauses exists that are not longer syntactically part of the overall construction, but are nevertheless integrated into the main clause in a pragmatic, probably also in a semantic sense. As an important point, this class of clauses, for which ICs stand as a relevant example, did not cross the border to real independence, they are not a separate part of the discourse. In Section 4, Classification of ICs, it is shown that ICs do not form a uniform class in all aspects. I will also discuss data from Swedish and related constructions like left-dislocation in German and so-called donkey-sentences, followed up by my conclusions in Section 5.

2. Initial data I will start out with the data in (2). The examples represent a class of sentences for which different names have been found in the literature: 'Irrelevanzkonditionale' (conditionals of irrelevance), 'Gleichsetzungskonditionale' (conditionals of equivalence), concessive conditionals, unconditionals (cf. Eisenberg and König 1984, König 1986, 1992, König

In front of the prefield - inside or outside the clause ?

141

and v.d. Auwera 1988, v. d. Auwera 1986, Haspelmath and König 1998, Zaefferer 1987, 1991), although it is not quite clear whether they behave as one class in all relevant aspects. The first part of the complex clauses in (2)-(4) will be called ICs (Irrelevance Conditionals) with different subdivisions (cf. König 1986), the entire complex clause IC-construction. The clause the IC is related to will be called MC (Main/Matrix Clause). (2)

alternative ICs a. Ob es regnet oder nicht - wir gehen spazieren. whether it rains or not - we go for-a-walk 'Whether it is raining or not - we will go for a walk' b. Ob es regnet oder die Sonne scheint - wir gehen whether it rains or the sun shines - we go spazieren. for-a-walk 'Whether it is raining or the sun is shining - we will go for a walk.

(3)

universal ICs a. Wen auch immer du einlädst - Maria wird nicht who even ever you invite - Maria will not kommen. come 'Whoever you invite - Maria will not come.' b. Wer immer das war - der Vater muss für den Schaden who ever that was - the father must for the damage aufkommen. pay 'Whoever did this - the father must bear the costs.'

(4)

scalar ICs a. Auch wenn du der Chef bist - ich gehe jetzt. even if you the boss are - 1 go now 'Even if you are the boss - 1 am going to leave now.' b. Wenn du auch der Chef bist - ich gehe jetzt. if you even the boss are - 1 go now 'Even if you are the boss - 1 am going to leave now.'

142

Franz-Josef d'Avis

ICs are put together in one class mainly for a semantic reason: what an utterance of an IC-construction expresses is that the truth of a set of propositions that can be derived from the IC is irrelevant for the truth of the proposition of the MC. To put it in another way: every proposition in the IC implicates the truth of the proposition of the MC. The relevant set of propositions can be derived in different ways: through explicit mentioning of the elements of the set, see (2), (2b) as the result of different instantiations of a variable in the clause, see (3), by evocation of a set of alternatives with a focus-particle like auch, see (4).2 Besides examples of verbfinal-ICs as in (2)-(4), we find ICs with the finite verb in first or second position, see (5). (5)

a.

b.

c.

d.

e.

f.

g.

Mag Heinz auch gewinnen - Maria mag ihn nicht. may Heinz also/even win - Maria likes him not 'Even if Heinz wins - Maria does not like him.' Sag, was du willst - du hast unrecht. say what you want - you have not-right 'Say whatever you like - you are wrong.' Geh nach Hause oder bleibe hier - die Show ist vorbei. go home or stay here - the show is over 'Go home or stay here - the show is over.' Du kannst noch so schnell laufen - du wirst nie you can PART so fast run you become never Weltmeister. world champion 'You may run as fast as you like - you will never be world champion. Du magst auch der Chef sein - ich gehe jetzt. you may even the boss be - I go now 'Even if you are the boss - 1 am going to leave now.' Du kannst machen, was du willst - ich gehe jetzt you can do what you will - 1 go now nach Hause home 'Do whatever you like - 1 am going home now.' Es mag regnen oder nicht - ich gehe jetzt. it may rain or not - 1 go now 'Whether it is raining or not - 1 am going to leave now.'

In front of the prefield - inside or outside the clause?

143

Especially examples like (5f) show clearly that the relevant set of propositions can not simply be equated with the interpretation of the IC as a set of propositions, which could possibly be assumed for examples like (2, 3), but has to be, somehow, derived from the semantic interpretation of the IC.3

3. The IC-as-parenthetical-hypothesis How can we interpret the relation between the IC and its MC with regard to the question whether the first is a sentence grammatical part of the latter? To discuss this question, I will first look at the possible positions of the IC with respect to the MC.

3.1. Possible positions of the IC In the examples in (2)-(4), as well as in most of the examples that can be found in the literature, the IC stands in a position in front of the prefield. This position is not the only possible one. ICs can also appear after the MC as well as in positions inside the MC. In (6), we find ICs after the MC. (6)

a.

b.

c.

d.

Wir gehen spazieren - ob es regnet oder nicht. we go for-a-walk whether it rains or not 'Whether it is raining or not - we will go for a walk.' Wir gehen spazieren - ob es regnet oder schneit. we go for-a-walk whether it rains or snows 'We will go for a walk - whether it is raining or snowing.' Maria wird nicht kommen - wen auch immer du Maria will not come whom also ever you einlädtst. invite 'Whoever you invite - Maria will not come.' Du wirst nie Weltmeister - so schnell du auch you become never world champion - so fast you even läufst. run 'However fast you are running - you will never be worldchampion.'

144

Franz-Josef

f.

g.

h.

i.

j.

d'Avis

Ich gehe jetzt - wenn du auch der Chef bist. I go now if you even the boss are 'Even if you are the boss - 1 am leaving now.' ?Maria mag Heinz nicht - mag er auch gewinnen. Maria likes Heinz not may he even win 'Maria does not like Heinz - he may even win.' ??Ich gehe jetzt - tu, was du willst. I go now do what you want Ί am leaving now - do whatever you like.' ??Die Show ist vorbei - geh nach Hause oder lass es the show is over go home or let it bleiben. be ' The show is over - whether you are going home or not.' Du wirst nie Weltmeister - du kannst so schnell you become never world champion you can so fast laufen, wie du willst. run as you want 'You will never be world champion - however fast you are running.'

Most of the examples in (6) are fine, that is, they are interpretable as ICconstructions. Exceptions are the VI-clause with the initial modal mag/may in (6g), and the imperative clauses in (6h, i). In these cases, the relevant interpretation is not so easily available, and it seems that the linear order must be included as a decisive factor. Besides the position after the MC, there are some positions inside the MC where ICs can appear. These are so-called 'Parentheselücken', that is, positions for parentheticals (cf. Altmann 1981). Some examples are in (7). (7)

between the element in the prefield and the finite verb: a. Der Heinz - so schnell er auch läuft - wird nie the Heinz so fast he also runs - becomes never Weltmeister. world champion 'Heinz will never be world champion - however fast he is running.'

In front of the prefield - inside or outside the clause ? b.

145

Der Heinz - mag er auch heute gewinnen - ist eigentlich the Heinz - may he also today win is actually ein Verlierer a looser 'Heinz is actually a loser - even if he wins today.'

(8)

directly after the finite verb: a. Die Maria wird - wen auch immer Heinz einlädt - heute the Maria will whom also ever Heinz invites today abend sicher ausrasten. evening surely blow-her-head 'Maria will surely blow her head tonight - whomever Heinz invites.' b. Die Kneipe ist - (und) da kannst du machen, was du the pub is (and) there can you do what you willst - ab sofort für dich gesperrt. want from immediately for you closed 'Whatever you do - the pub is closed for you.'

(9)

inside the middlefield: a. Die Maria wird heute abend - wen auch immer Heinz the Maria will today evening whom even ever Heinz einlädt - sicher ausrasten. invites surely blow-her-head 'Maria will surely blow her head tonight - whomever Heinz invites.' b. Die Kneipe ist heute abend - (und) da kannst du the pub is today evening (and) there can you machen, was du willst - geschlossen. do what you want closed 'Whatever you do - the pub is closed tonight.'

An interesting point is that ICs are also possible before the prefield in a sentence with, to use the German term, 'LinksVersetzung' (left dislocation in German).4 Following the terminology of Altmann (1981), an element is 'linksversetzt', left-dislocated, if it stands in a position before the prefield, and is taken up by a pronoun in the prefield, mostly d(emonstrative)pronouns, see (10).

146 (10)

Franz-Josef d'Avis a.

b.

c.

Den Heinz, [prefield den] mag ich nicht. the Heinz(acc) him(acc) like I not 'Heinz, I don't like.' Ob Peter kommt, [prefield das] weiß ich nicht. whether Peter comes that know I not Ί don't know whether Peter comes.' Wer rastet, [prefield der] rostet. who rests he gets-rusty 'Who rests rusts. (You have to keep in practice.)'

An IC is now possible between the 'left dislocated' 5 element and the pronoun in the prefield, see (11), as well as in front of the 'left dislocated' phrase, see (12). (11)

a.

b.

(12)

a.

b.

Der Heinz - so schnell er auch läuft — der wird nie the Heinz so fast he also runs he becomes never Weltmeister. world champion 'Heinz will never be world champion - however fast he is running.' Also die Maria - wen auch immer du eingeladen hast well, the Maria who also ever you invited have die wird sicher nicht kommen. she will surely not come 'Whoever you invited - Maria will surely not come.' So schnell er auch läuft - der Heinz, der wird nie 'so fast he even runs - the Heinz he becomes never Weltmeister. world champion Wen auch immer du eingeladen hast - die Maria, die whom even ever you invited have - the Maria she wird sicher nicht kommen. will surely not come

Especially examples like (12), which Marga Reis brought to my attention, are relevant for our main question because they exclude, from the outset, the possibility that ICs in front of the prefield are in the position of 'left dislocated' elements: there is no double 'left dislocation' in German.

In front of the prefield - inside or outside the clause?

147

That ICs stand before the prefield does not mean that they stand in every sense before the MC. ICs are not possible before a parordinating particle like aber (but) or doch (after-all), or before a coordinating particle like und (and), see (13). (13)

a.

b.

c.

d.

[cotext: Das wird bestimmt ein netter Abend]. This becomes surely a nice evening 'We will have a nice evening tonight.' Aber - wen auch immer du einlädst - Maria wird but whom also ever you invite Maria will sicher nicht kommen. surely not come 'But - whoever you invite - Maria will not come.' *?Wen auch immer du einlädst - aber Maria wird whom also ever you invite but Maria will sicher nicht kommen. surely not come Das Fest war schön und - wie sehr ich auch gebettelt the party was nice and how much I also begged habe - Maria war wirklich nicht da. have - Maria was really not there 'The party was nice and Maria did indeed not come - regardless of how much I begged her to come.' *Das Fest war schön - wie sehr ich auch gebettelt habe the party was nice - how much I also begged have und Maria war wirklich nicht da. and Maria was really not there

Examples like (13b, d) indicate that ICs are, at least with regard to linearity or rather to a topological analyzis, inside the MC. The decisive fact that shows that ICs are different from standard cases of adverbial clauses is that ICs cannot stand in the prefield as the only constituent. From a topological point of view, they may stand in the prefield as a parenthetical in cases like (7a), but ICs are not possible as the constituent before the finite verb that is necessary as part of a V2-construction, see (14). (14)

a.

*Ob es regnet oder nicht, gehen wir spazieren. whether it rains or not go we for-a-walk

148

Franz-Josef d'Avis b. c. d.

e.

f. g. h. i.

j.

*0b es regnet oder schneit, gehen wir spazieren. whether it rains or snows go we for-a-walk *Wen auch immer du einlädst, wird Maria nicht kommen whom also ever you invite will Maria not come *So schnell du auch läufst, wirst du nie so fast you also run will-be you never Weltmeister. worldchampion *Wie schnell du auch läufst, wirst du nie how fast you also run become you never Weltmeister. world champion *Wenn du auch der Chef bist, gehe ich jetzt. if you also the boss be go I now *Mag Heinz auch gewinnen, mag Maria ihn nicht. may Heinz also win likes Maria him not *Tu, was du willst, gehe ich jetzt. do what you like go I now *Geh nach Hause oder lass es bleiben, ist die Show go to home or let it be is the show vorbei. over *Du kannst so schnell laufen, wie du willst, wirst du you can so fast run as you want become you nie Weltmeister. never world champion

I think that this is a very important point with interesting consequences for the possible analyzes of the relation between ICs and their MC. It is not a question of linearity, which normally implies certain binding restrictions, that ICs are impossible in the prefield as could be argued for with respect to certain other cases of adverbial or attributive clauses that do not want to stand in a position before the finite verb like free da/?-clauses6 or relative clauses. After all, as we have seen above, ICs are perfectly acceptable before the prefield. On the other hand, it is the impossibility to stand in the prefield that distinguishes ICs from other adverbial clauses that are also possible in a position before the prefield, for instance counterfactual conditionals,

In front of the prefield - inside or outside the clause?

149

which are possible before and in the prefield, in the latter case leading to a V2-construction. So, if it is not a question of linearity, there should be a structural reason. Against the considerations that the possibility to stand in the prefield is a necessary and sufficient condition for the status of a constituent as a (strictly) subordinated clause 7 , we must conclude that ICs are not (strictly) subordinated. 8 The (syntactic) relation to the MC is definitely different from what we can say about the relation of standard adverbial clauses or argument clauses. In addition to the possible positions of the ICs, there are certain intonational and information-structural properties of ICs, listed in (15), that also support the conclusion that ICs are not (strictly) subordinated clauses. (15)

a. b. c.

ICs are internationally separated from the MC (two different intonational phrases, distinct pause). ICs have an own main accent. ICs and their MCs do not have a common focusbackground-structure.

Let's look at the examples in (16), where we find a clear difference in meaning between (16a) and (16b) that correlates with different intonation. The examples are adapted from Zaefferer (1987). (16)

a. b.

Du bist steuerpflichtig, 'you are taxable Du bist STEUERpflichtig 'you are taxable

wo immer du WOHNST. wherever you live' - wo immer du WOHNST. - wherever you live'

In (16a), we have a maximal focus with the main accent on the focus exponent of the embedded clause, a regular local adverbial clause, structural identical to free relative clauses. (16b) is divided into two different focus domains, both with their own main accents. The IC is separated from the MC by a clear intonation break. The difference in meaning is clear: (16a) says that you are taxable at the place where you are living. (16b) says that you are taxable somewhere or other, independent from the place you are living. The conclusion I want to draw from the syntactic behaviour of ICs, their possible positions with respect to the main clause, and from their non standard behaviour with respect to to intonation and focus-backgroundstructure is that ICs are a kind of parentheticals. The main point is that ICs

150

Franz-Josef d'Avis

as parentheticals are not integrated into the hierachy of the MC in a sentence grammatical sense (cf. for parentheticals Espinal 1991 and Reis 1995). I do not want to claim that all phenomena/constructions that normally fall under the term 'parenthetical' are analyzed the same way as ICconstructions. What I do claim is that the grammar of a language must provide different means of integrating one clause into another which reflect the strength of their connection. 9 As for ICs, I assume that they are not syntactically integrated into the MC, but they are, at least, pragmatically integrated.

3.2. The relation between IC and MC The intuitive description of meaning for IC-constructions I gave in the introduction applies to cases where the IC is related to the propostion of the MC. This is not always the case. Just like we have conditional clauses used as speech act conditionals, we have ICs in comparable usage (cf. Zaefferer 1987). In (17), the conditionals relate in a certain sense to the illocution of the following clause, for example as a condition on their appropriateness. They can be paraphrased as in (18). (17)

a.

b.

(18)

a.

Wenn du es wirklich wissen willst — ich war in Rom. if you it really know want I was in Rome 'If you really want to know - 1 was in Rome.' Wenn ich Sie fragen darf, Herr Daum: Wann hatten if I you ask may Mister Daum when had Sie das letzte Mal Schnupfen? you the last time cold 'If I may ask you, Mister Daum: When did you have a cold the last time?' Wenn du es wirklich wissen willst, dann sage ich dir: if you it really know want then say I you: Ich war in Rom. I was in Rome 'If you really want to know, I tell you: I was in Rome.'

In front of the prefield - inside or outside the clause?

b.

151

Wenn ich Sie fragen darf\ Herr Daum, dann frage ich if I you ask may, Mister Daum, then ask I Sie: Wann hatten Sie das letzte Mal Schnupfen? you: when had you the last time cold 'If I may ask you, Mister Daum, I will do so: When did you have a cold the last time?'

The conditional clause in (17a) is a condition on the adequacy of asserting the following clause, see (18a), and the conditional in (17b) is a condition with respect to the following question, compare (18b). ICs can also be used in this sense, see (19). (19)

a.

b.

c.

d.

e.

Ob du es glaubst oder nicht - ich war in Rom. whether you it believe or not I was in Rome Ί was in Rome - whether you believe it or not.' Ob es dich erfreut oder ärgert - ich war in Rom. whether it you pleases or annoys I was in Rome Ί was in Rome - whether you like it or not.' Wie sehr ich dich damit auch beleidige - du bist ein how much I you there-with also insult you are a Idiot. fool 'Regardless of how much I insult you - you are a fool.' So leid es mir auch tut - Heinz hat gewonnen. so sorry it me also does Heinz has won 'Heinz did win - regardless of how much I like it.' So ungern sie das auch hören mögen, Herr Daum: so reluctantly you that also hear may Mister Daum: Wann hatten Sie das letzte Mal Schnupfen ? when had you the last time cold 'Regardless of how much you like to hear this question, Mister Daum: When did you have a cold the last time?'

It does not make any sense to think that my presence in Rome depends on whether you believe it or not, whether you are pleased with it or whether you are annoyed, see (19a, b). And the truth of the statement that you are a fool is just as little depending on the degree reflecting the strength of the insult, see (19c). The ICs in (19) rather express a sufficient condition for the speech acts related to the MCs, and not for the truth of their propositions. I will not discuss speech act ICs further in what follows. It is clear

152

Franz-Josef d'Avis

that they are different from ICs that are related to the proposition of the MC, just as speech act conditionals are different from conditionals related to the propostion of its MC. But, although proposition related ICs are not connected to the illocution of the MC in the same way as speech act ICs, the illocution of the MC nevertheless plays a certain role. The illocution of the MC is not arbitrary. A real information question like (20) is not acceptable as MC. (20)

*So gern du auch tanztso willingly you also dance

willst du in die Disco? want you in the disco

The picture changes if we have a tendentious question like the MC in (21), which expresses also that the speaker expects a certain answer. (21)

So gern du auch tanzt - willst du wirklich in die Disco? so willingly you also dance - want you really in the disco Ί know how much you like to dance, but do you really want to go to the disco?'

By uttering the tendentious question in (21), it is, as an indirect speech act, asserted that the speaker would prefer the hearer to stay at home. It is the proposition that underlies the indirect assertion the IC is related to. The examples in (22) show the same contrast. The information question in (22a) does not allow an IC, the rhetorical variant in (22b) does allow it. (22)

a.

b.

*Wen auch immer du einlädst - wer kommt zu deinem whom also ever you invite who comes to your Fest? party Wen auch immer du einlädst - wer kommt schon zu whom also ever you invite who comes already to deinem Fest? your party 'Whoever you invite - who will come to your party?'

What can be deduced from the rhetorical question in (22b) is: Noone is coming to your party. This is the proposition the IC is related to. The next argument can be found in directive speech acts.10 In advices, as in (23), we have also an indirect assertion, which is in the case of (23): If I were you, I would stay at home.

In front of the prefield - inside or outside the clause? (23)

153

Bleib lieber zu Hause! stay better at home 'Better stay at home!'

(24), on the other hand, is not a piece of advice, but a command. This is made clear by the particle gefälligst/kindly. Here, we do not have an indirect assertion. (24)

Bleib gefälligst zu Hause! stay kindly at home 'Kindly stay at home!'

Interestingly, there is indeed a contrast with respect to the occurence of ICs. (25b) -with a command as the illocution of the MC- is definitely worse than (25b). (25)

a.

b.

So gern du auch tanzt - bleib lieber zu Hause! so willingly you also dance stay better at home 'However much you like to dance - better stay at home!' ??So gern du auch tanzt - bleib gefälligst zuhause! so willingly you also dance stay kindly at-home 'However much you like to dance - kindly stay at home!'

The above data indicates that ICs related to the proposition of the MC are only possible with illocutions of the MC where something is asserted, at least indirectly. Assertions, also derived ones, are in a certain sense transparent for the influence of an IC. So, it seems that IC-construction where the IC is related to the proposition of the MC must meet a condition like (26).

(26)

The 'potential' illocution of the MC is an assertion/ has an assertive character

'Potential' illocution means, on the one hand, the illocution that is possible with respect to the grammatical properties of the MC, that is the 'Illokutionspotential' in the sense of Brandt et al. (1992), and, on the other hand, possible derived illocutions. The condition in (26) also supports the assumption that ICs are a kind of parentheticals. It seems to be the case that the occurrence of parentheticals is by and large restricted to assertive environments (cf. Altmann 1981:161), who states that 'parentheticals occur preferably in assertive speech acts,

154

Franz-Josef

d'Avis

considerably more seldom in questions, hardly in imperatives, and almost never in exclamatives'.11 The relation between the IC and its MC can be represented as in (27). (27) realized ILL (IC+MC)

IC

potential ILL (MC)

The IC itself is not the basis for an illocution, but it can be seen as a seperate information unit (Informationseinheit) in the sense of Brandt (1990). If the IC was a seperate illocution on its own, we would expect that it could occur independently from an MC. But this is not the case. Let us look at wh- and ob/whether-dmses, which can occur independently, even with the finite verb in base position. Wh-clauses with verb final word order that are not embedded can be used as exclamations or as questions. In exclamations, we have an obligatory exclamative accent, in whverb-final questions, we have, nearly always, the modal particle wohl, see (28). Neither the exclamative accent nor the particle wohl are possible in wA-ICs. (28)

a.

b.

Wen DIE alles eingeladen hat! whom she all invited has 'The people she invited!' Wen Peter wohl eingeladen hat? whom Peter PART invited has Ί wonder whom Peter has invited.'

Independent ob/whether-clauses are for the most used as so-called deliberative questions. In contrast to ob/whether-ICs, it is not necessary to express an alternative explicitly, see (25). (29)

a. b.

Ob Peter kommt (?oder Maria)? 'whether Peter comes (?or Maria)' Ob es heute regnet (?oder nicht)? 'whether it today rains (?or not)'

In front of the prefield - inside or outside the clause?

155

On the contrary: with an explicit alternative, the examples in (29) as deliberative questions are worse than without. Another possibility could be that wh- and ob/whether-ICs are so-called wh-headlines (w-Schlagzeilen) (cf. Oppenrieder 1989). (30)

a.

b.

Mit wem der König fremd geht. with whom the king unfaithful is 'Whom the king is unfaithful with.' Ob Verb-Letzt-Sätze selbstständig verwendet whether verb-final-clauses independently used werden können. (Oppenrieder 1989) be can 'Whether verb-final-clauses can be used independently or not.'

But, at least ob/whether-lCs are different from w/i-headlines because whheadlines do not need an explicitly mentioned alternative. Wh-ICs, unlike the w/z-clauses in the examples above, cannot occur independently, that is, without a connection to another clause, see (31).12 (31)

#Wen auch immer du einlädst. whom also ever you invite #'Whomever you invite.'

The conclusion I want to draw is that ICs cannot be the basis for an illocution. They are, as I see it, syntactically independent from the MC, but they must somehow be integrated into the illocution of the MC. ICs belong to a class of data that suggests, as I mentioned above, that we must reckon with different degrees of subordination, which are expressed by different relations to the MC. The need for different degrees of subordination was shown by Reis (1997), who expands the taxonomy of dependent clauses to fit in dependent V2-clauses. Reis distinguishes between 'integrated', 'relatively non-integrated', and 'absolutely non-integrated' dependent clauses, dependent V2-clauses being of the second type. But also the least integrated class is still syntactically part of the whole construction. If I am on the right track, then there are dependent clauses that are not longer syntactically part of the overall construction, but are nevertheless integrated into the MC in a pragmatic, probably also in a semantic sense. But, and this is the important point, this class of clauses, for which ICs stand as a relevant example, did not cross the border to real independ-

156

Franz-Josef d'Avis

ence, they are not a seperate part of the discourse. ICs are illocutionary dependent on the MC, and other pragmatic mechanisms are also needed, judging from the relevance of derived illocutions. If we assume that ICs are parentheticals, a general theory of parenthetical constructions should integrate these cases. Until now, I have assumed more or less that ICs form a uniform class. In the following Sections, I will discuss data that show that this is not the case in all relevant aspects.

4.

Classification of ICs

The main syntactic argument to seperate ICs from regular cases of adverbial clauses was that ICs are not possible in the prefield as the only constituent, that is, as the constituent in the prefield that leads to a V2construction. Is it now justified to speak of ICs as a unified class with respect to this property? It was, after all, this property that led also to the classification as non-(strictly)-subordinated clauses. First, I would like to look at some relevant data in Swedish.

4.1. Swedish ICs In Swedish, there is an important difference with respect to ICconstructions. Unlike German, all ICs that have embedded word order are allowed in the prefield. 13 In addition to that, there is also a resumptive construction with the resumptive pronoun sä in the prefield, see (32)-(33). (32)

a. a'.

b. b'.

Vem du än bjuder, (sä) kommer Maria inte. whom you also invite (so) comes Maria not Vem du än bjuder - Maria kommer inte. whom you also invite Maria comes not 'Maria will not come - whoever you invite.' Vem det än var, (sä) mäste pappan ersätta skadan. who that also was (so) must the-father repay the-damage Vem det än var-pappan mäste ersätta skadan. who that also was the-father must repay the-damage 'Whoever did this - father has to pay compensation.'

In front of the prefield - inside or outside the clause? (33)

a.

a'. b. b'.

157

%0m detregnarellerej,(sä)gärvi pä en whether it rains or not (so) go we for a promenad.14 walk %Om det regnar eller ej - vi gär pä en promenad. whether it rains or not we go for a walk Anfingen det regnar eller ej, (sä) gär vi pä en promenad. either it rains or not (so) go we for a walk Anfingen det regnar eller ej - vi gär pä en promenad. either it rains or not we go for a walk 'We will go for a walk - whether it is raining or not.'

Universal ICs, (32), and alternative ICs, (33), are possible in the prefield and in a position before the prefield. In the latter case, there is a distinct break between IC and MC. If the IC is in the prefield, it is not, unlike the German cases, intonationally separated from the MC, it is inside the same focus domain. (34)

a. a'.

Ävenomdu är chef, (sä) gär jag nu. even if you are boss (so) go we now ?Även om du är chef- jag gär nu. even if you are boss I go now Ί am going to leave - even if you are the boss.'

Scalar ICs, (34), are possible in the prefield, with a resumptive pronoun, and in a pre-prefield position. The latter position is the only possible with respect to VI- and V2-ICs. VI- and V2-ICs are ungrammatical in the prefield and with a resumptive construction, see (35)-(38). (35)

a.

a'.

Mä han springa aldrig sä fort, *( *sa) kommer han may he run never so fast (so) come he aldrig aft vinna. never to win Mä han springa aldrig sä fort - han kommer aldrig att may he run never so fast he come never to vinna. win 'He may run as fast as he likes - he will never win.'

158

(36)

Franz-Josef

a a'.

b. b'.

(37)

a.

a'

b.

b'.

(38)

a. a'.

d'Avis

Gör, vad du vill, *(*sä) gär jag nu. do what you want (so) go I now Gör, vad du vill - jag gär nu. do what you want I go now 'Do whatever you like - 1 am leaving.' Gähem eller stanna här, *(*sä) är showen över. go home or stay here (so) is the-show over Gähem eller stanna här - showen är över. go home or stay here the-show is over 'Go home or stay here - the show is over.' Du kan springa aldrig sä fort, *(*sä) blir du aldrig you can run never so fast (so) will-be you never världsmästare. world champion Du kan springa aldrig sä fort - du blir aldrig you can run never so fast you will-be never världsmästare. world champion Du kan springa sä fort du vill, *(*sä) blir du aldrig. you can run so fast you want (so) will-be you never världsmästare world champion Du kan springa sä fort du vill - du blir aldrig you can run so fast you want you will-be never världsmästare. world champion 'You may run as fast as you like - you will never be world champion.' Detmä regna eller ej, *(*sä) gär jag nu. it may rain or not (so) go I now Det mä regna eller ej - jag gär nu. it may rain or not I go now 'Whether it is raining or not - 1 am leaving now.'

The prefield option for certain ICs was already pointed out by König and v.d.Auwera (1988). Their interpretation relates the possibility of greater integration to the stronger V2-charakter of Swedish. This means, as far as I can see, that ICs as such can occur in the prefield, leaving open the ques-

In front of the prefield - inside or outside the clause?

159

tion whether there is a difference between ICs and more regular cases of adverbial clauses. The V2-character of German, their argument goes, is not as well-developed, and therefore ICs are not integrated the same way. Another interpretation could be that alternative and universal verb final ICs in Swedish, in contrast to German, can in fact be treated as 'regular' adverbial clauses, that is, as (strictly) subordinated. Seen this way, it is not the properties of the prefield that are responsible for the possible positions of the relevant clauses, but the properties of the ICs themselves. With respect to independent clauses, it seems not that easy to show which alternative applies. But, if ICs, at least with embedded word order, are really more subordinated than their German counterparts, we would expect that they are grammatical in embedded environments, like other, 'regular', adverbial clauses. With respect to German ICs, at least the oband wh-ICs, we would maybe expect that they are not as good in certain embedded sentences, if they are in fact a kind of parentheticals and if they are, as I assume, related to the speaker. I think the data are not as clear as they could be, but there seems to be a difference between the embedded cases in German and Swedish. While the German examples are not as acceptable as the unembedded cases, the Swedish examples with the ICs related to the embedded clause are good according to my informants. (39)

a.

a'.

b.

??Maria behauptete, dass Peter spazieren geht, ob Maria claimed that Peter goes for a walk whether es regnet oder nicht. it rains or not Maria pastod att Peter gär pä en promenad, om Maria claimed that Peter goes for a walk whether det regnar eller ej. it rains or not 'Maria claimed that Peter is going for a walk regardless of whether ist is raining or not.' ? ?Maria sagte/glaubte, dass Heinz zu Hause bleibt, wen Maria said/believed that Heinz at home stays whom auch immer du einlädst. also ever you invite

160

Franz-Josef d'Avis b'.

c.

c'.

Maria sa/trodde att Heinz stannar hemma, vem Maria said/believed that Heinz stays at-home whom du än bjuder. you also invite 'Maria said/believed that Heinz is staying at home regardless of whom you invite.' Maria sagte, dass Heinz heute kommt, auch wenn es Maria said that Heinz comes today even if it regnet. rains Maria sa att Heinz kommer idag, även om det regnar. Maria said that Heinz comes today even if it rains 'Maria said that Heinz is coming today, even if it is raining.'

The examples with the ICs in a middle position are stilistically marked in Swedish, but they are nevertheless grammatical, see (40). (40)

a.

a'.

b.

b'.

c.

?*Maria behauptet, dass Peter, ob es regnet oder Maria claims that Peter whether it rains or nicht, spazieren geht. not for-a-walk goes Maria pästär att Peter, om det regnar eller ej, gär pä en Maria claims that Peter if it rains or not goes for a promenad. walk 'Maria claims that Peter is going for a walk regardless of whether it is raining or not.' ?*Maria sagte/glaubte, dass Heinz, wen auch immer Maria said/believed that Heinz whom also ever du einlädst, zu Hause bleibt. you invite at home stays Maria sa/trodde att Heinz, vem du än bjuder, Maria said/believed that Heinz whom you also invite stannar hemma. stays at-home 'Maria said/believed that Heinz is staying at home regardless of whom you invite.' Maria sagte, dass Heinz, auch wenn es regnet, heute kommt. Maria said that Heinz even if it rains today comes

In front of the prefield - inside or outside the clause? c'.

161

Maria sa att Heinz, även om det regnar, kommer idag. Maria said that Heinz even if it rains comes today 'Maria said that Heinz is coming today, even if it is raining.'

The German examples are not that easily interpretable with the IC related to the embedded clause. In Swedish, this seems to be much easier, both for the om- and for the vera-clause. In German, only the cases with auch wenn/even if allow, as in Swedish, the relation to the embedded clause.15 The next examples show that ICs are allowed in embedded V2-clauses in Swedish, but not in German. (41)

a.

b.

Maria pasted att, vem du än bjuder, sä stanna Heinz Maria claimed that who you also inivite so stays Heinz hemma. at-home *Maria behauptete, wen du auch einlädst — Heinz bleibt Maria claimed who you also invite Heinz stays zuhause. at-home 'Maria claimed that Heinz is staying at home regardless of whom you invite.'

I would like to interpret the data as follows: It is not only the status of the prefield in Swedish itself that allows om- and v-ICs, but also the properties of the ICs as opposed to German ob- and wh-lCs. In Swedish, they are in fact treated as 'regular' adverbial clauses and consequently as 'strictly' subordinated. In German, ob- and wh-ICs do not have these properties. If there is a quasi-adverbial relation between IC and MC, it must be derived in another way.16 Auch wenn-clauses, on the other hand, act like their Swedish counterparts, även om-clauses: they are allowed in the prefield and without problems in embdedded environments. But this is perhaps not unexpected, if we keep in mind that wenn is after all a subjunction for adverbial clauses. The borderline with respect to 'strictly' subordinated clauses is different in Swedish and German. While German differentiates between V2-, certain VI-, ob- and wh-ICs, which stand in the pre-prefield and not in the prefield, and (auch)wenn-ICs, which can occur in the prefield, Swedish draws the line between VI-, V2- ICs on the one hand and verb-final ICs on the other hand.

162

Franz-Josef d'Avis

4.2. wenn auch-clauses in prefield position Besides auch wenn-clauses with the particle auch directly in front of wenn, there are wenn-ICs with the particle auch somewhere in the middlefield. There are some semantic differences,17 but both auch wenn- and wenn...auch-clauses are possible in the pre-prefield and in the prefield. With respect to wenn...auch-clauses in the prefield, there seems to be the condition that we have a concessive particle like doch, dennoch, or trotzdem in the MC, see (42). (42)

a.

b.

Wenn er auch viel Geld hat, ist er doch/dennoch/ if he also much money has is he but/ after-all/ trotzdem ein Idiot. all the same a fool 'He is a fool, even if he has a lot of money.' Wenn du auch noch so schreist, hast du doch/dennoch/ if you also still so scream have you but/after-all/ trotzdem verloren. all the same lost 'You have lost regardless of how much you are screaming.'

If one - to save the parenthetical hypothesis - wants to avoid the conclusion that wenn...auch-clauses occur in fact in the prefield of the following clause, one could assume that the MC is not a V2-clause but a VIdeclarative clause. After all, there are VI-declaratives with an obligatorical doch in the middlefield, see (43). (43)

a.

b.

Peter muss die Klasse wiederholen. Peter must the class repeat Hat er doch die letzte Arbeit ebenfalls verhauen. has he after-all the last exam also failed 'Peter has to repeat a year, because he also failed the last exam.' Diese Theorie ist abzulehnen. this theory is to-reject Erklärt sie doch nur einen kleinen Teil der Daten. explains she after-all only a small part-of the data 'This theory must be rejected, because it explains only a small part of the data.'

In front of the prefield - inside or outside the clause?

163

But a look in Önnerfors (1997) informs us that the VI-declaratives in (43), which get a causal interpretation, have properties that distinguish them from the MCs in (44). First, it is this causal character, which is not necessarily existing in (42) Second, doch in VI-declaratives is always unaccentuated, in contrary to (42). Third, it is not possible to substitute doch in VIdeclaratives by dennoch or trotzdem. The last point, amongst others, leads Önnerfors, with reference to Ormelius-Sandblom (1997), to the classification of doch in causal VI-declaratives as a modal particle. Doch in (42), however, is a concessive adverbial. On top of that, there is a construction specific reason against the just mentioned analyzis. We would expect that other types of ICs are also possible in the prefield. But, ob- and wh-lCs are considerably worse than (42), they are ungrammatical, see (44). (44)

a.

b.

*Ob er Geld hat oder nicht, ist er dennoch/doch/ whether he money has or not is he after-all/but/ trotzdem ein Idiot. all the same a fool 'He is a fool - whether he has money or not.' *Wie laut du auch schreist, hast du doch/dennoch/ how loud you also scream have you but/after-all/ trotzdem verloren. all the same lost 'You have lost, regardless of how much you are screaming.'

These data are, in principle, in line with the results of Section 4.1. The class of verb-final ICs in German has to be divided in ob- and wh-ICs, which cannot occur in the prefield, and wewi-ICs, which can occur in the prefield and in pre-prefield position. Wenn...auch-ICs are special, because they need a concessive adverbial in the middlefield of the MC. The reason for this is not quite clear, but I think it lies more on the semantic side. We could speculate that a wenn...auch-clause in the prefield itself can not lead to a concessive interpretation and needs support of a particle like doch. If the wenn...auch-clause is in the pre-prefield, the concessive interpretation seems to be related to the whole construction, as could be the case with respect to ob- and wh-ICs.18

164

Franz-Josef d'Avis

4.3. 'Left-dislocation'in German The division of ICs into ob-, wh-, and V2-ICs, which only occur in the preprefield position, and wenn-ICs, which also occur in the prefield, can be made even more fine-grained. If we look at the behaviour of ob-, wh-, and V2-ICs with respect to 'left-dislocation' in German, there appears another difference. 'Left-dislocation', in the sense explained in Section 3. above, with the resumptive pronoun one would expect with respect to the formal properties of the sentence initial element in verb-final ICs, is not possible. Ob- and vv/z-clauses in 'left-dislocated' position can normally be taken up with the pronoun das in the prefield of the matrix clause. The appropriate pronoun for wenw-clauses is dann. However, both pronouns lead to ungrammaticall y in the case of ICs, see the contrasts in (45). (45)

a.

a'.

b.

b'.

c.

c'

Ob es regnet oder nicht, das ist mir egal. whether it rains or not that is to-me the-same Ί don't care whether it is raining or not.' *Ob es regnet oder nicht, das gehen wir spazieren whether it rains or not that go we for-a-walk 'We are going for a walk, whether it is raining or not.' Wen du einlädst, das kümmert mich nicht. who you invite that worries me not Ί don't care who you invite.' *Wen auch immer du einlädst, das wird Maria nicht zum who also ever you invite that will Maria not to-the Fest kommen. party come 'Maria will not come to the party, whoever you invite.' Wenn Heinz reich ist, dann ist er eine gute Partie. if Heinz rich is than is he a good catch 'If Heinz is rich, he is a good catch.' *Wenn Heinz auch reich ist, dann ist er keine gute if Heinz also rich is than is he not a good Partie. catch (*in the intended reading) 'Heinz is not a good catch, even if he is rich.'

In front of the prefield - inside or outside the clause?

165

The only possibility to build an IC-construction in a way that is similar to a 'left-dislocation' construction is with the pronoun so in the prefield of the matrix clause, see (46). (46)

a.

b.

c.

Ob es regnet oder nicht, so werden wir doch nicht whether it rains or not so will we after-all not zu Hause bleiben. at home stay 'We will not stay at home, whether it is raining or not.' Wen auch immer du einlädst, so wird Maria doch nicht who also ever you invite so will Maria after-all not zum Fest kommen. to-the party come 'Maria will not come to the party, whoever you invite.' Wenn Heinz auch reich ist, so ist er doch keine gute if Heinz also rich is so is he after-all not a good Partie. catch 'Heinz is not a good catch, even if he is rich.'

Notice that there is a stressed element like doch in the middlefield of the matrix clause that seems to be obligatory. In older stages of German, the resumption with so was common for all kinds of 'left-dislocated' adverbial clauses. For conditional clauses, this was the case until recently. Gottlob Frege, for example, used in his articles wenn...so and not wenn...dann, when he talked about conditional constructions. In Robert Walser's novel 'Jakob von Gunten', first published 1909, the majority of 'left-dislocated' conditional clauses is taken up by so and not by dann, (so: 26 (ca. 70%), dann: 11 (ca. 30%)). In contemporary German, however, the standard resumptive pronoun for conditionals is dann (cf. Redder 1987). The resumption with so seems to have a certain assessing character. For concessive clauses, however, with initial concessive subjunctions like obgleich, obwohl, obschon etc., only the resumptive element so seems to be possible. Paul (1920:317) remarks that in those cases, there is normally doch inserted in the middlefield of the matrix clause, see (47). (47)

a.

Obwohl es regnet, so geht Peter doch spazieren. although it rains so goes Peter after-all for-a-walk 'Peter is going for a walk, although it is raining.'

166

Franz-Josef d'Avis b.

Obgleich er nicht bezahlen kann, so hat Heinz doch ein although he not pay can so has Heinz after-all a Festtagsmenü bestellt. special-day-meal ordered 'Heinz ordered a banquet, although he can not pay it.'

Even if we assume that the examples with concessive clauses in (47) are indeed 'left-dislocation', - and this is supported by the fact that concessive verb-final clauses are also possible in prefield position-, there are doubts with respect to ICs, especially ob- and wh-ICs. They are not, as we have seen, possible in the prefield. If we assume, which is a common assumption, that it is a property of the 'left-dislocation' construction in German that the 'lelft-dislocated' element is normally also possible in the prefield, then we must conclude that the resumptive construction with ob- and wh-ICs is not a case of 'leftdislocation'. But there is, nevertheless, a difference to V2-ICs, because those are not possible in a resumptive construction, even with the pronoun so, see (48). (48)

a.

a'.

b.

b'.

*Es mag regnen oder nicht, so werden wir doch nicht it may rain or not so will we after-all not zu Hause bleiben. at home stay Ob es regnet oder nicht, so werden wir doch nicht whether it rains or not so will we after-all not zu Hause bleiben. at home stay 'We will not stay at home - whether it israining or not.' *Du kannst machen, was du willst, so werden wir doch you can do what you want so will we after-all nie verlieren. never lose Was du auch machst, so werden wir doch nie what you also do so will we after-all never verlieren. lose 'Whatever you do - we will never lose.'

A possible explanation could start out from the following: ob- and wh-ICs have no inherent concessive interpretation. Concessivity could be intro-

In front of the prefield - inside or outside the clause?

167

duced by way of so and doch in the MC. But this is only partly reasonable, because so in the relevant cases is probably semantically underspecified, see also Mannheimer Grammatik (Vol. 3:1494). This leaves doch as the decisive factor. However, doch alone is not in the position to save the prefield position of ob- and wh-ICs, see (49). (49)

a.

b.

*Ob es regnet oder nicht, werden wir doch nicht zu whether it rains or not will we after-all not at Hause bleiben. home stay 'We will not stay at home - whether it israining or not.' *Was du auch machst, werden wir doch nie what you also do will we after-all never verlieren. loose 'Whatever you do - we will never lose.'

There seems to be no separate element in ob- and wh-ICs, probably also in V2-ICs, that could be pointed out as the reason for the resulting concessive interpretation, in the way it is possible with subjunctions as obgleich. In those cases where the particle auch is involved, this element can be identified as one relevant building block for which a compositional interpretation is possible.19 But auch alone is not enough to yield an interpretation as a concessive adverbial clause. For the time being, it seems reasonable to hold construction specific properties responsible for the resulting concessive interpretation, especially the position in front of the prefield.20 This supports, possibly, also the parenthetical hypothesis, but the relation to so in the prefield and perhaps also so itself needs a new interpretation. It is interesting to note that there are New High German examples that seem to reveal so...doch as a concessive subjunction, see (50-51).21 (50)

a.

b.

1. Samuel 12,12, Die Bibel 1923: [Da ihr aber sähet, dass Nahas, der König der Kinder Ammon, wider euch kam, spracht ihr zu mir: Mitnichten, sondern ein König soll über uns herrschen!] so doch der Herr, euer Gott, euer König ist. so after-all the Lord your God your king is 1. Samuel 12,12, Die Bibel 1980: [Als ihr aber saht, dass Nahasch, der König der Ammoniter, gegen euch ausrückte, sagtet ihr zu mir: Nein, ein König soll über uns herrschen!,]

168

Franz-Josef

d'Avis

obwohl doch der Herr, euer Gott, euer König ist. although after-all the Lord your God your king is ' [And when ye saw that Nahash the king of the children of Ammon came against you, ye said unto me, Nay; but a king shall reign over us:] when the LORD your God was your king.' (51)

a.

b.

Ijob 10, 5-7, Die Bibel 1923: [Oder ist deine Zeit wie eines Menschen Zeit, oder deine Jahre wie eines Mannes Jahre?/dass du nach meiner Missetat fragest und suchest meine Sünde,/ ] so du doch weißt, wie ich nicht gottlos sei, so doch so you after-all know how I not godless be so after niemand ist, der aus deiner Hand erretten könne. all noone is that out-of your hand save can Ijob 10, 5-7, Die Bibel 1980: [Sind Menschentagen deine Tage gleich/ und deine Jahre wie des Mannes Tage, /dass du Schuld an mir suchst,/ nach meiner Sünde fahndest,/] obwohl du weißt, daß ich nicht schuldig bin/ und although you know that I not guilty am and keiner mich deiner Hand entreißt? Noone me from your hand snatches '[Are thy days as the days of man? are thy years as man's days, That thou enquirest after mine iniquity, and searchest after my sin?] Thou knowest that I am not wicked; and there is none that can deliver out of thine hand.'

The a)-examples in (50-51) from an older translation of the bible show concessive clauses with an initial so and doch adjacent or in a distant position. In the more recent translations, the b-examples, the corresponding clauses are concessive clauses with the concessive subjunction obwohl. But - however interesting these examples are - I do not think that they are sufficiently strong to support the assumption that resumption with so and a following doch in the matrix clause alone lead to a concessive interpretation of wh- and ob-lCs. That a construction similar to 'left-dislocation' is possible at all with wh- and ob-ICs could be a reflex of their interpretatorical proximity to 'real' concessive clauses, starting with obwohl or other

In front of the prefield - inside or outside the clause?

169

concessive subjunctions, which have the pronoun so as the only possibility for a resumptive pronoun in a 'left-dislocation' construction. 4.4. ICs and 'donkey'-sentences There is a relation between conditional wenn-''donkey' sentences, ICs, and free relative clauses. Let us look at the examples in (52). (52)

a.

b.

c.

Wenn jemand eine Kuh besitzt, dann sollte er sie if someone a cow owns than should he she melken. milk 'If someone owns a cow, then he should milk it.' Wer auch immer eine Kuh besitzt - er sollte sie melken. who also ever a cow owns he should she milk 'Whoever owns a cow - he should milk it.' Wer eine Kuh besitzt, der sollte sie melken. who a cow owns he should it milk 'Who owns a cow, should milk it.'

With respect to the pronouns in the matrix clause and in the MC, respectively, the interpretations are in a certain sense similar. If we ignore the concessive character of the IC example, the indefinite pronouns, the whpronouns, and the personal pronouns can all be interpreted as variables bound by a quantifier. The wh-IC in (52b) would be the restrictive term of a universal quantifier, analogue to the free relative in (52c), see Berman (1991:78ff) for free relatives. A simplified formal representation is (53). (53)

V x,y [person' (x) & cow' (y) & own' (x,y) ] [should-milk' (x,y)]

Interestingly, this semantic similarity or identity leads to a kind of construction blend, if we assume that the examples in (54-56) are a sort of 'leftdislocation'. (54)

1. Joh. 4,20, Die Bibel 1923: So jemand spricht: "Ich liebe Gott", und hasst seinen so someone says I love God and hates his Bruder, der ist ein Lügner. brother he is a liar 'If a man say, I love God, and hateth his brother, he is a liar:'

170

Franz-Josef d 'Avis

(55)

Joh. 9, 31, Die Bibel 1923: Wir wissen aber, dass Gott die Sünder nicht hört; we know but that God the sinners not hears sondern so jemand gottesfürchtig ist und tut seinen but so someone godfearing is and does his Willen, den hört er. will him hears he 'Now we know that God heareth not sinners: but if any man be a worshipper of God, and doeth his will, him he heareth.'

(56)

Joh. 10, 9, Die Bibel 1923: Ich bin die Tür; so jemand durch mich eingeht, der I am the door so someone through me enters he wird selig werden und wird ein und aus gehen und will blessed be and will in and out go and Weide finden. pasture find Ί am the door: by me if any man enter in, he shall be saved, and shall go in and out, and find pasture.'

In these examples, there is a conditional in pre-prefield position with an indefinite expression inside. We would expect that the conditional clause is taken up by dann or a related element. But what is resumed by a pronoun in the prefield is not the clause, but the indefinite expression. If there is in fact a semantic similarity with respect to the data in (52), and if we, following the parenthetical hypothesis, assume that ICs are not syntactically part of the MC, we must find a way to get the same semantic interpretation in all cases. This presupposes more detailed work on the parenthetical hypothesis with respect to ICs, a topic for further research.22 What we can conclude is that ICs at a semantic level seem to behave like adverbial clauses, at least in cases like (52) above.

5. (57)

Conclusions The pre-prefield position If the position in front of the prefield in German belongs syntactically to the following clause, then it is a position that allows both 'strictly' subordinated clauses (wenn-ICs, Vl-ICs) and 'nonstrictly' subordinated clauses (ob/wh-lCs, V2-ICs). Another

In front of the prefield - inside or outside the clause ?

171

possibility, the one I pointed out above in 3, is to regard ICs as a kind of parentheticals. (58)

'Left-dislocation' in German If it is a necessary property of the 'left-dislocation' construction in German that the dislocated element can, in principle, occur in the prefield, then the resumption of ICs with so...doch is no 'left-dislocation' . Alternatively, we must distinguish different kinds of 'left-dislocation' in German.

(59)

With respect to to their positional behaviour, ICs must be divided into at least three subclasses, which correlate for verb-final clauses with their 'regular' functions as complement- or adverbial clauses: (a) neither possible in the prefield nor 'left-dislocation' with so, see first column in (60), (b) not possible in the prefield, but 'leftdislocation' with so, see second column in (60), (c) possible in the prefield, see third column in (60).

(60) \syntact. semantA alternative

universal scalar

-poss. in prefield/ -'left-disl.' (so)

-poss. in prefield/ +'leftdisl.' (so) ob-lC

V2-IC (alternative) (Es mag ν oder -ν) V2-IC (universal) wh-IC (Du kannst v-en, w.) V2-IC (scalar) (Er mag noch so v-en.)

+poss. in prefield

wenn-lCfVl-lC

For the time being, I want to assume that construction-specific properties are responsible for the quasi-adverbial interpretation of ob- and wh-ICs in pre-prefield position, since a compositional derivation of the (concessive) interpretation on the basis of the meaning of the verb-final clauses is not obvious. This could support the parenthetical hypothesis for ICs. In (61), I have listed the possible distribution of ICs with respect to the pre-prefield and the prefield. Note that these are possibly different structural positions.

172

Franz-Josef d'Avis

(61) pre-prefield V2-IC

Prefield *so

*V2-IC XP ob-IC

so (...doch) *ob-\C

XP wh-IC

so (...doch)

*wh-IC XP wenn-lC/Vl-lC

So wenn-lCrVl-lC

XP (62)

German - Swedish ICs are different in German and Swedish in that alternative and universal verb-final ICs (which look like complement clauses) are possible in the prefield in Swedish, but not in German. This is either a consequence of different properties with respect to the prefield or it follows from different properties of the ICs themselves, which are possibly more like 'regular' adverbial clauses in Swedish.

Integration of one clause into another seems to be possible on different grammatical levels. If the observations and conclusions above are on the right track, the class of ICs, although in certain respects similar, has members that can be integrated on a syntactic level, wenn- and VI-ICs, and members that are integrated only at a semantic level, like wh- and ob-lCs. How the latter is done depends on a more explicit theory with respect to the parenthetical character of ICs, and is a question for further research.

Notes *

I want to thank the organizers and participants of the Workshop 12 of the 24th annual conference of the German Linguistic Society (DGfS), Mannheim 2002, and Marga Reis for comments and discussion. Also thanks to K. Grohmann for help with my English. Mistakes are my own.

In front of the prefield - inside or outside the clause? 1. 2.

3.

4. 5. 6. 7.

8.

9. 10. 11. 12. 13.

14. 15. 16. 17.

173

As opposed to earlier stages of German, cf. Axel (2002 and this volume). Or even without a focus particle, see the example a. from a Mosel-Franconian dialect spoken in the centre of Germany, where the extreme alternative in a set is mentioned and focused. De kannst disch off de KOPP stelle - isch gehn jetz hamm. you can you on the head stand I go now home 'You can do whatever you like - 1 am leaving now.' I will not go into the details of the semantics of this construction but, in the context of the question in 1., I will rely on the given intuitive characterization, (but see d'Avis i. prep.) 'Linksversetzung' is not identical to the English construction named left dislocation. See also Frey this volume. The term in quotation marks stands for the German version, explained above. See Reis (1997). See Reis (1997). Description of a dependent clause as strictly subordinated (Gliedsatz): a. it has a certain relation to the main clause, either to the event variable of the verbal head of the main clause (adverbial clauses), or to the theta frame (complement clauses), b. consequently, they are directly licensed in the sense of Haider (1995). Other properties of strictly subordinated clauses listed in Reis (1997): they allow real 'Nachfeld'-postion, can have a correlate in the middlefield of the main clause, are normally integrated into the focus-background-structure of the main clause (see for ICs below), and are possible in the scope of main clause operators. See, from a typological point of view, Lehmann (1988) and other work in Haiman and Thompson (1988). Marga Reis (p.c.). My translation, FJD. I will ignore cases of ellipsis. Here, 'prefield' means also the position before the finite verb in a V2-construction. I do not claim that the Swedish prefield has, in general, the same properties as the German one. The alternative examples with om and anfingen...eller are not accepted by all speakers. There seems to be a dialectal and/or age related variation. wenn auch- and auch wenn-clauses, see below. This is one of the points a general theory of parentheticals, including ICs, would have to explain. See Pasch (1992) for a thorough discussion. I will, more or less, ignore the semantic part of ICs in this paper, but see d'Avis (i.prep.).

174

Franz-Josefd'Avis

18. This is actually the main problem with respect to the semantics of ICs in preprefield position. 19. See also Pasch (1992), but cf. Zaefferer (1991) for a different opinion. 20. How this could be done in detail has to be worked out, see d'Avis (i. prep.). 21. The English versions are from: The Bible (1989). 22. See d'Avis (i. prep.).

References Altmann, Hans 1981 Formen der "Herausstellung" im Deutschen. Tübingen: Niemeyer. Auwera, Johan van der 1986 Conditionals and speech acts. In On Conditionals, Elisabeth Traugott, et al. (eds.), 197 - 214. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Axel, Katrin 2002 Zur diachronen Entwicklung der syntaktischen Integration linksperipherer Adverbialsätze im Deutschen: Ein Beispiel für syntaktischen Wandel? Beiträge zur Geschichte der deutschen Sprache und Literatur 124: 1-43. Berman, Steve 1991 On the semantics and logical form of WH-clauses. Ph.D. diss., University of Massachusetts, Amherst. Brandt, Margareta 1990 Weiterfiihrende Nebensätze. Zu ihrer Syntax, Semantik und Pragmatik. Stockholm: Alquist and Wiksell. Brandt, Margareta, Marga Reis, Inger Rosengren, and Ilse Zimmermann 1992 Satztyp, Satzmodus und Illokution. In Satz und Illokution. Bd. I, Inger Rosengren (ed.), 1-90. Tübingen: Niemeyer. d'Avis, Franz- Josef i. prep. Konzessive Konditionale als Parenthesen. Universität Lund. Eisenberg, Peter, and Ekkehard König 1984 Zur Pragmatik von Konzessivsätzen. In Pragmatik in der Grammatik. Jahrbuch 1983 des Instituts für Deutsche Sprache, Gerhard Stickel (ed.), 313-332. Düsseldorf: Schwann-Bagel. Espinal, Teresa 1991 The respresentation of disjunct constituents. Language 67 (3): 726-762.

In front of the prefield - inside or outside the clause?

175

Frey, Werner 2004 Notes on the syntax and the semantics of German Left Dislocation. This volume. Haider, Hubert 1995 Downright to the right. In On Extraction on Extraposition in German, Uli Lutz, and Jürgen Pafel (eds.), 245-272. Amsterdam: Benjamins. Haiman, John 1974 Concessives, conditionals and verbs of volition. Foundations of Language II: 341-359. Haiman, John, and Sandra Thompson (eds.) 1988 Clause Combining in Grammar and Discourse. Amsterdam: Benjamins. Haspelmath, Martin, and Ekkehard König 1998 Concessive Conditionals in the languages of Europe. In Adverbial Constructions in the Languages of Europe, Johann van der Auwera (ed.), in collaboration with D.P. 0 Baoill, 563-640. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter. König, Ekkehard 1986 Conditionals, concessive conditionals and concessives: Areas of contrast, overlap and neutralization. In On Conditionals, Elisabeth Traugott et al. (eds.), 229-246. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 1992 From discourse to syntax: The case of concessive conditionals. In Who Climbs the Grammar-Tree, Rosemarie Tracy (ed.), 423434. Tübingen: Niemeyer. König, Ekkehard, and Johan van der Auwera 1988 Clause Integration in German und Dutch. In Clause Combining in Grammar and Discourse, John Haiman, and Sandra Thomson (eds.), 101-133. Amsterdam: Benjamins. Lehmann, Christian 1988 Towards a typology of clause linkage. In Clause Combining in Grammar and Discourse, John Haiman, and Sandra Thompson (eds.), 181-226. Amsterdam: Benjamins. Zifonun, Gisela, Ludger Hoffmann, and Bruno Strecker 1997 Grammatik der deutschen Sprache. 3 Vols. Berlin, New York: de Gruyter. Önnerfors, Olaf 1997 Verb-erst-Deklarativsätze. Stockholm: Almqvist and Wiksell.

176

Franz-Josef d'Avis

Oppenrieder, Wilhelm 1989 Selbständige Verb-Letzt-Sätze: Ihr Platz im Satzmodussystem und ihre intonatorische Kennzeichnung. In Zur Intonation von Modus und Fokus im Deutschen, Hans Altmann, Anton Batliner, and Wilhelm Oppenrieder (eds.), 163-244. Tübingen: Niemeyer. Ormelius-Sandblom, Elisabeth. 1997 Die Modalpartikeln ja, doch und schon. Stockholm: Almqvist and Wiksell. Pasch, Renate 1992 Konzessivität von wenn-Konstruktionen. Tübingen: Narr. Paul, Hermann 1920 Deutsche Grammatik. Bd. IV. Halle: Niemeyer. Redder, Angelika 1987 wenn,...so. Zur Korrelatfunktion von so. In Sprache und Pragmatik. Lunder Symposium 1986, Inger Rosengren, (ed.), 315-326. Lund. Reis, Marga 1995 Wer glaubst du hat recht? On so-called extractions from Verbsecond clauses and Verb-first parenthetical constructions in German. Sprache & Pragmatik 36: 27-83. 1997 Zum syntaktischen Status unselbständiger Verbzweit-Sätze. In Sprache im Fokus. Festschrift für Heinz Vater zum 65. Geburtstag, Christa Dürscheid, Karl-Heinz Ramers, and Monika Schwarz (eds.), 121-144. Tübingen: Niemeyer. 2002 Wft-Movement and integrated parenthetical constructions. In Proceedings from the 15th Workshop on Comparative Germanic Syntax, Jan-Wouter Zwart, and Werner Abraham (eds.), 3—41. Amsterdam: Benjamins. Reis, Marga, and Inger Rosengren 1997 A modular approach to the grammar of additive particles: The case of German Auch. Journal of Semantics 14: 237-309. Traugott, Elisabeth, Alice ter Meulen, Judy Snitzer Reilly, and Charles Ferguson, (eds.) 1986 On Conditionals. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Walser, Robert 1909 Jakob von Gunten. Frankfurt, Main, Zürich: Suhrkamp. Zaefferer, Dietmar 1987 Satztypen, Satzarten, Satzmodi - Was Konditionale (auch) mit Interrogativen zu tun haben. In Satzmodus zwischen Grammatik und Pragmatik, Jörg Meibauer (ed.), 259-285. Tübingen: Niemeyer.

In front of the prefield - inside or outside the clause? 1991

Die Bibel 1923

The Bible 1989 Die Bibel 1980

177

Weiß wer was? Wer weiß was? Wer was weiß... w-Interrogative und andere w-Konstruktionen im Deutschen. In Fragesätze und Fragen, Marga Reis, and Inger Rosengren (eds.), 77-94. Tübingen: Niemeyer. Die Bibel oder die ganze Heilige Schrift des Alten und Neuen Testaments nach der deutschen Übersetzung D. Martin Luthers. Neu durchgesehen nach dem vom Deutschen Evangelischen Kirchenausschuß genehmigten Text. Stuttgart: Privileg. Württ. Bibelanstalt. The Project Gutenberg Etext of The King James Bible. [http://www.gutenberg.net]. Die Bibel. Altes und Neues Testament. Freiburg im Breisgau: Herder.

Einheitsübersetzung.

Uniformity and variation: On the relation of wh-phrases and sentence mood in German Jan Eden

Abstract In many previous articles dealing with the syntax and semantics of whphrases the class of wh-phrases has been divided into subclasses with distinct features (e.g., [+wh], [+rel] etc.) to account for the different kinds of sentences starring a wh-phrase in SpecC. In this paper, I would like to argue for an account that utilizes a unified representation for wh-phrases while identifiying other factors to explain for the obvious differences between the various constructions containing a fronted wh-phrase, such as wh-questions, wh-relatives or wh-exclamatives. The starting point will be the logic of questions proposed by Groenendijk and Stokhof (1982, 1997) and the compositional sentence mood theory of Lohnstein (2000). Constituent questions will be taken to be the basic mood of all sorts of whsentences, which can be modified - as a semantic object - by means of the embedding structure, lexical items, or intonation. The following paper will be organized as follows. Section 1 presents the traditional (feature-based) approach to the variety of wh-constructions, followed by a short summary and criticism of a feature-based sentence mood theory on Section 2. This theory is compared to Lohnstein's (2000) compositional derivation of the semantic properties of sentences in Section 3. Choosing the latter as a basis for my own argument, I will lay out an equally compositional account for the semantics of wh-questions in Section 4. The remaining two sections extend this analysis to wh-relatives and whexclamatives, describing the respective factors responsible for the noninterrogative meaning of these constructions.

180

Jan Eden

1. The feature [+wh] Wh-phrases are maximal projections which are able to occupy the first syntactic position (SpecC) in different sentences, among them constituent questions (a.k.a. wh-questions). Traditionally, the fronted wh-phrase in these questions is thought to carry a phrasal [+wh] feature, based on a lexical [+wh] feature of one of the lexemes it contains. This lexical feature projects along with other categorial features to the maximal projection of the wh-lexeme, thereby becoming syntactically relevant. It is also capable to percolate across the border of this projection, as is shown in the following examples (for a detailed analysis of projection and percolation of the lexical [+wh] feature, see Trissler (2001), chapter 6): (1)

a.

b.

c.

welches Restaurant]] seid ihr gegangen? In which restaurant have you gone 'To which restaurant did you go?' [PP Seit [AdvP wann]] ist er nicht mehr gesehen worden? Since when has he not anymore seen been 'Since when has he not been seen anymore?' *[Dp Das Stöckchen [PP für [DP den [Np Hund [DP The stick for the dog welches Mannes]]] hatte er bei sich? which man's had he with him 'The stick for which man's dog did he have with him?' [PPIn [DP

(lc) illustrates that the percolation of a lexical [+wh] feature to maximal projections not headed by the wh-lexeme itself is restricted. There are certain positional conditions for [+wh]-marked phrases. In all of the following clauses containing one or more [+wh]-phrases (except for (2d)), one of these has to be moved to the initial position: (2)

a.

b.

Wann wird das Bundeskriminalamt welche Erkenntnisse When will the Bundeskriminalamt which insights bekannt geben? known make 'When will the BKA present which results?' Welche Erkenntnisse wird das Bundeskriminalamt wann Which insights will the BKA when bekannt geben? known make

Uniformity and Variation

c.

d.

*Das Bundeskriminalamt wird wann welche The BKA will when which bekannt geben? known make Das Bundeskriminalamt wird bald WELCHE The BKA will soon WHICH bekannt geben? known make?

181

Erkenntnisse insights

Erkenntnisse insights

The so-called echo-wh-question (2d) is an exception to this rule. Echoquestions show syntactic and semantic features of a variety of sentence types, while receiving a pragmatically induced interpretation as interrogatives. The positional restrictions for [+wh]-phrases do not apply in these sentences, (cf. Reis 1991a) For all other cases, the restrictions have been explained (cf. Reis 1991b, Brandt et al 1992) by assuming a sentence type feature [+wh] for whquestions corresponding to the phrasal [+wh]-feature. Located in SpecC, it has to be saturated by a [+wh]-phrase, i.e., it forces wh-movement. The initial [+wh]-phrase c-commands all other [+wh]-phrases within the question, licensing their interrogative reading: (3)

CP SpecC

C

hat

wen getroffen I

c-command

The [+wh]-feature of phrases introducing wh-questions is closely linked to their interrogative interpretation. Wh-phrases that receive a different interpretation are not ascribed a [+wh]-feature: (4)

a.

Ich habe da gerade was I have there just something Ί have just seen something over there.'

gesehen. seen

182

Jan Eden b.

c.

Wen die alles Whom she all 'Whom she invited!' Wer das nicht Who this not 'Anyone who does not

eingeladen invited

hat! has

hören will, muss gehen. hear wants must go want to hear this has to go.'

Indefinite wh-phrases like (4a) do not differ in their syntactic behaviour from other indefinite phrases except that they have to remain in situ. For example, a wh-clause like (5) is acceptable only as a wh-question (and not in the declarative reading indicated by the full stop): (5)

*Was habe ich Something have I Ί have not seen something.'

nicht not

gesehen. seen

Pasch (1991) claims, though, that sentences like (5) can be interpreted as declaratives, depending on an appropriate (e.g.,contrastive) context. Exclamative (4b) and relative (4c) wh-phrases, on the other hand, are syntactically restricted like [+wh]-phrases and are therefore ascribed the specific features [+excl] and [+rel], respectively. Thus, the inventory of sentence type features has to be enriched to include [+excl] and [+rel]. Note, however, that there is an additional restriction on exclamative and relative whphrases: (6)

a.

b.

c.

Wann hast du wen gesehen? When have you whom seen When have you seen whom/someone? Warum der überhaupt noch wen Why he anyway still someone angerufen hat called has 'Why has he called someone anyway!' Wer hier was gemacht hat, kann Who here what done has can seine Papiere abholen. his papers get 'Who has done something in here can get his papers.'

Only the bold wh-phrase in (6a) is ambiguous in that it allows for both an indefinite and an interrogative interpretation. The corresponding wh-phrase

Uniformity and variation

183

in (6c) can only be interpreted as indefinite, i.e., there are no [+rel]-whphrases in situ. I will suggest an explanation for this difference later on. For (6b), the judgements differ: D'Avis (2001:133) assumes there are multiple wh-exclamatives, while my informants reject an indefinite reading. Taking such a feature based wh-syntax for granted, we end up with a huge lexicon containing up to four entries for each wh-word. The wh-lexeme "wer", for example, exists in four differently featured variants: (7)

a.

b.

d.

d.

Wer wollte heute anrufen? [+wh] Who wanted today call 'Who wanted to call today?' Wer anruft, kann mitkommen. [+rel] Who calls can join 'Whoever calls can join (us).' Wer gestern angerufen hat! [+excl] Who yesterday called has 'Who called yesterday!' Da hat wieder wer die Tür offen There has again someone the door open gelassen. [0] left 'Someone has left the door open, again.'

To avoid such redundancy, I propose a single lexical representation for each wh-word. This thesis requires the identification of other factors responsible for the different interpretations. Concentrating on the interrogative, exclamative, and relative variants of wh-phrases, I will try to explore these factors in the following, after a short introduction of two sentence mood theories.

2. A syntax based sentence mood theory A variant of a feature based sentence typology has been used as a basis for a theory of sentence mood in German by Brandt et al (1992). 1 Their starting point is a comparison of declaratives and y/n-questions. Declarative sentences express the existence of an event e that instantiates a proposition ρ (cf. 8a), while y/n-questions express that it is unknown if there is such an event e (cf. 8b). The semantic form of these sentence types can be de-

184

Jan Eden

scribed using the functor INST, which allows for the application of propositions to events, and the operator OPEN for the interrogative: (8)

a. b.

declarative y/n-question

3e[eINSTp] OPEN [3e [e INST p]]

Abstracting from the proposition in this formula results in the semantic form of the sentential head which represents the difference between declaratives and y/n-questions and, according to Brandt et al (1992), the sentence mood: (9)

a. b.

[-wh]-sentential head [+wh]-sentential head

XQ [3e [Q (e)] XQ [OPEN [3e [Q (e)]]]

Note that a [+wh]-marked sentential head does not require a [+wh]-phrase as the OPEN operator only applies to the existential quantifier. The combination of an expression such as the ones in (9) and a specific proposition amounts to the meaning of a sentence. This complies with the definition of sentence mood as setting the modal base for the evaluation of a proposition and the type of evaluation, i.e., forming a sentence out of a proposition. The identification of sentence mood and semantic form of the sentential head fails in the case of wh-questions. Their head is semantically identical to that of declaratives: As opposed to y/n-questions, the existence of the proposition instantiating event is asserted. The characteristic of whquestions is the referential openness of some χ, χ being a variable within the proposition R(x): (10)

wh-question

[OPEN χ [Ρ χ]] [3e [e INST [R (x)]]]

Accordingly, the sentential head is marked [-wh] and the specifier position carries a [+wh]-feature (semantically represented by the OPEN operator) which attracts a [+wh]-phrase. Therefore, Brandt et al (1992) take the semantic form of the initial [+wh]-phrase to be the sentence mood of a whquestion: (11)

a. b.

wh-phrase "who"

λΡ [>,Q [[OPEN χ [Ρ (χ)]] [Q (χ)]]] [λΡ [XQ [[OPEN χ [Ρ (χ)]] [Q (χ)]]]] (Xy [PERSON y]) s λΟ [[OPEN χ [PERSON χ]] [Q (χ)]]

Uniformity

and Variation

185

Contrary to these assumptions, one would expect the sentence mood to be represented in the same position in all kinds of sentences. Another, more important objection refers to the relation of sentence type and sentence mood. Each sentence type, represented by [±wh]-sentence features, is mirrored to a single sentence mood, creating a one-to-one relation of types and moods. An independent grammatical category "sentence mood" cannot be represented in this model. 3. A compositional sentence mood theory To achieve a safe stand here, I will base my argument on the sentence mood theory of Lohnstein (2000), which defines sentence mood as the result of the interplay of different grammatical factors including wh-phrases. A central element of this theory is the mood phrase (MP), understood to be the projection of the verbal mood (see Figure 12). (12)

Projektion of the verbal mood (MP) MP

M1

SpecM

M°

AgrP

SpecAgr

Agr'

TP

Agr°

SpecT

T' VP

V'

+ tense + person + n u m b e r + mood

186

Jan

Eden

Three main factors are argued to be responsible for the constitution of different sentence moods in German (lexical conjunctions, modal particles, intonation contour, modal verbs, etc. left aside): 1. 2.

3.

the verbal mood (indicative, conjunctive, imperative) the (facultative) occupation of SpecM by a [-wh]- or [+wh]-phrase2 the occupation of M° by a finite verb (V/l- and V/2-sentences) or a complementizer (V/E-sentences)

The occupation of M° by a complementizer (or its emptiness in relative or wh-complements) indicates embedding (the sentence is anchored in the context specified by the governing verb). Verb movement to M° indicates independence (anchoring in the discourse context). Three prominent sentence moods are distinguished by the way SpecM is occupied (see figure 13). (13)

Occupation of SpecM y/n-question

declarative

constituent question

MP

MP

MP

M'

SpecM wer [+wh]

M° schläft

These syntactic variants differ in the way they partition the set of indices.3 The idea that sentences, and questions in particular, represent partitions goes back to Groenendijk/Stokhof (1982, 1997) (see also Bayer, this volume). Based on the works of Hamblin (1958) and Karttunen (1977), they refer to the answer conditions of questions as opposed to the truth conditions of declarative sentences. At each index a, a question has one and only one true semantic answer (which can be expressed by different linguistic means). The proposition expressed by this answer is the extension of the question at the index a. It can be described as an index-dependent proposition or the set of those indices where the answer has the same truth value as at the actual index a 4 :

Uniformity and variation (14)

a.

Geht

b.

Walks Mary 'Does Mary walk?' [?gehen'(m)]M'a = λί [gehen'(a)(m) = gehen'(i)(m)]

187

Maria?

The intension of a question contains all possible extensions, i.e., for a y/nquestion two propositions. These propositions form a (bi)partition of the set of indices in that they are disjunct subsets (classes) of the set of indices, whose conjunction comprises the whole set of indices: [Ίgehen'(m)]M = k&k\ [gehen'{a)(m) = gehen\i)(m)] { gehen\a)(m) | -i gehen\a)(m) } = { {gehen'(a)(m)}, {-< gehen'(a)(m)} }

(15)

ξ

The bipartition is the semantic object underlying all the sentences being evaluated against the epistemic background. It is modified in the case of declaratives and wh-questions by a phrase in SpecM. Topicalization of a non-wh-phrase reduces the bipartition to one of their classes, i.e., to one proposition (which is the intension of a declarative, its extension being a truth value). A wh-phrase in SpecM brings about an extended partition containing η classes (where η is the number of possible answers to the question within the model M) so that each pair of classes is disjunct and the conjunction of all classes is exhaustive (comprises all indices). 5 Although this concept of an extended partition (a space of possibilities) representing the meaning of a wh-question is quite intuitive, its emerging from the combination of a wh-phrase and a bipartition is completely unclear.

4.

A compositional account for wh-questions

Wh-questions normally have more than two possible answers, i.e., their intension consists of more than two classes. In the case of simple questions like "Wer geht?" (Who walks), each possible complete answer contains the extension of the predicate gehen' at those indices that are part of the proposition expressed by the answer. The difference compared to y/n-questions can be represented by an additional λ-abstraction for each wh-phrase: (16)

a.

Wer geht?

Who walks?

188

Jan Eden b. c.

λί [ Xm[ge/ien'(a)(m)] = hm[geheri{i)(m)} ] λαΑί [ hm[geheri{c\)(m)} = Xm[gehen'{\){m)} ]

The extended partition emerges from the set of possible extensions of the predicate gehen'. (16b) describes the characteristic function of those indices where the extension of gehen' is identical to the actual index (i.e., a proposition). (16c) is the characteristic function of propositions such as (16b) (i.e., the extended partition). This formula does mirror the role of the initial wh-phrase in the λ-operator, but it fails to explain how exactly the extension effect can be achieved by topicalizing the wh-phrase. It has to be shown 1. 2.

how the semantic form of a wh-phrase differs from the semantic form of other phrases. how the extended partition is derived compositionally from a bipartition and the semantic form of a wh-phrase

Clearly, the semantic form of wh-phrases has to have a structure that differs from that of other phrases. If one assumes that phrases like "die Teilnehmer des Arbeitskreises" (the attendants of the workgroup) denote a set of individuals, a wh-phrase has to denote something other than that. It might be useful to treat wh-phrases as partition-denoting expressions: (17)

a.

b.

„wer" { {Peter'}, {Maria'}, {Clara'}, {Klaus'}, {Otto'} } ={ Peter' | Maria' | Clara' | Klaus' I Otto' } who „alle" { Peter', Klaus', Otto', Clara', Maria' } everyone

A bipartition consists of two classes: e.g. gehen'(x) and -igehen'(x). These two possibilities exist at each index for each element (each individual) in the respective domain: Everyone can walk or not walk. These two classes are combined with each class of the wh-partition, creating a set of bipartitions: (18)

a.

Wer geht? Who walks?

Uniformity and variation b.

189

{ gehen' (χ) | -ι gehen' (χ) } χ { Peter' | Maria' | Clara' | Klaus' I Otto' } = { gehen' (Peter') | -i gehen' (Peter'), gehen' (Maria') | —ι gehen' (Maria'), gehen' (Clara') | —ι gehen' (Clara'), gehen' (Klaus) | —i gehen' (Klaus), gehen' (Otto) | —ι gehen' (Otto)} =G

As (18b) shows, asking a wh-question is the same as asking a set of y/nquestions, one for each individual within the actual domain. To get the space of answers to a wh-question from set G in (18b), Higginbotham (1996) proposes to form the direct product of G: A choice function c chooses an element ρ from each bipartition π. The set λρ of those elements form one class of the extended partition (19a). The direct product XG of G is the set λΑ of those classes (19b): (19)

λρ (νπ)((ο(π)(ρ) & Ο(π)) a. XG - λΑ { (Be) [(Vp)[A(p) (Vn)((c(7i)(p) & Ο(π))]} b. {Peter geht, Maria geht, Clara geht, Klaus geht, Otto geht I Peter geht. Maria geht, Clara geht nicht, Klaus geht, Otto geht I... I Peter geht nicht, Maria geht nicht, Clara geht nicht, Klaus geht nicht, Otto geht nicht}

This derivation of an extended partition works for the wh-phrases "wer" (who), "wo" (where), "wann" (when), "welch-" (which). All of them denote a set of combinable sets (individuals, places, moments). It does not work for a scaling wh-adverb like "wie (schnell, groß etc)" (how fast, big etc), because the elements of its extension (the values of the scale) are not compatible: (20)

a.

b.

Wie groß ist Peter? How tall is Peter What's Peter's height? Peter ist 1,80m groß, Peter ist nicht 1,90m groß, Peter ist nicht 2,00m groß... Peter ist nicht 1,80m groß, Peter ist 1,90m groß, Peter ist nicht 2,00m groß...

The same applies for "warum" (why) and "wodurch" (whereby). The combination of the partitions within G has to result in a consistent conjugation of elements within each class of the extended partition. We have to define the notion of a valid member:

190 (21)

Jan Eden A class a is a valid member of an extended partition XG iff for each pair of propositions p*, p, e a: 3w 6 Μ => [ρ* λ p,]M,w = 1

For each pair of propositions within a class of an extended partition, there has to be a world w in which the conjunction of the propositions is true. Higginbotham's proposal could be extended then, by allowing only valid members of XG to be part of the meaning of a wh-question.

4.1. Wh-phrases and interrogativity The semantic derivation of both wh-questions and declaratives from y/nquestions makes the identification of wh-phrases with interrogativity questionable. In fact, wh-phrases modify a semantic object (a bipartition), which is already interpreted as an interrogative. On the other hand, the derivation of an extended partition in section 4 suggests that wh-initial sentences will always be wh-questions. As we have already seen in (4), this is not true: (22)

a. b.

Was der sich einbildet! What he himself imagines Wer die Statue beschmiert hat, Whoever the statue besmeared has meldet sich bitte im Sekretariat. reports himself please in-the office 'Whoever besmeared the statue, reports to the office.'

These sentences are interpreted as an exclamative (22a) or relative clause (22b), respectively. As mentioned at the end of section 1, assuming different features for the wh-phrases in (22) is merely an ad hoc solution without any explanatory power. In order to explain data like (22), the relation of wh-exclamatives-/relatives and wh-questions has to be explored systematically.

5.

Wh-relatives

Sentences like (22b) are not bound on the syntactic surface by a governing verb (like wh-complements) or - via verbal movement - to the discourse context (like V/2 wh-questions). Their syntactic structure is that of embed-

Uniformity and Variation

191

ded wh-questions, while their interpretation resembles that of relative adjuncts, i.e., they seem to denote (a set of) individuals: (23)

a.

b.

c.

[Wer die Statue beschmiert hat], meldet Who the statue besmeared has reports sich bitte im Sekretariat. himself please in-the ofiice 'Whoever besmeared the statue reports to the office. 6 ' [Jeder, der die Statue beschmiert Everyone who the statue besmeared hat], meldet sich bitte im Sekretariat. has reports himself please in-the office 'Anyone who besmeared the statue report(s) to the office.' Hans fragt sich, wer die Statue Hans asks himself who the statue beschmiert hat. besmeared has 'Hans wonders who besmeared the statue.'

The semantic similarity of (23a/b) is not expected, as wh-clauses like in (23a) should denote a proposition (a set of indices) just like the embedded question in (23c). The actual interpretation suggests that the wh-phrase in (23a) is adjuncted to a lexically empty DP, as seen in the following figure: (24) MP SpecM

meldet sich bitte im Sekretariat

DP

D'

CP

DO

wer die Statue beschmiert hat

0

192

Jan Eden

This way, the wh-relative is modally anchored and its extension is specified dependent on the actual index. The difference between embedded whquestions (cf. 23c) and wh-relatives is therefore simply a difference in the category of the immediately dominating category: questions are dominated by a VP, wh-relatives by a DP. Like in (23b), the dominating DP's extension in (23a) is modified by the extension of its adjunct. Because a DP can only denote a set of individuals, the wh-relative specifies the DP's extension with the set of individuals that show up in its extension instead of the wh-phrase. This process cannot be understood as simply moving the semantic content of the embedded whphrase to the governing DP. In that case, the DP (although no wh-phrase in itself) would have a partitioned extension, turning the matrix sentence into a wh-sentence. What takes place here is some sort of extraction, i.e., the extraction of a set of individuals from a proposition. From the different binding environment of embedded wh-questions and wh-relatives follows a difference for in situ wh-phrases: (25)

a.

b.

c.

d.

Wer was verbrochen hat, muss Who something commited has must dafür zur Rechenschaft gezogen werden. therefore to reponsibility taken been 'Whoever has committed something has to be prosecuted.' Was wer verbrochen hat, wird What someone committed has will geahndet werden. prosecuted be 'Whatever someone has committed will be prosecuted.' Ich will wissen, wer was I want know who what verbrochen hat. committed has Ί want to know who committed what.' Der Kommissar weiß nicht, was wer The inspector knows not what who verbrochen hat. committed has 'The inspector does not know what who committed.'

The in situ wh-phrases in (25a/b) have to be interpreted as indefinites. Otherwise, it would be impossible for the initial DP to denote a homogeneous

Uniformity and Variation

193

set of elements. This means that there are no multiple wh-relatives. (25c/d) on the other hand allow for an interpretation as multiple questions. These cases left aside, wh-relatives do not differ from embedded whquestions. Both denote an index-dependent proposition. This proposition is a class within the extended partition resulting from λ-abstracting over the result of combining a wh-partition and a bipartition. The index-dependency of a wh-relative's extension allows for a greater vagueness compared to that of lexically filled DP's with a relative d-adjunct. One effect of this difference is the markedness of wh-relatives in contexts that presuppose a certain extension of the modified DP: (26)

a.

b.

c.

d.

e.

M

Wer die Glühbirne erfunden hat Who the light bulb invented has starb 1931. died 1931 'Whoever invented the light bulb died in 1931.' Der Mensch, der die Glühbirne The person who the light bulb erfunden hat, starb 1931. invented has died 1931 'The person who invented the light bulb died in 1931.' Wer die Glühbirne erfunden hat, Who the light bulb invented has muss ein Vermögen damit gemacht haben. must a fortune with-it made have 'Whoever invented the light bulb must have made a fortune.' M Wer den großen Postraub begangen Who the great post robbery committed hat, sitzt mittlerweile im Gefängnis. has sits meanwhile in-the jail 'Whoever committed the great post robbery got arrested in the meantime.' Wer den großen Postraub begangen hat, kann Who the great post robbery committed has can sich nirgends mehr sicher fühlen. himself nowhere anymore safe feel 'Whoever committed the great post robbery cannot feel safe anywhere anymore.'

194

Jan Eden

On the other hand, d-relatives like (27) can restrict the denoted set of individuals more precisely by presupposing a certain size of the set: (27)

a.

b.

Die Leute, die die Statue beschmiert The people who the statue besmeared haben, melden sich bitte im have report themselves please in-the Sekretariat. office 'The people who have besmeared the statue report to the office.' Der Mensch, der die Statue beschmiert The person who the statue besmeared hat, meldet sich bitte im Sekretariat. has reports himself please in-the office 'The person who has besmeared the statue reports to the office.'

Quantifying pronouns with relative d-adjuncts are semantically quite close to corresponding wh-constructions at first sight: (28)

a.

b.

c.

Wer die Statue beschmiert hat, meldet Who the statue besmeared has reports sich bitte im Sekretariat. himself please in-the ofiice 'Who has besmeared the statue reports to the office.' Jeder, der die Statue beschmiert Everyone who the statue besmeared hat, meldet sich bitte im Sekretariat. has reports himself please in-the office 'Everyone who has besmeared the statue reports to the office.' Alle, die die Statue beschmiert All the people who the statue besmeared haben, melden sich bitte im have report themselves please in-the Sekretariat. office 'All the people who have besmeared the statue report to the office.'

Uniformity and Variation

195

In fact, all of the embedded DPs denote the whole set of besmearers of the statue. Nevertheless, only the wh-construction allows for a partial fulfillment of the directive: (28a) can be fulfilled if, for example, three out of five besmearers report to the office. This difference is based on the fact that the extended partition can be reduced to more than one class. For questions, this kind of reduction is represented by a partial answer: (29)

Wer hat den Kuchen aufgegessen ? - Ich Who has the cake eaten up I war es jedenfalls nicht. was it anyway not 'Who has eaten the cake? - 1 , for my part, did not do it.'

An answer like in (29) rules out every class of the extended partition in which the speaker is part of the set of cake eaters. All other classes can still be possible answers to the question. A complete answer would rule out every class except for one. The same applies for wh-relatives, which can also be partially "answered" or evaluated, as opposed to quantifying pronouns like in (28b/c).

6.

Wh-exclamatives

Other than wh-relatives, wh-exclamatives occur both in independent and embedded clauses, as V/E- and V/2-constructions: (30)

a.

b.

c.

d.

Was der sich erlaubt hat! What he himself allowedhas 'What he dared to do!' Wen die alles eingeladen hat! Whom she all invited has 'Whom she invited!' Was herrscht hier bloß für eine Affenhitze! What governs here just for an ape-heat 'What a damn heat inside here!' Hans ist verblüfft, wie billig das Hans is astonished how cheap the Auto ist. car is 'Hans is astonished how cheap the car is.'

196

Jan Eden e.

Peter findet es erstaunlich, mit welchen Peter finds it remarkable with which Mitteln heutzutage Politik gemacht wird. instruments nowadays politics made are 'Peter thinks it is remarkable which instruments are employed in politics today.'

Using the sentences in (30), a speaker can express his (30a/30b/30c) or state someone else's (30d/30e) astonishment about a certain proposition. Except for the free V/E-clauses (30a/30b), they show no structural difference from wh-questions. All wh-sentences examined so far represented a range of possibilities (an extended partition) and, in the case of direct wh-questions, asked the hearer to choose one of these possibilities (to reduce the extended partition). If wh-exclamatives contain the same wh-phrases as wh-questions (and wh-relatives), they should denote an extended partition. In the case of wh-relatives, such a partition could be shown to lead to different readings dependent on the governing structure (DP vs. VP). Unfortunately, whexclamatives are embedded just like wh-questions. So how is the specific proposition actually denoted by a wh-exclamative derived from the extended partition? Let us take a look at the characteristics of wh-exclamatives. They have a specific exclamative accent, which is supported by lexical means (particles like "bloß" and intensified nominals like "Affenhitze"). In the case of embedded exclamatives (30d/30e), the matrix subject's emotional attitude towards the proposition expressed by the wh-clause is part of the embedding predicate's semantics. In these cases, the exclamative marking is supplied by the predicate. Without such a lexical exclamative marker, the combination of V/E-construction and independence in (30a/30b) guarantees an unambiguous reading as wh-exclamative. For those sentences, it seems plausible to assume an elliptic structure like (31): (31)

a.

b.

(Ich bin erstaunt,) was der sich erlaubt (I am surprised) what he himself allowed '(I am surprised) what he dared to do!' (Ich bin erstaunt,) wen die alles eingeladen (I am surprised) whom she all invited '(I am surprised) whom she invited!'

hat! has hat has

Uniformity and variation

197

The exclamative accent is used to ease the reconstruction of the deleted matrix clause. In cases like (30c), though, the exclamative accent (along with lexical means) is the only way to indicate an exclamative reading. For this reason, the interpretation of sentences like (30a/b) as wh-exclamatives is much more obvious than that of (30c), which has a competing interrogative reading. D'Avis (2001) interprets the effect of exclamative characteristics as the distinction of a certain class within the extended partition. Uttering a whexclamative implies setting a norm class and expressing the deviation of the wh-clause's actual extension from this norm class. This amounts to scaling and reducing the extended partition to a class at the end of the scale, as illustrated in (32): (32)

a.

Was What eine an 'What

b.

Affenhitze (damn heat)

herrscht im Kino bloß für governs in-the cinema just for AFFENhitze! ape-heat a damn heat it is inside the movie theatre!'

„Übliche Kinotcaiperjituf" (standard cinema temperature) eisige Kälte (icy cold) There can be more than one norm class, like in (33). In this case, the speaker's specific idea of a "normal" bride is an important factor. If he is a conservative nobleman, one can assume norm classes like in (33b): (33)

a.

Wen der junge Graf da geheiratet Whom the young count there married 'Whom the young count married!' Arbeiterin D (working girl D) [Gräßn A (Countess A) 1L-I/I>^III Η

ΙΙ)ΙΚ·ΙΚ*Ν»

II'

C) L Prinzessin C (Princess I '

Malerin Ε (paintress Ε)

hat! has

198

Jan Eden

Even if the hearer does not know about the speaker's intended norm class and both the norm and the destination class remain vague, the deviation and the existence of a destination class (to which the extended partition is reduced) are undoubtedly expressed. As opposed to wh-relatives, the extended partition - responsible for the interrogative interpretation of wh-questions - is modified. The semantic object of wh-exclamatives would then be an extended partition, reduced to one class by intonational and lexical means. Nevertheless, the characteristic vagueness of an extended partition still holds dependent on the hearer's knowledge about the speaker's doxastic system. This is the reason why someone would use wh-exclamatives instead of sentences like (33): a.

b.

Dass die Paul eingeladen hat! That she Paul invited has 'That she invited Paul!' Hans ist verblüfft, dass das Auto flir Hans is astonished that the car for 200 Euro zu haben ist. 200 Euro to have is 'Hans is astonished that the car will sell for only 200 Euro.'

Although the extension of a wh-exclamative can remain vague, the interrogative effect is deleted via the reduction of the extended partition. The acceptabilitiy of multiple wh-exclamatives is somewhere between that of multiple questions (acceptable) and multiple wh-relatives (not possible). Most people reject the reading of clauses like (33) as multiple whexclamatives, while others find them acceptable: (33)

?Wen der wann eingeladen Whom he when invited 'Whom he invited when!'

hat! has

The nonuniform judgement might be due to performance factors. A whexclamative expresses astonishment about a certain proposition within an extended partition. Multiple wh-sentences denote an extended partition whose classes each contain an embedded extended partition (and so on). Therefore, the hearer of a multiple wh-exclamative has to evaluate not only the fact that there are two variables (as in multiple wh-questions), but also that the combination of two certain values of these variables leads to a certain proposition unexpected by the speaker (or the matrix subject).

Uniformity and variation

7.

199

Summary

In the first part of this paper, I presented the traditional feature based whmodel and mentioned its weaknesses in accounting for the different interpretations of wh-clauses. Nevertheless, the feature [+wh] is useful for describing the obligatory wh-movement in German wh-questions, exclamatives and -relatives. Completely abandoning [+wh] would lead to a lot of problems in explaining wh-syntax. Syntactically, there is just one sentence type (wh-sentence) for all the constructions presented here. It is distinguished from other sentence types by an initial wh-phrase, its actual meaning left alone. In this respect, the sentence type feature [+wh] is interacting closely with the phrasal feature [+wh]. But [+wh]-phrases are not assigned this feature arbitrarily. I propose to interpret [+wh] as a syntactic reflex of the specific semantic form of whphrases. The "feature" of wh-phrases is their partitioned extension which extends a bipartition instead of reducing it. The semantic effect of moving a wh-phrase to SpecM amounts to the characteristic vagueness of whsentences, brought about by the set of distinct possibilities within the extended partition. Wh-questions and wh-relatives have such a partition as their semantic object, while it is interpreted differently dependent on its governing structure (wh-relatives and wh-questions have an identical internal structure). Exclamative wh-clauses, on the other hand, denote a reduced extended partition, indicating both vagueness and the reduction to one of the possible propositions. From a sentence mood perspective, this means that we have two distinct wh-sentence moods. They share the extension of the basic bipartition, but one of them features a subsequent reduction. I will call them standard and reduced wh-sentence. The standard wh-sentence is available as a direct question and as an embedded question/wh-relative. The reduced whsentence shows up as a direct exclamative or as an embedded version (the seemingly independent V/E-wh-exclamatives are instances of this variant):

200

Jan Eden

(34)

direct wh-question

direct wh-exclamative

Wer hat den Kuchen geges- Wie habe ich mich darüber geärgert! sen? How much I was annoyed about Who has eaten the cake? that!

embedded question / wh- embedded wh-exclamative relative Ich weiß nicht, wer den Kuchen gegessen hat. I do not know who has eaten the cake. Wer den Kuchen gegessen hat, kriegt kein Abendessen. Who has eaten the cake won't get anything for dinner.

Hans ist erstaunt, wie unglaublich groß sein Neffe geworden ist. Hans is surprised how big his nephew has grown. [Ich bin erstaunt] Wie unglaublich groß mein Neffe geworden ist! [I am surprised] How big my nephew has grown!

There are several questions left to answer if this account should prove adequate. Among these, there is a need for a formal representation of the semantic form of wh-phrases, which was treated as a partition in this paper. Another problem is the role of indefinite wh-phrases, especially the ambiguity of in situ wh-phrases in multiple wh-questions. The idea of whphrases representing vagueness rather than interrogativity might be helpful in this respect.

Notes 1. 2.

3. 4. 5.

They confine themselves to declaratives, y/n-questions, and wh-questions and assume a [±wh]-marking for both the clausal head and its specifier. From now on, I will use the expression wh-phrase for all phrases in question and neglect the [±wh]-differentiation. While the latter is necessary for the explanation of certain syntactic phenomena, it does not affect the treatment of sentence mood. A partition A is defined as a collection of non-empty subsets. Each pair of subsets (classes) is disjunct, while the conjunction of all classes is the set A. The informal operator "?" is used by Groenendijk/Stokhof to distinguish declaratives and questions. A bipartition as well as an extended partition is reduced to a single class by a complete answer. The answers together with the preceding questions denote the same set of indices as the declarative:

Uniformity and variation

201

(1) a.

6.

Gibt es heute Huhn zum Essen? -Ja. Gives it today chicken for eating -Yes 'Will there be chicken today (for dinner)? - Yes.' b. Was gibt es heute zum Essen?-Huhn. What gives it today for eating - Chicken 'What will there be (for dinner) today? - Chicken.' c. Es gibt heute Huhn zum Essen. It gives today chicken for eating 'There will be chicken for dinner today.' Note that the German difference between the bound relative introduced by "der" and the wh-phrase in (23a) is not reflected in the English version. In contemporary English, the "free" wh-relative is indistinguishable from its dependent counterpart. Who reported to the office will not be punished. Native speakers prefer the translation of (23a) or (23b) at its place. The (more or less) literal backtranslation of the English translation of (23a) includes an element, which emphasizes the relative reading: Wer auch immer die Statue beschmiert hat, meldet sich bitte im Sekretariat. Obviously, the bold element is strongly demanded in contemporary English.

References Brandt, Margareta, Marga Reis, Inger Rosengren, and Ilse Zimmermann 1992 Satztyp, Satzmodus und Illokution. In Satz und Illokution, Band 1, Inger Rosengren (ed.), 1-90. Tübingen: Niemeyer. d'Avis, Franz-Josef 2001 Über ,w-Exklamativsätze' im Deutschen. Tübingen: Niemeyer. Groenendijk, Jeroen, and Martin Stokhof 1982 Semantic analysis of WH-complements. Linguistics and Philosophy 5: 175-233. 1997 Questions. In Handbook of Logic and Language, Johann van Benthem, and Alice ter Meulen (eds.), 1055-1124. Amsterdam: Elsevier Scientific Publishing Company. Hamblin, Charles 1976 Questions in Montague-English. In Montague Grammar, Barbara Partee (ed.), 247-259. New York: Academic Press.

202

Jan Eden

Higginbotham, James 1996 The Semantics of Questions. In The Handbook of Contemporary Semantic Theory, Shalom Lappin (ed.), 361-383. Oxford: Blackwell. Karttunen, Lauri 1977 Syntax and semantics of questions. Linguistics and Philosophy 1: 3-44. Lohnstein, Horst 2000 Satzmodus - kompositioneil. Zur Parametrisierung der Modusphrase im Deutschen. Berlin: Akademie Verlag. Reis, Marga 1991a Echo-w-Sätze und Echo-w-Fragen. In Fragesätze und Fragen. Referate anläßlich der 12. Jahrestagung der Gesellschaft für Sprachwissenschaft, Marga Reis, and Inger Rosengren (eds.), 49-76. Tübingen: Niemeyer. 1991b Was konstituiert w-Interrogativsätze? Gegen Paschs Überlegungen zur Syntax und Semantik interrogativer w-Konstruktionen. Deutsche Sprache 19: 213-238. Trissler, Susanne 2001 Syntaktische Bedingungen für w-Merkmale: Zur Bildung interrogativer w-Phrasen im Deutschen. Ph.D. diss., University of Tübingen, [http://w2 lO.ub.uni-tuebingen.de/dbt/volltexte/2001/216].

Notes on the syntax and the pragmatics of German Left Dislocation Werner Frey

Abstract Both German Left Dislocation (GLD) as well as so called Hanging Topic Left Dislocation (HTLD) are commonly considered to be topic marking constructions. This paper demonstrates that while this is in fact true for the former construction, it is not for the latter. Contra the standard assumption it will be shown that the resumptive pronoun (RP) of GLD may be positioned in the middle field of a German clause. However, it cannot appear anywhere in the middle field, but only in the designated topic position. Thus, the RP necessarily has the status of a sentence topic. As regards discourse properties, it is shown that GLD has to respect the condition of recoverability, and that it is a sentence topic promotion device, which, however, maintains the current discourse topic. GLD differs crucially from the HTLD construction and standard verb-second (V-second) clauses with regard to these properties. In addition, the syntax of GLD is considered. After a critical discussion of two recent movement analyses of the dislocated phrase, it is argued that an analysis which base generates the dislocated phrase at the left periphery of the clause containing the RP is more adequate. The paper ends with some reflections about the relationship between the syntactic structure of GLD and its discourse properties.

1.

Introduction

In German, a typical declarative main clause is a V-second clause, i.e., a clause in which a single maximal projection occupies the position preceding the finite verb called the 'prefield'. Besides this standard case, there exists a group of constructions which show at least two maximal phrases in

204

Werner Frey

front of the finite verb. This group includes German Left Dislocation, Hanging Topic Left Dislocation, and constructions which have a speech act adverbial clause or a conditional of irrelevance (cf. D'Avis this volume) in front of the prefield. Although this paper primarily addresses German Left Dislocation, it also contains some reflections on similarities and differences between German Left Dislocation, V-second clauses, and Hanging Topic Left Dislocation. It is organized as follows: In Section 2, the construction to be primarily considered is characterized. It is shown that binding effects provide the right means to identify the construction unambiguously. Section 3 demonstrates that there is a designated position in the German clause which is reserved for topics. This insight will be used in Section 4 to determine whether or not German Left Dislocation is necessarily a topic marking construction. In Section 5, further information-structural properties of German Left Dislocation are investigated and compared with the properties of Vsecond clauses and the Hanging Topic construction. Finally, Section 6 discusses the syntactic analysis of the construction. It is argued that base generation of the dislocated element is superior to a movement account.

2. Left Dislocation in German, Left Dislocation in English In the literature on German syntax, the term Linksversetzung (which is the translation of the term Left Dislocation) is used to refer to the following construction: (1)

den Hans, —> den mag jeder the-acc H., RP-acc likes everyone (Linksversetzung, German Left Dislocation)

This construction is sometimes called kontrastive Left Dislocation. Since this construction does not have to be contrastive, I will employ the term German Left Dislocation (GLD). A construction with formal properties very similar to (1) is also found in Dutch. In his influential study, Altmann (1981) lists the following main characteristics of GLD: (i) progredient intonation on the dislocated phrase (= 'GLDed phrase' in the following), no pause between it and the rest of the clause (indicated by '—>' in (1)); (ii) the resumptive pronoun (RP) that appears in the construction is a weak d-pronoun, for example, if the GLDed phrase is an NP, the RP is a pronoun such as der, die, das if nominative or

Notes on the syntax and the pragmatics of GLD

205

the case-inflected variants thereof; (iii) the RP occurs in the prefield of the clause; (iv) if the dislocated phrase is an NP, it has the same case as the RP. GLD has to be differentiated from the construction in (2), which is referred to as freies Thema (free theme) or Hanging Topic Left Dislocation (HTLD) in the literature (the latter term will be used in this paper): (2)

den Hans, [ jeder mag ihn (HTLD) the-acc H., everyone likes him

Altmann (1981) notes the following main characteristics of HTLD: (i) there is a pause between the 'hanging topic' phrase and the rest of the clause (indicated by in (2)); (ii) the resumptive element shows up in the form of a personal pronoun, a d-pronoun (which does not have to be weak) or even a superordinate term; (iii) the resumptive element may appear in the prefield or in a low position, i.e., in the middle field of the clause; (iv) if the dislocated phrase is an NP, it is in the nominative or it is in the same case as the resumptive element. It is immediately clear that, given these characteristics, in written language, the analysis of an example as GLD is not definite, since it could also be analyzed as HTLD. Further, even for the spoken language, the categorization as GLD is not clear. Altmann (1981: 148) notes in passing that the progredient intonation is not a sufficient condition for GLD. It is therefore necessary to find a better criterion to distinguish the two constructions in a clear way. This criterion is offered by binding phenomena (cf., e.g., Vat 1981, Anagnostopoulou 1997, Zaenen 1997, Grohmann 2000): (3)

Operator binding a. Seinen ι Doktorvater, —> den verehrt jeder Linguist! his supervisor-acc RP-acc admires every linguist (GLD) b. *Seinen; Doktorvater, jeder Linguist j verehrt ihn (HTLD)

(4)

Principle-C-effects a. *Den neuen Artikel von Peterh —> den will erι in LI the new article by Peter-acc RP-acc wants he in LI veröffentlichen (GLD) (to) publish

206

Werner Frey b.

Den neuen Artikel von Peteri, ert will ihn in LI veröffentlichen (HTLD)

As demonstrated by (3) and (4), GLD shows binding effects, HTLD does not. (3a) demonstrates that, in GLD, an operator may bind a pronoun inside the dislocated phrase. As (3b) shows, this is not possible in a construction which is clearly a HTLD construction. Principle C effects may be induced by an R-expression inside the dislocated phrase of a GLD structure, cf. (4a), but not by an R-expression inside the dislocated phrase of a clear HTLD-construction, cf. (4b). Note that progredient intonation is necessary to get binding effects. If sentences like (3a) and (4a) are spoken with a pause between the preceding phrase and the rest of the clause, the binding effects disappear. Thus, the progredient intonation is a necessary condition for GLD. When binding facts are taken into account, it can be shown that it is wrong to treat an example like (5a) as a case of GLD as, for instance, Wiltschko (1997) does: (5)

a. b.

Marias Doktorvater, diesen Mann verehrt Hans Mary's supervisor this man admires Hans-nom *Seinerii Doktorvater, diesen Mann verehrt jeder his supervisor-acc this man-acc admires every Linguist; linguist

The parallel example (5b) shows that, in contrast to GLD, binding is not possible if the resumptive element is a full noun phrase. Furthermore, the binding criterion proves that Altmann (1981) was right in restricting the RP of a GLD structure to d-pronouns which are weak: (6)

*Seinenj Doktorvater, diesen verehrt jeder Linguist; his supervisor-acc RP-acc (strong) admires every linguist

If, as in (6), the RP is a strong d-pronoun, the binding option disappears. In the following, I will use the binding option as the crucial criterion to differentiate between GLD and HTLD1: (7)

The construction under consideration is an instance of GLD if, and only if, it allows a binding relation between an element of the clause and an element inside the dislocated phrase.

Notes on the syntax and the pragmatics ofGLD

207

Let us now look at the English constructions which are referred to as Left Dislocation and Topicalization: (8)

a. b.

Mary, Peter admires her very much Mary Peter admires very much

A construction like (8a) is called Left Dislocation (LD) and a construction like (8b) is called Topicalization. If we apply the 'binding criterion', we find: (9)

a. b.

The new article by Peter/ he ι wants to publish it in LI (LD) *The new article by Peter} heι wants to publish in LI (Topicalization)

(9a) shows that, with respect to binding, English LD corresponds to the German HTLD-construction (cf. (4b)) rather than to GLD. (9b) shows that English topicalization has the same binding properties as GLD (cf. (4a)). It is therefore highly misleading that English LD and GLD are often referred to by the same term, namely Left Dislocation.2 The examples in (4) and (9) suggest the following correspondences (cf., e.g., Anagnostopoulou 1997): (10)

GLD German HTLD

~ ~

English Topicalization English Left Dislocation (LD)

Note that these correspondences also hold with regard to intonation. In English, a left-dislocated element is intonationally separate from the remainder of the utterance whereas a topicalized phrase is not. As mentioned above, the same is true for the corresponding German constructions.3

3. The medial topic position in German In German as a V-second language, an independent declarative clause has the finite verb in second position following the so called prefield. In cstructure terms, the prefield is usually reconstructed as the Spec-position of CP. In a finite clause introduced by a complementizer or in a non-finite clause, all verbal elements occur at the end of the clause. There are good reasons to take the position of the finite verb in a V-second clause and the position of a complementizer in a V-final clause to be one and the same (commonly this is the C-position). The part of the clause which is between

208

Werner Frey

the position of the finite verb/complementizer and the verbal elements at the end is called the 'middle field'. (11)

a.

b.

den Hans wird Mariamorgen treffen the Hans-acc will Mary tomorrow meet prefield Vfin middle field verbal complex 'Tomorrow Mary will meet Hans' dass Maria morgen den Hans treffen wird C middle field verbal complex 'that tomorrow Mary will meet Hans'

Most syntacticians working on topics in German assume that topics have to be placed in the prefield of a German clause (e.g., Müller and Sternefeld 1993, Vallduvi and Engdahl 1996, Molnär 1998, Jacobs 2001). However, this assumption is not so much argued for but, rather, it is simply adopted since, cross-linguistically, topics frequently appear to be clause-initial.4 On the other hand, noone denies that phrases of other informational status can also be positioned into the prefield. Therefore, it seems that there is no position in German which is exclusively reserved for topics (Lambrecht 1994, Vallduvi and Engdahl 1996, Molnär 1998). Whereas according to the standard view there is no special position for topics in German, Frey (2000) argues that one comes to the opposite conclusion if one considers the middle field. The following thesis is argued for: (12)

In the middle field of the German clause, directly above the base position of sentential adverbials (SADVs), there is a designated structural position for topics (in the aboutness-sense): all topical phrases in the middle field, and only these, are located in this position.

In (12), the category of SADVs figures prominently. The term 'SADV' refers to adverbials which express the speaker's estimation of the eventuality, for example luckily, apparently, certainly. Thus, for instance, temporal or locative adjuncts are not among the SADVs. The base position of sentence adverbials is higher than the base position of any other element in the German clause (cf., e.g., Frey 2003). In this paper, SADVs are only relevant in their neutral use as sentence adverbials, in which they modify the whole proposition. These items may also have a focus inducing use. In this case, they relate to one narrowly focussed constituent of the clause, the rest of the clause being presupposed. As focus inducers, they have special prop-

Notes on the syntax and the pragmatics ofGLD

209

erties; in particular, their distribution is very different from that of their neutral (proposition-modifying) use.5 In what follows, the reader is asked to disregard any focus inducing readings of SADVs which might be possible by narrowly focussing an accompanying constituent. As is well known, there are different notions of topicality. In Frey (2000), it is argued that what is encoded in the syntax of German as described in (12) are aboutness topics.6 The notion of an 'aboutness topic' stems from the famous characterization by Hockett (1958:201): (13)

"the most general characteristic of predicative constructions is suggested by the terms 'topic' and 'comment' for their ICs: the speaker announces a topic and then says something about it"

Reinhart (1981) proposes an analogy to illustrate the concept. During the discourse, a context set is constructed which contains the set of propositions accepted to be true at this point. According to Reinhart, the propositions in the context set are not stored there in an unordered way but according to ordering principles. One of these principles relates the propositions to the discourse referents which are designated by the sentence topics. This ordering principle is similar to the ordering system of a subject catalogue in a library. In accordance with this analogy, a sentence topic functions like an entry of a subject catalogue under which information is stored. Three of the different phenomena which support the claim in (12) are the following (see Frey (2000) for more): (14)

the context forces aboutness Da wir gerade von Hans sprechen. Since we right now of H. speak 'Speaking about Hans' a. Nächstes Jahr wird den Hans erfreulicherweise eine Next year will the-acc H. fortunately a vornehme Dame heiraten fine lady marry b. #Nächstes Jahr wird erfreulicherweise den Hans eine vornehme Dame heiraten

(15)

non-referential expressions a. * Während des Vortrags haben mindestens drei Teilnehmer during the lecture have at least three participants leider geschlafen unfortunately slept

210

Werner Frey b.

(16)

*Heute hat fast jeder erstaunlicherweise today has almost everyone surprisingly gearbeitet worked

cataphoric pronouns a. Sein, Vater wird dem Otto, wahrscheinlich das Auto His father will the-dat O. probably the car ausleihen lend 'Probably, Otto's father will lend him the car' b. *Sein, Vater wird wahrscheinlich dem Otto, das Auto ausleihen

The context in (14) demands that Hans has to be an aboutness topic in the following sentence. (14a, b) show that, under such circumstances, if the item in question occurs in the middle field, it has to precede a sentence adverbial. The examples in (15) contain quantificational phrases. These cannot be topics (cf., e.g., Reinhart 1981). As (15) shows, these phrases cannot appear in front of a SADV in the middle field. The sentences in (16) contain cataphoric pronouns. According to Kuno (1972) and Reinhart (1995), cataphoric pronouns can only co-refer with topics. Under this assumption, (16a, b) also show that a topic in the middle field has to be positioned in front of a sentential adverbial.

4. GLD and topicality GLD and HTLD are both thought to mark a topic. Usually, it is the dislocated phrase which is seen as the topic. These claims, however, are basically made on an intuitive basis. Scheutz (1997), for example, observes that it has not been proven that GLD marks a topic. Therefore, the question arises of whether it is possible to verify these claims. As mentioned in Section 1, Altmann (1981) assumed that the RP of a GLD structure has to appear in the prefield of a German clause. This assumption is adopted in most studies on GLD (cf., e.g., Vat 1981, Cinque 1983, Grohmann 2000, an exception is Grewendorf 2002). However, the following examples demonstrate that it should be dismissed:

Notes on the syntax and the pragmatics ofGLD

(17)

a.

b.

211

Seinemi Doktorvater, jeder Linguist7 wird dem his supervisor-dat every linguist will RP zum Glück Geld ausleihen luckily money lend Seinem1 Doktorvater, würde dem wenigstens ein his supervisor-dat would RP at least one Linguist] Geld ausleihen? linguist money lend

(17) shows that there are examples which have the RP inside the middle field and which nevertheless contain an operator phrase binding a pronoun inside the dislocated phrase. In Section 1, it was shown that it is a characteristic of GLD, in contrast to HTLD, to allow such a binding relation. Thus, the sentences in (17) demonstrate that there are GLD examples which have the RP in the middle field. However, not all sentences with the RP in the middle field allow an operator binding relation between a phrase inside the core of the sentence and an element in the dislocated phrase: (18)

a.

b.

??Seinemi Doktorvater, jeder Linguist] wird his supervisor every linguist will dem Geld ausleihen RP money lend ??Seinemi Doktorvater, würde wenigstens ein his supervisor would at least one dem Geld ausleihen? RP money lend

zum Glück luckily

Linguist! linguist

The same is true for the principle C effect. There are examples with the RP in the middle field which show the effect, and there are examples which do not: (19)

a.

b.

*Den neuen Artikel von Peter], —> er/ will den the new article by Peter he wants RP anscheinend in LI veröffentlichen apparently in LI (to) publish Den neuen Artikel von Peter 1, er 1 will anscheinend den in LI veröffentlichen

What is the difference between the sentences that show binding effects and the ones that do not? The answer becomes clear if we look at the positions the RP occupies. Compare, for example, (17a) with (18a). In (17a), the RP precedes the SADV, in (18a), the RP follows the SADV. That is, in (17a), which allows binding, the RP is positioned in the designated topic position

212

Werner Frey

characterized in (12). The RP is topical. In contrast, in (18a), which does not allow binding, the RP does not occur in the topic position. It is not a sentence topic. This kind of reasoning also explains the difference between (17b) and (18b). These sentences do not contain a SADV, thus the topic position is not unambiguously marked. Nevertheless, there is an important difference between them. For (17b), there exists an analysis in which the RP is positioned in the topic position. This is not the case for (18b). The quantified subject of (18b) is not a possible topic. It cannot occur in the topic position (cf. (15) in Section 3). Thus, the following RP cannot either. In sum, the RP in (17b) can be analyzed as a topic, the RP in (18b) cannot. 7 The same observation explains the examples in (19). In (19a), in which a principle C violation arises, the RP occurs in the topic position. In contrast, in the well-formed (19b), the RP is not in the topic position. In Section 1, it was shown that the possibility of a binding relation is characteristic of a GLD structure. Thus, the data in (17)-(19) show that in a GLD structure, the RP may appear in the middle field only if it occurs in the topic position characterized in (12). As demonstrated in Section 3, in German, a topic may appear in the prefield or in the middle field . However, topics are marked in a definite way only in the middle field. Thus, in the environment where topics are unambiguously marked, we see that the RP in GLD has to be a topic. It is fair to generalize that the RP in GLD is also a topic if the RP occurs in the prefield. We therefore arrive at the following claim: (20)

In GLD, the RP is a sentence topic.

According to (20), the widely held opinion that GLD is a topic marking construction is correct. By using the diagnostic of the designated topic position in the middle field, we have been able to prove this claim. As stated in (20), the RP is the topic of GLD. However, because of the relationship between the dislocated phrase and the RP (cf. Section 6), the same is true for the dislocated phrase; it is also the topic.8 Let us now see whether HTLD is also necessarily a topic marking construction. The following sentence shows that it is not: (21)

Den/Der Hans, laut Maria wird anscheinend keiner the-acc/nom Η., according to Μ. will apparently no one ihn unterstützen him support

Notes on the syntax and the pragmatics of GLD

213

The RP of (21) follows the SADV. Thus, according to (12), it does not occur in the topic position in the middle field, i.e., it is not a sentence topic. The same can be observed in (19b). Since the RP of HTLD certainly can be a sentence topic (cf.: (22)), we arrive at the claim in (23). (22)

Den/Der Hans, laut Maria wird ihn anscheinend keiner unterstützen

(23)

In HTLD, the resumptive element does not have to be sentence topic.

From (23), we can safely conclude that the dislocated phrase does not have to be a sentence topic either. Thus, HTLD is not a topic marking construction per se.9 The widely held opinion that HTLD necessarily marks a topic is not correct.

5. Some more information-structural properties of GLD 5.1. GLD and focus It is sometimes claimed that a GLD structure is not possible as an answer to a wh-question (e.g., Anagnostopoulou 1994: 157 on the Dutch equivalent). However, the following sentence casts doubt on this claim: (24)

Q: Wen hat Maria dem Präsidenten vorgestellt? Whom has Μ. (to) the president introduced A: Den Karl, den hat Maria dem Präsidenten vorgestellt the-acc Κ. RP has Μ. (to) the president introduced

The GLD sentence constitutes a natural answer to the question.10 (24) shows that it is possible for the RP in a GLD structure to constitute the narrow focussed element of the clause. Note that there is a contrastive flavour to the answer if it is given by means of a GLD structure like in (24). Although we saw above that the RP can in principle occur in the middle field, we find an interesting restriction when the RP is focussed. In this case, the RP cannot remain in the middle field, as shown in (25 a): (25)

Wen hat Maria dem Präsidenten vorgestellt? a. *Den Karl, Maria hat (den) dem Präsidenten (den) vorgestellt b. Maria hat heute dem Präsidenten Karl vorgestellt

214

Werner Frey

(25b) illustrates that in principle the item which corresponds to the whphrase (Karl in this example) may be placed in the middle field. There is a well known constraint which can help to explain (25a): focussed phrases are not allowed to scramble in the German middle field (Lenerz 1977). However, according to (20), in a GLD structure, a RP which occurs in the middle field has to be positioned in the topic position, i.e., it has to be scrambled to the left periphery of the middle field. Obviously, these two conditions impose contradicting demands on the focussed and topical RP of (25a). Thus, this sentence is ungrammatical. In German, a focussed element may be positioned in the prefield. The same is true for a topical element. Thus, in the grammatical answer in (24) the RP can fulfill both demands put on it, i.e., it is focussed and it is topical. The consequence is that the RP plays the role of a contrastive topic in this example.

5.2. Recoverability The following sentences exemplify an interesting functional difference between the dislocated phrase of a GLD structure and the phrase in the prefield of a standard V-second clause: (26)

Die Kinder hatten ihren ersten Ferientag The children had their first day of vacation a. Der Otto, der wollte Fußball spielen the-nom Ο. RP wanted soccer play b. Der Otto wollte Fußball spielen c. Den Otto, den hatte Maria abgeholt the-acc O., RP had Μ. picked up d. Den Otto hatte Maria abgeholt

(26a, c) are GLD structures, (26b, d) are V-second clauses. In the given context, the GLD structures are interpreted such that Otto refers to a member of the set of children. The V-second clauses are not necessarily interpreted this way, i.e., the referent of Otto does not have to be one of the children. This means that the GLDed phrase picks out a referent which is already available in the discourse. In contrast, a phrase in the prefield of a V-second clause may introduce a new referent.11 The following examples show that this property of GLD is not just a consequence of the topical status of the GLDed phrase:

Notes on the syntax and the pragmatics ofGLD (27)

b. c.

215

Heute wird ein amerikanischer Linguist erfreulicherweise Today will an American linguist fortunately Autogramme geben autographs sign Ein amerikanischer Linguist wird heute Autogramme geben *Ein amerikanischer Linguist, der wird heute Autogramme geben Linguisten verschiedener Länder sind in unserem Linguists from different countries are in our Dorf. village Ein amerikanischer Linguist, der wird heute Autogramme geben

An existentially interpreted indefinite may be a sentence topic as shown in (27a). In this case, it has a specific reading. This shows that a topic does not have to be familiar to the hearer. An existentially interpreted specific indefinite may also occur in the prefield of a V-second clause, see (27b). However, an indefinite, even if it is specific, cannot constitute the dislocated phrase of a GLD structure in an out of the blue context, see (27c). The sentence becomes grammatical only if the GLD occurs in a context which allows one to relate the referent of the indefinite to an already established discourse referent, see (27d).12 This observation about GLD is reminiscent of a condition which Prince (1998) formulates for English Topicalization: (28)

Topicalization triggers an inference on the part of the hearer that the entity represented by the initial NP stands in a salient partially ordered set relation to some entity or entities already evoked in the discourse-model; Prince (1998: 293).

A partially ordered set relation is any relation which is either reflexive, transitive, and antisymmetric, or irreflexive, transitive, and antisymmetric. I do not want to discuss whether this is the right constraint for the relation in question because this depends heavily on semantic decisions. Therefore, I will just formulate the following condition: (29)

The referent of the GLDed phrase has been introduced in previous discourse or stands in a cognitive salient relation to an already introduced discourse referent.

216

Werner Frey

The notion of saliency is supposed to distinguish examples like the following: (30)

a.

b.

Otto ist gestern geflogen. Das Flugzeug, das hatte O. is yesterday flown. The aircraft, RP has allerdings Verspätung. though delay ffOtto aß gestern in einem feinen Lokal. Die Gabel, O. ate yesterday in a fancy restaurant. The fork, die war allerdings verbogen RP was though bent.

The reference to an event of flying makes it salient that an aircraft is involved. However, the reference to an event of eating in a restaurant does not make it salient that a fork is involved.13 Topic promotion In Section 4, it was shown that the RP of GLD, and thus also the GLDed phrase, is a sentence topic. The following examples demonstrate that the GLDed phrase has to be a new sentence topic, i.e., the GLDed phrase cannot refer to a referent which was referred to by a topical expression in the preceding sentence: (31)

a.

b.

*Heute hat [Peter1]Top erfreulicherweise einen Auftrag Today has P. fortunately a commission bekommen. Dieser begabte Architektι, der hat das wirklich got. This talented architect RP has it really verdient deserved Heute hat erfreulicherweise Peter; einen Auftrag bekommen. Dieser begabte Architekti, der hat das wirklich verdient

In (31a), the topic of the first sentence and the GLDed phrase of the second sentence have the same reference. The text is not well-formed. In contrast, in the well-formed (31b), the referent of the GLDed phrase of the second sentence is denoted by a non-topic in the first sentence. This observation leads to the following claim:

Notes on the syntax and the pragmatics of GLD (32)

217

GLD is a topic-promoting device, i.e., a non-topic acquires the status of a topic

HTLD behaves differently. The dislocated phrase may very well pick up a referent which was designated by a topic in the preceding sentence: (33)

Heute hat [Peterj]Top erfreulicherweise einen Auftrag bekommen. Dieser begabte Architektj, er hat das wirklich verdient

The same is true for a standard V-second clause. The expression in its prefield might pick up a referent which was previously referred to by a topic expression: (34)

Heute hat [Peterifop erfreulicherweise einen Auftrag bekommen. Dieser begabte Architekt j hat das wirklich verdient

Thus, the promotion function expressed in (32) constitutes a genuine property of GLD.

5.3. GLD and discourse topics According to (32), GLD changes the informational status of an expression: a non-topic promotes to a topic ('topic' referring to 'sentence topic'). We should also ask how GLD behaves with respect to the discourse topic. This notion is used here in a purely intuitive sense, just referring to the main theme of a Section of a text. The following sequence of two sentences illustrates that a GLD structure is not the appropriate construction to change the discourse topic: (35)

a. b.

Maria wird morgen mit Hans nach Paris fahren. Μ. will tomorrow with Η. to Paris go #Der Hans, —• der ist sehr zerstreut in letzter Zeit the Η. RP is very absent-minded lately

Out of the blue, it is hard to find a common theme for the sentences (35a) and (35b). Therefore, (35b) is understood as introducing a new discourse topic. However, (35b) as a GLD structure is felt to be inappropriate for doing so.

218

Werner Frey

The Situation is different with HTLD: (36)

a. b.

Maria wird morgen mit Hans nach Paris fahren. Der Hans, er ist sehr zerstreut in letzter Zeit the Η. he is very absent-minded lately

The sentences in (36) are again understood as contributing to two different discourse topics. Therefore, the well-formedness of (36) shows that HTLD is a suitable device for moving to a new theme. Thus, GLD and HTLD differ in their effects on the current discourse topic. In 5.3, it was shown that they also differ significantly with respect to the sentence topics of previous sentences. (37) summarizes these observations: (37)

GLD signals a shift of sentence topic but maintains the discourse topic. In contrast, HTLD does not signal a shift of sentence topic but signals a shift of discourse topic.

6. On the syntactic analysis of GLD 6.1. Island sensitivity A standard assumption is that GLD is island sensitive, i.e., it is assumed that, depending on the analysis, no island node may intervene between the position of the dislocated phrase and its base position, or between the RP and its base position. Recently, however, Grewendorf (2002: 43) has claimed that GLD does not exhibit island sensitivity. Grewendorf gives examples like the following: (38)

a.

b.

Den Studenten, Hans kennt das Mädchen, das den the student-acc H. knows the girl who RP geheiratet hat married has Den Studenten, nachdem Maria den geheiratet hat, wurde the student-acc, after M. RP married has became sie depressiv she depressive

Notes on the syntax and the pragmatics ofGLD

219

Grewendorf argues for a movement analysis of the GLDed phrase which might leave the RP behind at different places. Thus, according to Grewendorf, the GLDed phrase in (38a) is moved out of a relative clause, and in (38b) it is moved out of an adverbial clause. With respect to Grewendorf's analysis, I would first like to point out that examples like (38) are likely not to be instances of GLD: (39)

a

b.

* Ihren ι Doktorvater, Hans kennt jede Linguistini, die den Her supervisor Η. knows every linguist who RP geheiratet hat married has *Ihrenι Doktorvater, nachdem den jede Linguistin/ Her supervisor after RP every linguist geheiratet hat, war Otto traurig married has was Ο. sad

According to my judgement, these examples do not allow binding of an element in the GLDed phrase, as shown in (39). Since this binding possibility is characteristic of GLD, we may conclude that the examples in (38) are not instances of GLD, but rather of HTLD. The island sensitivity of GLD is also shown by the following examples: (40)

a.

b. c.

d.

*Seineni Doktorvater, jeder Linguist; geht in die Kirche, his supervisor every linguist goes to the church bevor er den trifft before he RP meets *Seineni Doktorvater, den geht jeder Linguist ι in die Kirche, bevor er trijft * Seinem j Doktorvater, Maria hasst das Gerücht, dass dem his supervisor Μ. hates the rumour that RP jeder Linguistj hilft every linguist helps * Seinem ι Doktorvater, dem hasst Maria das Gerücht, dass jeder Linguist ι hiljl

In (40a, b), the dislocated phrase is related to a source position inside an adverbial clause, and in (40c, d) to a source position inside the complement clause of a noun. As the impossibility of binding shows, these constructions cannot be interpreted as examples of GLD. In (40b, d), the RP has left the

220

Werner Frey

islands, thereby causing strong ungrammatically in addition to the failure of binding. If the island conditions are respected, the GLD may be 'long distant'. This applies to the distance between the GLDed phrase and the source position as well as to the relation between the RP and the source position: (41)

a.

b.

Seinem ι Doktorvater, Maria glaubt, dass dem jeder his supervisor Μ. believes that RP every Linguist ι Geld ausleihen wird linguist money lend will Seinemy Doktorvater, dem glaubt Maria, dass jeder Linguist ι Geld ausleihen wird

Given our observations in Section 4 and in view of examples like (41b), it is clear that the RP has to move at least to the local topic position and may then subsequently move to a higher Spec,CP-position. Another question is whether the GLDed phrase is moved or whether it may be base generated in its surface position. There are two recent approaches which argue for the movement of the GLDed phrase.

6.2. On two recent movement analyses of the GLDed phrase The first movement analysis might be called the 'big XP' approach (cf. Vat 1981, Grewendorf 2002 for German, Cecchetto and Chierchia 1999 for clitic left dislocation with a DP in Italian). According to this approach, the preposed phrase and the RP are initially found in a Spec-Head configuration in a 'big XP'. Grewendorf (2002) adopts the split-CP framework of Rizzi (1997) for German. In this framework, what was formerly the CPprojection is replaced by a cascade of different functional projections: ForceP, TopicP, FocusP, FinP. Grewendorf proposes a derivation like the following for a GLD structure with a preposed DP. The 'big XP' is moved to Spec,FinP. There, it is broken and the GLDed phrase moves to Spec,TopicP: (42)

a. b.

[ p P [FinP ... [ip Maria [VP [dp den Hans [ D den]] getroffen] hat]]] [τορρ [FinP [dp den Hans [D den]] x [ Fin0 [IP Maria [VP t, getroffen] hat]]]] To

Notes on the syntax and the pragmatics of GLD c.

221

[χορρ den Hans2 [Rnp [DP t2 [D den]] ι [ Fin0 [ ff Maria [Vp ti getroffen] hat]]]]

In my view, this approach encounters some problems. In (42), the 'big XP' containing the RP as its head checks the EPP-feature in FinP. The phrase in Spec checks its topic-feature in TopicP. However, as we have seen, the RP may stay in the middle field (as Grewendorf also assumes), and, as was shown in Section 4, if it does, the RP has to move to the topic position of the middle field (a position which is not made available in Rizzi's framework), i.e., the RP is a topic. Nevertheless, it has to be guaranteed that the 'big XP' splits there; it cannot stay together in the surface structure. It is not clear how this can be achieved if the GLDed phrase carries a topicfeature: this feature could be checked in this position, and so there would be no motivation to split. On the other hand, the other remaining feature, the force-feature, does not seem to be appropriate for the GLDed constituAnother problem with the 'big DP' approach is that movement out of an adjunct island must be allowed: (43)

Am seinem ι Geburtstag, an dem arbeitet wahrscheinlich On his birthday, on RP works probably jeder Linguist] every linguist

The examples in (39) and (40) above show that GLD is island sensitive. (43) is a GLD structure with a temporal adverbial. In the 'big XP'approach, the GLDed constituent has to move out of this adverbial. However, for indisputable cases of movement, adverbials are strong islands in German. Furthermore, given that GLD is island sensitive, the assumption that a phrase sitting in the prefield is open for extraction (cf. the movement which derives (42c)) is not innocent. For standard cases of extraction, such a constituent is an island: (44)

*[Über wen]] glaubt Hans [[ein Buch tj] hat Maria heute gelesen] About who believes H. a book has M. today read

Note that extraction out of a 'big XP' sitting in the prefield, i.e., in the Cdomain, would not only be necessary to target a position inside the same split CP as in (42), but also to target a higher one as in example (45). The

222

Werner Frey

resulting structure would be very similar to the structure of the ill-formed (44). (45)

Seinem/ his Geld money

Doktorvater, Maria glaubt, dem wird jeder Linguisty supervisor Μ. believes RP will every linguist ausleihen lend

Finally, it is not immediately clear how in this approach it is guaranteed that in a standard V-second clause like (11a) the finite Verb is in fact in second position and not in the third or any other more deeply embedded position. Let us now consider a second proposal for a movement analysis of the GLDed phrase, which may be called the 'spelling out' approach, see Grohmann (2000) who also uses a split-CP framework. The idea is that the GLDed constituent is the originally selected argument. It undergoes movement to Spec,TopicP in the C-domain and moves further inside the Cdomain. The RP is the spell out of the movement trace in Spec,TopicP. The spell out of the trace is supposed to be necessary because the movement targets two positions in the same C-domain. The main problem with this approach is that the RP should not be possible in the middle field. However, we have seen that the RP of GLD can stay in the topic position of the middle field. Note that it can be shown that this topic position does not belong to the C-domain. For example, in contrast to a position in the C-domain, it cannot be the target of long movement (cf. Frey 2000). So, it is in principle excluded to consider the prefield and the upper part of the middle field which contains the topic position as belonging to one and the same structural domain which is just separated by the surface position of the verb. Another problem with the 'spelling out' approach is that, even if it could be modified such that movement is via the topic position in the middle field and such that the trace could be spelled out there as an RP, it faces the problem that there are examples of GLD whose RPs can occur in a position in which the GLDed constituent is not possible, for example: (46)

a. b.

Stolz auf sich ι, Hans ι ist das anscheinend immer gewesen proud of himself Η. has RP apparently always been *HanS] ist stolz auf sich ι anscheinend immer gewesen

Notes on the syntax and the pragmatics of GLD

223

Whatever the reason for the contrast between (46a) and (46b), these data make it unlikely that the RP is just the spell out of a trace of the moved GLDed constituent. Grohmann (2000) assumes that the GLDed phrase moves to a position in the split C-domain which is above TopicP. It is not immediately clear which position this could be. ForceP is not appropriate because the GLDed phrase is not related to clause typing. Clauses of various different types are compatible with GLD (cf. n. 7). Therefore, one would have to postulate an additionall functional projection in the split C-domain which could be the target of the GLDed phrase. Note also that the 'spelling out' approach, like the 'big XP' approach, faces the problem of how to regulate the position of the finite verb in a standard V-second clause. Below, I will point to a further problem for the 'big XP' approach and the 'spelling out' approach.

6.3. A base generation analysis of the GLDed phrase I would like to propose a more conservative analysis of GLD which assumes base generation of the GLDed phrase (and a non-split C-domain). The proposal is the following: The GLDed constituent is base generated in a CP-adjoined position.14 This can be any CP which dominates the base position of the RP and which allows adjunction. From its base position, the GLDed phrase may move to higher CP-adjoined positions. The RP originates in a theta-position. The RP has to check its topic feature in the topic position in the middle field or in the local prefield and may be moved further by Α-bar movement to a higher Spec,CP-position. The chains of the GLDed phrase and of the RP undergo the formation of an A-bar-CHAIN. A CHAIN is simply defined as follows: (47)

A CHAIN is a sequence of nodes sharing the same θ-role such that for any i, 1 < i < η, α; c-commands and is coindexed with oij+i (cf. Cecchetto and Chierchia 1999)

The resulting CHAIN has to fulfill the condition that the head of the chain of the GLDed phrase c-commands the head of the chain of the RP. The formation of a CHAIN with the GLDed constituent and the RP is possible because there is only one theta-role involved. Furthermore, we may assume

224

Werner Frey

that a CHAIN carries at most one case-feature which is spelled out on the lexical members of the CHAIN. In a well-formed CHAIN, every pair of adjacent members has to respect the island conditions, i.e., for any i, 1 < i < n, there is no island node between a, and a i+ i. For the following discussion it is sufficient to recall that embedded V-second clauses, complement clauses of non-bridge verbs, adjunct clauses, and clauses inside of an NP constitute islands in German. Adjunction voids islandhood, i.e., if otj is adjoined to an island node Κ, Κ does not count as an island node between (Xj and a i+ i or between 04 and (Xj_i. As was shown by Barss (1986), Binding Theory can be formulated relative to chains thereby avoiding the need for literal reconstruction of moved phrases for the checking of the binding conditions (cf. also Frey 1993). This approach can be straightforwardly extended to CHAINs (cf. Cecchetto and Chierchia 1999). In such a formulation of the Binding Theory, it follows, for example, that an operator phrase in the clause may bind a pronoun inside the GLDed constituent if the highest Α-position of the operator phrase c-commands a member of the CHAIN of the GLDed constituent. In a similar way, the binding principles A, B, and C can be formulated with respect to CHAINS. Thus, binding effects exhibited by GLD examples can be captured by principles formulated in this way. Let us now consider some examples. The examples in (39) and (40) involve island violations, the islands being adjunct clauses, and clauses inside NPs. In (40b, d), the RP has been moved out of an island. In the other examples, there is an island node between the surface position of the GLDed phrase and the surface position of the RP in the embedded clause. Note that in these examples it is not possible to base generate the GLDed phrase adjoined to the clause containing the source position. A GLD structure, being a root phenomenon (cf. n. 14), is not possible in these embedded structures. Consider now the following sentence which constitutes a further problem for the movement accounts. The possibility of binding shows that it is a well-formed GLD-structure: (48)

Seinem ι Doktorvater, Maria glaubt, jeder Linguist 1 wird dem Geld ausleihen

(48) causes a severe problem for the 'big XP' approach as well as for the 'spelling out' approach because to derive (48), the GLDed would have to move out of a V-second clause.15 However, indisputable instances of movement are clearly impossible out of a V-second clause:

Notes on the syntax and the pragmatics ofGLD (49)

225

*Wemj glaubt Maria [Cp jeder Linguist wird t] Geld ausleihen]

The following sentence in which the RP has been moved also demonstrates that it is not possible to move a phrase from within a V-second clause: (50)

* Seinem ι Doktorvater, dem glaubt Maria, jeder Linguist ι wird Geld ausleihen

We can explain the grammaticality of (48) as follows. The bridge verb glauben allows the embedding of a GLD structure constructed with a Vsecond clause (cf. n. 14). Therefore, underlying (48) we have (51): (51)

Maria glaubt [Cp seinem ι Doktorvater [Cp jeder Linguist] wird dem Geld ausleihen]]

From this structure, (48) is derived by movement of the GLDed phrase to the matrix clause. The resulting CHAIN containing the GLDed phrase and the RP does not violate the island conditions. Note that to account for (48), the assumption that the GLDed phrase may be base generated in a position adjoined to the CP containing the base position of the RP is crucial. If the GLDed phrase had to be base generated in its surface position (as, e.g., Anagnostopoulou 1997 proposes), (48) would involve an island violation. The pair in the CHAIN which consists of the GLDed phrase and the surface position of the RP would violate the island condition for CHAINs. (50) obviously violates the condition for well-formed CHAINs because an island intervenes between the surface position of the RP and the adjacent lower member of the CHAIN (which is the position of the RP in the topic position in the embedded clause). Let us now consider the GLD structures in (41) and (45). In (41a, b) the complement clause of the bridge verb glauben is introduced by dass and therefore does not constitute an island. The underlying structure of (45) is (52): (52)

Maria glaubt [Cp seinem / Doktorvater [Cp dem wird jeder Linguistj Geld ausleihen]]

In (45), the GLDed phrase is again adjoined to the matrix CP. No island node intervenes between any adjacent members of the CHAIN. Note also the difference between (41a) and (53):

226 (53)

Werner Frey * Seinem j Doktorvater, M. bezweifelt, dass dem jeder Linguist ι his supervisor Μ. doubts that RP every linguist Geld ausleihen wird money lend will

A non-bridge verb like bezweifeln does not allow the embedding of GLD as shown in (54) (cf. n. 14): (54)

* Maria bezweifelt, [cp seinem ι Doktorvater [cp dass [jp jeder Linguist] dem Geld ausleihen wird]]]

Thus, (54) cannot be the underlying structure of (53). Furthermore, it is clear that the complement clause of bezweifeln constitutes an island: (55)

*Wem hat Maria bezweifelt dass jeder Linguist Geld ausleihen wird

Therefore, it is not possible to construct a CHAIN for (53) which respects the island conditions. Let us also shortly comment on the assumption that GLD cannot be iterated (cf., e.g., Zaenen 1997, Grohmann 2000). The following example casts doubt on this assumption: (56)

[Ihremι Doktorvater],·, [ihrι Auto]j, jede Studentini hat demj dasj heute gezeigt

Our proposal to base generate the GLDed constituent in an adjunction position leads us somehow to expect sentences like (56).16 I would like to end this Section with a short remark on a statement by Prince concerning the syntax-pragmatic interface. Prince (1998: 282) states: "In fact, I believe that a careful study of the correlations between syntactic form and discourse function leads us to conclude that (...) the relation between syntactic form and discourse function is no less arbitrary than, say, the relation between phonological form and lexical meaning." From the, admittedly rather narrow, perspective of our investigations it is not so clear whether one should subscribe to this viewpoint. For GLD, there seems to be a certain correspondence between syntactic form and discourse function. In (29) of Section 5.2, a recoverability condition for the GLDed phrase was formulated. That such a condition should hold makes some sense if we assume that every lexically realized contentful element needs 'contentful licensing'. The GLDed constituent does not 'check' a sentence internal

Notes on the syntax and the pragmatics of GLD

227

feature. Therefore, it has to be 'licensed' through a contentful relation to an already established discourse referent. Furthermore, in (20) of Section 4, the topic condition for the RP was stated. So we might ask whether it is arbitrary that such a condition should hold, that is, whether there could exist a construction which is identical to GLD except that its RP stays in its base position having no special information structural status. This is unlikely if we assume that an Α-bar chain is only possible if a non-Lrelated feature is checked. If this holds for Α-bar chains, it holds for A-bar CHAINS in particular. Therefore the RP of a construction like GLD has to move to a position to check a semantically or pragmatically contentful feature. In the German GLD construction, this is fulfilled because the RP moves at least to the topic position of the middle field. Finally, the checking of the topic feature has to contribute information to the CHAIN which is not already encoded. Therefore, the discourse licensing of the GLDed phrase is managed by a non-topic. This results in the topic-promoting function of GLD.

7.

Conclusion

In this paper, functional and syntactic properties of GLD were studied. It was shown that GLD is always a topic marking construction. It holds that the phrase which is designated as a topic by GLD cannot be a sentence topic in a preceding sentence. Furthermore, GLD demands that its designated topical phrase be linked to the preceding text. With regard to discourse topics, it was argued that GLD can only be used to continue a given discourse topic; it cannot be used to embark on a new one. The collection of properties we assigned to GLD is unique to GLD. It was shown that Vsecond clauses and HTLD show a different pattern. With respect to the syntax of GLD, some arguments against a movement analysis of the preposed phrase were presented. It was argued that an approach which base generates the preposed phrase in a position adjoined to a CP-node dominating the base position of the RP is superior. The preposed phrase, as well as the RP, may undergo further movement.

228

Werner Frey

Notes 1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

The binding criterion can be used to establish whether or not certain controversial cases should be classed as GLD-constructions, e.g.: a. Wenn seine ι Großmutter glücklich ist, dann ist jeder ι Linguist If his grandmother happy is, then is every linguist glücklich happy b. *Wenn seine ι Großmutter glücklich ist, so ist jeder ι Linguist glücklich c. Mit seinem] Doktorvater, mit dem spricht jeder Linguistι auch With his supervisor with RP talks every linguist also über Fußball about soccer d. *Ob sein ι Doktorvater erscheint oder nicht, so wird doch whether his supervisor appears or not so will after all jeder Linguistι kommen every linguist come a., b. show that a wenn-dann conditional is a GLD structure but not a 'wenn so' conditional, c. shows, contra Cinque (1983, n. 30), that a prepositional object may constitute the dislocated phrase of a GLD-construction. d. is an example of what D'Avis (this volume) calls an 'irrelevance conditional'. The impossibility of binding demonstrates that irrelevance conditionals are not possible in a GLD-construction. This confirms the supposition of D'Avis (this volume). This terminological confusion leads to severe problems, as can been seen in, for example, Zwart (1998) where English LD is equated with GLD and its Dutch equivalent without any discussion. With regard to binding and intonation, a German V-second clause behaves like GLD, i.e., the phrase in the prefield of a V-second clause exhibits binding effects and belongs to the same intonational contour as the rest of the clause.The most obvious distributional difference between a V-second clause and GLD is that a wider range of constituents can be positioned in the prefield than can be dislocated in GLD. For example, quantifiers, weak indefinites, and reflexives can appear in the prefield but cannot constitute the GLDed phrase. I think this difference can be explained by the information-structural differences discussed in the following. This assumption has a long tradition. Halliday (1967) defined sentence topics as the first expression in a clause. However, Reinhart (1981) rejected this claim as inappropriate for English. For example, as a focus inducer, a SADV might even be positioned in the prefield together with the focussed constituent it relates to:

Notes on the syntax and the pragmatics ofGLD

229

a.

Dem Otto anscheinend/anscheinend dem Otto The-Dat Ο. apparently /apparently the-Dat O. hat sich Maria anvertraut has REFL M. confided (in) Note that according to standard assumptions, only one constituent may appear in the prefield. A SADV which occurs in the prefield together with another constituent can only have the focus inducing reading. 6.

7.

8.

9.

The main reasons are that (specific) indefinites may be situated in the designated topic position and that first sentences of discourses or discourse segments may make use of that position. A GLD structure may also occur with a wh-question: a. Seinenι Wagen, welcher Linguisty hat den erfreulicherweise heute his car which linguist has RP fortunately today geputzt? cleaned b. *Seineni Wagen, welcher Linguist] hat erfreulicherweise den heute geputzt? The difference between a. and b. shows again that, in the middle field, the RP of a GLD structure has to occur in the topic position. A GLD structure seems also to be possible as an imperative, cf.: c. Seinen/ Computer, jederj starte den jetzt! his computer everyone start-IMP RP now This means that an expression like seinen Doktorvater can be a topic in the reading in which it is dependent on a quantified phrase. In this reading seinen Doktorvater is not really referential, so one might wonder why it can be a topic. Note, however, that once the referent of the noun of the quantified phrase is fixed (during the process of the interpretation of the quantified phrase), the referent of seinen Doktorvater is simultaneously fixed. So, the dependent seinen Doktorvater is referentially anchored to another expression. Thus, in a broader sense, the dependent phrase exhibits a form of referentiality and is therefore suitable as an aboutness topic, (see e.g. Heusinger (2002) for a similar broader notion of specificity of indefinites.) This is confirmed by the fact that a non-specific indefinite may be preposed in HTLD: a. Irgendeinen teuren Tisch, heute will Some expensive table (or other) today wants anscheinend Karl ihn endlich kaufen apparently Κ. it finally buy. A non-specific indefinite is not possible as a sentence topic (cf., e.g., Reinhart 1981).

230

Werner Frey

10. That the answer is in fact a GLD structure is shown by the possibility of binding: Q: Wen verehrt jeder Linguist? 'Whom does every linguist admire' A: Seinen! Doktorvater, den verehrt jeder Linguist ι his supervisor RP admires every linguist 11. In this respect, HTLD behaves like V-second clauses: a. Die Kinder hatten ihren ersten Ferientag Der Otto, er wollte Fußball spielen In a., the referent of Otto does not have to be one of the children. 12. Whereas a sentence like a. can already be ruled out by the topic condition for GLD, the deviance of a sentence like b. in an out of the blue context, even with the specific reading of the GLDed phrase, again follows from the need to link a GLDed phrase to the preceding discourse: a. * Keinen Linguisten, den mag Otto no linguist RP likes Ο. b. * Viele Linguisten, die mag Otto. many linguists RP likes Ο. 13. See Ward and Prince (1991) for the discussion of some English examples submitted to the condition (28). 14. GLD is a root phenomenon. For a proposal of how to derive this fact from the assumption that the GLDed phrase is adjoined to CP, see Anagnostopoulou (1997). The root character of GLD is shown by the fact that it only occurs in root contexts and in initial position of the complement of very few verbs, the so called bridge verbs, which also allow embedded V2 clauses. Bridge verbs tolerate an embedded GLD structure which is constructed with a V-second clause or, marginally, an embedded GLD structure which is constructed with a (iasi-clause: a. Maria glaubt, den Hans, den mag jeder Μ. believes the-acc Η RP likes everyone b. (J)Maria glaubt, den Hans, dass den jeder mag M. believes the-acc Η that RP everyone likes 15. The same criticism applies to the LFG analysis proposed by Zaenen (1997), which mirrors a movement analysis. 16. The following example containing a conditional also demonstrates that GLD may be iterated: a. Seinen] Wagen, wenn es schneit, dann stellt den jeder Linguistι in his car if it snows then puts RP every linguist in die Garage the garage a. is an iterated GLD construction because the wenn-dann conditional is already a GLD structure (cf. η. 1).

Notes on the syntax and the pragmatics ofGLD

231

References Altmann, Hans 1981 Formen der „Herausstellung" im Deutschen. Tübingen: Niemeyer. Anagnostopoulou, Elena 1997 Clitic left dislocation and contrastive left dislocation. In Materials on Left Dislocation, Elena Anagnostopoulou et al. (eds.), 151-192. Amsterdam: Benjamins. Anagnostopoulou, Elena et al. (eds.) 1997 Materials on Left Dislocation. Amsterdam: Benjamins. Barss, Andrew 1986 Chains and Anaphoric Dependencies. Ph.D. diss., MIT. Cecchetto, Carlo, and Gennaro Chierchia 1999 Reconstruction in Dislocation Constructions and the Syntax/Semantics Interface.In Proceedings of WCCFL XVII, Susan Blake et al. (eds.), 132-146. CSLI publications, Stanford University. Cinque, Gugliermo 1983 'Topic' constructions in some European Languages and 'Connectedness'. Reprinted in: Elena Anagnostopoulou et al. (eds.), 93-118. d'Avis, Franz-Josef 2004 In front of the prefield - inside or outside the clause. This volume. Frey, Werner 1993 Syntaktische Bedingungen für die semantische Interpretation. Berlin: Akademie Verlag. 2000 Über die syntaktische Position der Satztopiks im Deutschen. In Issues on Topics, Kerstin Schwabe et al. (eds.), 137-172. (ZAS Papers in Linguistics 20). 2003 Syntactic conditions on adjunct classes. In Approaching the Grammar of Adjuncts, Catherine Fabricius-Hansen et al. (eds), 163-209. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Grewendorf, Günther 2002 Left dislocation as movement. In Georgetown University Working Papers in Theoretical Linguistics, Vol. 2, Simon Mauck, and Jenny Mittelstaedt (eds.), 31-81. Grohmann, Kleanthes 2000 Prolific peripheries: A radical view from the left. Ph.D. diss., University of Maryland.

232

Werner Frey

Halliday, Michael 1967 Notes on transitivity and theme in English, II. Journal of Linguistics 3: 199-244. von Heusinger, Klaus 2002 Cross-linguistic implementation of specificity. In Meaning through Language Contrast. Vol. 2, Katazyna Jaszczolt, and Ken Turner (eds.), 404-421. Amsterdam, Philadelphia: Benjamins. Jacobs, Joachim 2001 The dimensions of topic-comment. Linguistics 39 (4): 641-681. Kuno, Susumo 1972 Functional sentence perspective: A case study from Japanese and English. Linguistic Inquiry 3: 269-336. Lambrecht, Knud 1994 Information Structure and Sentence Form. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Lenerz, Jürgen 1977 Zur Abfolge nominaler Satzglieder im Deutschen. Tübingen: Narr. Molnär, Valeria 1998 Topic in focus. On the syntax, phonolgy, semantics and pragmatics of the so-called "Contrastive Topic" in Hungarian and German. Acta Linguistica Hungarica 45 (1-2.): 89-166. Müller, Gereon, and Wolfgang Sternefeld 1993 Improper movement and unambiguous binding. Linguistic Inquiry 24: 461-507. Prince, Ellen 1998 On the limits of syntax, with reference to left-dislocation and topicalization. In The Limits of Syntax, Peter Culicover, and Louise McNally (eds.), 281-302. New York: Academic Press. Reinhart, Tanja 1981 Pragmatics and linguistics: An analysis of sentence topics. Philosophica 27: 53- 94. 1995 Interface Strategies. OTS Working Papers, Utrecht University. Scheutz, Hannes 1997 Satzinitiale Voranstellungen im gesprochenen Deutsch als Mittel der Themensteuerung und Referenzkonstitution. In Syntax des gesprochenen Deutsch, Peter Schlobinski (ed.), 27-54. Opladen: Westdeutscher Verlag. Vat, Jan 1981 Left dislocation, connectedness and reconstruction. Groninger Arbeiten zur germanistischen Linguistik 20: 80-103. [Reprinted in: Elena Anagnostopoulou et al. (eds.), 67-92],

Notes on the syntax and the pragmatics ofGLD

233

Vallduvi, Enric, and Elisabeth Engdahl 1996 The linguistic realization of information packaging. Linguistics 34:459-519. Ward, Gregory, and Ellen Prince 1991 On the topicalization of indefinite NPs. Journal of Pragmatics 15 (8): 167-178. Wiltschko, Martina 1997 Parasitic operators in german left-dislocation. In Materials on Left Dislocation, Elena Anagnostopoulou et al. (eds.), 307-339. Amsterdam: Benjamins. Zaenen, Anni 1997 Contrastive dislocation in Dutch and Icelandic. In Materials on Left Dislocation, Elena Anagnostopoulou et al., 119- 148. Amsterdam: Benjamins. Zwart, Jan-Wouter 1998 Where is syntax? Syntactic aspects of left dislocation in Dutch and English. In The Limits of Syntax, Peter Culicover, and Louise McNally (eds.), 365-393. New York: Academic Press.

Inflectional morphology and sentence mood in German Horst Lohnstein and Ursula Bredel

Abstract This article focuses on the interaction of the categories of the verbal inflectional system and Α-bar and head movement processes for the determination of sentence moods in German. An analysis and semantic interpetation of the verbal inflection categories together with semantic properties of Abar and head movement leads to a theory which derives sentence moods as preliminary stages of illocutionary forces in a strict compositional fashion. Based on the semantics of y/n-interrogatives, the other sentence moods are reconstructed in dependency on the verbal mood and the phrase and head being positioned in the left periphery of the clause whose mood they destinate.

1.

Introduction

The morphological and syntactic structures generated by grammatical systems are interrelated in various ways. One aspect concerns the units of inflectional morphology and their interaction with principles of sentence formation. In German, the number of distinctions provided by the combination of inflectional units exceeds the number of distinctions determinable by syntactic means to a considerable degree. At first sight, the verbal paradigm appears to have no fewer than 144 finite verb forms. This is true if one follows the classification system of Latin grammarians as linguists usually do. Then we have to distinguish at least three personal categories, two numeral categories, six tenses, two modal categories, and two genera verbi ( 3 x 2 x 6 x 2 x 2 = 144). A closer look at the morphosyntax of these categories shows most of them to be periphrastic forms. If we isolate the morphologically simple

236

Horst Lohnstein and Ursula Bredel

forms, the number of 144 decreases dramatically. Only the three personal categories, the two numeral categories, two of the six tenses (present and preterite) and the modal forms indicative and subjunctive prove to be categories shaped by simple word forms. Thus, the system becomes much smaller: instead of 144 we get 24 finite verbal forms only. In this paper, we want to reduce this number even further. We intend to show that the functional categorizations person, number, tense, and mood, which are morphologically realized in the verbal paradigm of German, are themselves derivations of a more simple morphological structure, which we sketch in sections 2-4. We argue that person, number, tense and mood are specific interpretations of underlying abstract meanings which can be derived from the meanings of the morphological units that constitute them. Taking the argument one step further, we suggest in sections 5 and 6 that the inflectional system of German thus reconstructed affects the structure of syntactic projections as well. Section 7 introduces the inflectional category of verbal mood as the filler of a sentential functional category M(ood)P on a par with AgrP and TenseP. In section 8, M(ood)P is assumed to be the highest left peripheral projection, and the interaction of verbal mood and syntactic movement processes is adressed. Section 9 relates syntactic movement to semantic interpretation and construes a unifying theory of the various components for the determination of sentence moods. The resulting semantic objects are equipped with relevant properties for the determination of the illocutionary force of the clause.

2. The inflectional system of the verbal paradigm Table 1 shows the 24 forms of the verbal paradigm. With respect to the distinction between weak and strong verbs, we get an exhaustive list of non-periphrastic German verb forms. The starting point of our analysis of the inflectional regularities will be an observation relating to the surface of these forms. The German inflectional system has at its disposal 5 linguistic devices to build finite verb forms: (1)

-n,-3,-t,-s and umlaut/ablaut

However, the distribution of these elements is not homogeneous in so far as overcase only marks some forms of strong verbs, and in what follows we shall not give a detailed account of it.1

Inflectional morphology and sentence mood in German

237

Table 1: The verbal paradigm of German ind pres (weak)

ind pres (strong)

sub pres (weak)

sub pres (strong)

lach - 3 lach - s -t

geb - 3 gib - s -t

lach - 3

geb - 3

lach -3 - s -t

geb -3

lach -1

gib -1

lach - 3

geb - 3

lach - a - η lach — t

geb -3 geb-t

lach - 3- n

geb

lach -3

-t

geb - 3 - t

-3-n

geb - a - η

lach - 3 - η

geb

-n -3-n

lach -1 - 3

ind past (strong) gab

lach-t-

gab -s

ind past (weak)

-t

lach

- s-t -3- η

sub past (weak)

sub past (strong)

lach — t — 3

gab - 3

lach - t - d - s - t

gab -3

lach -1 - 3

gab

lach - t - 3

gab - 3

lach -1 -3 - η

lach - t -3 - η

gäb -3

lach -1 — 3 — t

gab - 3- n gab -1

lach — t — 3 — t

gäb - 3 - t

lach -1 - 3 - η

gab

lach

gäb

d-s-t

-3-n

-t-3-η

- s-t -η -3- η

With respect to the distribution of the units -n, -3, -t and -s the morphological system falls into two classes: (2)

a.

b.

-n and -s are units with unambiguous functions: wherever we find the - s , the second person singular is marked. And whenever we want to mark the second person singular, we have to use this -s. Analogously, -n marks the plural forms of the first and third persons plural, and vice versa we have to choose an -n to mark these categories, The behavior of -t and -3 is less consistent, -t always marks the second person consistently. It also seems to be a sign to mark the third person singular; but this is only the case in the form of the indicative present. Moreover, -t also marks all indicative and subjunctive forms of the preterite of weak verbs.

238

Horst Lohnstein and Ursula Bredel -3 seems to be a marker for the first person singular. But within the forms of the indicative preterite of strong verbs, it does not do its job (gab/*gäbe). In addition, -a also marks all present and indicative forms of the subjunctive of both weak and strong verbs.

The first conclusion to be drawn from this observation might be the following: -s and -n are signs that mark person/number categories uniformly, -a and -t can mark person/number categories but they do not have to do so. Furthermore, -t also marks tense (preterite) and -a also marks mood (subjunctive). This unorthodox distribution of -t and -a leads us to an unorthodox morphological reconstruction of the German verbal paradigm.

3. stem - base - word form In the linguistic literature there is no consensus as to how to decompose complex verb forms. Some linguists plead for the concepts root and stem (cf. Richter 1982). The root of a verb is an underlying invariant morpheme with a specific lexical meaning. Because of the invariance of the consonants within a root, Richter (1982:180) defines the root as a „consonantic framework" („Konsonantengerüst") of a verb. By contrast, a stem is defined as a combination of the root and some other morphological material. According to this definition, weak verbs have one root (for example, lach) and two stems (lach- for the present tense, lacht- for the past tense); strong verbs have more than one root and the same number of stems. The verb werfen, for example, has at least four roots (werf, würf, warf, wirf); these roots are the source for the stems (werf-, würf-, warf-, wirf-), which are used to build person/number categories. Another proposal is made by Eisenberg (1998), who, refraining from using the concept of a root, defines the stem as the smallest common morphological unit of a lexeme. The phonological variations of the stem of a strong verb are defined as allomorphs of a stem or as stem forms. A stem is then defined as a set of stem forms. From this point of view, a verb does not have a root; it has at least one stem form (all weak verbs; for example lach) and at most five stem forms (werf, wirf, würf, warf, worf). Whereas in Richter's proposal the -t of the past tense forms is part of the stem, Eisenberg opts for a concept where -t is a morpheme linked to the

Inflectional morphology and sentence mood in German

239

stem. In the following, we use Eisenberg's stem concept. In addition to this, we use two other concepts: base and word form. The base is defined by Neef (1996:46) as a morphological unit constituting grammatical categories which structure a grammatically specified paradigm. For example, the base for all person/number categories of the indicative preterite of the weak verb lachen is lacht-·, the base for all person/number categories of the subjunctive preterite of the strong verb werfen is wiirf-. The term word form is defined as a morphological unit which holds all possible information a word can bind morphologically. The relation between stem, base, and word form is conceptualized as a relation of successive incorporation: word form

stem form [[[komm] [[[lach]

tense/mood 3] t]

pers/num si] (2. ps. sg. subj. present) (s)t] (2. pers. pi. ind. preterite)

Figure 1: word form and base configuration With respect to the concepts of stem, base, and word form, the two verbal paradigm can be represented as follows (a is element of {+, - }): Table 2: The structure of weak verbs weak verbs: Ind pres [[[stem form]ba] Ind pres [[[stem formjba] Ind past [[[stem form+ t + (s)]ba] subj past [[[stem form +1 + a]ba]

{aa/st/t} {a st} {a st} {a st}

{-a {-a {-a {-a

pl-morpheme}]Wf pl-morpheme}]Wf pl-morpheme}] w r pl-morpheme}]Wf

240

Horst Lohnstein and Ursula Bredel

Table 3: The structure of strong verbs strong verbs ind pres [[[stem formpres]ba] ind pres

[[[stem formpres + a]ba] [[[stem formpast]ba]

ind past subj past [[[(umi)Stem form m + a y

4.

{aa/st/t} {a st}

{ - a pl-morpheme}] W f 3

( a st} {ast}

{ - a pl-morpheme }]Wf { - a pl-morpheme }]Wf4

{ - a pl-morpheme}]Wf

The morphological status of -t and -a

As shown above, we look upon the -t of the preterite and the -t of the third person singular as morphemes. Also, we characterize the -a of the subjunctive as well as the -a of the first person singular as morphemes, as Eisenberg (1997) and Redder (1992), for example, do. In doing so, we argue against recent positions that opt for defining the -a of the subjunctive as a prosodic feature (Neef 1996, R. Wiese 1996, Wunderlich/Fabri 1995). On this morphological concept, we interpret the distribution of the morphemes -t and -a described above as a difference of binding structures: If -a/-t indicate person/number, they are linked to the base. Together with the base they build the word form. We then speak of word-formconfiguration of -a/-t. If -a/-t indicate mood/tense, they are linked to the stem. Together with the stem they build the base. We then argue that -a/-t are base-configurated units. The corresponding binding structure may be called baseconfiguration. The advantage of this analysis is at least the following: the seemingly unhomogeneous behaviour of -t/-a can be reanalyzed systematically as a difference between binding structures. Thus, the phonological identity of all -a/-t-occurrences in the verbal paradigm can be treated uniformly. In chapter 6, we will also argue that the meaning of -t and -a is consistent in all cases and that the different interpretations of -a/-t are the result of different binding structures and not of the morphological units themselves. As regards the categorizations tense and mood, the conceptualization of the morphological relations mentioned above leads to the generalization in Figure 2, where w means word-form-configuration and b means baseconfiguration.

Inflectional morphology and sentence mood in German

ind pres

sub pres

-t w , -9W

Ή -3b

241

imp sg ind pret

sub pret

-tb, *-3

"tb, "3b

Figure 2: The distribution of -3 and -t in the verbal paradigm Figure 2 suggests that -t and -3 are distributed as being complementary to the mood/tense categories. However, when taking into account the empirical forms shown in Table 1, we see that there is a serious problem with the conceptualization of the ind pret. As far as Figure 2 is concerned, we assume that the -3 in the forms of the ind pret is not an inflectional morpheme. But Table 1 shows that weak verbs provide the -3 in all forms of the ind pret. The assumption that -3 in the forms of the ind pret is not an inflectional morpheme but a prosodic feature is based on at least the following consideration: if -9 were really an inflectional morpheme that marks ind pret, it would have to occur in all forms of the ind pret. But, as we have shown, this is not the case with the forms of strong verbs, where -3 does not appear. We therefore interpret -a of the ind pret of weak verbs as a prosodic feature which marks the distinction between the ind pres and the ind pret of the third person singular: Without the occurrence of -3, the forms of ind pres and ind pret would have identical phonological/graphemic representations ((3a)), despite the underlying structure being different, as is shown by (3b). (3)

a. b.

[V-t]

3. ps sg ind pres: [stem] ba + t]Wf 3. ps sg ind pret: [stem + t]b a ] W f

Because ind pret and ind pres share the same contexts, they need to be distinguished in some way. That is why pret adds a schwa-syllable. The plural forms of ind pret take the schwa-syllable because of their specific prosodic structure (Hachtt, Hachtn). With the schwa-syllable of the third person singular, the paradigm becomes unbalanced: there are four forms with

242

Horst Lohnstein and Ursula Bredel

schwa (third person singular and all plural forms) and two forms without (first and second person singular). The result is what Eisenberg (1997, 1998:180) calls the balance of the paradigm (paradigmatischer Ausgleich). All forms of the indpret paradigm of weak verbs insert -a.

5.

Tense and mood

Traditional analyses tend to interpret tense and mood by isolating these categorizations from each other. They start with the definition of form and function of present and preterite on the one hand, and indicative and subjunctive on the other. The function of the indicative preterite is then defined as a form marking the past. The indicative present is defined as a form which marks the present. The morphological marker of the pres/pret-distinction is -t. Thus, the -t of the ind pret gets the functional interpretation past. A serious problem arises in defining the function of the subjunctive. Although the form of the subj pret entails -t, the whole form cannot be interpreted as a form of the past. The events expressed by means of the subj pret are localized in a virtual present. As far as we know, this observation has nowhere led to reinterpreting the ind pret as past. Instead, most linguists assume that the paradigms of ind and subj are quite different with respect to their meanings. Due to this analysis, the verbal paradigm is split,5 which prevents the morphological structure of tense and mood from being viewed as strictly compositional. 6 The problem described here can be solved by means of a uniform interpretation of the morphological units involved in the formal configuration of tense and mood categories as well as the formal configuration of specific person/number categories. This is achieved by means of a uniform interpretation of -3 and -t. In the following section, we will show that tense and mood are structured compositionally not only with respect to their morphology, but also with respect to their meaning. The syntactic effects of these meanings will be discussed in section 7.

6. The interpretation of -3 and -t Let us now look more closely at the semantic characteristics displayed by the various markers. In order to reconstruct a unique interpretation for -a

Inflectional morphology and sentence mood in German

243

and -t, respectively, which is abstract enough to cover their various uses, we will pursue the minimal assumption that their core meaning, though always invariant, is relativized with respect to different domains of evaluation. We therefore first want to discuss the concept of deixis along with the various dimensions of deictic interpretation. This concept, originally proposed by Bühler (1934), differentiates several dimensions with respect to which an utterance is interpreted in its context of use, comprising, especially, the speaker, the time, and the place of speech. These dimensions can be related to coordinates meeting in one point, the origo, which is determined by the value me for the speaker coordinate, the value now for the time coordinate, and the value here for the place coordinate. This is Bühler's original concept of the me-here-now origo. Since the place coordinate is rather irrelevant for the verbal inflectional system in German, we omit it here, but we add a world-coordinate in order to capture differences in modal interpretation that are introduced by the various verbal moods in German. 7 We thus achieve a three-dimensional system of deictic organization, see Figure 3, according to which - we propose- the verbal inflectional elements are to be interpreted. world

Figure 3: The deictic system Our main assumption now is that -Θ and -t are inflectional elements which, respectively, express invariant relations on the various deictic dimensions. For -θ, we assume that it expresses the part-of relation holding between the reference of some verbal expression (to be determined in due course) and the origo-position. The -t-marker, on the other hand, operates in just the opposite way in that it shifts the reference of some verbal expression from the origo-position to some other position on one of the deictic coordinates. Now recall the two types of morphological binding, namely wordform and base, used in the purely formal analysis of the inflectional system in

244

Horst Lohnstein and Ursula Bredel

Figure 2. What we now want to propose is that the linking of the -a/-tmarkers to the base makes them operate on the proposition, whereas linking them to the word form makes them operate on the predication structure. This leads to the following functional characterizations of -θ and - t with respect to the deictic dimensions on the one hand and the base- versus wordform-configuration on the other. (4)

The interpretation of the markers a. -Θ: person: The denotation of the predicate is part of the element on the person coordinate in the origo-position (the speaker). time: The evaluation time of the proposition is part of the time coordinate in the origo-position (now). world: The evaluation world of the proposition is part of the world coordinate in the origo-position (the actual world). b. -t: person: The predication is expressed according to some individual/object different from the origo-position (not the speaker). time: The evaluation time of the proposition is different from the origo-time (not now). world: The evaluation world of the proposition is different from the origo-world (not the actual world).

The generalization, then, is that -θ uniquely marks membership in the origo-position, while -t uniquely marks distance from the origo-position. If we now relate these concepts to the classification in Figure 2, which captures the occurrence of -θ and -t with respect to the different verbal forms in German, we get the shifting effects in (5) for the t-marked categories.8 (5)

-t: a. b. c. d.

ind pres: personal shift: speaker —> other ind pret: temporal shift: to —»t' sub pres: *t —» no distance: no shift sub pret: modal shift: w0 —» w'

Inflectional morphology and sentence mood in German

245

The Θ-marked categories on the other hand yield the effects in (6): (6)

-s: a.

ind pres:

b. c.

ind pret: sub pres:

d.

sub pret:

the denotation of the predicate is a property of the speaker: |[VP]| e |[sp]| *θ —> no part of relation the proposition ρ is part of the actual world: w0 e ρ the proposition ρ is part of a modally shifted world w': w ' e ρ

The form ind pres linked to the word form marks the speaker if realized as Θ and marks some other individual object if realized as -t. In both cases it is only relevant for the predication structure. The other forms which are linked to the base, i. e., ind pret, sub pres, and sub pret are relevant for the temporal and modal interpretation of the proposition. (5b) and (5c), on the one hand, and (6b) and (6c), on the other, show that -θ and -t appear in complementary distribution with regard to their proposition-marking properties, discriminating ind pret and sub pres. As (5d) and (6d) show, the two markers appear together, requiring that the part o/-relation and the distance relation be realized simultaneously in the case of the sub pret. This leads to an apparent inconsistency having to do with the fact that the simultaneous realization of the part of- and the distance-relation does not seem to be conceptually plausible. How is this to be resolved? Consider one reading of unembedded clauses in German marked with sub pret. (7)

Peter wäre in Paris. 'Peter would be in Paris'

(7) is true in the actual world Wo if there are some conditions which are not fulfilled in w0 but in some other world w' and if the indicative clause Peter is in Paris is true in w'. In order to properly conceptualize w', it has to be strongly similar to w0 with the exception of the set of conditions mentioned. So, there has to be a strong similarity between w0 and w', expressed by -θ, and there has to be some difference, expressed by -t. Let us call this notion modal shift under minimal distance, which is proposed in Lohnstein (2000) to capture the intuition that unembedded clauses

246

Horst Lohnstein and Ursula Bredel

marked with sub pret are evaluated with respect to worlds which are for the most part identical to the actual world (specified by -θ-marking), but have to be somewhat different from it (specified by -t-marking). On this account, the difficulties with the simultaneous occurrence of -θ and -t in the subj pret-ioim disappear, leading to a coherent picture for the interpretation. Next, consider the observation that clauses marked with sub pres behave on a par with imperative clauses in so far as they neither allow for question formation nor for assertions. (8)

a. b. c.

er steige auf die Leiter? who climb- (sub pres) on the ladder? *Steige Peter auf die Leiter? climb- (sub pres) Peter on the ladder? Petersteige auf die Leiter. Peter climb- (sub pres) on the ladder. (*Nein, das ist nicht wahr.) (*No, that isn't true.)

These options seem to be available for clauses marked with ind pres/pret and sub pret only. (9)

Wer steigt/stieg/steige auf die Leiter? Who climb-ind pres/ind-pret/sub pret the ladder Who climbs/climbed/would climb the ladder?

In order to derive these different properties of main clauses, we can assume that the verbal moods determine a relation between the actual world and some other worlds with respect to which the proposition expressed becomes evaluated. In Lohnstein (2000:41), a distinction is drawn between an epistemic and a factive domain.9 These two domains are related to each other by the notion of actualizability. The epistemic domain is given by all propositions which denote knowable situations, events or states. Therefore, these situations must be situated in the temporal interval which encloses the past up to the present. They can never be situated in the future and they can never become topical. The factive domain, on the other hand, contains all propositions which describe situations, events, or states which are facts or will become facts in the ongoing course of events. These situations are never in the past, because events from the past can never be made topical (again). The factive

Inflectional morphology and sentence mood in German

247

domain, therefore, contains all propositions which describe present and future facts. Since facts do not allow for a distinction according to truth and falsity, it now follows that propositions that are evaluated with respect to the factive domain do not allow for questions or assertions. These options are available only if the respective propositions become evaluated on the epistemic domain. Between the two domains there is an overlapping area, which Lohnstein (2000) called the realistic domain. This domain contains the known facts. The intuitions about these domains are expressible by the partition of the set of possible worlds into the following three classes. realistic

epistemic

factive

Figure 4: The domains with respect to which propositions become evaluated Notice that this classification, though inducing a partition by modal notions only, also contains temporal distinctions. The epistemic domain is given by the intersection of all propositions describing epistemic content. The factive domain is given by the intersection of all propositions describing facts which are the case and which will be the case in the further course of events. 10 The realistic domain contains all worlds which are compatible with the known facts. The distinction between the two domains enables us to pick up the criterion of the direction of fit between words and world, introduced by Searle (1975) in order to discriminate classes of speech acts. Propositions evaluated with respect to the factive domain have a world-to-word direction of fit, while propositions evaluated with respect to the epistemic domain have word-to-world direction of fit. Quite crucially, this distinction is reflected in the morphological system of verbal inflection, rather than in a system necessary for pragmatic reconstruction. Relating these considerations to the categories of the verbal inflectional system in German, as in Figure 2, yields the following generalizations:

248 (10)

Horst Lohnstein and Ursula Bredel a.

b.

Propositions marked with ind pres, ind pret, and sub pret allow for questions and assertions, because they are evaluated with respect to the epistemic domain, Propositions marked with sub pres and imperative do not allow for these options, because they are evaluated with respect to the factive domain.

Needless to say, only epistemic content can be true or false and therefore assertable or questionable. Facts, on the other hand, do not have these properties, precisely because they are facts. The reason why sentences with special verbal mood markers are evaluable with respect to truth or falsity while others are not can now be related to properties of elements from the inflectional system. Furthermore, from the assumption that imperatives are evaluated with respect to the factive domain, it follows that they are always interpreted with a progressive aspect.11 For sub pres used in main clauses, the interpretation as fact introducing devices follows immediately.

7. Verbal mood as a functional category As has become clear from the foregoing sections, verbal mood influences sentence mood in crucial respects and interacts in systematic ways with principles of sentence formation. In particular, verbal mood allows for or prohibits the formation of questions, declaratives, imperatives. Therefore, what is needed is a theory which brings together the various subcomponents necessary for the constitution of sentence mood in a uniform way and which derives the semantic effects in a compositional fashion. Let us start with some considerations about functional categories. Since the very beginning of theorizing about functional categories, use has been made of the inflectional elements and their content in order to motivate their existence. With minor exceptions,12 little attention has been devoted to verbal mood with respect to its sentential relevance. Instead, since Chomsky (1986), a CP-structure was assumed to account for the properties of the left periphery of clauses in the world's languages. Especially in the case of the Germanic V2-languages, the positions provided by a projection of the functional category C were useful and necessary in explaining movement processes, providing as they did the landing sites for the finite verb and ±wh moved constituents. The two positions are established by the head and

Inflectional morphology and sentence mood in German

249

the specifier position of CP. But despite the feature [±wh], necessary to discriminate declaratives from questions, no further content was ascribed to the C° head position. On the basis of the [±wh]-feature, only two sentence types were distinguishable, but the others, like imperatives, exclamatives, or optatives, need different feature specifications. The assumption of a CP as the highest projection of the main clause is therefore mainly based on two factors: (11)

a. b.

the availability of two different landing sites for headmovement and Α-bar- movement the distinction between questions and declaratives

The intuitions about the compositional nature of a mood-proposition combination were largely ignored by the syntactic theorizing during the 80s and 90s. In recent developments (Rizzi 1997, Chomsky 1995, Cinque 1999) a ForceP is mentioned, which we assume is intended to capture the rather long-standing insights from semantics into the need for establishing a relationship between a mood component and finitely marked propositions, as shown in Figure 5.13 sentence

Γ mood Ί {attitude J

proposition

Figure 5: The combination of mood (attitude)14 with the proposition Given the need of combining the verbal with the sentential mood, let us now assume that the verbal mood constitutes a functional category - along with Agr and Tense - which establishes the highest projection of the main clause. What was referred to a moment ago as a ForceP turns out to be a mood phrase MP, at least as far as the Germanic languages are concerned. 15 For German (and the other V2-languages as well), it is widely taken for granted that the two left-peripheral positions of main clauses become filled by two derivational processes moving the finite verb to M° (the former C°position) and some [±wh]-phrase into the specifier position SpM (the former SpC-position).

250

Horst Lohnstein and Ursula Bredel

The finite verb, therefore, targets M° by head movement (originally proposed by Travis (1984)), while the [±wh]-phrase targets the SpM- position by Α-bar movement, as shown in the diagram in Figure 6. MP M'

SpM M°

AgrP

head movement [±wh]-A-bar movement Figure 6: Mood phrase and landing sites The content of the functional category M° is provided by verbal inflectional morphology on a par with Tense and Agr. Under these assumptions, the need for a CP for main clauses disappears along with the discrepancies it raised. In order to derive the relevant mood effects, we have to look at the regular grammatical devices and their semantic contributions as well as their systematic interaction with the syntactic principles of structure building. The next step we have to take in constructing an inflection-based theory of sentence moods is to clarify how far the two movement types using M° and SpM as landing sites determine the properties of the various sentence moods.

8. The semantics of sentence mood Based on assumptions about the semantic structure of interrogatives proposed by Groenendijk/Stokhof (1982, 1984, 1996) and Higginbotham (1996), Lohnstein (2000, 2001) develops a compositional theory of sentence moods which makes crucial use of Frege's (1892) analyses of the judgement (German: Urteil). He distinguishes three acts being required to form an assertion or claim: first thinking, second judging, and third claim-

Inflectional morphology and sentence mood in German

251

ing. The result of the first act, thinking, is the thought (German: Gedanke), grammatically realizable as a y/n-Question.16 The thought, then, induces a bipartition of the set of possible worlds, because the proposition ρ expressing the thought divides the set of all possible worlds into two classes: one class of worlds in which the proposition is true, and the other class of worlds in which the proposition is false.We therefore achieve worlds at which ρ is true and worlds at which —ip is true and all worlds belong either to the first or the second class.The result of joining these two classes is the whole set of worlds and the intersection between the two classes is empty. This means that the whole set of worlds divides into a partition. Judging, Frege's second act, requires the acknowledgement of the truth of the thought. Technically speaking, judging means reducing a the bipartition induced by the thought to the class of those worlds at which the proposition is true. Claiming, the third act, anchors the object (reduced bipartition) in the context of discourse, thereby guaranteeing that the illocutionary force provided with this object can take effect. Lohnstein (2000, 2001) generalizes the interplay of the three acts distinguished by Frege to the main sentence moods: y/n-interrogative, whinterrogative, declarative, and imperative, thereby deriving appropriate semantic representations for the different moods in a compositional fashion. While declaratives are derived by reducing the bipartition, the semantic object denoted by a wh-question is derived by computing the closure under logical conjunction of the Cartesian product between the denotation of the wh-phrase and the bipartition indicated by the thought. In the case of a y/nquestion, the bipartition remains unmodified keeping the representation of the thought unchanged. It is important to note that these compositional processes work if and only if the verbal mood is ind preslpret or sub pret, that is, the class of moods inflectionally marked with -t. As mentioned in Figure 4, these verbal moods determine that the proposition is being evaluated with respect to the epistemic domain. Assertion and question formation is therefore possible only in epistemic contexts. This does not work if the verbal mood is imperative or sub pres, which determine the proposition to be evaluated on the factive domain (see again Figure 4), as the following examples from German suggest.

252

Horst Lohnstein and Ursula Bredel

(18)

Ind pres/sub pret a. Wem gibt/gäbe Maria ein Buch? Whom gives/would give Mary a book? b. Gibt/gäbe Maria ihrer Freundin ein Buch? Does/would Mary give her girl friend a book? c. Ein Buch gibt/gäbe Maria ihrer Freundin. A book gives/would give Mary her girl friend.

(19)

imp/sub pres a. *Wem gibt/gebe Maria ein Buch? *Whom gives/would give Mary a book? * deiner Freundin *your girlfriend b. Gib/Gebe Maria ein Buch? Give/give -subj I Mary a book? *Ja/Nein *yes/ no c. Deiner Freundin gib/gebe ein Buch. Your girlfriend give/give-subj I a book? *wahr/falsch *true/ false

The example in (19a) is ungrammatical because, as we have already seen, the [+wh]-phrase is incompatible with a proposition which is related to the factive domain. Fronting of the finite verb in (19b) does not lead to a y/n-question as in (18b). Again, this is because the factive domain does not allow for a bipartition at all.17 In (19c), no assertion derives by fronting a [-wh]-phrase as opposed to (18c). Again, the reason is that there is no partitioning possible on the factive domain. Although the construction is well-formed, no effects concerning the sentence mood show up. Summing up the discussion so far, we have seen that propositions marked with ind pres/pret or sub pret can combine with a [+wh]-phrase to form a wh-question. The semantic composition thereby leads to a Boolean lattice representing the meaning of the wh-question. By the same operations, the assertion is derived by substituting the [+wh]-phrase with the [wh]-phrase. Therefore, the only difference between these two kinds of sentence formation rests on differences in the [±wh]-specification of the participating phrases, reducing the differences between these two sentence

Inflectional morphology and sentence mood in German

253

moods to properties of the participating lexical items. Y/n-questions are formed from the propositionally induced bipartition without the need of any further lexical material. Turning to propositions marked with imperative or sub pres, we see that these combinations fail to supply any of the above-mentioned effects. The explanation is quite simple: it follows from the fact that only epistemic content can be true or false and therefore allow for a bipartition of the set of indices. Since this does not hold for the factive domain, no bipartition is possible. It follows that question formation with propositions from the factive domain is generally impossible, and that assertive clauses cannot be formed because there is no partition to reduce. Note that in all these constructions, the possibility of forming declarative or interrogative objects is blocked for the same reason.

9. On the interaction of inflectional morphology and syntactic heads Bringing together the contents and properties of the functional category (verbal) mood, assumed to be the highest projection of Germanic root clauses, we can derive essential properties of the illocutionary force of sentences in terms of sentence mood constitution. Note that ForceP (mentioned by Chomsky 1995, Rizzi 1997) is a projection introduced to contain exactly these properties. Therefore, the notions MP and ForceP are different names for the same concept. Concentrating on independent root clauses for the moment, the following general picture emerges as regards the distribution of lexical and phrasal elements in the left periphery of German clauses according to effects on the sentence mood constitution. The SpM position (the former SpCP position) can be occupied by a [+wh]-phrase, a [-wh]-phrase, or remain empty. These kinds of occupation are possible for all verbal moods except imperatives that do not allow for a [+wh]-phrase in the SpM-position. It is obvious that only lexical or phrasal material in the SpM position is relevant for the determination of the resulting sentence mood in combination with the (temporally specified) proposition represented here as an AgrP.

254

Horst Lohnstein and Ursula Bredel MP

SpM

M'

Μ

Wenii gibt/gäbej 0 gibt/gäbej ind pres/pret -< Ihrer gibt/gäbe sub pret Freundin;

0

imp sub pres

-

^VP^

ZP, [e]

VP DP

V'

I

John V

CP

I

/

say C

TP2

that Ref-t2 controlled ~>

PRO; T2

T2'

I

ZP

^

PAST OPj

Z' Ζ

Bill hit the ball This reading can be achieved in the way sketched above. The relativeclause remains attached in situ to the object noun phrase. In this case, RRO in the specifier of the relative, i.e., embedded, TP looks for the closest binder, which is the event time of the matrix verb 'gave'. The other reading, which is as easily available, is the independent one (maybe even the only one) that identifies the boy as someone who hit the ball sometime in the past, but not necessarily before the giving event. Thus,

332

Andre Meinunger

John may have given the book to the boy five months ago, who hit the ball a second before the speaker utters the sentence. For this reading, Stowell assumes relative clause attachment. The relative clause adjoins above TP of the matrix clause. This way PRO cannot be bound by any linguistic antecedent, but is identified arbitrarily as in independent clauses by the utterance time (PROarb), just shifting the giving event before the time point the sentence is being uttered. (66)

[CPI UT=RefTl=PRO a r b ...[Tl°=past [ETI [Peter gave the book to [the boy [ P 2 b a s e _ p o s i t i o n ] ] ] ] ] [cP2after_raising RefT2=PRO,Ref T1=UT T2°=pres [ET2 hit the ball]]] (UT=utterance time, ET=event t., ReftT=reference t.) C

This is the idea that I will exploit for embedded sentences in general. The claim will be that under certain circumstances (see below and above) embedded sentences can and do leave their base position and attach very high in the structure; so high that the interpretation of variables and open expressions depends on the context rather than on c-commanding expressions. The consequence is that the formerly embedded sentence acts as if it is a matrix clause. Thus, instead of following Stowell in his sophisticated, but over-complicated treatment of sequence-of-tense phenomena with embedded stative propositions, my claim for the temporal interpretation of a complex sentence containing a present tense verb under a past tensed matrix clause like (67) is simply as in (68). (67)

John said that Bill is sick.

(68)

[

(double access reading)

=

UT [[John [ PRO 1 arb said t ]] [that Bill PR02 a r b is sick]]].

The so-called double access reading (Εης 1987) emerges through complement clause attachment to a very high position in the matrix. The temporal anchoring of the embedded predicate (be sick) is evaluated twice: First in the base position. Here the embedded PRO gets bound by the event time of the matrix predicate 'said'. In this way, Bill's sickness is shifted into the past. After complement clause raising, the formerly embedded sentence is outside the scope of the matrix TP. Now the reference time of the sentence [that Bill is sick] is the utterance time. Second, after raising, the complement clause behaves as if it were an independent matrix sentence. Such an analysis of 'present under past' seems to be a straightforward treatment of the phenomenon. It captures the facts very elegantly such that in some

Verb position, verbal mood and the anchoring of sentences

333

sense Abusch's (1997) de-re interpretation of embedded present tensed clauses is implemented in a very simple manner.

6.

The anchoring potential of propositions

Now let us turn to the work of Farkas (1992, 1997). Among the majority of linguists, it is assumed that a (matrix) clause can be split into a radical, i.e., propositional content, on the one hand, and an illocution on the other. Farkas (1992) argues that propositions are anchored to worlds and those in turn are anchored to individuals. This idea is revived in her work on the interpretation of indefinites (1997). (69)

[John believes [that [a friend of mine],,,/ is a crook],,,/ ]w0 (narrow scope)

(70)

[John believes [that [a friend of mine]wo is a crook],,./ ]w0 (wide scope)

In (69), the indefinite is trapped in its base position. It is to be interpreted within the belief world of John's, represented by the indexed binding wj . This gives the narrow scope reading. In (70), on the other hand, the indefinite is bound from outside. It is linked to the actual world w0, hence to the speaker. The same can be done with propositions. (71)

[John believes [that Mary is sick],,,/ ]„,0

Under this indexing, Mary's sickness is just a part of John's belief-world. Analogously, one could choose to put the wo index to link the proposition to the actual world and to the speaker. This is basically what I would like to suggest. The only thing that comes in addition to the indexing is movement. This, however, is a minor difference - as in the case of indefinites. The proposal is thus the following: matrix sentences are an illocutionproposition complex. The illocutionary force is considered to be an integral part of the linguistic structure. Semantically, I will assume an approach that makes use of illocutionary operators, as developed in Jacobs (1984), according to which these operators take structured propositions as their complements. Syntactically, I will assume that these illocutionary operators are the highest elements in the tree of a sentence, a position from which they ccommand and take scope over the proposition(al content).

334

Andre Meinunger

Two additional assumptions will appear in my analysis. The first is (something like) Green's ban on embedded illocution.11 (72)

Green's Embedded Force Exclusion: If φ is either a part of speech or a sentence, and φ contains some indicator / o f illocutionary force, then φ does not embed.

The second assumption is that in German, the ASSERT operator, takes an ordinary indicative V2 clause (compare all this to a very similar treatment with respect to a mood phrase (MP) as the highest functional layer responsible for verb second in Lohnstein (2000, 2001), see also the contributions by Bayer, Brandner and Lohnstein/Bredel in this volume). Together, these assumptions lead to the claim that in a complex sentence with an embedded V2 clause, this embedded clause undergoes movement from its base position to one in which it finds itself in the immediate scope of the illocutionary operator. In this way, a sentence like (73) can be analyzed as in (74): (73)

Hans meint, Petra ist schwanger. Hans claims/believes, Petra is pregnant 'Hans claims/believes that Petra is pregnant.'

(74)

SpeechActP (SAP) SAP' SAP°= ASS

CP

C

Hansh

Petra

meint;

IP

C

ist

IP

th V' schwanger [CP tk]wHans

tj

Verb position, verbal mood and the anchoring of sentences

335

The tree expresses a double-access reading with respect to the worlds to which the proposition 'Petra ist schwanger' (Petra is pregnant) is evaluated. Accordingly, the proposition holds (i) with respect to Hans's beliefworld, and (ii) as a speaker assertion. (74) is thus a formal implementation of Hooper and Thompson's claim about double assertion (see below). The two assertions are, respectively, those associated with the main clause 'Hans meint _', which we might take to be degraded to an evidential parenthetical, and 'Petra ist schwanger', which is turned into the basic statement that the speaker makes. Such an operation is impossible with volitional predicates and so-called 'Präferenzprädikate', neither of which can embed a potential assertion. These predicates explicitly refer to (sets of) bouletic worlds different from the actual world of speaker and hearer. No assertion is made either when true factives are used or when the propositional content of the embedded predicate is negated or under discussion (as the topic of the discourse). In these cases, the embedded proposition cannot be used to make a felicitous assertion. The truth of the propositions under discussion are presupposed and hence cannot become the argument of an ASSERT, operator. Sentences like (73), however, are still ambiguous. They do not obligatorily give rise to the double-assertion reading, since one can also interpret them as (75), (see v. Stechow (this volume and previous work) for a very sophisticated and carefully elaborated analysis) (75)

Hans meint, Petra sei / wäre schwanger. Hans claims/believes, Petra is-subj/conj pregnant (?)'Hans claims/believes that Petra is pregnant.'

Here, the use of conjunctive/subjunctive triggers a reading where the speaker wants to give to the embedded proposition a flavor of unlikelihood. In this interpretation, complement clause raising is prohibited. The claim here, then, is that sentences like (73) are ambiguous because of what appears to be a potential 'subjunctive in disguise'. In cases where a transformation, i.e., rephrasing, like the one from (73) into (75) is possible, double assertion is not obligatory. There are cases, however, where the assertion of the embedded proposition does appear to be obligatory. This is the case with matrix verbs of the semi-factive type. These verbs do not (easily) allow for subjunctive/conjunctive in their complements; (78) shows that a non-indicative form leads to ungrammaticality. The same is true with performative verbs of saying: in a sentence with a verb in 1st. person singular, present tense, a

336

Andre

Meinunger

non-indicative form is impossible.12 Here it is very obvious that the speaker is asserting the subordinate clause. In these cases, then, complement clause raising in the sense of (74) is obligatory. The embedded sentences are (also) speaker assertions (77)-(81). (76)

Hans meint, Petra wäre / sei schwanger. Hans think, Petra be-conj/subj pregnant. 'Hans claims/thinks that Petra is pregnant.'

(77)

Du weißt doch, die Gruberova hat die Mozart-Opern you know prt, the Gruberova has-ind the Mozart operas aufgegeben. given-up 'You know (pretty well) that the Gruberova gave up to sing in Mozart operas.'

(78)

*Du weißt doch, die Gruberova habe / hätte die Mozart-Opern you know prt, the Gruberova has-subj/conj the Mozart operas aufgegeben. given-up

(79)

Ich behaupte/denke, du bist zu schüchtern. I claim / think, you are-ind too shy. Ί claim / think you are too shy.'

(80)

*Ich behaupte/denke, du seist / wärst zu schüchtern. I claim / think, you are-subj/conj too shy.

(81)

Ich habe behauptet / dachte, du bist zu schüchtern. I have claimed / thought, you are too shy Ί claimed / thought you are / would be too shy.'

7.

Possible extensions

Such an approach might also be fruitfully re-imported back into the English tempus/modus syntax. As stated below, the possibility of present-tensed verbs under past matrix verbs seems to be describable in terms of complement-clause raising. This means that in a certain sense present under past can be interpreted as an indicator of a double assertion, i.e., an evaluation of the originally embedded sentence with respect to the speaker and the

Verb position, verbal mood and the anchoring of sentences

337

actual world. In this respect, the core idea of complement-clause raising is a syntactic implementation of Abusch's idea of the de re interpretation of embedded clauses (Abusch 1997). To push this line of inquiry further: past under past in sentences like (82) is not an instance of 'present in disguise', but of 'subjunctive in disguise'. (82)

Peter said he was happy.

(82) has a reading where the speaker has doubts about Peter's actual, i.e., present (and perhaps past), happiness. In this case, the German translation would be something like (83) or (84), which makes use of an irrealis form (see also v. Stechow this volume). (83)

Peter hat gesagt, er wäre / sei glücklich. Peter has said, he be-subj/ cond happy be-subj/cond

(84)

Peter hat gesagt, dass er glücklich sei / wäre. Peter has said, that he happy be-subj/cond

The conclusion is thus that past in English is not a true tense morpheme, which specifies a past time (a conclusion which Stowell reaches independently from a different angle), but rather a morpheme that expresses 'nonactualness', the concrete interpretation of which comes from the context. The subjunctive interpretation emerges in the c-command domain of a past evidential matrix, or interestingly under a c-commanding complementizer like 'if'. (85)

If I had more money, I would go to Milan.

The same holds for French: the French past tense behaves exactly like its English counterpart, showing the same sequence of tense effects as well as the same behavior under the complementizer 'si' (where (86) correponds to (82), (83) and (87) to (85)) (86)

Pierre a dit qu' il etait heureux. Pierre has said that'he was happy

(87)

Si j'avais plus d' argent, j' irais ä Milan. If I had more of money, I would-go to Milan.

German must use the conjunctive mood under complementizers like 'wenn' (if)·

(French)

338

Andre Meinunger

(88)

Wenn ich mehr Geld *hatte //'k hätte, würde ich ok If I more money *had-ind / have-cond, would I nach Mailand gehen. to Milan go

8.

Summary

German subordinate, (obligatorily) indicative V2 clauses are assertions. They are interpreted twice: (i) in their base position (to receive theta-roles, permit the licensing of binding relations and anchoring to relevant individuals, being in the scope of a quasi-evidential etc.), and (ii) in a derived position in the immediate scope of the matrix assert operator, where they license their assertive illocutionary force.

Notes *

1. 2.

3.

4. 5.

I would like to thank Horst Lohnstein and Susanne Trissler for the opportunity to present the core ideas at their workshop 'Linke Satzperipherie' at the 2002 DGfS meeting in Mannheim and the audience there for helpful comments. I want to say thanks furthermore to Philippa Cook, who helped me with the English. All errors and shortcomings are mine. Again, many of the verbs of this class could also be grouped into other classes, especially those with a negative sem in their semantic representation. Witnessed in a 'Tatort' episode from March 24. 2002 by TV program ARD ('Zahltag'). The translation into English is difficult. The sentence expresses the speaker's outrage about the suspicion of the listener. It is to be understood as a command to the detective to give up the believe expressed in the proposition of the subordinate clause. Lists with verbs of all classes can be found in ordinary grammars. The examples are strikingly similar to their German counterparts, which are partly listed in Group (i) through (iv) on page 2 and in (19). For the discussion concerning optative, volitional predicates see Section 3. Or sometimes a superlative, in any case a non-positive degree of comparison. See, for example, Green's Embedded Force Exclusion below in (72), and also the discussion in Gärtner (2001, 2001a), who takes this issue very seriously and finally speaks of 'proto-force.'

Verb position, verbal mood and the anchoring of sentences

339

6.

Arguments that speak in favor of the assertive potential are refutability by negation in discourse, scope of question tags, interpretation of elliptical constructions and so on. 7. This line of reasoning is the same as in Wechsler (1991), who is concerned with V2 in Swedish. In his work, he argues for a very similar claim about the role of illocutionary force in general and assertion in the concrete case as the decisive factors for V2. 8. For negation, see the discussion in Butulussi (1991) referring to Givon (1979). For the factor of old and new information and the felicity conditions in discourse see Romberg (1999). 9. For Stowell, [e] under VP-internal ZP is co-indexed with an operator in upper Spec,ZP. This, however, complicates the matters and can be neglected here. 10. I myself do not believe in an ambiguity here. The interpretation of this sentence is rather underspecified and therefore vague. However, Stowell's treatment seems to be a fruitful one if carried over to the interpretation of some complement clauses and other problems. See below. 11. This is contra new proposals by Krifka (2001), where the embedding of speech acts and illocution plays a key role. See also Gärtner (2001, 2001a) for his arguments in favor of proto-assertion. 12. (80) vs. (79) shows that the ban on subjunctive holds only for present tense. If the matrix verb is in the past tense, the speaker may well diverge from his former beliefs, claims, opinions, and hence express his nonaccordance with the relevant proposition by choosing irrealis, nonindicative mood.

References Abusch, Dorit 1997 Sequence of tense and temporal de re. Linguistics and Philosophy 20: 1-50. Bayer, Josef 2004 Decomposing the left periphery: Dialectal and cross-linguistic evidence. This volume. Blümel, Rudolf 1914 Einfiihrung in die Syntax. Heidelberg: Winter. Brandner, Ellen 2004 Head-movement in minimalism and V/2 as FORCE-marking. This volume. Butulussi, Eleni 1991 Studien zur Valenz kognitiver Verben im Deutschen und Neugriechischen. Tübingen: Niemeyer.

340

Andre Meinunger

Dunbar, Ronald 1979 Discourse pragmatics and subordinate clause word order in German: An explanation of related main clause phenomena in German and English clauses. Ph. D. diss., University of WisconsinMadison, Ann Arbor. Emonds, Joseph 1969 Root and structure preserving transformations. Ph. D. diss., MIT: Cambridge, Mass. Εης, Mürvet 1987 Anchoring for tense. Linguistic Inquiry 18: 633-243. Farkas, Donka 1992 On the semantics of subjunctive complements. In Romance Languages and Modern Linguistic Theory, Paul Hirschbiihler, and Konrad Koerner (eds.), 69-104. Amsterdam: Benjamins. 1997 Evaluation indices and scope. In Ways of Scope Taking, Anna Szabolcsi (ed.), 183-215. Dordrecht: Kluwer. Gärtner, Hans Martin 2001 http://www2.hu-berlin.de/asg/blutner/dialog 2001a Are there V2 relative clauses in German? Journal of Comparative Germanic Linguistics 3: 97-141. Givon, Talmy 1979 On Understandig Grammar. New York: Academic Press. Green, Michelle S. 2000 Illocutionary force and semantic content. Linguistics and Philosophy 23: 435-473. Helbig Gerhard, and Fritz Kempter 1974 Die uneingeleiteten Nebensätze im Deutschen und ihre Vermittlung im Fremdsprachenunterricht. Deutsch als Fremdsprache 11: 75-86. Hooper, Joan, and Sandra Thompson 1973 On the applicability of root transformations. Linguistic Inquiry 4: 465-479. Jacobs, Joachim 1984 Funktionale Satzperspektive und Illokutionssemantik. Linguistische Berichte 91: 25-58. Karttunen, Lauri 1971 Implicative verbs. Language 47: 340-358. Kempchinsky, Paula 1987 The subjunctive disjoint reference effect. In Studies in Romance Languages, Carol Neidle, and Rafael A. Nunez-Cedeno (eds.), 123-140. Foris: Dordrecht.

Verb position, verbal mood and the anchoring of sentences

341

Kiparsky, Paul and Carol Kiparsky 1971 Fact. In Semantics, Danny Steinberg and Leon Jakobovitz (eds.), 345-369. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press Krifka, Manfred 2001 Quantifying into question acts. Natural Language Semantics 9: 1-40. Lohnstein, Horst 2000 Satzmodus - kompositioneil. Zur Parametrisierung der Modusphrase. Berlin: Akademie-Verlag. 2001 Sentence mood constitution and indefinite noun phrases. In Theoretical Linguistics 27.2/3. Special Issue "NP Interpretation and Information Structure", Klaus von Heusinger, and Kerstin Schwabe (eds.), 187-214. Quer, Josep 1998 Mood at the interface. LOT dissertation, Holland Academic Graphics. 2001 Interpreting mood. In Probus 13: Nb.l, 81-112. Reis, Marga. 1977 Präsuppositionen und Syntax. Tübingen: Niemeyer. 1997 Zum syntaktischen Status unselbständiger Verbzweit-Sätze. In Sprache im Fokus. Festschrift für Heinz Vater zum 65. Geburtstag, Christa Dürscheid, Karl-Heinz Ramers, and Monika Schwarz (eds.), 121-144. Tübingen: Niemeyer. Romberg, Jutta 1999 Verbzweitstellung in Komplementsätzen. Magisterarbeit: Manuscript, TU Berlin. Stechow, Arnim von 2004 Binding by verbs: tense, person and mood under attitudes. This Volume. Stowell, Tim 1993 Syntax of tense. Ms., University of California, Los Angeles. 1995 The phrase structure of tense. In Phrase structure and the Lexicon, Johan Rooryck and Laurie Zaring (eds.), 277-291. Dordrecht: Kluwer. Wechsler, Stephen 1991 Verb second and illocutinary force. In Views on Phrase Structure, Katherine Leffel, and Denis Bouchard (eds.), 177-191. Dordrecht: Kluwer.

Nonstandard wh-questions and alternative checkers in Pagotto Hans-Georg Obenauer

Abstract This paper investigates the structural and interpretive properties of nonstandard interrogatives ("special questions"), in the North-Eastern Italian dialect Pagotto. Contrary to many well studied languages, Pagotto has bare w/i-phrases of standard questions (StQs) "in situ" (more precisely, in noninitial position). Three types of nonstandard questions are identified, which on the contrary have initial bare w/z-phrases and are argued to activate higher layers of the left periphery: surprise questions, rhetorical questions, and Can't-findthe-value-of-x questions are derived by adding functional structure "on top o f ' the structure derived in StQs. I also analyze, in a microvariation perspective, the phenomenon of "alternative checkers" in the same constructions, that is grammaticalized lexical elements able to check the relevant high layers, under locality and economy. As a result, the nonstandard question types analyzed here do not correspond to noncanonical uses of standard questions. Rather, they represent full-fledged sentence types resorting to structural devices of UG encoding different interpretations in the left sentence periphery.

1. Introduction The variety and importance of the descriptive and theoretical questions raised by the syntax of interrogative w/z-constructions since the very beginnings of Generative Grammar has largely obscured the fact that besides interrogatives there exist other w/i-structures which, while often quite similar, nonetheless display distinct properties that call for investigation. In what follows, I want to consider some of these constructions; more pre-

344

Hans-Georg Obenauer

cisely, I will be concerned with what I will call "nonstandard" or "special" w/i-questions.1 Obviously, another reason for the fact that the existence of special questions has partly gone unnoticed is the absence, in many well-studied languages, of striking visible differences opposing them to standard questions. 2 The North-Eastern Italian dialect Pagotto, spoken in the Eastern Bellunese area of Northern Veneto, does exhibit such differences, and I will use them to demonstrate the existence of three different kinds of nonstandard w/z-questions. Among the reasons why such constructions are particularly interesting, I want to stress the following two: - first, I will argue that they involve layers of the left periphery different from the (Interrogative) Force layer activated by standard questions; their study, therefore, increases our knowledge of the structure and function of this outer domain of the sentence; - second, the very fact that the "special" questions examined here are structurally different from standard questions shows that it is not possible to view them as standard questions provided with a nonstandard interpretation under particular conditions determined by linguistic context and extralinguistic situation. While it is plausible that such conditions may affect the interpretation of standard questions in certain cases, the Pagotto data strongly suggest that more types of sentential force are structurally encoded than previously thought. This article, which is concerned with the syntax of nonstandard questions, is in different ways a first exploration of these constructions in Pagotto. That nonstandard questions have a syntax of their own is not an entirely new claim, though more systematic explorations of their particular properties are rare. In earlier work (Obenauer 1994: chap. III), I studied two of the three types of nonstandard questions examined here, rhetorical questions and what are called below "Can't-find-the-value" questions, across several languages and argued that they form a paradigm of properties (largely) shared, and which can be reduced to one. Within the "Principles and Parameters" framework (Chomsky 1981 and later, "preminimalist" work), this property appeared to be "obligatory early movement" of the w/i-phrase (as opposed, in particular, to LF movement), clearly visible in a language displaying, like French, the possibility of noninitial wh in standard questions. The present article is part of a larger attempt to show that it is interesting to reinterpret the paradigm of "obligatory early movement" to one and the same left peripheral specifier ("Spec,CP") in terms of raising of

Nonstandard wh-questions and alternative checkers in Pagotto

345

the w/i-phrase to individualized higher projections, belonging to what is called, after Rizzi (1997), Benincä (2000), Poletto (2000) and others, the "split CP field". For reasons of space, I limit myself to nonembedded questions. The article is organized as follows. Section 2 introduces the phenomenon of selective w/i-in-situ in Bellunese/Pagotto and summarizes the analysis proposed for it in Pollock, Munaro, and Poletto (2002). Sections 3-5 introduce three different types of nonstandard questions which can be identified in Pagotto and discuss the phenomenon of alternative checking for each construction. Section 6 examines the question of the derivational relations between standard and nonstandard questions. Section 7 concludes the article.

2. Apparent wÄ-in-situ in Bellunese: standard questions in Munaro, Poletto and Pollock's (2002) analysis3 In the Northern Veneto dialects known as Bellunese, the wft-phrases of standard interrogatives do not have a uniform behavior. Nonbare whphrases move to sentence initial position, in a way similar to cases familiar from languages like English: (1)

Che libro a-tu ledest? what book have-you read 'What book did you read?' *A'-tu ledest che libro?

(2)

Quanti libri a-tu ledest? how many books have-you read 'How many books did you read?' *A'-tu ledest quanti libri?

Bare vv/z-phrases, on the contrary, appear in sentence-internal position; compare (3), (4): (3)

a.

b.

A-tu inconträ chi? have-you met who 'Who did you meet?' *Chi ä-tu inconträ?

346 (4)

Hans-Georg Obenauer a.

b.

Sie-o stadi ande? are-you been where 'Where have you been?' *Ande sie-o stadi?

This paradigm includes che 'what': (5)

a.

b.

A'-lo magnäche? has-he eaten hat' 'What did he eat?' *Che a-lo magna?

The w/i-phrase cossa 'what' alternates, in Bellunese, freely with che, but behaves as a nonbare element, a property explainable on diachronic grounds (see Munaro 1999: 25ff.): (6)

a. b.

Cossa a-lo magna? what has-he eaten *A '-lo magna cossa ?

Abstracting away from certain (apparently) slightly more complex cases, standard interrogatives in Bellunese distribute their bare versus nonbare w/j-phrases in opposite ways; bare w/z-phrases appear, strikingly, in sentence internal position - "in-situ". Munaro, Poletto, and Pollock (2002) analyze Bellunese w/i-in-situ structures as follows. First, they motivate - for Bellunese as for other Romance languages - a Rizzi-style highly articulated relevant left periphery, namely, (7) (= their (12)):* (7)

Int(errog.)ForceP > G(round)P > Op(erator)P > Top(ic)P > IP

Second, the authors note that Bellunese shares with many other Northern Italian dialects (NIDs) the property of having two sets of subject clitics, nonassertive clitics and assertive ones. Nonassertive clitics appear in YesNo questions and w/i-questions, in optative and counterfactual as well as in disjunctive constructions;5 they are morphologically distinct from assertive subject clitics and appear as enclitics on the verb (while assertive clitics are proclitics). Munaro et al. argue that Bellunese nonassertive clitics have the function of expressing the "force" or "type" of the proposition in which they occur. Third, according to the authors, the noninitial occurrence of bare w/z-ph rases in Bellunese follows from the derivation in (8).

Nonstandard wh-questions and alternative checkers in Pagotto (8)

347

A'-lo magna che? (=(5)) Input: [ip [infi° ä] magna che] a.

merge lo and license pro in SpecTop [TopP PRO [τορ° LO] [IP ä magna che]]]

b.

1° to Top° to satisfy the affixal nature of lo [TopP PRO [τορ° ÄJ +lo] [IP tj magna che]]]

c.

wh-movement to OpP [ 0 p p [che]i Op0 [ T o p p pro [τ ορ ° äj +lo] [i P tj magna tj]]]

d.

remnant IP to G(round), to check the G feature [GroundP tip tj magna ti] m G° [ 0 p p [che]i Op° ] [ T o p P pro [τορ° äj +lo] t m ]]

e.

Ά+ΙΟ

to IntForce 0 to check IntForce

[intForce0 [lntF° äj+lo] k [ G p [IP tj magna ti] m G° [ 0 p p [che]j Op° [TopP pro [τορ° tk] tm ]]] (see Munaro, Poletto and Pollock's (37)) In this view, the bare w/i-phrase does not remain unmoved, but it moves only once - to Spec,OpP -, followed by Remnant IP movement, while its sentence initial counterpart in French moves twice (i.e., again after remnant movement of IP). The reason is that the Bellunese nonassertive subject clitic, generated in Top°, attracts its verb host and raises to IntForce 0 , whose IntForce feature it checks, typing the sentence as an interrogative. Consequently, further movement of the wh-phrase is not needed, and for economy reasons (Chomsky 1995) not possible. The obligatory sentence internal occurrence of bare w/z-phrases6 is thus directly related to the role played by the nonassertive clitic. Given that the existence of the two sets of clitics is a pervasive phenomenon in the NIDs, it comes as a surprise that only few of these dialects display the (apparent) w/i-in-situ. The authors, noting the point, answer it in line with the logic of their approach: the existence of a distinct set of nonassertive clitics in a dialect does not, as such, imply that they are able to type a sentence as an interrogative. Comparing Bellunese subject clitics with those of NIDs exhibiting sentence initial bare w/i-phrases, they isolate important differences between the former and the latter; they show that the two types of nonassertive clitics differ in distribution in ways which are very plausibly tied

348

Hans-Georg Obenauer

to their (in)ability to act as Force checkers. I refer the reader to the article for details on this question and others. The functioning of nonassertive subject clitics raises the question whether this "alternative checking", as we may call it, is an isolated fact, or just one particular case of a more general phenomenon. Are there other cases where movement of a w/i-phrase is unnecessary because of "alternative checking" by a different element? I will try to answer this question, among others, building on Munaro et alii's analysis and turn now to nonstandard questions in Pagotto.

3. Surprise/disapproval questions 3.1. Justification of this sentence type The first type of "special question" I will consider is what I will call "surprise / disapproval questions", or, for the sake of brevity, "surprise questions". This type of question can be characterized intuitively by saying that it expresses the speaker's attitude towards the propositional content. In fact, the only such attitude ever expressed in questions - at least in Pagotto/Bellunese - seems to be surprise with a tendency to negative orientation (disapproval). The surprise question type is not usually recognized as a type in its own right - be it syntactically, semantically, or phonologically7 (contrary to the type "rhetorical question", for example, recognized more commonly8). Munaro and Obenauer (1999) argue explicitly that such a type exists in Pagotto/ Bellunese. The main focus of their paper being on the whword cossa 'what' and its counterparts in French and German, they illustrate the surprise type by structures like (9).9 (9)

Cossa se-tu drio magnar?! what are-cl behind eat (cf. (8) of Munaro and Obenauer (1999)) 'What on earth are you eating?!'

Contrary to Bellunese, Pagotto cannot use cossa in standard questions (this is the only difference between the two dialects which is relevant here). (9), as noted in Munaro and Obenauer (1999: 189) (henceforth, M&O), "can only be used to express the speaker's opinion that the person referred to (i.e., the subject of the sentence) is eating some strange and unexpected thing"; in other words, it expresses "the speaker's dismay or disapproval

Nonstandard wh-questions and alternative checkers in Pagotto

349

concerning what is being eaten". (9) contrasts with the also possible (10), which can only have a standard question interpretation. (10)

Se-tu dfio magnar che? are-cl behind eat what 'What are you eating?'

Che 'what' and cossa 'what', then, are in complementary distribution in Pagotto;10 as in Bellunese more generally, cossa appears exclusively in sentence initial position. Alongside its argumental usage in cases like (9), cossa is also used nonargumentally in surprise questions. The following two examples are drawn from M&O (see also Munaro 1999, 23); here, cossa has a meaning close to 'why', but the sentences are again interpreted as expressing the speaker's surprise or annoyance with respect to the event referred to:11 (11)

Cossa zighe-tu?! what shout-cl 'Why are you shouting?!'

(12)

a. b.

(cf. M&O's (13a))

?Cossa compre-tu n'altro giornal?! what buy cl another newspaper Cossa ocore-lo comprar/ che te-compre η 'altro what needs-cl buy / that cl-buy another giornal?! newspaper 'There is no need (for you) to buy another newspaper.' (cf. M&O's (14b, d))

(11) and (12) contrast with (13) and (14), where cossa is replaced by parche 'why'. (13)

Parche zighe-tu ? why shout-cl

(14)

a.

Parche compre-tu n'altro giornal? why buy cl another newspaper 'Why are you buying another newspaper?'

350

Hans-Georg Obenauer

b.

?Parche ocore-lo comprar/che te-compre n'altro why needs-cl buy / that cl-buy another giornal? newspaper 'Why is it necessary (for you) to buy another newspaper?'

In normal usage, parche has a neutral interpretation analogous to normal usage of why, though (just as in English), depending on context and intonation, the hearer may in particular cases understand that the speaker is surprised/angry. In the case of cossa as exemplified by (11)-(12), however, the surprise/disapproval interpretation is inseparable from the meaning 'why'. 12 Returning to argumental cossa, we have found that it "replaces" che in Pagotto surprise questions for reasons yet to be determined (see the text following example (24), below). As in Bellunese more generally, cossa appears in initial position, contrary to che (and other bare w/z-elements). For this reason, nothing more can be concluded - at least at first sight from the che - cossa contrast in (10) versus (9), (11), and (12); the position cossa occupies does not seem, at first sight, to be specifically related to the surprise interpretation. M&O (p. 217) suggest, however, that in view of recent work on the functional structure of the sentence, it is reasonable to assume that the position of cossa - both argumental and nonargumental - in the preceding examples cannot be the IntForce projection that plays a crucial role in standard (or "true") w/i-questions like those considered in section 2, above. A general working hypothesis that can be drawn from Rizzi (1997), Cinque (1999), and other work seems to be that interpretively relevant features are to be associated with individual functional heads/projections, and not "cumulated" on the same head / in the same projection. Given the clear semantic contrast between surprise questions and standard questions, M&O assume that cossa moves beyond Spec, IntForce to the specifier of a higher projection (itself located lower than the Spec that exclamative w/i-phrases raise to). I adopt this hypothesis of a higher landing site for the surprise whphrase cossa also for an additional reason. Indeed, Pagotto surprise (/disapproval) questions are not limited to structures containing cossa; beyond the cases examined by M&O, they can be "built around" other wh-words like chi, come, quando, ande, to limit myself to bare w/i-elements. Such examples provide clear evidence that Pagotto surprise questions differ structurally from standard questions; indeed, they require the bare w/i-phrase in sentence initial position in all

Nonstandard wh-questions and alternative checkers in Pagotto

351

cases, not only in the case of cossa. By way of consequence, the whphrases that can (and must) appear "in situ" in standard questions must raise to the left edge of the sentence; compare (15) versus (16) and (17) versus (18), with the surprise interpretation the intended one in all cases (as also indicated by the "?!" punctuation). (15)

(16)

Chi ä-tu invida?! whom have-cl invited 'Whom did you invite?!' ??A-tu invida chi?!

(17)

Ande sie-o 'ndadi?! where are-cl gone 'Where have-you gone?!'

(18)

??Sie-o 'ndadi ande?!

((16) and (18) would of course be well-formed standard questions). Concerning their interpretation, Munaro (1998a, b) considers sentences of this type as exclamatives of a particular kind. I want to reconsider this view, modifying it slightly. Consider Munaro's (1998) characterization of their meaning: in using such sentences, the speaker "expresses a sort of reproachful dismay" about the event described; more specifically, (15) expresses an attitude of surprise at the choice of the invited person (the implication may even be that the person in question should not have been invited); (17) conveys surprise at the place chosen as destination. The particular semantic/pragmatic value of sentences like (17) and (18), then, appears to be precisely the same as that of (9), (11), (12), the sentences containing argumental and nonargumental cossa - they all convey surprise (or disapproval).13 To this semantic parallelism should be added the parallelism in syntactic structure: the cossa-sentences share with (15) and (17) the sentence initial position of the wh-word as well as the inversion of the clitic subject. On the other hand, as noted by Munaro (1998a, b), there exist parallel exclamative structures without inversion, and containing the complementizer che (to be distinguished from the interrogative pronoun che) to the right of the w/i-phrase: (19)

Chi che te a invida! who that you have invited

352

Hans-Georg Obenauer

(20)

Ande che sie 'ndadi! where that have gone

Such examples are interpretively "neutral", in Munaro's terms, in the sense that they contain "no particular implication concerning the speaker's opinion about the event referred to, besides the fact that the event is worth pointing out". Again, there exist parallel exclamative examples with the vv/i-phrase cossa and the same "neutral" interpretation; see (21), which contrasts with (9) in that the speaker may as well have a positive as a negative opinion.14 (21)

Cossa che te se drio magnar! what that cl-are behind eat 'What you are eating!'

Munaro's careful characterization of the sometimes subtle interpretive differences between the two constructions with sentence initial bare whphrases leads me to lump together (9), (11), (12), (15), and (17) (that is, the surprise questions), on the one hand, and the exclamatives (19), (20), and (21), on the other, a grouping corresponding at the same time to the respective structures of the two sentence types.15 There does exist, then, a type of question formally distinguished in clear ways from standard w/z-questions as well as from w/z-exclamatives, namely, surprise (/disapproval) questions. As to the structure of this sentence type, M&O's conjecture concerning the position of cossa is supported in theoryinternal ways. Let us consider how, returning for a moment to standard questions. Here, bare νν/ϊ-phrases appear exclusively in sentence internal position - a consequence, I assume with Munaro, Poletto, and Pollock (2002), of the fact that the feature of the interrogative force head (IntForce°) is checked by the nonassertive subject clitic. Bare w/i-phrases, therefore, stay in Spec, OpP. Given these assumptions, nothing excludes raising of bare w/i-words beyond IntForce0 for independent reasons in other types of structures, that is, in structures where the checking requirements of the relevant functional head cannot be met by inflectional/enclitic elements (but, by hypothesis, by the wh-words). This is clearly what accounts for the obligatory raising of chi, αηάέ in (15) and (17). Let us assume that in (15) and (17) - as in standard questions - (a-)tu and (sie-)o occupy IntForce0, where they check the (strong) interrogative force feature.16 It then follows - within the framework of Checking Theory - that chi/ande have not moved, in these sentences, to the Spec of IntForce0,

Nonstandard wh-questions and alternative checkers in Pagotto

353

since once checked, the IntForce feature cannot attract another element (nor does the V+cl sequence in IntForce0). Therefore, the fact that chi (and the other bare w/i-phrases) must occupy the initial position leads to the conclusion that they raise to a different, higher projection to the left of IntForceP, thereby supporting M&O's earlier assumption concerning the higher location of the projection hosting cossa. Compared to the derivation of the standard question Α-tu invidä chi?, the derivation of (15) Chi ä-tu invidä?!, then, involves an additional step, leading from (22a) to (22b), where SurprP is the projection hosting the vv/i-phrase in surprise/disapproval questions (I use the label SurprP for purely mnemonic reasons). (22)

a.

b-

[än + [iForce tu]] [ G p [ip t n invidä t k ] m G° [ 0 p p chi k Op° [Toppproi Top 0 t m ]]]] [iForceP

w/i-movement to SurprP: [SurprP chi k Surpr° [iForceP [än + [iForce tu]] [qp [ip t n invidä t k ] m G° [ 0 p p t k Op° [ T o p p pro; Top° t m ]]]]]

The "attracting" feature, then, as well as its checking counterpart on the vv/z-phrase, is a feature that relates to differentiating the "surprise/ disapproval" interpretation from the standard question interpretation. In other words, I take it to correspond to a component element of the "special", i.e., more complex, interpretation associated with surprise questions. Informally, we may assume for now that the interpretive equivalent of this feature is "added" as the "surprise component" to the standard question meaning (I will come back to this question below). Examples like (15) and (17) at once raise a question which did not arise in the immediate context of (9) and (10): since bare w/z-phrascs like chi and αηάέ are able to, and must, raise in Pagotto surprise questions (and exclamatives), can this raising also be observed in the case of interrogative chel In other words, alongside the examples containing cossa, do there exist counterparts with initial che in the place of cos sal The answer is negative; only cossa is possible here: (23)

*Che ave-o magna?I what have-cl eaten

(24)

Cossa ave-o magnä ?! what have-cl eaten 'What have you eaten?!'

354

Hans-Georg Obenauer

Though che and the other bare w/i-elements display a uniform behavior in standard interrogatives, there is a split with respect to their ability to raise in surprise questions. Visibly, che is "replaced" by cossa because it cannot raise to the higher position required in surprise questions, an inability expressed naturally within Checking Theory by the assumption that che cannot bear the feature responsible for "attraction" to the higher Spec, while cossa can bear the feature and raise correspondingly (see M&O for discussion of the che - cossa contrast), just as chi and ande can bear the feature and raise. Notice that che seems not to be incompatible as such with the surprise type interpretation, since it can appear in w/i-doubling constructions (cf. notes 9 and 11, above). Another relevant feature of surprise questions is illustrated in the following example: (25)

Cossava-tua comprar n'altro giornal?! what go-cl to buy another newspaper 'There is no need for you to buy another newspaper.'

(25) shares the interpretation of its close counterpart (12a) ICossa compretu n'altro giornal?!, though it differs from (12a) in that it contains the verbal form va (infinitive 'ndar 'go'). This verb is used here in a modal-like function, viz., as a modal auxiliary not having the motion reading (a use also present in other dialects, among which Paduan; cf. M&O, note 8). Va/'ndar can appear in surprise questions without contributing a particular meaning; see the following section for further discussion.17 To summarize, the Pagotto surprise questions examined so far represent a sentence type of their own. They convey a specific semantic value which in fact weakens their status as requests for information; at the same time, they are clearly distinguished syntactically from standard interrogatives by having their bare w/i-phrase obligatorily in initial position, in fact, in the Spec of a specialized functional projection higher than IntForceP which, for mnemonic reasons, I call SurprP.18 Surprise questions are also formally distinguished from w/i-exclamatives in that they do not contain a complementizer and exhibit enclitic pronominal subjects.

3.2. Alternative checking in surprise questions The preceding section established that Pagotto surprise questions have a distinctive structural property: a specific projection in the left periphery

Nonstandard

wh-questions

and alternative checkers in Pagotto

355

higher than (i.e. to the left of) IntForceP, the force projection of standard interrogatives, must be activated. In the examples considered above, this projection, SurprP, is activated by a w/i-phrase (which can also be, irrelevantly to this discussion, a nonbare w/i-phrase). However, this is not the only way SurprP can be activated in Pagotto. In M&O, it is noted as "interesting" that the surprise reading can be facilitated, in certain cases, by the insertion of modal-like predicates such as 'need' or 'go' (examples of this type were seen above, in (12b) and (25), respectively), and that such predicates might be connected in some way to the head of the projection I call SurprP here. More strikingly, the following example is noted as being able to have a surprise question interpretation: (26)

Va-loa invidarchi?! VA-cl to invite whom 'Whom on earth does he (intend to) invite?!'

(= M&O's (57b))

According to M&O, "[(26)] expresses the speaker's disapproval towards the subject's decision/intention to invite a specific person". In fact, if the "?!" punctuation is disregarded, the sentence is ambiguous between a surprise reading like that indicated in (26) and a standard question interpretation; crucially, under the surprise reading, va has no movement interpretation (i.e., it functions in modal-like fashion), while under the true question interpretation, va contributes a movement reading: 'Who are you going to invite?' (with 'go' interpreted in the literal movement sense).19 The (surprise) interpretation of (26) is the same as that of (27). (27)

Chi invide-lo ?! who invites-cl 'Who does he invite?!'

An analogous example is given in (28), and its analog with the w/z-phrase in initial position in (29). As in (18), I use VA in the gloss to signal the presence of the modal auxiliary, as opposed to the homophonous verb of motion; like in the case of (26), the true question with movement interpretation has the same form (notice that initial come has no accent on its second syllable). (28)

Va-lo a vestirse come?! VA-cl to dress-refl how 'How on earth is he dressing?!'

356

Hans-Georg

(29)

Obenauer

Come se vestise-lo?! how refl dress -cl

The striking fact in (26) and (28), then, is that the surprise reading can be available with the w/i-phrase occupying a low position, i.e. [Spec, OpP], The V 'ndär in its modal use - and only in this use - can license this type of interpretation; it also seems to be the only element with this ability. The phenomenon illustrated in (26) and (28), then, turns out to be parallel, at the SurprP level, to the one discussed by Pollock, Munaro, and Poletto at the IntForceP level. Moreover, its existence suggests that the function of (different types of) w/i-movement can be taken over by certain other elements perhaps even more generally than shown until now. 20 In the minimalist framework of Checking Theory, it is adequate to call such elements "alternative checkers", since they substitute for w/z-phrases with respect to their checking function. For the sake of concreteness, let us assume for (26) the partial derivation in (30), where (30f) illustrates the process of alternative checking. (30) a.

input: [ip va a invidar chi] merge lo and license pro in SpecTop: [TOPP PRO [ΤΟΡ° lo] [IP va a invidar chi]]

b.

I 0 to Top°: [TopP pro [χορ° va p lo] [ I P t p a invidar chi]]

c.

vv/i-movement to OpP: [ 0 p p c h i k Op 0 [Toppproi [τ ο ρ ° va p lo] [ I P t p a invidar t k ]]]

d.

remnant IP movement to GP: [GP [IP t p a invidar t k ] m G° [ 0 p p chi k Op

0

[ T o p p proj

[τορ°

va p

lo] t m ] ] ] e.

(va+) lo to IForce 0 : [iForceP

[lForce°

chi k Op 0 f.

[va p + lo] q ] [QP [IP t p a invidar t k ] m G° [ T o p p proj [ T o p ° t q ] t m ]]]

[o p p

va (+lo) to Surpr°: [SurprP 0

[lForce° [ v a p +

lo]q ]0

G° [OpP Chik Op°

[iForceP t 0 [GP ΓΤΡ tp a i n v i d a r t k ] m

[ T o p p proi [ T o p 0 tq ] t m ]]]

Nonstandard wh-questions and alternative checkers in Pagotto

357

To summarize, there is a variant of the lexical verb 'ndär, with an impoverished semantics, that can bear the surprise feature, contrary to the full lexical verb 'ndär, and thus check the corresponding feature of the functional head Surpr 0 . In order to do so, this variant 'ndär must "win the competition" with the w/z-phrase present in [Spec, OpP], which is also a potential checker of the surprise feature; indeed, as shown in (30e), va c-commands the w/z-phrase and therefore satisfies locality and raises to Surpr 0 . 21 The alternative checker va seen in (26) and (28) is a "specialized", or one-purpose, element, in the sense that it takes on the role of the w/z-phrase with respect to one particular step of the derivation, namely, attraction by and checking of the feature of Surpr0 (the wh-phrase, in comparison, is a multi-purpose element for being able, in principle, of taking charge of more than one step). The alternative checker of Surpr0 is a verbal form, while the alternative checker of IntForce0 is a (pro-)nominal form.

3.3. Che in surprise questions Alternative checking of the surprise feature by the modal auxiliary va, then, allows Pagotto to dispense with the particular type of movement typically required for bare w/z-ph rases in surprise questions. This seems to warrant the expectation that, like the bare w/z-elements chi, come appearing in (26), (28), che as well can appear in surprise questions introduced by va. Indeed, the only requirement for bare w/z-phrases in such environments seems to be that they raise to OpP which, as shown by (10), is indeed a suitable position for che. For the sake of discussion, let us suppose, for the moment, that che cannot appear in this environment. This would be captured by the descriptive generalization that the split observed in (23) versus (15) and (17), between che on the one hand and the remaining bare w/z-elements on the other, concerns not only their respective raising possibilities, but extends to the appearance in surprise questions introduced by the alternative checker va / 'ndar. One would be led then to look for a common source of this double contrast. Above, I suggested that che cannot raise in surprise questions because it is unable to bear the relevant [+surpr] feature; such a property should plausibly be related to the internal morphological structure of che, which should lack some element present in chi and ande. On the other hand, absence of the feature would not seem, as such, to account for nonoccurrence of che in να-introduced surprise questions if, as I assume, the mo-

358

Hans-Georg Obenauer

dal auxiliary functions as checker of the Surpr0 head: va bears the [+surpr] feature which represents the surprise component and might be expected to "combine with" che as it does with chi, for example. Che might, in such a case, not only be unable to raise to [Spec, SurprP], but be incompatible, in some way, with the surprise interpretation type.22 Another possibility is that che is in fact potentially compatible with this type of interpretation, and that contrary to the case of cossa, chi, ande, etc., va cannot compensate the structural weakness of che. Let us consider now the relevant data. The surprise question in (31) is the alternative checker version of (32); both are equally acceptable with the meaning that the speaker, who is hearing a conversation between speakers A and B, expresses his disapproval concerning what A is telling B. (31)

Va-tu a contarghe che?! va-cl to tell-him what 'What are you telling him?!'

(32)

Cossa ghe conti-tu?! what him tell-cl 'What are you telling him?!'

(If the punctuation is disregarded, (31) can alternatively be interpreted as standard question, with a movement reading of να). While data like (31) suggest that the alternative checking strategy applies as successfully with che as with other bare w/i-phrases, this is not generally the case, as shown by (33), which should be synonymous with (34). (33)

? ?Va-lo a magnar che ?!

(34)

Cossa magne-lo?! 'What does he eat?!'

I presently ignore the reasons why (31) and (33) contrast in this way. Nicola Munaro points out (personal communication) that (33) is fully acceptable only with the movement (nonmodal) interpretation of va, contrary to (35), where va can have one or the other interpretation. (35)

Cossa va-lo a magnar?!

It seems, then, that in a certain number of cases involving argumental che, the movement interpretation is the only one fully available, due to some factor yet to be discovered, and which I will leave aside in what follows.

Nonstandard wh-questions and alternative checkers in Pagotto

359

The question whether the alternative checker va can license the appearance of che also arises with respect to the nonargumental use of 'what'. There exist clear cases of grammatical analogues of surprise questions containing 'why'-like cossa\ (36) is the synonymous counterpart of (12a) TCossa compre-tu n'altro giornal?! 23 (36)

Va-tu a comprar n'altro giornal che?! go-cl to buy another newspaper what 'Why do you buy another newspaper?!'

In principle, then, the defective element che participates, like the other bare w/i-phrases, in the construction of surprise questions containing the alternative checker 'ndar, which demonstrates that che is compatible with the surprise interpretation.24

3.4. The construal of interpretation in surprise questions Surprise (/disapproval) questions, I have shown, are "special" questions in that their interpretation is more complex than that of standard questions. The strategy of alternative checking in such structures is particularly revealing with respect to the construal of this interpretation. Cases like (15) and (17), with "high w/i-movement" to [Spec, SurprP], are noteworthy from the point of view of Pagotto interrogative syntax, in that they show a formal difference from standard interrogative structures; they are not particular from the point of view of languages where whmovement to a sentence initial position is a regular part of standard question formation. Structures with alternative checking, however, allow a more direct understanding of the way the interpretation of such "special questions" is construed, since they seem to let us observe directly its complex character. The interpretation of surprise questions containing an alternative checker, it turns out, is arrived at compositionally through the combination of the following elements, syntactically dissociable from each other (see section 6 below, concerning the notion "interrogative force" ): (a) the wh-meaning (quantifier and restriction in [Spec, OpP]); (b) interrogative force (by means of the [-assertive] clitic); (c) the surprise "modality" (by means of the modal-like verb's checking the surprise feature).

360

Hans-Georg

Obenauer

In other words, what is intuitively felt to be a more complex reading of (the vv/i-phrase in) a surprise question is shown to indeed involve a more complex derivation in syntax, in fact a step-by-step procedure adding together different individually "visible" semantic elements that contribute to making up the complex reading. The case of the alternative checker allows us to "see" this process in a way the more canonical case of the raising whphrase does not. On the other hand, in the "standard" case of surprise questions - see Chi ä-tu invidä?!,

Cossa se-tu

drio magnar?!,

the w/z-element supplies (c) as

well as (a), that is, it performs two functions which are carried out by separate elements in the alternative checking case (cf. the characterization of the w/z-phrase as a "multi-purpose" element in section 3.2, above). The fact that a higher, specialized position is involved is more clearly visible in surprise questions with an initial wh-phrase, on the basis of the contrast with standard questions. To summarize this section, Pagotto syntactically distinguishes a particular type of questions, namely, surprise questions, from standard questions, a case which demonstrates a special meaning not "simply added" to standard questions by linguistic context or/and extralinguistic situation, but encoded - in ways which remain to be understood precisely - in terms of the hierarchic structure of the left periphery.

4. Rhetorical questions in Pagotto 4.1. General properties Let us turn now to another type of "special" interrogative, namely, "rhetorical" questions. The term is understood here in a narrow sense, that is, as referring to those questions whose interpretation is taken to convey, rather than a request for the value(s) of a variable, a sort of assertion that no corresponding value exists (a characterization of rhetorical questions along these lines is suggested in, for example, Quirk et al. 1985). Consider the following example in English, a language with almost exceptionless obligatory w/i-movement to initial position.25 A sentence like (37) is ambiguous between the two readings just mentioned. (37)

Who can you trust, nowadays?

Nonstandard wh-questions and alternative checkers in Pagotto (38)

a. b.

361

what χ, χ a human [you can trust x, nowadays] no χ, χ a human [you can trust x, nowadays]

(38a) is an intuitive characterization of the "true question" interpretation of (37), and (38b) of its rhetorical question interpretation. As noted in the Introduction above, this construction is one of those shown in Obenauer (1994) to display particular syntactic behaviour in terms of "obligatory early movement" in French (and in terms of the associated restrictions on Pied-Piping, also visible in English, for example). As also mentioned above, "obligatory early movement" is naturally reinterpreted as movement to a landing site higher than that of ("in-situ" and) standard interrogatives. In this perspective - and putting aside, momentarily, the question of the precise landing site of the w/z-phrase -, we can formulate, a priori, certain expectations about rhetorical questions in Pagotto. Plausibly, the correlation between "special" interpretation and higher movement imposed by the obligatory checking of a higher feature should hold here too, if it is indeed generally valid at least in the Romance languages (and English and German). Consequently, the paradigm of rhetorical questions in Pagotto should be parallel to that of surprise/disapproval questions in at least the following two respects: (a)

bare vv/i-phrases should be excluded from sentence internal position and obligatorily occur in initial position;

(b)

che should be excluded from rhetorical questions and obligatorily replaced by cossa, on the grounds that che cannot raise beyond [Spec,OpP].26

(I will return to the question of alternative checking below). Both expectations are borne out, as I will show in what follows. Let us begin with the che - cossa alternation. (39) shows the occurrence of cossa in a well-formed rhetorical question (from now on, RQ); (40a) shows the impossibility of rhetorical interpretation when the w/i-phrase is in sentence internal position, and (40b) che's inability to raise to initial position. (39)

Cossa ά-lo fat parti? what has-cl done for you 'What has he done for you?'

362 (40)

Hans-Georg Obenauer a. b.

*A'-lo fat che parti? has-cl done what for you *Che ä-lo fat parti?

[quaRQ]

(40a) would, of course, be acceptable as a standard question. An analogous contrast can be observed in the case of che interpreted as selected complement of verbs like costar 'cost'; (41) and (42) are taken from M&O (1999).27 (41)

(Ghe) coste-lo che ? to-him costs-cl what 'What / how much does it cost (him) ?'

(42)

Cossa ghe coste-lo iutärli? 'What does it cost him to help them?'

(41) is (exclusively) interpretable as a true question; the RQ reading of (42) - according to which the person referred to easily could, but does not, help 'them' - is only possible under raising of the w/i-phrase to initial position, which requires cossa, as expected.28 Raising to initial position is also required for the other bare w/i-phrases: (43)

Chi ä-lo iutä intutisti ani? who has-cl helped in all these years 'Who(m) has he helped in all these years?'

(44)

*A'-lo iutä chi intutisti ani? has-cl helped who in all these years

[quaRQ]

Similarly, (45) has a rhetorical interpretation implying that 'he' has never eaten potatoes. (45)

Quando ä-lo magnäpatate? when has-cl eaten potatoes 'When has he eaten potatoes?'

4.2. Rhetorical 'want' as an embedding predicate A well-known phenomenon found across the Romance area brings into play the equivalent of the English verb want (Italian volere, Spanish

Nonstandard wh-questions and alternative checkers in Pagotto

363

querer, Catalan voler, etc.). Let us consider this phenomenon in Pagotto and examine it from the viewpoint of the present article. A sentence like (46), with the Pagotto equivalent of 'want', oler, can be interpreted literally, namely, as a standard question (notice that the whphrase che appears in sentence internal position, as usual, but originates in an embedded sentence here; hence it raises to Spec,OpP of the matrix sentence, and this movement is followed by Remnant IP movement). (46)

U-tu che fae che? want-cl that dosubjUnctive what 'What do you want me to do?'

This case, largely parallel to English if one disregards the position of the w/z-phrase, is irrelevant to what follows, and I will not come back to it. What interests me, however, is the "Romance phenomenon", namely the fact that oler, as a matrix predicate, is very commonly used to signal a rhetorical meaning of w/z-questions. As a case in point, consider (47).29 (47)

?Cossa u-tu che fae? what want-cl that dosubjUnctive

It is difficult to give an English translation of (47) (while the literal translation into any Romance language is perfect). Contrary to the case of the TQ in (46), oler/u no longer has the volition meaning. An approximate paraphrase is Ί can't do anything (even if you think different)', or possibly (rhetorical) 'How can I help it?' (this equivalent is suggested by Grand Harrap (1972, 14th printing 1986) for the French version Que veux-tu que j'y fasse? what want-you that I to-it dosubjunctive )· (47) is, in fact, ambiguous; its second - again rhetorical - interpretation, typically available in contexts where the RQ is uttered as a reply to a preceding TQ, conveys the idea that the value of the variable, instead of being inexistent, is obvious, which, in turn, entails that the question does not make sense: this meaning, then, denies the appropriateness of the question. Let us keep to the following two paraphrases for (47): (48)

a. b.

There is nothing I can do (contrary to what you seem to be thinking). What I do is obvious (and your question has no raison d'etre).

364

Hans-Georg Obenauer

I will skip the interesting question how the two meanings are obtained (and how they are related to each other), and concentrate on a formal property of the verb oler. The property in question is strikingly reminiscent of that of 'ndar as illustrated above in, among other examples, (31), repeated here as (49). (49)

Va-tu a contarghe che?! 'What are you telling him?!'

In this surprise/disapproval question, a synonym of Cossa ghe conti-tu?! (= (32) above), va was seen to function as an alternative checker allowing the sentence-internal occurrence of che, otherwise excluded in this type of sentence. As for oler, it can likewise function as an alternative checker (AC), allowing the analogous occurrence of che in the AC counterpart of (47):30 (50)

U-tu che fae che? want-cl that do su bj U nctive what

(notice the linear identity of (50) and (46)). (50) is synonymous with (47), as (49)(/(36)) was with (25). As in the case of surprise questions, the AC allows for the whole range of bare w/z-elements to occur in the low, sentence internal position; see (51), (52), (53). (51)

U-tu che i sielde chi? want-cl that cl choosesubjunctive who 'There is no one they can/could choose / worth to be chosen.' ["no x" reading] 'It is clear who they (will) choose.' ["obvious x" reading]

(52)

U-tu che 7 sia 'ndat ande? want-cl that cl besubjUnctive g ° n e where 'He couldn't have gone anywhere.' ["no JE" reading] 'There can be no doubt where he has gone.' ["obvious JC" reading]

(53)

U-tu che 'Ifae quando? want-cl that cl do su bj U nctive when 'There is no moment when I can do it.' ["no x" reading] Only at that moment can I do it.' ["obvious JC" reading]

(52) is M&O's (57a). These authors also point out the case of the frozen expression cossa u-tu 'you know/it's like that', namely, (54a) (their (18));

Nonstandard wh-questions and alternative checkers hi Pagotto

365

interestingly, even here, for a certain number of speakers, u-tu can license che "in situ" (see (54b)):31 (54)

a.

b.

Me fradel, my brother 'As for my Me fradel,

cossa u-tu, no Ί vede mai. what want-cl not him see ever brother, you know, I never see him.' u-tu che, no Ί vede mai.

The rhetorical-'want' construction, then, involving a semantically bleached instance of the verb of volition, represents the third case of the alternative checking phenomenon, entirely parallel to what I showed to be the case in surprise questions.32 This naturally leads to the question whether the 'want'-construction is the only rhetorical construction with an alternative checker; the answer is yes: there is no AC for "simple" rhetorical questions like those in (39), (42)-(43), (45). Why is this so? An AC might be lacking by accident or for principled reasons. I presently have no answer to this question.

4.3. The position of rhetorical elements in the left periphery Let us now raise the question of the landing site of "rhetorical" whelements. A reasoning analogous to that of section 4 above leads to the conclusion that their movement, in contrast with the "in situ" occurrence observed in standard questions, must be due to the presence of a feature which cannot be checked by the [-assertive] subject clitic. As in the case of surprise questions, I will assume that the initial position in which a whphrase appears in a RQ is different from [Spec,IntForceP] (and from [Spec,SurprP]). As pointed out above, in the case of surprise questions, the argument was theory internal, namely, related to the theory of feature distribution in FPs. Interestingly, in the case of RQs, there is, in addition, direct evidence showing that the w/i-phrase occupies a position "of its own", different from both other positions. The data involve the preverbal subject DP which, in rhetorical questions, can - to a certain extent - occur in a position between the initial w/z-phrase and the tensed verb; see (55), (56). It must be noted that in the presence of a subject DP, the wh-phrase needs to be stressed; the judgments for (55) and (56) presuppose this stress.33 (55)

a. b.

??Chi Mario a-lo iuta in tuti sti ani? ?Chi mai Mario ä-lo iutä in tuti sti ani? 'Who(m) (ever) has Mario helped in all these years?'

366 (56)

Hans-Georg Obenauer Quando Mario ä-lo magnapatate? 'When has Mario eaten potatoes?'

Pagotto shares the possibility of the intervening subject DP with standard Italian, where, as shown in Obenauer and Poletto (to appear), rhetorical w/zphrases containing mai raise to a higher projection/Spec; they "land" to the left of the preverbal subject (among other elements), while the w/z-phrases of standard questions land to its right. Such data suggest that "special" w/zphrases indeed move to different FPs, as expected under the theory of feature distribution on FPs assumed here; the theory is supported since it offers a principled reason for the observed raising beyond IntForceP. As anticipated above, surprise questions do not exhibit the property shown in the rhetorical questions (55) and (56), even with stress on the whphrase: (57)

*Chi Mario a-lo invida ?! 'Who(m) has Mario invited?!'

(58)

*Come Mario se vestise-lo?! 'How does Mario dress?!'

While the nature of the stress requirement remains to be understood, the contrast between the two question types is clear. It follows that the position of the wh-phrase in RQs is located higher in the structure than the position of the w/z-phrase in surprise/disapproval questions, structurally distinguishing the two types from each other. One would like, then, to find direct evidence of a kind comparable to (55), (56) showing SurprP to be indeed located higher than IntForceP; as already mentioned, I have not yet found an element able to intervene to the right of the w/z-phrase in this construction, which obviously does not go against the analysis. Given the interpretive similarity of the w/z-phrases in "simple" RQs and in the "rhetorical" 'want'-construction, the null hypothesis leads me to assume that the w/z-phrase raises in both constructions to the same level; I will call this level, again for mnemonic reasons, [Spec,RhetP], In ways analogous to va/'ndar in surprise questions, "devolitized" u/oler can raise to the head Rhet° to check the feature I will call [+rhet].

Nonstandard wh-questions and alternative checkers in Pagotto

367

5. "I-can't-find-the-value-of-x" questions There is another type of "special question" which so far has not been generally recognized as such. This type corresponds closely to diable interrogatives in French as discussed in Obenauer (1994); on the same grounds as in the case of rhetorical questions (diable interrogatives exhibit "obligatory early movement", among other things), we are led to expect that in Pagotto, this construction exhibits the typical paradigm associated with "higher raising" of the w/z-phrase, namely: (a)

bare w/z-phrases should obligatorily occur in initial position;

(b)

che should be excluded from rhetorical questions and "replaced" by cossa.

Furthermore, examining the Pagotto data will lead me to distinguish two subtypes which, to the best of my knowledge, have not been mentioned so far in the literature on w/z-interrogatives. I will illustrate the construction by comparing it to standard questions. Consider the standard question (59) and the parallel "I-can't-find-the-valueof-x" question (60). (59)

L'ätucatä ande? cl have-cl found where 'Where did you find it?'

(60)

Ande I'atu catä? where cl have-cl found 'Where (the hell) did you find it?'

While (59) is a standard request for information (i.e., for the value(s) of the variable), typically addressed to a hearer, (60), with the w/z-phrase in initial position, is a similar request by which, in addition, the speaker expresses the fact that despite his attempt to do so, he cannot think of a place where the object in question could have been found by his interlocutor. In other words, the speaker expresses that he is unable to come up with a (plausible, acceptable) value, though he has tried to find one (or more). The added element in the English translation of (60), the hell, must accordingly be taken with this precise reading (since it also allows other readings; cf. note 7, above); the Italian equivalent of (60) uses diavolo '(the) devil': Dove diavolo I'hai trovato? The particular interpretation of (60) is excluded for

368

Hans-Georg

Obenauer

(59), with αηάέ in [Spec,Op]. Similarly, (62) adds to the request for information present in the standard question (61) the information that the speaker has tried in vain to imagine the addressee's way of acting. (61)

A'- tu fat come? have-cl done how 'How did you do it?'

(62)

Come a-tu fat? how have-cl done 'How (the hell) did you do it?'

Consider now the equivalents of (60) and (62) with third person subjects, namely, (63) and (64). (63)

Ande Ι'ά-lo catä? 'Where (the hell) did he find it?'

(64)

Come ä-lo fat? 'How (the hell) did he do it?'

Like their counterparts (60) and (62), (63) and (64) can be interpreted as requests for the value(s) of the variable, again with the cfv interpretation, but a different use is also possible, that is, as a way of "thinking aloud" and putting the question to oneself rather than to an interlocutor. In this use, obviously incompatible with a second person sentential subject (unless the addressee is only imagined), the future perfect is, however, strongly preferred to the perfect (that is, a -realis tense is preferred to a +realis one);34 (65) and (66) are the perfectly acceptable self-addressed analogues of (63)-(64): (65)

Ande l'avarälo catä? where cl-will-have-cl found

(66)

Come avarälo fat? how will-have-cl done

The second expected property of I-can't-find-the-value-of-x questions also shows up as expected: sentence internal che is "replaced" by initial cossa: (67)

A' -lofat che, par meritarse sto onor? has-cl done what for deserve this honor 'What has he done to deserve such honors?'

Nonstandard

wh-questions and alternative

checkers in Pagotto

(68)

Cossa ά-lofat, par meritarse sto onor? 'What (the hell) has he done to deserve such honors?' (addressed to another person)

(69)

Cossa avara-lo fat, par meritarse sto onor? (analogous self-addressed question)

369

Instead of via the use of a -realis form, self-addressed questions can alternatively be marked as such by the particle-like element ti (etymologically the second person singular tonic pronoun), as in (70). (70)

a. b. c.

Ande l'a-lo catä, ti? (synonymous with (65)) Come ä-lofat, ti? (synonymous with (66)) Cossa a-lofat, ti, par meritarse sto onor? (synonymous with (69))

While ti suffices to mark sentences as self-addressed questions, it is compatible with the presence of a -realis form, for example (65), (66), (69) could have ti. Summarizing so far, "I-can't-fmd-the-value-of-x" questions (cfvQs, from now on), used by the speaker to express that he has tried in vain to answer his question can be addressed to another person - as a variety of "true questions" - or to oneself. A question of this type cannot be used "out of the blue"; the speaker has already checked the domain and, in case he came upon a possible value, rejected it as inadequate (Obenauer 1994: 305; 310).35 Contrary to the picture given so far, and abstracting away from ti, selfaddressed questions are not uniformly marked by the future (perfect), and thus formally opposed to cfvQs addressed to a hearer. There exist selfaddressed questions which have a +realis tense - the present, for example. This is the case in (71),36 which has the standard question counterpart (72): (71)

Cossa se ciame-lo? what refl calls-cl 'What (the hell) is his name?'

(72)

Se ciäme-lo che ? 'What's his name?'

(71) expresses "the fact that, despite his efforts, [the speaker] does not manage to remember the name of the person referred to" (M&O 1999:

370

Hans-Georg

Obenauer

199). What opposes (71) to (65), (66), (69) seems to be the speaker's view of the question situation: in the case of (71), given his - for the moment inaccessible - knowledge, the speaker is sure about the values of the variable he rejects and tries to retrieve the "good" one(s), while there is an uncertainty inherent in the other cases. In slightly different terms, the speaker tries to reestablish what to him is a fact in the case of (71), while in (65), (66), (69) he must choose among possibilities on the grounds of their respective plausibility. The modal value of the -realis verb form expresses this uncertainty. Does there also exist an alternative checker for cfvQs, allowing the bare wh-phrase to appear "in situ"? There is indeed such an element, though the case is partially different from that of surprise questions and rhetorical questions. The element ti, already found in (70), where it cooccurs with initial w/i-phrases, can also license their sentence internal appearance in cfvQs, as in (73) and (74). (73)

a. b.

(74)

L'a-lo catä ande, ti? (synonymous with (70a) L'avarä-lo catä ande, ti? (synonymous with (70a) A'-lo fat come, ti? (synonymous with (70b) Avarä-lo fat come, ti? (synonymous with (70b)

Se ciäme-lo che, ti?

(synonymous with (71)

I am thus led to assuming that the presence of ti results in checking the feature of the high projection - let me call it cfvP - activated in cfvQs. Since linearly, contrary to the other ACs, ti is not in initial position, the most direct way of obtaining this result is (first or second) merging of the particle in cfvP, followed by movement to the left of the material preceding ti. I will assume this to be the correct approach37 and leave aside here the question of the precise derivation. While ti is compatible with both "uncertainty" and "forgotten knowledge" cfvQs - i.e., with all self-addressed cfvQs (cf. (73) and (74)) -it is banned from cfvQs requesting information from an interlocutor, as shown by (75).38 This strongly suggests that "self-addressed" is an appropriate characterization of a subtype of cfvQs. (75)

a. b.

*L'ä-tu catä ande, ti? *A-tufat come, ti?

Nonstandard wh-questions and alternative checkers in Fagotto

371

On the other hand, the use of diable/diavolo (less ambiguous than the hell see note 7) in both subtypes in French and Italian supports the idea that cfvQs represent one type of special question. Let us turn to the question of the relative height of cfvP in the left periphery. The same test as in the case of surprise and rhetorical questions appearance of a DP subject to the right of the w/i-phrase - leads to unacceptability in (76b), even with stress on the w/z-phrase as in the analogous RQ example (56). (76)

a.

b.

Quandol'älo scrit? when cl has it written 'When did he write it? I can't remember.' *Quando Mario l'a-lo scrit? 'When did Mario write it? I can't remember.'

The contrast between (76) and (56) indicates that in cfvQs, like in SDQs, the w/i-phrase raises to a lower Spec position than in RQs. 39 1 have found so far no evidence discriminating the landing site from that of surprise/disapproval questions, and must leave open the question which is higher; the fact that cfvQs are still genuine questions suggests that cfvP may be closer to IntForceP, and thus lower than SurprP. To summarize, under the analysis developed above, the three types of special questions I have identified in sections 3, 4, and this section are derivationally different from standard questions. They also differ from each other, namely, with respect to (at least)40 their respective highest projection, i.e., the one hosting the wh-phrase (in the absence of an AC) or the AC. It follows that w/i-in-situ, in the special question types which display it,41 is not (entirely) the same phenomenon as in standard questions. Strictly speaking, there are four different cases of w/z-in-situ, involving different features (that is, top projections) and ACs. According to my analysis, the derivation of special questions also involves a part they have in common with standard questions, and which includes checking of the level here called IntForceP. While explicitly present in the proposed derivations, this claim has so far been motivated only implicitly by "simplicity" in a mechanical sense - it seems convenient to add the higher landing sites "on top o f ' the structures derived in standard questions. I will, however, return to this claim in the following section and motivate it more strongly.

372

Hans-Georg

Obenauer

6. The relation between standard and special questions in the light of microvariation in Romance Given that the rhetorical 'want'-construction is also used in other Romance languages and that, more specifically, there is no semantic difference between (77) and (78): (77)

(78)

U-tu che'lsia 'ndatande? (= (52))(Pagotto) want-cl that cl besubjUnctive g ° n e where 'He couldn't have gone anywhere.' ["no x" reading] 'There can be no doubt where he has gone.' ["obvious x" reading] Dove vuoi che sia andato? (Italian)

I will assume that volere in the Italian construction is semantically bleached in the same way as Pagotto oler in (77). Assuming further that this bleaching (hence, modal-like behavior) and functioning as an alternative checker are tightly related, it is plausible that volere is a potential AC just like oler, although the direct counterpart of (77) in Italian, (79), is not possible: (79)

*Vuoi che sia andato dove ?

Analogously, * is an ATT-alternative for χ in w at t}

For instance, if ATT = believe, then H b e i i e v e is the set of those III b. Bill thinks, "John thinks I am a hero." English: ...Bill 3 thinks*3... λ^3...>.^ο1ιη3 3 3 3 λ.. .y is* ... a hero English: y —»/he/; Amharic: y —> /I/

thinks**...

thinks*3...

5.1.2. Controlled PRO PRO is a variable without case but with φ-features.20 It is bound by the nearest verb of attitude. In order to ensure this, PRO must have two syntactic features: log and local. The syntactic properties of the features are stated by the following rule: (69)

The features log(ophoric) and local a. A variable with the feature log is bound by a verb of attitude. b. A variable with the feature local is bound by a structurally adjacent verb of attitude.

Binding by verbs

459

Given that these features are not interpretable, they are deleted at LF. The definition of PRO is therefore this: (70)

Definition of PRO: PRO is a variable without Case but with φfeatures and the features log and local. It is not pronounced at PF.

An immediate consequence of this definition is that PRO can never be deictic. It is always de se. Here is the analysis of example (21). (71)

a. b.

,...xVl/ 1ιορε*\..λ< Υ + ...> Bill3 expects*3 λ.,.z 3JogJucul /PRO/ to enjoy z 3 /himself/ *...x i /I/ hope...λ... Bill3 expects*3 λ y + ' t e & w /PRO/ to enjoy z+-/myself/

The error in (71b) is that the variable y in the most embedded clause is not locally λ-bound by a verbal quantifier. For object control verbs we have to stipulate the following: (72)

Object Control: Object control verbs are verbal quantifiers that delete the feature of the individual variable they bind if it agrees with their object.

Object control does not fit the pattern we find for other verbal quantifiers since we do not find agreement with the features of the verb but rather with a feature of an argument of the verb. Here is an example: (73)

a. b.

John persuaded me PRO to kill myself. John 3 persuade*3 me lst λ < χ ^ . . .>.. .χ10'·'08·'0"1' /PRO/ to kill x4* /myself/

We have to define the meaning rule for persuade appropriately, of course, i.e., the verb must have the logical type p(e(p)), with ρ = (e(i(st))).21 Further complications arise with verbs of 'split control': (74)

Fritz proposed Susi to go to the movies.

For a semantic treatment, see for example Stechow (2002a).

460

Arnim von Stechow

5.1.3. Logophors Logophoric pronouns have Case and φ-features. They must be bound by some logophoric verb and therefore have the feature log. (75)

Definition of logophoric pronouns: Logophoric pronouns are variables with Case and φ-features. They have the feature log.

Schlenker (1999) remarks that logophoric pronouns in Ewe or Gokana do not occur in the first person. If this is so, they must have the feature -1 s t in addition. As an illustration, consider the analysis of the Ewe example (19c): (76)

Ewe: Ama said she L oG remembered the girl who stayed with her LO G...Ama 3 says*3 X...x 3Jeg remembers*3 the girl who stayed with x340®

Since I am not interested in a full theory of logophors, I will ignore this possible complication.

5.2. Tense 5.2.1. Morphology and syntax: Spell-out rules Most languages I know encode the semantic features pres,