An introduction to German Syntax. 1. Head directionality: A major source of linguistic divergence

Transcription

1 An introduction to German Syntax 19 January Head directionality: A major source of linguistic divergence In English, heads uniformly precede their complements: (1) a. [ kiss Mary] a. * [ Mary kiss] b. [ DP the boy] b.* [ DP boy the] c. [ PP with John] c. * [ PP John with] d. [ TP is going home] d.* [ TP going home is] e. [ AP afraid of cats] e. * [ AP of cats afraid] In Turkish, heads uniformly follow their complements: 1 (2) a. [ Hasan öp] a. * [ öp Hasan] Hasan kiss kiss Hasan b. [ PP Deniz ile] b. * [ PP ile Deniz] Deniz with with Deniz c. [ TP Aynur hasta imiş] c. * [ TP imiş Aynur hasta] Aynur sick is is Aynur sick d. [ AP Ali-den memnun] d. * [ AP memnun Ali-den] Ali-from happy happy Ali-from Q: In terms of head-directionality, German is a mixed system: (3) a. [ jemanden etwas fragen] a. * [ fragen jemanden etwas] b. [ DP Nachrichten von mir an dich] b. * [ DP von mir an dich Nachrichten] c. [ PP in das Haus] c. * [ PP das Haus in] 2 d. [ AP den Kindern unangenehm] d. * [ AP unangenehm den Kindern] 1 In comparison with other languages, English has a very strict word-order. Both Turkish and German are less strict in this respect. For the Turkish and German phrases discussed in (2) and (3), the judgements reflect the neutral word order (e.g. in a sentence that initiates a conversation). 2 Some prepositions can also be used as postpositions in German: e.g. entlang, gegenüber 1

2 Conclusions - English is uniformly head-initial - Turkish is uniformly head-final - German is mixed: verbal and adjectival projections are head-final all other phrases are head-initial The German embedded dass-clause: (based on Haider 2010: ch.1) (4) a. die Annahme, dass er sich geirrt habe the assumption that he himself erred has b. (German embedded dass-clause) CP C TP dass T habe DP v er V 1 +v geirrt DP t 1 sich Problem: If German verbal projections (i.e. main verbs, auxiliaries, modals, etc.) are right-branching heads, why aren t all the verbs stacked-up on the right in root clauses and embedded clauses without dass? (5) a. Der Hund hat die Katze gejagt. (the dog has chased the cat) b. die Annahme, der Hund hat die Katze gejagt 2. The V2 property of German Unless C is occupied by a pronounced complementizer, - a finite verb must be the second item in the clause (hence V2 ), which - follows an arbitrary, single, clausal-initial phrase. 2

3 The finite verb undergoes head-movement to occupy C Phrases either undergo A -movement to the Specifier of CP or are base-generated in CP (6) a. [Eine Maus] 1 hat heute t 1 den Käse verschmäht. [A -movement to SpecCP] (a mouse has spurned the cheese today) b. CP (German root clause) DP 2 CP eine Maus hat 1 +C TP t 1 AP heute t 2 v V 3 +v verschmäht DP t 3 den Käse (7) [ CP Es [ C hat 1 [ TP t 1 heute jede Maus den Käse verschmäht]]] [base-generation in C] An important difference between Haider (2010) and our theory: Haider treats head-movement in a simple way. We have been more explicit about headmovement in our description of English, however. One exception to the V2 rule is left-dislocation. Left-dislocation involves an additional element before the finite verb. Left-dislocated phrases are always linked with a pronominal element: (8) [Den Peter] i, den i habe ich gestern gesehen. (Ott 2014) Are sentences like (8) true cases of V3 clauses? 3

4 Ott (2014): Apparent V3 clauses like (8) are actually two separate sentences with ellipsis in the first one. (9) [Den Peter] i habe ich gestern gesehen, den i habe ich gestern gesehen. (Ott 2014) Summary of 2: With regards to head-directionality, German is a mixed system. Verbal and adjectival heads follow their complements (head-final), whereas all other heads precede their complements (head-initial). German exhibits the V2 property: in clauses without a pronounced complementizer, the finite verb moves to C. In such cases, the Specifier of CP must also be occupied by a pronounced element. 3. Haider s (2010:25-30) Head-directionality principle Haider introduces a new constraint on licensing arguments that makes reference to head directionality. Claim 1: Arguments must be in a particular directionality relationship to a verbal head. For languages with head-initial verbal heads (English): every argument A must be preceded by a verbal head H. For languages with head-final verbal heads (German): every argument A must be followed by a verbal head H Claim 2: In addition to this directionality relationship, A and H must minimally, mutually c-command each other. (where X minimally c-commands Y if Y is the sister or first daughter of the sister of X) Together these claims form Haider s Principle of Directional Identification (PDI) 4

5 For German head-final phrases: (10) (German ditransitive verb) subj v V+v obj-a V obj-b t 1 Head following subj = v Head following obj-a = V Head following obj-b = V Subj and v minimally, mutually c-command each other. = subj is licensed Obj-a and V minimally, mutually c-command each other. = obj-a is licensed Obj-b and V minimally, mutually c-command each other. = obj-b is licensed For English head-initial phrases: (11) (English ditransitive verb) subj v V 1 +v obj-a V Head preceding subj = None! Head preceding obj-a = V (or v) Head preceding obj-b = V (trace) t 1 obj-b 5

6 Obj-a and V (or v) minimally, mutually c-command each other. (obj-a c-commands the trace of V, the moved V c-commands obj-a) Obj-b and V minimally, mutually c-command each other. Summary of 3: Haider introduces a new constraint on licensing arguments called the Principle of Directional Interpretation (PDI). Head-final languages such as German satisfy this constraint straightforwardly. Head-initial languages such as English have more trouble satisfying this constraint, and must make use of movement-chains. 4. The German OV properties versus English VO properties 4.1. Difference 1: The EPP property English (and other VO languages) requires a pronounced element to occupy the Specifier of TP. German doesn t require or sometimes doesn t allow a pronounced element to occupy the Specifier of TP. Configurations with unergative verbs (12) a. Today, [a boy] 1 has arrived t 1. (A -movement to Spec, TP) b. Today, there has arrived a boy. 3 (there expletive pronoun) c. * Today, has arrived a boy. (13) a. Heute is ein Junge gekommen. b. * Heute ist es ein Junge gekommen. Cleft configurations (14) a. It has not surprised me that this is so. (it expletive pronoun) b. * Has not surprised me that this is so. (15) Mich hat (es) nicht überrascht, dass das so ist. 3 The configuration exemplified by (12b) is called a postverbal nominative. This construction is archaic in modern English (i.e. it s dying out). Bobaljik & Jonas (1996) provide a useful discussion of how the postverbal DP receives cases in these constructions. 6

7 Intransitive passives (16) Ofte vart det telefonert. [Norwegian] Often was it telephoned (by John) ( John telephoned ) (17) a. Oft wurde telephoniert. b. * Oft wurde es telephoniert Difference 2: Relative order of arguments inside The -internal arguments in English are strictly ordered. The -internal arguments in German are not strictly ordered, however. Haider (2010:13) attributes the variable word-order in German to scrambling: a short instance of movement to the edge of. [NB: We are scheduled to discuss scrambling in more depth in a later seminar.] (18) a. He showed some students this problem. b. * He showed [this problem] 1 some students t 1. (19) a. Er hat einigen Studenten dieses Problem erklärt. b. Er hat [dieses Problem] 1 einigen Studenten t 1 erklärt Difference 3: Compactness English prohibits modifiers between verbs and their complements. German permits modifiers between verbs and their complements, however. (20) a. They will thoroughly investigate something. b. * They will investigate thoroughly something. (21) Sie werden etwas gründlich untersuchen Position of particles in particle verb constructions In English, particles follow the verb, and can split up the non-agentive arguments in double-object constructions. (22) a. The secretary sent out a notice. b. The secretary sent a notice out to the shareholders. 7

8 Unless the verb strands the particle by moving to the Specifier of CP (see 23a), the particle must immediately precede the verb in German: (23) a. [ CP Er 2 wickelt 1 [ TP t 2 es ein t 1 ]]. (he wraps it in) b.... dass er es einwickelt. c. *... dass er es ein gut wickelt. 5. Explaining the VO/VO differences using Haider s framework 5.1. The EPP effect Recall from 3 that the highest argument in the English isn t in a directionality relationship with either v or V: (11) (English ditransitive verb) subj v Problem: How is subj licensed in (11)?? V 1 +v obj-a V t 1 obj-b Haider s solution: if we look higher up in the tree, we see that subj is preceded by another verbal head, namely T: (24) TP (English TP ditransitive verb) T subj v V 1 +v obj-a V t 1 obj-b 8

9 According to Haider s Principle of Directional Identification (PDI), T and subj must minimally, mutually c-command each other. If subj doesn t move, this c-command relationship isn t established. But if subj moves to the Specifier of TP, then this relationship is established! (25) TP (English TP ditransitive verb) subj 2 T T t 2 v V 1 +v - Moved subj c-commands T obj-a V - T c-commands (trace of) subj = minimal, mutual c-command established t 1 obj-b Haider: the EPP condition can actually be reduced to the PDI. Recall from 3 that the highest argument in the is licensed by v in German (see 10, which is repeated below). Therefore, movement to Spec, TP is not required. (10) (German ditransitive verb) subj v V 1 +v obj-a V obj-b t 1 9

10 A question for you to consider in your spare time: Does Haider s account also explain why German doesn t require (and sometimes doesn t allow) expletive pronouns? What would you need to say about the syntax of expletive pronouns in English and German to make his analysis work? 5.2. The relative order of arguments inside the Why does German permit variable word-orders within the, whereas English does not? (18) b. * He showed [this problem] 1 some students t 1. (repeated from 4.2) (19) b. Er has [dieses Problem] 1 einigen Studenten t 1 erklärt. Haider s solution: performing scrambling in English violates the PDI, whereas scrambling in German does not violate the PDI. (26) * TP (English TP ditransitive verb) DP 1 T they T t 1 v V 2 +v showed DP 3 this problem DP V someone t 2 t 3 SCRAMBLING - V precedes someone - someone minimally c-commands V - V minimally doesn t minimally c-command someone (as this problem intervenes) = minimal, mutual c-command not established 10

11 (27) CP (German ditransitive verb) DP 1 C er T 2 +C hat TP t 2 t 1 v V+v erklärt DP 3 dieses problem DP V einigen Studenten t 3 t 4 SCRAMBLING 5.3. Compactness Why does German allow AP modifiers between the main verb and its complement whereas English does not? (20) b. * They will [ investigate thoroughly something]. (repeated from 4.3) (21) Sie werden [ etwas gründlich untersuchen]. Analysis Adverbs such as {thoroughly / gründlich} always branch rightwards. V-to-v movement in German gives the illusion of the modifier being between the main verb and its complement. In English, the adverb still follows the verb when V-to-v movement occurs. The ungrammatical word-order in (20b) is impossible to generate. 11

12 (28) (German transitive verb) DP v Sie V 2 +v untersuchen AP DP t 2 etwas gründlich (29) (English transitive verb) DP v they V 2 +v investigate t 2 AP thoroughly DP something 5.4. Position of particles in particle verb constructions Why does the particle split up arguments in English, but stay next to the verb in German embedded dass-clauses? (22) b. The secretary sent a notice out to the shareholders. (repeated from 4.4) (23) b.... dass er es einwickelt. c. *... dass er es ein gut wickelt. Analysis The particle and verb are generated together, and the verb head-moves to v. 12

13 (30) (English ditransitive verb) DP v the secretary V 1 +v sent DP V a notice V DP to the t 1 V shareholders out (31) (German transitive verb) DP v er V 1 +v wickelt DP V es V t 1 ein A question for you to consider in your spare time: What would we have to say about gut (particularly about the which direction it branches) to account for the unacceptability of (23c)? Is this analysis extensible? 6. Summary of 4-5 Haider s analysis provides an explanation for a number of VO versus OV properties observed in English and German, respectively. 13

14 The EPP condition and English s inability to scramble arguments within the can be explained by appealing to Haider s Principle of Directional Interpretation. The intervening position of modifiers and the distribution of particle verbs can be explained by carefully considering how head-final versus head-initial syntax trees yield very different word orders. References Bobaljik, Jonathan & Dianne Jonas Subject Positions and the Roles of TP. Linguistic Inquiry 27: Haider, Hubert The Syntax of German. Cambridge University Press. Ott, Dennis An Ellipsis Approach to Contrastive Left-Dislocation. Linguistic Inquiry 45: