Syntactic Aspects of Topic and Comment (Linguistik Aktuell Linguistics Today 38)

SYNTACTIC ASPECTS OF TOPIC AND COMMENT

LINGUISTIK AKTUELL/LINGUISTICS TODAY Linguistik Aktueil/Linguistic Today [LA] provides a platform

for original monograph studies into synchronic and diachronic linguistics. Studies in LA confront empirical and theoretical problems as these are currently discussed in syntax, semantics, morphology, phonology, and systematic pragmatics with the aim to establish robust

empirical generalizations within a universalistic perspective. Series Editor

Werner Abraham

University of California at Berkeley University of Vienna Rijksuniversiteit G ton in gen Advkory Editorial Board Gugiitltno Cinque: [University of Venice) GLinther Crcwendoti GocuhoUniversity, Frankflirt) LiJUme HatgOinan (Lfnivcrsity oi Lilit France) ,

Hubert Haider (Univtrsily of Salzburg) Christer Plaizack (LfniversUy oi' Lund)

Ian Robert (University of Stuttgart} Ktn Safir (Rutgers University. New Brunswick N)) HfiykuldKr Thriiiisson (Lfniversity of Icd indj Reykjavik) Lisa JeMLna Travis {McGill University) Sten Vikner [Univcrsily of StuM art) C

.

Un-Wouter Zwart (University of Gron in gen)

Andre Memunger Syntactic Aspects of Topic and Comweni

SYNTACTIC ASPECTS

OF TOPIC AND COMMENT

ANDRE MEINUNGER

Zentmmjur AUgemeine Sprachwissenschaji, Berlin

)OHN BENJAMINS PUBLISHING COMPANY AMSTERDAM / PHILADELPHIA

TM

oo

Tke paper used in this pLiblicatlcHi meets the nimifmim requiiemecils of t

A[ne] Lcan. National Standard for hifbnnation Sciences - Permanence of Paper for Printed Library Mate-riais, AMiil 'jLy-y. H-ty&q.

Lihrjf) of Coii ress Catjio in in-PubLic tion Diiti Meiiiunger. Andre. Syntatic aspects of topic and comment / Andre tvf einunger.

cm. - [Lingutstik aktueLl / Lin tstics today. ISSN oito-awx v. w\ Revisio]! of the authoi's thesis (Discourse depe]ide]it DP (de-J placement}. 15 4/1 5 Includes bibliographical refere]ice.s and indexes. 1 Grammar. Comparative and general--Topic and comment. 2. Grammar. Comparative and general-Syntax. I. Title. IL. Ltnguistik alctuell ; Bd. ii. p

.

.

4l5"dc2l

-0 4203

ttiSN 0 272 27Sy 4 (CUli) j 1 55619 9&q y [til] (Hb; all?, paper) ® 2wu - John Benjamin?; B.V,

No part ofthip book may be reproduced in any form, by print, photoprint, microfilm, or any other means, without written permission from the publisher. John fl&njatnins Publiahm Co.

P.O.Box 75577

1070 aw Amsterdam

The Netherlands

john Benunins North America P.O.Box 275 iy Philadelphia pa 19118 0319 vsa

Table of contents

Acknoulcdgmcnts

ix

List of frequent ahhrc\ tiaiis

Mi

Introduction: Sonic phiLosophical reflections

- .

1

Chapter 1

Discourse dependent tree splitting

II

1]

II

.

Word order and intonation

12 The encoding of sentence functional perspeclivie J 3 Vallduvi s tripartition J 4 Topic-comment structures 1 4 1 Partee s proposal - Recursiveness in focus-background splitting J 4 2 A formal account of topic-comment strnctures (Kriilca .

.

.

.

.

3 Two immediate precursors of the theory del ended in this book 1 4 3 1 Diesing's mapping hypothesis 1 4 .3.2 De Hoop s theory of weak and strong Case 1 4 4 Focus theory and focus projection 1 5 Summary 14

.

.

.

.

.

.

IS

.

1991/92) .

i4 i7 18

.

.

20

24 2A 31 33 34

Chapter 2

The structure of the German VP

35

1 Configurational and non-configurattonal languages: The typological

2

.

classification of German 22

Lexical and functional categories 2 3 The base order: The projection oi" heads and arguments 2 3 1 Some assumptions about the syntactic encoding of argument structure - a syntax for lexical decomposition grammar . . . . .

.

.

35

37 39

.

39

vi

TABLE 01 CON I l:M S

2 32 .

.

On deriving an argument hierarchy

43

24

What is the basic word order fin German)?

44

25

Focus projection as a diagnostic for basic word order

45

.

,

26

The strict word order hypothesis 2 7 Some parallelisms with experiencer verb consmtctions 2 K The DAT > ACC > DAT/PP asymmetry 2 9 Short summary .

.

.

.

4S 51 52 5C)

Chapter 3

A trigger for scram him p r 3 1 Scrambling and scrambling theories 3 2 A survey of the semantic impact of scrambling-positions and cones ponding in (or pre tut ions .

61 6J

.

32 1

indclinites

66

3 22

Noun Phrases

74

323

Dcftnites

76

3 24

Strong L|LLantidicLttioiial noun phrases

K3

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

33

Overview

34

The common property of scriimbied constituents: The f+Topic]

.

.

64

feature 34 .

.

W

1 What is a possible topic?

3 42

Anaphoric DPs are not auloEuatically topics 3 4 3 A better account for atelicity than de Hoop's .

.

.

.

7

35

Provisional summary 3 6 Agreement phrases as topic hosts 3 7 Summary .

.

.

89

91 93 97 100 101

Chapter 4

Agr linden as topic hosts 4 1 The proposal

103 103

42

103 106

,

On the relationship between case and verbal agreement 4 3 The the re-are-no-agreement-projections hypothesis .

.

43 1 .

.

4 32

Tense and no nil native

Aspect and accusative 4 3 3 For the independence of Agr heads 4 4 Agr projections as topic hosts 4 4 1 The semantics of Agr .

.

.

.

.

.

,

107

108 Ill 114 114

f AULli OP CONTENTS

vii

'

442 .

.

A parallel case: Catalan

115 "

4 42 .

.

.

1 Tlie status of clitic-doubling and the structure ol

the

Catalan VP 4 4 22 ,

.

Striking similarities between clitic-doubting and

scranTbling 4 4 3 Some remarks on the computation of focus 4 4 3 1 Sc Ik i rk1 s t he o ry o f foe us p roje c t i on .

.

,

,

,

4 4 32 .

.

.

.

.

4 434 .

.

.

120 127 127

Cinque's 'Null Theory\ its problems and possible

applications 4 43 3

115

I2K

Hie 'Null Hypothesis" and its impact for siring vacuous

sera nib ling

J29

Problems and speculations

131

45

The mapping

136

46

Problems with adjuncts

J37

.

.

47

Speculations on A-movement eroding and the principle ol literal chy preserving 4 8 Summary .

.

140 156

Chap ilk 5

The typological chapter 5

.

1 MorpJioknuoally diilereni cases for the direct object

52 .

Object agreement and topichood

53

Word order, there-be effects and deacoenting 5 4 Summary and problems .

.

157

153 I6S

174 177

Chapter 6

Notes on extraction

1 An account of XP-deplacement and the case of relative clause extraposition 6 2 The Genera I i/.ed Specificity Condition 6 2 1 Was-fur and wieviel spht

6

179

.

IW

.

622

Quantifier split

\$5 IS9

623

ffft-extractkm

190

624

Extraction from PP

I9J

6 25

The weakness of topic islands

192

.

.

.

.

.

63 .

.

.

.

.

.

Factive islands

194

viii

TABLt OF CONTENTS

64 Relative clause extraposition 6 4 1 Re lathe clause extraposition and the validity of Ross1 right roof constraint 6 4 2 Right ward move mem. islandhood and the generalized specificily condition . 6 4 2 1 The syntax of restrictive versus apposilive relative .

.

199

.

199

.

.

.

.

clauses 6 422 .

.

.

202

The extraction behavior of restrictive and appositive relative clauses in German

207

6423

Intermediate summary 6 5 Speculations over an explanation for the Generalized Specificity .

.

202

.

. 211

.

Condition 65 .

212

1 Syntactic explanations

212

.

652

A semantic proposal 6 6 A short summary .

213 216

.

.

Chapter 7

Conclusions References

221 -

. 225

Name index

239

Subject index

243

Acknowledgments

The present hook is
1

their meaning diverges from it. A detailed eharaelcri/.alion of [his book of the terms

'

'

s use

'

topic' tind 'comment is laid down and expltiined ejtpiicitly throughout all chapters. Mmn ivopk haw helped mc lo nmve nt the ptopo.suls laid dou-n in Uij>

btHjk. It goes without saying that it would have been impossible to accomplish Ibis work without ongoing mspnation from numerous friends and

colleagues, I nume them here in alphabetical order. Thus, thanks to Wemer Abraham, l cter Ackcma. David Adger, Artemis Alexiadou. Kai Alter. Daniel Btiring, Diana Cresti, Klisa di Donienico, Sylkc Lichler Hans Martin

Giirmer. Dieter Gasde. Brigitla Haftka, Ken Hale, the late Karl Hrich Heidoiph ( I ), Helen de Hoop, Angeliek van Houl, Roxana Ibsent Gerhard Jiigei . Uwe Junghauns, Ursula Kleinhen . Wolodja KJimonow. Inga Kohiholf. Karen Latlewite. Taul Law, Sylvia Lohken, Christine Muaftcn. Karine

Megendoomian, Josep Quer. Henk van Riemsdijk, Jell Runner. Maaike St boor] em me r, Kerstin Sehwabe, Peggy Speas, Michal Slarke. Markus Steinbach, Anatoli Stiigin, Ann Viniilkka. Hnrie Validuva, Sten Vikner, Rtdt' VogeL Chris Wilder. Susanne Winkler, Use Zimermann, F

'

-

inally. thanks go also to Ronald Hol/Juieker. Sue Olscn, Paul House-

man, Sue Powers, Claris WUder, and othei'.s for cheeking my English. Of course, J am responsible for any mistakes and unciarities thtit may still arise from my non-native English.

List of frequent abbrevations

ACD

=

Antecedent Conuiined Deletion

Agr

=

Agreement (morphology)

AS

=

Ai'gumcni Structure

Cbi

=

(!.\>nt];istive tlement

GQ

=

Generalised Quantitier

GT

=

Generalised rJ ransformLiiio

LCA

=

Linear Correspondence Axiom

LI LF

= =

Lin Liisiic InquiryLogical Form

MH NKC

= =

Mtippin*; Hypothesis Novcliy-KamiliLirity-Condition

NS (JR KC RM

= = = =

Nucleiir Scope QujnEifier Raising Restrictive Clause (in Chapter 6: Kckttive CIausc) Keliitivized Minimality

UG

=

Universal Grammai

UTAH = > =

s)

Universal Thela Assignment Hypothesis Precedes Line ml y

Introduction: Some philosophical reflections

In this imioduction I inFt;nd to pre sen I li rath it philosophical background for the theory of language in general and of the theory of topic and comment

which I am going to develop in the present work in piiitiajkir Ln introductory hooks whose aim it is to present the Chomsky an theory of Generative (jramnuir, the liinguage faculty is presented as a mental organ which belongs to the genetic equipment ol the human race. This inheritable .

system is called Universal Grammar

UG). It is claimed that UG is an

autonomous system which interacts with other conceptual modules, for example logical deduction or the treatment of concepts. UG thus is considered to be a specific module which is responsible only for the generation of

inguistic structures. The viewpoint that the base for the acquisition of a anguage is something innate is largely accepted nowadays. Natural language

is such a complicated system that it has been keeping generations of scholars busy describing and explaining il. And there is sliJI little agreement among them how to analyze the one or other phenomenon. Hence it would be very surprising that all normally intelligent children acquire such a complex system without much dlbrt, and from a very restricted input of data, if there were not a base which enables them to do that. Thus there should be no

doubt about the inn a tn ess of the main factors that guide language acquisition, The question that I want to address here is whether the language faculty as such is genetically lixed or if there is a more general base for UG. There is a debate among generative linguists whether there is a mental organ exclusiveJy responsible for language or il UG is just an instantiation ol a more general cognitive module {for the latter point of view see Koster (19X7) Haider {[993a. 1994bJ and especially Fanselow (1991. i992b) and also some cunent papers by Chomsky himself). These authors considered the possibility that the innate system is rather some general faculty which they call 'Formal '

2

[NTRODUCTJON: SOME PHILOSOPHICAL RLI'LECTEONS

'

Ciller Chomsky 19 0) and which liocs beyond the .specitkily of UG. In dieir opinion, grammar i.s Jusl an accidentai use of this Format Competence' which ls not biologically necessary. They show that some C-ompftfncc

'

piincipl.es of UG, if formula led slightly more general, may cover other pnndples that are effective in other mental processes as well. Since this is of some importance, let me give an example. In ihc classical Government and Binding framework (GB) (Chomsky 1981), there were slightly less then

len principles which determine what output of a generation procedure is grammatical. To these principles belong: (J)

a. b

X-bar theory .

Case lilter

c

Empty Category Principle (ECP) Binding Principles A, C Control theory

f

Theta-criterion etc.

c

.

d

.

.

.

The binding principles under (dj are supposed to act as likers for what sort of Ltominid plnasc may or may jio: appear in what position. Widi respect to the referential force, the theory distinguishes three types of NPs; the so-

called R-expressions, pronouns, and anitphors. R-expressions have referential force of their owrn. They carr\' a lexical noun in them wrhich has semantic

content. R-expressions are NPs or DPs like my awit Chrisra. this book, a handsome imguisi... Pronouns are referentialJy depeiidem. 'Phey act as variables and need an R-expression as antecedent, or must be identillable wuhin tlic Mlnamc coineAt iVmiHic .

arc NPs. DPs or D11 cteiuents like iL

sfmf... While il is still possible for pronouns to get interpreted through the situadve context, attaphoric pronouns need a linguis-

sofiwottc, yott, ufy

,

tic antecedent which bears a close relationship to them. Anaphors may never appear alone and arc elements like myscif, nfrh other or Latin sims (special possessive form). Their distribution is restricted to certain structurally determined positions. The restrictions of the dill ere nt nominal expressions classified above are called the Ah tL C of Binding Theory.

INTROmirnON: SOME PHILOSOPHICAL REFLECTIONS

(2)

Binding Frindples Prindpie A

An iinaphor must be Ixmnd in ils goveming category,1 Prittcipie B A pronoun must not be bound (i.e. must be free) in its governing CbUcgory.

Prindpie C An R-ex press ion must be free everywhere.

It hits been no Led thai principle B. its it s[ it fids, is nt>t very much in the spirit of the theory in which it constitutes un integral part. Whereas most grammatical principles require locality in order to be applicEible, principle B is the only one which exdudes the existence of a structural relationship within a Joe ally defined domitin. Principle B pr
(4) *Annaj hates her; The ungrammaticiility oi' {4) shows that the pronoitn in object position cannot be construed coreferendally with the subject as it is the case with the anaphors in (3). There are also empirical problems with this principle, however, tn lish is it litnguage that is very rich in reflexive forms. Many languages however, do not have such a compiete paradigm of rellexives. In ,

German, for example, only third person (pro-)nouns distinguish pronouns from reflexives. All other persons do not make a morphological distinction. (5) Ama hapr m'h{. Anna hates herself

t

f LLSsiinu? Eliiit the e r mder is faniLJiiir with the techrtii:;i] ii?riins 'bnniiJ' and governing talc ory An e einent i.s bound, if it k c--c(]]nniLLiided by j co-j]ide\ed eJe]nent. 'GoveruiLig; .

"

.

"

category nnefitis tbe jnininuJ tk)]niitn LonlninLng it subject, tlius a reader who does not tnow what

tcKTiil dotm iii. 1 am awaie that |}oiiHdl tneans, can htiftUy nudciraland wJmt c-Loninunid is.

Thui the brief deJlnjtion docs not clarify much In diat ca.se. Howe vet', a detailed kiiowtedec Libont fiindi]ig is iiol necessary in older to be abJe to fbhow ihu on|oiiig diseussioii. WliLit is

ctuciaJ heic Js that a governing category is u locaJ doniLiiji. mid tJuit IocllI dojoaiiis m e sttuctutal spheres where spec ilk conditions must be EuJhiled.

4

INTRODUCTION: SOME PKlLOSomiCAL Rlil'LLCHONS

Anna hates her

Atwtii hajk xie-v Anna hates her

(A)

Ich hasse midi. 1 l

hate

midi

l hate myself'.' '

[7)

Afimi htijk fnivh. Anna hates fuich '

Anna hates me.'

As (7) shows, nrich tannul be an aiiaphor. U is not htinnd. Thereiore it must be a pronoun. As such, however it should be excluded in whkh il is

not. Bavarian is even poorer in reflexive forms than Standard German. As most languages Germitn (itnd its variety Bavariitn) makes use of diJTerent pronouns when addressing people. Friends, relatives and so on are addressed

by du, whuh is the second person singular pronoun, when there is only one addressee. When there are morCj the pronoun U\i\ which is sceond person plural, htts to be used. The formal way of addressing people is to use Sie whioh is derived

,

in funelion though not in form, from the third person

plural. As mentioned above, third person (pro-)tiouns have diJTerent forms for pronouns and pronominal anaphors in Standard German, Bavarian, however, does not have a special reflexive form for the polite, i.e. formal form. It simply uses the pronoun form. t8)

Stelk'fi

Sie sirli

hitte

vort

imagine you 'youi self please PART

[Standard Gounacn

(yourself = reflexive form)

Ttease, imagine...1 [9) *Sw!U'!i

Sic timeit hitTt'

vor,

imagine you 'you' please part ([{))

Sn'Ilit j

Eana voa

imagine'you.CL you

part

...

...

tStandard German)

(you = pronominal form) (Bavarian)

(you = pronominal form)

Thus, languages have more or less eomplete pronoun-anaphnrie paradigms. Some languages hardly have any anaphoric pumoun (reflexive) forms at their disposal. The generalisation seems to be that if there exists an anaphoric

form it must be used in the relevant context; if there is no special morphological anaphorteity markm . a usual pronoun mav be used. I'he principie B

iNTkODUrnoN: SOME PHILOSOPHICAL RLI'LLCTIONS

require me in does not hold. Pronouns may be bound in their governing

category without any problem if there is no corresponding anaphoric form. Anaphoric forms arc more specific than pronouns. They are more informative in thai they neecssartly carry with them die information about coreferentiaiity with a c-tommandiny NP in their governing category J hus the distribution of pronominal and anaphoric Ibrms seems to be constrained by some other rule than principle B. Fanselow {1(J9]: 272) proposes thai it can he derived from '

'

.

an independent constraint which he calls the Proper Inclusion IYhieipie (PIP): (II)

PIP:

If in a struct Lire I. there are two pnsstbiltties A and B that compete with each other for the assignment of some feature (or referential in-

dex) it is impossible to apply A in E if A's domain of application is a proper subset of B s domain of app lie tit ion. '

The domains that allow for pronouns are a superset of the domains that allow for the appearance of anaphors. Thus a pronoun is e\claded where a reflexive pronoun with the sume reference is possible. The advantage Fanselow attributes to his PIP is that it is no longer a specific syntactic

principle. He shows that some of the principles mentioned above are reducible to extra-syntactic, more general constraints as well. These constraints are likely to be principles of our Formal Competence'. Interestingly. '

many of them apply in other cognitive domains as well. The PIP. for

example, is very similar to the Elsewhere Condition in phonology (Kiparsky 1982). This condition says: (12)

Elsewhere Condition:

Rules A. B in the same cDmpdcieni afipK oisiunuiu'ly in ;i inrm 'M if and onlv if -

i

The structural tlesciipikm of A (the special rale} properly includes

ii.

the structural description of B (the general rulej The result of applying A to is distinct from the result of applying b to In that case. A is applied hrst, and if it takes effect,

.

then B is not applied.

Thus the Elsewhere Condition says that if in a phonological process two

rules are applicable: Use the more specific one, Another cognitive domain which is not purely linguistic, he. syntactic, where some related version of the Proper Inclusion Principle has been

6

IN] KOlXiC nON: SOME PHlLQSOPHiCAL RUFLLCnONS

pmposed as weiL is communitLilion strategy. Grice (1975, 197 > formulates "

a muple ol rules which are obeyed under unmarked circumsLanees of conversation. His Cooperative Principle contiiins a ipiantity maxim which

requires that, within an act of communication, the speaker muke his/her contrihLition as informaEive as possible. For example, from an answer like Knka has three kids', which is a reply to the question How many children docs Eriku havt?4. the hearer can (or even must) infer that Erika has only L

three kids. This inference is a consequence of the Griccan maxim of quantity which makes the listener assume the speaker to be as informative as possible. Factually, the sentence 'Hrika has throe kids" is still true if she has four or eleven kids. The quantity maxim says, apart from the pure information a sentence conveys, that there is an iniplicalion that the statement that is contained in the sentence is the most specific information the speaker has evidence for. This makes inappropriate all other sentences which just truthconditionatly imply the truth of the fact that Erika has three kids. Le, Erika has four kids1 for example. These sentences would fall in the superset domain which is ruled out by Fanselow's Proper Inclusion Pricipie. A similar case which comes from the held of concept uses is one Fansc1

low gives himself. An object like n is usually categorized as a square, not Just as a rectangle. The set of rectangles is clearly a superset of the set of squares. If it can be shown that alJ the language spec!tic principJes listed above can be reduced to more general constraints that determine other cognitive domains as well, the idea of UG as a language specilie module must yield to '

a more general theory. Lately, especially since Chomsky s Minimalist Program' (Chomsky 1992, but also already 19K9J, economy is considered to he one of the major constraints that condition language generation. Ideally economy is to be understood as an independent notion, hainomy means least elfort. most effective use of capacities, lack of (too much) redundancy. taking the best advantage of resources, etc. These principles are at work in many systems d there in liom language as well. It is more than just likely '

that (some of) these principles are also effective in other cognitive domains. Such an insight helps to understand other - though perhaps - related phenomena which are usually taken to have something magic. In the theory argued for in this introduction, natural language {UGj is just a specific instance of our mental capacity named 'Formal Competence". There are several other systems that appeal to similar principles: systems that - like language - consist of a limited base of things' and rules - and yet - due

INTkODUniON: SOME PHlLOSOmiCAL R

LtCTIONS

U) recursiveness ive rise to a possibly unlimited number of slates (firnmmatkill sentences in the case of language), fiueh systems are as serious things as

mat ho indies and 1 ogle, or as pleasant things as games (chess) and music. Under normal di aims lances every child is exposed to an environment where language is an integral part of life. Thus every child learns al least the language that is spoken around him.-'her. Some children happen to be esposet to one of the other systems just mentioned more intensively and earlier in

their I lie than the majority. This may be because they have very ambitions parents (Mozart) or because they are growing up in social systems where drill and latent selection play n important role in education, or because they just get to learn munhers and basic arithmetical operations in a very early stage. Equipped with the innate l-ormal Competence they internalize the '

sped lie characteristics of the respective system as effortlessly and with the same ease everybody learns his mother tongtie. Thai way the world produces what lesser mortals call geniuses; people that seem to (and actually do) invent melodies accoRlitig to the laws of harmony wilhtn shoftest time

(Bach. Mozart. Rossini), people like Karpov or Kasparov and others, who play against 50 other gifted chess players or highly intelligent computers at the same time and still beat them, or those people (mental arithmetic

geniu&es like Arno .Schmidt and many others) who perform in circus tents or entertainment shows and astonish the audience by their ability to multiply three and lour digit numbers, or compute square roots of very big numbers

(mental abacus) faster than the entertainer with a machine. All these people, it seems, have access to the principles of the "Formal Competence', and succeeded to exploit them for one more system than only the command of their mother tongue. {For an i n iciest in l; overview of the so-called 'expertise phenomena see Mandl et ah (1991) and the references quoted therein. especially Hatamvs work (Hatano et al. 1987) on the mental abacus expertise '

'

'

which can be considered to be a nice confirmation of the given, rather spcculative aiiiument). Thus under the view promoted and adopted here, language - or moiTe -

specifically UG - is not autonomous anymore. It might now be seen as something that is determined by the principles of Formal Competence1 which however, is not 4Formal Competence' per se. ]f the very abstract Formal Competence' is what governs (almost) all our cognitive processes 1 then there is much more possible interaction between the structural represen'

,

'

tation and its meaning. I want to claim chat it is the 'Formal Competence

s

K

IN 1KODUC HON; SOME nilLOSOH IfCAL RLFLLCTIONS

which

'

translates1 the object of eommunieation into a code we call natural

language. Let us assume there is sonvihin a human beint? wains to convey to another hum an being {or sometimes even to him-Zherself or tin imaginary' creature), this may be some vajiue thought, a wish, a warning, s imethin witnessed, etc. Since our phys iology (the iirticulatory perceptual system) is made lor producing and receiviji sounds, we are able to use acoustic signals '

to transmit this. Our 'Formal Competence is asked to map this something '

which is supposed to be communicated Lo someone else from the tuzzy thoughts wishes and so on to a string of soundsWhat the system of 1 Formal Competence does by solving this task is to generate language, Under such a theory, the function of language determines its form massively. "

,

'

This way, funcuonal and structural (i.e. generative) linguistics are not contradictory anymore. The sense behind the existence of languages is to

communicate. Natural language can then be seen as the outcome of peoples

'

wish or need of communicating something provided by the general system '

of

1

f onual (. umpotL -

nL,L

In ibis sense J wani lo understand '

a raisinterpretative manner - Chomsky s

ulthon h in

claim from J971: HQ.

There is. of cuursi:, no doubt [hat bugjage is desi nud fur lLSl:,

[he present book is an investigation of the syntax of the encoding of sentence functional perspective. It examines the question of whether there is u mapping between discourse representation and syntactic structure, i.e. whether dill erent information packagings of an utterance are reHected through dilferent structural re pre se mat ions of a sentence; and if so, what this mapping looks like. The present book is organised as follows. In Chapter I I mainly present the most influential theories about sentence functional perspective. I sketch their advantages and drawbacks and conclude this chapter with a more detailed presentation of two relatively recent proposals about how syntax reflects the old : new articulation of a sentence which I '

2

Funsclfw suites th l the fuJcs f>f 'Fonniil Compotence' lu-c not hinctioaLLtly infltivated. This is certiiinly true .No roiisonabtc |icrsmi would cluim thai. Lumong other things. Ungun c is constrained t>y economy principles liecitusc people want to be effective in their ttse of liingnage or because economy already conditions the (flpics peopJe talk about. The principles of Formal Competence' ui e r-uttar determined by the niiiteriat structure of our briiin. Language, linwever. cjji iind sliould ho viewed us partly t Lnctio]uiJ]y dctcmime-d sLnce iL is the output of the system .

'

'

of

F«rmal Competence', whose task ft'linctioi

L

it le to mitteriLUaje the wish of comnnunjcatioLV

consider as ihe immediale anLLest, which splits the structural tree of n sentence into it domain where presupposed (discourse-old) material is mapped and a domain where discourse-new mtUerial is licensed. The second approach is de Hoop s '

*

theory of Ctise (de Hoop 1992), This theory claims that noun phrases which eEin be chitriicteri/ed as heing rhe anchor in the conversation get assigned a different Ceisc from noun phmscs thai tire discmirsc-ncw or do just not act as anchoring expressions.

Chapter 2 is concerned with the structure of the German VR It will be argued that the VP is the syntactic domain of the comment which contains the assertion of the sentence. 1 will show ihat discourse-new material is base

generated in the VP and remains there, ihe neutral order of VP intema constituents gives us
conhrmation of a universal thematic hierarchy. Chapter 3 deals with derived representations. It is concerned with translormations that apply to the base order whose structure was elaborated in Chapter 2. J will show that a certain class of arguments leave the base position while others do not. The trigger for this movement (scrambling) is the discourse status of the constituents. My claim is that scrambling is

triggered by a [tTopic] feature. In the following chapter. Chapter 4,1 argue that the relevant movement operation leads into the specifier of an agreement projection. It is in this

chapter where I propose a new discourse-syntax mapping. Inmhermore. Chapter 4 deals with the rntonational side of scrambling and related processes and tries to offer solutions to some theory-internal, hut also generally

ac kno w lodged pro blem s. Chapter 5 brings more evidence from many typological!y dllTcrent languages, which reinforces the claim that arguments which behave as topics trigger the activation of agreement projections.

>

ThmudtLUit [he whole hook 1 will capitalize the word Cusc wlieu I jm taJking jboul the linguistic concept. 1 do this Ikclulsc Tllsc' is li cmcul notion in (he given Lind E want it nol to be mistJtfcen with ihe luimopltomc word ase' Rieauing msuiiiccf. .

10

INl'RODUCTION: SOME PHILOSOPHICAL K

Li CTlONS

Chapter 6 tot uses on a special propeny of topic ill consiituems It shows thai topics act as weak isJands for extraction out of them. One proposal of Chapter 6 is called the 'Genemlized Specificity Condiiion'. This condition is an ahstraction over several up to now rather independent constraints on movement imd linkage. General remark

Although 'movement" is one of the words used most frequently in this hook. the present work is not intended as an endorsement for a derivational approach. The theory presented here is independent of the issue derivational versus representational Every use of the tenn 'movement' could easily be transferred into a representational chain dependency. Despite the derivational vocabulary, it will be apparent at various places in this book that 1 have more sympathy for a representational approach to the nature of grammar. "

.

Chapter 1

Discourse dependent tree splitting

1 1 .

Word order and into nation

i he ba.sic.L form in which language shows up is in speaking. Any other encoding of communication, e.g. sign language, writing h momng and so on.

are derived systems, One of the major goals of linguistics is to explain how meaning is encoded in the sound waves our speech organs produce, To put it differently, it is one task of linguists to formally describe hoiv a string of sounds (phonetic form of an utterance PF) is related to what this physical object is supposed to mean (the utterance s logical form, LFj. Taking into ,

'

consideration the material nature of the phonetic side of language, there are basically two ways of encoding linguistic information. As already stated

above, spoken language is manifested as a consequence of sounds that are mapped onto abstract phonological representations. A string of sotmds is

mapped onLo phonemes, which in turn are grouped together and analyzed as morphemes that play some role in a struct Lire of a higher level called syntax. This side I uould like to call the linear side. Grammatical phenomena that fall under it are word order, complex word tormalion. alhxation patterns and so on. The second kind of information a linguistic utterance can bear is provided through its melodic shupe. Thus not only the grouping of segments that linearly follow each other, but also things like accentuation, pitch. '

and intonation play an important role in encoding and decoding information. This is the suprasegmental side. Whereas the lirst, the linear side, has been the area of syntactic research fmm the beginning - which lies in the nature

of syntax - the second one. i.e. the suprasegmental side as an important field in information structure was discovered later and has since then lead the

life of a stepchild (notable, inspiring exceptions are Cinque 1993: Keinhard 1995 and most recently Zubi/arreta 199S). It was rather the phonologists

12

SYNTACTIt." ASPLCTS 01

lOPlC AND a)MMLNrl

'

who discovered syntax [is a use ill] domain ot investigation thLin syntaeticians

who found interest in phonology (especially si nee Selkirk's dissertation from

](:}7D.1 This book will not he an attempt of integrating phonology into synlat-lk theory; luckily this issue is becoming nowtidtiys more and more

iittriiclive to both symaetidans and phonologies (see the work mentioned aboveJ. My intention is to show that the phenomenon of information puek ing makes inrensivc use of both sides. Languages dilTer. with respeet to which side is preferred over the other, to mcirk the parts of a sentence as new and old in formal ion. One example thai ilJusttates thai very nieely is narrow focus. Let us abstract for a moment from sophisticated semLintic analyses of narrow focus and assume with Szabolcsi (19S1) that narow focus induces an ejthaustivity interpretation. That means that the focused constituent denotes the only entity that satis lies the open proposition provided by the rest of the sentence {= background). Languages like English mark (narrow) focus almost exclusively by prosodic means; i.e. contrastively focused eonslituents get stressed (1). The exhuustivity reading is triggered by the phono logical, supraseg mental shape of the utterance. Example (2) is a

possible paraphrase of (1), see below. (I)

Mary

u-c JOilN the book."

(2)

It is John that Mary gave the book (to).

Other languages identify a narrowly focused constituent only by means of the

struetuml position of that constituent, Such a language is Hungarian. There the focused phrase must be moved to some position where it is immediately followed by the finite verb. This position is called Lhc focus position, (}

JA i uwuik i ftfki Mi iri ii kiini va. John-DAT give-PAST-3sci Mary the book-Arc; '

It is John that Mary gave the book (to).' (= (1))

1

For a detailed overview over ilie syiaax : phoNotogy connection see the liuiodactrny chiipter

2

TKum liout this. Ixiok 1 vili use cupitaJ lelters to inthcato phonoloGicLil ircr s. t

.

.

jll cj v lo

only capittitiie tiic Licccimukd idcs niitcd) jiylkihk. Tliiji is not itiwiiys ]>ossiMe. however, OccasJcnalE , wltea I quote fioin paperi on languagct which E do mil speak, tlic v-'holc woid may he capitalj?jed,

DLSCOURSL Dl-PENDLN I" TRHL SPLiniNG

In view of the idea thiit ntHural languages dilfer only supediuully. it would be desirLihle to iissign to both sentences the same underlying structure. That means thist the English stress pattern (suprastgmentully encoded) and the Hungarian word order (linearly encoded) should give rise to identical abstract representations. One way of doing that is to assume a level of logical form

(LF). This is the way the Principle & Parameici approach and its ollsprings handle it. In minimalist terms, one would say that in Hungaiian the (head of

a) focus phrase is associated with a strong feature. That means that overt movement of a constituent into ihe specific:r position has to take place before spelJ-ouL in English, the principle Procrastinate is at work (Hrody \<)i)5). This principle says that no movement occurs unless there are driving forces, These are not active in Hnglish, thus the focused phrase remains in its base position. Nevertheless, in order to express the same as the Hungarian sentence means in English the focused constituent has to move to the same

position at the level of LK The result then would be the same for both languages: the focused phrase in order to be properly interpretedj sits in its designated position which is SpecFoc from where it binds its trace in the ,

base position: FoeP

(4)

SpecFoc Johm

.

Foc(t

fttno
Spec VP

Jkfu Ltiu Lmu -jofiis phfLKJc' jji used to ntike r erciuu tu a JlhicLhuuI prejectioji wlikm lJkotttnitcd projcctLi>rt of ihe verb. It sifunild not bo confusod with tJic use wJicic the itfini itfers S

.

to arlutnify eanstituejti which ets a oontraEtive intcrpvetiUion stnd must be linked/moved lo li SL'opii] |50sitLO]i. Thus, llic iim contd be oojnpiired to the projectiott of C Elie bttej.- use 1

-

,

may be compared lo a n-h-toustitufut.

14

SYNTACHC ASPliCTS 01 TOPIC AND COMMENT

This way both sentences come out the same. L incur and intonation a 3 in tormat ion lead to the stinic output at LK

Aptirt from that, one should bear in mind that in the unmarked ease htn uaj;es do not use the one or the other strategy lor inlbmiittion paekaging exclusively. Natural languages are rather mixed systems with more or less

strong preference: for cither It seems to be the case that so-called noneonligLirational languages use word order much more than eoniigurationa. ones do. The latter stick much more to intonalional encoding, Nevertheless.

even English, which almost exclusively uses the prosodic strategy, has the option of tlefting. which is almost identical to Hungarian focus movement

(cf. Kiss mb: Meimmger 1997). (5)

It is... that Mary gave to book (to).

This sentence resembles much more the Hungarian one. Apart from that, it is some sort of disambiguated variant of (1) since (1) has one more reading

than (2) and (3). On the other hand, also in the Hungarian example (3) F

JAaosiHik is the phonologic ally most accentuated word. Thus, also Hungarian dt>cs not solely resort to word order.

t2

The e neodi

tif senlenee fune t ionu I perspeet i ve

In the introductory chapter, the exchange of information has been characterized as the main funetion of language. As a coherence strategy, sentences normally contain some known element(s) nhout which the speaker wants to convey some new information to the hearer. For a felicitous communication

it is necessary that there be some common knowledge to both speaker and

hearer.,J This common knowledge which increases during the conversation series as anchor for new information entering the discourse. The fact that (declarative) sentences can be split into some sort of anchor part on the one hand, and some other part containing the new information on the other, has

been the research topic for generations of linguists. In the following. 1 wil

4

Thh tomnum fciKwtedge may be mimniLil Lind is trivully given. Botli spcukcr and hi-wt iilwjtys Jirttiw about eiidi other s ejitstence. Under noniutl circumstaiKes, they also know tibont the situatEou around them. Thus, tliey are aware of some aspects of the nonhi msttc context of .

'

tlteir coimnrmnicatkHi.

DLSCOURSL DHHENDENT TkEL SPLITTING

1

give y ver ' shorl t>verview of the main pmposuls, M
about the ditrenenl trends of sentence function ail perspective can be found in Vallduvi (1993 and references quoted therein. Theme-Khemf!

One split that goes hack to Amman's (ly2W) ' Thema' and LRhema' is the

division ofii sentence into theme and rheme. This approach, however, is not very concrete about deli nit ive criteria of the relevant pari>:. It merely says that there is some old. vehicular ptirt (theme) which is opposed to the new. informative part (rheme). 7opic-Couimeut

This split, according to VallduviH belongs to the more influential ones. The term which is more important is topic. Comment is the rest. Mathesius (1915) refers to the topic as that part of the sentence the speaker wants to

give some information about. Thus, the topic constituents induce some aboutness feeling. (6)

Pavamtti 1 is the best tenor of this century.

(7)

Those Tosca recordings with ClIiici js us Ctivjiadossj I I would never buy

Reinhard (1 82) integrates this idea into a more developed theory. For her. topics represent tile cards (in the sense of Heim I9K2, see below) under which new information is to be stored. She also gives some tests to ideniily topics, lust to mention the most famous one: asfor constructions in I-nglish. A constituent is a topic if it can be left demched and preceded by as for without immducing an informationally dilferent structure from the input sentence. J hus the preposed constituent in (7) is a topic since it is (almost) equal to (K) in terms of information packaging. '

(K)

'

As for those Tosca recordings with Carreras, [ would never buy (any ofj them.

Hatliday (1967) is more restrictive in what may be considered a topic. For him, it is crucial that a topic be sentence initial (in English). This is in accordance with the aboucness idea since initial constituents occupy an outstanding position from which some address status follows intuitively.

16

SYNTACTIC ASMLCTS Ol' TOHC AND COMMLNT

The opposition focus-open proposition is also a very delicate issue. The literature on the phenomenon is very conliEsmL!, and this short piimgraph cannot clarify this confusion However. I want one distinction to come out clear: the distinction between inform;itive or presentational focus on the one hand, tind contrastivc focus on the other. This distinction seems to me to be

cmcml. although thcic arc daims thtit there is no real distinction between the

two. As for information fot us or presentation a] foeus (which is not always distinguished from contrast!ve focus) the history of linguistics otfers a set of

complements, i.e. open proposition is not the only name lor the rest of the sentence. There are as various notions as presuppositioit (mainly in early generative trrammar: Chomsky I97h Jackendolf 1972 among others), the already mentioned open proposition (especially in the functionally oriented work by Prince 1981 1986), shared knowledge or hacktfround - used in other domains even often synonymously with the othei notions. In most of these studies Tocus refers to the informative part of the sentence. It can be singled out by substracting from the relevant declarative sentence everything which can be reeonstructed from I he discourse, whether linguistic or sitnative. Informative focus is that part of the sentence that pushes the conversa,

'

tion ahead (cf. the discussion in Section ].4.2j. Contrastive focus on the

other hand is used to single out and identify a specific set of entitiesf namely those and only those of which the presupposition holds (especially Rooth 1985). In order Co distinguish these notions of focus, several tests have been developed. The most successful ones are the exhaustivity tests by Szabolcsi

(1981). She provides contexts and constructions that give dilTerent truth conditions for either focus. The reader is referred to this seminal work or to

the well written presentation of these ideas in Kiss {1996}. There it is argued that presentational focus h which is the domain ol new inform a Lion, is associated with a canonical, base-generated position - presumably the result

of focus projection (see below) whereas contrastive focus is associated with operator movement of a focus phrase to a designated scopaJ position (very nuLch in the sense of Chomsky 1972 who makes no distinction between the

two types of locus). This view will also be the one promoted here in this book. Yet, in order to et more contrast in the terminology I will use the notion of focus only in the contrastive and therefore QUantllicational sense.

DISCOURSL DLHUNDHN'I' 'I'REL SHLl' 1"11 [Nt f

17

The new information focus will be culled 'comment4. For more on the

distinction tind illustrative examples see Section 1.4.2.

13

Vuliduvi's triparlitiun

Vcdlduvf

(1992) observed that neither the Lopic-comment, nor the focus-tipen

prt>position accounts could capture the twofold information encoding. The former accounts provided some techniques to single out the topic of a sentence, but they were unable to tell the old, given part of the sentence from the informative one.

(9) These CDs Vlathias bought only tor his FRItND.

These accounts could say something about the topic-comment articulation. Thus, they are able to identify the pre-subject object as topic of the sentence.

They are, however, unable to localize the informative part of the sentence. The comment is considered Lin titomic entity which does not split any further The focus-open propositions accounts on the other htuui arc only able to tell what new information the sentence introduces, thitt is that the back-

ground consisting of the verb buy, its agent and theme arguments plus the past tense information are shared knowledge. The new is the toe us associated

with the locus sensitive particle only, for hisfriend. The marked word order in the background cannot he explainer..

Vail dim successfully combines both accounts and comes up with a tripartite division of sentences. He calls his solution the ltr[nominal hierarchical articulation He lirst Lid opts the focus-open proposition proposal and '

.

divides the sentence

into old and new

information

The results of this

'

splitting are called focus and ground. The ground is of course the old part. I his In tLirn is spliUahk one more linic. Clinch in the inoniisLL-LU lopie

elements) and the in format ion ally less important other mater! aL The topic clement he tails

link . the other dements which do not introduce an

aboutness feeling are called tail elements. Their task is to facilitate the retrieval of the information from the ft>cus part into the file card of the topic ( linkj. Thus the ValJduvi splitting looks like in the sketches in (10>-(ll). L

.

(10)

Sentence

= { focus, ground }

Ground

= { link, tail >

IK

SYNTACTIC ASPECTS OF TOPIC AND COMMENT

The sentence can he imitlyz L (11)

Seiuencfi Ground

Link

Tail

These CDs I Math las bought only I for his FRIEND,

14

Topk-commtnt structures

L4T

Parties proposal - Recursiveness

fhcus-background spiiUing

Parlce (109]) proposes that the informationul task
tions us tripartite strut;lures. Quantifietition inv alves a Generalized Quantilier which has two arguments, one of which is called the Res trie tor (restrictive clause), the other one the Nude is r Scope (matrix Assuming that most focus-sensitive constructions are tjuantilkationah she tries to show that, in

general information, pae ka ing can be analyzed as an ins lane e of quant i lie at-

iun. She proposes that the topic0 part be mapped into the restrictive clause, whereas the focus part be mapped into the nuclear scope. Thus, for a sentence that contains a quantilicationa! element anyway, where the focus serves to identify the nuclear scope, she gives the followimi anaiysis. (12)

5

.

Mary always took | JOHN I]: to the movies.

Mofc Lilwiit the tlieory of Ocncfatiied Quiintlfiers see Section ] .4.3. L2.

ft. JLl nc>L]OEi> ul lojuc '.\.\\:\ E l'un .ij-.- iliUkj mlu]Live nJ ln-L-k l-o]ktc1l: dvlLiulL iL>. Sliv; "

ijLls:

very i]i(orLi[iuJly 1 tales the cure nf [he uocitjn 'topic' to be roughly ehLLL'jcteiiied l>y such

...

eJtprcssJoiis iis

r

'

'

old

,

"

'

given

tiJiov- r. 'wlt [ Lhc- sfrttencc

'

,

LiboLit', ' nch i ' (J' l cl e hciifeih.

tiquaJly vague, the "cortUiie]!!" is then the Lrvew part1, or what is being taid uboul lite topic."

U1SCOURSL DLHUNDliNT TREL SHLlTriNG

(13)

Opcrarnr (OP)

Restrictive Clause (RC) Nuclear Scope (NS)

always

3x (Mary took x to

, ,

(the movies at e;

(Mary lookj John

(to the movies at e)

Since not every sentenee is organi od this simply (one elassteal quantifier, '

one easily iden Li liable i t us on one constituent and the rest of the sentence)

and also in order Lo somehow incorporate the Prague School theory of Communicative Dynamism, Partee proposes that, concerning sentence functional perspective, these tripartite structures are recursive. That means that the restrictive clause which contains the topic of the sentence may be I ml her split into an operator, another restrictive clause and one moi'e nuclear scope. The same is vaiid lor the matrix nuclear scope. Accordingly, the more

complex sentence (14) is represented in (15). (14)

A man who always agrees with whoever he is talking to never tells only the truth.

(15) OR

RC

NS

never-x

man {x} & S

S

OP

RC

NS

OP

RC

NS

I will argue that not every sentence contains a quantifieational statement, i.e. there are sentences where the notions of restrictive clause and nuclear scope should nol be applied. {These non quantilieational sentences even represent the normal, unmarked case.] However, whaE I agree with from Partee's proposal is the forma I i nation of the idea that the old. anchoring i,e, topic part, as well as the new part (focus) a:e not neeessaiily atomic, but that they '

'

.

again might be the input to some further in formation ally induced division.

20

] .4.2

SYNTACTIC ASPliCTS Oi; UmC AND COMMON'I'

A fonnal at -t -oi tn t of topic-comuien t xtrucmres {Knfkd 199} 192}

In li cerl in sense, Piirtee s idea of recursiveness is li!so Hiund in Kriftoi

(1991/92), who develops a theory of to pit-to mmenl structures which conies dose to whut will be tLiken as semantic; base for the present, rather syntactic book. There exist in the linguistic theory two diQercnt uses of the notion focus. Bolh refer u> a rekued. yd dillcrejit phe]]oi]ie]n>[i. l liis fact compli-

cates the discussion since it is very import ant to disLin uish [he one from the oilier. One notion of locus. wrhich mainly goes hack to the Prague school and has been overtaken by Piirlee iind Validuvi, considers focus as the informative part of the sentence, i.e. whiit Partee describe!* as "the 'new part, or what is being said about the topic and what Validuvf defines as Is (information of the sentence). is the propositional content (p ) of a sentence that '

"

H

makes a contribution to the hearer

'

s knowledge store (Kh). This use of the

term focus will not be the one used in the presenL book. The

mmmatical

phenomenon to which Partee and Vailduvi refer as focus will henceforth be ealJed {foeus of the) comment (see above). The notion of focus will be used in the sense of Roolb (I9W5) and others. For him. focus is understood as the

instanriation of one alternative out of a set of other pragmatically salient, potentially ct ual possibilities. These alternatives constitute the P-set (or actually the C-set). For instance, the sentence (16)

Marcus likes MEN.

asserts that Marcus is a gay man. The alternatives of the C-sel that are made sahem vwA excluded al the >ajnc u-ul- V>\ ultorm

this sceUclicc arc women.

and if pederasm is not considered to be too farJetched, children. Thus in the sense of focus-as-eshausliveness operator (S/a bole si 1981), focus is understood as coiUrastive focus. Focus in the above sense (eommentj does not have to be contrastive.''

(17)

Pavarotti sarni tin ariu with a high C.

7

RoclicimonT {l%6) also iises notion focus. HnwcveL he Is very CiiiuJbl wjUi Ww dilfcrcut meanings of tins word aiitl ihcrcforc calls tlic one 'fontriistive focus' Jtnd the other one. whlclt is iianieJ comiinciit In tltiti lif>ok; piesentLitionjtl focus (DetinltLons iu Rochemom l%6. pp. <j4-(j1}. A very tletaalcd nml excellent dlsfussion of tlie dttTerences lietween .

'

'

fontrsiscive and irfomniittrmat focus cau t>c round in Kiss [1%%].

DLSCOURSt DCPENDIiNT TKEti Smri'INO

21

In a very sophisticiiicd SL nuuuiL Lhoory where icm profession consists of elimin;nio]i of possible words, this stiilcmcnt tould be undcistood as elimination of till worlds in which Pavarotli did not sing an aria with a high C, Thus any statement contrasts with its nej H I believe, however, that neutral assertions are not intended to express the n on-truth of their negations. The fact that those worlds ure excluded Lifter uttering a sentence is just an automatic consequence. Contrast)ve focus constructions, however, have the

hilcntion of eliminating attcrnaLives. Here it is important to emphasize that Rooth id Iks about a pragmatically dote mi i nod set of ti! tern Olives. Pragmatics thus tells us what may be considered a mcaninglul alternative. Thus, in the above example (16). a normally intelligent, adult person of most cultures nowadays draws the conclusion that the sentence is about sexual preferences, This enables him/her to construct a set of alternatives for which the focus is

not true. These alternatives must be possible entities towards which one may

be sexually attracted. The sentence is not a statement about anything Marcus might like. Only the pragmatically salient alternatives (sexual objects) are diininatcd. One would not have the feeling ol a contntdiction il' some sentenc-

es later the siune person claims thi»t Marcus Jikes gin. Verdi operas and tennis (also wit ho tit u foe us sensitive word like atso, for example). The Pavarolti sentence on the other hand does not induce the generation of a P- or C-sel, At any rate, 1 cannot think of any pragmatically meaningftil contrast. Another difference has to do with a phenomenon called focus projection. It is a well known fact that one and the same sentence may contribute more or less information to the conversation according to the context. Thus the sentence:

(IS)

Frank read a book about Italian cuisine.

may be a felicitous answer to the following questions: (19)

a.

What did Frank read a hook about?

b

What did Frank read?

c

What did Frank do?

.

.

d

.

What happened [in the mean time when \ was gonel.VWhy don't you go out anymore?

Depending on the question, the information that the (response) sentence carries varies, In case (I8j is the answer to the tirst question (19a) least informative. Only the specification of the object is new. If it is the answer to

22

SYNTACTIC ASPliCTS 01 TOPIC AND COMMliNT

the lust question, the inlbrmitlion is miixirriLi!. This is t>n!y possible with neutral sentences and tiin be represeiited its follows: (20)

fh Frank

rend

a book fj, about Itt ian cLiisincllll

Focus projection is not easily possible in constructions involving contrast!vc focus {cf. Chapter 4, Section 4.5,3 1 .

Kiirka {\99lI92) uses the term focus in the alternative semantic sense.

He argues that the simple foe us-background splitting [where focus is understood in the Prague school sense), is not able to account for sonic pu/zling cases. Sentence (21) can be an answer to (22) as well as to (23). (2J)

SUE KLSsed John.

(22)

Who did what to John1?

(23)

What happened to John'.'

As answer to (22), the sentence contains a multiple focus (Sue and kissed). This is an unproblematic case. As an answer to (23) however the sentence

raises a problem for compositional semantics. Sttf! and kissed form no syntactic constituent at any leve] of representation. This makes it impossible to single out the focus in order to lambda abstract over it. Krifka therefore

introduces one more splitting induced through information packagingtopic-comnient structures. He analyses Jirftn as topic and Sue kissed as comment. As can be read olf from his definitions below, the topic-comment analysis is not an alternative proposal to a background-Joe us splitting. According to his proposaL topic-comment is the prior split. This then may be/is the input for further focus-background splitting; (24)

(Krifka1s (1991/92: (70a-c))

ASSERT TXX.(tx. ), y)) maps a common ground* c to a com-

a

.

'

mon ground c\ where c = c n |\Xfft($)] (y)] Felicity conditions: c' c. c' f* 0. and there arc salient Y. Y - fS. Y * [i such .

-

that \X|ft(Y}l could have been asserted of -y' -

b

.

7 is a possible topic in e,

ASSERT ({T\X.ct. {$,y}}) in tips a common ground c to a common '

ground c where c' = c Pi |\X. ct ,

s

.

Felicity conditions:

Coriiriion ground sliouEd be understood here is Uio slianjd knowledge between speaker and

heLU'ei1.

DiSCOUKSL l !;PUNUI;N 1

-

cT *

*

,

2?

c' * 01

is a jxissible topic in ch and there are saiient V, Y =

-

c

[RIM SPUTTING

Y

y such thiit |iCT> is a possible topic in c as weEI.

ASSERT ((T\X.(ot,| ), (7,6))) maps a common rnnnd c to a com'

mon ground c\ where c = c n XX c* K 7))I, Felicity conditions: c' c, c' 0. iind There we salient Y « fi. Y * |S such that XX[ft(Y)l could have been asserted ot" (&); yib) is a possible topic in c. and there are salient Y. Y Y * ft such that |i(Y) is a possible topic in C as welL ,

-

-

The formulas state that the topic as well as the comment may have a focus and

a background part. In (a)-

which creates the P-set Y. is the focus part of

the comment; in {b) y is the focus part of the topic and (c) covers a struc-

ture where 3 and 5 induce P-scis for the comment and topic respectively, Thus, (e) gives rise to a complex structured meaning which can he strneturally represented as (25), which resembles the Partee analysis very much. (25)

Sentence

As sen ion Operator comment (C)

topic (T) bac

rou nd (B}

focus (F)

background (B) focu s (F)

Phis allows for a very straight forward analysis of the foUowing sentence: (2ft) The OLD man came in GRAY pants. us

(27) ]The [old|F man|T [came in I gray 1 - pants |{-. This sentence implies that there must be at least one young man and a pair of pants which is not of gray color in the common ground of speaker and hearer. Such a case, which is not that marginal in com man ic at ion. can by no means

be captured in a simple binomial splitting theory. There are however less complicated constructions. The Pavarotti sentence beneath is much simpler.

24

SYNTACHC ASPECTS

Time AND COMMliNT

There are no ultermtives to the triple, nor to the comment. This sentence therefore does not tontLiin ii (conlnistivej focus, but counts as

neutral

statement. It just splits into a simple topic and comment pail without locus. (28) I?iivarotii|r Isang a aria with a htgh Clr

Ja cT (I

SJ cliiim.s thai the lopk(s) tis woII as the comment conibiin u focus,

For the theory he develops there, it is erucial thttt there til ways be altemaUves ijrnund. in lopii- u-. .is in ilu- I'omnu-ni. Tlii-. s-eeni-. in me U) be due to the model theoretic framework. In dynamic semantics, the meaning of a sentence is an update, i.e. a function from contexts to contexts. One kind of context change may be seen as elimination of possible worlds. However. as 1 have already said* it seems to me that it is not the main task of a

sentence to eliminate possible worlds, but to add information to the hearers

knowledge stored Thus I stick to KriIlia's idea where topic and comment may, buL need not have to, have inlcrnal focus-background articuiations.

Krifka explicitly stales: .topic-comment structures are labeled pairs (T ix.fi), where ct is the com me in and fi is the topic. Both a and ft may be

simple}{) or they may contain foeus-baekground strueturcs. 14 3 .

.

h

Two immt'diate precursors of rhe theory deft'iuted in this hook

L43J Diesing *s mapping hypothesis 1 4 J.Ll

indefinites as variables: Hciftt's approach. Heim {19K2) investigates the (non-JquLinti heat ion al force of indelinites. Since Russel! {lyU5>, it was relaliveiy uncontr
indefinite NPs should be analyzed as existential quaniiliers. Heim, however. discovers and discusses contexts in whieh indelinites do not seem to behave

like existential quamiliers. (29)

a. b

y

.

A contrabassist usually plays too loudly. .

Most contrabassists play too loudly.

hi Jiigci

10. Itaiks added.

the claitnthjt topics mml coiilLiin a focus has betn given up.

DISCOUKSL UliHiiNDLNT TkUL Sin.lTlINt;

{30j

25

'

Li.

U a violinist plays a solo, the audience often lea%rert the room.

b

In many situations in which a violonist plays a so o. the audience

.

leaves the room.

The sentences in b. show th til the given indeiinites should no[ be tin til y zed as

cxistcniiitl qtibiiuilkis. Th y seem to gel their n on-existential quamifiCLition from llie context (quanlilicitiional adverbs, quantillers that bind them unselectively, clauses.,,). Heim then proposes that indefinites are not

inherently quant Hied, bul introduce variables into the logical representation. Thai means that mdeiiniies do not have quantilicational forte of their own. They must receive the relevant interpretation by association with some

operator. The deftiult case is existential closure. Fur illustration: (31)

a.

A singer found a mushroom.

b

3

.

.

[singer {\) & mushroom fy) & x found yl

In (31b). u siiigey and a mushroom are not understood as existential quantifiers themselves, but they introduee variables. These must be bound. If there

is no other quantilier available, this binding job is done by an existential antifiei which is automatically inserted by prehxing the 3 symbol to the formula. This default operation, which has got something of a deus-exmachina device, is calJed existential closure. One of the big advantages was '

that Heim s

theory could explain the use ol pronouns in the laniotis donkey sentences. One requirement on bound pronouns is/was that they be c-com-

manded by the operator they are linked to. This requirement is obviously not satisfied in sentences like

(32)

Every farmer who owns a donkey beats it.

{?.

If a farmer owns a donkey, he beats it,

In no syntactic theory is there an analysis where the NP donkey c-commands the pronoun t7 at any level. One proposal of Heim s thesis that has '

become very famous was the idea of unselective binding. As stated above, indefinites introduce variables which must be bound. This binding may be

done by any appropriate quantifier. In the examples (32) and (33) a donkey gets umversaJly quantified (together with a [armcr and the situation). Thus. in both sentences there is a universal quantitier around which binds the

farmers as well as the donkeys. The quantification is over farmer-donkey pairs, and thus we get the representation in (34)

26

SYNTACTIC' ASHLCTS Oh JR)P1C AND COMMLN I

'

(34) V . f fl Lirmer(x) & Jon key(yj & owns(xty)]

*

-

beLits(x,y)]J3

In ihiti logiccil representiition, every vtiriiible is b
we just rais the quaiUiiicr every to a position wherc it c-commtinds everything. From there then1 a iink may be established between the indefinite

object a donkey (tind til so the subject) and the pronoun it. The y in Every (x.yi Lhen c-commands the y in bt'iits{y\. See (34'). t34')

Every (x,y)

turme r {x) w]t n owns ei donk ey (y)

bents it (y)

In the two representations above. I have already made use of another important proposal that has become sumdard in linguistics: the tripaiiile st rue tu ]ie o \ q uant i fie at ion.

Oettetaltzed quiuttijiers. Quant i fie adon is the re suit of the presence '

of w Gcitcrtili/cd Quantiiicr tGQ). [>ie article by BarvvLsc and Cooper (1981) was a milestone in the iield of modei theoretic semantics

.

Barwise and

Coopci show that die universal tind the ex isle n da I qutintilier ol predicate logic are not sullicicnt for an analysis of quantifying expressions in Natural Language. They show that quandlication in natural language is always

ffsfficfed quant ili cat ion. GQs denote families of sets of individuals. For example, the quantifier most. If applied to a noun it gives sets. For example.

11. In imy way of pneteiUtng things it looks us if 'i lv

s

AW halJl ll '

|1iVxl : iK J .L:- in

.Mi

-inJ < 3i) have tho very same jneaning. .

i:- il.H ihi

-

l

liUl

L

L

|:1 k: Iil- lift LidcqiJiiCC

representjtion ol {Ji) only. I am weiJ h'jvutc of the proportion problein. Howcvc]-. \i\ ordev not to cojifuse witli reflect ions thiit jre not i in portent Jiere. I treat them the same for die motnent.

let's ttxke the Gironu Stimmer School (1994) iis discourse universe itnd the

following sentences as true in this world.

(35) Most students were syntacticians. (3ft) Most students came from Europe. (37)

Most students went to the party.

The denotation of most students is dilTerent in every sentence. The set which is reft;jTcd to in (35) contains only syntactic inns. The set in {36) contains Mjrgfct. Ruben and Sylvia, who came from England, the Nether-

lands and Germany, respectively. They, however, are phonologists and as such they Lire excluded from being a member of the iirst set. Thus the set of indlviduLils the qimntilier most+NP refers to ditfers with respect to the

predicate it is bein appiied to. All possible sets. i.e. collections of individuals {which satisly the deli nit ion given below) Lire the denotation of most. Byrwise and Cooper analyze GQs as a two-place relation between two sets. These two sets Lire called the Lir uments of the GQs. In the examples above, the sets iire given by the NP complement of the qutintilier most. i.e. sntdenis on the one hand (set A): and by the VP predicate on the other (set B)T i.e.

the set of syntticticians, Enropeans and people who went to the party. The semantics of fuost is that if both tirjuiment sets are intersected, the intersection ARB must eonuiin more contain more members than there Lire members

within the (sub-)set A-B: (3S)

semantics of most:

most N={XiE:11 I INIHX I > INI-X I) or: maifE AB iff lAHBI > IA-BI That means that the set of students (in G iron a) who were syntacticians must contain more members than the set of students who were not syntacticians ti e. phonologists in the case of Girona). Now let us go back to the claim that quantification in Natural Language is always restricted tjuan till cat ion. If

one tried to represent the me Lining of Natural Language quantifiers like most with the tools from predicate logic

,

one would htive two connectives for the

arguments Lit one s disposal; namely A and It can be shown that neither the one nor the other would bring the desired result:

12.

H - Uis

mrse Umverse.

SYNTACnC AS LCIS Ol 'lime AND COMMLNT

(39)

Most linguists urc crazy.

(40)

mostK |linguist (x) & cruzy (x)

(41) mostx [linguist (ji) -* crazy (x)

ll is very easy to show thiit (4{}} is a wrong iWmuiii Tor (39). One niiiy imagine a discourse Iriime with 20 people hive of them are linguists, and among them four are crazy. This scenario would be described intuitively correctly by (39), According to (40). however, the sentence should be fiilse, since (40) says that most individuals are linguists (and crazy). Thus for (40) to be true we need more that 10 linguists. This is not what most means, Now, consider (41). If two linguists out of the five are crazy, the sentence is Felt to be a false statement. According u> (41), however, it should be true.

The lormula says that mosdy, if some individual is a linguist, he or she is crazy. This statement is true for all the 15 non-linguists {+ ihe two indeed crazy linguists)' thus the sentence should he true, although it goes against intuitions. The problem lies in the non-sensitivity of predicate logic to the

object language. Natural language quantifiers however cany a presupposition. They presuppose that the A set be non-empty and that it defines the set of entities, it is quant died over. This means more or less that there must be something accessible in the discourse over which it is possible to quantity These elements of the A set thus restrict the quan till cat ion. They say whal the quantilicalion is about. Barwise and Cooper then propose the following notation, which has gotten rid of ife and '

'

(42) mostx [linguist (x}] fcrazy (x)] As shown before. Hcim (]c ) proposes a tripamtf sirucLurc to accouiu foiconstructions involving quantification. She divides the logical representation of a quamifka-tional statement into: (43) i. h

a non-selective quant i her .

a restrictive clause [RCJ, and

lii, a nuclear scope (NS) The restrictive clause (RC) contains the set the quantifier quantifies over This way Barwise and Cooper's requirement of restricted quantification is incorporated. For something to appear in the RC, the existence of instantiations it refers to in the model is presupposed. The nuclear scope (NS) is the domain of existential closure. Thus indefinites which introduce variables ant

D1SCOURSL DliHiiNDLNT TREL SPLIT UNO

29

have no proper quantificationLiI force get bound by 3 (under their nurrow scope reading). (44)

Every good linguist wroie a bad unklc.

(45) Evei'y Igood linguist (xjj By |bad article (y) & wrote (x,y)] T I I qtuintiher

RC

NS

fhis sentence is trLiet iiT for till value assignments to the variable x that make the RC true, there is a value assignment to y that makes the NS true: thus for every linguist there should be (at least) one bad article the linguist wrote at some time.

L4.3.13 The mopping hypothesis. Uieslng discusses \\\ her thesis dilTerences

in the interpretation of indeiinites (Diesing 1992a, b). It is clear from the previous sections that the interpretntion of nn Lndeiinile NP depends on whether the variable that the indelimte introduces ets bound by u GQ or by 3

.

In the former case, the Ml1 must sit in the RC bind therefore be presuppos-

itionaL In the latter cusc, existentiul closure applies and the NP gets an

existential interpretation, which is til so called the weak reading. Many sentences are ambiguous wi(h respect to how the indelinites contained in them are to he interprefed. One ceisc Die sing discusses is: (46)

Firemen are available.

'

This sentence is ambiguous in three ways. The following interpretations are possible:

(47) 3A IHrcmen (x) & available (x)l (4tt) Cjeiixl | lire man (x) & some time {ij| \\ available at t

(49) tjcnL |some time (tj| 3 [firemen (x) &. x available at t' (47) means that (at some point in time) there were some lire men available. This existential reading on the subject goes together with an episodic interpretation of the statement. (4H) says that it is a general property of firemen that they are always available. This sentence is a generic statement about firemen and does not have an episodic reading. (49) means that at any time, there are firemen available. Thus bare plurals (in English) may have a generic reading {when appearing in the RC>, or an existential reading (when

in

SYNTACTIC ASHliCTS Ol7 TiWK AND COMMENT

iippc tiring in the NrS) By looking at Germ tin d;tUi. Dicsing observer rhat some factors determine thai only cither the one or the otlui rending is .

nvaibble. Consider (50) tind (51) (50)

.. .weil h dovh Kinder a i if de r Strajk sp Uien since part children on the street play since there arc children playing in the street

'

'

...

3

(51)

|cbild [\} & play in the street (x)

., .wed Kii ider ja dwh ai if der Sirafie sp kien since children part on the street play since (in general) children play in the street Gen lehild {x}] Iplay in the street (x) '

1

...

,

A well kn
predicates do not provide the two ordering possibilities in (40) and (41), Only the order subject > PART gives a grammatical output: (52)

...wf/ Skorpioue ja dock gifiix

sind

since scorpions pakt ptosonous are since scorpions are poistintius 1

(5 3) * *.. .weil ja dovh Skorpiw ? e giffig since PAkT

s ind

scorpions poisonous are

Assuming that (i) sentential adverbiais and particles mark the VP boLEndiiry and (ii) the subject VP internal hypothesis (Fukui and Speits ly fi; KoopmiLn

and Sportkhe l KK). which provides (at least) two subject positions, Diesing claims that gen eric ally interpreted bare plural subjects occupy Spec IP

whereas cxistentially q nan tilled ones are located in SpecVR This theory

provides a nice syntax-semantics mapping. Since generics go into Heim s RC, and existential closure applies to the .NCh Diesing proposes the Miippin Hypothesis (MH), which states; (54)

Mapping Hypothesis:

Material from the VP is mapped into the nuclear scope. Material from die IP is mapped into the restrictive clause,

DISC'OURSL DLPUNDliNT TkHL SPLITMNti

31

This gives the following representations for the sentences (50) and {51) from above:

PART

-

nt

'tt ja dock

Kiadet'

ituf dvr Strt$v spivivn

{52*)

aufdt'y Strajie spUUft

1 43,2

De Hoop's theory of weak and slrvHg Case Whereas Dicsing work is mainly concerned with subjects de Hoop (1992) concentrates on direct object DJ,s. She obscjves ttint m some bn uages .

,

direct objects may tip pear in two dilferent morphoLogicaJ Cases. This morphological dilTerenee is linked to a semantie one which nioi-e or less parallels Die sing s I Endings with nespeet to subject positions. For illustration. look at some Turkish data, taken from En {1990): '

(55) Aii inr piyam-yu kirulumuk isuyor.

All one piano-Aft to rent want LAli wants to rent a certain ptano/ (56) Aii bir piyann kiralamak istiyor. l

Ali wants to rent a (non-specKic) piano/

(Turkish)

32

SYNTACTIC ASPtCTS OF TtlPIf AND COMMLNT

In example {55), where the object bears overt accusative morphokigy, the

piano mtisi be imerpretcd dc re, i.e. referentisilly (therefore the gloss a t wtaif} piano). TIil must be tin accessible piano in the discourse iVamc. Example (56) just sLales thai Ali wishes to posses a piano, he doesn't eai'e about a speeilie one and it mi ht be that there are even no pianos available (de die to). In that case, one e an not speak of a referential use.

De Hoop classifies NPs as being cither weak or strong, Strong basically means what Die sing characterizes as presuppositional. Por some reason de

Hoop rejects this deductive, more abstract characterisation and gives a list of what is supposed to eount as strong (de Hoop 1 92: 50): -

-

-

-

referential

partitive generic

generic collective

De Hoop claims that when an NT has a strong reading, it must be semanti-

caliy analyzed as a generalized quantifier Since she uses a mode I-theoretic framework that has its roots in the semantic work of Montague, mainly

JPrice's Type-shifting theory (Partee I KTj, she assigns those NPs the

i ej),?) status. Her hypothesis then is that there is a relation between strong and weak readings of NPs on the one hand and the type of Case assignment on the other. She argues for the existence of two types of structural Case. namely strong Case, which is assigned at S-stmclure, and weak Case.

licensed at D-structure. Htxjp argues that strong; Case can be viewed as type shifter. Objects bearing weak Case, which they get assigned at D-sErueture, are to be analyzed as existential expressions or predicate modi hers with

the model theoretic status of e or {{t'.i).

respectively. This is a weak

point in her theoiy. As she correctly observes, there is no trivial one-to-one mapping between Case assignment and NT intcipietation. It seems to be the

case that weakly interpreted NPs never get assigned the so called strong Case. Purely existent!ally interpreted object NPs always bear the morphologically weak Case. However, strong NPs may show up with weak Case morphology sometimes. This is linked then to another distinction. When an unambiguously strong NP (definite NT. or by each and similar quantifiers quantiliec expression) shows up with morphologically weak Case, the interpretation of

the sentence must be ate lie. Thus, the aspectual information overrides the

weak-weak : strong-strong correlEition. In order lo save her generali tilion (de Hoop 1992:91 (100)): (57)

An ohjeel hears strong Case if and only if it has a strong reading

she is forced to sity Lhtit .strong NPs in ate he sentences are not really strong NPs. She lumps them together with weak NPs, denies their quantihcittional force and charucteriies them us predicate modiiiers. On the one hund. this is the right thing to do; on the other hand this weakens her generalisation considerably. It leaves a subctaim whieh can he chaiacteri/ed as: Wenk NPs must get assigned weak Case NPs getting assigned strong Case must he semantical I y strong

This rest contains an undesirable I as hi on of generalizing over things. In the ffrsl part, semantic seems to Lei I what morphology should do: in the second

part, morphology seems to determine semantics. Later I will develop a theory where the observations come out in a less stipulative manner, 14 A .

h\K-it s theory an d J}h-ti s projection

In this section I want to shortly outline the idea of locus projection (Selkirk l9S4)t Later I will argue that I assume focus projection to only apply in a very restricted domain. However, it is a very inttuentia! [heory and since I refer to it very often, either directly or through other theories which are based on its core mechanism it seems to me advantageous to present its main

idea here. (Seelion 4A3 in Chapter 4 is more detailed and critical.) The theory of focus in general is concerned with the relation between intonalion and Lhc informalion packaging of the sentence. According to PierrehLEmhert ( I 9 0). the intoiuilioE d sh pc of li ciUcqcc consisls ot oe c or

more pitch accents, which are realized on the most prominent syllable of a phonological word. In Selkirk s theory, a sentence with its pitch accent(s), which is a purely phonological phenomenon is the input to the so-callet. Basic Focus Rule. This rule directly assigns a syntactic feature [-I-F] to the element which carries the pitch accent. This theory of focus is extremely '

,

lilvLul si Lice pjldi liccl-eu Lissj nmcnl is cAtivLody hbcraL ciiUulmg that in '

p]"Lncip]e any lexical item in a sentence can be assigned a locus leature. (Winkler 1994. 202). Focus (feature) here means new information. Now it is clear that in most

34

SYNTACTIC ASPECTS 01' TOVlC AND COMMLNT

iLascs the new in form al ion thut a sentence delivers is I urge r than just the element bearing the pitch accent. This is the point where Selkirk s rule of '

focus projection comes into play. The element with the pitch accent, hence carrying the focus feature is called the focus exponent. This exponent may semd the feature to the next dominating nodes in the syntactic tree. The rules which govern this process are the following (Selkirk 1994:207): (59)

a.

F-mnrking nf the head of a phrase licenses F-marking of the whole phrase

b

F-marking of the internal argument ol" a lie ad licenses the F-mark-

.

ing of the head

Under a focus theoretic view, a sentence like (60) (taken from Winkler

1994:190) is many ways ambiguous. The new information may stretch from only the complement of the object [the presidential debate) to the whole VP being focus.

(60) she fvn watchfid [w a fNp return I+F|

[+F] [+F|

of lD? (he [N11 presidemial l [+F]

[+F]

|+F]

eBAte]]!]]]!]

f+F]

Fhe pildi accent is assigned to the debate. By the Basie Focus Rule this element gets the syntactit; feature [+F]. Now, the projection muiy start.

(Disregarding the syntactic position of the adjective (5 a) ensures that N1' may project the feature to NP. Since Nl* is an (interna]) argument of (59b) allows that [+F1 can project to DP. This step iterates up to VP, DP is a complement of P. PP of N. and NP or DP is the internal argument of the verb. U is easy to imagine that focus projection is not possible if the feature is

lo be spread higher not respecting the projection line, i.e. only heads or true complements may transmit the foe us feature.

15 .

Summary

In this chapter I presented the most influential theories about the encoding of sentence functional perspective. I have shown that a binominal pail it ion of the sentence in an 'old part and a part which contains the new information is not complete and thus not sulIicicnL '

Chapter 2 The structure of the German VP

2

.

1

Cun fig unit ional and non-con ji uralJunaJ Lnn nagcs: Thi1 typo Logical chissilication nf (itrnian

It is a well kn<3vvrn facE ol7 linguistic typology thixt the word's languages diller with respect to word order There are languages that are very liberal with the ordering of clausal constituents, and there are languages that are not. Suppose there is a sentence with a verbal head, two complements, and an adjunct, then one has four major constituents (V, Argl, Arg2, Adj). Under certain circumstances, some of these liberal languages allow for 4!. i.e. al possible 24 ditferent ordcrings of V. Argl, Arg2, Adj. Sometimes even more possibilities arise since these languages very often ex hi hit a grammatical Russell ant phenomenon called discontinuous constituents (Hale Re in ho It/ 1995: Baker 1996). This allows for the possibility that one of the categories may split, giving rise to an even bigger number of linear wort older possibilities. One term used to classify these languages is non-conligurational \ which means that the grammatical function of a category cannot be read till rrnm its position within the mctKV. A typical example thai has ton the object of investigation by generative linguists is Walpiri {cf. again HaJe 1983 among others). But also less exotic languages allow lor enormous freedom of ocetirrencc among the sentence's major constituents, see a 1

L

detailed description and analysis of Russian in Adamec (1966), and a more recent paper by Junghanns and Zybalow (1995). On the other hand, there are languages which impose very strong "

restrictions on the ordering ol sentential constituents. These languages are called conligtirational. A relatively well studied example is Chinese. Also English, certainly the best described natural language, counts as a relatively good example of this language type. The very interesting work of Bickerton

36

SYNTACTIC ASPECTS OF TOPIC A.NU COMMliNT

(l Kl) shows that Creole iLingua es. which are olfsprings of kin ua cs of every possible typological type, are very strict in the ordering of their amslituenis.

GemiiirL as most iLingu gss, ialls somewhene in between the two poles. There are a Jew demands on the linearizLition thai must be fulfilled: amon them is the verb second phenomenon which tlemands that the second

position be occupied hy (he iinitc verb. i.e. there can and must be only one constituent that precedes the verb in main clauses {German is a so-called V2 language). In subordinate sentences, relative and interrogative XRs (wh-amstituents), sind compiementi/ei mLis[ occupy the initial position of the sentence while the Unite verb is located at the end {only tinite complement

or adjunct sentences and some marginal heavy XRs may follow the in Heeled ve3"b>. The traditional typological partition of the German sentence looks like in (1) (taken and slightly modi tied from Huftka 1993. who bases it on work by Draeh 1939 and t-ngel 1988) (I)

'\i>rfiid' (prc-£icld)

' -

iiukf Satz-

kttf miner"

' -

rci-hte Safz-

khiinmer1

f posi-JicLd)

{ri ht c3ausal bracketj

brccket)

linilc V£rbwli;l

(I) illustrates that the positions of the verb and related material (tuuiliciries, complementizers) are well-defined and divide the German sentence into its '

fields4. Other constiuient types are freer. That means that most adjuncts or argumenLs can appear in the pre-fie Id position t or may occupy any position of the middle-held. Like in all other languages, there are restricting factors

whieh determine where a phrase may or may not appear. To say that German is a language somewhere in-between the noncon li u-rational and con figuration al languages is not a satisfactory statement. however. There lb re one has formulated distinguishing eriteriy and tried to

I

.

mcl = irwin clanw. slid - sulwrdLiialc chiuse.

tiii: stkixtuku oi-thi; glkman vp

37

dassify German uittordin ly. A very dcuiited Linulysis is Et> be Jound in Ftinselow (J9K7: Chapter 1>. A Itirge pai l n]' l-iinseiow s dissertiitmn is

dev
is yes. He furthermore shows that the existence of a VI1 in be leamtH and therefore concludes that all languages musl shows that in some senseh all languages display a cnnnirnraA related point is addressed in Biiring (1993). In the same

vein as there I would like to show that there is no real free word order in

German. The position of every element obeys constraints that must be satisfied. In my opinion, these constraints arc either purely grammatical (verb movement, clitic and weak pronoun placement) or pragmatically detcrmtried (older of non-pronominaL non-verbal constituents)." This book is mainly concerned with the investigation of the trigger lor constituent positions.

22

Lexical and functional calc urics

1 will base my assumptions about natural language structures on the idea that there are two types of categories which are stored in the mental lexicon and enter the computational system {cf. Introduction) in exactly the same way. This means that the lexicon feeds the grammar w hh entities that act as heads which project according to X-bar theory. The two types of categories comprise lexical categories on the one hand, and functional categories on the

other. This division is not very controversial/ Therefore I will only give a shoit characterization here.

Lexical categories are those entities that arc called content words in

traditional grammars {sec Haspclmath 1994 for a nice discussion). Lexical

1

.

U would Iw nice If mil? cuuld rcthkv the rtiilurt of ih consEnitnts co uiiu ucukTlvLJit; souivc

As I hjjvc argued in tiio iniroductor chapter to the present twert. gumaiaf and prLignuties coulcJ t>c Chms lcml plicjunnci i whicli nccit not lie Ltutonomous and completely dintmct Irom each otJier. Itus, I tlii fc that a u itaiy espiaruticni pnssiliie. However, tor ihc lunc Jwin? J do not see a neuiiOLiabJe solutio]].

3

Al least actoidjng to Htispehnath f]VSJ4), llic Imjilu v cli3s ijici.il]oii tesJcal vs. fiinctloLuit categories is coHSLdcrfd lo be slLmJard. withHi ihe geLici'Lilivc fiameworfc. Now-generative, more luuctkmalty ofic]ik(J uppioad s try to establish a more so bislic tiled fate yofnation where Hie categories Lire ioeated on a scitle with increiising hiiK'tionoJ ujie (grummutieulizjitioLV. 1 will ignore these iippmitdtes here. .

categories have some meaning of their ownh i.e. they bear some descriptive content. As opposed to functional categories, lexical categories (may) have arguments. Relatively recent neuroiingnistic research has shown that the

grammatical theoretic concepts of verbal and nominal have a biological base (Uamasio & Damasio 1 92). 11" these mitions are considered to be features that

can be assigned the values + and

one gets a matrix with four instantiations

of possible contbinations. Those four combinations can be considered as a tentative feature based approach to characterize the four lexical categories. nominal

verbal

i

-

-

noun

verb

i

-

i

-

adjective

adverb/

preposition

Since Chomsky (1970). these four categories count as the lexical categories, One should bear in mind, however, that this view is not a very intuitive and

therefore a rather less serious proposal. Neve it he less. I think it is an elegant and reasonable approach and any challenges that blame this approach for being too narrow minded come up with other proposals that complicate the

matters in an inappropriate way (especially Zimnicrmann Another distinctive, characteristic criterion apart from independent meaning and the capacity of theta-role alignment is their property as an open class. Open classes relcr lo Lhut part ol the vocabulary of a language which is subject to permanent change in the sense of new-creation, formation, reactivation, and disappearing of items. Prototypical examples of lexical words are: animal, biues. (in) srifft. (to) ftfye. mtdiigent, hoppy, inside, Functional categories are traditionally called auxiliary words or morphemes. As for the characterization of functional categories I will adopt the

defining properties listed by Abncy (1 87:64-65): r

.

)

1.

FuLietiojiLil dcirients eonstilute closed lexical classes.

2

Functional elements arc generally phonologic ally and morphologically dependent. They are generally stress less, often clitics or

.

affixes, and sometimes even phono!ogteally null. [They do not have to be words.;

3

.

Functional elements permit only one complement, which is in general not an argument.

39

UIL STRUCTURIi 0J: THE GLKMAN VP

4

.

5

.

Functional elcincjits tire in general iusejiarabit from their cojnpicment. FuncrinnEil elements lack 'descriptive content'.

Prototypical elements are determiners + audIiary verbs, complementi erfth also lense morphemes, and agicement alTixcs (the, a, would, are, that, if, -ed, -s)>

23 23 .

Tht3 hast1 order: Thv prufecliun of heads and arguments

.

1

Some assumptions about the syntactic encoding ofargumerti structure - a syntaxfor lexical decomposition grammar

As in Grimshaw (1990), 1 wilJ ass time thtii lexical heads are the most deeply embedded heads within an extended projection. By some process similar to Chomsky's Generalized Transformations (GT) {Chomsky 1992), these heads. which yre themselves X0 eJemeritst take a complement (internal argument)

which must be a phrase of the category XP. Together they form the X#level. By fun her application of GT. another phrase (XP) can be added which closes the pi'ojeetioii. 1 This phrase is called the specilier. '

(4)

compl If we assume that lexical heads carry information about their calegorial

status, the lexical projection becomes integrated into the structure of appro-

priate functional categories/ These categories are hierarchically ordered and

Iji Kjty]k-V L slrk'tion uii X-bjr thiury fKLiyn I Wbj. u litad u l-eJ l1 witJi Lie eumplniiirm A \&\ fonns u nuxuniii prftjection. CIV iriyy adjoin one nioit lo ihc: heLLtl+etuiiplcLincnt complex. TJius. sidjjnction Jind specirt Lition hill togetl r. I tlank that this itJciL is not ina otlvnt4

.

.

i fj vever fai eu-

-

i

.

>.i Jsirin J -.wW

:hL- imorc fumilMr. \\.\'\

\: N"

.

notitCion, S

Some researchers propose that teMCJtl CLitcgoiies not specified lor it cate oriiil eluss (for exLiimple StcmiT/. W M. Tliis meLUis thitt [lie lexiCLU entr ' of an element does not say if the item a noun or it veih. Unttei' Audi an approach, only the functional stracture above the lexical .

40

SYNTACTIC ASPECTS Ol

lOPlC AND COMMLN 1

the deep most functional he; ad suhcaiegoji/.cs for [he [exicul projection. (5) illustriites how stiutlnrc (4) can be filled with concrete: linguistic miitcrmI using an ordinary tiitnsiiive verb. The verb takes the direct object. projects to V and theii this complex combines with anolhcr N\\ the subject, and gives VP. (This viewpoint incorporates the idea that that the subject is base genera Led V? internally (Fukui and Speas I9K6: Koopman and Sportiche 1991). r

t

(5)

Isokic.

Matters bee
]9HA}. on shell structures (Larson 1988), on a syntactic tre a fluent of lexical decomposition and the theory of ordered argument structure (Grimshaw 1990). As for lexical heads, I will ussLime that they can be decomposed into semantic primitives consisting oi nnivcrsal predicates like tausl, posslssion. "

liLt'OMti ... and lexeme specific atomic predicates. These primitives can be

thought of as X 11 elements that are hierarchically ordered, obey certain "

selectional requirements and independently project specifiers and complements. For example, the verb fo give could be decomposed into the basic

predicates K)SS and CAUSE with their arguments/

'

'

'

io

tfiv? denotes an

action where someone (x> causes that someone else (y) gets to possess

'

projection decides aboul The nature of the head s category, t tMnk tl n tluji is lite correct Lipproach. However, this issue i* of no velevnnce here. 6

In Section 2.£ I wilJ show that I'OSS is actually derived primitive, f-or our purposes here. however, it suffices to analyze it as an atomic predicate, AImj. I am aware of the fact that there tire severaJ in;i]ys.es of GIVL with respect to unjujneut projection. Thus, for cxiiinplcr. Haider (1992) and Speas (I99Q> a ign this verb different conceptnuJ stmcLures. ALJ this should n;>t .

mLitlcr hstc. t]i the folkiwing scctiijjis t will try l ? ha\v -wJillL ;Lrffiiiiii.-]ilii] dependencies ate mvoLtcd

Till: STKlXTUKli 01 '11 Hi til-KM AM ViJ

41

something {/.). Tile liitler re kit it sn (the one between y and z) is lighter and. in '

some sense:, this re I tit ion iiel ers to a stale whith is tile result of what x

CAUStis. This lexical decomposition tan be illuslrated by -A syntactic tree such as {7j for a sentence like (6): (6) (7)

JnhiHx) gives Miiryty) flnwers(z). VP1 Vr

cai;sl:

VP2

POSS

This tree is nothing else than another notation lor the representation (K)

given in Stiebels (1994)7 m

X/ \y \\ Xs CAUSE(\. BECOME (POSS (y ))) fs)

The verb to give can be understood as the lexical result of the incorporation of POSS (into BECOME) into CAUSE. The X-prefix is a sort of placeholder for the arguments. S is a variable over the situation, which one can ignore

here. One minor diilerence concerns the presence of the additional predicate BECOME. It would be no problem to incorporate it by integrating into our structure one more verba! head. The only blemish this entails is the fact that BECOME counts as a one-pi ace predicate which would not project a

specifier This is not bad however. The second possibility is that one could argue thai BECOME licenses the Davidsonian argument. This argument is characteristic for verbs which refer to a process. Verbs denoting a state would not have BECOME as a lexical subpart. Thust it could act as the

7

.

T\k example is. &f course, not SliebelsT nwu invent ion. The luitation in (5) is standard in

IcxicjJ semantics. However. 1 litre is. mt clu icui, siLUidiiril hook tJmi I t-ould qnott where tliese

]dcy>i iilKJUl IcaicllI >mpo>itioji llll: iven within ihit Liotatmn. Therefow E cJitwe one ra]ido]ii cJisscil tion using Lhu LLiu\iini I Liuntwofk aiid icHikud uiltMhi: icjiroductoiy elKiptt-]1 where the b sie theoretic buckgrnimd is Jjid down. '

42

SYNfTAC I [f ASPliCTS 0}; TOKlC ANI COMMliNT

urgumenl idcnlilicd by Kiai/x'r individual-leveJ predicate distinciion.

as ivsponsiblc lor the .stugc-levcl vs.

[f the approach outlined above is adopted 1 it conies us a consequence that Haider's mechanism t)f thcta-mie discharge does not work for German amd Other hetid Una] languages (Haider 1991, IW a b). He observes that the VP-intemaJ serialisation ol indirect object, dii ect object and IT is always IO

> DO > PR What diircrs is the position of the verb; some langtugcs have it in front of the given arguments, some have it at the end. Since his 'Basic Branching Conjecture' states that all (basic) projections are rifdit branching. there ls no right waid head-to-he ad movement possible in his framework,

Lmpty verbal heads are licensed in head initial languages only, and the verb, which is base generated in the deep most verbal position, must move up to link all the arguments ((9). much like in i 7)}. In languages like German, the .

final verb licenses all arguments to its left by having them alJ in its government domain {lOJ [discharge along the projection line

(9) (10)

'

'

I

).

iVj [IO [c- | DC) lej PP| |10 | DO [PP VI r

hus, if we assume - contraiy to Haider's proposal - that German projects

arguments in the same way head initial languages do. we get a structure like in (7), but probably right headed: (JI)

(weil damais) viete EfhTnfx} ihrcn Kinderniy} Siifiigkeiienfz} since then many parents their children sweets schenkfwn} gave

since that time many parents used to give sweets to their children

1

1JIL STRUCTURE OJ TWE GLKMAN VI'

43

VP1

CAUSE

\V2

V

This is Ihc first assumption. The second one is immedititcly based on the first, and eoncerns the status and the hierarchy of the ar Luneuls. 232 .

.

On tkrivittg an argument hierarchy

I pixipose that a predicate takes a certain argument, and licenses a sped he XP in its specifier For example. CAUSE takes some projection of a state or

process as its compiement and licenses a causer in its specifier position. Tf it is assumed that the semantic primitives select each (Jlher in a certain order.

and (hat they license specific tir umcnts in their specifier position, it follows that the X-bar sclieme projects a thematic hierarchy. This claim is much in the spirit of G rims haw {l1

}). Grimshaw develops the idea of ordered

argument structure, arguing that argument structure (AS) is not a collection of unordered thematic roles, as had been assumed previously. She claims that AS is instead an ordered representation over which relations of prominence are deiined. That means that the arguments of a verb (or of lexical categories

in general) obey some principle that orders them, i.e. establishes a hierarchy, and that principle is prominence. Knowing that there are hypotheses of

hierarchy that propose almost every permutation possible, Grimshaw gives the following one, with which I partly agree: (12)

(A ge n t (Expe rlencer (G o a l/S m rce/Loc tit ion (The me))))

However, unlike in the theory sketched above where theta roles are connected to semantic primitives, in Grimshaw s theory AS contains no information about particular theta roles, but only information about the relative promi-

nence of the arguments. Grimshaw explicitly states that she assumes the goal to be more prominent than the theme. This, however, is a point of debate. In

44

SYNTACTIC ASPECTS OF TOPIC AND COMMENT

Ihc list of hierarchies Luvcn in Spctis {1990 only V/i of K propiisuls locate the goal argument higher then the the inc. However. G rims haw provides several arguments for her miking (for a detailed argumentation see her book (Grimshtnv ] WO: or Meintinger I995h). Very' strong empirical support which Grimshaw does not consider comes from word order facts in so-etilled non-

conligumtional languages. In constructions thut represent the unmarked word order - whatever notion of unmarked '

1

is adopted - the canonic til linearization is subject > indirect object > direct object. To mention only a few investigations covering typo logically very dilferent languages: Adumcc (1966)

for Hussitin, Mtihajun (I JO) for Hindi, Kural (1992) for Turkish. J op pen tind Wunderlich (I994J lor BastjLie, Megerdoomian {1995) for Armenitin.

24

Whal is tin? bask wwrd «rdtir (in Git man)?

.

It is not very clear what the notion 'basic word order' is supposed to mean, and consequently it is even less clear how it can be deiined. Hardly anybody disputes that the agent argainent is located very high in the thematic hierarchy and thus is located furthest away from the deepest head position within the verbal phrase. Concerning the ordering among other arguments {and adjnncIs), no agreement can be found. One controversy concerns the relative *

order of dative and accusative objects. 1

It has been claimed for German that

all possible rankings are attested (Hohle I9K2; for a revival cf. Haider 1992). Ail possible rankings means: (i) dative is higher than accusative, (ii) accusative is higher than dative, and (iii) neither ranks over the other, i.e. both are

mutually exchangeable. The variants i-iii chosen in a given instance are claimed to depend on the nature of the verb. (15)

i.

ahge wtifojen r heibruig en, verweig em. ziiit .niien...

i i.

wean m ixsetzen.

expose iii.

cidmifit.ster deny terzieheti, znfiihrt'n

submit

to think somebody is iible

to bring to

hen r zeiyen, empfehief} give show recommend

Clearly, ihc qucs-tioii of v-'hether dative Liiiitis over [urcjsacive k not idem teat to tJie question

of whet lie i" goat ranks, ovef theiiic. However. iJie questions are reJaied.

4?

] HI: STKlXTURli OI:THE GfiKMAN VP

Indeed, al lirst glanee Ihis division seems to be well motiviited. A spcitker given these verbs cind ii.sked lo build sentences with them, is highly likely to order the Eirguments in the way the classification predicts. That means that,

whereas in sentences with verbs of class 1 dative objects will precede accusative ones, sentences with class ]] verbs will show the reverse order

Sentences that eon tain cbss III verbs will eome with both orders. This is of

eourse not sulficient lor the given classliiciAtion.

25 .

Fucus projection as a dJa fmslk' For basic weird order

Hohle (1982; lakes the superiicitil ordering s found with ve3"bs merely as a point of departure, and he develops tripartite das si Meat ion. This test is based on a proposed basic word order and maximal 'locus spreading' on

Germ an bi transitive a test to justify his correlation between the one hand, and

derived word order and narrow focus on the other. Thus. Hohle claims that

foe us project ion is possible for base generated structures, but impossible for derived orders. (J-'or the mechanism of focus projection see parLigmph 1.4.4 and Chapter 4.) In the present btmk too. it will be assumed that this conjec-

ture is basiealJy correeL However, J Ihink that one has Lo be very earefuJ in treating focus projection as a reliable test. The reason will come clear be low,

But lirst, let us consider the facts. The examples are taken from Haider (1992J. (See endnote 9 to this chapter, 'spreading' means 'focus projection'.)

(14) a. Jup Carl-WM die lJksiifig-A.cc fand

(spreading/

1 1 "

that Carl-NOM the solution-Af.c found b

(15)

.

dap die Utiung-ACC Ccj/V-nom jhnd

class! a

.

b

.

dafi er seiner Fwrn-DAf sein Geld-ACC nidtt grtnitic daji ei seui Getd-ACC seiner Fraii-iyat nicht i f fmnte 4

9

(no spreading)

that he grudges his wife his money

(sprj [no spr.J

1

These exmnples arc ttiken fnom Htitder (1992). Vx-A's why no chj]igcs have been made, h'or rea. oil of coilsijiteiicy wilh the u.su i>t tcLLiuiujhsgy lit \hh book. I wilt use 'I ueut projeelinn in&Bead of h(focus) ipreLuJiitg'. .

'

'

10. To save space, flosses uid/or trailslutions inferable frrmn piecedii g examples are henceforth omitted.

4(>

SYNTAcnc Asm:rs oi; nmc and comment

class II c

.

J

.

Jd/JiT seine Kinder-ao.: ihmn EinJktJi-DA'i (ttLut'trte (sprj dujiei ihmn Ei}tjlit/J-i>M seine Kinder-\cc tmxxetzte (no spr) LhiU he exposed his kids to her inHuence'

class III e

dafi er seiner Fratt-XiXT seifi Geld-ACc gegehen hat

tspr.)

f

dafi

<sprj

.

.

sein Getd-Acc seinef Fratt-UAJ gegeben hut

he gave his money to his wife1

'

(14) LiiH'oiniovfistnlty .shows thtu the ntmiintitivc must precede the accusative

to make focus projection (spreading) possible. The fact that the subject must precede the object to allow for an ali-new sentences is tarried over to the '

spreading possibiiities in the double object ex am pies I mm (15). However, the t/ontritsts in (15) artr iess clear. Nevertheless. I take them tti be real, but m>t

to show whitt they are claimed to show. The error lies m>l in the evaluation of their acceptability but elsewhere; namely in the misunderstanding of the relation between questions and focus projection in possible answrers. It is ,

simply not the case that an answer to a vr/?-question only consists of the open proposition delivered by the question plus the (exhaustive) instantiation of

the open proposition. It is very well possible for the answer to contain more material, for example in ordei' to facilitate storage of new information. The

answer to a question of the son What happened7 VWhat's the matter?4 need not necessarily be an all-new sentence. A structured proposition in form of a categoriaJ statement can also be a possible answer. A sentence like Aunt Lisa died' may have diJTerent information pack agings, it can be a thetic '

statement, i.e. an ail new sentence, in English, theticity of a one-argument clause is achieved by putting the main stress on the head of the argument, Jn that case the intonation pattern is: (16)

Aunt Lisa died.

It is also possible for the term aimxLisa to be used to refer to someone about whom it is being asserted that she died. In that case, the expression aunt Lisa is (more) salient, and the stress goes on the verb. This is the intonation of a catcgorial statement. (17)

Aunt Lisa DIED.

MIL S [KlXTURli 01-THE GtKMAN VP

Nevertheless, (17) is a possible nnswer to a vvhaL-hiippcned-questionr There is no nete ary identity between the open proposition set by the question nnd

the presupposed material in the answer. Otherwise, what-happened questions would only be allowed in situations where the speakers have no common

ground at all, which is rarely, if ever case. As I will show later, this kind of equation leads to premature conclusions. It is tme that presupposed material from the question cannot be used as the focus of the corresponding ynswrer. (IS)

A: What happened to aunt Lisa? B: *Aunt Lisa died.

However, it does not follow that everything contained in the answer which does not belong to the question must be focus or new information. Let me give another example: (19)

A: (Why is Mary angry with Pnul.Jj What did he do? B: The day before yesterday, he slept with Martanne.

This dialog does not have the slightest flavor of oddness. The question asks for some action of Paul s that explains Mary s anger. Ihc answer to that is his sex with Marianne, encoded in the VP [vt> slept with Marianne]. For some reason, B choses to be more explicit, giving the time of the action. The sentence initial position of the temporal adjunct, together with an intonation

pattern that puts secondary stress on the adjunct, but piimary stress on Marianne (no bridge accent!) indicates that the temporal information encoded in thc day before yestci-day is a (non contrast!vc) topic. Thus we have two constituents that are not in focus, but only one of them is delivered by the linguistic context, namely Faui = he. The second one, which contains a deictic expression, can still be easily accommodated. Thus, we see that it is not completely correct to consider question-answer pairs as a reliable diagnostics for focus projection. Given a question and a felicitous answer. l

4

one cannot claim that all the mate rial which is contained in the answer which

is missing in the question must be new information and hence in the range of foe us projection. So, why this long discussion? (150 elaimed that focus projection is possible where accusative precedes dative. However, focus projection was established there on the basis of quest ion-answer felicity. Thus. (I5f) is regarded as a possible answer to a question lWas hat er gemacht?' (What did he do?). With the wrong theory about the focus projection test outlined above, this then leads to the conclusion that every constituent

svNTArnr aspects (.w mpu: and communt

(includinLi the verb), but er, must be iWus. This, however, is not the c se. 1

shall claim that the accusative argument in this case must be discourse related and focus does not spread over it. I tirgue that the focus projection capacities of class I verbs are not di lie rent from class IJL verbs. And, therefore, the contrast between (15b) and (150 seems to me to be spurious,

26 .

Thi1 sirid wurd ortkr hypothesis

In this section I will show thtU thtne is a clear and more rdittbJe test for

showing that dative is ranked highci1 than accusative (for both class 1 and class 111 verbs). As will be shown later, material that is being introduced into the discourse I rame stays in its base position. Thus we have to examine the '

order in which new material organizes. Since Dl*s containing ordinary nouns do not yield conclusive evidence, we have to look for something else. Ordinary DPs are not conclusive because even indefinite DPs can easily

obtain a presnppositional reading. However, with unstressed indefinite articles they ure Eximost perfect indicators of what we re looking for Presumably, the best way of showing the linear order of arguments is to use indefinite pronouns that ctinnot or ean hardly have a presupposition a. reading. Such elements are {unstressed) jeimtnd. niemutuL etwas, mchtx, einer ( somebody, nobody, something, nothing, a/one

and their pbtmologically reduced forms was, Sentences constructed wilh these pronouns revea. that verbs of class J behave exactly as verbs of class IIJ. in that the dative "

'

object must precede the accusative one. {20)

class III

empfohten \ hat erkiart

geschickt,.* since he somebody-UAT some thing-acc {shown, given, recommended, explained... has

THL STRUCI URL OJ- THE CiLRMAN VP

ge&igt

empfohien

ha!

erkUirt

geschickt...

(itcvclsc nrdec)

The same is of course the case with class I verbs, which is already predicted by Hohle's theory. (2!)

class I

abgewofun

heigebradit [ hat zugetfaut veriibeh...

since he somebody-dat something-Arc {weaned, denied, taught. blamed...} has

abgew&hnt verweigeri

heigebrachi \ hut zugetraut

veriibeh.,,

(reverse order, i.e. act > DAT)

An mentioned abovet (unstressed) indefinite NPs behuve similarly, though the facts arc more complicated here. The order act > DAT itself is not ungram-

maik'aL tmd the unmnrked stress nlw ys falls on the verb ndjaeent argument. In this sense {22/23liJ and i22/23b) are equally txxJ. What distinguishes (22/23a) from (22/23bJ is that the former may serve for tocus projection whereas the latter cannot. However, as I have argued the focus spreading lest is not upproprialc. So 1 propose that (22/23b) get sttirred when the ,

intended reading is one where the indeiinite objects are introduced into the discourse frame.

{21)

class III a

.

weii er einer Frait

.

gescheukl hat

since he a woman-DAT a rose-ACC given since he gave a rose to a woman *u-fj;7 cr i'Uw Row iiiwr FRAU fteschenkt hat '

b

eine ROse '

has

50

SYNTACTTC ASPECTS 01

(23)

iOPK AND COMMUN I

class I

wetl er einem Freiuid ein LiED heigehrachf hat since he a friend-DAT a song-ACC tought liys

a

.

1

:

since he taught a song to a friend

b

er ein Lied eifiem FRFl/ND heigebrackT hat

.

1 have shown that class 1 and class 111 are not dillcnenl with respect to argument pmjettion and that it is therefore inappropriate to speak of two different classes.

Let us now turn to class IT. If we i pply our test to the verbs of this class, we Jind that the base order is indeed act > r>AT. However 1 have to iidmil ,

that the ordering test with indclinite pronouns does not work very well here. (24)

class II

weii ich aufder Party niemaruffen) jemandem

a

.

since I h

vorsesw Iit habe

at the party nobody-acc somebody-DAT presented have

*.,,' n 't V kh anf der Party niemandem jemamit en J i .or$ rstettt hah?

.

Yet, we may ha%re
*

.

is a structured Dl1 and the indefinite pronoun precedes it. The data become unconimversial again since indelinite pronouns must slay in then- base position, hence the indelinite DP too.

(25) a. b

(26)

.

a.

wed er jemanden finer whweren PriifitfiR unterzos since he somebody-acc fa difficult exam]-DAT submitted *u-f;7 er einer schwereu Priifun jemanden mtterzo}* weii sie niemandeu

einer ftwjien Gefahr

since she nobody-ACC [a b

.

big

atissetztn wttrde

danger]-DAT expose

would

sfe einer groji&s Gefahi nieimwdt't! aiiswrzen wilrde

Thus, while I here is no justification for positing three classes, it may be necessary to distinguish two: DAT > acc and acc > dat, NevettheJess I would like to maintain the claim thai DAT > acc holds underlyingly. The acc > DAT order can be seen as a mere epiphenomenon similar to what is going on with the so-called ill-behaved experience]" verbs (for a discussion of this story see Grimshaw 1990 and Belletti and Rizzi 19SS; Pesetsky 1990 and Meinunger 1995c),

THE STRl CTUKli OJ-THL GGKMAN VP

27 .

51

Somv pariiLldismK with t'xpLTitjiclt verb eunslructions

Ciencriilly, iiv uments .should be projected uniformly (UTAH: Byker lyMHj and iiccordin to Grim show s hierarchy (K). One clas.s of experience r ve]1>s - the /tY/r class (or Belletti and Rizzi s tenure diiss (1988)) - is well-behaved. '

That means that the experiencer, located higher in tht hiemrchy, becomes the subject of the sentence; the theme, located deeper, becomes the object. (27)

Lohengrin fears Elsy's question,

{28)

Salome likes Jochanaan.

However, the second class - the frighten class (Belletti and Ri/zi s preorrupare class) - is ill-behaved (29)

Alberich frightens the Nibetangs.

Here the experiencer appears as a post verbal object, and the theme occupies

the subject position. Grimshaw presents a way out of (he dilemma by proposing that there is not only one scale of hierarchy but, at least two. She shows that the iJI-behaved verbs have something to them which the other class lacks, namely the causative element, which is brought out by the paraphrase (30) of (29). (30)

Alberich causes the Nibehmgs to experience fear.

Grimshaw proposes that [he causal structure of a predicate also delines a hierarchy, just as the thematic structure dt>cs. a hierarchy hi which the cause argument is most p]-ominent: (JJ)

(cause (....))

She claims that the causalivhy hierarchy overrides the other one(sJ and imposes a structure whore the causer is the most prominent argument. Another

way of capturing the di Here nee between the two classes is suggested by Pesetsky (1990). In his theory too.frighteti is not equal in meaning to fear with the theta-roles in the reverse order. The ddference lies in the additional

causative component which the well-behaved class lacks, but the ill-behaved class exhibits. This ear be represented in the following representation: (32)

a.

Ilke/tcar:

XxXy lx E y

b

please/flighten:

kxky |y CAUSE \x E y]

.

52

SYNTACTIC ASPECTS OF TOPIC AND COMMLNT

If ihis notation, tiiken fro in Haidej1 (\9 2), is tmnslated into a syntactic tree

of ihe kind of (7), we yet a speuilier position where the eiiuser is licensed in the topmost argument position, Instead of making the lumhdti preti?t unselectively bind two variiiblcs, we can handle the dilfcreiicc syntactically by ass Liming movoincnL an equivalent dependency between the two positions of the e and \ in {33):

(33)

VP I

CAUSE

133]

VP

:

rcighteiij

VP2

V

1

i

Thus, just as GIVE7 might be analysed as 'CAUSE + POSS', one might consider + FRIGHTEN" to be comptised of CAUSE + FEAR\ l

2Ji

The DAT > ACC > DAT/TP asvmmctrv

1 would like to claim that this kind of argument (position) manipulation can be fruitfully carried over to the hi transitive verb asymmetry. It has been

observed that (in German) there is
THL STRUCTURli 0J; THii GLRMAN VP

53

biiriinsitive verb when iliey ai e +tinimale or -fhuman, lo be realized as dative objects (34li)4 (35a). On the othei" hiind. when the objeet is not animate or human, it is likely to be expressed in a directkmal E1!' (34b). {35b) (see

Kaufmtinn (1993) cimong others). Another ditFerente that Kaufmann overooks is the tact that in iho animate case the dative object appears prelerahh l>eU>]e the ac u alivc ohjeLt: in die nmnmiale uase. iIil1 IT musl appear aiter

the accusative tibject. (34)

a.

5 schkkte Hirer Tame eiit BUCH. she sent |ber auntl-UAT ]a book|-ACC

b

.

Sie schickte das BiJCH

slie sent {35)

a.

the book-acc to the library

Sie brudiw threw Varer she bio Light | her

b

.

au die Bihiunhek.

einen KUcheiL

'

i atherl-DAT [a

Sie hrachfe eineti KlJchen ins

she broughi a

cake

cakeJ-ACC Bwo.

bto+the otfrce

1 would like to claim that this realization pattern is not primarily the interaction of animacy or humannes but that the dilTerente is mediated through ii distinction conceiiiing the tnteiaciion of the atomic predtCL cs. lo ihc beginning of this chapter 1 asMtmod POSS(EiSSI0N[) to be an atomic

predicate. Now. 1 will argue that it is of some advantage to analyze it as a delived one. Therefore. 1 will adopt a view of argument structure sirmlar It) that found in Speas (wyo) and of the have-be alternation much like in Kay tic (i993a). My claim is that many hi transitive verbs either refer to a relation between a theme and the theme s location, or express a process (or a state) in which the dative argument possesses, or comes to possess, the theme. I furthermore claim that the former relation (location) is underlying and the latter (possession), which contains more information, is derived. As for the constructions with a localional (secondary) predication, 1 assume that the lexicalJy decomposed structure looks like: '

(36)

fx CAUSE |... BE fy (IN/AT/QN z]|]]

Thus for bringen (to bring) and srhicken (to send) with a prepositional complement, we would have a tree structure like in (37).

54

SYNTAC HC ASHLCTS 0Y: 'iimC AND COMMLNT

VP

(37)

HUP

CAUSE"

p:

This is [he ix;prosenialion for sentences like {34b) iind (35b). Ai this poinL Lomes Ktiyne s ide (which goes btiek to etiriier work by traditional griiminamns, Benveniste l%6) becomes reicviiiit. For Kayhavf is derived via '

hicoi poiulitm of a preposition into be. TrtinsieiTed inLo my theory of Jexicai he d detLt>mpt>silit>n, this meains tippnixiniLitely that Lhe deepmost lociitiomil incorporates into the primitive BE. 'J'his process results in the J SSESSION relation. Exactly its with the experienter verbs, [he head movement within the VP triggers movement of Lhe most embedded argument. In our case it is the former complement of (he preposition which becomes the

specifier of POSS. (The overt preposition disappeiirs and j possession 32

relationship is crctited. Sec also Kayne.)

LL. For di£ sake of hunnoiiy I wilt ussuinc that iv\ Oerrtian alio th« VI* iulcnuL jiumic pivJiL-LLlcs project litad-tiiully. This jiiiikus ilk [km Hipjk r som whut Ji s finiiLJi r. Nrc:vor(JietejiJi I think tftul tins as not Lin insurnioniitHtbtc problem for the itiidcr. 12. [iut]i.isti]igly (Jtci'c is another ftict iIku could bu ns d lis iidii]l]otiii] evidence for die imityjits, This fact is the relation hetwecit dative Ciise ssession. It is wet I known th;il titerc is no one-to-one coirespoitdencc lu-i een ntorph lf>gical Case,s on tlie one hand and thetmatlc roles on the oilier. However, it is eqtifiUy well known thut both re more th n ju L JooscJy related. In

any eaie. Itt many Jian jitgcs. rhui Iillvc tnorphnlogtcaJ dmive. this Case is often ii!itLtiicd to the po esjior jji a process siiii]ltir to the oitu hseussetl lie re. Vvt c mpk- in f Itingji'ittn (di> L]s>ed m Szabolcsi l fii arid discusstd anew nt Kayne IV k the possessive constnietion consists of a eopula (BE; uid a jihigle DV containing the po essor and the possesses. When the whole DP 1* definite, the possessor can remain in situ carrying noiminLitive Case, but in other case* it must or can move to die Jeft to some s.peciiicr position where it gets assigned dative Case. Some-

thing siniUur uUo huppcni in my non-slaadard di-aJcel of German. A DIJ expressing a possessive relation jntiv come in two variants

55

ihl STkucrmii oj-the glkman vp

SeniiinlitLilly. ihis means that the: 'former" ItKative argument becomes the

possessor Thus, my claim is that the possession relation is not a scmtintic primitive, but thut it is a result of verb phrase internal chiinges. Thus: |x CAUSE: [e r BE[y [ IN / AT / ON z[| |

ij

I

I

x CAUSE ...[z 1 POSSy]

(j) Jtr Guriin von ticr lHuriif luLvnig the strudui \DV D0

NCI lpp l1 1 K)SStiS&ORj |J

the garden of the Ingnd ii) Bonijchow corresponds to the bitse vanant in OA) mvoiving -a PP. The other, mote LKttuiiE.

v riLirtC is dij

Jicrc the ]Hfsscs.s(>r hiis bc-cii nujvcd to sonic s cdiiur fjusition whci'c it kip]k-Hir> nt ttutive Citiic. i lie UIJ element ltf>tt-s ia i c-enicnc witlt [lie pltriisc in ih spccUiei ptisition wiih respect lo gender. Hei'e, ilie dative s Tunction is to mark the posset&iou relation: '

CiiJ weiner Muwr iiir Cwh'ti living the strtieltire [Dr rOS$\iSSO\tDM [DIJ lN], N 1 '

l||]

niy-iJA-j- mother Itcr gantcit Also senteneei that refer to possession relations make use of dative Ca.se as possessoi Lrurker.

In my vurioty of Gci'mLiu. it ii very cojumtm Lo express p

cssioii by it copula (Btj witii two

'

satellite DPS tl don t wunt (o call them

umciusj. Er tlic pi cssee is deltmic, it is likely to appear lit nontmative ciisc. The jw cssor liicn sanies dative Case: {Li\) Dii'.tt'f Gifl'teu

f'sl mrittri-Mutlri:

iialULTi .vnM j-, WA '

liriOtlter-L3A ] '

'

This garden bcloitgs lo Liny molhcr/

TliUJiH the Link of i JfiS and a datite DP ill its speeilier stEtiin Lu Lfe nunivaied Liv ajekiieiL. titoiigh di fife rent eons-tinction L1er >ss iLingaages (again sec kayne L9 3u and Bcnveniste l Mi). 13. For a similar 1 hong it dilfeienl ana3ysis and the relation between preposition {partLelej

iLK'Ofj ratlon hms I lie primitive HI- L upkd wiLli the dem'jrtion of a bttmnsitive verb tnitlure see den Difcken Cl995) mainly Chapter 3. :

56

SYNTACTIC ASfliCTS Ob' TOPIC AND COMMLNT

VP

POSSP

CAUSE0

P(JSS11 I

This analysis is cornjborated by the foliowing fatts. The tendency to dittivize 11 +Linimate/+humyn DP alluded to ubove is only an epiphenomenon, ihcie is no him on having an +(mimitte/-hhuman DP within a PP construction, 140)

n £ (V ids £ it ? t/OT r u mehsein Vater gehnu -h t hahe since 1 a book to my father brought have

(41) weit ich das FAHRrad zu memer Tame Reschicki hatie since I

the bicycle

to my

aunt sent

had

However, the meaning is di lie rent from the corresponding DAT > At:c eonstruction. (40) and (41) do not tell us anything about possession. (40), for '

example! expresses thut 1 brought some book to my father s residence. My father needn't even know of the book. In (41), there is not the slightest hint that the aunt becomes the possessor. On the other hand, the corresponding DAT > acc cons tme I ions make a POSS reading much more likely. (42)

weii Hi niewem Vater cw BUCH sebracht hahe since I my father a book brought have

(43)

m'eii ich meuscr Tautt> Jus: FAHRiyd geschickf habc since 1 my auni the bicycJe sent have

(42) strongly suggests that now my father owns the book. However, my claim is not that POSS necessarily expresses ownership. It merely means that

someone is in the (perhaps temporary) possession of something. For example, (42) does not necessarily mean that the ownership of the bicycle changes

1JIL STRlXTURli OJ HIE GLKMAN VP

57

from mine t>r someone else's lo my aunt's. However, the sentence siiys that

my aunt is somehuw in conxcioux possesston of the bike.

"

'

I his is not the case

with the IT construction in (41), That sentence might describe ti situation where I have so in a/my bike to my nunfs address in Paris. However for the time being my aunt doesn't live there and 1 know that. The only reason lor my sending action wtis that J want to go to Paris and did not want to Uke the bike with me in the train. Since \ doift trust leff-luggage offices, \ wanted o pick up my bike at my aunt s place rather than at the station. In such a case, my aunt need not know anything about that. (43j cannot ha used

t

,

to describe such a situation.

This theory is also partly corroborated by the Tact thtit the DAT > ac;c vs. AC( > JT alternation is not freely allowed. It is not the case that to every

DAT > acc order there is a corresponding acc > W order. This possibility seems to me to be limited to the case with verbs where the non-accusative

object can receive a locative reading, hir verbs, where this is not possible. the act > PI1 construction sounds awkward.

empfohteu

(44) a. *k

11

j/ ich es uwinfr Muitei vmibfff... '

since T showed, recommanded, exphmied .it to my tnothc!,

,

empfohien b

.

ich es an metfie Murter/zu meiner Murter

erkidrt

habe

.

venihett...

14. Now, Liny urguLinenCition could be used against me. Whit I did wus dcsiJin : with tJic opiiositLon possejijitort vs. Joctition, Nf>w. I am using tht liicfc of a locarkmiiL reading wu\\ xhc given verbs us an argument for the tiick of the Aff > E1 tonsTmaion. So far. so good. However, if nwttej-!; were ThsU simple, nurrow numloa opptiaition predicts thai with the given verbs, we should onK j>et a reading where l:OSS plays a role. This, however, is not the case. Here we do not get any fsnbttekiuotj which couJd be idem!tied as POSSESSION. Thus. wJiiil L h.iw -.i clul r.v x\icirt\ iociitjon Ui i - mn Lh:in>-L- [lues not cvpliu]! evcr PAT > ACC ordiTin c I'bis, however, Iilis never been my claim. What 1 eliiun is only that it '

.

eovers a consiik-jnlUL- pan.

SYNTACTIC ASPECTS 0\: TOPltV AND COM ML-NT

Now the readtfi' ini hl woiider why 1 htive spciil so much eiU'oil im the DAT > aoc vs. ac;c > PP alternation. The tinswer lies in the dat > acc vs. acc

> DAT problem which was alluded to above, but for which u solution hits

still not yet been iven. The following discussion revives this problem. Above, 1 have shown that there k no dat > acc vs. dat > acc & acc

> dat distinction, i.e. class 1 and class 111 collapse. The long discussion about the dat > acc vsr acc > PP distinction was intended to prepay for

the next verb class collaipse; namely, I shall claim that the 'ill-behaved1 class II verbs are hidden ACC > PP verbs. To put it in other words, the dative

ajrununt of acc > DAT verbs {class II) is actually (the remnant of) a PI The argumentation will not be very semantic. The only thinj; 1 want to *

,

mention is that also Miiller (1993:204. fn.3) admits that the dative argu-

ments of verb II class verbs do not act as goals, I want to go further and say that the datives denote something local. Let us consider the verbs of class II, Haider (1992> gives the following examples: (45)

to

expose so to sth

ausiiefeni

to

extradite

entziehen (!)

to

take away from

to

submit

uuterwerfen

to

subject

zitfuhrwi

to

bnnt: :o

'

We can add: vorstetien

inti oduce

to prclei to subordinate

ansteichen nackbilden

to assimilate

to copy1 to replicate to adapt to adjoin,,,

All these verbs, with one exception» can be morphologically decomposed into a verbal stem and a local preposition (underlined). The only exception

enTziehen can easily be shown to be misplaced here. Even people who accept the Hohle-Haider lest of focus projection admit that the order must be dative

THli S rKlCTURL 0\: THU Cj Li KM AN VIJ

> iiccusaiivc,1 Con si dor in g ihis fact my claim then is ihtu acc > imt verbs are avc> J1!' verbs where die Uoeidj preposition htis been iiieoipurti(ed into the verb. The visible result is ei acc: > DAT linearization.

29

Short summary

.

If Lill the ideas collected, composed and developed above are eomhined, we airive at a rather simple picture. The hii. e structure of the German verb is: {46)

|VT SU |IO |DO [PP verb]v]vlv]

This is the lexical projection which forms the input to further operations. As hinted yt itbove. I he ]e\ie;d piojeetion is the toniplement of a functional pnojeetion which itself is Eigtiin the complement of some other lunctional projecdon. The next chapter will be dealing with some phenomena that triy er changes in word older with respect to the base order which is

represented in (50).

15. A: A: B: B:

Uttd n tf.r bnnf du cktfin grwucht? And what did you do tlicn? Dumi hufa ich demWasser die GtFi'sTv/Jf' eulzogen then have I [the WLiteir]-[JAT [the pflisemoui iubitancesl-Aff awity-tiifeccn Then [ dcpoisoiiLd IKl: wmcc.

Also my test of testing the onder of indefinite pronouns / or Dl1 shows thut rnrzirhrn is an ordinary DAT > acc vtrb; since 1

someonc-iMi omcihing-ACf uwiiy-taken huvt

(iij *wwi h-h elwtis ji'mtimkw i'ulzvgen htihc

(rfverst ordur)

For ihit problem jnd the ver same data, see also a veiy ]iUcresEing papei- hy Steinbach and Vogel 0 95), wJiich was wiitten after I liad Itnished thit part. Ill ere it sJiown thut tJunga n iehi even tx? more Ci?[]iplL->i.

Chapter 3

A trigger for scrambling

3

.

1

Scrambling und scrcimliLin thcuries

Now I will itddress whtiL I til led TurEher operations' in the preceding chapter As T said, in principle any constituent - argument or adjunct may appear ill any posh km in the middle field. (J)

a.

duji die Fam

der Nitvhhurm

gestem

chat the woman-nom the neighbor-i i-m.dat yesterday dt'ti Hund Kegeben hat he

dog-ACC givvn '

h

.

c

.

d

.

e

.

that the woman gave the dog to the neighbor yesterday dap die Fran dcr Nachbarin dsn hund gestern gegeben hat dap die Fran den Hund gasteru der Nuehbaria tfexeben hat dap der Nachhar'm dfts Hund gesient die Frou gegeben hat dap die Fran #estern der Naehharin den Hund #e%ei>en hat

dufi getfern die Fran der Nachbarin den Hund gegeben hat

f

.

h

dap der Nachbarin die Fran gestern deu Hund gegeben hat dap der Naddxtrin gexrern die Fran den Hund $egeben hat

1

dap gesiern der Nachbarin die Fran den Hund gegeben hat

j

hat hat hat hal hat

g

.

.

.

dap die Fran den Hund der Nachbarin gesiern gegeben k dap der Nachbarin die Fran den Hund western gegeben L dap der Nachbarin den Hund die Frau gestern gegeben jn. dap den Hund die Fran der Nachbarin gesient gegeben n dap deu Hund der Naehbarin die Frau western ge eben .

.

.

o

dap die Fran gestern den Hund der Nachbarin gegeiyen hat

p.

dap den Hund die Fran gestern der Niuiiharin gegeben hat dap dei ? Hi md ;] extern die Frai \ der Nai -fibarin geg eben hat

.

q

.

'

.

s

.

dap gestern die Fran den Hund der Nachbarin gegeben hat dap gestern den Hand die Frau der Nachbarin gegeben hat

62

SYNTAcm- Asm:rs oi- topic and (jomml-nt

t

.

u

.

v

.

daji der Nachharm ' stern dt'H Himd die Frau gegeheti liar dap Jen Hmtd gextern der Nachbayiu die Fran gegehen hot

daji getfern der Nachimin dfu Hund die Frau gegeben ha!

vs. dap gesiern den Hmd dt'r NuihhiU-m div Frau x

.

vht'ti hat

dap den Hand der Nachbtinu estem die Frau gegeben hat

In (IJ iibovc, all possible perm unit ions of constituents that are possible in a subordinate sentence with a verb that takes three arguments and an adjunct are listed. The paradigm illustrates the potential freedom of order However. it is not always possible to re-arrange the constituents in this fashion,

Moreover although all the examples are grammatical, some sound more acceptable then others. Considered out of context, they can be arranged on a scale of decreasing acceptability, with example a. Lhc most natural, and x. the most bizarre, However, 1 shall argue that these sentences should not i onsideted in terms of a markedness hicrarcby. ! wiU cbim ihm cwn sentence has a linguistic and a non-linguistic context, and that according to these contexts the relevant sentence may or may not sound appmpriale. Another factor is the fact that {ordinary) writing cannot convey the intonationai shape of the sentence. (]) is a paradigm where the relevant eonstitucms '

.

are all dclinite. in other examples, where there are indclinitc expressions involved, and if intonation is encoded, it turns out that moving constituents around can result in unacceptable structures.

2) a.

n-ei! der Chefdirigerit iiiemalx jcniatidefi tobt since the director never somebody praises smce the never praises anybody +

b

.

'

*weU jcmamka rdemats d
This chapter sheds some light on what happens when the order of constituents in a sentence is diirercnt from the base order, sec Chapter 2. This issue

has long been a central question in syntactic theory. A technical term for the derivation of a linearization of constituents which is diU'erent from the base

order is .srrtitnhlin . Serambting as a linguistic term originates fmm Ross

'

dissertation <]%7). where proposed a universal scrambling rule wus proposed lo account for the derivation of dillerent constituent linearizations. However, not every process that takes a constituent from its base position and moves it to some other place in the syntactic tree is called scrambling, For example, the movement of a H'ft-constituent to the sentence initial

A TklGGLR I OR SCRAMBLING

63

position is not scrambling; neither is the movement of some arbitrary consiitucm to Ihc posiiion immcdiLiicly preceding the liniie verb in u Clermim niain el an sc. i hese movement types are clear cases of S-movement. Another instance of non-scrambling is the movement of an underlying object to the '

'

subject position (i.e., passive in English, subjects of miticctisalive verbs) or the raising of a noun phrase into the subject position of a verb like to seem/ scheinertt or an epistemic modal. These movement types are referred to its A-movcment All ho ugh both types of movement have in common that they put a constituent into a position which is different from the one where it has been base generated, there arc many diircrenees between A- and A-move.

ment. Since A- and A-movement are the classical movement operations, they

did not really tolerate other movement types next to them. And hence, the derivation of the dillemn word orders in the German middle lie Id had to be either an instance of A- or {if A-movement. In the literature one can Jind

argumentations for both approaches to scrambiing in German and in general.

Hard-core proponents lor an A-approach to scrambling in German are Webelhuth (1984/85. 1.989) and Miiller (1993). Fanselow (J Wa ), MoJt-

mann [ I99t J - de Hoop (1992) and others urgue for an A-movement analysis, However, it has become generally recognised that the state of alt airs on the

data is more complicated, as scrambling does not easily fit into either classification without problems. Some recent proposals suggest thai scrambled phrases may act as A and A binders simultaneously (Webelhuth 1992; Rosengrcn 1994). In order to avoid a classi Heat ion at all it has also been proposed that scrambling does not belong to the core of grammar Williams ( 19H4i ebaraeien/es it as a stylistic rule and [ocali/es il M some ven marginal pLkv hetwwu s-sirueimv mul PI-. Oiher resc:irehe]s irgue againsi a movement analysis altogether. For them, all occurring linearizations t/an be

base-gencrated, leaving neither space, nor need for movement operations. That free conslituenl order is a base-structure phenomenon is argued for by Haider (1990 for example) and recently in a series of publications by Fanselow (1992, 199 ). In the latter, Fanselow even introduces the term

anii-scramhlmg\ Thus the picture that emerges can be illustrated by a tree diagram, adopted from Grewendorf and Stemefeld (1990:7). b

64

SYNTACTIC ASHLCTS 0[: TOriC AND COMMLN'!'

Scrambling theories

biisc gtncraiioii PF

A-mow niLiHL

'

A inoveinent -

'

A/A movement -

At first glance it looks as if only one of the devices tan be the correct one, However. I will argue tliEiE not eiII retirrangement operations of constituents belong to the same movement type. Hence, the linearization process is not

the result of a single sort of movement, and thai each of the proposals is conect to some extent. Thus, if scrambling is understood as the generator of the possible linearizations it should not be analyzed as the instantiation of one single type of movement. Nevertheless, my elaim will be that most movement operations that affect the base order and derive word order vaiiLitions in the middle held are instiintiiLiions of A-movement.

3

.

2

A survey of the MernHntic impucl of serumbl in -positions und correspond]ng intcrpretatUms

The type of movement I will mainly be concerned with Is illustrated in the examples (4) to (7). In the preceding chapter 1 have argued that all (verbal) arguments and only arguments are base generated inside the VP. This implies that material which is not subcategortzed by the verbal head cannot be located within the VP (lor a di lie rent, but not incompatible view see Chapter 4, Section 4.5.3.4). Thus, adjuncts, particles and other non-ar umental elements can be used as a good structural indicator for whetheimovement of one of the arguments has taken place or not. For the moment 1 will not be concerned with what the position {if this non-ar timental material is. It also seems that every7 linguist who uses the position test Favors a dilferent element which most likelv is of a dilTercnl stutus and hence

A TRIGGLK I OR SCRAMBLING

should occupy a ditrerent position.3

However

vvhai iiuHlts is the relative

pt>siiit>]i unvLJE'ds Ihe shifted tir Limenis. (4)

we il n-ah i si h vifslu 7? n icmu ui carhei let h at

since pn>biibly nobody woi kcd has since probably there was nobcidy vvoi'kinti '

"

(5) well der Chef waftwhewfich noi h gearbcireT hat since the boss probably still worked since probably the boss was still working

has

1

'

(ft) weii wiroft

ein lAed sinsen muPxen

since we often a song sing must since we often had to sing a song '

f7) weii wireinUedoft since we a '

singen mufiten

song often sing

must 1

since wrc often had to sing a {specific) ong

In {4) and {b). ihc arguments Lire arguably in their base position, which is

Spec VP and the sister to V Jt respectively, in (5) and (7), the arguments have been moved away from their base position. I will claim that in (5) the

subject has moved to SpecA rS, and that in (7) die ohjeft has moved to SpetAgrO. (It has been proposed that SpccAgr positions are A-posilions where the Case of the arguments is checked {Chapter 4 Section 4.2 and Chomsky 1992). It is an established fact that the di lie rent positions trigger dilferent interpretations. Take the sentences itufj) and (7). for example. h\(b) ein Lied

gets a non-rererenlial interpretation. Here.

'

non-refej-entiai

'

is used in the

Vov cxamplo. U]t-siLig make* L]itensiVL! use of the furtide Ja ittu-ii. Thlt seen];; tt> nic [« he n b-dd diokv s]] - tlic iuiujilojii wtLi elemuKt are rather shaky. Ev*]i Dieti] hutttt muct Lidinil [iio ]H)Sil]ifii sit jti iht-fi is not completely (ixiid ni J srjfls Lth likhvc lhth purliLk iLmniid. The Dulch lin uitts idc Hoop 1 2. Nootcuiy]! ] 4) ofl n noe die lemporyJ adv rbkil xinfctvn (= ycstcidiiyj. Tins scen lh> \o he u belter fLiaididate. Still, there tire some Jiffiojltics. If tiikc jii upproach to argument tfraeturc as developed by Kiatzer 1 9). XiMrmi could he considered x\ uistLiiuliition of the Davidsonian Lirgiiiinent. aad hence would belong t(> tl;c verb's Hirj:tLmci;t trLiine. Saiice \ want \.\\\ indlciitor whtcJi should cJearly be a VP cjaeruitl elemertt, I do not choose gestrrti or another temporaJ adverbiol. \n MeiHinder (1992) l

.

I LInlJ IK;-; ! . .k-MKnl Ln:l I LjIlI' I will !ih W lh:it CiK- >Mlkl\ i;, l> |-iiohkn VMlh tliLit option, too. E tliefet orc wiJl niLiinly jsc advcibs thai net js ojk-jliIojs ±uch lls quLLiitiJifiU'

sonitl 4?/> (= often) or imodii] wtihrjuhfiuiH ti i= prcs-imiLibly, pmbublj),

66

SYNTACTJC ASPliCTS Oh TOPIC AND COMMLNT

sense of Meinunger (1992), i.e. ein Lied does not refer to a specilie song. The sentence merely says that we were often ibrced to be singing [some song or other). This sentence can hardly he followed by a sentence like lWir haben dys Lied gehaftt' (We detested the song) where the dehnitc Dl1 is intended to refer to the discourse referent introduced by tvn Lied in (6), which is in the scope of a propositional adverbial, This is not the meaning of (7). The most salient interpretation of (7) is that there is a specihe song which we had to sing over imd over again, Under this reading the referent ,

of song may easily be picked up by a subsequent definite DP. The string in (7) has another possible interpretation according to which there is a list of songs and one out of the list used Co belong to our obligatory, constant repertoire. Under this reading also, it is perfectly normal for referents of the song to be picked up by a delinite description in a following utterance. The following subsection gives a detailed lIik! fairly exhaustive description of DPs. their distribution and the corresponding readings.

The noun phrase-types \ considered arc (i) in delinite DPs. s pec i tic ally noun phrases intmduced by u singular indetinitc article, bare plurals, singular mass nouns, and indciinitc pronouns; (ii) noun phrases with weak determiners; (iii) definite full NPs and definite pronouns and (iv) QPs, i.e. noun

phrases in trod need by a strong qu an tiller. The following examples illustrate the pattern with direct objects. We wili see lhat the picture thut emerges is completely parallel with subjects and indirect objects. 32 .

-

1

.

liJik/ittites

indefinite singular NPs (S) sie wefl besiirimt schomnai eine Siufouie gehor? ha? she since surely already a symphony heard has

The only reading of emu Sinjbme available is the purely inddinitc existential reading. De Hoop [lt>92j claims that simple unsci'itmbled indefinite object arc completely ambiguous between a weak and a strong reading. This claim is denied here: as we will see later, it is not impossibJe for an unscrambled indefinite to get a strong interprelalion. This, however, is a marked option and requires special e ire inns tanees. 11 the indehtute is scrambled, the weak existential re ad in t! disappears. In this, 1 agree with the

A IKKt pLK I UK

KAMtil.lMIsP

claim t>f de Hoop and others; indefinites with a purely weak imerprettition cannot undej o scrdmbling. (9)

weil sie eine Sm/onie hesnnmt schonmil xehnn hat '

f J

cilhcics Liiohi LLOLLS. L ndci oiic LniLTprcuULOii. ihc spf likor wuals lo

convey the information that (s)he knows about some symphony for which it is very likely that the uddrossee has listened to it at some time. Under this

reading, the spetikcr normaJly htis a specific syinph{jny in mind tbtit (s)hc could probably iiLiinc. say Beethoven s Ninth. Following de Hoop, let s cat. '

'

this the nelerential interpretation. (9) tan have a second reading which is

somewhat less obvious. Under this interp f "1 - which 1 shall call the paititivc reading the sentence describes a situation where the speaker presupposes a set of symphonies, of which one is likely to he known to the subject of (9)+ i.e. It might seem that the two interpretations are non-distinct from each other, but there are reasons to believe that they are distinct.

Whereas under the referential reading, there must be a specific referent which should be known to the speaker, this need not be the case with the

paiiitive interpretation. The latter only slates that thore must be such a symphony, no matter which one. This reading becomes more accessible

when the indefinite is preceded by an element Jike mindesTens fat least), {9')

weit sif iiiifidextt-ru eine Sinfome sauce she at least

hestimmt schonmui gehoit hut

one symphony surely

already

heard has

Scrambled indelinilcs can have yet another reading, hard to distinguish in (9), but apparent in (10); (10)

irtvV dec Boss nuien Familieuvatei wahrscheiutich nidi! eutlaf.k

iince the boss a

famtlytather

probably

not

hies

In its most natural interprelation, fifien Fuuiilieitvater in (JO) is interpreted as treneric. The meaning of the senteaiee can then be paraphrased with: if someone h is u> v-;nv ior ii fLjnnly. ihc bass v. ill pi h.ihh. not Jitv htm In this reading, the indefinite need tiot refer lo a concrete person. Carlson (1977)

proposes that genencs refer lo kinds, thus the son of rderenee is more abstract.

So Tar. we have seen four diflercnt interpret a lions of indefinites. The \\v;ik c jsk-'nuiLi ri-'iit-mi 1 is tri posiiiat-. Outside ihe VP ret* it1 \hc boundary, the indefmile DJ' can get a referential, a partitive or a generic .

.

SYNTACTIC ASPliCTS OP TOPIC AND COMMENT

i

eiiding. 2 Jn {9} U) < U cxuuiijJl "

-

.

ii \w]] imd Ihcii mt>sl likely inicrpre.

Ufction wi discussed. Olhcr re sidings tire also obtuimihle, e.g. in (10) eiiwit Fomilienvaier can also be interpreted neferentuilly or partilively. In GeiTmn. this Limbiguity is resolved by the intonationii] contour assigned to the indefinite DR The reierentini or partitive reading is tjiggered by stressing the indefinite urtiele as in (UV). 'I'hus,

[10')

ii r ii der Boss Eina ? Fam iiiei ? \ 'a rer n .altrsch v iitlk-h m< in a nUijif

Undei this intonations I pattern the generic interpretation described above for (10) cannot arise. However, while a stressed indefinite defterminer typically

signals i-eferentliil or partitive interpretation, those inierprctations are also possible when the determiner is not stressed. There are eases where the head noun of the complex indefinite noun phrase is accented and a partitive interpretation ncveilhetess arises. Consider a situation where a set ijiiMfte Leute (young people)) of individuals has already been imreduced into the preceding discourse. In the relevant sentence the head noun of indefinite UP refers to a subset {Mddchett fgirlsj) of the previously introduced (super) set. fli)

Vor dem Kino stwuieii vie!e Jufige Leute in front the cinema stood many young people (In front of the cinema there were many young people standing around.) .

Ich sah, [ H'jf

renliwd

der Ttiwteher

ein MADchen immer wieder zuriickschickrs

how the door guarJ a

girl

always again

back-sent

(that the door guard kept sending baek a girl)

Given the context, the girl {ehf Mtidi hen)y-which has been scrambled over the quamifieational adverbial, must be understotnl as denoting a girl belonging

2

.

De Hoop [[992) also tatks iibnu.1 a geneiic cotketive KeLnJing. It it uol c\ d.i whether this

rtLLdiiig shoultt rcLillv kept aj>4irt Jroin iti ortlnuLiy cn riL rcjiding. Siaitc tko so-c Jt J generic coJlcctivc reiidinc is >ll]y possibk with c-LiLttinal and other wejt qiianltfiers, but not the iLiddlnitf arlidf. tl it not of much intcrcit liero jiiyway. 3

r

The use of cstpkal teal's

LIl Iic lto foi1 stress is not nie Ht to be axhtotsltve. i.c, for iW)

1 do noE claim Ehal the capitali ett tyilabie.s arc the only onet that caiiy a pilch jceeiit. Kor

these constnitltons to he gritmmiilk'Lil. ihere must he at kast one more liyhcible in the sentence tiiat cairiea a pilch accent as well. We return to tins issue later.

A TRIGGER TOR SCRAMBLING

09

to the group of young people introdueed hy viele Junge Lenten In this respect 11 is inlcrprcled piiililively, and siill the head noun ctin be siressed. (Slressin ihe determiner is also possible under the ptirlitive inteipretiilion. There is

sliLiht dill'ej'ence, however: it musl then be the ease then thtit there

is more than one girl in the rnup and ii is very Itkclv thai for them it is the ease th t they were not being sent buck. This need not be the case for the

stress pattern in (M)). hoi the generic reading the wrlicle musl be unaeeenled and the head noun gels stressed: (12)

u-'t1 ii der Boss eiueit FttMHienvaier wuhrsrheitilich ttU-ht enrldjit.

The interpretation is

(I2r) Genera I] yx [ftither (xJl (it is probably not the case tlmt the boss fires \]A No other stress pattern is possible. Another reading open to indelinites in the base position deserves mention eall it the 'narrow foe us interpretation \ Even if it has a referential. -

partitive, or generic reading, an indefinite DP preferably stays in the base position if it is contrastively stressed {especially in subordinate clauses (13)

u't1 it sie

wahrsctiein tit -h EIN Si-h wein gesdtttich tt'i huben.

since they probably a pig slaughtered have since ihey probably slaughtered one of the pigs '

'

Cases sueh as this display a complex quantilicational slruelure: This case is discussed in more detail in connection with (cf. see below). Le[ ns now move on to

bare ptitrals

-

Hare plurals are plural indelinites. Like English and unlike French. Gennan

does not have simple oven plural indelinite articles. The behavior ol" bare pi ma Is in subjeet position German is deserihed in detail in Diesin ( I'J'J Li.bi. Here L only waul to briefly eonsider the illUll ith res peel In ohjeel position. As Die sing (1992: 107) observes: Tn the case of the VP-internal or

4

.

Aji adduloL l iiitcFprctLition would be wahmchAttHch {pn}buL)ly Jiaviug wider scope dian '

iw tl e Jui'muJii in [\2 ) Hil is. hnnniik-na] lieic. howcvei. '

.

70

SYNTACTIC ASRiCTS 01 'fOnC AND COMMENT

unscrambled order, the mo t neutral interpretation of the indefinite object is the ex is tent id closure interpretLition. '

(14) daft Stefan iwmer Bikher tiher Inseiaen tiest that S let an always bo{)ks

about insects

reads

That Stefan always reads book about insects'

The senumtic representation is:

(15) alwrtys, ft is a Time] 3x

= a book about insects & Stefan reads x at t]

In the scrambled version, the reading is dilTerent. The bare plural must be interpreted as generic. (16) tlafi StefiUi Biichet iiher hwekten immer tiest

The corresponding semantic representation is:

(17) always

ft is a time & book about insects (x)l [Stefan reads jt at t]

Die sing underlines this contrast widi examples where the meanings of the verb strongly favors only one interpretation. Thus she claims that verbs of creation {write build, draw) do not allow for object scrambling because their ,

,

semantics is such that the object referent only comes into existence as a

result ol the action described by the relevant verb. As a consequence, the existence of the object cannot be presupposed, and hence must be asserted. Assertion of existence is done by existential closure which according to the Mapping Hypothesis applies to the VP (Chapter 1. Section J,4.3.1). Hence the contrast between (IK) and (19)/ (IS) wtil Brigitta immer Anikd iihtr Sa'ambims schreiht since Erigitta always articles about scrambling writes

(19) *weil Brigim Artikei i\her Scramhiing immer schreiht

5

.

Object strjinblmg is ]UH iil Liys biockud

]LLi vtibs oj' tit tLurt. 11 j LlnilllrtCL jdvizibi l l>

uscJ to modify the veL'h.the vtL'b loses its need of aw ob ccl which in use l>c hcnig creLtfcd.

(l H)

wttl Brtgtstu A niki't iihvr Scramblins ittmer in aHtr bik sdirwht. since Hri ittib Liiticlcii about scrjinblmg always in all hurry writes

Then the .scnmihled object gets a gciimc tntcLprolLition just as normal objects of verbi of L.sing.

how D]cs]iis calli the other class of transitive verbs. Sec also dc Hoop's C 1 and J.M.

2* ChajUci's 3.1.4

71

A TklGtiLR I OR St RAMliLING

The opposite case occurs wiihexperiencei'veibs. In Kiatzers the 017 ol stageand individual Jevel predicates (t9K9), the former are distinct from the lititer by having an additional spatio-temporal argument. The relevant experiencer vea-bs must be analyzed as lacking this argument. Diesing s argumentation '

proceeds as follows. According to Milsark (1974) prohibition on vacuous qu rili cat ion. a qutintilicatiomil clement must til ways be associated with something that it qtiantiftes ovc]-. -Suppose we have a sentence with a

Imnsitive espenencer verb and a quyintilinational tidvcrb, whose the subject cannot be quanliiied over, tind which contains no other quantiiiable adjuncL In that case, one expects that an indelinite object must scramble. The reason is that there is no other element that could serve a target of the quantilication, there is no (silent) spatio-temporal argument available. As a conse-

quence. in such sentences accusative objects must be scrambled. (20) Weil ich eine Wagneroper since 1

a

imwer wug

Wagner opera always like

since 1 always like a Wagner opera (2J)

'

ivrt inh immer due Waftncwpcr wui*

With quantiHcational adverbs like 'immer'. the only interpretation available lo the object is the generic one, -

singular tmtss tumtis

Sijigular mass nouns show similar behavior to bare plurals. In almost eve 17 case, bare mass nouns stay in the base position. (22)

a.

wetf

er niemais Buth'f mwwr

because he never '

b

.

butter rakes

since he never lakes butter

1

weii sk1 immcr Siauhmscht

since she always dust wipes since she always does the dust '

'

Some researchers argue for an incorporation analysis of all adjacent mass noun-verb sequences. The position taken here is that although (22b) is a good candidate for an incorporation structure, incorporation is not the inevitable fate of verb-adiacent mass nouns.

72

SYNTACTIC ASPliCTS 01; UmC AND COMMLNT

With vtfibs Jor which it is huird lo get

reasoiiabie tiJtemiittve for the object

to satisfy de Hoops and de Swarts principle oT contrastiveness (de Hoop and de Swart strymblin leads to odd sentences. 'Ja ' kf is .snth a "poor verb

' .

Consider eiIso Sfaub wist hen. this is a unit where the verb leaves little

space lor contrastiveness.

(23) a.

v* weif er Bmer immer nimm r

b

';?/* weit er Staub immer wischt

.

Yet there re other cases where scrambling sounds quite acceptable, in such eases some other element serves to satisfy the requirement of informativity. i e fulfills the principle of contrast iv en ess, for example in (24) and (25). .

.

(24)

weit er Tee schon

imnier gerne

ffyunken hat

s ince he tea already always gladly drunk since he has always liked to drink tea (25)

h;is

'

'

weii er Skmb immar mf seine Besiaittfresle imtersm ht since he dtiat always of its components e?tamines '

since he always analyses dust concerning its components

'

Like bare plurals, scrambled mass nouns must then be interpreted generic ally. Another subclass of singular determinerless nouns Is found with verbs that are almost completely void of any intrinsic semantic content. Hxamples include the nouns in correlations like: Hnngey hciheii literally hunger have = Lbe hungry ; Freude hub en = have fun; teuer geben lit. fire give = 'have a lljzbt lor someone', or (o attack someone': Spopuuu lu-fi. lit Inn nuikc - lo '

be joking/kiddingh; etc. These verbs do not allow for their arguments to scramble. (26) *weit er Hunger immer ha!

(27) *weU er Fetier wahrscheinlich gibt (28)

er SpaJS inan<-hw(il machf

ijtdejinite pronouns

-

h

1 hc

last class of indelinites to be considered arc the indefinite pronouns: jewand (somconc/somcbtKiy), nn'mand (nobody), ciner ((somc)one), kcincr (none), erwits {something), nidus (nothing). Ihese all yield well-formed

sentences when they appear in the base position:

A TRIGGER I OK SCRAMBLING

(29)

a.

u-f// tcti wahrsdtciuUi-h jemwui&t ircfj'ai wcnk'

b

weil k-h wahrscheinlk-h tuamunden treji' en w enk

c

weii ich wafwscheifitich eitteti hekofufuv

.

.

d

weil ich wahrscheinfirh keinnu hekomme

e

weii ich wahrscheifilfch ewas essen werde

.

.

L

7?

i irii ii .h l iu hrsi -Jich ilirln uvh is cssen i wrdc

In all the examples in (29) im cxisrcntitil reading is p and in Ihc cases with tin implicit ne tition yh.dj) the exislential operdlor has nurmwer .scope than the negation. However, U i-d) .seem to allow for a wide set)pe interpretation, where wide scope is understood as the specific '

'

reading. In (2%h for example, jem / ean refer to a specific individual and thus not be ailected by the proposidonal adverb. Yeth it is not clear whether we are dealing here with a true case of specificity, if the sentence is embedded in the type of structure classically used to test for specificity, intuitions seem u> disallow a wide seope reading: (30) Peter bestreitet die Beha up ntng. dctp Huns i wultrsdti: if ?/ich} P tor denies the claim jeuumden unigebracht hat. somebotiv killed

that Hans (probablyj

has

Here, /t'j an Ccin hardly be forced to refer to a specific individual. Example

(29) merely says that Peter denies the claim that Hans is probably a murderer. Thus, it could be argued that indeJiuitc pronouns nrf never spediic. This would be a strong claim which could then be used to account for the ,

observation

that scrambling of these pronouns leads to ungrammaticality in

most cases.

(31) a', *w ii ich jememden wahmcheinlich rreffeu werde b uefV ich fiicwiwdcn wahrxchditlich treffen werde .

it' [his iilaim wlis lo be jnai]ilamed. a]i cxpLanation would be needed for the fuel livdi Jemand m iM'A) teenit lo be able U) be iiuerprel-ed spedikaJly. Oac vxpian-Aium eon Id be LJuii iIil- wide sc«pe L]Uer[]]ciLLli«ii is a spc-nuL ease ol [he naTfuw-scope rcadifbg, i LLineJy vhet] llU Lbe ejoii-

6

.

'

reJefeiuU] .iriLibJe > incline til > h pui u? l;;? la mill- unique eJfjneui (see Kebiluu'di iyW2k J Im'a.1. li. jkku.iLih iJk- kk.i - eeiiis Li| etiLicit]. I (Jd naL tidtiupl iIll- pastUan lbu[ indeJitlUc

pronounji Like Jrmtn/ti vdn ociLy he imerpfeled e. jsteiiliahj1.

74

SYNTACTIC ASPLCTS Ol; ft)PIC AND COMMLNT

'

e

f

ich eiwas wahrscheinlich essen werde

.

ich nidus wahrschemUch essert werde

.

Scramblint; of tvfi ? (someone} gives a gmmmtiLicitl result. In this case both the pronoun and some element fill.lowing i[ must be isccented in the so-called

bridge iteccnt pattern. (32) weii kh Ehwn wthnvhemUdi hcKOmme.

The string (32) gets an interpretation where tlnen has a partitive reading. IItlls h means something like, one out of a larger set J will get. May be, the

re Keren da I interpretation is possible too. In any CcJise, (31) excludes the purely existential interpretation. 322 .

.

Noun Phrases

Weiiklv qLEijntified noun phrases constitute ihe aesJ elass to be eonsidered. Many linguists would not distinguish these from indefinites, and indeed there is no real semantic tlifierence between them. If weakness is understood in

the sense of Miisark (1974). indehnites from just one instance of this class. Miisark delines weak noun phrases as those which are allowed to occur within there-be sentences: in this lespect indefinites pattern with other weak ,

noun phrase: (33)

There is are

a bey somebody several

girls in the park.

four men many women

no elephants

Strongh qnnniilicu expression ure un mmnutkMl wjihin ihc Mjupc -.si Uilmv. (34) *There is

everybody each man

are

most pigs

in the yard.

all teachers

both sister

(Fbr the semantic dillerentes between weak and strong quantifiers see the

A TRIGGLR I OR SCRAMBLING

75

discussion In dc Hoop (1992) Chapter I and the references quoted therein, aiso Chapter I of this book.) The reason for distinguishing indefinites from weak quantifiers here is rather methodological than semEintk. Firstly, indefinites arc not marked as

sutli in many languages. There are languages that fmorpho-syniatili aily) do not distinguish between definite and indefinite DiV in fact his is true for the niLijority of hbngua es. We have also seen thtit there is no indeftniteness

marker for German and English plurals. However, ail languages use quantifying expression such as many. fnv. rhwe and so on. The second dilTcrentJt: is thai simple indefinites have a reading which weak quantifiers lack, namely the generie one (putting de Hoop's generic collective reading aside). Also the referential reading is much harder to get for indefinites1 though it is not ex eluded. Let us now consider to the facts. The mos( prominent reading of unSLTumhlcd weakly uLiaatifted noun phrases is the exisiontial liUltpivulUpii.

The lull ambiguity of unscrambled weak DPs concerning the interpretation as existential or partitive, which is claimed by dc Hoop for Uuteh, does not hold for Germ an:

(J5)

M'eit sie

iuutiei' vim- fCiihe bextiifieH

since they immer four cows inseminate '

'

since rhcy nLways ins cm in ate four cows

According to my own and other informants' intuitions. {35) cannot have a partitive readingH unless there is a bridge accent with one accent on the

object and the other one on the verb. Thus, vier Kuhe. may be interpreted paitilively only under the stress pattern in (3ft) or 01). (36)

weii sie immer ViER Kuhe heSAmrnf, der Rest wird vow Buiteii direkr

hespnififteu) the other ones arc covered by the bull directly)

(37) weit sie immer vier KOhe heSAmenf, die Schafe nnd Ziegen werden.. J7 (

the sheep and goats are...)

...

It is argued below that il' a transitive verb carries a pitch accent, the direct object must have been scrambled. Thus, if a partitive reading is forced.

7

.

However, fbrU?* to soiirtd LL|ipr«priatc. we weed \i very EiidclL-hecJ slCLiLLLivc uoMcxt.

76

SYNTACTIC ASPliCTS 0I: TOPIC AND COMMliNT

scmmbling must have ukcn place. As a consequence, in (36) ih<; object is no longei- in its base position. The fact that it does not occur be lore the quantilicational itdverb is dtie to scope reasons. There are also variants, in which the weak N P preceds the adverb. '

wfil sif VIER Kiihe immer heSAmen.

(39)

weit sic VIER KUhe IMmer hexamen.

The contrast between (38) and (39) on the one hand, and (30) on the other

is that in the former VIER Kiihv has wide seopc with respect to immer, while in ihc latiCE1 this i> m>[ the case. riiL1 into rp re tali on j] diiTc fence thus lies in the fact that in (38) and (39), it is always the same four cows out of a larger set that are always inseminated. (36) simply states that it is always four nonspecilk cows out of a larger set that are inseminated. This means that I would analyze de Hoop s cases of partitive reading in situ as string vacuous '

scramhlint'

323 .

-

.

Wc now move on to consider delinitcs.

Defimus

fitH depmtv i)r*

One of the most influential treatises on dehniteness is Heim (1982), which

develops the theoi of File Change Semantics. A central part of this is the Novelty-FaniiIiaiity-Condition (NFC): 37{}) says:

(40)

Tor a fornuUa NP in 4' that i

.

ii.

to be felicitous wrrt. a file F it is required tor every

if NPi is [-definite 1 then i

DomCF):

if NPj is |+dcfinite], then a

.

b

.

1 S Dom (F), and

if NPj is a formula, F entails NP

The NI:C is a so mi-forma I felicity iilter that imposes roquirmcnts on the occurrence of definite and indeltnite NPs in discotirso. Clause {{) states that an

indefinite noun phrase opens a new file card, i.e. introduces into the discourse frame a new referent and therefore imisi not have an antecedent in the

preceding discourse. Clause (ii) expresses that a definite NP must refer to an individual that has already been intmduood into the disoourso frame before,

thus it must be known to speaker and hearer from the preceding discourse.

77

A TklGGLK i UR SCKAMLJLtNG

in a theory very sLmibr to the theory developed in this book. Adger (1993)

proposes thiit fami liar argument til DlJs have to be moved into the sped Her positions of agree men I heads. Adger follows Heim s Nh C exactly in claiming that detinites must be fcimiliar. Adder's formulution (Adger |993:K7) is; '

(41)

'

'Suppose something is uttered under the reading represented by itnd the discourse preceding tfj h s resulted in a discourse sliucture F. F coiuains a set of DRs, U, Then for every DP /L> in 6 it must be the cttsc that

Novelty Ctause: there is a OR associated with D and Familiarity Clause: W D is definite or in a Spec-Head relationship

with Agr, the it the associated with A> is C a DR a DR in f//

11 Adgers proposal were correct, we would expect that deUnites must scramble- At first jzlance this seems to be bom out. An unscrambled definite sounds very marked in its VP-internal position (42)

n 'f il OUi) i l vh rsi hein Ik l/i sda m dk Kiih r wfifHerr hat since Otto probably already the cows ted has since Otto probably already fed the cows '

'

The scrambled version gives a perfect sentence. (43)

weit er die Kilhe wahrscheinlich schou %efii!ter! hot

However, the facts are not this simple. In a discussion of word order in the German middle lield. Biiring (1993} discusses one reading where (42) would

sound appropriate. This is the case when the object gets a narrow focus interpretation and is (heavily) stressed. Under this reading, the cows are contrasted with the other animals in the farm that Otto could possibly have j

i

W

ii

ledn but probably hasn't yet. When a definite gets a narrow locus reading, it

is almost necessarily familiar. This is already a challenge to Adder's theory which by implication excludes familiar DPs in the base position. As u matter

K

.

i would deny tluil the object liat to he henviiy stieiied. lit imoiit corfigurulions where the '

ub Ll sMyn m -a verb adjiitvut position it h vciy likely to gft u pitch ;tt;c nt aiiyw;ty cl Clmpter 4. Section 4A.M\. Hroin there then focus Liuy pmject. Normally, ihc stress ]>iilteni h not difl erenl vitli lulitow t ocus willi fcsped to bf cr kK'us spi-eiidiiig. For y dJderem. bui an far the stress pattern U concerned, idem leal view see Jiteoha f I992). StUL. it iji ti'ue that v y .

'

'

henvy jitrets. faciJilates. n n;Lt-j\>w locus, rendsand llns k il whul Hiinng neetk.

SYMTAf nC ASPliCTS 01

lOPlc: AND C OMMliNT

t>f fuel. DLirrowly lot used deftniles in btise position ane fiTei|iiecltJy attested phenomen ACC order, Lenerz observes that if both the direct tind the indirect

object re delinite, the order ACC > DAT is only permitted if the DAT object gels a contritstive interpreUtion- Transferred into my theory from Chapter 2

where the (true) dative objects are hiise generated higher then the accusative objects, this means that the accusative object hus undergone scrambling

whereas the dative still remains in its VP-internal position. There it gets the narrow focus interpretation.) There are yet more objections that ctin be raised. As has been observed

by Hcim and many others since, there see in to ejtist quite a few exceptions lo the NIC She refers to Hasvkins who lists eight usage types of del mites, only two of which obey the NFC. One counterexample coneems the so-called novel defimtes. Consider the Geiman sentence (44), which '

exempli ties Hawkins (44)

L

'im mediate situation use:

(Fajy jeizi endiifhitufj weii da .wnst den Fi/SSganger be-cyreful now iinnlly paki since you otherwise the pcDEStiian ifmfiihrs!, run-over

W.ikIi

ljlm. 'cluisc oihorwisc yoLrie gonru kmvk .n.u the peLk iriiui;

In (44> the dehnite object has not been scrambledT yet the sentence is still grammatical. Moreover, f/trZ-Vj/ wptftfT does not get the narrow focus reading which is predicted by Biiring s claim. In the scrambled version (45), the referent of the object must be apparent to both speaker and listener The action of knocking him down is the only new information that the sentence conveys, '

(45) (Pafi' Jeizj endikh trnf,) weit du den FuP dn er sonst be-carelul now finally PAkT since you the pedestrian otherwise UMfdhrst. run-over

As indicated, not only does the position of the object change, but also the host of the main stress.

Jager (1995) provides a very nice account of which ddinites fall unde], Heini's Nh'C and which do not. Jiigci1 divides definite DPs into anaphoric

79

A TklGGLR I or scrambling

definite. on the one hund. Etnd (directly) referential definite on the other,y Anaphoiie dciiniros tire DP.s which rcft!ir to an entity which must have been intrtHkiced into the: disc nurse before. Relerentiid definite are those DPa which

are novel in the discourse, but which can easily be perceived by speaker and

hearer They are ealied referential because they refer direelly to tin entity linking to a DP from the preceding discourse and getting their refeiTentiai interpretation via that antecedent. Jager ussumes that the semantic contribu-

tion of the definite article is a uniqueness requirement, and that anaphoric and referential dehnites Eire distinct in the following way (Jiiger 1995; 19). (46)

rrrBorh (anaphoric and referential deftnites. A.M,) canyr a uniqueness condition. In the case oi the anaphoric variant, this condition governs "

the mapping from the discourse markers to pegs, and in the case of the referential reading, it governs the interpreration of the peg in the model. For someone who is not familiar with these notions from dynamic semantics.

(46) says that anaphoric dciinitcs require that there be a single tile card in the discourse frame (at the time of the utterance) lo which the relevant dehnite DP '

can

must be linked. Kcferential dehnites require that there be one such entity '

at most (where at most means in the relevant model which, in the unmarked '

case, is the real world), According to Jjiger. this is the reason why ordinary

appellativa sound odd in the unscrambled position whereas DPs referring to worldwide unique entities may sound good

.

Jiiger s examples are:1

1

'

As LisuitlLy. ihe tcnnmology is a dislurbmg foittor, ia work by DounclLun [ 1974 resp.; I9f)i>). delinitca arc divided into rcfcLvntjii! deflates mid iittrihutivc dclijulos. In Jus work. rcfoicntuUly incj]Ui soniolhin i olso lluii m JiigLr ;; vujrk. Kcjercntiul doltiatcs am noiin plu scs 1h.n I'oh'f 1u 4

.

Licoan-ole iadividual. wherein uUn buli v« deflnituhave ihe so

dlod wtu "

'

vcr-is-thfi-so-iiLid-so

l lIlLjil . Ci)

Smitil's murderer is insane,

In [he Jiuitrntive use, the speaker does/]ieed not know

-ho Snmh's. murdeieL-

Cijhe only

concludes (i> [Kmn ihe i sunity piopcrty horn iha bi-ytLiE mannfr of the kit hup ;ind tho tkut cliLit Smith did not deserve this CACcution. fn the referential reading, the umrderer is a person at h;tnd utwut whom it Ls s&id that {s)he is insane, may he independently of the crime. This use of the term 'veferentnd detmite' is coinploeJy ditTerent from the HeLn-Jiigcr use. 10. Jiig r's OLiginaJ tenCenccs are V2 nuin cJanscK.. Fol- reasons oi' consistency ot rcprcs-cntation, ihciv subondiiute trailsE onns are given here. '

SYNTACTIC ASPUCTS 01

(47)

lOHC AND COMMENT

weii PeHT dus BiH'h wuhvscheiniivh geteseu hat.

since Peter the bcxik presLirrmbly read since, presLinubly, Peter re id the bo<jk

(4S) (49)

has

'

'

r-weii Pwer wahrsch e irtiich dux Budt getesen ka t. wed Peter die Bihet wahrwheittlidi gelesen hitr since Peter the Bible presumably read has

(50) weii Peier wahrscheinli<-h die Bihet geieseu hm.

In fL)<:[ ibis contrast holds only partly. U mi ht be true that proper names or other unique expressions like die Soitite (the sun) dei J3apst (the Pope), der US Prdsidenf {thz President of the United Statesj make relatively good base ,

position occupants; however sim/e communication is always restricted lo a

t nain context which is not the whole iiiiiverse, ordinary deiinite descriptions in unscrambled position are frequently Just as good as name-1 ike expressions. (51)

context:

Wcirum ist deine pyan wieder tiirftt zuru Gottesdient gekonimeu'i' lWhy has your wife repeatedly not gone to church service? '

answer a-

wed sie wuhwheinitch wieder die Fenxrer

since she presumably

xcpuKJ hut

again the windows cleaned has

answer b:

wed tie wahrxvheudk-h den Hund mixgefUhn hat since she presumably the dog walked has

In (51) we see that an unscrambled deiinite does not only sound fine, the answers given in (51) are in fact obligatory with the definite in this position. so long as the windows and lthe dog1 have not been mentioned before. Fensier and Hund are clearly ordinary appellative expressions What matters '

"

is that these expressions are not linked to any previously introduced discourse referent. As a consequence, the windows and/or 'the dog' must be '

1

'

accessible to the hearer by his/her knowledge about the speaker s world and the hearer must know that there are specific windows belonging to the speaker and only one dog. If the speaker had two equally salient houses with windows and/or several dogs, the sentences would not be felicitous. Thus.

Jiiger s uniqueness requirement with respect to the model holds, but the contrast betwreen name-like expressions on the one hand and appellativa on

A TRIGGER VOR SCRAMBLING

81

the other is made very by the fact thitt pragmatics very often heavily restricts the domain of a mode!.

-

defifiires in idioms

Another slightly dillerent cas<; concern!; VP internal definites in idjom;; and

elated expressions, in which the dehnite object and the verb form such a close unit that they can hardly be separated. For these constructions, one i

-

'

L

could use de Hoop s terminology and speak of a part-of-the-predicate reading for the strong object (although de Hoop invents this notion for other '

constructions). The neutral variants of such sentences have the definite in its

base position. {52)

'

a.

weil er wahrsckemUch wieder die Pferde schen mach

since he pinbably '

b

.

again the horses shy

to pat the cat among the pigeons

makes

'

weii sie ihm wahrsi heiitik h wiederdie Leviten geleseti hat since she him probably

again

the Lev ires read

has

1

'

read the rint act

weil er wahmcfieiitlu h wiak-r div Kutzc cuts dem Sack eiassen hut

c

.

since he probably JigEiin tha eat Met the cat out of the bag'

nut the ba

left

has

When the definite ohfecl is scrambled, the idiomatie reatiiirt: thsappcars (or

is only marginally obtainable). The examples (53 a and c) are not ungxammaticaL but one has the feeling that here it is being played with language and that this playing obliterates the normal rules1 of grammar '

(53) a.

weii er die Fferde wahrscheiittich wieder x-heu nuu-tn [ for the Idiomatic reading, ok. for the litera] one) l jY tie ihm die Levireu w ahrseh emiu h i vie
b c

.

.

"

{m for the idiomatic reading, ok. for the literal one) A final possibility, but one still worth mentioning is the fact that also in German dctmitos may he interpreted as generic expressions. Lot this leading to be triggered, the definite DP has to be In the scrambled position, (54)

weit der Bauer die Rcitie schon since the farmer the rat '

iuuner gejogt haf

already always hunted has 1

since the farmer has always been hunting the rat

SYNTACTIC ASPLiCTS Ol- TOPIC AND COMMLNT

(54} is of coLiise Limbi uotis between an 'mirniiil' LinLjiphoric reiiding and jj generic one. If Ihe generic reading is to be obtained in the base position, the mnm phrase must be interpreted us being focused, i.e. the kind rat must be eontriisted with other kinds for which I he bae kg round does not hold. (55 J

weii tier Bittwr xchon ituwer die Rarte xejitg! hat f, Httd tticht din Mans} '

since il is the rat the farmer has always been lumtin (, and not the 1

mouse)

As stated above, dehnite DPs in scrambled position form the unmarked case, In this position, they signal that the entity to which ihey refer is known to

both speaker and hearer by previous introduction into the discourse frame. -

definite pronouns

Definite pronouns can only occur in the base position when they bear (heavy) stress and receive a contrastive interpretation. These pronouns are cailed strong pronouns {see Cardinaletti and Starke 1993-94), (56)

weii dn

wohrscheinUch uw IfiN kenustf, SIE

wgr noch tiie hier}

since you presumably only HtM knows SHE was never since you probably know only htmC she s never been here.) '

'

here

1

(57) *weii du wahrscheinlkh twr ihn KENNST,

(58)

we il idt sditiefitich DEN( da}

since I

finally

gen immen huhef, w \d n idn DEN}

THIS here) taken

have and not

since I finally took this one. and not that one,

THAT

'

(59) *weii id: whiieJMich denftia} %eNOnmen hahe

Non-stressed (weak) and phonological Iy reduced (clitic) pronouns always appear higher than any VP related position. (60)

weii ich ihn wahrschemlich gesteru since I

him presumably

noeh nidtt hdtte erktiunen

yesterday still not

had

recognise

ktiimefi, eould '

since yesicrday pic sum ably, I could not yet have recognized him"

1 will not commit myself to suggesting where non-strong pronouns move. In several respects these pronouns behave dillerently from full DPs (for interesting proposals see the work of Cardinaletti and Starke). What is

A TKlGCJtR I OR St RAMBLING

r levant here is that there can be no pronoun in y VP-internal position, e unless it is narrow I y lot: used, [n this respect, pronouns are d is tine L from lull definite DPs, where some non-narrow-foe us readings in situ can be obtained.

Scmuntically dclinite pronouns obey Hcim",s JCommence Condition. 'Jhc Prominence Condition is a stronger version of the Nh'C in so fcir as it does

not leave room for adjustment mcchimisms (utitiomnKKJuiion etc), Pronouns must have a direct linguistic antecedent, or refer to a situation ally present entity. In no sense cam they be novel 3 24 .

.

Strong quantijicational noun phrases

The finci! class of noun phrases to be considered here is the ciass of so-cailed

stmnp quiinritiej-s i.e. noun phrases that contain a quantifier like every, each. ,

most in English (i.e. those noun phrases that are not aliowed to otxur in

there-be sentences). These are the classic examples of Generalized Quantifiers. Barwtse and Cooper (1981) proved that quantification in natural language is always restricted quantification, i.e. a quantiheationai statement can only made about something which serves as the anchor for the quant ill'

cation. In Helm s

theory of tripartite structures (also in Heim 19K2) this

anchor, also called the

live-on' property, is mapped into the restrictive clause of the quantilier. Thus, strong noun phrases seem to impose a presupposition requirement, i.e. strong determiners presuppose the existence of the set of entities the noun refers to (d Chapter ]. Section 1.4.3.1.2). In this respect they resemble dehnites. which themselves are often analyzed as slronp noun phrases. Taken together with Diesinp s Mapping Hypothesis, here repeated as (61), these consideration lead to the prediction that strongly qujntiiled noun phrases always scramble "

'

.

{(}[)

Mapping Hypothesis:

Material from the VP is mapped into the nuelear scope. Material from the IP is mapped into the restrictive clause.

As with definite DPs, scrambling of strongly quantified noun phrases forms the unmarked ease.

(62) weii er jedex Schaf wahm hrmtii-h sdtan

eimnat wwhoren hm

since he every sheep pre sum ably already once shorn since presumably he alraedy shore every sheep once L

'

has

S4

SYNTACTIC ASPLCTS 01 Time AND COMMLNT

(63)

'

- wdi er wahscheiniich srhou ehimal jedes Schaf geschoren tun -

[til) includes ii classical quant ideal ion al stmclune. which can be formally paraphrased by;

(62')

Vx |sheep {\)\

3t ft a time & he shone x at t| CP = piobabitity

operator)

As indicated by the judgmenE in (6?) the sentence is not luily deviant if the

quantifier fails to scramble. Moreover, with certain verbs, sentences with non-st; ram bled strongly qnamihed objeets sound prerty acceptable. This is the case when the predicate has a non-telic interpiettition. (64)

weii er baxrinimr xdwn mat jedeu Stiidenm\ sekmgweitt hat siEice he certainly already once every student bored has since at some time or other he has certainly bored every student -

'

(63) says that it is very likely that once there was a situation such that he bored every student in his lecture. Thus, the sentence is not about every student in the first place, but about a situation in which every student was concerned. This reading can he formalized (approximately) as {64 ): r

(64')

/J |3t [t = time & he bored every student at til

Scrambling of the object would create an interpretation parallel to (62')- The reason why (63) sounds so strange is that one can hardly imagine that

someone can shear all sheep at once. However, it is not completely impossible to el this reading. As is well known, German idle (just like tn lish all), is di lie rent from Jfder {every, respectively! in many respects. One such difierence is that an 'alle Nlv can get a plural collective reading very easily.

Under this intcrprctatiom idk Sciiafe (all sheep) has a reading very similar to die Schafe (the sheep), aw here by the tjuantiiicational force of utle gets a '

'

minor weight Ko )

.

I will explain below what Lminor weight' means.

Wed er wahrseheinlich schou ehuntd idte Sehtde ftexehoren hal

The meaning of (65) is analogous to that of (64) - it is likely that there exists one situation where he came to shear ail the sheep. (65')

/J |3t ]t = time & he came at t *!t he shore all sheep at t]

Here, telieity is not at issue. The man came one lime just to do some

A TKIGGtiK TOR SCKAMBLINCI

$5

shearing on each of the sheep. Under this interpretuicion (6 ) could also be considered to be {more or less) acceptable. (62) on the other hand says that there were many situations 1 most likely as mEiny as sheep (V scopes over 3) where he shore them such that the sheep were eompletly shorn as a result Further parallelism between definite DPs and strong noun phrases concerns their behavior under narrow focus. We have seen that narrowly focused definite DPs remain in situ. The same applies Co strong quautHters, -

{66)

weit er wahrscheiuiich die MEisten Kiihe keun!

since he presumabiy the MOST cows knows since he probably knows most (of the) cows '

{67)

weit er immer JEde Kish hesatnt since he always Every cow insaminates since he always insaminates evei ' cow

'

When the strong determiner is stressed, scrambling juves a degraded result.11 '

wcil

{6S)

die MEfsteit Kiiht' wahrsdteiuikh kemn

{69) r \\'eit ef JUJc Kuh iwwt'r bcsufiii '

In the cases of (66) and (67), the interpretation is not as trivial as for the ordinary quantification a I statement in (62). In these sentences, focusing creates a more complex structure. If we follow Partee (1991) (sec also

Chapter 1) the foe us-background s tincture of a sentence can be represented in Helm's theory of trip art ite struct Lire of quantification. The operator is a focus sensitive clement, the background is mapped into the restrictive clause and the focus Is mapped huo iho nuclear scope. This leaves us with two instantiations of quantification in a sentence like {67). namely {70) i

,

operator

restrictive clause

nuclear scope

a]wayst

when he inseminates

he inseminates

cows at t cow (x)

every exemplar at t gets inseminated (x)

it. every,

11. The degraded griHTurutic lity JioJds n\.\\y when the s-cquencc EoJliving the stress on the deternniner dues not contitin iiiuilher pitch ucceal. A hill contoui may nve ihc graninul]i;a!ity. In ihla cu&e, howEVCL ihc intcfprflLilion l!> dUTc iu. uwd the focus on the detenTLtnft' liufonio a stfcondLLiy one. Apiifl fVom thiK. Jiitl 74) do not sound tompleccly ujigritniniiLtiCiii. Itiis so bectmse (some) Gernnyn (diiilects) marginally allowfa) for overt focus movement. '

86

SYNTACTIC ASPliCTS Olv 10PIC AMD COMMLNT

This double quautifitLifum does not pose a problem for Peirtee's [heory since it allows for reeumvity of uantHicational .structures. Thus, similarly, even a bit simpler than in her o\L n"lplL ((14/15) from Chapter I. Section 1.4.1 of this book) the representation is: (71) OP

RC

always,

he msemitutcs

cows at t

Qp

RC

NS

every,

cow(x)

gets inseminalcd Ix)

Whtit this sentence shows is that the information packaging is more prominent than the universal quantiiication over cows. The quantilkation is only a subptirt which is almost faded out. The sentence no longer counts (primary) as a quantific&tionaJ statement about every sheep. This is whai I meLini by '

minor weight

"

.

7Sf

3J

Overview

(72)

VP external inteipreta- VP internal interpretation

singular indefinite Eirriclc

referential

-

partitive

-

(-

bare pluryls

singular mass nouns

-

generic

weak determincirs

-

-

-

-

??/*

-

_

-

mainEy 3 narrow focus

generic)

-

generic if at alt)

{-

indefinite pronouns

tion

-

partitive

mainiy 3 {incorporalion)

,

.

mainly 3

-

mainiy 3 mainiy 3

referential

(- generic coliective) definite DPs

-

mainly anaphoric and/or

(tl not SiOH ateiic

interpretation of the sentence, see be-

low) narrow focus

pans of idioms generic

definite pronouns UtrortgJ QPs

-

-

always

-

only narrow Ixkus

quaiuificational

narrow focus

statement

quantification secondary (atelic interpretation of the sentence, see

below)

This table summarises the whole preceding section and discussion of the data. Only the facts on direct objects have been illustrated, but exactly the same pattern obtains with subjects and indirect objects as well.

SYNTACTIC ASPliCTS Ol; ilWK AND COMMliNT

34 .

The co m m t>n prtjptrt v « F icra m h lud co asi ii uen t s: Tht l+Topic] ftulurc

We have now reached <\ point where il heeomes possible to identify a common property of all the occurrences in one or the other column. The f;tets that are summarized in the table htive heen known for some time, tind

hence it docs not come as a surprise thtit there are several proposals on the market, all of them arc very similar. First, there is Diesing s Mapping '

Hypothesis which claims that VP external material is mapped into the restrictive e la use and base material is mapped into the nuckar scope. As pointed out by de Hoop (1992). ihe main problem which the Map pins; Hypothesis (MH) fails to account for is that under the relevant conditions, strong, i.e. quamific tional noun phrases need not scramble. Another possible weitkne&s is that the MH is primtirily concerned with 4uLintitiers, whereiis it

is not cleLir whether all noun phrases that undergo scrambling should be analyzed as such. For example, it has been argued (Partee 19S7) that proper names need not (always) be quantilicalionaL and yet they frequently "

'

undergo scrambling. The MH remains silent on that issue. De Hoop s

proposal is not very different from Diesinp s MH. One of the advantages of de Hoop s proposal is that it recognizes that strong DPs do not necessarily undergo scrambling. Strong DP4 is here to be understood js a term for noun '

phrases which occur with a quantifier like every or most, which, however, do not act as true quantifiers, but as predicate modifiers. Under this reading, de Hoop tries to account for the me lie readings which so often arise when the argument remains its base position. A proposal which comes very close to mine is developed in Ad er < 1994) and in some sense also in Amignostopoulou (1994). Adger's formulation of the Noveity-Familiarity-Condition was given in (41)). Adgers proposal boiis down to the claim that agreement projections act as hosts for familiar DPs. With some rehnement. this idea will also form the core of my proposal. My critique of Adger was mainly bused on his assumption that definite D s are always familmr. In this respect Anagnostopoulou's analysis

is superior. Anagnostopoulou shows that novel definites do not trigger

12. LX'spiti: c]il> mu sui. iku Wuw Hut tvety stniLiiblcd uoLiii piimst4 (ilionid bo umily/iMt iss JvjI i Hin. LilI- jiv ll>L u L J. i LjiliiiUilk-i " Mil k- jiK:puJ iiJupk-J m CJliij>liL,i

;

.

(object) [i reement (which is one instLinliydon of nctivitting AgrPs)H Thust as we have seen delinites may be LinLiphoric or novel, and only anaphoric delinilc.s are I'amiliar. Under this perspective it becomes reasonable to link familiEirity rather than definites m general to A rPs. However, all these pmposals seem to suNcr in one respect. They all ignore the Ttiei that narrow focus on a DP which otherwise should scramble, or trigger clitic doubling, or something uiong these lines blocks this behavior. I have shown that DPs can refer to discourse old entities or can still trigger quantitkaLional (sub) stmctmcs and yet remain in their base position because this is the position where they gel the narrow focus reading, hor this reason, I want to adopt a ,

proposal by Jiiger {1995). Jtiger argues that a syntactic feature I + Topic causes scrambling of DPs in German (p. 70. example (Ift)): (73)

]n German, full DPs bearing the feature l+Topic] seramble obligatorily while DPs lacking this feature remain in situ.

However, a topic may have an embedded locus only il there is another focus within the comment. If i» sentence contains only one focus feature, that focus must be placed within the VP. Thus if a constituent is supposed the only focal, contrastive interpretation in the clause, it must be placed within the VP no matter what its quamiHcational status is. This explains why DPs without the[+Topic] feature do not scramble in the sense discussed above. They either I'emain in situ undergo other types of movement. The notion of topic as it is used in this book will be explained in the following section. -

h

'

34 .

.

1

Wlmt fs u possible lopic?

Unfortunately, the turn 'topie1 1ms beeE] used in the literal arc with a

[Tin hi pJ icily of denotations. This luis led to itn port tint iiiisunderittirtdLn s.13 t Valid uv? 1992:30)

Almost everyone who has worked in the field of information structure

echoed this observation of Vailduvfs. The term topic has several, diJTeretit use: the intriguing thing is that these uses are similar and therefore dillicuU

11 .

.

This sect]on is intended to exclude some of Uicsc iiJtcmiitive undei'standings. I am usmg

tlie term in a sei se which is noE the use of the majority of linguists. However, 1 thmfc k is

kgiiimate section.

Uhij; as ilw imuatJccJ nicanii

is laid dowai exploitly. This is Ihc aim of this

synttactk: asplcts oi; uwk: and comment

to sepamte. Some.1 unlhtirs iire vcr>r cone re Le m defining what they mean by '

'

topic others ati& not (see aiso Chapter L Section i .2). Fhtie is one us of ,

term however, thu: ha,s become standard in the ,synt£i\ literature, Topics are scnioncc initial, thtis topics occupy the first position in the clause. This is ci reasonable (working) definition. However this notion does not corre-

spond to ali what is meant hene with the leim topic. Thus, constituents that move to the preverbal position in Germ tin main clauses need not be topics in my sense see eitLunples (74), (75); and on the other hand scrambling which ,

may apply to a number of constituents, may identify a constituent which is closer to the end of the sentence than to the beginning (76; as a topic. (74) Ziicker hat er keitteti genoTtmen* sugar has he none taken As for sugar, he didn't take any/ L

(75)

Langsam sotbert wir die Parry verhssen. sJowiy should we the party quit It s lime to leave the party - I think.1

(76) weit die Sekrettiriu ihrem Chef den Kajjfee xUher since the secretary her

hatd hrrngt

boss the coffee certainly soon brings

since surely, the secretary will bring her boss the coHee soon

'

'

Topics in the sense intended here must be familiar. This requirement already ex eludes a topic mterprctation of sentence initial manner adveibials (as well as other constituents thtit cannot refer at all). Furthermore, topics are commented {in. This idea is forma My expressed in Krifka formulas from Chapter I. Section L4.2. A deciaralive staLenient consists ol an assertion of something new which is being said about a topic, whereby something ncw is a pre-theoretical description for the notion of context enrichment (c' c), As a consequence, topics act as an anchor in the conversation lor the new '

s

information to be linked the to old in I ormat ion. As is clear from my adoption ol Krifka

'

s theory. I do not understand focus as new information, but as a process that singles out a constituent and contrasts it with possible alternatives (i.e. the phenomenon of narrow, contra stive focus). In my theory, the new information comes within the comment. The comment thus is the range of the so-called focus projection. That means that in traditional terms, focus cannot spread over topics. Topics must be outside the domain of focus projection. I will claim that the VP is the domain of the comment, and

A TRIGGLK I CR SCRAMBLING

1

sLTiLmblmg is necessary for topics in ordtr to end up in a position which is outside the range of focus projection. This implies that focus may not freely spread as arbitrarily high as possible: rather the domain of new information is fixed and everything which is not new information must escape from this domain. This is a rMhw controversial claim, for some problems see beiow. 34 .

2

.

Anapfwric DP* urf Jtoi automtiticaHy topics

Following Jiiger (1995), I claim thtit l+Topic] is a syntEictic feEiture which is iissi ned to constttTicnts. This yssi nment is subject to certain restrictions (a topic must have an antecedent in the discourse frame). However these restrictions still leave some freedom for the assignment. Contrary to Jager. and to all the other proposals discussed above. I will argue that topics must be familiar. This does not hold in reverse, i.e. fLtmiliat Dl's must he topics

and therefore scramble. Jiiger states (Jii er 1095:71): (77)

Full definite DPs lacking tht feature l+Tnpicl are interpreted referentially. while definitts bearing this feature are interpreted anaphoric ally.

This statement excludes familiar deiinite DPs in unscrambled position. As we have already see narrowly focused DPs do not scrambleh This is a fact also recognized by Jager. What Jager denies, however, is that there are VP internal definite DPs which refer to entities which already have a flic card and are not narrowly focused. Such DPs, according to the rule given in (73), must introduce a create a new peg (lilc card). What Jager and others overlook is the fact that there are some DPs that are not focused and do have an antecedent in the discourse, and nevertheless need not move. In the tie cases

it depends on the speaker whether (s)he WtinEs to use the DP tis a. topic or not. Consider {7S): (78)

context:

Ex war so rvimnusch: die Sotme scliien, dm Hund iag in seiner Hiitte*

dk K&he grasmi jriedlich aufder Weide. Peter ging wohlgeiaunt ins Huns. Aber als er .wii'der niuskum '

a

war aufemmai

.

b

.

der HUND versvhwundeil

war day Hund aufeirtwai verSCHWUNden

(context:

]t was so romantic: the sun was shining, die dog was lying in his hut, the cows were gently grazing. Peter went into the ho use in a good

92

SYNTACTIC ASPECTS 01; TOPK;- AND COMMLNT

mood. But when he came out again '

a

.

'

b

.

Lhe DOG had disappeared - all of a sudden. all of a sudden the dog had disaPPEARed.J

Here I am not giving glosses. Late]1 I wil! argue that what German does by seramhlim: plus intonation h tin lish often does by iu Urn at ion alone. The intuitions are the same. The context creates a lile that in DR S box notation

looks like:14

09)

w x Y

sun {\)

shining (x) dog {y) lying in his hut (y) cows (Y) gently grazing (YJ Peter (z) we[U into the house (x) Then, in both alternative continuations a and b, der Hund is understood as

the individual introduced into the discourse before prior to (79). The interpretation is slightly dilTerent, although there is no difference in the truth conditions. The a/a examples mainly describe a new situation in which '

-

'

surprisingly tlit? dog is gone. In the hib tTiamples tfar Hund/the dog are used as topics, and the dog s disappearance is asserted. This is possible since there is an entry' for the dog in the preceding DRS. The DP acts as an anchor, and -

'

then the new information follows. This new in formation consists in the fact

that the dog no longer present* Thust we see that under certain circumstances the speaker may choose between alternative modes of presentation (information packaging). Scrambling applies only when the DP which refers to the

relevant individual is used as a topic.

14. The DRS box ut of couth it Jitmplified one. A mor* comply and iidcqiuue one lion Id say something jtlxnit the tempowJ setting, and also ahoiu discnur.se rcfetents for [lie house, and in '

tlie Geinun version di? U j dfc. '

Maybe. tlte ivhf>3e DKS sh >LlltI be \\\ the scope ot ll

"

ifi>in:Lnt]c-

inipnrtant it> me is tliat tki Humiirhedog which are picted up in operatDT O However, what the a/a1 6eine]]cet Lilreiidy have an entry in [Jie input bos.

A TklGGtK I OR SCRAMBLING

34 3 .

.

93

A hetti . i acco uttt for atelicity fh en i de Hoop s

With this in mind, we mAy iilso ox plain whiit de HiHjp (1992; calh the pitrtof-the-predicate i-eitding (Section 1.4.3.2). She observes ihtit in some knguages the interpretation ol objects depends on the nlorphologietiJ Case they

bear15 Languages like Finnish ot Green hind ic Hskimo have two di ire rent cases to mark the direct object. The rough coiTelation which leads dc H(iop U> the formulation of her Case correspondence corollary is that objects with

weuk existential, indeiinite interpretation get assigned the Case; strong, i.e. del mile or other presLippnsilioiiLi] objects the other. Yet, there are those a

.

eunous constructions where ti strong object occurs in the Case which is normally reserved tor weak noun phrases. These constructions are character-

ized by an ateiic interpretation. Thus, "... weak Case on the object seems to be a matter of either weakness of the object or of inresultativity of the predicate (de Hoop 1992:92). Ue hoop proposes that when the strong 4

object receives weak Case, it is not interpreted as a true argument, but a predicate modifier. In other words, the object bearing weak Case is not a qtiantlHer with scope over the predicate+ but integrates into the meaning of a complex predicate, thus it gets a part-of-the-predicate reading. How can this be captured in theory advocated here? My claim is that topics scramble

whereas, non-topics do not. hollowing de Hoop. I claim that n on-topics bear a closer relation to the verb than topics. As suggested above, non-topics slay in the base position where Lhey are interpreted as a part of the comment, thus they form an integral part of the new information. For describing situations where some action is being performed to an argument that already has a discourse referent, which however must be integrated in the action, scrambling leads to oddness. (80)

contest: Peter bekam zu seinem Geburtstag eiuen FufthaU, einen Tenuisschia er, ciuc Puppc utni yfck' Sitjiixkcitc/t t'sdu-ukL EigcnUk-h woliicn ihn seiitc Eiti'rn znm Spon animiersn, warcn dwut uber eittrtiuxchf. a .w i'tl er ikn gimzen AheitJ die Pitppe rtrngewrrl tutl .

bV-weii er die Puppe den tfittizen Abend mmgeierrt hat

L'i

TMs fiict and sts fomuU in;pltmcnlLititin w-iJI lie discii tfd at lengtli \w the fallowiiif clupter of the give it book- The esamplei.
94

SYNTACNC ASPLCIS Ch; lont

AND t OMMLM

AI his birthJay Peter gtiL a soccer bul a tennis riitiketH a doll iind many sweets. Actually his parents wanted to stimatate him to do some

sport, but then they were JisappointeJ because he was busy with the doll all evening '

a

b

because he the whole evening the do SI deal-with

,

'

-- scrambled version)

.

A ainh the context before the crucial sentence is construed in a way that the

doll has an antecedent in the discoursed Nevertheless, not only is scrambling un-necessary, it even leads to oddncss. The in lb mat ion is such that Peter pbying with the doll causes his parents' anger, it should not be

understood as a statement about Peter and the doll. As de Hoop s correlation predicts, the .sentence with the deiinitc in situ gels an ale I it; interpretation. In

the concrete example (80)t this interpretation might also be forced by the adverbial deti ganzen Abend" (the whole evening. However, the atelicity '

has also been observed in other constructions involving no durative adverb-

iats. So, wrhat should be the reason for de Hoop's coiTelation'.' A nice proposal is to be found in Jiiger (1993). Since Jiiger makes ditTerent assump-

tions about the semantics of topics which are distinct from the proposal here in a crucial way, I have to tarry out some changes: Unlike the English Present Perfect, the German 'Pei fekt* is ambiguous

between a perfective or imperfective interpretation. This ambiguity, however, often dissolves under scrambling or spocial stress pattern, witness the contrast between (Klj and (H2).

I)

weii ich oft since 1

die Bibd getewn hate

often the Bible read

have '

since 1 wras often reading (in) the Bible timpertectivej

'

(82)

weil ich die Bihei q/r since I '

$efesen hahe

the Bible often read

have 1

since 1 read the Bible through many times (perfective)

i6. fH5j is one men1* *Aj]H|}ti: whw Jiigcr's tluini ljii shown io be lou .slruiig.

The urgumeruation runs

follows. A sentence like (S3) with die Bihel in

biise position is ambiguous.31 (S3)

weil idi dock dk BIbd getesen hahe since11

part the Blhk read

have '

could he u n<>vice s answer at the abbot s

question Why didn't you go to church service yesterday?*. In this case, the unmarked ate lie reading '

"

arises. The novice mi hl communicate something like: well, every day we hiive to do some religious practices. huL not all of them, and instead of going to church service I decided to spend the time reading (in) the Bible. The same sentence (S3) could however also be an answer to an abbot s question to a young man who wants to join the order lWhy do you think we should '

include you in our order?\ In this situation the sentence is interpreted le I it; ally. The hence knows eon text. The sentence can

young man seeks to portray himself as someone who has read. the Bible. Thus, the (a}telieity of the sentence is a result of the questions determines what the actual content of the answer be. In the lirst interpretation, the reference time counts as a

topic. The question sets the temporal context to a specific reference time. namely yesterday. II we assume with Krat er (19X9) that RHAD is three place predicate (agent, theme Davidsonian argument , we get a representation likee (84).

m)

3x |I= (xj = agent & 3t [yesterday (t) = Davidsonian argument &

= topic = topic

read (x. the Bibk at t) H

= comment

Under this representation, the time counts as a topic. Our common sense ontology treats lime as a linear, two-dimension ah inlinite continuum. The

setting of a concrete reference point (or period) then provides alternative times, mi me I y all lime points outside the reference lime on ihe lime axis, and for all those time points it is not clear (even very unlikely) whether the comment holds. As a consequenceh we must infer; '

tK4> & 3 f ft * yesierdayl & - |re;id (I, the Bible at t')]

17. I will ignore here the addLUoLml interpreEatiorts tliiLl irise tl'ulutow CoL-using of the object

\a intended. Here, only the lelie aitd the jieJie InterpreLatian ure m

SYNiAL IR. ASFht. KS Ul

lUHL AjNU lUMMLJN I

As a uonscquoiux; we gel titno points when the comment dt>es hold (84) and we get time points when the comment does not hold (second conjunct of [#5)). This triggers the ateiic reading. In the context oT the second question

no reference time is given. Thus, the answer cannot use any temporal informntion as topic. The Duvidsonian urgumcnt has to be introduced within

the comment. In thbtt CLtse it is not possible to infer the existence of time points where the comment does not hold. The sentence must be interpreted in its most informative reading (Gricean maxim of quantity) and therefore pets la telic LnterpretnEion. This reading is more marked, however. A sentence must be infoi mtitive. In the normtii case, the new informtition

conies within the comment. Topics tire old information. Hence, luvcu a restricted set of constituents, the more topics there are, the more diHieult is it for the comment to assert a reasonable relation between them. When there

is only one topic - say the subject - anything can be predicated ol it. When there is a topic subject and a topic object, only verbs that are at least two-pi ace predicates can be mapped into the comment. With only one topic subject no restrictions on the subeLitegorization tire imposed. Apart from this requirement on the valency of the verb, selectional restrictions wiil also play an important roie in narrowing down the possible assertions. {#6}

wfiii ich die Bibei dock geLEseu fmhf since J

the Bible PAkl read

have

With die Bibat as topic, two possibilities arise. The referential lime might also be a topic, in which case only the reading relation would convey the new information. This, however, is a very marked possibility since it is very dificult to accommodate a context where (here are other predicates di ire rent

from read which could be equally well attributed to the triple (I. the Bible. referential time). Such a situation could perhaps arise in the context of a question like

Hast du die Bibel letztes Jahr geLHsen oder auswendig

gelerntT (Did you RLAD the Bible last year, or did you learn it by heart?, thus narrow focus on the predicate) Under this reading an atelic interpretation could emerge. However the more natural interpretation is the one where the referential time gets inchided in the assertion of the comment. Only ich

and dif Bihei are topics t and I he state of havintf read al t' is at issue. Since reading is the unmarked relation between a person and the Bible, the actual new information is the reference time. Under this interpretation, the reference time cannot be a topic, and hence it cannot induce alternative limes under '

which the commenl does m>L hold for the topics. Under the maxim of

quantity, (his agtiin delivers the telic reading. The attcmivc render wijj hitve noticed thnt under die Iheory developed here, it is not ncccssai-y thtit the lu'gumcm which ti'iggcrs the impcifoetivc

reading be the (weak) object. What is needed is dial as much niiUerial in contained within the VI1 as possible, so that it is not left to the reference time to ensure satisfaction ol the informativitv requirement. In the unmarked ease, the iu ument whieh is more flexible with respect to the topie-non-topic status is the object. However, it is possible to construct scenarios where the

object is discourse-linked, so that it is the position of the subject that determines the (a)teliciiy of the sentence. (87)

context: in eiuer Bibliorhek:

A: WttfUHt war das Buvh vorige WovUe wk'der nidit ztt huben? b: ik'fi/ es da xthon die LiUftulSlikstiideitleft geieseit huhen since it there already the students-of-lingulStics ictid have

(context: in a library: A: B:

Why was the book bst week ugiun not available since then tlie students of linguistic were already reading it)

Again, the sentence is ambiguous between the reading we are interested in

and the alternative reading where dk Unguistikstudenten is narrowly focused. The ate lie reading can he paraphrased by: as for the book, last week: it was in the process of being read by the students of linguistics then. Thus one can see that the status of ihc arguments does not matter for the

aspectual interpretation of a sentence. Jn a version where both the subject and the object are scrambled, the telic reading is much more hkeJy (compare (82)), Thus, we see that te I icily is only an epi phenomenon. The trigger for it is often the position (or the Case) of the object, but this need not he so. hxample illustrates once more that no direct link can be established

between {an) Aspect (phrase) and object agreement/interpretation along the lines of Borer {1994} and others {see also Chapter 4. Section 4.3.2).

35 .

Provisional summary

To summarize: a sentence can be divided into topic(s} and comment (see also below. Chapter 4). The comment usually contains the new inlormatiom

A TKlGGliK I UK St'KAM MNCi

07

which ihe common docs no: ho id for the topics. Under the maxim of qutunny, this tigtiin delivers \hc lelic reading. '

Yhc aitemivc ivuder will have noli cod lhai under the theory developed here, it is not Jieeessmy thj[ the argument which triggers the imperfective reading be the (weak) object. What is needed is that as much material in

contained within the VP as possible, so that it is not left to the reference time to ensure satisfaction of the informativity requirement. In the unmarked case, the ajytiment which is more flexible with respect to the topic-non-topic status is the object. However, it is possible to construct scenarios where the object is discourse-linked, so thitt it is the position of the subject that

determines the Ufelicity of the sentence. (S7)

contest: in eiaer Bihfiothek:

A: Wamni war das Bwh vnrige Woche wfeder nicht :m hahen ? B:

weii es da whon die UngidSnksiudeutef} geiesat haheu since it there already the students-of-linguISlEcs read have (contotL in a library: A: Why was the book iast week again not available1.' B: since then the students ol lin utsttc were already reading it}

Again, the sentence is ambiguous between the reading we are interested in aiid the alternative reading where die LiiigltistikstudetUew is narrowly focused. The atelic leading can be paraphrased by: as for the book, last week: it was in the process of being read by the students ol linguistics then.

Thus one can see that the status of ihe arguments does not matter tor the aspect Hit I interpretation of a sentence. In a version where boih the subject and the object are scrambled, the telic reading is much more likely (eompare Thus, we see that telicity is only an epiphenomenon. The trigger for it is often the position (or the Case) of the object, but this need not he so, Example (ft?) illustrates once more that no direct link can be established between (an) Aspect (phrase) and object agreement/interpretation along the lines of Borer (1994) and others (see also Chapter 4, Section 4.3.2).

35 .

Provisional summary

To summarize: a sentence can be divided into lopiefs) and comment (see also below, Chiipter 4). The comment usually contains the new- inlormation.

SYNTArnr asplcts oi" roric and communt

In ca.se of multiple topics, it is likely that the most inlbrmaEive part is not the

(pure) predieale. but the temporal setting. If the temporal setting is lixcd within the comment the reference time cannot be a topic. When the reference time is not a tciupoiaily marked period/time point, no alternative ,

situation can be made salient where the comment possibly does not hold. As a consequence, the sentence ets a telic interpretation. On the other hand. when the object (or some other ar nment) .stays inside the VP, there is less need for the Davidsonian argument to be introduced as new information. The reference time can easily net as a topic, and as such, it triggers ateiiety in the way described above. Thus, dc HtMip s observation that strong noun phrases inside the VP (bearing weak Case) trigger an imperfective reading of the sentence can be given a deeper explanation, although the event semantics combined with the impact of information structure telJs us that the correlation holds only preferably, i.e. one can force other readings by farfetched

contexts. We have also seen that there is no (important) difference between anaphoric and referential definites. The unmarked atelic interpretation arises independently as long as the delinite remains within the VP.

Almost the whole preceding sections of this chapter have been concerned ith dhvet nhjects, ] have h un thai the two idtcrnativc positions tifobjcci DPs are linked to specihe readings. The VP external position marks the object as a topic, the VP internal position marks it as a part of the comment. At several points I have also mentioned that this dichotomy is the same for the other arguments too (subjects, Uiesing (1992 a, b) and indirect objects). Taking all this to be correct, we have an explanation for many of the cases given in (1), For example, we can explain (1c): "

(J) c.

dap die Ft au deu Hmd gestern der Nca -hba rui $e$ h n hat

Here, die trait and den Hand act as topics, western marks the VP boundary. The argument der Nachhann docs not get a topic interpretation, he nee it gets a narrow focus or referential interpretation (in the sense described above); or alternatively the imperfectivity of the giving-to-the-neighbor-action is stressed. We can also account for {2b).

(2)

b. *\veil Jemandef} tummds der Chefdirigeut hht

From table (KO) we know that indefinite pronouns like jenuimi cannot scramble. However, if the general base order of arguments is subject > (indirect) object, and if furthermore adjuncts or Davidsonian arguments are

A TRIGtJLR I OR St RAMBLING

base? generiiiod highly thai] the me aiguments.then the ticcusLUive objecl musi have scrambled in (2b)h hence the ungrammiiticiility. 'J'he piDposal also accounts nicely for the lb 1 lowing three exitmples (taken from Hiiring {994 and Miiller 1993) (KH)

weil dem P&tientea niemand helj'en kium

iince the patient noone help can since nobody is able to help the paliem

'

'

(89) weil den Hund ein Auto iiberfahren since the do a

a

cm

hat

ki«>ckcd-d<>wn has

'

since the dog got knocked down by a car

{90)

JaJ.i Ellen

'

die QerUchte iiher Ina keiner

that Ellen-DAT the rumors

ge iauht hat

about Imt noone-NOM believed has

that noone beHeved EUen s rumors about Imt

l

J

In (KK) we have an indelinite subject pronoun hich cannot scramble. 'J'he internal argument 1 however, as a definite1 is very likely to act as a topic. Furthermore, the epistemic modal kamt combines with the negative subject renders the comment a sort of individual level predictite. Individual level predicates need a strong argument, in this L'asL1 the internal argument of heffen. Thus, the sentence comes out tis a vei'y ntitural sttUemenL (K9)

exempli Ties a similbir situation. Where there are two arguments, one of which is defmite, and the other indeJinite, it is more likely that the former will be interpreted as anaphoric, i.e. as a topic, and the latter as belonging to the new information, regardless of the relevant the ma he role. Such sentences are

realatively unmarked in German; as the translation suggests. English prefers a passivization strategy. (90) is given a classical serambling analysis in Mullcr (1993}. Miiller assumes that the subject must occupy SpeelR i.e. it surfaces outside the VP. Then scrambling applies to internal arguments by adjoining them to IP: in the case of {KKj we have iterative adjunction to IP.

Within the account developed here, the two definite objects raise to their relevant {see below) VP external position, whereas the indelinite pronoun remtiins in its base position.

SYNTACTIC ASPtiCTS iW TOKlC AND COMMliNT

36 .

A rwnii1! ! phrases its Icipic httsis

Let us turn to the question of whtit happuns when n sentence contains more thitn one topic, in particular how multiple topics re linearly or itni ed. Here I will he.-1 conecmed with lull DPs on]v.

As a matter of fact, in the unmarked case the order of the arguments outside the VP parallels the VP internal order (again Lcner?, 1977)+ i.e. subject > indirecl object > direel object. (9!)

duft die Firma Miiiier weineni Ouhet (U&SC that the firm Mtiller-NOM my ancie-LtAT this

Mohe!

erst western

zugesteUt hot

furniture-ACC only yesterday delivered has '

that Mil Her delivered this furniture to my uncle only yesterday

1

As I hiLVC1 shown in (1), this is not the only order possib] and 1 will try u> give an account lor the other oidcrings. However. (91) gives the neutral serialization in Gemian; and as a matter of fat;l this order is the only one that is permitted, with very lew exceptions, in languages like Dutch and/or West Flemish. P or this reason, it has been proposed that the VP internal arguments raise to specifier positions of the functional heads AgrS. '

A rlO, A£;rO tMoltmann 1991; Schmidt 1994a.b; Meinunger I995b) These functional heads are ordered in such a way that AgrS is higher than AgrlO, and A
verbal projections except C should be head final too. The tree for (91) then looks as in (92):

LK. Example taken frmn Hw?berli (1994:26). L9. The sudden introduc-CLOLi of agreement projeenons mi|Ji[ seem u }>ll loo abrupt Iteie. \v\ the

foUnwing L-hi:Lpie]"(sJ I W]J! dlsciits the Issue &f agreement projec-cjons and Iujw thuL tile a iunplism duil a itomcnc jwoipJtejwts (oven ol1 absdiiel) pluy un iinpoituiic role in the iyiilax I ii rcsisiuul c hypo csis. i iiuiiimiiih:ii pin -

..

,

.

A imGtiLR i LJR SCRAMBLING

101

SU

AgrO Adv

ii

VP

A

1st: VJ1

trx)

Jj'c- tiwrns bftiifay Ntfittelti Onkei ifUsa Miihtri erst etslryu

37 .

Simnmiry

In this thapfer I have presented scrambling as a mie which reorders argument and adjunct t'oiistitucnts in tho German middle lield\ I then gave a survey '

of scritmblm

theories. I have shown that every possible analysis which is

aval I Lib k in the grammatical framework has also act u ally bcc-Ji proposed. The main section contains an extensive discussion ol the interpretative diJTerenc'

es between scrambled constituents and fheir base position counterparts. Table

(72) contains an reasonably exhaustive picture ovei theii readings. Based on these facts. I then proposed that it is a semantic feature that al'

scrambled phrases have in common: | + Topic|. For a phrase to act as a topic. il must be discourse-linked, i.e. eontcxtually salient. I have furthermore

W2

SYNTACTIC ASPECTS 01

lOMlC AND COMMliN J

shown that discourse-[inking is nevertheless insullicjenl. For a phrase to act

as a topic the speaker, must intend to use it as such. Even if a constituent has a file card, it need not necessarily scramble. If it gets interpretationally

and intonationalJy integrated into the predicate, il may well remain in situ. One such case is provided by ate lie sentences. In Section 3.4,3 1 focused on dc Hoops observation that strong, pre suppositions I object DIN which are not scrambled trigger an ate lie interpretation of the sentence. 1 show that the

position of the object is apparent and does not give rise to the interpretalional dilFerences itself. Thus, de Hoop s generalization turns out to be only partially true.

Chapter 4

Agr nodes as topic hosts

4

1

.

Tht proptKSiil

The puipose of this chapter is to further devehjp the idea elabrtrated in the preceding chapter Eind tt> deino]!strut? where topic Eirgnments may be

positioned in the structure of ti sentence. The proposal will not come as it surprise since; it hits been Lilluded at several occasions before. The? cliiim is ihaL the pK sitioh where an argument DP which carries a |+Topic| lieature

moves is the specifier position of an agreement projection (SpecAgr). The proposal is based on the fact that topical arguments trigger very dilfcrent phenomenti in the world s languages. In Chapter 4 I will discuss a numbcii of these grammatical phenomena and .show that they can all be related to the '

possible impacts of agreement projections. One of the main concerns which

docs not seem to be obvious at first glance is the relationship between vcrba ugiBement and Case. Since, however, this correlation is crucial for the theory

developed here, I wili give a short overview over the work which has lead to the conclusion that agreement and Case assignment or cheeking might be considered as two sides of the same phenomenon.

-

1

2

.

On the rdatioitthip between tai* and verbal agreement

In the beginning of the mid-eighties, it has been proposed by several authors '

(h ukui and Speas l Hix Koopman and .Sporliche 1991; Sportiche ]99{}) that

the subject should be btise generated VP internally and then raise from this

position which presumably is Spec VI1 to the speciiier position of some IN PL ike projection. The most convincing theoretic argument for such an analysis is theta-theory, insofar as under the VP internal subject hypothesis {VPLSH)

104

SYNTACTIC ASFLC I S 0[; TOPIC AND COMMLNT

the Jiubjeci siails in y posilion thiu is wilhin the projmion of the verb liom which ii eis a iheiii-mle. The mosl compdllng empirical tir umem conies from lan LiLi es that seem lo provide more than one, usually two positions the subject may occupy. These two positions then are (i) a derived position, something like the trttditional Spec IP on the one hand, and (ii) the base position Spec VP on the other. Thus, the version in (I) is replaced by the more flexible? one in (2J: (I)

(2)

Spue IP

SpecIP

SpecVP

This proposal also had the desirable consequence of assigning unitary stmetures to both lexical and functional projections (despite the favored -bar asymmetry proposed in f ukui and Spcas 1986)

x

.

before the VPLShL

there was no agreement whether VP should have a speeilier position at alL nor were there reasonable proposals for what could be the speeilier of VP. The next standard assumption thai is relevant for our purposes is the unitary treatment of Case assignment. To my know ledge t one of the first to propose that Case assignment to the object works parallel to Case assignment to the subject was Sponiehc (WOJ with his Strong Correlation Hypothesis (SCH). ii says that structural Case is generally assigned in a Spec-Head coniiguration of an argument NP with an agreement morpheme. Whereas formerly, nominative Case used to be assigned to the subject that was base generated under Speclni! (or had raised there in raising constructions) in a

Spec-Head configuration with the inflectional element in I NFL", And accusative used to be assigned by the verb under e-eommand, structural Case

is now uniformly assigned (or checked) in a Spec-Kead configuration

between an Agr1' head and an NP. Combining everything said so far, we get '

a tree that could be taken from Chomsky s Minimalist paper (1 92):

AGR NODliS AS l Ol'If HOSTS

(3)

A iSP '

Amis

SpecAgrO

AgiO'

Within this btMik I will defend the assumption that (one manifestation of slrtictuilii) Case and verbal agreement itre basically two sides of the same

plicnonienon. It shall be argued that C e assignment or checking on the one hand and triggering of agreement on the verb on the other are mediated through the movement of an argument to the speeitier position of the relevant agreement head. Thiw, eis it stands, is of course not a revolutionary discoveryh WhLit is less clear are the questions (i) whether every Case uhcrking has to be done in a Spec-Head relationship and (ii) how much grammatical tense (and aspectJ is involved in Case assignment. My answers

will be that only a certain semantic ally deiined class of argument JMPs undergo movement to the specifier position of an agreement projection,

namely arguments carrying the feature [+TopicJ, while others do not. Thus I ditim that not every no tin phrase has to move to some SpecAgr position to gel its Case cheeked. There is at least one other way for NPs to circumvent the case filter, i.e. to get case without moving to any position. Here I agree with de Hoop (1992) who claims that DPs in situ do not remain caseless. This view is not compatible with the Case cheeking theory of the Minimalist framework. I do not claim that DPs enter the computational system fully inHected

t

ie .

.

bearing a Case feature which must be checked olT. My claim is that argu-

ments bear the Case which is assigned or checked in the reievant position. that means VP external arguments get strong Case in SpecAgr VP Internal arguments appear in weak Case. In most cases there is no morphological

]{}f,

SYNTAfiir ASPLCTS OF TOPIC AND COMMLNT

di Here nee between VP cxtcnuil iind VP intern

Lir uments be tiring the same

thetEi-mle; ihort Lire cams, however, where ibis can bo observed (Chbipter 5). The second question mised tibove is about the role of tense with respect to Cuse. Contrary to the el mm in the mmimalist puper, 1 wiii defend the assumption thtit there is no (direct) relationship between tense and nominative Case, nor between Asp and at usative Case. '

43 .

Tht1 t ht re- n re- no-u reunien t - pr«j cet Urns hy pot hes is

Within one sub-tramework of the Principie

Pammeler Approach or even

within some trends of the Minimally Program, there is the idea thiit function ul eutL1 gorier must have se maul if content. Researchers thtit defend such

a viewpoinL including myself, allow only for functional categories that bring some semantic contribution wilh them. A more radical standpoint even is to

require that functional categories within the extended projection of the cxictil head they are associated with contribute some semantic specification or modiiication only to that head. This means, for example, that the tense ..

ntwJe, licensed by it T1'

element, is regarded as a functional category in the

extended projection of a verb since it specilies an aspect of the temponl ocation of the state or the event denoted by the verb (StoweII 199 ).

However, since agreement between an ariiument and a morpheme on the verb does not seem to sem ant i call y a (feet the interpretation of the verb, agreement is not considered to project its own function til layer. Since Chomsky associates nominative assignment with tense, several researchers propose that this category is the only tine that is involved in case checking for [he subject. Laka (1994) (Abstract for the Utrecht Case workshop, lecture notes GISSL) tmd Borer (1994), for instance, claim that tense is the case assigning head responsible for nominative case (or in Laka s case even more generally for the uppermost stmcUirtj] case which is Hrgadve in trgativeAbsolufive languages) and consequently even call it Tense Case, The head which is responsible for case assignment to the object in both analyses is aspect. Aspect, of course, conveys semantic ally important infoimation. In their analyses, the I act that agreement shows up is nothing but a phenomenon automatically triggered whenever some maximal projection (argument NPs and a verbal head enter a Spec-Head relation. There seems to he even more evidence for the fact subject is reiated to tense and object to aspect. 4

AGR MODES AS TOPIC HOSTS

43 1 .

.

107

Tense ami nominative

KmtetM

shows ihut ihc tense information on the verb docs nol only

locate the dcnotLUion of it sentence with respect to time, bm thbit it may also inlorm iiboul the (temporal) existence of a subject in the sentence if there is no Davidsonian argument to be discharged. So Kratzer claims that the sentence (4)

Harry was French

is iimbiguous. This sentence can be felicitously uttered in order to describe the fact that some Harry used to have the French dti enship beJore he gave it up to become American, which he is at the lime the sentence is bein uttered. Under such an interpreliitioii being Freiietv is a stage level predicate, i.e. it just describes it temporary property of its bearer. Under the other '

interpretittion ('being French1 as individuit! level predicate} where there is no Diividsonian argument the predication of past, i.e. the information that something is located in the past, within Kritt/cr s theory, goes onto the next available theta role which is born by Harry. This gives a representation: '

[5)

|before now {11arry*}\ &. \French

Here the temporal information docs not go to the Ditvidsonian argument locitting the proposition in the past, but rather to the individual denoted by

the subject. The sentence says that Harry is to be located in the past, consequently he does not live anymore when the sentence is uttered (under the relevant meaning). A simihtr connection between tense and subject interpretation cun be observed wiih four other sentences Krather gives. Let's imagine that aunt Theresa is almost a perfect clone of grandmother Julie, Grandmother Julie died five years ago. Aunt Theresa, however, still enjoys life. Then only the (b) and {c) sentences are true, {a) and (d) arc not, (6)

a. b

Aunt Theresa resembled griindmolher Julie. .

Aunt Theresa resembies grandmother JuHe.

c

.

d

Griindmother Julie resembled aunt Theresa.

.

Griindmother Julie resembles attnt Theresa.

We sec clearly that past tense goes together with a former entity with respect

to this world and that present tense is appropriate only if the subject is a fellow in this world now. This shows that there is some connection between

tense and Ihe sttbjcct indeed. The object, on ihc olhcj I kind does not seem to

play any roie here.

SYNTACTIC ASPlif TS 01 TOWC AND ( OMMliNT

Another vcia' hard-core pniptjnent ior the insepiULibility of lense 'And iigreement is di Domenico (1994) with her Denotution Principle. She claims that there is one tind only one verbal element per sentence which is specified for ten.se. and that there is also one i»nd only one verb til element which carries sped Ik all on lor Person, hor her, person is the crucial feature in order to

make a phrase (damsEil or nominal) referential She does not tirgue for a collLipsing of AgrS (which for her is the host of the person TeLitiire) with tense, her analysis however points in the direction of unifying tense aind person (= ugreementj, 432 .

.

Aspect and m-c usative

Now, let's see whether there is tiiso some semamically Justiliable relationship between objects and aspeet. As y matter of fact, the relationship is very close, in the PLL.rG(+) framework. Verkuyl (1992) proposes a compositional semantics for the computation of aspectuality. Here the nature of the object plays the key role for whether a sentence gets a teiic (bound, perfective) or

atelic (unbound, imperfective) interpretation. Verkuyl assigns to NPs a speeilication of quantity. NJ's are distinguished according to whether they are determined or not, i.e. whether they refer to a concrete, delimte iet (of things} or not. The former objects are c I as si tied as |+SQA| l+speeitied quantity of A) and are represented by NPs {or better DPs) like house.

it nice girl] the latter as |-SQA1 (-specified quantity of A). Those are represented by mass nouns or bare plurals (in English)h i.e. by

four glasses of wine

,

NPs like sandwiches, milk,poison and in contrary to the [+SQA| do not give

rise to accomplishment, i.e. telie sentences. Por illustration: telic predications are not very felicitous with adverbials expressing duration, but they are line with delimiting adverbials and particles: atelic predications, on the other hand, behave the opposite way. They are hne with durational adverbiats and become ungrammatical if combined with perfective adverbials and particles, (7

They destroyed the house -for one hoLir/lftin one hour.

(W)

1 drank the wine up.

The destroyed houses
Thus, object interpretation alfects the aspectual information of the sentence.

109

AGR NODUS AS I OMIC ilOSTS

This correlation seems tt> be tonfirmetl by cross-linguistic data. I dt> not

want to go into detail about object inttipiettiiion, aspect, Case and agreement here, jince this wiil be the topic of a whole chapter of this book (Chapter 5). J only want to briefly give some data here that is intended to show the relationship. In Finnish, the direct object may bear either partitive or accusative Case. It

'

the Case is partitive, the objeet ets either an existential interpretation, or if it gets a strong reading, the sentenee must be interpreted as an impertective statement. (Jl) Anne rukensi whti Anne built l

(Finnish)

ho use-part

Anne built a house/ 'Anne was building a/the house.'

J I" the Case is accusative, the sentence gets a telic reading and the interpretation for the ob ject is necessarily specific t=strongJ. (12)

Anne mkensimlon Anne built '

ho use-part

Anne built/(has built) the/a specific) house/

Borer (1 94) claims that accusative (strong Case} is assigned by the Asp head responsible for telicityEi o rej- s <.. ieneml izat io n: '

{J .i

a

.

b

.

ASPE is realized (telic) itf iin object bears strong Case (acc) If an object bears strong Case (= Acc) then it is interpreted as having a strong reading.

This generalisation contains a two-way conditional. It says that if the object gets strong Case, a telic iatcrpretaiion is introduced; it also says that if a sentence with a transitive verb is a telic statement, the object necessarily gets a strong interpretation. Scmilar ohst-TVLitiou have heen made by Kuinohand (JW/h. She slx s that there are two object positions in Scottish Gaelic, hi periphrastic tenses, one can see that the one case (accusative1) is associated with the pre (main-)

l

.

Smco there U no m fplwlt kMl

Ci.LL-l -. l»lJl <.'\, :>

iul-

Llh.-.lim-.-Ll

illeieiu-e betwesn nojiiiniitLve ami iLceusiitive in Scottish

HIUJlT I Ik- muT.l-

lUllV

{'\\

\ ..uv\ ;i

mIlJi

;iiV

Plinsed to Genitive and Dative. What matters iw our purposes is tlie direct-genitive differ '

ence.l My 'accusative iitste

of direct Case since it is used in frLLnmmLirs af oihcr liui uii cs.

no

SYNTACTIC ASPLCTS Ol' lOPlC AND COMMLNT

verbal posiikm, where us Ihe other one (genitive) is linked to the post verba

position. Furthermore, there is ii dilTerenee in the aspectual interpretation of the .sentences. JrVeverha] object position and itccusiitive Ciise Jbree a telic reading, poslverbitt plaeeinent oTthe object which goes together with genitive Ctise trigger an ate lie re tiding. (14)

Bha

Caiuw cur

a'chomh

a

gherrndh.

be-P\ST Calum prrf part the tree-i>iR obj-agr cur CEilum hud cut the tree.1

(15)

Bha

Ctilmu

a'geiifyiidh chuohhau.

be-past Calum imp pakt cut

trees-ttEN

Cylum w;js cutting sives; Rtimchijnd

therefore proptises that als
Case assignment to the object, but as a governor (there is no Spec-Head relation involved). She captures the positional and Case di ire re nee by

proposing that the object occupies cither the complement or the speciher position of the verb phrase. In its base position, the object gets Case iVom the verb (16a), in the derived one Asp assigns Case under government (Kib):

111

AGK NODUS AS TOPIC HOSTS

IP

(K>) [

Spec Asp

ii

VP

Spec W1

si.

htfu Cutiwf

air a'i-hurab uvhi'i'j'adh

A

hhu Catitw

us

fliwobhttfi

If tense were the relevant head for Case iissignmem we would e\peet thai there exist no nomimitivc subfects in tenless sentences. However there is '

uounttfevidence. In tnropeiin Porluguese, there exists a verbal I orm

which

is called per.somtl or inHtried infinitive (Raposo L9S7)r Its use is similar to oidiniiry iniinitive verb forms in most other languages, i.e. these construc-

tions never occur as niiitrix sentences, nor do they allow for a (finite) complementizer Morphologic ally, the inflected infinitive is marked for agreement with the subject, but not (!) for tense distinctions. The form is achieved by Eidding to the verb stem + the infinitive morpheme and the relevant agieement sullix.

5

.

The dec k from Kamchand (1493: ltW/fC>5j.

i 17)

Singular J

Plural

eu Lomer+

ittlt comer+mos _

1

Tif i omer+es

vox comer+des

3

ele comer+

elescomer+em

'

_

I/voli SG/he/wc/you PL/ihey tn ear+Agr,

The occur rente of sentences with yn in lice led infinitive form is not free. The

restrictions, however, do not play tiny role in the line of reasoning. Now, what

is erueiai here is that these infiected forms {must'} hbive (18) Seru

dificil

Icics tiprovumn

a

nominative subject.

propostaj.

it-wili-bL1 Jinicult they to-approve-A k the proposal LFc>r them to approve the proposal will be difHcult. '

That shows that the tense!ess sentence remains capable of licensing nominative Case. The most reasonable thing to assume is that the Case as signer (or checker) is agreement. Case is licensed without tense. The same argumentation with somewhat less convincing force is Case licensing in some non-

indieative construetions. In (contemporary, spoken) French, for example. complement sentences of volitional predicates have lo occur in subjunctive mood. There again, one cannot see any tense information, neither semantic ally

nor morphologically. The interpretation of the subordinate sentence depends on the matrix tense (see also von Stechow 1995). Nevertheless, the subjunctive forms are intlected tor number and person, i.e. show up with agreement morphology and consequently license nominative Case. Since French is not

a pro-drop language, a phonetically realized subject is obligatory. (19) ,/' insiste que \ vus vemez vl insists

'

that you come. (= present tense)

(20) J ai inxisle que voas vemnz. i insisted that you (wouldj come/ (= past tense) (2 J)

J'ii isisterat/Je vctis it iststct qtte votts \ eniez. LJ will insist tliat yoti come. [= future tense J "

3

The obligjitorlness is of course Jifiicult to sliow since Europellu Portuguese u pro-c3rop MV . 1 Iliv Si'iUetKe n J muiiii ii i molo KLilK vlkJ :u niiieei. Iki vvvr. [Ik [licI Uial noinuiitfLve subjcslh iue ssihlc m hlIL is ciiou h to show tlhit tcusc does not pluy the role it in supposed to. .

liiih-i

.

AGR NODES AS TOPIC HOSTS

A theory that links Ci se assignment to tense cannot explain the licensing of nominative without stipulation. Apart from some facts which show that KraUcr's observation discussed in 4J.]. about the temporal setting with respect to the subject is not limited to V[> eMermi] suhkv mIuslvcK-. Im i.iiUl,iii.,l,.< cxpLTictKvr jik! ivlsiled predicates the verb must sIk>w up in past tense as weJI if the ohjeft does not exist anymore. In other words, exactly as in (5) and (6), an entity which

existed in our world, but is not alive anymore, requires thtit the verb carry past tense morphology. If Harry is dead, only example (22) is felicitous, no matter that 1 still exist and have some psychological attitude towards him (compart; to (23)): (22)

I knew Harry-

(23J J know Kany.

J loved Harry.

I love [Lm v.

Thus, there is no even t-sem ami call y necessary link between tense and subject or nominative Case.

Now, Jet us pass over to objects and aspeeL Borer's generalization above implicuk-s that ohjccl;- with weLik jmcipreUituHi ui

L" atdie iLMdiu s. l:o]

her theory to work it is necessary that assignment of strong object Case (= accusative) and perleelive Interpretation be two inseparable phenomena with one and the same source, namely, the involvement of the projection of a perfective aspectual head. Her statement disallows for telic sentences where the object gets a weak interpretation. This, however, does not hold. Although it seems to be the case that objects that get assigned strong Case (may) delimit an action, it is not necessarily the case that weak objecls make a telic

neading impossible. If AgrO and Asp| ; .

are the same head and are as such

responsible for strong Case assignment exclusively, we should not expect both weak objects and perfective aspect to occur together. Weak objects should never show up in telic sentences. This is not the Ctise. Russian and Modern Greek are languages that mark aspect morphologically, in both languages, perfective aspect is completely fine with weak objects. Even mass

nouns that according to Borer incorporate into Che verb and consequently cannot move to Spec Asp ti arc possible in telic sentences, i.e. even [-SQA as weakest objects do not exclude perfective statements: '

(24)

1

Ofivypii vodki i op'yaftyai he tii:RE'-drink vodka-part and got-dmnk LHe drank vodka and got drunk. '

(Russian)

J 14

SYM [At IK

ASPlit I.S in-

{25) Ona prinesia

ktiteha

WWK

i

ANU i t>MMiJrN 1

kolbasy*

she piiKr-brougln bread-part and sausage-part S]ic broLight bread and sausages.1 l

(26)

Ekop-s-e cLLt-PLR|

jmwiL

-

-

(Gitek)

3s
LHe/she cut bread.

'

Ebich of these sentences describes an event in the past which has come k> ii [ esull, i.e. without any doubt they are telic sttitements. Nevertheless, the objects are noL assigned strong Case. The Russian examples illustrate that very clearly: partitive Case and perfective aspect are not incompatible. The question is: Why shtniid that he so? The sentences describe a situation where some tic lion which was done to some unspecified quantity has come to an end-

point. This state of alViihs shotild be expressible and as the examples show. I have shown in Chapter 3h Section 3.4.3 thai the correlation strong object: telic interpretation onJy captures a tendency. I have argued that it is the location of the Davidsonian argument which triggers the perfective/ imperfective distinction. It is shown that there is no direct link between

(a)td]city and object interpretation at all.

44

A r proj eel ions as tupic husts

.

44 .

.

1

The semantics of Agr

At the beginning of this chapter I mentioned (he viewpoint according to which functional categories should bear semantic content in order to be

licensed. This seems to be a reasonable claim. However, the attempt to eliminate agreement projections because they do not convey any substantial meaning is not the right way (especiatty Chomsky IChapter 4h Section I0.I The Status of AGIO. In the contrary. I am convinced that those researchers who are looking for a semantics of Agr arc on the right track. To

this group belong Runner (in a certain sense AnagnostopouJou (1994), and as a very militant promoter Adger (1 93, \994). My proposal is very close to Adder s 1 argue that agreement projections are the hosts of topic '

.

arguments, and as I have shown the l+Topic] feature has got an indisputable semantic base. In a certain sense this feature is similar to the features

AGK NODUS AS TOPIC HOSTS

\\5

+FtH:us] or [+wh]. which ifc!st> unqueslionubiy convey seniLinlit: inibi-mtilion. A crucial diircrcncc. howevert is the A-status. In this respect the movement of an Lirgument out of its base position to SpecA r is more similar to passivization or other raising operations. Recall that the functional trigger of

the latter operations is often information puck;iging. The system internal trigger is the lack of Case. Here the morpho-syntactic similarities between passivination and topic movement become very obvious, On the other hand, we have seen that movement out of the VP makes the

iirguments act as genej'ali/crd quantilitris (or gives the input for the syntax of

quant ill cat ion) and renders the sentence a quantilicational stale mem. So Hornstein (1994), for example, equates movement from the base position to Sp cAgr with Qu and her Raising {QR) in the sense of May (19K5). L would not like to go that lar because QR - as far as it exists at all - is likely to be movement. However, topic movement definitely feeds the creation of quantihcalionid structures. The view adopted here is that topic movement

puts the DP material into SpecAgr positions which then gets mapped into the restrictor. This part is of type A. The link to the quantifier is one step more. and this last step involves an A-posit ion. Thus, one can sec thtu movement to an agreement projection is anything but semantic ally vacuous. The last paragraph also brings some evidence for why scrambling shows piopeities of both A- and S-movement. 44 2 .

.

A paraUel case: Catalan

4 4 2,1

The stotus of cinic-douhUng and the structure of the Camkm VF In the first part of this chapter, 1 alluded to my belief that agreement projections are the host for topical DPs. It emerges from the fact that many grammatical phenomena frtim various languages that are triggered by topical .

arguments can be related to the involvement of such projections in a fruitful way. In Chapter 5 I will present a number of these phenomena and give some analysis. In this section 1 will consider one language in more detail which behaves very much like German, but uses a completely di lie rent strategy to characterize topics. The language is Catalan, the device is cliticdoubling. Clitic-doubling has been an intriguing phenomenon for a long time, the problem being that a sentence seems to be grammatical although there are two arguments within a clause bearing the same theta-role.

]16

SYNTACIK. ASPECTS Ol' TOVK AND COMMLNT

(27) LaL '

olan

\Gja jmg\\

(Spimish)

_

]is:i.'iK\[-iiv ri ii ihe They listcncJ to the girl.1

iil-Ai r

.

Many attempts have been made to solve the problem. One of the most influential ones weis to declare the full DP an adjoined, sentence external demum. TIil1 donlilcd L>r wlis njd lu L'L'upy some dislucjted postdon (lor

a deutiied discussion on elilic-tloubling see Aimgno iopoulou 1994). Thus clitic-doubling construe lions were analyzed paralJel to left dislocLilion operations such as C<3ntrastive Lett Dislocation (2K) or Hanging Topic Leil Dislocation (29) [German examples modeled after Dutch ones from van Hafien. Smits and Vat I9S3). (2K)

Die Frcmziska, die

wo!he

ieh heiraten.

the Franziska that-one wanted I many Fran is'ika - \ wanted to marry her.T

(29) Die Frunzhka - kh woitte sie sdtott the Franz!ska - I lO Franziska

immer heiruieii.

wanted her already always marrv

- I have always wanted to marry her.

"

It has been shown, however, that in the relevant languages the doubled DP Is an integral part of the sentence as is the clitic. For this reason, the best analysis to account I or clitie-doubling constructions as in (27) seems to me to be a proposal which goes back to Borer (19K3). In her approach, clitics are not full constituentst nor do they occupy a syntactically independent position, but are atTUed to the verbal head in order to express agreement '

leautres. This analysis has been adopted and fun her developed by Suner (1988), Sponiche (1993:. Mahajan (1991), 1991), Anagnosiopoulou (1994) and others Under such an approach, lor example, the co-occurence of an accusative clitic and a full direct object DP is not different from a construction with a nominative subject and subject agreement on the verb. Within a theory that takes trees as the one in (3) as structural skeleton for sentences, si ven harmtmie picture si rise:: .

Now, after having argued for a proposal that analyses doubling elides as agree men l markers, we should lest the predictions of the theory of the given book, i.e. agreement projections become active when the related arguments have the status of a topic. First, let us IhJLire out what the ha c order y> m Catalan. In contrast to German, indirect objects follow direct objects. (30) is a

117

AGR NQDLS AS TO KIT tiOSTS

sentence where the key ;is well tts the carpenter are Lnlmduced intt) Lhe Jiscourse. (30) Donem hi ckm at juster* give-1 PL the key to-thc carpenter

(Catalan) '

give; the key to the carpenter.

The reverse of the arguments leads to un rammaticaltfy. (31) *Donem al faster kt cktu. The sitme holds for the order eoneerning subjects and objects. In all-new sentences, the word order is verb (> object) > subject. For this reason it has

been proposed by many authors (Bonet 1990: Sola 1992) that Catalan {and many other Romance languages as well) should be analyzed as VOS.

(3Z) \? Ha trucat i'amo\A has called the boss

The BOSS has calJed.1

(33)

[|j Ha payat hi has set '

loaiti kt Coia.\

the table the Cola

COia Ts set the TAble;

II been ar tied thitt it', case of it cfted subicets - how lhe (.- n trucuon in (32) and (33) are called - the subject gets a narrow focus interpretation (Bonet 1990, and also Samek-Lodovid (1994) for Italian). This is one

interpretation indeed. However, if it were the only one. Vallduvfs bracketing would not reflect the right information packaging, fn order to show that the given wide focus reading is not only possible, but even preferred. Vallduvi provides contexts where a narrow focus reading would be pragmatically inappropriate.

(34) Siapyov'H ta propotfa la Geuefaiirat, pttdvie.ru tirar if woald-appmve-3AG the proposal the government could-Ipe. pull envant,

ahead L

4

.

If the Ceneralitat approved the proposal, we could go ahead.1

The 3ln[JlL(m I,:...] is [jkcii hum Viilldnvi

co iudkuti: lhth I'aiigc of footsore ]5.

iflott ejctLiilpict

pvu cmn. i.e. [Jio t\l
e. I[ as supposciJ

iiifoi'jninicui. Sue aJsu

] IK

SYNTALTIL ASPLC. I S Ob TOPIC ANu COMMLN 1

According it> an analysis where the postverbal subject necessarily induces a narrow focus reading {34} should convey the infomiEUion thai ihcrc rc rcusoniiblt LilLorjiiitivvs to in (jawmlhut thai possibly could jpprovo ihc proposuL bin do not (either). This interpreiution, however, is not intended, since lo Gcncraiitat is the name of the Cat a I an govern me nt and with respect to the appr jvui ol' the re lev ant kind of proposals, there are no tillerntitives to it. Hence, the subordinate clause in (34) cannot be a statement with narrow focius on the subject. Furthermore, whereas the order object > subject is the appropriate one ( a), (35b): the reverse order leads to ungrammaticality {35b). (36b), Example (36) is exactly the same strategy as in (he samples in Chupter 2 where I exploited

the linearization of inherently existcntially interpreted indefinite pronouns.

(35

a.

Aim yesterday '

b

.

(36) £i.

(F va

renirm iu tohe

3s(i-PAST wash

et Pet e .

the clothes the Pere

Yesterday, Pere washed the clothes/

Ahir [F vo renfrar el Fere fa rohe\. Sivoi

res

tiingd,

(an iruqiwu.]

if wnnt-.rsti something somebody me call If anybody needs anything, give me a call/ '

b

.

*Si vot tiutgii res, I em irttqiwu.f

Thus if one combines ihe two orders (i) verb > direct object > indirect object

and (ii) verb > object > subject, by transitivity one gets: verb > direct object > indirect object > subject. If we adopt the reasonable assumption that allnew sentences reveal the base order and combine it with other well-motivat-

ed assumptions: hierarchical ordering of arguments (see Chapter 2) and binary blanching (Kayne l1)

), we gel a structure lor Catalan I hat exactly

mirrors the structure for German.

5

05) mhI i'Sb) Lire good Cntndidiiies to shf>w that VOS stmcmnes Ciinnf>E be derived i'num SVO hy heiid iinovcmciu tif tlic verb Liiid ohicti ] Liis]ji Imih to the Jcft. Suck ynaiyiies (Ordf>rte7 3994 for .Spj]iLsh lliicJ .MexiniloiJ \ A- for GreekJ iissminc lhaL [heae niciveLmeiita lukc pJnce in order u> biteliground the verb iHid tlie object Eind to pui emphaiiis on ihe nubjecl. I ca]iLK)i epJI for [Jitse IjngajgcSn for CjtaJLin. however, this Jofi not IlmIlI. Hith bructettng from {IS] jnd llii: obtigittory wenk cjtistcnttLit nnerprctiition of bot3i argninents iiU ft), i.e. tkeir completely eqimt status make it imponniblc to explsun along tite hues of [lie ciuoted jiuiIvs . On iliv olLxv ]uimt. if vert> ]novcLine]it iind object niovejiicnt nie Lissnnicd nevcnlielcss, t lie re shoiiJ-d be jiven j pliLLisibie digger for tliese movementa plus, jh expJanation, for why the snbjecLs iemiiina in ila biitc position. I cannol tkmk of it reaw iable proposal. .

AGK NODES AS l OHIC HOSTS

37

VP

si;

V|>2

[U

01) is the mirror image of (44) in Chapter 2. The br kel nottition is: |vt,fvfv DO| lO] SUj

( 8) is in cleur contrast with the possible iind impossible bracketing devices i-5 from Haider {\992 1994b). There, he argues that the VP-imermil btisie serializbition patterns of non-vcrbtil demcnis {i.e. arguments, A.M.) are crossLU-ammatkally invariant (p. I), namely 10 > DO (>PP). One could argue ,

'

'

that Haider s observation remains valid ne veil he less since in Catalan (as in

Romance in enerai} the indirect object is realized in a constituent that is preceded by an element which can be analysed simultaneously acts as a '

directional preposition. However there are proposals (Meinun er 1992: Starke 1993 amon others) that analyze these1 empty prepositions as pure Case markers not considerably diJTerent from morphologically inseparable

Case sullixes/' Under such an approach the Romance indirect objects are not different from those in Germ am The decisive point, however, seems to be the location of discourse-new (and narrowly focused) subjects. Haider

neglects subjects consequently, and further more, in the tier manic languages. with which he is mainly concerned, they would not destroy the picture since

there they occupy the left most argument position within the clause anyway. However

if the VP internal hypothesis of subjects is adopted, one has to identify the subject's VT internal position in Romance. According to the criteria which 1 use within this book, and which moreover are not very dilTcrent from Haider s own criteria, the subject must be base generated to ,

6

Konuuicc dative tmr(HEiiced t>y (he empty- preposition a/ti are (sJightty) diifcrcnt from Engti,sh dative compleme preceded hy to. .

120

SYNTACTIC ASFliCTS Ul: I'UPIC AND COM ML-NT

llie rig hi ihc verb tind ihe olher deept:]L ranking inierniil ai' umems. This invalidates Hiiider's EheDrj1. And, oi course, it is even less compittible with Kayne's antisymmetry theory (1993b). which is even more radical than

Haider s proposal. A A 21 Striking simitunfk'S between cUtic-iiouhiing and scrambling In the preceding paragraph L have tried to show what a possible VP internal

argument ordering mi ht look like. Thereby I used as a main device the linearization of arguments within "all new sentences', exactly tts for German in Chapter 2/ INow it will be shown what is goin on when one of the

arguments acii as a topic. When an argument does not belong to the new information, but rather acts as some sort of anchor in the conversation, it gets moved away from its base position (see footnote K below and Chapter I. Section 3). LWhen such

a detachment takes plttce, ... a clitic pronominal, which is bound by the detached phrase, appears with V/ (Vallduvl 1992:81) (39) L'arm the bnss

[P odia ci BROQUIL ]

= object is part of the comment

hates the broccolL

The boss hates broccoli.'

'

(40) Uamo llie boss

\v !'ODD!Ar'\ el brdquU. it-hates

= object outside

the broeco]]

The boss HATES broccoli;

7

As in Gcrnm (ii> LUjiifCd liy liLLitlo]1 IW h. it so ms to luc Llial also in Ciilulu]! iiiuphofif hincling CLinnot lie eojisidcncJ a good test for iijitlaji ; uul wluil ih ; order is. The slliiic holds for hmdia of pfonontiiKil variLiliics. For the latter it is Litwitys nccessury i\\ CiitiilLiii [KliI Mte hiudin quLUMificr liiiejtrly piecedes ihc bound pronoun. This might be tiitked to the fret [kit quiintitkatioiml tittemeius involve iin A-ac|ieitdcncy. which m mrn involves more compltK structure* than juss (Ik result of a wmple nmvemenl to SpecA fsee preccJn section), Therefore I wiU cany itn the oidecLiig! te t ir 'atJ-new-senteii(je \ .

it should he noticed thiil my notion of 'topic' Is different from Valkitm's use of the term link' which is inspired by the notion of 'topic' (Vullduvf 1992). Thj,s becomes very important

S

.

'

IilLl

111.- :kiki I mr. " n liiV

;lll;,K J ;?n wW OlLiillK 1jkL-|-. hom \jlki.l\; > Lll S.C| L11LOIl.

J]i Chiipler 1, Section i. 1 gave a hiief overview over Vailduvf tjuionuiil iirlLCLjJLLtion of inforniLition pLK'kaamg. What niiitters liei e is tlie fact tliiil VLLlldiivi i tlitks amt tui! el inettts reJ crto discourse-old iniitcriLil llial ml mdisftntrj;? twehtfrs m order to facilitate the stotage of Ehe new LtfurmjUon icprcseated witliui Validuvi's 'J'tK s'. Iieic lo be uadersioott as 'tommcat'. TJ us "

'

iints as well as tail elcnieiiis clui be nAercd bv the lenn 'uipLL-' in the way 1 am u.sln it.

AGK NODES AS TOPIC HOSTS

121

For ihc L'onslrLLL ioi] m NO) it couki sliJl be iar ucd tJial ihc object remains in

its btxse position (this is whtit AnLSgnostopoulou (1994) claims for simihir

construction in Greek). Linearly there is no diiferenee between (39) and (40). However, there tire reasons to believe that movement to the right has taken place. The data becomes clearer when double object const met ions tire considered. In (30) and (31)1 have argued that in Catalan, VP internal accusative objects precede VP internal dative arguments, (4]) is one more example.

(41) No he

donar ewara h'.K fm{esQ0 ate

aiumriesi0>

not have-ISG given yet the marks to-thc students T haven't given the marks to the students yet.'

In case the direct object gets a topic interpretation, the new inforniation '

consists of k giving y to the students (42) then shows that the dative argument precedes the accusative one. If (41) is considered the base struc.

ture N then (42) is derived from it. This can only have happened by right wand movement of the accusative argument.

(41) No lesi-

he

donat emara \,cds

not c L-DO have given yet

alumnesjes noresy

to-thc students the notes

CI it it;-doubling is incompatible with the lull DP m the base position. (42) +jVo

he donat encara les mncx- ah atnmuvx.

A second argument for rightward movement (which is an argument for the

base order represented in (37H3 ) at the same timej is the placement possibilities for particles. Given our assumptions about lexical projections, particles '

ike oi (right) or xec (man) cannot appear VP internally. However, they may

oeeur between the verb and its arguments if these are elitic doubled. It doubling is triggered by argument raising to a VP external position, there is

an explanation for the following data (see VaJlduvi 1992: K4). (43)

a.

Fica(*xec)el ganivet {*xec) af vaiaiw xecl put man the ksiife iai-the drawer man Tut the knife in the drawer, man!1

b

.

Ficarem {*oi} el?ivet {*oi) alctfhtix, oi? '

c

.

d

We'll pur the knife in the drawer, right?'

Fica 7, .

tj al caiaix, xec, ei yaiuve . xfi:'

El jkarem tj ai rutnix, oi, ci auivet

{oi}?

22

The

SYNTArnr asplcts

umc and commlnt

Lino iir uinonciiiion holds for the Jol'liIhu: oi ;kIjuik-ls. Non-suhfcUegtir-

ized niiticrial cannot be in soiled inside Lhc VR hence udjuncta appear VP IJ

exierniil!> Agiiin. if the tirgLimcnts tire hk:tiled to the left of the adjunct, coocurtfnee of a clitic and ti full DP is excluded. It is obii ittory, however, when the exrgument has been moved pa,st the non-argument til material.

(44) (i.

t LaJ va neucar cl-DO

ta vtdrioia

i'any

passai,

PAST-break-3so the ptg ybank the-year past

Sho broke her piggy bank open last year/ *l/£j trencar Vany passol la vidrioh. '

b c

.

(*0) va frencar tj {'any passat. iu \>idiioki

,

v

All these facts itre very similai- to ticrman scrtimbiing,11' The same elements (partides and adjuncts) as well as unmarked versus marked order of arguments have been used to show that scrambling, i.e. movement away from the base position, has taken place.

AJso, as in German, any order of clitic doubled (or scrambled, respectively) arguments is possible (for German see Chapter 3, example 1): (43) a. b c

.

.

Fjicara no ets- ies, lie DONAT I- i-, tes uores- afs aiummw Encara no ds{ ks{ he DONAT tj tj, oh aiiAmnex ies miesy Lex notes f

d e

f

.

.

.

ericafa no els fes- he DONAT tj t. als alunmes

Ah aiumneSi encara no is] hs he DONAT tj

tes notea

Lcs notes, ais nlumnesl encara no ets- Ies- he DONAT tl

tj.

Als almnnes- les notes- encara no elxi les- he DONAT t- t

However, taking (4IJ as the "corresponding all new sentence'. (45aj is the most natural

'

'

sentence with the two objects aetin

as topics. Also (46)

1 ;im MiiT-e at chc hicc ihut the argiuineimaimi lieic is not cciinpuUble with the LLiisonian view fLarson l sj. Yet. I follow Vallduvi heie ,sirce the finding in Catalan are exuctly p.iriillcl. i.e. The miiToi1 image of The Gernian faces, U>. Oik inore piece of evidence amvts fn ii phonology. It se nis tluil Vl1 inlcniii] a nerinl haul's the Jtinurkctl phonolo ieal slrtsiii in sentences without uurrow focusing (Cinque 199 : AbfLiitiitin l iLh; iilso Lmpiieitly VLiEittuvi IW2). If this is adoptetL Li follows tluit argiiinents occLiriing Litter the nuiin sttess of the sentence Lire tnoved out of tite VP. liueitstm ly. these post-Liiain-strcjiJi constitnent trigger ctitle-doubling. Since I huvc nol yet written anything Libout stless pattern. I present this urguntcnt only here in a footnote. This tais also to tlo witli ihe fstet rhui I ik: ik:i iliink ihiil unoiiiiked -oress hljiulls goes to tlte deepesl ecuheddeJ eleiiK'jil.

123

AGR NODES AS TOPIC fiOS J S

shows that simple topicalization in CattJihin lecids to itn output where the derived order ol' the subjects puniliels the VP interntd one. namdy DO > 10.

{4()) Els pagesos [yjai hi van ENVIAR tj t- el hrdqui! a Vcimov '

The farmen; [F already StiNTI the broccoli \q the boss/

This again points in the direction that tilso in the VP external area (which L'on'esponds to the German middle Held) Catalan is the mirror image of

German. (Verbal heads arc on the left, spcciliLT.s on the right.) Thus (46) t;ould get assigned the following structure; (47)

AgrlOP AgrlO

AgrlO0

SpecA IO

A i-OP SpecAgiO

[V hii van HNVlAR|k U

el bioquili,

a Pamoj.

The coi res ponding Gorman some nee would look like in (46). The pmsodic indicator is also stress on the verb, the linear one is the position of the German word schou (Cat a km ja).

AcrSP

A rlDP

AgrlO'

AgrlO0

A til OP

tto

VP

ttsSCHICKT, the rjirmcrs-NOM the buss-DAT the biotenti ACT iilrcudy ,SENT

die Bauern em Cheffden Broccoli xckon ts t, rA

.

luifon ImU-

ThLE.s, we see thtiE ciitic-doubling in CuE iLin and scrambling m UtmuLU art? related phenomena. In a last e
pertinent feature for the aetivution of an Agr node is indeed the topic status of an argument and not some specificity, definiteness. or prominence feature, Recall that prominence is the 'strongest" form of discourse-1 inking. Whereas

spec ilk1 and definite CPs may be licensed by accommodation nice h an isms and the like, prominent DPs must have a {unique, unambiguous) linguistic antecedent. The classical case of prominent DRs are pronoims. Ln her dissertation, Anagnostopoulou (1994) argues that clitic doubled direct objects in Greek are another related case . Her claim is very similar to Jiige s (1994) and

Aciger s (1993). They all claim that discourse-linked urguments trigger cliticdtKibling or scrambling, respectively (ChiipLcr 3. -Section 3.4). Here I want to give one more example showing that discourse-1 inking is not a blind trigger for the activation of an agreement projection. Also in Cat a! an, direct object DPs referring to discourse-old entities need not trigger clitic-doubling if the

object is not meant to be a topic. Exactly as in German, when scrambling of familiar DPs is blocked {49bh clitic-doubling is blocked as well (50). (49)

context' A

<

SamstQg obeud liar Peter He Party xescfimixsen. Da hat er itaJHrtich atAch wieder seine ganzen LiehHfigsfraiieti eingeiadetil -

-

-

-

sebie neue Nachborin

die Ft iseiLSe atts Leipzig die Medizinxtudentin and dit' CD U- Wdhlerin.

Dk' Friseuse /.vf sew xwjkr Siinyurm. die will obcr gar iiichrx vott ihm wissen, dafur aher die CDU Frau urn so mehr. Die M heinf ahcr wiederim mr so ein Notbeheifzu xein sn eine An Eisen im Feuer, ,

wenn er hei der anderen uicht aukonwu.

Bj

Weijit du eigetttUcft, dap sk-fi die CDU Fr au am ndchsten Tag hei mir ausgeheuh hat* tal* wai wamm'.' '

A:

a.: Na, weii der Peter wahrscheu ' dkh den gatnen Abend die Fri-

seuse angemacht hat, and sich weder uni die itnderen (nixte. nodt uw die Lvitfe votn Panyxcrvk-c kiimwern woiite.

h:. *friNa, wed tier Pern- die Friseuse w-ahrschcinlidt dcu ganzen Attend ungemachThaf, nndsk.h rdcruw die uudcren Gdsfc. noch urn die Lettte v&m Parry-service kiimmem wollte, A: Saturday night. Peter threw a party. All the women he if; crazy ahout ht had invited, of course: -

-

-

-

his new neighbor

the hairdresser from Leipzig the medicine student, and

the CDU voter

The hairdresser is his great heartthrob. However, she's :iot interested in him at ah, hut the CDU woman is. The CDU woman, in

turn, seems to he nothing more than a stopgap, a son ot one more iron in the tire, if he doesn't go down well with the other one.

126

SYNTACTIC ASHliCTS Oi; TOnC AND COMMLNT

B: Actually, do you know that ihc next day the CDU woman came to nic lIeiJ had a good cry on my shoulder ' And now guess why"' '

.

A:

literal.:

well because the Peter (h. *the huirdrcsscr) probably the whole

evening (a,

"k

ihe bairdreftser) up-chat bas, and himself neither

alxiut the other guests, nor about the people from-the party-service care wanted

Welt, probably because Peter was trying to get off with the hair-

'

dresser all night and didn't want to care about the other guests. nor about the people from the party service. ) "

(50)

(same context...)

(Catalan)

doncs perque ?! Fere prohahlemem (*V} well

because the Peter probably

perruqaera tola la uit

i uo votia

ha perw$m ia

C*clitic) has up-chat

the

ocupar-se ui deb

aht es

hairdresser all the night not wanted occupy-. conviutts ni tic ia gatt del Ptinyservivc guests nor ot the }>cople of-the party service

nor of-the other

Again, the input context for the relevant sentence is sudi that it contains the discourse referent which in the relevant sentence is used as the direct object. Although the DP is familiar then, neither scrambling nor clitic-doubling is ptMid. The reason is that die t yiseuse. iapeyyuquera respectively, both go in the comment about the topic Peter, Peye, respectively. Together with the verb the object forms a unit which moreover is in the scope of the adverbial '

wdhyschehificJi. pfohahleiftenf. The object is not a topic whence the [+Topic is not assigned and no movement takes place. To recapitulate: I have shown that with Catalan we have a language that reproduces the crucial effects of German scrambling by a dilTercnt strategy: cliticnJoubling, The theory of functional projections enables us to unify both grammatical devices under a more abstract one. This more abstract phenomenon is the activation ol agreement projections. In German silent morphemes ( except subject agreement» project specitiers where topical KPs move, in .

Catalan these morphemes are virtually present, they appear as clitics on the

verbal root and can be analyzed as the spell-out of Agr

elements,

-

127

AGK NODLS AS TOPIC HOSTS

44 3 .

Some i vmurks ui i tht.' n m ip a hi finti vf foi i is

.

The headline Is mtiny ways ambiguous and furthermore makes use of the term 'focus which is not rcaUy in the main [merest of this book. This section seems to be the right pkiee to say a eouple of wurds about how the syntax-phonology connection is viewed. I ought to warn iht1 reader, however. 4

that no rca! distinction is made between in format ion a! focus on the one htind

and quant iiictitional on the other. NevertheJess, in the following it will become clear why 1 have chosen this section title. Within the tradition of

generative grammur there ha, been no final answer to the question what part of the sentence brings the relevant, e.g. new or contrastive information. There are two main approaches, which are reviewed in detail in Winkier { \994}. Here I will give a very brief presentation of these two trends. ]n the end I agree with Winkler (1994: iy7-lVW), who states: J da in i that ultianUively it is irrelevant which inodd is employed because the same set of rules, if generalized, deternsine the widest pan si tile I o ils ..

'

il'lIlI llj ... .-

lonti Lis s> iUlIlIlc Ii>l:u fheoi v ;s lI coiitL-plLiLLl cnl rtH jsl-. holh lljilI t\\c lunliKii-up iLKJtk' illl i h-j iLlili/cd :ii indri- lit (rsL

their VLtliability.

The quoted text already names the two approaches: top-down and bottomup.11 I will begin with the latter. 44 3

1 Selkirk'.'* theory offoeus piojecdou The bottom-up theory goes back to Selkirk's focus projection approach (Selkirk 1984). Within this theory, assignment of pitch accent, which is important for the phone tic-phonological interpretation, applies Jirst - that means that a word tor better its prominent syllable) gets assigned a tonal feature. Then the Basic focus Rule can apply. This rule says that a constituent to which a pitch accent is assigned should be interpreted as focus. Focus here means new inlormation. Thus the mapping goes from the phonetic side .

*

*

to the side of meaning. The bottom-up character, however is encoded in the

tt. A vcrv iuicLc UHg Litvomtf to cLijiELine the tuinhigLiitj of rteutmt iQ-fiii sentoicet which ia ncathcr u h(}U«iu-ii|.f iioi' \.v [luc lop-do li iviechLmjsLii, but w]ut;h preseiiLs j serious alternative \A to be found n\ Jacobs (l

t/

, mi).

128

SYNTACTIC ASPliCTS OF TOPIC AND COMMLNT

Phriisal Focus Rule, After nn elemenr is provided with the focus feature fby the Basic Focus Rule) (51) applies: (51)

Focus projctlion:

£i.

F-murk lug of the head of u phrusc licenses F-marking of the

b

whale phrase: F-:iiarking of the intern at argument of a head licenses the F-niark-

.

ing of the head. This mJe accounts for the following ambiguities.

(52) a.

weii Drewenminn uichf nur [ [p Biicher [y iiher |F die \v Kin-Ue\\\\ $ckreibt\.

b

'because Drewemian doesn't only |F write fF books fF about \y the

.

church 111 f.

h

The new information of these sentences depends on the context, As indicated by iho bi Lickeiin , the new informtition inay be onlv the small HP dk' Khrhc (the church), the whole VP, or intermediacc projections. The computation stares from the word, to which the focus Feature is assigned. Kin-he as such

is an JMl?, i.e. a head. (49ii) ensures that locus is projected to Dl] which in this case is die K ire he. TheODP being the argument of the preposition Ubef 1

a bout' licenses locus projection to P0 (=about) (= (49b)). 'about* as a head

licenses focus projection again, namely tO PP. This process goes on until the whole VP Biicher uber die K ire he schreibt' is assigned [FJ it may, however. '

slop a I any intermediate constituent, giving the appropriate answer. Thus, in this bottom-up approach the I eat n re [FJ climbs up in the syntactic tree. ,

44 32 .

.

.

Cimate's "Ntti! Theory', its proh terns tmd possible appHcatiofts

Now I will show how a top-down account works. According to Winkler (1994), the top-down approach is the traditional one. However, a very influential article, which has appeared, is Cinques Nut] Theory' (1993). Unlike in the bottom-up theory, the element which gets assigned the phonological stress is not known. The mechanism is such that there is an input structure, and a special algorithm computes where the stress falls. Cinque s theory, which has been criticized for its trivialization. takes the syntactic structure of a grammatical string as direct input for the computation of stress, In our case;

AGR NODES AS lOfK.' HOSTS

(53) nW/ Diwt'nmmu fx,, mrhntur

J29

Biidm- it4h w tv 1

J t* Ini

s

-

.

,

.

AV/f/jfHill i'r/p/W J 1.

Now. the stmcturtiily deepest clement is looked for. Hie most embedded element is the one with nmst hmekets uround it. thus

Kiichcl. llicii

Cinque develops j technique which is based t>n a cyclic mechanism proposed by Htille and Vergnitud (1 87;. According to that mechanism the brackets

aro eliminated step by step. With each braeket erbisurc. the struclLirally deepest element gets a star. Consequently, the deep most element of the whole struetnre receives tht: most starsJ" Most stars means heaviest shess.

(For the details see Cinque [993. or Reinhart 1995). When scrambling has tyken place, the object is not in its base position anymore, but (at least) in SpecAjirO which is higher than XIJ in (54). L

(54) weii Drewwrnaim [D,> Bin-her

iiher [DF die

Ktrcfie]

xr

nichtnwr |vp schreihr in

the (complcmcnl or UicJ ohjeel canmit he ihc ucefx t can ttncnl '

anymore. Thus, according to Cinque s theory, die Kin-he should not receive the main stress. This prediction is born out. The stress goes either to the quantifying particle (5b) or to the verb (57). The pragmatic felicity conditions tor Ihese sentences art: pretty farfetched, although not impossible. (55)

ir?'/ Drc enmmu Biidter iiber die KIRdw nidtt mtj sehreibt.

(56) u-'t1 ii Dm \ verm atw BiU-Ite r iiber die Kirehe asett r NUR si .tuesht. f 7)

writ Ore) verm an n Bilche v ither die Kin-he aieti r m tr SCHREIB T.

4 43.5

The 'NutI Hypoihesss' awd its impaa for tfymft vamou* scrumhtU With this at our disposal, we also have a nice account for string vacuous scrambling. In Chapter 3 the object position is used with respect to adverbials or other non-subcalegorized material as indicator for movement away .

'

'

12. The iitlvantjg c of Cinque s Eheuiy c«mpitre(J to Halle ;tnd Vci niud s uccouiu is tJ e fact rluil Ciiiquo tj(k'!i nol Imve to mako us oJ (ll versjoai of) Ihc NudLMi1 Slf iis RuJ (Choimky uiitj Hul I c l ft;. wliich LissL ns stress uJways w iht fi hl. Cinq Lie's pi'oposa] iriakcs use o]ity of the depth of embedding. This nJlows him to itccount for the ditferctKcs in t itj Lmd t52b>: i.e. the stress patten) in OV jmt VO languages in a slmtght forward manner. aJiino t free siipiL3ati;m!i. .

'

Here I emphii i/je atmosl because atso Cinque LmiitL assume lliiit i riLcketii g on the non-iecursive Mtlc is invisible for.street co]npiHa[ioii. Thus tbc algi>L]lhjn does, not worit completely b3i]]d]y.

130

SYNTACTIC A HliCI\S 01; UmC AND COMMENT

from the base position. Now. there is another test which is as gtKxJ eis the

posh ion Lest. In eases where ihe deepest argument does not receive the main

siross. scramblini is likely to htivc boon uken plate. Citiquo

following examples. originiJilly found in KipEirsky U (5 M j

m'if

dcr A n r

will

1

'

wcii der Arzf

den Patienten unterSUchenwird.

since the doctor the patient '

J;1'

cii w ? Ihi f[KNtci ? w itt'rsi u-hen wird.

since the doctor a patient examine since the doctor will examine a patient (59)

ivos the

examine

since the doc in r will examine the pmicnt

will "

In Chapter 3 I have argued at length that the simple mapping indefinite albumenLs stay inside the VP. dciinito argumonta sorttmble doos not hold, However, the prototypical use of an indefinite is the introduction of a new file card, and the proiotypieal use of a dehnite is the picking up of an old ono and using it as an anohor in the conversation. This is also the intended reading in (58) and (59). We ean easily Hnd examples, where a definite UP goto stroked (60). and an indclinitc docs no; (ftlj. 1

.

(60)

context: Warmu hi Prter uh'hl Mer? '

Why is Peter not here?s

weii

er die SCHWEfne fiinen

becaase he the pi s '

(61)

feeds

because he is feeding the pigs1

context:

Warum host da den Rolh so doiigeschiagefi/' Why did you hit Rollo so rudely?1 '

ltc/V

man einen jungen Hund ZOCHtigeu mttjl

because one a '

young dog

punish

must

because young dogs have to be punished"

The reason lor the stress pattern thus is not {injdefmiteness. but (non-Jtopichood The delinite in (60) is a referential one. in the sense of Chapter 3

T

13. ... d uguiil tfitrtslcm-tl into ti sLitVirdiaUlc dtiLtse striltUrf. anything for om purposes.

hi li docs nol change

AGR NODES AS TOPIC tlOSTS

Section 3.2,3: the indefinite in (61) gets a generic interpretation. Thus, the Cinque's 'Null Theory of stress' gives us it nice account for scrambling despite the luck of positional indicators.

[will assume that a 'Null Theory'-like approach is j'esponsiblc for stress umpuiaiiun In m>n-narrow focus stinctures, i.e. J will assume thai in norma topic: comment s true Ui res the mtiin accent is assigned lo the deep most element. 1 am forced lo the adaptation of a top-down approach for the following reason. My claim is that the VP is mapped into the comment (topics must leave the VP). Through this equation (VP = location of the new (

.

information). 1 fix the range of discourse enlarging potential to a specia. syniactie consituienL toeus projection in the sense of Selkirk (1984J is unrestritted. It may project the focus feature as high as possible in the

tree.1,1 This is not compatible with the mapping I am proposing. Yet, there '

are some problems with Cinque s 44 34 .

.

.

account that I do not want to withhold.

Frobkms and sperukitiom

Prohiem i

It has been known for a long time that in (direct) object > PP conhgurEicions.

where both arguments occupy their base position, the unmarked stress goes on the object (if this is not a topic) and not on the (noun phrase within the) PR Within an approach where arguments are ordered hierarchicalJy, this '

wcjiild be a clear counterargument it) Cinque s theory.

(62) u-'t'pV er gerade [p MJLCH in

eirten Eimer gieftt]1*

since he just milk into t* bucket pours because right now he's pourhu! milk into a bucket' '

(63) *weii er geyctde \v Mik-h in einen Elmer giefit] The stress pattern in (63) is only acceptable with the bracketing in

i.e.

with narrow focus on Lhe PP or the Dl' within it

.

14. One could restrict the Jarjicjit possililo Tot;as pmjcclifui to VP. Tins, however is a stipntalion which the top-down iifcoiint piojwsctt here need not niiikc.

15. t-'o]lowing commo]] pi'Jttiee, tuid followui the pnittiee tit tlijycL'cnt pluces wkiiin \\m book I jun 1 m orilei- lo miirk [lie rmigc of the new mfomatDii. ActiuJIy, 1 should use C for comment since the bracketed string corresponds to the VP,

SYN LACTir ASHLt TS Ol' TOriC AND COMMLNT

{64) weil ergerade \ Vy=c Miich \v in emeu |r KhuerW xiejitl However, 1! possible tests ((anaphoric) binding, neutral! word order etc.) prove thcit the direct object c-commiinds the PIJ, thus is located stmctiErdiy higher than the PP. Problem II

The problem urines in u sentence with y transitive verb, where both the

subject and the object get de-stressed because of their (simple)lft topic status, and the verb which appears in a simple tensed form is the only element which carries the new information which should not be understood as contrastive.

(65)

wffrt

der Arzt

den Faiiwiten umerSUCHT.

because the doctor the patient

ex a mines

because the doctor eX A mines the patient'

Within the theory presented here, the tree for (65) looks as in (65'J: -

m)

CP

SpeeAyrS

SpccAgrO

weii

16.

der Artz

den Putivnlen

utirersitefit

SLJiij k' lt>pic i.s suppowrd tn nieaii Itut Ihc topic dtK-s mi hiivc ll cumplot ItK'Us:

background atnuture.

AGR NODES AS TOPIC HOSTS

Thus, if one Lmumes verb move mem in German subordimite dausest in

simp It; tenses. Ihe verb raises to AgrS0 (or I11). This target of verb movement is a position which Is definitely higher in the structure thiin SpeeAgrO. Thus. we get in conflict with Cinque s Null Hypothesis' aeeordini; to whieh foi1 a tree like in (66 ), the objeel should be the phonologieally most prominent '

'

eonslituenL Analyses that deny verb movement in German subordinate clauses (Htuder, almost till references; Hohle 1991) would have no problems with the

theo .17 However, lor these ifitter aiiiilyses. the problem arises tmly in a di lie rent place. In main clauses, almost everybody assumes that the verb oeeupies the C 1 position, which is detinitely higher than all other positions '

following the verb linearly. Still, the stress pattern does not change. The main accent remains on the verb, which cannot be deeper than the objeet. 166)

Dtr Arzt u t iterSUCHT dut Patien ten (geraik J, the d<Jctor examines the patient now '

The dtietor is examining the patient (right nowj.'

t6ft')

Irr'ii1 der Anf \r;V 1 . uftfersuch] \def\ Paiieftfen] ...]

'

A pu ihL- iiitcrpietatii)» of thv- o [lkIs amid iv the lol]k>u ing sU'Uctui'e. Hie J|

syntax of German is such that some C position must be filled, i.e. either C

or is pee CP in embedded questions, for example. In m iin clauses, the verb

has to raise to C". However, the verb is the eJement whieh brings the new hiloiTnalion. Since all the arguments are topies, the verb is the only comment part. Since the location of the comment is VP. the verb has to be reconstructed into its base position. The indicator or trigger lor reconstruction is the stress pattern. Thus, at some level of representation (presumably LF)+ the verb carrying the greatest phonological prominence is indeed the deepest constituent.

17, However, there wouJd no problem if they assmne thilt the object i.s not hi its b ise posiiLoiv If neither verb nor object nnsmt; is iissujned tlic conlteuj itLoit ii such that Ehe object is stiinjliirLLliy jiiolc Jet-]>lJ, embedded aiitl heiice gels the gietiter pitoLioJogieuJ projniLieLiec.

IM. Thit iden seems to me to be a neasoiiubJe proposaJ. As 1 huve nlJtided tit the be Hiing of (J« given book then? iteems co be u sort of job sharing between the linear and the prusodic sides of ]jm£uii£«. The fticts point in Hie following direction. In eonCigurationul lunguagcs. \\w constituent order is nldtively fijt. Yet. better j e of tntonLitionitl jnetins eiubtes these bn uuges to encode the topic icomnnent and/or focus:background articuJations to m impoilant extent by prosody. Seer for exaiopJe, tJie theory of deaecentmg and deletion developed by Tancredi [Xmi) for Hngiith, and the vhote work by VnElduvf (1 92, 39*WJ. The pieture tluit emerges is: ,

134

SYNTACnC ASPECTS Ol

UmC AND COM ML-NT

[ ohlc.-"!!-! Moreover one more deilictilly urises for the latter amiyses according to which the verb does not move. It is a well known ftict that in all-ntw stntenets t:
the pitch accent no matter whether the argument is tin {underlying} object or '

a (IrLEfj .stibjecL. Stibjects always c-command the (trace ot die) verb, hence it comes as n surprise thtit the SLibjecc carries the accent while the verb does not { Tj/tftS). "

(sentence structure ol analyses that

deny verb movemL-tu in Gcnnan subordinate clausesj

(6K) {we it} because L

{69)

[ F der CHEF aug en ifen ha r 1 the boss

called

tbecause) the BOSS called

has

'

(weli) \¥ dcr ChefANgcnijen haj\

{7(1) (w £ ii) der Chef j F ANften ifen ha r j

However, since 1 d
the theory; and the incompatibility with Cinque s Null Theory' should rather '

be considered as an argument against theories that promote a verb-in-situ analysis. Frohk-m ill

My analysis of Catalan suggests that the VP is left-recursive in that language, i.e. the structure is (38), here repeated as (71):

(juLLft.hi;u[4.bd Liiatefiitl go s miti tho [jrcsupponilnMi (Ufpicjoj. LiceciUiULtciI jmlcriaJ ui dijieijursc-new (lijtus. nunjncfil). 'IJu.n wliv [lie iAd. new nupj jig tk?cs nol need so imitli movtm nt. The GeniULii problem ([.njliieni 11) is pui/ting m so far thut the V2 piLriLinctor w u very strong uonltguralLOiKLl retjuij'cjneiu. keconsUuctioLi ililo a dtlTcrcm pifsilioii {for intci'pifetjtioiULl purpoiicsj citn only lie [riggcfctt }>y irttonittbtui.

ACiK NUDliS AS I OHIC MUSTS

ni)

135

[v vfv doi K)i su]

According to the lNull Theory* one would ex peel that - given <\ sentence with a DO a]id tin 10 both in the base position - the aecenl should ftill on ,

the DCX This+ however, is Hot the caise;

{72)

l Dorwu

h chual

FUSTER],

give-1 pi. the key to-the carpenter '

We give the key to the carpenter/

(73)

Dmem la CLAUatfuster].

The sumc problem Eirises in transitive sentences with object and subject in situ. The main iiccent does not fitII on the deeper object, but on the subject. (74)

\vPamra

la

mittaia COM|.

set-i;L?T-3pL the table the Coia '

CoId will set the tiible.'

(75) % Parcira la TAlILA ta Coia], 1 note this stress pattern tis a bij; problem tor the theory developed here. 1 must admit that I do not have a satisfactory explanation for these facts. My speculations are that there seems to be a principle at work which is close to a phono logical operation called Final Strengtheninj; (KS). has been proposed by Uhmann [ 1 )1) for German in order to account for the fact that when there are two (or more; elements which according to the stress compulation are equal in accentuation weight, the last one, i.e. the rightmost designated syllable, gets an extra beat (sec also Jacobs 1992). (76)

FS

For any grid R corresponding to an intonattonal phrase: One further is added to the last of the highest columns of R. Certainly, the Final Strengthening device cannot be integrated into the 'NtilJ Hypothesis' without any problems. However, there seems to me to be

something going on along these lines. The object and the subject are both intonahonal phrLises Lhcmselves. The level where some F.S like operytton is required must be the VR Thus, when there are two adjacent arguments in

situ, the right one gets an extra accent. This purely phonological rule then blurs the one-to-one syntax phonology mapping to some degree. Thus, despite all the problems L claim that a top-down approach much

SYNTACTlr ASH lit" IS Oi; mWC AND COMMLNT

like Cinque+s lNull Theoryh does hold for the eomputittion of accent pJ;iYemeni. Furlherm
45 .

Thi1 mapping

Summarising the ideas developed so far, the picture thut arises can be illuslrtired in by the following mapping (whkh was originally proposed in

my ConSOLE paper from mi): {11)

| CT...[AgrPs...

[opic s)

|VP... eomment

Within the terminology used in Adger 0

3), this mapping is a global one.

'

Global' means that the interpnettition t>f a constituent depends on its position inside or outside the VP. The alternative to the glob a! mapping is the local mapping. J ol Ihe hater, il is nol onh ihe VP inkTiKiJUy \s. exieiLinlLiJily of im ar u]nent which triggers the relevant reading, but also its concrete position in the tree. Thus, the topic reading does not arise automatically on a VP exiornal Lirgumont, bm is linked to an tig rot men t position. This is more eorreel sinee indeed a lot of eon struct ions involve VP external arguments with a n on-topic interpretation nevertheless. For ex ample t main clause initial arguments, i.e. pre verb a] constituents in German, may get wetik reading (78). or serve for focus projection (79). However, the position they occupy is undoubtedly SpecCP, clearly a external one. (7K)

Vieie Freunde hat er wahrsckeiniick nicht.

many friends has he probably '

not

Probably, he doesn't have many friends1.

Vieie Freunde here is interpreted in the scope of wuhrsdiewlich nicht, i.e- as if it occurred in the base position. (79)

|GERtmd is. r gekommen ]. Gerhard '

is come

GERhard's come'. '

Also herti, the subject behaves as it it were still in its base position.

AGk NUDES AS TOPIC Ht?S J S

137

Aiiger"s exLimples ti timst globtil mapping ctmie from Catabn constructions where weak, unlamiiiiir objects occur in a VP extemiil position. (WO) En aqueski jhi'ifItar, \Ufis quarts ahinmes deiu haver seduit lfi in this faculty ii namber students must- SG have seduced awb cU tens wo fit*.

with the your clirtrms '

In this faculty, you must have seduced several students with your

chiirms/

T confess that local mapping should therefore be considered the superior one,

However, movement to SpecCP is A-movement, t-uilhcrmorc, VaLIduvf (1992J argues that the constituent tins quunts tiiumaes occupies an A-posh ion as '

'

well. Since it i.s generaliy assumed lb at S-movement displays reconstruction ellccts wh rca

A-iTiovenicin doc

not. the extensive ihscussion abouE tlie

validity of the one or other approach turns out to be not so crucial.

4 fi .

Problems with djunels

An issue with respect to (77) that is much more important is the question of adjuncts. IT nothing more is said, it might seem thiit only subcategorized

material can he mapped into the comment. That would mean that nonsubcalegori/xxJ material is not able to enrich the discourse. This is clearly not the ease. New information in the discourse can be added by arguments,

verbs, as welJ as by adjuncts. This is in contrast with LSelkirk who etaims that (locus on) adjuncts do(es) not 'contribute to the old.-'new information content of the utterance1

(Selkirk 1984; 231), I rather agree with Winkler (1994), who shows that adjuncts may contribute new information, but that the into national pattern is dilTerent than with arguments. Winkler refers to

Gussenhoven (I9S3J and presents the following facts. While arguments are able to serve for focus projection adjuncts are not. That means that in a construction involving an adjunct, focus on the adjunct does not t ice use focus spreading over the whole VP. The focus is restricted to the adjunct.

which represents the new information: (SI) weil er{*[j)[Fim since he '

in-the

[F ZELT]] geraucht ftat(*]) tenr

since he smoked in the TENT

smoked 1

has

138

SYNTACTIC ASPECTS Ol' TOVlC AND COMMLNT

11' 'locus pit>jection' is intended, i.e. if the comment is to contain the adjunct as well as the verb the verbal root needs an extra pilch accent.

(S2) weit et \ F itu ZELT

RAtJCHT\ hut

since he SMOKed in the TENT

'

This fact, however, is not the only instantiation of more than one pitche within the comment. A similar case arises with two (or more) VP internal arguments. Then also the thematic ally and structurally higher argument forms its own independent intonational phrase and carries a pitch accent.

(153) weii gesteni

IVp

[v

KINder]

BALL \pieten\] wofifen

since yesterday many kids hall play since yesterday many kids wanted to play ball

wanted

1

"

Note, however, that in these cases we are not dealing with a bridge accent. I will claim that the intonational pattern with adjuncts ay observed by Gussenhoven (I9W ) and adopted lor German by Winlder (1994) is a result of the following factors. The adjunct occupies a VP adjoined position (see below). The verb raises out ol the VP. (The Jinite verb to the right headed AerS1, in >i bordina[e clauses or to (.'" jii mam clauses. Hou-tmite IolTljs to

some functional head between the VP and AgrSP). This causes the adjunct

to be the hierarchically deepest constituent. Consequently it gets the main stress. In the cases where the verb is supposed to belong to the range of focus projection, it must he reconstructed into the base position. This reconstruction is again signalized by stress on the verb. Thus, the observed intonational pattern is another instantiation of problem JL from Section 4.4-3.4. In a certain sense, the direct mapping of the virtual conhgurational structure is overridden or modi tied by prosodic means. As hinted above, the claim is that adjuncts which bring along new information are VP adjoined. This claim is motivated by the fact that discourse-new adjuncts are located very close to the verb, i.e. they must occupy a relatively deep position in the tree. Topical arguments (anaphoric dehnites (S4)h generic bare plurals {ii5)J and VP boundary particles are located to the right of adjunct and verb. (S4)

vm7 sit' den Rock Uhch) Iwegen since she the skirt "

part

der HTTze] angezoRen hai

because-of the heat

since she put on the skirt because of the heat

1

dressed

has

AGK NODLS AS TOi'lC HOSTS

{#5)

wt'il sit'

Si7?wcine (d
since they pigs L

HOF] at-hku'hinn

part) in+the yiird shughtei,]<>

since they slaughter pi s in the yai J

'

There is jj whole theory about adjunction. Chomsky

and May (19X5)

argue that adjunction creates a hybrid status lor the adjoined phrase. They

are both concerned especially with the VP as adjunction site. Elements that adjoin to the VP arc: neither inside nor outside the lexieai pmjeetion. It is not intended here to present Chomsky's and/or May's arguments lor the claim that the VP-adjoined position somehow makes the relevant phrase a part of the VP here. What matters is that there are proposals that VP adjoined male rial belongs to the VP in a brouder sense. Heagenian {1994) uses the image of a balcony. LWe compare such ii position (the VP adjunction site, A. to a balcony; when you're on a balcony you have not really left the '

mwvw L-ompkMoly [p.

). Thus., the jdiuiKltan site of the non-suK'aieyor-

i/ed phrase is not excluded by the VP and hence may fall within one

interpretation of the bracketing |Vp ...], namely in (86) [Vp [adjunct] |VT ...| . {Within Kayne's antisymmetry theory {l99Hbt (also Alexiadou (1994), there is no place for structures like {Kl). in order to license this soil of VP internal adjuncts one has to assume an additional topmost verbal hc£3d. Maybe there is something like that.) '

lb summarise, the stincture I propose looks like: (K7)

I CP,,,fAgrPs_ topic(s)

|VP (IJiscoLirsc-neiA itdjunets]) commcnr

19. (95) might he L-ojisklcitd h turlhej-conhrjnutLO]! ot tlic cIliljh ihiit tlic hiljimcl IjcIoi s lo Uic

VP. Wtth onJy 'ijn HOP' aii focus., (he terttence has the fotJowina niterpfetiitioji:

(i)

Citn jptg (k) & Eliey shmghtcr {\)\ [ tlicy sJiiLighter {\.)] \w tho ynfd]

Thus, the pig-sJiiughtcL-iLig Js nifipped Into the festrictor, Jiitl liic loc tian, i.e. im HOF. is '

uiLippcd into (he nucleus. WilliJn DLes.L]ig s thc r 1 fsei? Chaptei I, Section ].4.3..l> thiit m-eans tlint im HOF is fwithin) the Vl1

>Y[NlrU

47 .

In this

ASVIA IS H

AMU \ UMMUJN I

SpccuLafi ns on A-movement ifrossJn iind tht1 [ii1n ipkL t>f hitTarchv prestTvins eciion two issues are addressed, which have been left untouched in

this hook so far. As many tispecLs thiit will be discussed in this section are

very spediic and theory-internal their importimce will diiler with respect to the minim;dist iYamcwork. It may wcli be thtit the problems turn t>ul to be a non-issue in other theories or even in the given frtmiework within shortetst

time. The less interested reader may therefore skip this section. The Hi diarchy Preserving Constraint on pa e 154 may still be worth noting. The Jirst

question is a problem of Relativized Minimality RM (Ri i 1990). and the second one concerns the fact that within the topic domnin ur umcnts seem to bti able to occur in any order {sec fable I from Chapter 3, or the Catalan paradigm in {45} of this chapterJ. As for the tirst problem: in a sentence like (KK) from Chapter : where '

each argument has left its base position and moved to its Eissociate specifier position, one gets a multiple crossing:

(SW) daft Itlie Firnw Mii Ileftt fi«eiricm OnktIlj |diejic Mohc[]|; erst gestent tj 11; smgtste tit hiU It has been argued in the preceding sections that specifier positions of agreement projections are A-positions. Thus, according to RM (9S) should be an illegitimate stincture. Nevertheiess. [9 } is a perfect sentence. This

problem, i.e. the crossing of arguments by moving to their Case position, has been noticed since AgrO was gene rally assumed as the projection where direct objects move. Several proposals have been made to account for the

possibility of nested A-dependencies. Chomsky {1992) develops his theory of Equidimmce in order to give a solution to the problem. His proposal is based on a derivational view of structure creation. To see how Chomsky s theory works, let s start with an '

'

unproblematic case, hbr English, Chomsky assumes that the only thin that moves in overt syntax is the subject. With the further assumption that specifier positions are not necessarily projected, but only created when

AGR NODUS AS TOPIC HOSTS

Ml

needed, the VP iniemal suhjoci mtiy (and must) raise u> SpecAgiS without crossing iiny intervening element itnd thus the SpeiJ-out nepiTesent tion in (99) is well formed: i

;

AgrSP Tn tttii

AgrS"

TP

T*

AgrOP AgKJ"

VP ti loves

Isolde

The RM violation only nmcn when tilso the object moves. Chomsky's clever trick is the following. The verb has to move as well. At LF, at the latest. Lngli h verbs iitso have raised and adjoined to AgrS(> (or possibly C0). The verh raises through head-to-head movement. Thai means the verb starts in its base

position and adjoins to AgrO0 (step (101) to (102)). This move creates the lh

chain C = {V-i-AgrO tvfrh} with the head in AgrO() and the foot as the trace h

heading the VP projection. This move enlarges the so-called minimal domain of the verb(al element). The minimal domain of V 1 is every node contained

in VP. not including V itself, thus (SU, OB). When V11 adjoins to A rO the resulting head V+AgrO" has a minimal domain with one more member, 1

namely SpecAgrO Now, Chomsky introduecs the following dciinition; .

(90)

If &H ft are in the same minim at domain and c-command f. they are equidistafii from T.

hor our example in (102). thut means that SpecAgrO0 and SU are equidistant from UB. Thus the object may leave its base position and raise to

20. 'N

kd1 PUCiHis "present by virtue of btrng ltlk\l (]] lurked for nwvcnicLH williin Liic

dcrivitfjo]].'

142

SYNTACTIC ASPECTS Ol; VO\>K AND COMMLNT

SpetAgii)0. T he subj&ci trace does not count tis an imervener for it is not closer, but exactly a.s close as SpecAgrOlh with respect to the object [race. Thus for this momem in the derivation, the output does not violate RM (93). (9J)

(92)

At:rOP

SpecAgrO"

AgrO0

AgiO'

(93)

AgiO"

i

Consider that under such an analysis, overt movement ol the object should

be prohibited if no overt verb raising had taken place before. Only the moved verb makes the two relevant positions equidistant, This seems to be conlimicd by the behavior of Scundinuvian object shift. Since the .Scandina"

vian languages are V2+ the verb raises to the highest functional head (C ) in mot clauses. Assuming KMC, this implies that the lirst steps in the derivation above must have been as described in the preceding paragraph. Thus in

V2 sentences, object shift is allowed: (94) Peter l&ste

den kkei

Peter re yd-past ttj '

1 Peter didn t read it.1

not t

AGR NODUS AS TOPIC HOSTS

143

In embedded sentences the verb does not move. Its position relative to the negation ad verb indicates that no verb movement hiis t kon plibce {95), In that case thent object movement is also impossible (96). (95)

at

Peter ikke hi'sic den

that Peter not read '

it

that Peter didn't read it'

(96) *ur

Peter den-

lliat Peter it

ikke i&ste tj not read

The equidislanee idea is reminiscent of Baker's (I9K8) Government Transparency Corollary (GTC). However, as B
11MC, the V AgrO complex adjoins to Tlh. 'J'his step, however, di>os not render SpecTP and Spec VP eqindistaiu. The head chain C = {[T[AgrOAV]], A rOAV]} is different from the bottom chain C = (|AgK AVJ. VJ. Jhere is no chain link for which more than two specilier positions are equidistant. What the further additional movement does is render SpecTP and SpecAgrO equidistant. And this is what Chomsky needs. As soon as these positions both count as equidistant to VP and everything it contains, the subject is allowed to move from its oriLmial position without causing a RM violation. at least lor the Scandmiman si rue Lure in (94).

I \A

SYNTACTIC ASPLCTS OH TOPIC AND COMMLNT

TP

(97)

si:

pi

A rOP OB

AgrO 1

VT

V

i|<.

This weiv. (ht Danish sentence in (94) eome,s oul as gnimniiitical,

Now, if we dt> not ask further, wc coll Id be satisfied with what Chomsky has proposed. However, a closer look reveals .some problems. Let us o hack

to the bnghsh example in (90). This is the spell-out or pre-spell-ont structure. However, the den vat inn con Lin Lies to oh lain the linal representation

where every XV and X0 is in its designated position, i.e. the verb under AgrSlh and the object in Spec AgrO. The derivation should go Jike this: V11 1

raises to AgrO That move renders .SpeeAprO and pee VP equidistant. This ,

provides the chance for the object to move to Spec AgrO, eis described uhovc, no RM violation is triggered since Spec VP does not count as an intea'Vener. However, at this point in the derivation we get ei RM violation,

AGR NODES AS I OPR.' HCJS I S

145

Trlsttmi AljiS1

AgiOP

Isolde

AerO'

Only SpecAgrO Eind Spec VP arc equidistant with respect to what the VP amiuins. Thiit meiins ihut now itie objct-'i in SpccAgiO is iin intervener It Since the subject is iilneady in intenupLs Lht L'hiiin C = {'JVisum SpecAgrS in Hn lish, the cqtiidisttince relation between the subject position .

,

SpccAgrT and the object in JSpccAgrO can never be obtained. I do not see any ivitsonable solution to the problem. I just see stipn I billons. The other thing is that tile eqnidistance story crucially depends on ii purely derivatiomil view of structure generation. Under a representational perspective or a combination of derivation and representation the theory does not work at all. 1 think we should eliminate the cquidisttmcc story and think of a beTtci1 l\\ plan at ion. Nevertheless, before I will try to do that I will show some empirical problems with the equidistance explanation.

One point that is also important for Chomsky's idea is that for his explanation to work it is crucial that VP be selected by A rO. Only such a

coniigurtition permits such a local relationship of a subject and a object position that these are potentially equidistant. U something other than AgrO (immediately) selects VP. this head would be the first target of the verb,

Then its specifier would be equidistant with the subject, however without

AGR NODES AS lOflC HCJS'LS

145

AgiSP Tristun i

AgrS0

] E1

Spec V)

A rOP Isolde;

AgiO love si

1

V

i

1'

Only SpecAgrO and Spec VP are equidistant with respect to what the VP contains. That means that now the object in SpetAgiO is an intervener. It

intemipts the chain C = {Tristan . t}. Since the subject is already in SpecAgiS in English, the equidisitince relation between the subject position SpecAgiT and Ihc ohjeel in SpecAgiU can never be obtained. 1 do not see any reitsonable solution to the problem. 1 just see tilipultitions. The other L

thing is that the eqnidistance story crucially depends on a purely derivational

view of structure generation. Under a representational perspective or a combination of derivation and representation the theory does not work at all.

J think we should eliminate the equidistance story and think of a better explanation. Nevertheless, before 1 will try to do that I will show some empirical problems with the cquidistance explanation. One point that is also important for Chomsky's idea is that lor his explanation to work it is crucial that V? be selected by AgrO Only such a

eonhfjnration permits such a ioeal relationship of a subject and a object position that these are potentially equidistant, [f something other than AgrO (immediately) selects VP, this head would be the first target of the verb,

Then its sped her would be equidistant with the subject, however without

146

SYNTACTIC ASPECTS Oi; TOPIC AND COM ML-NT

jiiy j]ila>.v Wiy llio ohjout. [ Ii n, ihav would ho no vvllv for il lo rji out of its b ise position. Is there such it coniigunUion? The most recent treatments of negation in syntax propose ihtu ncgtiiion follows X-biu syntax und projects according to it. Thus, negntion is a hetid with a complement and a

specifier that shares the negative properly of the head {ef. Haegeman 1992 and references quoted therein). The structm e of negation is universal, languages diller in how they make use of it. There are languages that have

a negative head (Italian, Russian): in those languages this head behaves like a verbal allix and cliticizes onto the verb. Then there are languages that

have a morpho-phonological spell-out of both the negative head and the sped Her Standard French is such a case. And linally there are languages that only use a negative adverb to be base generated in SpecNeg. Such languages are represented by German and Scandinavian for example. Nevertheless, there is a phonologic ally empty head, that hosts and licenses the speeiliei' position ol mcht, net, met, ikke. infe, ekki and the like. ]f we incorporate negation into the syntactic tree for the representation of (94). we get the following tree: ,

AGK NODES AS TOi'lC HOS TS

147

Petei-i

AgrSP TP

AgrOP

There we cannot sjcl an equidistant.

crciitin stmctLcre where SpetAgrC ) and

Spec VP hiivc the sumc disttincc from the object."1 The same problem wises in the an u lysis i or German. Nowadays the it: eooctur two proposals for German sentence strut lure .The more tradiiional one1 which I addpt in I his hook, deals with head hnal structures, txcept lor the

oiider (complement > head) for the verb and till functional heads {but C V

2i. The problem becomes cvci irott relevant if (t\K sittopts Kiiyne's f]W3b, l 4> X-biir tlKory. Kayproposes llutt there is no nidjuncttou anyntore. A miiAimLtl phriise either has to be i complement or {an adjuncl wliich is) li specifier. Within this frameworic adverhiats are licensed in specifier positions of functionaJ heads fsee also Alexiadou |y 4i. Thus any adverb

type that precedes die VP creates (his ttpiidutance bjoefcin structure, tike negation in e\ample '

[ |09j. Ohic l shii l LiUviiy i frossc1 lh >se udverb itormcrly un iy/.ed lls Vl' iLdJoinedj und luiuid

[lieiefore iiiaoduce a RVI violation. Intcre tHi iy, the evideiice tliLit it always piven to show- tlKit '

object ahil t has taken place is. adverb poitilsonjne.

SYNTArnr As Lns oi- topic and communt

we get the same representation in the Diinish example in {99). The object has scrambled (shifted) imti negtition intervenes. This should cause the same KM violiitkm as in Scandinavian.

(100)

Peter las

das Buctt nkhi.

?£{k not '

1

bPeter didn t reiid the book.

£[ we lIkkjsc tJlL1 ottlel Vl'isloei uud 111 ] / (k[iiuui us SW) kulijllllj. a> Jt

is I'tishionabie now, we get into even more trouble. The an til y sis ol Dutch in Zwart (1993), following the main idea of Kayne (1993b, 1994), proposes that

the GenTiaiuc pattern is (head > complement) throughouf. In such analyses "

the verb occupies two positions. Either it raises and adjoins to C or 11 slays ,

in its base position, i.e. exactly as in Scandinavian. The first case is triggered in V2 contexts, i.e. main clauses: the latter one in embedded sentences (Jan-

Wouter Zwart p,c.). To account for the linear order of {object > verb} he is forced to say that, while the verb remains in situ, the object moves to

SpecAgiO. This is exactly what the equidistance story wants to rule out. Movement to SpecAgrO is only possible when die verb has moved as welL A more general problem arises when we consider double object constructions with indirect objects. There is no consensus currently on whether dative should be LUiLilyzcd as li structural Case. Nevertheless, it is claimed more Line more often that daiive should be regarded as such fMoltmann 1991; Schmidt ]yy4h and references quoted therein). A list of tirguments in favor of a structural Case finalysis for dative tan be found in Meinunger (1995b). If one implements dative as structural Case into the minimalist frame'

work, one can see again that Chomsky s trick is untenable. By combining X-bar theory Larsonian structure and a thematic hierarchy where goal is ,

higher than theme (Chapter 2) we get a VP like that in (111). Thus the owe si Agv head should be associated with the lowest object, i.e. AgrUO

should select VP and should itself be selected by AgrlO. (I skip here other possibly inlervening functional categories.)

AGk NODUS AS TOPIC HOS I S

AgrlOP

Agv\0*

AgrDO?

V2" niises to Vllh in order to link all tirgumenU together. Within the equidistance theory this move would render SU iind 10 equidistant from DO, However, (here is no position the object eould move to. The next avaikible

one is its designated position SpecAgrDO, which, nevertheless, is to far way, rh(; first step has already shown that the equidistance theory doesn't J

work here either. The problems multiply iis the denviUion eontinues. Other proposiils that recognize argument crossing as a possible problem for KM and try to ive an account for the phenomenon are Ferguson and Groat's 1 visibility condition' (1994) or Haegenman s 'relation preservation condition on A-chains (Haegeman 1993), or more recently MiiIler's reflech

tions on parallel movement. These accounts (exopt MUlLer) boil down to directly tdating agreement specifiers to VP internal positions (for example Spec VP to SpeeA rSj. J claim that this is not very explanatory since it stipulates that phrases are inserted in the base position with the instruction where they have to move to. I think that, tirstly1 this is not the case (cf. passive and other raising operations, case alternations partitive; nominative ; accusative) and, secondly, we should look for a true explanation where the

observations can be accounted for in a less stipulativc manner, i.e. we should

150

SYNTAC HC ASHLt.'TS 01

TOnC AND C'OMMLNT

ook for d principle which derives Ihc order in an independent fashion. This 1 wiJI try in the nexL few paragiiiphs. My proptisti! to aeeonm for the A-movement crossing will make use of '

'

"

the spirit of Rizzi s theory of relativized minimitlity

RM, Rizzi 1990)

plus some relinements of it. Rizzi shows that movement of any sort (A-, A

and head movement) oheys the same constraint: movement to a position X cannot cross a position of the same type. This theory is a representational one. in thtu an out-put structure \s ruled out if there is an intervening clement between the moved element and its trace, with both the moved and the

intervening element beini; of the same type. This explains the unaeeeptability of the following sentenees. (102)

" Why do yon wonder [who left f]

(103)

John seems that it is an likely |/ to win||

(102) is ruled out beeEiuae who is in an S-position tmd intervenes between uVfv which also oeeupies an X-posiliom and its trace, and thus blindly binds it. In (U)3) both Jofui and ii are in A-positions. // is closer to the trace of John, binds it and thus ttuises the RM violution. To summurize: what is

cmciEil for the further argument L)fion is that A-movement and A-move men I itrc restricted in the same way. For this reason. Rizid gives a formulation that does not mtike reference to a spec in! type of position. (104)

Relativised Mininirtiity: 7, X a-governs Y if there is nn Z such that i Z is a typical potent in I a-governor for Y .

ii.

Z c-commands Y and docs n<>t c-command X

Rizzi wus well aware of the fact that this formulation was too restrictive- In

some cases, an element of the same type may intervene without inducing an ungrammatical structure. Compare (102) with (105):

(105)

Which paper do you wonder who reviewed f?

Although who in an S-position intervenes, which paper - also in an A-position

,

btit further away - remains capable of binding and thus identi-

fying its trace. Riz i stipulates that referential expressions are not subject to RM. they carry a referential index that renders them able to identify their trace from anywhere. For Ri//i. a referential index is linked to a referential theta-fole. He modi lies the classical argument/adjunct distinction and

AGR NODUS AS lOPIC HOSTS

151

proposes thtii thetti-roles like tigcnr or patienl make phrases referential whereas roles like manner do not. This way he explains the contnist between (106) and (107).

(EGftj

Which hn iust do you woiuler whether L like fl

(107) *Ho\v do you wonder whether Am nils behaves r?

Thus, though the manner phmic is thetEi-maiked by the embedded verb in (102)h i.e. argument eiI h it cannot be extracted from a weak island si nee it lacks a referential theta-role.1.

Howevtr, Rizzi s KM is still tot) riyid to explain ail data. Within his theory of referential indices, only arguments etin bear a referential index. since only arguments are linked to certain thematic roles. Ne veil he I ess.

extraction of adjuncts out of weak islands is possible. Normally+ adjuncts do not extract (ll>Ka)t (J09a)1 however, if the context allows for a discourse linked interpretation, even an adjunct can be extracted without causing (sharp) ungrammaticality (10K). (109b).

(108) a. b

Ftir which ol these ivasonsj

a,

How, were yon not able to solve the problem f, (Our boss said that one could solve this problem with every computer lie re in this mom. Now you are saying this is not \w\t* So

.

(109)

Why'j dti you wonder [whether ihey can fire you ]

h

.

do you wonder \\\'hether they can lire

tell me:)

with which of the computers hereli were you nor able to solve the problem 7

On the other hand, if certain interpretations of anuimcnts arc forced, cxiracHon of true complements becomes ungmmmatical: (110) *How much wine| did you noi poison rL?

(Ill) +Who the hell, do you regret that our aunt saw i{l This data shows that Ui/zi's proposal is not completely correct. (lOKbj and (109b) should be ungrammatical, as the extractees do not get assigned a (referentiyl) theta-role by the verb. On the other hand, if bearing a relerentiar theta-role like patient would make a phrase referential(it is unclear what explains the binding failure of the extractees in (1101 and (111),

152

SYNTACTIC ASHLCTS 01 'rOPlC AND COMMLNT

One of the most promising theori&s thiit tries to explLiln extractioM faets that hus been recent!y elabtiriited is to be loiind in S/abolcsi tind Zwails (ly l. 1993), Their idea is thtit phrases that {are supposed to) take scope are associated with Boolean operations. When a m/i-phrase (i.e. a potential scope taker) scopes over some other intervening seopal clement, all relevant operations iliat are associated with the wA-phiase must alst> be as sociable with the intervening scopti! element. It this condition is not met. the w/p-phrEise c Lin not scope over the intervenes That means, either this t sentences become ungrammatical. or that only a subset of potentially possible scope '

leadings is available. In other words: in order for a scopal element SEl to

take scope over

SHI must alJow for at least all the operations under

which the domain of SE2 is closed as well. That me tins

the possible operations of an element with narrower scope must be a subset ot the ,

operations associated w ith the element which is supposed to take wider scope (see also Chapter 7 for a more detailed discussion). This idea allows them to '

aecount for the data ttizzi or Cinque s theories cannot explain. -phrases that contain the element which are good ex tract ees because these phrases refer to concrete individuals. Individuals are collected into unordered sets

and all Boolean opera (ions can be performed, thus, no element coulc possibly intervene. Hence, H'/j/Vh-phrases arc good cxtractecs no matter whether the constituent is an argument (115) (117), or an adjunct (HKbK ,

(11%). Amount phrases + for example, exhibit the structure of a join semi lattice. This partial order is not closed under the complement operation. Since negation is a semantic operation that does require complementation, wA-amount phrases cannot scope over negation, again the argument a I status does not matter (example 120). Thus what we get is what Szabolcsi and Zwarts call a true relativized

minimality etlect. An operator that is associated with more operations may have wider scope; on the other hand: the less operations a scop a] element is associated with the less are the chances to get wide scope. This restriction

creates a hierarchy among scope takers. A parallel extension can be made with respect to A-dependencies. In Chapter 2 1 Imc aniucd tlinl urgumcnls arc ordered according to the selection a] properties of atomic predicates into wrhich the meaning of lexical categories, in our case of verbs, can be decomposed. The resulting argument stmcture then is a hierarchy of constituents. I am in full agreement with

AGK NODUS AS l ONC HOS TS

1

.

Grimshaw (1990), who argues that argument structure is not a collection of

unordered thematic roles, but that argument struct tire is an ordered representation thai rdlocts it piominonce hicntrchy. OrimsJ iaw argues that ar unienis that are higher ranked in the hierarchy are more prominent. Thus, for example, a subject is more prominent than an ordinary object. In cases of eonilict, the prominence hierarchy (reorders argLiments such that the out-put posits the more pro mm em argument into a place higher in the aigumem structure than in the original hierarchy. ThuSj VP internal argument depen-

dencies are determined by a hierarchy of prominence. It is not a revolutionary step to propose that A-movement out of the VT is triggered by the promlrtenee hierarchy too. A well studied phenomenon is passive. In passive constructions, the original object becomes the subject. The functional reason is the greater prominence of the object with respect to the subject. The subject, which in the unmarked case is more prominent, gets suppressed in it merely suiiaces j:-

ihl] at some imr ina] poMimn in the

sentence. As I have argued at several places in this book, movement of an argument from its base position to a VP external SpecAgr position is not (very) dilVcrent from passive: neither purely grammatically (need of case), nor functionally (prominence). As a matter oI fact, topics are more prominent '

than non-topics. Thus, when an object is a topic it is more prominent than

the subject if this is not a topic. This is the case in the examples from the end of Chapter 3, here repeated as (112) and (113), (112)

weit dem Fatientrnt memaiid ftelfeii kanu since the patient

no-one

heip

can 1

'

since nobody is able to help the patient

(113) dap Etiem die Oi fikhTe iiher hui kviner xcxtauhf hut that Ellen the rumors

about In a no-one believed has '

that no one believed Ellen s rumors about Ina

'

1

When all arguments are topics and as such equally prominent it is again the argumental prominence that triggers the same linearization as within the VP (again cf. Muller 1997). Thus we have an explanation for the ordering {if the agreement phrases. AgrS hosts an argument that is more prominent than AgriO, and AgrfO in turn hosts a topical argument that is higher than the

constituent in AgrO. This explains the ordering in (114). which is copied from Chapter 3h example (98):

154

(114)

SYNTACTIC' ASPLCTS Ol

lOPIC AND COMMLNT

daft die Firma MiiUer meinem Oitkel dksc Mohd erst ihni the linn MQHoi-.sum tny oncle-DAi this ilii'iiituiv-Atx: only gvsient zugesteUi hot vesterdav delivered has

lhtit Vliiller delivered thk furnituie Co my uncle only yes[e day

L

,

Thus, the VP external hiertirohy must be the same as the internaJ one because the trigger lor the order ol the aiyumenl.s is the same, namely prominence. This way the crossing of arguments comes as an automaticconsequence, Exactly as with A-movement, crossing is not necessarily impossible. What matters is that the hierarchy he preserved. In the case of A dependencies the hierarchy is established by the number and soil of Boolean operations that allow the quantiiicaiional element with the highe]1 number of associated operations to take scope over the quanliJier which is associated with the poorer algebraic structure. Jn the case of A-movement 1 the hierarchy is pinned down by the relative prominence, i.e, salience. Arguments with a greater prominence may move over arguments which are less salient in the h

utterance. Hence. l
hierarchy preserving. Since head movement is not considered a new formuiation of RM could sound as follows:

{115)

i lie rant: hy Preserving Constraint: Some constituent Cl ol type X may be moved over some other con-

stituent C2 of the same type1 iffCl is higher in the relevant hierarchy then C2. (v. hh \ = A or A)

This principle gives us a nice account to explain Table I from Chapter 3 or the Catalan paradigm in (4K) ol this chapter. So far we have only dealt with '

the VP internal and the

'

"unmarked

VP external order, the latter being parallel to the former. However, as both paradigms suggest, outside the VP

it seems to be possible to tind every order possible. The reason for this is simply prominence again. If the speaker linearizes the VP external arguments in aai order that diverges from the ordering of the agreement nodes. (s)he

dt>cs so because ts>he wants to stress that, for example, the topical direct

AGK NODhS AS l Ol'lC HOS'J S

I5>

object is of greater prominence ihtui the indirect one although tile latter is

topical too?(116) Lesnoies.

encara no eh-

the degrees yet '

ll haven t

(117)

ies

he

doaai t ft, a!s

not them them have given G

ahmnes

to-the students

'

given the grades to the students yet.

dufl die Fran Jen Hufui der Nachharif} western gegeheti hcii that the woman the dog the neighbor yesterday given has that the woman gave the dog to the neighbor yesterday '

'

For these linearizations to be established one more movement step is necessary. This step takes the argument in its SpecAgr position and moves it away from there. I will not commit myself to saying what the target position is. It seems to me. however, that this positioil is most likely not an A-posit ion but an A-bar {X) position. This gives us the explanation lor the .

hybrid character of scrambling. Movement to a SpeeAgr position, which is an A-position, may be followed by a non-A-movement. The result is that some A cITcct might be triggered.

22. 'I'llis sort of rcordtri]i of topical urgiuincms is not posisibJc in tugiu cs liko Dutch or [talian. In these knguages. the lineori tion of ihi: Lii gnnncms is much more fixed.

(i)

' (fut .fun Marie dv boeken met geajt

[Duiclt]

tliut Jan Marif the book lint ivei /(jf Jui\ id' foffki'n it- nit'! gct-Jt

(ii) '

Whtfut

'

dttw

ii Uhw a

Fhvo

Mslmli has ivcn to hero the book Civ)

*Hti daifi Mui'ia ii Hhro o Pimt

The teasoit for tins is that in these Ijn ujiges tlte order of die arguments iij thz mily tool to ideiitify the at inneiit s [3ie]iiitic: ioJe. In Gerinj]], ve have overt Case morphologj' that '

Li]iyjnl>it!Lously tells the theCiWole, i]i CuiiiElii it. is the cJitics {Ag hfiiid. diat identify the aL,gU]ncntLLl status of the Euli Dl'S. Iiuercstingly uJ i m Italiaiv when ditics do appear, the ungrammatieul order from (iv) might lie turned into iin acceprabte utterance. i

!

Ciieh /)dj ifuut Muhu n fttw, ii fihw .

Howevei; in ease iiiicjrizaition is tlic only device to idetitij'y the ihematic folc, eommunjeative dynamism jnnst resort to prosody,

SYNTACTIC ASPtiCTS 01L TOPIC AND COMMENT

4S

Sumniiiry

.

In this chitptcr I he idea is pm forth thiit arguments canning the feature [-f '

topic] move to specifier positions of agreement projections. First I tried to falsify approaches that aim at explaining Case assignment without making use of agreement projections. I showed that the so-called contentfui functional projections 1 and Asp' cannot be solely responsible for Case assignment to argument D?s. I argued for the Case assigning capacity of agreement

projections by providing examples where nominative DPs are licensed only by the presenee of AgrS (inflected inlmiiives in European Portuguese) and under absence of any tense information. I ll en e I it ie-doubling in Catalan is compared with German scrambling. Since both phenomena are the result of the same information packaging strategy it would be of advantage to reduce them to a single underlying grammatical operation. My proposal is to analyze both as an activation of the AgrO projection. German moves the object to its speeif e] Catalan ( additionally) realizes the AgrO" morpheme overtly. It should have become clear up to this point that Agr is to be understood as an abstract notion. The claim '

'

.

that Agr heads are universally involved for the encoding of topicality does not mean that all languages display all sorts of overt (object) agreement,

At the end of the chapter those phonological changes are investigated that come along with the movement of constituents. It is proposed that Selkirk's bottom-up approach of focus projection applies to constructions involving narrow locus, while Cinque's 'Null Theory" 1 a top-down approach. reguhttes the stress ptittern in neutml assertions. The result of the chapter is summarized in the mapping from (77), here repealed as (lift)

(US)

| CP fAgrPs-., topic(s)

VP (|discourse-new adjuncts|j [VP...|l comment

In the end 1 olTer some speculations concerning the ordering of AgrPs and '

scrambled constituents. Showing ihi.H Chomsky s theory of fiijauU umce caiinot be maintained for both theoretical and empirical reasons. I develop another principle which accounts for the multiple crossing of A-movement

(carrying also over S-dependencies): the Hierarchy Preserving Constraint.

Chapter 5

The typological chapter

This chapter presents i\ vitst amount of dbtti from [ypologically more or less unreluted lungiuges. These data are intended to provide cross-linguistic

evidence for the claim of the present book. i.e. for the propcisal that topical constituents iiL\ir a link to agreement projections. As the preceding chapters,

this one mainly considers objects. Thus the foctis should he at all those possible grammatical phenomena the AgrO projection could possibly trigger

The lirst difference to be expected is one in Case morphology. If we adopt -

with slight modi li cat ions - de Hoops theory oJ'weak and strong Case,

we assume that there arc two di lie rent ways ol Case assignment to direct

objeet NPs. This should imply that (scmiej languages mark their objects with morphologically ditlerent Cases; one assigned or checked in the DP s base position, the other one in SpecAgrO. Languages that show dilferent morpho'

logical Case-marking on the direct object depending on this interpretation are

Finnish. Turkish, Russian, Old High German, and Scottish Gaelic. A no Lhei" expected dilTerence is overt object agreement on the verb, if the proposal is correct that A v projections are the host of topical arguments, it

is expected that languages that display object agreement do so only in case of topical objects. Hindi. Hungarian, (Portefio) Spanish. Romanian, French and Swahili conlirm the pattern that verbal agreement is triggered only with specific objects. A detailed analysis is already given in Chapter 4 (for Catalan). The third difference that an AgrO projection may induce is word order. If the structure of a language is known, i.e. if the linear order of specifier. head, complement of lexical and function a! categories is more or less clear.

then it is possible to construe contidurations where the object must be in either a derived or in its base position. Again the expectation is that the topic-comment dillerenee in the interpretation of the object is linked to dillerent positions in the suing. One famous example of word order distinction

15S

SYNTACnC ASPLCIS Ol 'lime AND COMMLN J

foi1 object inlerprc till ion has ill ready been discussed: scrambling in Gei-man (Chapter ). Turkish, Japanese mid West Green la i-idic.\ basically all scrambling languages, behave iike German.

A tbrth difierence which I will shortly address

the end are expletive

constructions.

5

.

1

MorijhuLogkaEJy diMcrcnt citscs for the direct object

t innish: '

One language th
use ofdilTcrcnt Case endings is Finnish. Direct objects show up either with accusative or with partitive Case. Finnish hicks a determiner system which provides Dlh elements showing the (in-}de]initeness of nouns. Some informa-

tion about the discourse linking of the object, however, is provided by the Case morphology, bisample (1) shows that the usual translation of a Finnish

sentence with the object in accusative Case has a delinite DP in a language which displays ddtnile determiners, trample (2) shows that the unmarked

interpretation of a direct object in partitive Case is indelinito.1 (I)

HUn puni kirjot poydiUk. he put bonks-acc on the table He put the books tin the ttible.' '

(2)

Hm pctni kirjoja poydiiiie. he put bonks-pAKT on the table He put [some) books on the table.' '

This is the picture that presents itself according to Belletti s analysis (Belletti 19S8}. There she claims that partitive Case is only compatible with an iiulelinite mterpretaUon. Tlui is not true. hiH\v\er. De Hoop [V>A}2\ cites Karlsson (1985) where the alternation between accusative and partitive is

1 have argutd iii IcugLh ihiit finj tlcnmlcnest in not ihu tTLUjinl L' ttor for (iwn)»)pjdU](Kt. Howtv i1, l!w piiotolypital copif is diifiiiilc. the fulotyjUL-ut new dtsti,)iJL,.se refereiH is mdelinic . ri iii elation ol'jHarkodnciiii underlie;!; Ui ;Lf iii3ii.']UjtL()ii hero. Eli Cl MO]1 2 \ Iklvc showii Ihjt tlio diita In Fimujih iac jiiol'c complex Laid provided an lliililysis for the intewctum of (tnjdcfinjteneBB and (aytelicity. l

.

THE TYPOLCGECAL CHAPTER

159

lUtribulcd lo inoic so man lie distiaciions ihun just (in-)dclinitcness. One more distinction involved in Case assignment is aspect. An irresultative reading of the sentence allows for a definite interpretation of the object although this carries partitive Case. Thus (3) is ambiguous with respect to the inlerpretalion of the object. (3) Anne rakensi xaioa. Anne built

hnuse-PAkT

'

Anne was building a house.' or lAnna was building the house/

The same applies in the case of inherently strongly quantilied objects. Kaikki means ljU and should semantical!y be interpreted as a generalised quantifier. As such a kaikki NP should bear strong Case (the Case for strong NPs). However, partitive Case is also possible, which then forces an ate lie reading. "

(4)

Fresidenni ampui kaikkia tin raja. president shot all-PAKT bird-part

The president was shooting at al] {thej birds.'

L

De Hoop herself brought this apparent counterexample to her theory. She then proposes that Case acts as a type shifter, rendering the object a predicate modi her. As such it does not count as a GQ any longer. This, however. does not look very convincing within her Case-NP-reading-correspondence

proposal. comment, The birds president

Within the theory proposed here, the object Just belongs to the The sentence is a statement tiboLU the president In the first place. are not a topic. The sentence describes a situation in which the is shooting in the direction where (all) the birds are. It is not

intended to say that between the president and each of [he birds there is a relation which is characterized by the former shooting the latter to death. Such a resuitative reading is only possible with accusative. Thus, Finnish definite or strong objects carry partitive Case under similar circumstances when we lind those DPs in unscrambled position in German (see Chapter 3. Section 3.4.3).

SYNTACNC ASPLCTS 0\< TOPIC AND COMMLN 1

Russian:

Russiiin delivers a similiir picture. Direct objetLs iruty show two dilTerent Cuses with each linked to a special reading," The two Cases are uctusative and genitive. Some verbs, especially verbs of desire, aim. request allow for

both Cases. When the objcei bcais accusative, the object is interpreted outside the scope of the action expressed by the verb. The genitive expresses an Indefinite NP, corresponding to the type of exislentitil quantiseEiiion '

(see Neidle 19iiii) (5)

Or :Mcr pis'mo. he w:iits letter-ACC

lie is Widuiur ibi the lottei,., or lHe is wailing for a (specilie) letter.'

'

1

.

Here it very unporlLLiU rcnurk iiniist Ljc niiitle. I Lflluvc t.- s-e ]]i KLis.!i]in jntt h'Lniiish is not

netuk-Eed to objects. [L jullv lls wclS aJLcr]uik- wit It noLiunLilivi.- t.ysc Jol subjects. Iliis towlinns that the dlsbnctlon hus tn do with structural versui obJiqut

(ih

PihtiiUt 1

I Itcic

leikkii

inpsiti.

oi: Lupyhi U'ikkii pihtiila.

'

(h mmsJiJ

IjiJilfcci \y,..y\ im] mi Uil- ydu\ '

[ii) Olveiu iz polka mr prishto. itnswcMiiiN froiri icgiment nk; cstnic-AO.NTft No aiiswcr Eimvtd from the regiment/

iR

i-M)

'

It could be argued ih;i[ prifi (inJiiiilive hum prixttht: to coine/to arriveJ \i unaecLiiiLitivc, and tJici-efore not u goud e amplt. Like iu iiniish. JiDWCvt-]1. uik LiliVLs niiikc [Jk- di ti]iftiijii for (Jk subject. (Ill) Nu dloitr ztivtfd? ruholtijff innttgo ztii'UJiiichijr. in lliis fuccory woits '

LmicJi women'OEN

In ihis iiiLlorv Lticrc ,ifc mLiiiy wojnuw working.'

many-NOM women-j OM from otir worksltop visit evening Many of the women of our workshop are taking evening course*.'

lectures

'

'

l\\k [AwmuliiM is ]UfC pojiiiiblc iai oblique Cllm contexts. An oblique Cuw muiit bo rcijh/cd. The intended readings then must he disMniNgiu d l]irough parLiphfjiseji.

(v} Oit'fx fjther ( Vlyh (v i] *Olc7.t father '

.

itiiryi'suyeuiya nrno ittri vitlwui afN fti. intrcsis-sielf imny-jNSTK kindi-tMsm sport j'iulier is ink rested in nuny sjK rls.' (cxistentiul reding iiviiibblej inltresuytuya miogo i-uiiA sporhi, intrejits self much kinds-OKN .sport

What these daui show is that Case nlkTiULlk)]!* jre only jhwiible with struetnrul Case;;.

THti TYPOLOGICAL CHAJrTLR

(f))

161

On zhde r pis nia, he waits letrcr-GiiN

He is Wciiting for some letter or other/ A si mi br case is the Case of mass nouns. Here ihc a Item til ions are not that

immediately linked to the intentionaHty flavor of the verb. Accusative gives the object u discourse-linkcd1 referential reading, whereas (the so-eallct partitive) genitive1 triggers aw indefinite existential reading.

(6)

a.

Prmesivhay! bring £ea-ACC Bring the ley!1 :

b

,

Yaseikhieh. I '

(7) a.

ate bj'eiid-ACC

I utc the bi'eud ui|>).'

Prmesi chuyu.'4 bring :

Bring some tea!'

I '

tea-GmM. AKT

ate brcad-GEN I ate some bread."

The use of iiccusative presupposes the existence of the object bearing it. This K ju>t the case with genitive ('use. 'Jhe clLiJin thLii lil'l'usliIlvl-- ( -.jL-neiL in iIk-

i

.

I'ntitivc gem live is a spcdaJ iiiorplu) logic

Ujijii [IulI fO-t tLirs vith [Ik mjnmL genitive.

Only u few nouns imake thit dUtinctiort Jtkfi 'Eea': i-lm

yu

Pnrtitiv* genitive

cfttfVtf

(= nrtiiwi tiyipfitiezit. '

i.e.) 'luinin r gtiutLvo

ica-a

Part it ive genitive is. \\\\u.t corje ptinds to piLitLCLve Ciisc in hunnsli. Ic K .-UJ , o]! ' in object (and

very urely ili subject ])osi4ion and is Hit' iLllcLmite to Liccusmivc Cusc. WIku J cA\ "norniuJ

'

genitive the fonn which jnust be used in cons-Eructions where Ehe genitive Jms a]i atELibntive or ph>sse sive use like in: ?

tipt\kh fiSMva

.

smelt 4

.

"

[ea-fjec r(Llie) imell of {the> tea ;

TJit exLiiinpk's Cl'oju 7 Litso !il«)\v' Huii pattUivc t\LSth ;tnd pcrl'tCEivt aspci;l v.tc eonip;nibJc (sec

tlie discn.sston in Chapter 4. SecEion 4.4).

162

SYNTACHC ASPliCTS 01' TOWC AND COMMliN 1

NP in SpecAgrO) is [he topic object Case and genitive (assigned in situ) '

gives to non-topics is ii fom Jizauon of ii stiitement irom BoiTas and C hristiaii (1971) As i\ gcneru] principle. Oic atcustUivt Cast is used when the object in question is known to both speaker and hearer, or reader and writer, i.e. when ii lias Liheady buen talked llImjuI cr rtiei'ied to heJbie.

This is til so relleacd in the Case patiem of Russian ijuanliiicd expressions. As said before several times, there is a systematic ambiguity with weak quantiliers. They can be interpreted either existentially when caught by

existcntiid closure in the NS, or sped lie: ally {i.e. presupptvshionally) when iIk-\ end up in the KC. j! the i.t'

not really Limh]lluili- . J i:ey

'

Jo vol. Mosl weLik liulliujIlclS in Kussian jie

i ntd mofphnJoLneally whether they should be

interpreted specilicidly or exislcntially. In the former case, they have an ad jectival form, bear accusative morphology and combine with a NI* that has to carry this Case as Well. The latter, i.e. existent!ally interpreted quantitiers. do not bear any Case. They look like adverb{ial)s and rcqtihv their NP Complement to carry genitive Case, Thus in Russian we have (S)

strong forms with accusative endings; mno#i±

weak forms:

meaning:

mnogo

many

not many or few some {ofj

nekotofye '

twskoi kie.

(9)

'

uexkol ko

sonic

malo

few

dva, tri, vox 'em'

two h three, e ight

V ottkk xotwotfo piat 'ya Natttshu pomeftki mitogo yuhok. in clothing department Natasha tried-on many skins-PL .OEM In the clothing department Natasha tried on many skills.'

{10) Segodttya v magazine tezfttt 30 juhok. Numshct pomerila mnogie. today in shop lay 30 skirts Natasha tried many-ACC '

(11)

Today, there are 30 skills in the shop. Natasha tried many of them.'

Segodnya v magazine iezhit 10 Jithok. *Natasha pome ri fa ttifiogo.

In {9j we have a sentence that introduces skirts into the universe of dis-

course. Genitive Case provides the correct existential reading, in (10) we

11 IE I YPOLOG 1CAL CHAF1 LiR

\bi

have a cimtcxt. The first sentence is tin existential statement about 30 skirts.

In the following sentence a subset of thorn is referred to. As the imnsJtUion reliefs, the I'eitding of the object is partitive, i.e. twio if is specific, it tict as a EopicL? about which something is beint; said, namely that Natasha tried them on The use of the weak fomi U odd. see (I ] K rhere ftwo o creates a new file curd without specifying anything about it. No relation to the previous sentence is triggered. A corresponding English text would be r

something like. (12) Today in GUM they got 30 new skirts. Natasha tried on much. In order to make the sentences a text, i.e. to make them a coherent statementt one element in the sentence should hear some relation to an element fmm

the previous sentence. Mm-li and fuuogo are not able to do that. Mnogo is inked to existential dosiLre, i.e. lile card creating, thus the infelicity in (11). .

Strong quantiliers never have two forms. In object position they show accusative Case together with the NP. 11J)

Nautxhu reAhiiu kuThduyu pwhiemu.

Natasha solved evcry-ACC problem-Act: Natasha solved every problem.' '

(12) *Nai£Jsha wxhila kazfohi prohtcwy. Natasha solved cvcry-tit:N problcm-tii'N

A clear context where the Case alternation plays a role is negation. Traditional grammars claim that in the context of negation, accusative marking

gets the object outside the scope of the negative operator, i.e. a object bearing accusative morphology is not a fleeted by negation. Thus a bare object in the accusative under negation forces a dciinite interpretation: (13)

Pn vei' ne Paul

vidit koro \ w.

jSL<j sees cow-xec

Paul doesn't see the cow.'

Genitive leaves the sentence ambiguous. The default interpretation, however. is the one where there is no cow in the universe of discourse.

MtH'u piLM L-h. n is Ujil Lum-, ul iIk- ;'Ii|lviiLui i> S laofi \A.l)]. >

.

ill. Ki ilk.i

|!uij!;?miI

I.

J

(14)

Pavei'ne Pnul

vidit korovx-

neg sees cow-gen

Paul doesn't see a/uny cow/ {bat also: Taul doesn't see the cow. )

'

The Acitdemy Griimmai (Russkiiyit Gratnmauku 1980. 2nd vol.) gives a nice example lor ihc prcsL-EU ihcmv. When in a U\iJ]>iuxe senlciicc ihc iicLraled

veib is focused and hence contrasted with another verb, the object is required to appear in accusative. This follows from the fact that the rest is back-

ground and contains topics and tail element.s in Validuvi's term.s. Thus the object should be outside the VP and consequently bear accusative: {15)

On ne

'

pmxMAfrivaer suit yit/ xitii V,

he NTiG looks over

article-ACX.'.

a

chkaet.

-cihN but reads

He doesn't look over the article, but reads it/

Turkish:

In her article on specilicity, Eni (1990] shows that a similar Case pattern is observed in Turkish. In that language, objects may or may not be marked with the accusative Case marker suflix -(y)*. En shows furthermore that the di lie rente in Case is linked to a di lie rente in interpretation, namely

spc tih city v.s. non-spt till city of the object. Using some DRT version as starting point, she develops a theory of specificity which refines the PflmiLiarily Condition of Helm (1982) (Chapter 3. Section 123'}. line proposes that all KPs carry a pair of indices, the first of which represents the referent of the NP. The indices in turn have to bear a dehniteness feature. The lirst index determines the definiteness of the NP. 'J'he dehniteness feature of the

second index determines whether the NP may be i literpre ted as specific t

6

.

The itf£uniciUii[L(m is not (|uite fitir. It is [wssiMc lo have niwww foe; us on tke vcrh or

another coHStitxtent within cl e VP allowing icsr

cxi- cm\ii[iy qLLLittilicd diic -i ctW\cci nevcr-

tliele.ss, numety wjlhin [he baL:ligrou]itt of tlie Comment. (This kind of constnurunnis it discussed

m deEail ia Bliriit ]WA). Thui. n thouJtt be pnstible [o coitsti'ue die article within the range (if exisEentijl ctoiiure. i.e. VP imenuJIy. and eoi'ki quently genidve Case assignment should l>e podsihtc. However. tJic hul SfiuejKv whiuli j oLlows shoves ubj t-l dj\>p. This is only possible in case of topidiood of tlie object topic drop). Thiji unambiguoajBly ahowa that only the verb is The rctcviim tnfonmtion constitulin (he connncnl. the strguments (ainst) act as topics m the Academy Grymnuu' eJiitmpJe. and hence nrnst be assigned the VP exteriKil c se: itceiisutive. "

'

"

THE TYPOLOGICAL rHAPTLR

(16) Every 1N[ I

is interpreted us afaj) and

x1 £ Xj if NP(i r

i

Ui} C Lm; de linos itn

1 5

if NP

Is plurnt.

is singular.

as spec ilk' if the second indes. is deltniie. Specificity thus

is a weaker nolioq ihan deJinELcncss which requires both indices to be definite. The definition + however, captures the intuitive notion of discourse linking. She shows then that accusative Ctise acts iis 'discourse-linker4. Consider die folio winy; context:

(17)

Odam-a

birkaf ffxiuk girdi.

my-room-PAT several child entered Several children entered inv room/

'

This sentence can be followed by
bearing accusative Cuse (18) or not (19). (18) Iki kiz-i

taniyordum.

two girl-Atx1 l-kncw 1 knew two girls 1 (19)

Iki kiz huuyordum. two girl I-knew I knew two girls.1

In (IS) the girls are interpreted as included in the set of children introduced in I he preceding sentence. Accusative which acts as specificity marker demands thtit the second index of iki kiz-i be deiinite, i.e. familiar. Thus iki

kiz-i must be linked to something lamilinr which in the given context can

only he provided by hirka{- { omk (i.e. several children). In (19) the absence of accusative signals weak Case, or non-topichood of the NR Therefore the object must be existentiLilly closed, and iki ki-z introduces two new .

irls into

the discourse.

This Case pattern in Link is h also disambiguates the reading of indefinites in intensional contexts. Jl the object is marked with the accusative Case marker, the NT must be interpreted as referential. The absence of Case marking forces a non-referendaI reading and the existence of the object is no longer presupposed. Thus in (21) any piano could satisfy Ali's wish and it might well be that in the relevant world there is even no piano,

166

(20)

SYNTAC nC ASHLC I S

UmC AND COMMLNT

AH bir piymso-yit kirahtmak isrsyut:

Ali one piano-At.-t; lo rem want All warts to rent a certain piano/ '

(2 J) Ali hit piyan o kit alwn ak istiyot: (w ithvu t Act u sat tv c niorphe nic) Ali wants to rent a (non-specific) piano.1

'

Strong quiinfillers which presuppose lx certain referentiuiity of the NPs in

their lirst arguincnt n.e. require that the set they refer to be non-empty) should forte the noun lo be Case marked for aeeusalive under the pioposa developed in this article. This prediction ii correct: (22)

Ali her

kitah-i

okudu.

Ali every book-ALC read.

(23) *Aiiherkitab okudu. (both: All read every book.")

Ok! Hifth Gemiuni

Also earlier stages of German show a diHcrencc in Case marking for objects

(see work by Abraham l{)94 and Philippi 1994). The Case dilVerence again goes together with the by now familiar interpretative diilerences (the discourse function of the objecti the meaning of the verb, the aspectual properties of the sentence and so on.) In Old High Cjermtm, verbs like dngkan "to drink1, iwmcm lto iakeh. eban lto give4... may have their objects

in genitive or accusative Case. Genitive triggers the partitive, weak reading (24). (25): accusative a referential one {2t] (the data come from Philippi 1994 who takes them over from Donhauser m9t)J. (24)

k eht'j iffis iw we3 oles

give Lii yours oil-ACX: Give us of your oilr l

(25)

skoncta shmit Jimiron bineres tides poured his enemies bitter drink-tni.s He gave a bitter drink to his enemies.' '

(26)

rbaz hen

iho ftisaz,

thai hrot

gisegonotaz az

the army the set-down the bread-acc blessed-acc ate the armcy set down indj ate the blessed bread "

'

TMElYHOLOGlCALniAiMLK

]67

AbrEihitm proposes u 'Corutiiional Typological Cross-ttitegoriul Alignment Corollary: The untversa! is assutned lo hold [in a S[K.lcl[lc.- cocidititjn: il' a language realizes distinclly tilt genUive atid llir aeeusaliva Cljsl;s acid il, further, cither CilSC marks disticictly aspectual propcrtie;;, it will observe lurther eorolhtrics sketched in f43) btlow.

diseour

WiVohj

function

KllCNlil aceilrding tt) [-dcfl '

ACC-obj

'

[ hciilLL

'mm

RliL-niii for l-de/t

Thus, id so here one finds evidence for the claim of the present book. However, on should note ihut although J Ligree with Abraham with respect to the theme-rheme inteipremiion of the objeet, I have argued that the aspeeliiitl properties are only an epiphenomenon and that the eomdation with the objeet interpretation is only a tendency (Chapter 34 LSeetion .1.4.3). Scottish Gneiiv:

Ramehand (I 9 ) claims that the t'ase pattern in Scottish Gaelic parallels the use of accusative and partitive in Finnish. The two Cases in Scottish Gaelic

are direct Case which corresponds to strong Case and genitive which corresponds to weak Case: {21)

Bha

'

Catutn a gearradh chraobhau.

be-PAST Calum '

(2H)

cut

u ees-GEN

Calum wras cutting trees/

Ghean

Caium vraobhun.

cut-past Calum trees-uik '

Calum cut some particular trees.'

A nice fact about Scottish Gaelic is that it overtly marks dciiniteness.

Delinheness is compatible with genitive Case. The object then gets a part - ofthe-predicate - in other words - beJonging-to-the-eomment reading. Again.

SYNTACTIC ASHIiCTS OF TOPIC AND COMMiiNT

definite and strtJngly quanrilied expressions iire not neeessarily topicst as

respectively shown In (29) und (30). (29)

Tha

Catam a' seurradh na croihhe. _

be-Pkns Ciilum

tut

the tree-tHiN

Ciilum is CLittin /ciLts at the tree/

'

(30)

Tha

*

Ciduw a gearradh $£ich uih chraohh.

be-PRES Calum a% cur Ctilum

every

tree-GEN

1

is cutting at every tree.

Another nice correlation is the position of the object. .Scottish Gaelic is a VSO langiutge. Thus in simple tenses it is not easy to decide where the verb

is. In porephmstic lenses, only the iiuxiliiiry moves to the sentence initial position. The main verb stays lower down. In that case, the object may follow or precede the verb. Since Scottish Gaelic seems to be an ordinary language, i.e. linear specifier > head > complement order, we expect the pre verbal position to be linked to dnieel Case, and the post verbal one to genitive Case. This prediction is borne out. (31) Bha

Caium air

ambafach ci

jhaicmn.

be-PAST Calum part-imperf the boy-LHit AgK) sec? Calum had seen the boy/ '

(32)

Bha

Calum ajakinn

a'bhataich.

be-PAST Calum PART-iMPmtv see boy- rN

Additional evidence for the pmposal comes from the fact (hat in the case where the object is proposed to SpecAgrO an element a appears on the verb. Rainchand as we I! as Adger OTO) analyze this a as agreement marker.

52 .

Object u reement and tt»pich(H)
Hiiuii:

Looking at his mother tongue Hindi. Mahajan (1990, develops a theory of scrambling. Case assignment and speciHcity which is ver)r similar to the one presented in this book. He argues that (in Hindi) all arguments are base generated inside the VP. Arguments that do not get Case marked by the

verb in their base position have to undergo scrambling. This movement is

A-movement

ret 1 mem

and leuds to an

.

projection. The re tiding of the

argument in the derived position is neccs rily specific. The pattern looks like the lollowing: in non-perfective tenses the verb agnees with the subject Liever with the object. In perfective tenses iind writh psych verbs, the verb agrees with the object (33 (33)

siita-ne hRkau dekhaa

tobjecT agreement

Stta-nRO boy saw-MASC Situ sawr the boy1 or \Sita saw a spec the btiy1 "

{34) siitaa hiRkuu dekh rahii hE

(no object greemLinij

Sita boy see-PROG-BE-rnM lSita is looking tor a (sonic) boy (or other)/

Since Hindi is strictly head final, these examples do not show that object movement has also taken place. However, there are arguments that this must

have been so. Binding of anaphoric elements must be iVom an A-position. If one itdopts some version of UTAH and it theiruttic hierarchy where goals are higher than themes plus the claim that in Hindi specifiers (as well as complements) are to the left of their heads, a direct object that linearly precedes an inJnecl one must luivc movcLL lo Llus position. The fact thai ii

can bind an anaphor in the indirect object implies that the status of the

targeted position SpecAgrO must be a it A-posit ion.7 (35)

imife apne-pitaa-ko

kOn- saa

baccaa dikhaayaa*

S i t lh ju p self's father (jo) wh ieli c hi Id - m as( ( ijoj show

j i : k j - m asc

Which child did Sita show to seirs father?1

{Jl'f-himue kOn- saa S ita-i:ro wli ich cli i Id- m a si; f i

baccaa apnei } se If's

pkaa-ko dikhaayaa

tat he r \ io ) show

pr Et r-M asc

He brings further arguments like weak crossover constructions and adverbial

interpretations. J do not want to present those data here jnd refer the reader l

to Miihaian s work.

7

Here I iijn only rccapiuilining MliIul iTs thooiy Lilxuit Hindi. Since ihe Ocrnun fiicts diiTtrent I did not use these binding tcs(s to jrgLic for the A-niovemenl sinsiSysas of Oenmme scrambling. .

Like aljiiasil till J ad (ituil luiiguag . Hindi docs nol have oven ivA'movenijeiit. The whichplii'List' sJioiild llit'dt-forc not be analyzed as having uitdef HiL A uiovcmeiu. N

.

170

SYNTAC HC ASFLCTS 01 TOPIC AND COMMLNT

(Porlcuo) Spanish:

Suner Lirgue.s Lhal - at least in Pont:m> Spanish - pronominal clitics should be analyzed itgreement inorphfmcs. With this clyim she can nit.-cly couiu for clitic doubling constructions. Under such im analysis, clitics are just seen ;»s agreement mojphemes that do not have a referentiai or argumen'

tal status of their own. They ure at most able to klcntilV one. Jhus one no

longer has to devel
aeggli 19K2; Ktiyne 1975). in Porte no

Spanish elides double delinitc bind spec ilk indclinite object NPs, in my terms: topic NPs trigger agreement. Sufier claims: doubling is l+specilic]1:

The pejtinent feature for

{3%) *(La)o1an a Paca/a la itina/a !a Ram her listened to Paca/ro the girl/to the cat

Tliey listened to Paca/the girl/the cat'

'

(39) Dioriaineisfe,

escucftdta a urta frtujer

qne contoho tangos.

daily 3sGlrEM listened a woman who san DEiily. they listened to a woman who sang tangos.1

tangos

'

Direct objects that gel a noti-speciHc interpretation cannot trigger clitic doubliag, i.e. agreement. (40) No (*h} oyeron a u'mgiin ladroiL ni jt t -j . i i j t; t [w y-hcard a any t h ie f They didn t hear any thieves.1 '

(41) (*La} huscaban aalgmai que lot ayudara, CLITIC they-looked-for a someone who them help lThey were looking for someone who could hetp them. '

(42)

(*Li}) olhardn ai nino qua termine primero. t Lrnc they-will-praise the boy who finish first hThe will praise the boy who finishes first/ -

.

(42) is again an example ol a dcltnito not being a topic. The relative elatise

indicates that Lthe boyh is not familiar, thus the object cannot act as a topic and trigger agreement.

171

THE TYPOLOGICAL CHAPTER

There is iilso evidence from French, Here we find object agreement on the past participle when certain KPs huve moved to the left of it (by m -movement in qn cm ions and relatives 01 hy clitici/ationk Objects on the right. which 1 assume to be in rheir buse position, never trigger agreemenr. {43)

Qudics maison s it-t-it which '

(44)

houses

has-he built-AtJk

Which houses has he butttT

// a

construit es ces

he has bLiiJt/*A<:jR l

coiutruites ?

maisows-Ui.

these houses over there

Hc build these houses over there/

However, the triggered iigrcement forces it discourse linked reading (in the sense of Pesetsky 1987) of the moved NIJ. Qttcilcs iftciisons (which houses) forces a reading where the speaker has speciiic houses in mind (rcfercntia leading). A combien- {Umv much/how miiny) question that
Object agreement is aJs
Cowhien

d'twence

as-tu

misi*e}

dans ie t iservoir.' '

how nuich of gasoline have-you putt*At;k) in

the tank

On the other hand, when we embed the aw /cn-object in a weak island, it

can esctipe only when it is interpreted referentially, i.e. carries a rcfercntia index, (see Rizzi 1990; Pesetsky 1987; Szabolcsi and Zwarts 1991, 199 )

Then - at least in the relevant register of hicnch I am referrcing to aiiieejneiu is obligaton.

(47) Combien de chaises n as-tu pas repeinres/ repeinr'/ how many of chairs M i-have-you jjo/ repainted AtJlL/ withoal acr Speakers who have uttered this question expect an answer like:

172

SYNTACTIC ASPECTS (.W lOriC AND C OMMliNT

Among ull the thiurs here in this room there tire only three I have not repainted, namely: this one, this one, and that one. Thus the presence of agreement makes the object velerenliid, Hungarian:

Hungaritin is another language which displays some support for the theory developed in the present book. In this language, transitive verbs possess two di lie rent conjugations: traditional grammars call them the subjective and the objective conjugation. The subjective conjugation is used when the verb has

an iiuiansitivc meaning like us in (4K), or when a specilie direct object is not intended, i.e. the object is not spedtk (49). On the other hand, the objective conjugation is used when the object is referential (50). (4B) L&tok. (lI

l

(50)

'

see.

= I am not blind or I can see,) ,

l see people.1

Ldtotti hardtomut. (object agreemcntj l see my friend/ L

Kado f 19931 anaiyyes the agreement marker as an indicator of dehniteuess. AJthough she analyses the agreement morpheme as AgrO element j she claims that the definiteness morpheme is a morphological re Ilex rather than linked

to a specific interpretation. However, in the examples she gives where the delmiteness marker appears, one finds NTs that are not deliniic in the classical sense. Look at her examples (d) and (e). Whereas one could still argue that in the indefinite Ml* in (dj die definiteness feature is inherited from the delinite possessor such an argumenL does not hold for the quantified expressions in (e). There we clearly have to deal with strong quantifiers which should be analyzed as discourse-1 inked but not as detinite. kadt lists the following NPs as triggers for the objective conjugation: ,

(5J)

((40) in Rado's article) the verb bears an agreement morpheme if its accusative object is a a 3rd person pronoun .

Pista tdr-Ja

oojiooket.

Pista sees-urr him/her/them

THU TYPOLOGICAL rHAJr'J LR

b

.

a proper name Fisw iai-ja Kam. Pista sees-Dcr K.-acc

c

.

an NP with a dctiaiitc Mikk

Pisra idr-ja

it

tdnyt.

Pifiia sees-Dtr the giri-ACC d

.

a possesstve NP

PhH} kihja

egy hardt-jdr

Pista sccs-i>li: a e

.

friend-3poss-.so-acc

an NP with ceriain quaiuihers {forms with

'

'

which

or sLLpcrhuive

ending)

Pisia id!-ja

vahnieiyikiwindegyik Uhiyt.

Pista seeji-unr some (specificj/each girt-Acr f

,

a reflexive

Pisto idt-ja

magdt.

Piiti sees-DLi s lf-3st;-At.Lt:

Batftu:

The last htn uages I want to have a look at Eire Bantu languages. There '

object freement piiiys m important role for the object s interpretation. In Swuhili. there are object agreement markers that have developed from

pronoun and demonstrative forms. Look at the examples (52) and {54). ki and W are part of the noun, in and (55J they are part of the verbal complex and act us agreement markerf:. Here they act very much like the clitic elements in Porte no .Spanish. They are able to identify an object which

can be analyzed as pro. {52} ni-fi-vunja kikopo "

1 broke a cup.'

(53) m-ti-ki-vuffja _ T broke it.1

(54) fii-U-vunja vikopv l

(55)

l broke some caps/

ni-li-vi-junja _ l broke them.'

In (52) and (54)

ntp and mmw cups, respectively act as pails of the comment.

174

'

I

SYNTACTIC ASPliCTS Ol- TOPIC AND COM ML-NT

'

hey are bein

intnxJuced int
objects iis topics look like: (56)

k[kopo. iji-li-fd-vuuja '

(objecr pre posing with agreement I)

The cup, 1 broke it.1 or

T BROKe the cup.' (57)

vikopo, ui-ii-yi-viuija '

The cups. I bii>kc them/ or T BROKe the cups/ Another cLleiir contrast is observed in Lugandn. As in Russian, negation is

helpful. In cases where the object is not referential, i.e. there is no entity in the discourse frame that could be referred toh no object marker (agreement) shows up tin the verb (58). In (59), [he object acLs its a topie itnd the

negation affects only the verbtii action. The object marker (OM) is present. and aiso the determiner form of the object noun iotntt] and its position in the tree a3ie diilenent.

{5 K)

la-yti-taho ntu-xajja sec

man '

hilc didn

(59)

(Lu and a; 1

t sec any man.

otm-sajifa. m-ya-nw-tabG man

OM-sce

He didn't see the nun.'

'

S3

Word ordtr, Ihere-ln' ffletts and dciti n iilin '

In ihc i UoductiuLi o\' Uiis ciiLiplcr i lia c lvce: d \\-.[ ot niorpho-M iita li . phenomena which might distinguish an argument in its base position from the same argument having moved to the speciiicr position of an tigreemcnt projection. I mciuioned the three obvious dilTerences: Case realization, overt

agreement vs. its lack, and thirdly dilTerent positions. 5.3. now is dedicated to the third dilTenence. However, since there is a whole chapter on this (Chapter 3j no more analyses will be presented for no more languages. Here it sufiices to just mention a couple of other languages where the argument position is decisive for the interpre tat Kin. One example is .Scottish Gaelic (cf. Chapter 4, Section 4J.2). Other relatively well studied scrambling languages are Dutch, Japanese and Turk is h or West Greenlandic.

THE TYPOLOGICAL CHAPTLR

17?

I rather wunt to be a bit more esplidt with a tonstruttion which seems to be typical to subjects although this is not very much in the spirit of this chapfe:, Many ktn uatjios exhibit constructions which have become known as lf/?mfhe constm tions" or existential sentences' (cf. Keuland, H. ife A. ter Meulen

19S7}. These constructions consist of an expletive and an associated noun phrase mostly accompanied with a predicate. Very often this expletive is (homophonous with) a location a! proform meaning then', sometimes the e\p]clivc K (hnmaphnnon?; wjih) iho neuier or m stulini: -.lii lI.iv prononn.

For English, the traditional and best analysis is that the pronoun occupies the canonical subject position which is VP {or XP) external and the associate itnds itself inside the VP, a small dause, or some other lexical projection. Under the given approach, the external position is of course SpecAgrS. {60j

There is a man in the garden. '

t60') fA£rSP Theiie UjriS' is tsC=PP a 311 an m the Eardenlll These construction have a eorreJate where the SC internal subject appears in the position ui there, and the expletive itsell disitppeai s: '

ViA)

A mmi js m \[w Liai'deil.

These constructions can be analysed as derived fmm {W) by moving the

internal subject to SpecAgrS by leaving a trace in the base position. (61)

I/Vrsp

\\

\sQm pp 'j 'n the garden.]

1 will argue that this derivation is not so diJTerent from scrambling. The crucial dill ere nee is that remains ambiguous with respect to the interpretation of the subject. However, the phrases that are allowed to occur in the base position, i.e. those that are allowed to t>ccur in the there-be

construction arc most telling. As far as qu ami tiers are concerned, only weakly quantilicd noun phrases are permitted. Strong, presupposhional quantifiers are excluded (cf. 02), (33) Chapter 3). Indehnites may occur without itny problem. Definites may not. For this reason the felicity condition for there-he constructions was called the deliniteness effect. However this

condition is not completely correct. Some linguists discovered contexts where a definite noun phrase or a proper name in the scope of there* is grammatical (for example Wolsetschliiger 1983): '

176

SYNTACTIC.' ASm:i S 01; TOPIC ANU COMMLNT

{(>!) a. h c

.

.

These was the smell (if pt>t jII over the apartment. There was biggest car 1 had ever seen. No one can solve this problem, Would you know anyone? Wc IL th c rc 1s O onisky.

In {62b) we have a superlative, in {62c;) there is a name which refers to a single individual. These are e sum pies where the definite gets the socallec

r ferential interpretation. In the relcrvtmt contexts, the definite expressions are e rather novel and as such I hey do not act as topics. This can be proven by additional tests (extraction, for example, cf. Chapter 6J. Thus the dehniteness restriction is not a real defmiteuess restriction. Also the ntmie specificity condition whieh had been given to the phenomenon later is not completely

correct. Jt should rather be called the topic eondition. Another rather indirect consecpience of A rO is deaccenting. How this works for objects has been shown in Chapter 4, Section 4.5.3.1 (Cinque s

Nti3i Hypothesis'). In sentences with ordinajy transitive verbs, the direct object is the most deeply embedded constiiuenL According to the Null l

'

Theory', under normal conditions, the direct object gets the main stress. When the object has scrambled, it is not the most deeply embedded constituent anymore, in that case, either a more deeply embedded adjunct, or if there

is none, the verb gels the main stress. This strategy seems to have been grammaticalized and accentuation has become a genera! device to mark new inform at ion- Even material which is virtually structurally higher gets reconstructed if it is accentuated in a marked way. On the other hand, deacccnting is a device to mark topicality. ValJduvi (1992) has .shown that Catalan clitic

doubling, whieh is analyzed as a manifestation of topic hood of the doubled phrase, is reflected in English (only) by prosodic means, The topical constituents get deaccented whereas the verb carries (he main accent,

{64) L'amo the boss

(65)

[K I'ODDfA.] el hrdquil. it-hates

{Catalan)

the broccoli

corresponding English sentenee: '

The boss HATES broccoli.'

Tancredi (1992) observes the same. In general, de accenting of an element is possible only if that element is salient in the discourse context {Tancredi : y92:2). He develops a theory of the appropriateness of tdeAccenting and '

.

mainly confirms Vallduvrs and Cinque s proposals. His notation of the J

old: new articillation of a sentence like {65) would look like {65 ):

THE TYPOLOGICAL CKAiM'LR

177

(65') The boss HATES hroccoii.

54 .

Sumniiiry and pruhJcms

The niLiin claim of Ih present b<Mik is that topical argumenttil constituents trigger the activation of VP externtd tigreemenl projections. Tliis chapter presents the three most obvious gTamniatical phenomena that an AgrO

projection can t>e broLight to bear. All three phenomena (Case differences for direct objects, the occnirence ol agreement nioiphcnies and positional dilfcrences) are instantiated and confirm the predicted interpretative dilferences. The data are taken frt>m typt>logieally veiy di lie rent languages: (i) genetically; Indoeunjpean, Finno-Ugric, Altaic. Bantu: (ii) with respect to the classical morphological division: inflecting, agglutinating and mainly isolating languages; and (iiij with respect to Case realization: nominative-

accusative languages and absolutive-ergative languages {and also historically: living and extinct languages}.

Here at the end of this chapter 1 will only mention a couple of facts which cannot easily be explained within the theory developed here in this book. I will only list them without giving a possible solution. One of the major problems is the behavior of agreement. Ln German, for example, the verb always agrees with the subject, no matter whether the subject occupies its base position or SpecAgrS. A similar case is the agreement behavior in several other languages.

Laka (1993) shows that in Basque verbal agreement tin the verb is triggered by all arguments regardless of semantics. Thus, all arguments with

the relevant morphological form are doubled by agreement morphemes on the verb independently of their topical status. The same is true of Catalan or Spanish indirect objects, A dative argument must be doubted even if it gets a non-specific interpretation- In Greek, the indirect object also triggers verbal agreement (genitive) irrespec-

tively of its interpretation. (Hor more problems with respect to the equation clitic doubling = scrambling = movement to SpecAgr see Anagnostopoulou 1994.) Fuithermore. there seems to exist an additional factor which plays an important role for doubling, namely animacy of the doubled phrase A theory

that only refers to semantic notions like spec ill city, definiteness. topicality cannot fully explain the Romance and other data.

It has been iirgued thiic object shift in Icelandic and Scandinavicin may be "

analyzed us raising oJ iho direct obje 't to SpecAgrO (Bobaljik jnd Jonas 19 3 tind refercnctis quoted therein). The di]Terence is that while Icelandic allows for lull ddinite topical noun phrases to undergo object shift, this move from inside the VP to a VE1 external position is restricted to pronouns in Mainland Scandimvian. Thus, in Scandinavian it is only a subclass of the elements that undergo objeet raising, Iceltindie in turn objeet-ruises a subclass of the phrases that undergo scrambling, since scrambling aipplies to definite as well as to topical indefinites. The latter are excluded Iroin object shift in leelandic.

The only hint 1 want to make in face of these problematic data is an idea that 1 have elaborated in more detail in Meimmger{ 1993), U seems tome that certain morphological Icatures with more or less semailtic c{intent are responsible for movement and interpretation, There seems to exist a hierarchy of referentiality (Givon 1976) or a delinitencss hierarchy' (Diesing and Jelinek "

1993) that somehow governs the distribution of agreement and argument movement. (For a minimalist approach that deals with strength and weakness

of morphological features from a salience hierarchy cf Meinunger 1993), Thus, in some languages the one-to-one mapping is bhirred by the fact that some morphological requirements must be met before doubling or scrambling may take place. The last resort to save the intended interpretation is then intonation.

Chapter 6 Notes on extraction

This thaptei deals with sovorai very diilciviu typos of extraction iudLiding nyp-cxLiactioii, lopiL.1 movement out of noun phrases and relative clause extraposition, I content that these dilferent types {if movement, which are

triggered by rules of various kinds, arc similar in one important respect. It will be argued thai they are all .reslrieled by one eonslrainl. namely the blocking elTect of topics, stated here as the Generalized Specificity Condilion. \ develop the idea that topic phrases in the sense of Chapter 3 are weak

islands. This ehai'aeterization can be viewed as a generalization over a number ol previously imrelated conditions on movement.

I first show which constructions are best explained if the relatedness of two XPs is analyzed as the res till of movement of one of the two to some

other position. The discussion of whether relative clause extraposition (in German) is an instance of move ct or not will liIso be dealt with here. I turn

then to phenomena (wis-ftir split, quant!her split, and u/i-extrattionj lhal show that if the extraetee is separated from its base position by a lopic NP. i.e.t if the movement is out of a scrambled phrase, then the derivation leads u> ungrammatieality. A eloser Jook at the data reveals that individuals may

eseape topic NPs, but non-individuals may not. This observation leads to the elaim hinted above that topie NPs are weak islands. In a further subchapter. I draw a para I Id between this finding and the

behavior of argument sentenees of factive predicates, which turn out to be of the same category (= topics). The similarities between relative clause extraposition and leftward extrac-

tion are outlined in the subchapter dealing with extraposition. I show lhal NPs in the base position alJow for extraction of both appositive and reslrietive relative clauses. Scrambled phrases only at low for extraction of restric-

tive relative clauses. With some assumptions of a more or less stipuhitive

SYNTAtTir ASHliCTS OF TOPIC AND COMMliNT

churocter (restrictive causes ai-e referentiiil sisters of the noun he Lid to which

they belong, while appositives are not) this observation is ii strong coniirnia'

lion of this chapter s nuiiu proposal: the Gencmli/cd S pee if icily Condition.

ti.l

An Dicount »f XP-deplaccmvnt und the cas« of relative clause cxtnipoMtjun

Whatever syntactic model one assumes, one htis to deal with the fact that constituents itppeibr in positions in which they have to be for some reason and nevertheless beiir a relation to some other position. Consider the cases in (1) and (2):

(J)

\Uher weU'hen Kompomsteti} wiirdetf du grrne einen Anikel_ '

Which composer wouid you like to write an article about

T _

(2) hh habe ihm gestern ein Buvh _ gegebeit, \das er unbedtHgT hrauchi . [

nv-!> a book

to him vestrnkn tluit

Libsolulely needs.'

In (l) we have an example hi wheve the argument of the noun Artikcl occupies the sentenee initial position: in (2) the relative clause (henceforth RC - only in this chapter (!)) that modi he s the object NP Httch is separated from it by a verb. In the syntactic framework I adopt, these dependencies are accounted for by movement operations which take the constituent that has been base generated in a local relationship to the phrase it depends on and moves it to the position in which it appears on the surface (PF), Such a movement account is commonly agreed upon as far as the vt j-constmction in (1) is concerned. Relative clause extraposition (as in (2)). or (IT extraposition in general, is a much more intriguing phenomenon, and in fact the name is already misleading. Many linguists working within the GB framework and successive developments analyze the phenomenon of discontinuous noun phrases with relative clauses or other modi hers to the very right of a sentence as a base generated cons true I ion. One tradition tries to model the relation betwe&n the innersintential noun phrase and the peripheral constituents by pragmatic interpretation principles (e.g. Koster 1978; Hacgeman l%8; Fabb 1990). A no the]r tradition seeks to establish a government relation between the

NOTLS ON EXTRACTION

peripheral base generated elements and ihe inner-semen;ii)] noun phrases. This tip pro at: h t>es bLick to the work of Gueron 19S0). Gueron tind May (19K4} formuiale a predecessor of the Complement Principle. This

principle Ls supposed to link ihe NP U) its dependent clause or PP through a government relation. This is derived by dilTerenl adjunction sites of the relative cliiuses and PPs. i-br example, a subject NP has a CP which is (right-) ad joined to JP in its government domain, thus the NP in SpecIP can be iinked to the clause. Roehernent tind Culitover (1990) adopt this idea with a sliirht modification of the Complement Principle and propose that the government relation is suflieient to establish a link between the head NP" and its associated sentence. No movement is necessary. '

(3)

Jt 11 Ml I

appeared

yesterday with ruijri l-vcs

For an adaptation to German see Wiltschko (1993), A related pmblem is the extraposition of complement sentences, whether

CPs that are complements either of the verb directly or of an at unient noun (phrase). Kecen; developments of X-bar lheor>r force an analysis where the leftmost constituent is the most embedded one. The most influentiaJ proposal is the Linear Correspondence Axiom (LCA) by Kayne {ly93b). Whei eas this theory nicely explains the VO onder for the sequence verb > sen tent i a objects in so called OV languages such as German and Dutcht it faces pmblems for the order object > verb > relative clause (see Zwart 1992. 1993). In order to derive a sentence like {4), at least two movement operalions are necessary. (4)

Ei hat die Bcfwupmn _ (lufycstellf. dap OV Spradtcn kopjimiM he lias the claim made that OV languages head IjiiLial _

sind. are

He made the claim that OV languages are head initial/

]K2

'

4

l he

SYN'lAriK' ASHLCTS Oi; UmC AND COMMLNT

base order is verb > objetE, the order within the object phrase is noun >

complement sentence. Thus in order to et the iineuri/ittion in (4). one iirsl

has to movt the complement sentence to some sped tier position e-commanded by the verb and exduded by tlit object D? (movement step 1). Then the strjnded object DP moves to some SpecA r position presumably SpecA rD above the verb (movement step 11). The verb remains immobile in its base position. This is of course j logically possible derivtUiom the question is only how these movement steps can be motivtued and how this is compatible with economy (Even more complicated and diverging far mo re from traditional assumptions is the LCA anulysis (head raising) of RC constructions (Kayne 1994, with the problems of constituency discussed in Wilder el al. 1995). A similai1 proposal lias been made by Haider (1992, 1993b). He claims thai MV tompiements and CP complements, as well ys CPs that are linked to NP complements, originate in different positions with respect to the verb, This proposal can dispense with movement entirely: the older object DP > verb > (object) CP is no longer a problem, as shown in (5): ,

.

(5)

Por a critique of the LCA proposals see Billing and Hartmann (1994). Another paper delending a base generation approach that should at least be mentioned is Wilder (1995). He proposes an analysis of apparently right dislocated phrases in terms of le It ward movement and backward deletion. (For a similar proposal sec Koster 1995). in the folio wing, I adopt a theory that assumes base generation ol' CP complements in the same position as DP arguments that is to the left ol the '

(base position nJ the; verb in OV kmLma os like CierniLio. l-inlhcrmoic. I

assume that extraposition is a movement rule that applies to CPs (and less regularly to other heavy material), bind that this derivation requires reconstruction, see Bui1 ing and Hartmann (1994) again and also Brosziewski

1994). As for the trigger for extraposition, I think that Truckenbrodt (1995)

183

NOTES ON EXTRACT [ON

is on the right track. The Buring-Hailmtinn generalizLiEicm in (6), their (67), which is purely syntactic does no make the correct predictions

.

[6] Finite sentences may ntit be goveined by V0 or This principle rules out finite sentences in the middle field. This seems to me to be too strong a claim, which furthermore is not motivated and does not hold in most languages. As a matter of fact, in VO languages the order verb > complement sentence, which is a classic government constellation, is the most natuial order' Jnirthermorc. Broszcwski (1994) also shows that in

German some verb« make the order CP > verb mote acteptabJe.: (7)

(weit) Fefer [dciji Man a krankisr] hrdaiteri since Peter that Mary sick is regrets since Peter regrets that Mary is sick 1

'

(S) Caeciiia wird [dap sie Kraniche verftiften wvlite] leu i*fiea Cacciiij shall that she cranes poisen wanted deny Cecilia will deny that jihe wanted to poisen the craned '

He does not classify these verbs. A short glance at his other examples leads to the conclusion that we are dealing with the class of factive verbs (sec Chapter 5.2.): Jnstoad I will assume following True ken h rod t (1995) that the

imcrcstm ly. die Biii'iii -HuaLmiiiin gcucinlj/iHio]! is aJifloti the exacl oppositi of the

l

.

Cifiu|3J4j]iicinl Pfiiicipls which itka kj Lichitvc u gifvcf]iiii4.h]il fclytioitship bilwi:c]i ihi I11 and V(l projections on tiio vnc hwul iiiid tNc 'cuti'Liposed

'

demems in\ (he oth r.

2

MoLi-tjarnposed [id .sound even beti r. \[\ cm? of ligJ« ti.e. shon) KCs. ihn non viiriiiiu ul is only irmr tniilty nu rc niiirkcd then the cxtriijK-jsctt coimterpiirt iu}: .

fyposed

'

(i h

n-rii Peter diw Film, dvn dit when wsihl, . ichew ki'util '

(iijifc IVtcr alfciidy ItLitJWji thai smli) lh£ mavic you wunt to sec (ii) irt'f Pcii'i ilrn FUm scfton kemii, den tht .wtuwi ivifiM [with oitrnjK siLiojit V

Uu t- LT. [ duabt Unit it id Iht- s ntyntiu lulLuiv uf the verbs ibnit au

.

titu vKkr CP > verb

more iiccqptiblc. Fucttvc vcibs huve (scittcnti Jj arguntcnts wJiich tire topics in the iiorma] case. I claim that Li is ihc topic status of the CP thstt remEers tltc liitciirl/iition inore acccptublc. TMs '

i

.

s coDtinned by Bm.sjjewflki fi own judgments. See his {3'JO): '

a

"

,

b

.

Wit Peter wuhrsehemtkU {dafifwii wmn/t& Maria krmk isrf wetfi weii Peter fdoji/.teit .waim/irb kt unk i.wj iw/hrti heiniit h werfi because PeEfir probably knows that/since when/]f Mary has been sick' '

As we have ,seen at Length, positions before the se went hi I iirguntent are topic positions. The LQ> e?:;nupk-s ilLiistrsLtc ihc claim nicely.

SYNTACTIC ASHLCTS 01 TOVK AND COMMLNT

trigger is a phonological one. [ will not go inro the details of his urgumentalion. Here it should be suflklent to say thLit the phonology of Germ an-type

languages disfavors recursiveness ol intomukml phrases. Non-recursitivity is delined in Selkirk (1995): (9) +(. ( .)u ...Ju where ft is a prosodie category, whereby ...

= ct phtme tie ally overt ninterial

Since sentences (and very heavy PPs) are mapped onto intonations I phrases

which are the relevant prosodie category, sentences in the middle field are highly marked and extraposition creates a {more) we 11-formed structure like in (10): (10)

(

Thjckenbrodt gives the following rule; YP..Ji(

(. fj Ofl VP category (0, I) (

...

wheneby n is a maximal prosodie

DJ* argnmenls arc mapped onto phoiiolotiical phrases. Phonological phrases are lower in the prosodie hierarchy I him intonalionat phrases t i.e.j they do not count as a maximal prosodie eategoiy for (9) to apply. Thus Tmckenbn>dt"s rule does not apply, Since his crucial point is formulated in terms of

Optima lily Theory, it does not come as a surprise that extraposition, when allowed, obeys preferences, but is not subject to strict grammaticaluy constraints. Thus, it leaves some space for optionality and hence aeeoums for the non-necessity ol relative clause extraposition. A semantic 1 trigger' for relative clause extraposition is to be found in

Ziv and Cote (1974). They claim that the function of extraposed phrases is di lie rent from unmoved ones since cxtraposed sentences have an assertive character, whereas in situ phrases merely serve to modify their hcad NP\ l

Al-uMJvj .Apj;in:,iK:n .vuukl li-.- pinMikJ h\ 11

[licor> Uimi Li)[upk-njLtil sciic-.jKl-s. ol L;l. ! .

verbs nie LiL-[LiLil]y noniiJiLil fKLpirsliy & K]pijrsky ]
NOTLS ON liXJRACTJON

IS5

In ihc folitnving I show thuL tit Ictist in German, cxtrnposition behaves sis a

regular move men t operation. I provide evidence thiU ii is not distinct iiom leftward movement in the relevant respects. This is the reason for the extensive and controversial discussion of the placement of relative and

complement clauses on the.1 right sentential periphery. My claim here is: Generalised Spccilkity Condition: topics are islands. This gene rah/iit ton id lows an account for a broad range of data which have

been covered more or less adequately by a set of relsitively unrelated principles such [is the specificity condition. Gueron s ntime eonslrtiinL and '

subject and I active

'

'

islandhood. J he

phenomena L wit] consider are was-fur

split (and other split constrnctions), complement extraction out of argument phrases (NPs, PPs and partly CPs) and relative clause extraposition. 62 .

1

.

Was-jUr a rid wie vie t split

Was-JUr split (and its related constructions in other Germanic languages) is a phenomenon that was brought to the attention of generative linguists by

den Besten (1985). A wits-fUr NP {or Dl1) can be considered eui ordinary Nl' with a vv/j-feature morphologically represented by the vWi-morpheme was. Under normal circumstances a Lw(is-fiir MP: behaves like a u-fr-word {e.g. wen (who-ACC)) or a u7:-constilucnt {welcha? Juntftw (which-act boy)) in that it is moved to SpecCP in questions. (II)

Weni hast du t gesehvu? Who did you see?T

(12)

f Wetcheu Jun ei "

(15)

.

tko

Which boy did you sec'?1

\Was fiir einen Jufi e}i\- hast tin l iiesfhcn'/ '

4

hast du tj gesehen ?

r

W

]i(it (sort of) boy did you see?1

J llsu die term 'was-JUr NP' very iiifoiniLilly. For my concerns, it i£t>cs not jntillcL1 w3iclhir n iimuiil is a]i .NP. j DP or a 1JP [wi aiuly eJ by M[liter iWi).

Interestingly, und this is what mtikes the phenomenon of wat-filr split into resting, it is possible u> gcnorbUe the argument in its base position and to only move the was1 part. '

(14)

Hit! i hast du tj /

eiu&i Jungen geseben ?

This option is not completely free. It is claimed that was-ftir split is restricted tt> dii'ect objects, -as in {I4j. It is tuither supposed iu btf grammiititjal with

subjects of unaccunative verbs (which are base generated as sisters of V0)

,

sec example (15), and nn rammatical with all other arguments such as dative eomplements (17) and subject (16), examples taken from Muiler (l')1) ). (15)

Wax-i sind denn da

hcute i-JUr Giiste

was are part lxi'l today

(16) * Whs i h aben tj fiir La was have

ekommen?

fiir guests comeyarrived

dem

FriTz Brkjc tfesi 7? it. ±1

fUr people-NtJM ihe-iJAi Fill/ letters sent

(17) *Was] fiat dcr

Fritz \\fiir Lewen

mis has the-soM Fritz

fiir

Brief? geschickt?

opEe-DAC letters sent

1 will show that this is not correct and that a more adequate generalisation can be friven.

First, contrary to what den Besten and Mtiller claim, was-fiir split sotmds very natural with subjects of unergative verbs when [he stranded prt stays in its base position where it is clear that il belongs to the comment. (IS)

W(is-fwifca dieses Budi datn l fitr Lcuie] geiesen. was have

this

book part

fiir people read

The sentence is construed in such a way that the object is a topic, it has therefore moved to SpecAgrO across the VP internal subject and the particle. Belonging to the commentn the subject stays in situ and allows for extraction. Example (Ifi) is deviant because the extraction of was is from a scrambled

position. The use of a proper name as a dative argument renders it likely that the indirect object must be in a position outside VP. Since the subject NP precedes it. it must have moved from its base position as well. As suggested in Chapter 3. this position is linked to a topic reading Thus, the conclusion s that it is the topic status which forbids extraction rather than the subject

NOTES ON EXTRACTION

stEitus. With slight changes in the linear word order, Miiller s supposedly ungr nmiitical example CLin be turned into grbimmaUal one. {19} sounds fme to mo.st sp iike rs.

(19) Was- hoben dem frirz fiir Leute Brieft gi'schickt? '

The same holds for indircet objects. I question whether

is umeceptable.

However, let me give ii dewrer example in which one ciin see thtit the indirect object is most likely in its base position. (20)

Was .hut sit' 's

dew i | i fiir Lt' utei ? | i

was has she+h vari

empfoh Iat ? jUr people-DAT rccnmmcnJod '

Also it verb that takes a dutive complement without subctitcgorizing for an accusative complement allows Lor was-fUr split. (21} sounds as good as uiny direct object construction, e.g. (14). (2J)

Was hast da ikitn \ttfiir Leuten] geholfen? was have you PART fur people-DAT helped

As expected, topic datives do not allow for was extraction. (22) *Was\haht:u \\JUr Lenten]

gesfern

Verlaynait eareilte

wax have fiir people-]>at yesterday publishing house employees Biicher Reschifki? hooks

5

.

sent

Fanselow (1995; offers iwo sentences which could he ctm side red to he sen cms counter

CMimpJes m llio cVcuvn devclnpeij htro. t shnw tluil s.L:iiijnbLcd Xt arc hlocldnf c-iuitics thiit do ttttow for eAtractiori tint of them. How-ever, consider die jra]n]nL Ltjcjl exinnples. "

\i ifs-!iff s|iUt (ori injlly from Hnklcr \ 2) ivfl.t irtist? dftin dumuis ftir Aufscttzc svlhss tter Hans mchl zu _ rezensieren wrfuocfa? R-profomt exti-iction woriiht-r hiutv \vUt?n stAfhen St hmdhartiki'l t] setbstder Fewr fiichf aits Wur verfassen _

b

.

_

kfftmcn?

In these ctuies, 1 cluiin that we Die not dealing with the kind of scnmihlmg tihit I analyze us movement to SpecAgi1. Riilher in a. and b. the object h;ts been Jiiovcd to some focus position. ije. IJUrAnf/Uitzcy und [fin*n sohht'nSthmiihurtfkff ll" occupy sojoe A position ffoiri which they Liic reconscmeted in the husc position from where extraction is allowed. For a more teebnicat solution tt) this problem {ant i-freezing; see below jnd Mil Her (l >4i. Hie f;ict thiit these sentences require a siihstntntiiil inlonationiit contour makes it prolwible (hsa we nrc dciilinj with focus movement, which is distinct from ordinary movement (o S[iecAgr. '

'

1KK

SYNTACTIC ASHLCIS Ol

TOPIC AND COM ML-NT

Jusl for t.- )]l lple[e]le!is, sake, was-fiir split wich scrambled direct objeeLs is also bad. There is a cleur contrtisl between {2 ] and the scrambled counterpart (24).

(23)

Wasi hart du damah

ll jtir Biicker} geieseu?

was have you that thne

(24)

fiir books

read

"/M-tfrSj /pffsf du \y. jiir Biicher] damah gelescu? was have you fiir books that time read .

The same pattern can be observed with a construction in my dialect (East Franconian, variety of The mar and surroundings), which, in analogy, 1 term wieviei split 'Wieviel split is almost an analogue to French comhU'u' extraction (see Obenauej1 19S4; Ri/.zi 1990 and dc Swart 1992). It obeys the same semantic restrict Kins, which, for the moment, do not matter. In my '

'

'

.

dialect, for example if the question coneems the number of pigs, it is equally good to ask; 12 1

| WievieI

Si /?u i wc 1 ikiht Hif ,

how many pigs

deitn dieses Jahr

have you-PL P.\RT this

year

slau lucred

(2fj)

Wieviet

haht ihr

denn dieses J(thf

how many have you-r-L part this

year

Schweine] pigs

laughtcrcd

A ain. any unscrambled arguments allow for 'wieviel split', scrambled ones do not.

subjects

(27)

Wievie

fiahcn dew Ding denn [X- Leirte] tmterschrieheny

how many have

{2K)

6

.

the thing part

peop[e signed

*Wievi{:li hahets \i Lent? das Ding denu unierxchrieben ?

In order not to complicate matte is, I use scsLntl iitt Ocrimun as a kind of meta language. A

more pieeite rcpreseutiitkm would Jook sotfietiiijig lake: (35r)

Wievii StiU hoht V denn hiMr tfeUchlocht?

(31r)

Wievit hohs V Jenn hiiur Sail tfrkchlochr?

NOTLS ON liXTR ACTION

indirecl objects

(24)

Wievie

hast tin's

dewi schon [tj Lenten] gezeigt?

how miiny have you+it r AkT ;ilrc?udy

(JO)

t>copk shown

*iyjfv'(,£j/i /fu.vr f/w j It, Ld'wffnl i-Zt' j/] jesterft M-hon gezeiythow mLiny have you+it people PART yesterday already shown

direct objctLs

(31)

Wievieli

habr ihr

denn dieses Jahr [tj Sehweme']

how many have you PL part this geschladnet? slaugliterod

(32)

,

-

/*WjVvi"e/j

ihr

how many have you,PL

year

pigs

SchweineX dem dieses Jahr pigs

cart this

year

gesehfachter? slaughtered 622 .

.

Quai i tijief split

There is a onsruiction in German thtit is very simitar £t> fhe two split phenomena investigated in the preceding section, yet there are some ditlciviKcs. This

construction (quantilier split) consists of a bare, or indelinite noun (phrase) in SpeeCP and an asstx:iate quantifier element lower down in the tree. (33)

Tomown hubun wiy kdnt' $t'kaujl. tomatoes have we none bought. As for tomatoesj we didiTt hny iiny.'' '

It is not clear whether in these constructions move me ni is involved or not '

O or

lhe discussion of this pinibiem see van Riemsdiik 1978). Kir the sake of argument, lei us assume that we are dealing with an instance ot move a here. It turns tint that we aiie faced with the same pattern in grammatitality as with

*

was-jur and V/rWW split, i.e.. movement out of an argument

'

phrase is not restricted to the direct object position. What matters is that the constituent from which it is being extracted be in its base position. This fact is independently corroborated if the Mapping Hypothesis is adopted: quantifiei split is only possible from weakly quanuhed NTs ihiU get esistentially bound within the VR

SVNTArriC ASPUCTS OF TOPIC AND COMMUNT

(34)

subject women h vc there always onty few-NOM

(35)

indirect object Fraueu hat cr schon

victcii

I

women has he iUready many-DAT (36)

worked.

,

das Grsu ht #i'Ufted? Lhe face

lifted

direct object Fiaufii: t

hat cr schon

so

einige tj imgiik.- kiich gemachi.

women has lie already quire some

unhappy

made

Quantifier split from scrambled NTs sounds odd:

f tjj immer th fteartmfet.

(37) FimtL'i hah en fii't'

(?H) Fiattcit. hat cr [viiien x-\- wh<w oft tj das Grxh-ht gelifted,

(30) +fV£jErt,jj; hat cr so \einig£ tjj schon immer 633 .

.

ufiglilckiich gttmcht.

Wh- extractio} ?

As in the case t>f wttx-filr split, it is claimed that extract ton of

constit-

uents out of argument NPs is restricted to direct objects in base position,

(40)

Woriihi'r

hat cr fW;? Buch tj] verfajU?

aboLit what has he

a

book

written

(41) ](}hcr wek'hes ThemaXi istnochnie about which

topic

is yet

never a

(42) \0her welches Themu\i ist noch me about which

topic

is yet

\ein Bach 1} verfhjk wonkn! book

written pass

[ein Bnch t-] erschietien?

never u

book

p!X\ii-.d

Muiler cites data that are supposed to show that vv/j ex tract ion out of subjects (43) and datives (44) leads to un rammalieaiity:

(43) *{Uher vmrjj ha! \eiit Bach about whom has a book

den Frirz heeindrucki? the Fritz impressed

(44) *]Uher wen]- hut dcr Verteyer Uitiem Bnch tj keiue Chance gegeben? about whom has the editor

7

.

Here,

a

book

no

cvfji ct c\nycttort ovt of a posstbt)1 ntw-subcate nrizfcU

challenges to tl«,s see Vbjel lu

Steiith cli 1 45).

chance given

free dative (!) (fr)r

IVOTLS ON" liX I'RACTJON

A itin, 1 challenge his gmnimalic:ality jadginLnUs. Al Ictisi {44) is a senience

perfectl)1 Licceptable kw many speakers. The foJLowing dtita show thai uVp-cxiraclmn oul t)f subjeels and dative arguments can restilt in a weilformcd output. (45)

\Vwi weidtefi Firmefili of

which

'

dwh [emige Chefs

habt'it den Verrraj; ntift

companies htive the contract part part some bosses

tj unterwhrieben? signed

{A&P iyonweichenFirmet of

which

hot er diese Redmer

[eimgei:

Chefs tj

coin panics has he these computers some-UAT bosses

offered

6 24 .

.

Extraction from FF

As observed by van Riemsdijk f]97K), German and Dutch exhibit a type of preposition stranding, more aptly tailed post position slranding\ For this phc mi me mi n to be possible, the extracted element must occur as a so-c ailed R-pronoun to the left of the preposition l

.

(47) hh habe noch nicht 1 l

\vv von

fj , iiiest'}} VorfaiiW xdidrh

have still nothing about this incident heard I haven't yet hearded anything about this incident.'

(4S) *\Die$en VmfGi

hahe kh noch niduvon tL gehdrt*

(49) fch iiuhe noch n idtt cktvoti xdioi ?. [ R - pronoun J I

have still

not

thereof heard

1 haven't hearcd about this yet,'

(50) Da haife kh nodi rncht tj von gehdrt*

(5\) Dn kast day nodt nkhi (52)

von geh&rt?

Wo- hast Dit mch mdu \- von $ehttrt?

As shown by Miiller. this stranding is only possible when the PP occurs in

its base position {5U) vs. (53): (53) *£?flj hahe kh \x{ von]-, noch nidit v. gehovi.

192

"

SYNTAcnc Asm:rs 01

topic and commlnt

"

[ htis,

when the PP is outside VP, i.e., in a topic position. e\ trad ion leads to ungrammaticality. There is yet another constellation in which the PP is outside the VP and extraction is still possible; this has also been observed by Muller (] 994). In this c;ise. the PP is sitimted to the right of the verb, thus it is presumiibly extraposcd. Since this son ol extrnposition involves rcconsiruction to the base position, the Eicceptabiliiy of (54) does not come as a surprise. -

(54) Ddj hahc k-h noch nidtt \- vots chort Jt, von 62 .

.

5

The weakness of Topic istandx

The aim of the preceding three paragraphs was to shiiw thiit extractHin is not restricted to the direct ohjert position. My goal was to provide evidence that urguments in thoir base position allow for extraposition no matter what then 0-role

,

case, or tirgument status. I show now that whereas VP internal

arguments freely allow for extraction, topic arguments are selective with

respect to the semantics of the extraposed clement, A closer look at the data shows that scrambled arguments are not always is hinds for movement out of them. In the following context the object {'die

Re/ensionen von diesen An ike in') is already used as a topic, as indicated by its position relative to the sentence adverbial and the double dehniteness. In the question that follows, w/j-extraction out of the scrambled object sounds

quite acceptable, context:

Er hiine $kh daum ktimmern sol(en, imd rwndem burei- die Rezension-

eu von diesen Artikein wahrscheinlich gar akin xck'sai, '

He should have, but nonetheless, he probably didn't read the reviews

of these articles.

'

U seems tlut tlun fiict is parallel to eMractlon possibilities \\\ tinglhh. Hi c position PI'S llIIow for e truction. -ettraposed ones do not; s

.

a

.

b

.

WJiOj Jid you rcyd li book by r, liist suinimci ? fWltO| did yon read a book last jaininicr by 7-

For further limjJarlties and die validity of the generalized specillcily coLujitim] in twglish. see u pcodix.

NOTLS OK EXTRACTION

{55) \Vofi weichen Artikeiny meitiMdn, iuti er Idic RfZefishfifti LL|| of

which

ankles

think you has he the reviews

wahrscheittiicft gat nichtx getesen. probably

at-all not

read

As expected, thin is y]st> the case with subjects and indirect objects us we] li the extracted phmscs Eire sulliciently distourse-linkttl they irmy bo moved out of the scrambled arguments, subjects (Two assistants of a travel agency talking about well-selling trips);

(56) \fn Hi'lclie StiidfL' \, ltd hut sirit \ tiie R eisei ? t, ] j /etzfes Juhr \ in which cities

htive ri I'L the trips

last

year

hesoudets geloknt'*

especiaiiy be worth indirect objects

(A janitor with a list in front of him where all apartments he is responsible for arc iistod. and where those apartments in which he ins tailed

aiew locks have a check murk. 11c ie ports to the owner of the house')

( 7) \Vou (tiesen \Vohmm$?n\ hahe ich [den Tiircn of

these appartments have 1

locks

the doors-DAT

rj gesjern yesterday

x. neue new

ins tailed

These data contrast with the splitting paradigms of subchaptcrs 1 and 2. in which extraction out of scrambled arguments was unacceptable. These lac is can be explained if one assumes two things: lirsL a theory of scope-taking as proposed in Szabolesi and Zwarts (1993)1 and second that topics are weak islands. Wus-fUr* and wievieV questions are ambiguous. The former have a

specific, discourse-1 inked individual reading, which is almost synonymous with a which question and in addition a property reading. The properly reading-whieli is the prominent one-does not ask about discrete individuals. but about some property that the questioned phrase might have. Under this reading wasfur could be translated into English. Lwhat kind ni...', "what sort of... A similar ambiguity arises with wieviet questions. According to '

'

,

'

'

1

.

Dobrovic-Sorin (1992) and S/abolcsi and Zwarts (1993), such questions may

SYNTACTIC ASPECTS 01 TOPIC AND COMMliNT

have (at leusc) two readings; an amount reading und an individual reading.y The inlcre Eing fact is thtit in the spliuing t on strut t ions the individual reading disappears. For a 'was-ftir NP and a "wieviel NP' to escape a weak 4

island, the phrase cannot bo discontinuous. This is due to the fact that only individuals may escape weak islands. (58)

f Whs fib1 Bik -her \ imtt du tL seiesen ?

(59)

Wus hat du [ fiir Bucher \ geleseu'.'

(60) ]Wgs jiir Buch£T\ hast du tudtt X- gekxefi? (61)

WiiAi hastdu fitcht \lt fiir Bticher] getewtt?

(62) ]Wieviei Biii-her] hasrdu (63)

$ekscn?

Wi£vieil hast tin |tt Bik-her] fteksvu?

(64) \Weviei Bik-her] hast du nichl Reiesen? (65) *WSffv;V hasrdtnitchr tL Bti< her gdesen? As a consetjuence. the daiti are accounted Ibr [f the claim that topics are weak islands is correct, we now have an explumition for [he d lire rent

extraction possibilities. The data from Sections 1 and 2 involve splitting examples where an individual reading is impossible. Hence, when the was or wieviel part has been extracted out of a topic argument, ungrammaticality arises. On the other hand, in the examples (55)-(57), the extractees are '

*

*

'

discourse

linked

individuals,

and

thus

no

island

violation

arises.

This

observation can be stated as a slight modification of (I I): Generalized Specifciry Comlirioti (revised version}:

topics ate weak islands

63

Fuel hi' iNlands

Since Kipjrsky and Kiparsky (I1)?!)) 1 active verbs are known to be di lie rent from other predicates with respect to extraction properties (among other

y

.

Actually. Jiow-maLiy-queiEioilS have thiee Leadings. The Liidividual readl]ig clui Lse divided

a ntn mm a discourse hnked mdividual netiding, mid li noii-dLscouLte Sinlied indtviduiil icadtiig. ]

'

-

oj" tlic present pLipo.ses. Jiowcver. ihis is iiol rclevaiii.

10. [ u e negudou as a weak island lie re.

M>TI:S

JiX TRACTION

diiTerences). Within the theory of ReiLitivi/.ed Minimality (Rizzi 1990; Cinque iyyO)h fuctive prediciites are listed as one standard case of weak island cneators. Whereas argunients as weli as adjuncts can be extracted from coinpiements of iitint active verbs such as lo rhmk. to believe. 10 claim, factive verbs such as to regret, to accept, while allowing for extraction of arguments '

(68), block extraction of iiVf- djuncts (69).

(66) Who do you believe John saw t/? (67)

M;Vj do you believe John left tj?

{)

WJtU h dot* i do yo u regret th at }oh n hough r t;?

(69) *Why. do you regret John left t/?

These facts hold more or less cross-linguistically. More recent research has shown that the adjunct/argument asymmetry

with factive predicates is only roughly correct. PirsL S/aboksi and 2warts (1 )3) show that the distinction is not between ad|unets and arguments, but between extractees that get an individual versus extractees that get a non-

individual reading. I'he argumental status alone di>es not qualify a phrase to be ex tractable.

(10) *fHow much winejj do you regret that Marcus poisened r,? Here, the theme status of the argument
Second, Hegarty (19(>]) points out thai the empirically eoncct distinction should be made between CatteTs (i97K) response stance and n on-stance verbs on the one hand, as opposed to volunteered stance verbs on the other. rather than between factives and non-factives. He provides examples where tactive predicates do not block (adjunct) extraction (71)h and non-factive p]iedicates that create islands for extracti m (72) (see also the work of Varlokosta 1994:59-61).

(71) ]lowl did you find out [that John altered the records /J? (- By hacking into the computer system ) .

(72) *Whyb do they agree {that John destroyed the building rj? (-

To coElect the insurance ) .

196

SYNTACnC ASPliC'TS Ol; TOPIC AND C'OMMLNT

HegiirLy fuilher proposes thai islandsjod correlates \vi\h the property of Hamiliarity), whtiieby his defiiiiiion ol' lamiliiirity comes close to what I call topic hood. For Hearty, lamiliurity is satisjied under the foil owing cireumsttinces. In some cases the content of the familitir complement has been iiimKkieed in the discourse frame (has ii file card in Heims 1982 termsJ or

is easily inferiible for the listener (aeeonimodalion). Otherwise, it is a weaker form of 'faixiiliarity the speaker assumes the listener t
'

semantic1

complementizer Using Higginbotham s event semaniies {I9K5), Hegarty assumes that 1 semantic' complementizers bind ihe event role of the predicate. Thus+ he assimihbtes the function ot complementizers of response stance and non-stance complements to the function of definite determiners which discharge the referential role of a nominal expression- This results in

nn interesting twofold paralleJism. First, it underlines the similarity between nominal and verbal extended projections {<j rims haw 1 00) in that the topmost funetionitl projections, the D- and the C-level respectively, cany information about the referentia] status of the phrase. (73)

Second it assimilates indefinites (noun phrases) and volunteered stiince complements (sentences) in that they are open expressions that introduce a variable that must be bound from outside the projection. Kor nomnni L

'

expressions, this binding is done through Helm s rule of existential elosurc. Adopting Die sing's theory of the Mapping Hypothesis (1 92*1. b) and Section 2A 2.1 of this book, existential closure comes from an 3 operator adjoined to VP,

(74) Every good linguist

[good linguist U)l 3y

|Vp wrote a bad articEe].

fVp bad article (y) & wrote (a, y)|

Noms on tiXTRArnoN

3 07

For sentential comp!emeiiLsh Hegiiny proposes ihiil Lhe event roJe of volunteered sttinee predicates percolates up the tree into the matrix clause iind is dischitr cd there. (75)

Peter tind Jane l>elievc that John visited M(iry

{76) believe [that (John (e)

CP(e) IP(e)

[Ith [Vp visit Mary, £]J]J lJ(e) VP(e)

However, the picture is not that .simple. As shown in many places in this book, (he weak, existential reading is not the only one th(i[ indefinite NPs can have. There is a certain ambiguity with weak NPs. In Germ an! if the indefinite argument is in its base position - in the normal case - it gets caught by existential closure and receives a weak interpretation. If it is scrambled, the strong prcsuppositional reading arises. These dil fere aces cooccur with a phonological di Here nee (see also the detailed discussion in Chapter 2). In the base position variant, the object gets primary stress. (77)

fdi tuihe gextern

I

einc ZEITschrif't Rclesen.

have yesterday a

journal

read

1 iclkI a JOURnal yesterday.'

When the indeiinite object is scrambled and it receives partitive reading, two pitch accents occur, whereby the raising one la I is somewhere on indefinite Nl1 (preferably on the weak determiner), the other i.e. the falls on the verb (hat contour).

(7S) Ichhatx [EIneZen.u fj}iJr]ige!iTern

geLEsen.

[ have a journal yesterday read something like: ONe (of the) journal(s), I READ ycsterday/DID read yesterday. 1

When the object is definite and used as a non-contrastive topic, it gets deaccented, and only the verb is stressed. (79)

/dt huh' die Zei m-h rift {i csfem} cLEsci i.

The same is true for complements of volunteered stance predicates. They too '

may be weak (= assertive) or strong, i.e.. presuppositionar. In some languages. this ambiguity is resolved very clearly by the use of a special complementizer (Navajo. see also Drubig 1994;. hi German, it is again the intonational pattern that shows us how the complement sentence is to be interpreted.

10*

SYNTACTIC AS PL-CIS Ob' TOWC AND COMMLNT

'

the complement sentence earries new inl oi mLition, i.e. belongs to or is the comment, the main stress oes lo the focus protective element in the complement sentence. {tfOj

IHi ghutbf, daji PEtef gekommen ist. \

believe that Peter come

is

(HO) is a n;uuriil answer to m question like 'Wits tflauhsrdtf'/' (l\Vhal d
If the content of the complement clause is presupposed. I he complement sentence can/nmst be used as a topic. The new information of the sentence then is that the relation between the speaker und the fact (!) that Peter came is a relation of belief. In this case, the main stress goes on the matrix verb. (For interesting research on this topic with respect to the licensing of embedded VZ see Komhcrg 1999). (KI) fch OLA Uhe. daft Feter x ekommen (Kl) as jn answer to 'Was glaubst du'.'1 is infelicitous. For (Si) to be felicitous, one needs a context where, for instcince* A tries to convince B that

Peter has arrived. Bh however, does not have yny doubts about the truth of

the fact of Peter's arrivtil. In order to get A to stop persuading her about something she already lakes for granted. B might titter (SI). (The same holds for English.)

Thus, we can conclude from the preceding discussion that complements of volunteered stance predicates pattern together with indefinites, and comple-

ments of response stance and n on-stance verbs behave like delinites.11 Since indehmtes bind complements of volunteered stance predietiles are protoiy pie ally new information, Le., comment elements, extraction out of them is easily possible. Factive complementst or more correctly sentential complements exhibiting Hegarly s F(amiliarityJ complementizer are to be analyzed as topics. Topics are transparent for opera tor-variable dependencies of individual expressions (55) to (57) on the one hand, however, on the other '

II. As slmwn na mary o[her occasiniii, defi ites exhibiL llli ajnbLguity £ls welJ. They may

belong to the comiment or they ]iiity be a topic. According to their re.spective slLituji they either tii'i of do not ad us isliirtds, and rcffiilarc the stress ptittern of the . entcncL:. [ will ]iot into further dctjil here.

199

NOTLS OK LXTRACTiON

hand, they aru blocking catc oric's tbr nnn-individunl linkLige. Thus the Generalized Specificity Condition generalizes over the iactive island con-

st rtiinl and the (iraditionai) specificity condition.

6A

Reluli

64 .

,

1

c la use ex t ra posi t ion

/fc ;h e .kiuse 11 tpoxii'uaf and the \'utidiiy ojRots' righi roof amsirami

As already discussed in the introducto]-)1 part ol this chapter

,

[ wili defend an

analysis of rightward movement of relative clauses. Hirlhennorej the claim

is thai rightward move merit is not (subs lam iailyj diilerenl from leftward movement. This is in clear com rust with a statement taken from B tiring and Hartmann (1994: 1);

liJUrii posit ion sec in s to contrLiditt iiuiny of the dl-esrahlished principles of generative grammar: While A-siiovemenl to the left is unboundfedj, extraposition i;; strictly U>eal. Only L-iUVLLid muvcttiL-iU must respect NP-islatids extraposition may violate them. -

First. 1 challenge the fust alleged dilTerenee and show that there are some eases of unbounded right ward movement. The observation movement to the righc has to adjoin the moved cons lit went to the maximal projection possible is due to Ross (1967). The so-called right '

also that Jirst roof

'

constraint wras formulated to account for the contrast between :

(82) Peter read fa book *

last night [which was written in Frenchli

Peter [vp said [Cpthat he will look for | someone

yesterday] [who

speaks French] L I his minimal pair shows that a constituent - when moved to the right -

cannot be extracted out of a position and then adjoin outside the next higher prnjectiom The traditional analysis for fKZj adjoins the relative clause to VP. which is the phrase immediately dominating the object ME*. Thus the right roof constraint is not violated. (83) is construed in such a wray that the relative clause must be linked to a position which is separated from it by

several projections: subordinate VR subordinate CP and matrix VP, hence the ungrammiitieulity,

2tM)

SVN L AC "I'U ' ASHfir i S OJ1' lOlMf ANE.) t OMMEiNT

The validity oi Ross' constraint for German CP extraposition hits never been

challcnjTcd. In fact, Wiltschko (1993) dedicates a whole chapter of her paper to confirm iL

In order to show that the right mof constraint however does not hold, we have t
(M) ...well [er since he '

wissefi] woiite] [was du ihr gesagtha know

wanted whut you her said

have

since he wanted to know what yon {had) told her

1

...

Here the complement sentence of wissen is separated from its theta-licenser and adjoined to the matrix sentence whose lexical head is the verb woliefi. J

'

-

or most linguists ihis is not a convincing example, however This is because

there are many proposals that consider wissen wolien a verbal complex (Bierwisch 1990). Thus (84) is analyzed as a monoclausal structure, and

extraposition does not cross any clausal boundaries. However, it is not always possible to argue that all verbal morphemes represent one cluster with a

status heading a single CP, In a construction with two adverbials of the

same semantic class with logically incompatible interpretation, a biclausal structure must be assumed.

(S5)

sukt he thtiL linic still

(ho book lodtiyina

week

tituidiii

Wcintcd "

'

since a[ [hat time he wanted to hand in the book a week from now

...

Because there are two lime adverbials that are not eompalible, we have to assume two separate domains in which they are k>cated. The construction '

ahlicfern wollen cannot be analyzed as one verb. The wanting event refers '

h

to a state of alTairs in the past, the 'handing-in-action is situated in the future. Let us assume folio wing Alexiadou (1994) that temporal adverbials are licensed in the specifier position of TP and that Lhere is only one projection for the tense in the sentence (see also Giorgi 1994. or for a slightly different treatment S to we II 1993). Since TP and CP are closely related, we have to deal with two CPs in this example. Lbis is exactly the '

201

NOTiiS OK EXTRACTION

configuration we need in order to see whether it is possible to estruct out of the embedded sentence or not. It turns out that a relative chmse on the right

periphery tan be linked to an argument within the embedded sentence. {£6)

wt'ii nr ditmuls \das Hm-h lL

in tiiter Wucfte] ahiiefent] wollte,

\aufdas aile gewarfer hai n Th

sentence htis the stiu ture:

[CP [CJ> INP ...JJCPJ which is disallowed by the right roof cons tin hu There are in tact further exceptions to this constraint it is possible to construe complex sentences in which n pine complement clause occurs .

within the middle lie Id of the matri\ sentence, and n const itueiu that belongs

to the embedded clause is situated on the right periphery, i.e., to the right of the matrix verb. In that case, it is no longer possible to claim that eomples verb formation or restructuring give rise to a monodausal construction. As

shown in Section G.L complement sentences that are topics are not as unacceptable when they stay somewhere in the middle iiold. Though cert am ly

more marked than its estraposed counteiparL (87) is fully grammatical: {S7) Peter hut, daft er uns den Cowputer whenkt fest

versprochen.

Peter has thiU he us the coin pure gives firmly promised Peter can1t go back on his promise that he will give us the computer '

as a present.

'

Extraction out of the embedded CP makes the sentence even more marked.

The whole sentence remains grammatical nevertheless. {KH)

Peter hut, {dufi ef Peter has that he verspivchen [den promised that ,

un
er fikhr mehr he not

branch

anymore needs

A similar example is:

(89) weit er sdtou

fteswru,

dap er cine [Behauptiwg tj auftteiien

since he already yesterday that he a

mt$, hedanerte* [die Maria in nuisl regretted

claim

up-put

Schmerigkeiten bringen wird,

that Mai"y into troubles

bring

shall

202

'

SYNTACHC ASPECTS 01 TOPIC AND COMMLNT

I hns, we see ihiit the ri ht nK>f tonntuiint is not us strong u lilteras has been

clitimcd since it was fbrmultited by Ross. At letist in some German tonsfme-

tions there seem to exist some eomiterexamples.1

'

64 2 .

.

W tj'/ir11'urd n?'menf. ixlandhood andihe $cneraiized specifiary condition

64.2.1 The syrtraxof resfricrive va ults cipposnive reiauve clauses The second and stronger alleged dillerenee between light ward und IcAward movement is thai while island constraints work to restriet movement to the

left, they Eire not eJTeetive in restricting movement to the ri ht. The aim of this suhthapter is t
undiseussed dilTerence with respect to whether the extiaposed clause is a restrictive or an appositive one. Since the distinetion between these twro types of relative clauses (henceforth RC) is crucial to my argument. I make some assumptions about their syntax which in several respects might seem tipuJativc. [lowcver. ihere i> a ub lLinlial body oJ literature MippoiLm \n\ pmposal (sec below). The semantic dilTerence between restrictive and

appositive RCs can be illustrated by a minimal pair!? (90) The swans, which are white, are in that part of the lake.14 (9J) The swans which jre white are in that part of the iake.

12. For tkubts abouc the vaJidiiy of the right roof cnnsti'atnt

Engti.sJi constructions, s6£ the

appendix lo tlu.s chajlLer.

13- The esampJe , w wetl as much of ihc following arpitnientuttoH. are significantly mspired ll

FjhhV <[4

) ;Lri]di?

.

14. Since I follow Ribb (] in his iifgun ntLLlaon. [ ill keep to tn lish c uiinplcs, FunJicnnoifc. there is one nice (hing iibom L-n tish punctuittton (hit mnkes tliLs Jjnpiiagc superior to Gemum when ll distinct ion between restrictive iintl Lippositive reJulive eJiinses is intentle i. lin lisJi pttnet tint ion disLLimhi niites reJfitive clauses by prescribing the use of conunu when is senlcnee is supposed to function lls non-restricting jnformalihm. wkcrciis there is no contnui if n restricting reading i* intended. Oeiman orthogfisphy hlurs the distinction by prcscriljing a coninna in both cliscs. Thus, in all the following c?iLLLinples. no Limbiguity zms*. Appositive sentences sire separtited by a eojtiina: restrictive ones are not. Nevertheless, since the syntax of Genmn rekiNve cIlillscs is si mi I lit. untl the semantics should always he the same anyway. it will be Lissumed that the structural position of relative and appositive sentenceJi does not vary from one Icingua e to the otl er.

NOTLS OK EXTRACTION

203

The use of iin appositive RC tis in (90) impiies thai till swans under discussion, i.e., till (i.e.. lho.se and only Ihosc) swEins thut tire swimming on Ihc lake, are white. This is not the case for (91), The use of a restrietive RC

singles out it subset of the set which is denoted by the noun without tiny restriction; in the caise of (91) the set of all sw ns niLiy possibly contain gray and black members as welhThe semantic dlifercnce between restrictive RCs

t):i the one hand and tip positive clauses on the other has heen translated into syntax hy assigning to the relevant clause type ti dilTerent position in the structural representation. All analyses that put restrictive and appositive RCs in diiienent syntactic positions choose a position thait is lower in the tree for

restrictive RCs and a position that is higher for appositive ones [Ziv and Cole 1974; Emonds 1979; Kaisse 1981; Kaegeman 198*; Kibb 19 9). Since all relevant proposals weit: made at dilferenl stages of the theory with respect to the analysis of the internal structure of the NP and X-bar theory in general. I wiH not list all the proposed configurations. L do however adopt

from the work quoted above two main aspects: first the base position of a restrictive RC is the sister of the noun that it restricts - the appositive is not. Second: the rcslriLlivc KC carries a referential index that is identic a! to ihc oik1 Ib

reslriclin! ntum

irtk

.

Let us start with the proof of the first claim, which argues for the following structure:

N"

CP = restrictive RC

C"

XV

There is one serious objection to such an analysis, namely theta-theory, According to standard assumptions, only true aj uments combine with

lexical heads Xlh and project to X'. Under the same assumptions, relative clauses are not considered to be arguments. However, the loLowing facts

15. Mote nuit :l riimiliir iuijj is is iidoptod in fiirJy re scorch hi ihc Mojitii vmn J'rujncwork. nouhJy m the pJtmeer iiEudies aa i/ebEjvc cluiites flJurtee 1 72. 1 76: Cooper 1975, !V7tn Kodniiin IV7 . In the synau proposed in tlitst LLimLyscs ihi RC is Liiljomcd to the conniinoii noun (CN = N0J witliout tncre ttn the hur-Jevel.)

204

syntacnc asplc:rs oi Time and commlnt

suggest thai the no u n c-cam mauds the KC. lluis (92) is n ivasoaablL? analysis. 1

.

If lhe restricted noun is u u -word, the restrictive KC must be pied-piped

when the operator moves tt> .SpeeCP (94). Stranding results in un nimmaticaiity (95) (Fubb I9K9:70); (93

You liked the |man |that you met|| the best.

(94)

| Who [that you metll dtd you like best?

(95) *Who did you like

_

that you met best'.?

This is a result of the requirement that only full XPs may be moved. If the

w/j-word il.self were already a maximal projection, it should be able to move to Speed* by itself, leaving the RC behind. As {95} shows, this is not

possible. However, if one deals with an appositivc RC. the relative clause cannot be pied piped ll must stay behind is shown in (97): (96)

Wc t a Light the boys, some of whom were deaf. French.

(97)

Who did wc teach

.

some of whom were deaf. French?

_

(93) *"Who, some of whom were deaf, did we teach French?

This shows that the non-restrictive RCs may or must be adjoined higher. Kaissc {I9K1) observes that only in restrictive RCs can the relative pronoun phonologic ally clitieize to preceding mate rial. 2

.

(9*))

die people who'll |hi>l] he here tomorrow '

(JOO) *John. who ll |hsl| be here tomorrow

Here, who' within its phonological environment behaves as in cases in which it comes undoubtedly from a complement sentence. This loads Knissc to the formuJation of her 'Head Condition which states that: 'who may cliticize to the XJlliU whose complement it introduces/ '

In more recent theories that explain phonological clitichjation as syntactical I y describable in lerm.s of head-to-he ad-movement {incorporation) resulting in adjunction complexes of heads. (99) needs a conliguration in which who before it becomes clilici/ed, is c-commanded by "people", otherwise '

1

,

a basic rule of movement is violated.

IS'OTLS ON LX I K ACTION

hih

people Spec

who fhu;

If 'people' is in its base position* and it hus never been dimned thiU there is head movement within tnjzli h DIN. a CP from which movement tykes place

that targets the NT1 'people4 must be e-eommanded by the he Lid no Lin. JlcrKV (101) must be the mrrect structure. On the other hand. (JOO) has a diircrent st mc tune, distil lowing clitkization. 3

.

Fi nil My, whereas nn appositivc KC can have y full, ordinary DP as relative

opersitor (102), restrictive RCs CLinnot (KB): (102)

The LAGB. which or jnisLition meets tomorrow, is based here.

(103) *The LAGB which organisation meets tomorrow is based here.

The explanation goes as follows. Contrary to a relative pronoun, or an empty operator which must be bound by a licenser outside its clause, a full relative DP counts lis an independent referentiti! expression with its own referential index. (103) is unjimnmatieal because it is a cleEir case of a violation of

Principle C of the Binding Theory. If structure (92) is iidopted, we get (104), which is an illLcit eon!i liration: (104)

NO (the) LAGBi

SpecCP which orgaiiisiiuojij

C

206

SYNTACTIC ASPECTS OF TOPIC AND COMMENT

(102) i. lukhJ because the RC is much higher, i.e., possibly even higher Ihitn the D0.

Arguments 1 to 3 are only a selection of arguments for the position of RCs. For others see Fabb {I9K9K

Once (92) is adopted as a structure for restrictive RCs, one still has to argue for the second assumption ihiu the noun and the RC share the same referential index. This is not as uncontroversia! if one assumes that lexical

heads assign (referential) indices to their sisters and. perhaps, speeiliers. This is a core assumption of the theory of 'Relativized MinimalityRizzi (1990). There lex it; til heads provide; their arguments with itidices which can be referential or not. If the index is a referential one, the argument is said to cany a referential theta-role and counts as u true partioipiint in the evenl. if the argument does not refer to a participant in the event, it is considered to be; a quu si-argument, or u n on-referential expression. The first sort of arguments, which carry a referential index, can be extracted out of weak islands, since the index satis lies the identilkation requirement. The latter cannot be moved out of islands. Thus, what is important here is that lexical heads assign indices to the phrases with which they combine. As a consequence, a noun that is identified by a restrictive RC assigns a referential index to it in the same way as. for esample, li verb of saying marks its sentential complement with an argumental index, since in both cases we are dealing vvhh siMer CTs of lexical heads, (Kin)

man

th;it you love

say

thtn she loves me

The second motivation that the head noun shares a refereiuial index with the

restrictive RC comes again from Fabb. w!k> uses an idea by Williams {I9&0)

that a restrictive RC act as a predicate to the noun it mod Hies, I take the modi]itatitin relation between RK {A.M.: restrictive RC) and host '

to he one of predkution. with iho C r (the relative clause) predicated of .,. the noun. Williams (I Kt)) suggests that predication involves to-itidcxing

between ttic sxibjtct iiad the predicate, which tam minimally c-coitrmaad

,

i,e.

NUTLS ON liX J K ACTION

207

Thus the configuration ol u noun with a restrictive RC itxiks as in tK>6): {106)

UJ5

the

man

that I love

This co-intlexing, which pi ays an important role in Fabbs theory, but for completely diilerent reasons, will be relevant for the proposal developed here as well.

Although I have argued elsewhere in this work that 1 prefer the account of scope taking developed by Szabolcsi and Zwart (1991. 1993) to the theory of Relativized Minimality in the sense of RizyJ {I Wt)) and Cinque {1990}, for the moment [ will use the latter theory to account for the dilfercnt behavior of restrictive and appositivc RCs with respect to extraction. Since both accounts are very similar with respect to the broader range of data they explain, the marginal data, whieh play an important role for the general j ad Lie men I of which theory is ultimatively preferable to the other, does not matter here.

The idea is that if topics are weak islands, whereas comment internal phrases are not. VT internal arguments should freely allow for extraction of restrictive as welJ as appositive RCs. Topic phrases, i.e.. scrambled XPs. are claimed Lo be weak islands. Thus, appositive sentences should not be able to escape them. Nothing may identify their trace. Restrictive RCs. on the other hand, should he allowed to move out of scrambled NPs because they carry a referential index. This index identities their trace exactly as in uV;-extraction of referential arguments out of well known weak islands such as factive complements or iW?-islands. Given id I these assumptions, the promelmn turns out to be correct as [ show shown in the nest few pages, 64 22 .

.

.

The extraction behavior of restrictive and appositive relative ciausex

in German

First, as I did with

-extraction in Section 6.2.1 and 6.2.3.1 will show that

extraction of RCs is not restricted to internal argumeius. RCs can he extract-

ed out ol any kind of argument or even a non-ai'gument noun phrase.

208

(JOT)

SYNTACTIC ASHtCTS OF TiWK AND COMMLNT

subject wit dtm Frau ftdtusm hat. din mil aitiem Porscha ktm sisice a woman coughed who came with £i Porsche '

(IOS)

indirect object wcii er dai Brief dua- Fwit gesvhirkt hat. die uiit eincm Porsdw kam since he sent the letter to a woman who came with a Porsche

(109)

1

direct object

wtii er eine Fran kennengeiernt hat, die einen Forsehe fahrt since he met a women who drives a Porsche

(HO)

1

prepositional compiements wcii er tmfciuc Fran xewartct hat die einen Forsehe ftihrt since he was wailing for a woman who drives a Porsche .

'

1

Now I will go on to show that there is a difference with respect to the status of die ex Imposed KC. As described above. XPs that stay in their base position which is VP internal do not block extraction. (Ill) and (112) arc examples in which the extraposcd RC acts as a restrictor of the noun from which it has been moved a way.3 (]1?J. (114) and (115) are clear cases of extraposition of an appo.sitive RC, In all cases, i.e.. (111 Ml 1 )-1 h<>vc tried to put .some Lid verb ia I phrase into the matrix .sentence in order to show that the phrase from which extraction takes pbee Ls most likely in its base position All examples are we 11-formed. Restrictive RCs

(III)

we it tie wahrsvheiuiivh mtr Autos t; kuufeu, [die in Detitschkind her e-

stellr werden 1

since they probably bLiy only cars that are made in Germany1

(112) weit sie aits Verseheu eiit Schwein tl geschiachfef hahcu, [dtisfiir die Zncht hestinimt war], since by mistake they slaughtered a pig that was designated for breeding '

\
ijossiblc:. too. Tins is n t y nuii ii l

209

NOTLS ON tXJ'RACnON

Apposiiive RCs

(113)

weit sie von Anfang an imnter wieder Kohl i, khmien haU {der bi'kamilh h BundexkanzUr ist]'

because from the beginning she kept criticising Kohl, who - as everybody knows - is the Fcderttl Chancellor. '

(114)

\veit tie fiir Ronald Reagan \ %?Mimmr hahen, \dei US Prdsident '

because they voted ior Roiuld Reiigan. who was President of the

United States1

(115)

weil sic scir Hirer Kiadhdi Fapst Johannes Fan! II t- verehrt, \der an* Polen smmmt 1 because

since her childhood she admires Pope John Paul IIh who

was born in Poland

The contrast arises if the extraposition takes place from a scrambled position. Restrictive RCs remiiin extratable. Extraposition of an appositive RC leads u> umzramniaticjlity. (11 A)

f Gehildete Menwhen iiben eine yojie Faszinatwn astf ihn aits, fch

daft ei {jenn Menschen tj si-hoti xeit seiner Kindheit tj vet'ehrt* [die mehr ah drei Fremdsprachen sptechenY that since his childhood he admires those people who speak 3iiore '

then three foreign languages

(117)

'

{Der Heili e Vater in Rom ist SCln Etfi and Altes. Ich u'eiflj *

dafi er Fapst \Johannes Fciid JJ tj- schon seit seiner Kindheit tj verehn. \der mehr ais drei Frenidxpraehen bch£iTscln.\

l

that since his childhood he admires Pope John Paul II, who knows more than three foreign languages' Witness also the contrast between (113) and fl IK), tmd (114) and (119}.

17. Iw aiid (]]7) it context is given. This enmext asiures tiuit \hc W* inm which otEibipo tinn t;tfcci place gets a topic interpretation m tlic test fkmse, iind hence must be sci iLinblcd there.

2U)

SYNTAn if ASPliCIS

(1 IS)

*ftweil sie [Koht

UmC AND COMMLNT

von An/wig m immcr wieder i- kritwiert hat

,

[der

hekannttk h Biituk&kauzkr 'ixt\ since from the beginning she has contiaiLied to criticized Kohls who - as everybody knows - is the German chancellor '

{119)

siejlir {Rtmaid Rettftan tj mtr im NoifaU

xtinmva wtirden, \der

US PrUsideut wcir\x 1

since only in a case of emergency would she vote Tor Reagan, who '

was the president ot the US

Other interesting contrasts arc presented in (120) to (123). In the first pair (l20V(l2l)h the matrix sentence is the same. (120) is griimmalical, because

the RC is understood as a restricting modilicr ol the scfambled subject. {121) is out. because the RC cannol he understood as restrictive. In the second pair (122V(I23). the

is the same. (122) is out. because the KC must receive

an appositive imerpretalion. (123) is good, since the use of tin ailicle thai bears stress signals the presence of a focused. Focus is associated with alternatives. The extraposed RC instantiates the proper alfemative and

negaies the (Jthcrs (all contextual present Sergejs who were not bom in Odessa). Thus the RC is restrictive.

(120) h} Indicu wcrdeu IKiihe t itie '

Qewedtf L

Avhktdni'L

bei ihtw Gvhurt

warden\

hi Indiit, cows that are blessed at birth will never be shiughtened/

(121) *h} Indien werdeu \KiiIte

tde X- gesvhktvhit'L \di(> Wiedefkimef

tindl lln

India, cows, which are rumimiiits, are never slaughtened.

'

(122) *Sit' hat [Sergej tjj von Anfangan tj %ctichr, [der in Odexxa gehoreu LShe

has loved Seigej, who was born in Odessa, from the very beginning.

'

itt. Since to my knowledge, itiu dLitii [ nim pfdumtiL in this duiplcr Iilivc neve]1 been urtLily cc] bcfoi'c. 1 cnuld not find jay jud mcius in the litcL-Litufc. So I w s left witk j y own intuitions, Sinuc 1 know th t my judgments iifc very libci'ML i\alc to judge the i ajojiiiitiejllty of the e unples. It turned out th;it pooplo who did not know lh;n cows iife runiinsints by biologiCLil acccssity Licccpted <]22\. SnKC tlicir igiioriinec of tNis /ootogical fuet irudc it possible for tlic KC to iia ,is li restnelo]-. ihe re wlls nothing wrong with {122 for them, f wnm to tike this opportunity to thsink these people, who did not cjiv about their Inteltcetuul reputLition jrid freely admitted this iLiek of bajiic bioJo iejJ knowledge,

211

NOTLS OK fiX I K ACTION

(123) Sir hm \DEN Sergej ijj von Auftmx au

gctieht, \dcr in Odessa

Ttuis. if ono itsstimos thai restrictive RCs ane SLibjeci to the indexing mechanism described tibove and iisstiming; further that the theory of keiativized Minimality is on the right track, the dilTerenee in the extraction behavior betwoon rostrictivo bind iippositive RCs can be e\plamod if scrambled XPs are eo]isidered to have the same blocking status as complements ol fattive predicates, Wf-constmctions, modal whet herclauses or constructions involving negation. In other words, the data seem to parailol well known facts about extraction and hence support the daun Lhal topics are weak islands. This conclusion eliminates the second and last di Here nee between leftwarti

mid rightward movement. Tho data undoubted I y prove that nghtward movement shows island elTects as well.

64 2 3 .

.

.

in rcrm vdki rc si i i wna ry

Sort of

traction

e trattion

of re feren-

of restric-

of apposi-

tiBJ/indi*-

tive RCs

tive KCs

quimtitiei

split

split Extraction

vidiu]

from Llt Of

m DO1'

ok

ok

,,

k

ok

N

>k

ok

ns IO

ok

ok

ok

ok

ok

ok

ok

ok

ok

L.k

ok

ok

*

ok

ok

+

ok

ok

*

ok

0

*

ok

0

ok

sDO

*

3 JO s SU l iflivc

-

4

*

If

-

cninpteinerLt iie iiUftii

KJ.

'UK-' smuiJ

+

M

for uiisi.TaiubJcd'.

sUil J;; Ibr "scrambled'.

0

212

SYNTACTIC ASPECTS 01

TOPIC AND COMMLNT

As one can read from this tybJe. scrambled NPs pattern together with factive and negLitive is hinds independently t>f their arguments I .sttitus. Addit ion Lilly there is one niore con struct ion in which s elect i on li! behavior of extraction can be

observed' RC extraposition. This should be enough evidence for the Revised Genentlized Specificity Condition, which claims that topics tire weitk ishmds.

S|>LLcubl]ons ovir an i'\phuialJiJti for lhti GtititTitlizLid Spmiitity Condition 65 .

.

1

Syntactic cxplanatioi is

In the previous subchapters it has been shown that topics are weak islands. 1 conent that this statement already constitutes substantial progress, since it generalises over several loosely or non-related types of weak islands.

However, it would be even nicer to have an idea about why this should be so, i.e., why topics can act as blocking elements for movement. This section will be concerned with a possible explanation.

The first idea that comes to mind is a syntactic approach that forbids extraction out of moved material. As has been shown in this book, it is

reasonable to ass time thii[ topic phrases undergo movement (scrambling) whereas comment XPs remain in situ. Thus topics are distinct from nontopics in that the former have moved and the tatter have not. This conclusion yields a welcome input for Ross 'Frozen Structure Constraint (l%7K This aide bears its name because the movement has a freezing eJTect on the moved phrase. Alter raising, extraction out of the phrase is no longer possible. Miiller {IW4» fomtalizes this in the following way, which is a bit more abstract than Ross original I'ormulaLion: '

'

'

(124)

...a, ...[[i ...t, ...f,

(125) *...<*, ...||i ...tt ...|: ... u

Mullcr gives a non-forma I description as well: (126) (his tl2jj Freezing: At S-strucmrc. a truce t may nut be included in a nuivcd XP {i.e., an XP that binds a trace) it the antecedent ot r is excluded by XP.

NOTLS ON liXTRACTJON

At hi t gliint;e+ this syntiiclic generalizatitin seems [t> be ti L!tK>d eandidale for

an explanation, [t is Lirgued in the present work fhat (opies lire in a derived position. Llv thtiy hiivc undergone movement. According to the Frozen Structure ConstrEiinL they constitute a syntactic category from which extraction ciLimol take place. On the other hand, non-topics do not scrambler They sttiy in their base position. Nothing renders them frozen constituents there.

hence extraction is not prohibited."0 There is one drawback with Mullcrs" explanation, however. As J have

shown, topics are not strong islands. The table in Ihe preceding section, which summarizes the data from Section 6.1 to 6.4 shows that some XPs .

I referential/individual expressions) may be moved out of topics. On the other hand, the tormulations of the Frozen Structure Constraint prohibit any extraction out of moved material. In order to save the general idea, one could try to exploit some theory of 1 anti-freezing (Miiller 1994; Collins 1994). 1

However, unlike the data Mtiller considers, it seems th t a purely syntactic account cannot deal with the facts in the case at hand, because the structure

itself is the same. Thus, although the freezing constraint looked promising at the lirst glance, it does not provide a more insightful explanation of the generalized specificity condition. 652 .

.

/I semtmtk proposal

The second explanation to be considered is provided by the theory of S/.a hole si and Zwarts (l -

l. 1993). The theory - although quite reasonable

is presented in a dillicult and complex algebraic semantics that makes the

theory for many syntacticians inaccessible. Thus J will ive a short summery of what is necessary for the argumentation here. For Szaboksi and Zwarts.

island escaping is a question of scope taking. -Scope is a property of quantitreat ion a! elements. In a sentence with more than one quantifier, more than one sco pa I interpretation irmy be possible. However, the number of di tic rent

20. Anctfhcr very simiUr pfapu. iJ js Hiiiiii 'ji (1982) 'Condi [ion on Extract ion Domjims' (CED>. Th],s constraint also prohibits extraction out of moved constituents. However, the CHD is iis rest naive its tlie bnven iStrucuire Constniim m ttiat extriiction is gene rally blocked from positions which are not properly governed tL-nuirked in Bamer term,s>. As I tuive shown, this predietion of nnsetectivity does not hold, hence it is to be rejected for the same reasons as the ] wen Strueture Constminl. -

214

S Y NTAC" 1 C AS HLC I S ( 'i i) PIC AN U a )M MliN rJ1

sl'ojkiJ tjucrpretalions of a sentence docs not (iilwtiys) equal the ntimbcr of till

possible permutations of the scope of ill I quamiliLTs within it. Some operators iire incapiible of taking scope over others. S tibolcsi tind Zwaits propose that all sco pa I elements are associiited with Boolean operations (ne tition with ttiking eoniplementS for example). j

(126)

Szabolcst and Zwarts (1993: 236)

Each scoput elcinenr SE is associated with certain Boolean operations. For a u'/i-phrase to take scope over some SE means that the operations associated with SE need to he performed in the n'/f-phrase s denotation Jomain. 11 the w/i-phrase denotes in a domain for which the requisite ope rut ion is not do lined, it cannot scope over SE. '

In other words, in order for a scopal element SEI to take scope over SE2. SEil must allow for at least all the operations under which the domain of SE2 is closed as well. That means that the possible operations of an element with narrower scope must be a subset of the operations associated with the element which is supposed to take wider scope. W -phrases that range over individuals (Pesetzky's (1987) well known 'heavily discourse-linked' 'which X examples) are successful wide scope takers because they nm e over individutils, and individuals are collected into sets without entering into any ordering relation. Consequently, all Boolean operations are dedned in their domain. Mimner adverbial.s, amount phrases [how. henv much and [he like) are assochited with partial orders which are not defined for all Boolean operations, hence the restrictions fox movement, The scopa! elements whose interaction plays a role in our case arc the topic XPs on the one hand, and the relevant extractees on the other In this paragraph I justify the claim that topic XPs can be analyzed as '

scopal elements with a relatively high number of Boolean operations which t;an be performed in their domain. Let me brieily repeat which XPs act as topics, and hence, must scramble. As I have argued in Chapter 3, strong quantifiersj whenever they act as such, have to leave the VP. Similar to Hornstein (1994) 1 assume that quantification resulting from nominal QPs results from movement of these strongly quant Hied DPs (QPs) to SpecA r as one important step in the derivation of the quantification a! structure. From there, they can c-command the relevant entities they have scope over. As a

consequence, it seems very natural to analyze these quantifkationa] topics as scopal elements out of which Iurther extraction is restricted. This covers XPs

IVOTLS OK fiX TRACT [ON

of the form: jeder Student (every student) j die nieixten Scfnveine (most pigs). VIER Litiftuisien (f'OLIR linguists}, zwef vots ders Opt'rn (Lwo of the operas* and the like. Thus one sort ol prototypical topie seems to be expressions that '

are uncontroveraiaUy annly/.ed as stopal elements. A second class of topics is NPs (hat do not ate w qu ami tiers in the lirst place. For example, unstressed proper names and definite descriptions. It is not obvious that they should be analysed as scopal elements. One approach to this would he the adaptation of the classical Monlagovian approach whciv all NPs regardless <)f their moaning arc analy/ed as generalized quamifierrs

(type (f(Montague 1974). linder sueh a perspoeiivc. these NPs could also receive the status of a scopal element. However, this umfonn treatment

of NPs as generalized quantifiers has been criticized and modi lied by many authors (especially Partee (19K7J and references quoted therein . Furthermore. a uniform treatment would biur the diflerenee between topics and non-topics We would like to htive a theory that distinguishes them with respect to their quantifier status. Such a theory has in fact been proposed: de Hoop s theory of strong and weak Case (de Hoop (1992). see Chapter 2.122 of this book). .Similar to the theory put forth in this hook, de Hoop s claim is that an NP in the base position gets assigned weak Case, Weak Case is associated with a weak, i.e. existential reading. According to de Hoop, weak '

NTs are of type c or {{e,r), {ej}}- NPs that have undergone scrambling (in Dutch) are assigned strong Case. Strong Case is associated with a quantitieational reading. Thus, only NPs with strong Case are interpreted as generalized quantilicrs wit]] lypc {y/}.!). Under such a lypc shilling uppruiK/h (i rtcc 1987), we gel the welcome distinction between VP internal and scrambled constituents. All topics are quantifiers. As a consequence, the somewhat problematic cases (scrambled proper names and de Unite DPs» must also be analyzed as generalized quantitiers. This pertains to expressions such as Mary, The US president, Lucituw Pavarotti. the gun + those animah. In all '

ikelihood these n<mu phrases denote in the domain of individuals. If we recall that the elements that take narrower scope are associated with a subset of the Boolean operations under which the wide scope taker is closed, it becomes clear that only individual expressions can escape topics, They denote into unordered sets in which all boolean operations are defined.

This enables them to take scope anywhere. Scopal elements that are closed under a low number of operations are trapped in a scopal I y low position.

215

NOTLS ON liX J'RACTiON

of the form: jederStudent (every student), die meixten Schweine (most pigs), VILR Lirtftuisten (FOUR linguists), iwei von den Opt-rn (two of the operas) and the like. Thus one Mm of prolotypieai fopit.1 seems to he expressions (hat

are unconiroversiaily analyzed as stopiil eiemenls. A second dass of topics is NPs [hu[ do not act u quantihers in the tirst place. For example, unstressed proper names and definite desmptions. It is not obvious that they should be tinalyi:ed ys seopai elements. One approach to this would be I he adaptation of the dassitiil MonliigovUn approitdi wheie all NPs regardless of their meaning are iinaly ed as generalized quantifiers

(type {erl)j}) (Montague 1074). Under such a perspective, these NTs could also receive the status of a scopal element. However this uniform treatment of NPs as generalised quantifiers has been eritidzed and modified by many

authors (especially Partee (1987) and references quoted therein). Furthermore, a uniform ireiitment would biur the difTerence between topics and n on-topics. We would like to have a theory that distinguishes them with

respect to their quantifier status. Such a theory has in fact been proposed: de Hoop's theory of strong and weak Case (de Hoop (1992). see Chapter 2.1.22 of this book). .Similar to the theoi'y pLtt I orLh in Lhis book, de Hoop s claim is that an NP in the base position gets assigned weak Case. Weak Case is '

'

associated with a weak, i.e. existential reading. According to de Hoop, weak

NPs are of type c or {{e,t), {e,r)). NTs that have undergone scrambling (in Dutch) are assigned strong Case Strong Case is associated with a quantitie at ion a! reading. Thus, only NPs with strong Case are interpreted as general-

ized tenantitiers with type {f.t),t). Under such a lype shillinii approach (Partee 1987) we get the welcome distinction between VP internal and scrambled constituents. All topics are quantifiers. As a consequenceh the somewhat problematic cases (scrambled proper names and dehnite DPs) must also be

analyzed as jienerallied quantitiers. This pertains to expressions such as Maty, rhc US president, Luciano Pavarotti* the gun. Those animals. In all

ikelihood these noun phrases denote in the domain of individuals. If we recall that the elements that take narrower scope are associated with a subset of the Boolean operations under which the wide scope taker is closed, it becomes dear that only individual expressions can escape topics, They denote into unordered sets in which al] Boolean operations are de lined.

This enables them to take scope anywhere. Scopal elements that are closed under a low number of operations are trapped in a scopal I y low position.

216

SYNTACTIC ASFliCTS 0[: TOPIC AND CtXMMliNT

This expliiins why individual dcnncnis are ood tfjiiraulees. whei its qiuinlifiers such as "was-fiir', 'wieviet' and the like can not scope t>ver mt>sl other

quantifiers .ll (y.(i

A sliurl summary

As a short summary, it seems that the idea that topits are genera!Ued quantifiers can be used to account for Ihe fact that scrambled constituents become

weak islands for extraction. XPs in base position arc not interested in scope taking. Hence no conllitH arises when movement out of them takes place. The main proposal of this chapter is fonmilaled in the generalized spedlicity constraint U states that constituents that act as topics in the sense

of the present work become islands for extraction. Since the data show that some phrases may escape them, and that these constituents are the classic robust extractees (discourse-1 inked, referential, individual phrases j the constraint on extraction is formulated as foliows:

Generalized SpecilicLty Condition (tievised version): Topics are weak islands

Appendix: Some evidence from Euglish (i J 7 'lit' aclvdi i iai; ex of the (Jei ierulized Specijk -iry Condition It has been observed by L'iengo and Higginbotham (19SIJ that -extraction out of ordinary indeliniles is allowed in English [127], while extraction out of dehnite and specific NPs is prohibited {l2K)t (129),

(127) Who did you see o good picture of tp. (128) *Whoi did you see The good picture of r ? (129) '.'Who. did Mary make many ol the movies about fL'?

21. It is not yet deaf tf> nie liow tJiis. cxplitniLtioji tiin lie used in iicfount J'or tlic Kt; Whereas 1 thuik that tlie quLaitiiicjliiinji] status is abvious witJi lespect to n.7?-estractjoiq lliiiJ not

diough less evtdert y,v]th 'i'opic picptjsine (quantiser .spiitv it re]iiai]is mystcLHius us to why KC exlrapositiou shouJJ be lcstriated: by the senvantics of scope.

urueusoiiahie

,

217

NOTLS ON EXTRACTION

This contrust hus led u> the formulation of the (simple) 1 specificity condition . Thus, the trigger for the ungrammaticality in extraction constructions is not de tin i ten ess, but spec i tic ity. a weaker notion (cf. En 1990), The auknowled ment nl tJu- blocking eJfecl triii erod by specific it ictmiLcs ]s already a step forward. However, the fitcts turn out to be more complicated. Not only do some indefinites, namely the specihe ones, block extraction. there seem to be deftnites that allow for w/i-extraction. Piengo (19K6} notes that superlatives do not prohibit movement out of them:

(IJO) Whoj did you see

best picture of fvy?

Hence, the simple specilicity condition is not an optimal solution

,

either

Kiengo then suggests that the definites that allow for extraction are best analyzed as novel del mites in the Hcimiah sense (Llf. Chapter 3). This comes close to the proposal advocated here. As a matter of fact, superlatives refer to an extreme individual in the niodei. There is aJways only one biggest, one

smallest, one most intelligent... thing, person... Thus, .superlatives tian be very easily used as referential deiinites in the sense of Chapter 3. Seclion 3.4. That means that as long as they are not topics, they do not block extraction. Interestingly, superlatives appear in positions in which deiinites are normally excluded, i.e. in there-be sentences (cf. Chapter 5). Moreover in that position, they get a n on-topic reading. Considering these facts, the

generaiized specificity condition seems to he superior and another step in the right direction." (it) Possible evidence against the right f
22. Nevertheless, wheieas tlic gcitci'Litized specificity eomJitmu seems > k suRieiciu lo cxphtLn tlte Gentiitn daty. (his If not [her cuse for tin Jish. In Hn lis.h, sjbjcci , uro LiLwiiy '

istLiniJs. fOnJy SC tntci'nai subjeccs in there-be construccloLis. aJJow i nv extntctio]!. ? VP exlcntLit MlllK'L-lN vh' n:H hIIm-lV \::\ L'Mlll lhHL. ILlLlL'l h.il MlL t pi'L'LlI L j 011 HkV L1 v L >\::\-CM ikdl .

according tf> some versions of the Miip|iiiig Hypothesis are reconsureuted into the hsise position and do deJintLeJy nnt ct as topics make moveinenl out of them impossibk. 1 do not have iin eipJuiiLLtion for this.

218

(J3I)

SYNTACTIC ASPECTS OF TOVlC AND COMMLNT

JoliLiniies fitiw some movies, and Axel did too.

The VP of the first conjimct docs not c-command the did (too) in the second eonjunet. In ACD constructions, however, this constraint dt>es not appear to hold:

t!32) JoliLinnes stiw every movie that Axel did. In (J32J the matrix verb e-et>mmand.s the deletion site, i.e. did. Moreover.

the idea of copying the Linteeedejn VT into the deletion she ere bites the problem of inlinite re res :

( M2) JoliLinnes saw every movie thai A.veJ lyp Jl(133) Johannes saw fDp every movie that Axe] \wv saw every movie that Axel fVp saw every movie that Axe] (v,, saw every movie that Axel...]]]"

One way to get out of this problem is to assume that the object moves out of the VP at some level of representation. Whatever movement device is adopted {QR in May {19W5). object raising to SpecAgrO in Runner {J993).

Adger (10 3), Homstein

the resulting structure is such that

copying the matrix VP into the deletion site no longer poses a problem.

(134)

|every movie thut Axel \

saw i]] \lv Johannes saw fL|

L>r

(135) Johannes |lV.l0]J I every movie that Axel [Vlj saw /JJJ saw What is crucial for the purposes at hand is the fact that the c-command requirement is not eliminated. (134) and (135) are both structures in which the two VPs do not stand in any c-command relation, i.e. neither does the matrix VP c-command the deletion site, nor does the VP copy in the object DP c-command the antecedent VP. Thus the originiil constraint about the prohibition of c-command still holds.

25. 1 favor thi . most mww pmposyJ. ot foiir . Tliua. tki: thui luvulvmt; jnteteJent cu EajLieJ tteleliou ]Hf]ir[ in chu diiVfiicm itut lji Lii I] ]! die re ui'i: also rciisoiKi to believe tluil iwoveniint vcrsiifl non-movement distinjju]sites twtwecn lopics ntnd non-topics. ACD elfcc Jtre oniy nbserved with scron tv qiLLiinUted dnd dcfiiiLte) DPs. Thuii. ACD wjtji wc fc detenuineirs LiutomLLLK-iLlly tJ igt!CJ"s tlic strung pfesup-po Jtioiml reading. "

219

NOTLS ON liX J RACTION

Moreover, this constraint seems to be onlirnicid by one pulling eonsauution discussed in Tiedcmiinn (1995).

t John believed everytine was '

genius thai you did

.

h

l his

sentence is fairly aeeeptable. At the very least, it stands in sharp contrast to the relative clause in its base position modi lying everyone. (J37)

*iohn |believed [[everyone [that you did]] was a genius] .

This I act is accounted for by Sag's condition on deletion, [n (137) the deletion site is in the c-command domain of the matrix verb. (136) is okay because extraposition ol the relative has taken place. According to Sag s constraint, the relative clause must not be deeper than the matrix verb. Thus the closest possible landing site is an adjoined position to the matrix verb phrase (if an analysis is adopted where also the verb (and the object) in English moves overtly, adjunction must be assumed to take place even higher (Johnson 1991; Homstein 19 4; Sol 1994)).

John [Vp believed (fr]))

[q,5 everyone

was a geniusf|(|) [that

yott didjj.

Only a bracketing as the one in (I3K) ensures that the extra posed clause is outside the c-command domain of the matrix verb. According to the right roof constraint, the bracketing should not be the structural re pic sen tali on of a grammatical structure since there are three or four nodes between the trace and its antecedent. (136) or (i3S) are almost perfect, however. Hence, one possible conclusion might be to abandon the right roof constraint. In his classes (Lasnik, Berlin lectures at FAS 1995) and in p.c, Lasnik

has suggested that the ungrammaticahty of the famous right roof violations might actually be garden path elfecls. And indeed, some sentences pronounced with appropriate intonation and placed in a certain linguistic context do not sound as incorrect if one knows what they are supposed to mean. At least some willing native speaker ol Lnglish judged the following example as not so bnd:2A

24. Foir jmny. however, tlte sentence is migrjmmiitjtjaJ. Neveirthele . the fact tluit saline iiecept it should, be enough h> cIcjiuhisullLu ih-dt Mic right rooJ fouMiiiini It not ihiU robust a liltif on '

rightward move incut. The Cienimn cxitni[)lts from (UK) LUid native speaker, either.

iire not iiccoptJjIe to every

220

(139)

SYNTACTJC ASPECTS Oi; TOPIC AND COM ML-NT

Peter did NOT apprecidite that Maiy wilUwould defend her etaim YESTcidtty that John could he the thief, (but toDAY. he is quite hupp) that she will DO so.)

039) is a dear violation of the right roof constraint. Yesterday is an ad verb iaJ which can only modify the matrix clause, as its semantics makes it

incompatible with future tense. The clause 'dun John voaid he rhe thief is the complement u£ chiim, the subordinate object. Thus, the complement sentence of the subordinate object is ad joined higher than the matrix VP.

(140) Peter did NOT |appredate [that Mary will Jdefend |her claim l W YESterday] (that John could be the thief]j ...

This is a clear violation of Ross' constraint. The dilliculty with these sentences is that one has to look for an evainplc in which a matrix adverbial occurs after a subordinate clause. This structure {nheady without a continuation) is natural only when iha adverbial is emphasked. On the other hand. extraposed clauses also tend to be focused, i.e. they bring new information. That means that the cruciai e>iampics c\hihit a muhifocal structure. Thus. these sentences are also semanticalJy difficult to parse. It is then not surprising that a sort of garden path ell eel comes across.

Chapter 7 Conclusions

'

The present book bask til iy hits three major con elusions.

The first one is ehibontted in Chapcer 2. There it is argued that arguments that refer to discourse-new eniities remain in their VP internal base

posh ions. Within ih VR an; u men Is aro prnjected according to a universal hierarchy of thematic roles. It has been shown thai the claim that German JKphiys sc-veraL busc ordLT-. {DAT > A< r Afi > I)A ['. a(\ <;> IWJ 'i c;llhu>1 be maintaiiied. rrhe conclusion that there are ditTenent base-orders is the

resuJt t)f a misunderstanding of focus projeclion on tht on hand, and the overlooking of some semantic; fuels with the dat > act. act > ?V alternation on the other A closer look at the facts reveals that true dative objects generally precede and there lore c-command accusative arguments. There are no verbs which allow for both orders simultaneously If dative objects appear to be .

closer to the verb than accusatives, the datives at issue are no true datives, but

hidden ITs The semantic prove eomcs from a lexical decomposition of ihe meaning. Higher ranked datives denote goal arguments, deeper ranked ones, which are actually PPs. denote locations or directions. The syntactic evidence

comes from the morphologic a] shape of the relevant class of verbs. All verbs that project an AO > DAT VP. are particle verbs that consist of a verbal toot and a prefixed (locationai) preposition. I argue thai this word-internal structure is the result of the incorporation of the preposition leaving the former prepositional complement surface as a(n apparentJ dative argument. The

conclusion of these observations is a VP, which parallels a familiar hierarchy proposed by many linguists for many languages:

(1)

|VP SL1 |IO |DO [PP verb (]v|vjvl|)

The second main proposal concerns the trigger for scrambling, or more generally, one further proposal of the present book is a new discourses

222

SYNTACTIC ASPUCTS OF TOPIC AMI!) COMMUN7'

h

syniiix mapping. In Chapier 3 ei detailed presentittion oi the semantic; diffeFences between scrambled arguments and their unscrambled counterparts is given. It is proposed that the common property of the scrambled constituents which the unse ram bled ones lack is the discourse anelion]] ehaiacter of the former. It is argued that the scrambled arguments act as constituents

about which something is asserted. The feature that characterizes them as anchors in the conversation is [+Topic| {ci\ also Jiiger 1995). This feature is checked in the speeiher position of agreement projections. Comparison of many typologicaliy dillerent languages supports this claim because [+Topic arguments co-occur with grammatical phenomena related to scrambling (Case dilTerences, agreement Tacts, position change), which can be easily explained by the presence of agreement phrases. Attempts In link these phenomena to other triggers are untcnabie or less elegant. The forma] representation of the proposal looks as foilows: (2)

[ CP...[AgrPs . topic(s)

I VP ([discourse new adjuncts]) JVP... comment

The third main contribution is developed in Chapter 6. There a constraint is proposed which L call the Generalized Specificity Condition. It is shown Jirst that many subject-object asymmetries with respect to extraction are actually topic/non-topic asymmetries. It turns out that the right generalization is that VP internal arguments allow for extraction, while VP external act as islands. The argumental status (subject, object, ...) does not matter. It is furthermore proposed that 1 active sentences block extraction because, from a discoursetheoretic point ol view, they act as topics. Since neither topical nominal arguments nor faetive comptement sentences are completely impermeable, but allowr for extraction of individual (and discourse-linked) const intents, I

classify topics as weak IslancEs. The (ienerali/cd Specificity ConsU-aint. here repeated i s (3). may be viewed as i\ generalization over quite a number of hitherto unrelated conditions on movement (such as the original Specificity Condition (Fiengo and Higginbotham 19SI), Gueron s name constraint {GucTon 197K. 19S0). the Frozen Structure Constraint (Ross I967)t the is land hood of factive predicates (Kiparsky and Kiparsky 1970: Riz/i 1990: Cinque 1990 etc.) (3)

CJeneratized Specificity Condition: Topics are weak islands.

223

CONCU STONS

Chapter 4 Jurthermore nITqi-s stmie spccuiiUions on the reason tor this

eoiistniint Eind provides evidence for the claim that leftward raising as well as movement to the light obey the same constraints, which is one nioi'c

generalization ol that part of the given hook. The general goal of this book is to investigate how syntax deals with the information imposed by the structure of discourse It tries to show how

the speaker's intents to present his/her information are encoded in the '

synttietie structure of sentences, whereby syntactic is used in its broader sense which covers ovei1 syntactic In the narrower sense, mcrphoioLueaL phonological and so forth, it contains the proposal that constituents have to occupy/to be associated with specific structural positions according to their '

'

informational task.

'

References

Abney, Steve. 1967. The Nmm Plirj c in its Sunlciitiul Asptfl. Pti.D. lliesis. MIT, Abniham. Werner. I9'S4. "Wtind Order in the Middle Field uf Ihe Gcnnan Scntenee". In W

.

Abraham

dc Mcij (Ed .}, Topw, Focus, ard Coftjigwasiofjuinv. Lingui tik

Akluclt 4: l>

Abniham. Wcmcr iy 4ii. " FokusgmmmLilik und Inddinitlu-it". In H. Hjflkj (cd ), Was deterrmniert Worrts.ti.'Ekir svjriLition? Opljden. 235-245. AbfLibLim, Wcincr. 19 4 . "Zar Ee rinidjiig tier In ubililEil des vcrbiikn CJenilivs im DeutNuhen." In E. FEiuchcr. G. Mdlrich M. V ltl]iU mL Hit Is.}. Si mms tuai

Sigttatum. Auftlem Weg

einer Serrtailtischen Grafiirutilik. Fcstselirift Pjal Vjicnlin

ztim W. Gcburlstiig. Tubingen: G. Nhax. 17? [13.

AbrLiham, Wcmer, i*?

, " Structural propcrlicK of inloniuuior packaging in German and ummrjiLiI Grammar Tftweaux da wt-fc fhwuLstii/Hi' NS J, Amsterdun, 42 62. Abraham, Wcmer & Sjank dc Mcij (Eds.JTopic. Focus, citd Cotifigurndtftiality. "

.

AmKlcrdam: Lin uistik Afctucl! 4.

Attuicmy ol'Sciences of (he l"SSR, I KO, Ruwhtytf xnifttftwiika Tom if SintiiLfi.s. Naukn. Moskvj.

Adamec4 Pri]iQsi]. I%6. Poryadok. siov v sovrewefuwm russkom yazyk?. Aeadcmia Pratia.

Ro/ ipravj CcsikQ!i]i)vc]iske AkLid mic Vt'd. Ad er. Diivid. 1 )93, Functiimitl Hctuls and Intcrprclution. Ph.D, Ihcsj . Univcmty of Edinburgh. Adgcr, David. 1994. Eeuntuny j]id OptitmLility: interpretation ol' Jiubjcuts in Italian. Mi.

UnWcrjiily of Ynrk, Alcmdou. A He mis. 1 94, Issues in itic Syntax oi' Adverbs. Doctoral disjicriLilion. Univcrsitat Potsdam, [appeared 1997 Lit Adverb Piaccmeui: u Ca.w Siitdy in Ausilynwiethc SynUix. Amsterdam: John Bcnpmin!i|

.

Animiinn. Ilernuinn, \ti2A. Die menscitlKhe Rede 2. Dw Safz. Du mist mil; i,Lilir.

Anag]iost{)poiiUm. Elcnii. 1 994. On the rcprcscntiition ol' clilic dtnibti]i<: in Modem Greek Ms. University {)f Tilburg.

Bukcr, Mark Cr J9JiS. hicorpowfion. A Theory of Grammatical Function Chunging, Chieago. London: The Universily oi' Chicago Pncsi, Baker. Mark C. 1996. The Pofysynthesis Pammcicr. Oxftjrd Stadics in CumpLiralivc Sv]itLi\.

11U

Burwisc. Jon & Robin Cooper. LhGcrcrjliH:d Quanlififrs jntj NaLuritl LLir ujgc", LinguisticsaadPhilosophy 4: 159 2J9, B ycn Joseph. [990. Dim tiofinHfyiff'CtfVcnitm'tUumt L))*:ful Fiffm: A .muiy ofF(Hvwitifi Partk fcsiiii
Bclkui. Adriunu. l9Bft. lThc case oJ' Unactusalivcs". Lmguis-tii- fmfuiry I: 1-33. BflUnii. AdriauLi A [.ni i Ri/r/ri. "Psyth Vcibs und 6-theory". Numvi iMtigiWRi' and Linsuixtic Theory 6, 291 -352. BcnvcnisTc. Emilc. Pivbtrmw de UvKuixtiqur xwuraic I. Editions Gbllinuitl, Bibllohcquc des scicrtcs Humaincs. Bcstcn, Hans der, l9S5r "The Ergativc Hypothesis und Free Word Order in Dmch and Gennan". [n J. Toman (cd,). Studies en Gemum Cramnuu\ Dtirdnitht: Foris. 27* 4, Bickerton. DEivid. Roots of Uutguagc. Karoma: Ann KurboLir. Bkrvvisich. Manfred. 1990. '-Verb CKisicr Ftjrmation as w MorpholoyknE PrtK ss". In Bobtiijik. J{)nulhi.in, D. & DitirtL Jon s. J993. Suhjet-J pc.sisians and iiw rote of TP. Msi. MIT & Htirvjrd Univcrsitv jnd GLOW talk.

Bdnct, Ed alia. 1990. "Subjctts in Catalan". MfTWarking Paper.t fS. Paper? on Wh-Mavemens. I

26.

Boner, Hagil. t9X3. Parametfii- Syntax. Utirdrcchl: Korls. Boner, HllimI. 1994. The Pnnjeetitm of Aryumirnls. Course material and Chus ntitcs irom the Girona Summer School 1994.

Borras, F.M. & R.F. Christian. I97J. Russian Syntax: MpectA of Modern Russian Syntax and Vocahidar. 2nd cditiun, Claneiidon l ess. Ox lord.

Brudy. Miehacl. 1995. Hungarian Fckus. and Chctkmg Tiicory. Talk givtn at the Fueus Wtjrkshop '17 Jahmcjilagung dcr DGJ'S Univcrjiilal Gttltingcn'. Brojiiiewski. Hans-L1 If. 19V4. livliapositian im Deutschzn. Ms. Univtrsilat Kttln. Btiring. Danid. 1993. Word Order in the German Middk Field and \hc l\ ilio]i oi'NcgP. Ms. UnivciraitJt K(>ln. |And related talk, ealkd; gibt keine J'reie Worlstellung im Deutschen. DGfS Jahreslagung Jeim.] Biifing. Dan tel. 19 4. The Interavlion ofFoeus. PI 'llsu StrnLtiife. and Ouanlidealion. Ms. ,

.

,

UniveRital Kiiln.

Biifing. Daniel & Kalharina Karlmann. 1994. Doing the Right Thing - Exlrapodition as li Movement Role. SpnKim xxensiiuift in Frankfurt. ArbcitspLipiere 13. CardinLilctti. Annn & Mithal Slitrfcc. 1993 94. Tfw TypoU y of Siruaund Dcfintncy On Three Grwnmaticai CkuLws. Joint mannseripL Universities of Geneva and Venifc. Max-PI Lint k Berlin,

Carlson, Greg. 1977. Reference to kinds in Entfisb. Ph.D. thesis, Univeirity of Ma aachusclLs. Amherst.

Catell. Ray. l('7S. On t];e Souree of Imeroyaliv;1 Adverbs". Lm tui v f'll 77 Chomsky. Noam. 1970. Btrnfrkunfien zur Nomitfafisiwuna. German translation from Remarks on Nominalkalion'. Sludien Fragen dcr Setnantik. Ullstein, :

227

RLJliRtNCIiS

Chomsky. Nonm. l VJ, "'Deep smicnuv, sm riKV structure, und scmurtic irtLTpn:(;i!i(jn", In D. Sicirbcr ; & L, JaktibnvjtJi (Eds.}. SematJiirf: An inwrdisi-jpiinary wader m phiiasophy. foiigutilics and psychaiofiy. Cnmbridgc: CLimbritiy Jncvcrsiity Prtsis. Chfjmisky, NL»[im. \972. LLSti]¥ic empirical isjijes in the thctiry t)f grainmjr". In F. SUirlcy CEd.;i. iUmisoj futtiiusfic tiii'tuy. Hn L-wuod ClillsL PfcnLitrc Hall. Chomsky. Noam. 1977. "Condilions on Ruks ol GrjiTimur". In N. Chotnsky. Esstiys vii Form {uiti hnerpn'mtiot}. Amsterdam, \bl-210. Chomsky. Ndain. J9WO. Rutvi (itul Reprrsrimuhfiis. New York.

Chomsky.

»am, J9S t. Lectures on Government and Brndiitg. Biyrdrwht Fori*.

Ch )[nsky, Noam. J9S6. Barriwa. Cum bridge, Miis chusclts.: MIT Prcssi. Ch )[nsky, NfKim. I9ii9. Sonic Notts on Economy of Dcrivatkin and RcprcscnLLition. In MiT Working Papers 10. Chomsky. Koum. 19 2. A MiniiTULlijiL Program for Lidi iiijilic Theory. In MITOccatiortai Chomsky. Noam. 1994. Biirc Phrase Structure. Ms. MIT. Chomsky. Noam. The Mifiiwifiitf Frnfiram. Cumbridgc, Mas such nsctts: MIT Press, Cinqac, Gn liclmo. 1990. Types of A-DependeHCffs. CadTibridge, Massachnselts: MIT Press.

Cinque Qugllclmo. 19 . "A Null Theory oJ' Phi-j.sc and Compound Stress". Linguistic Inquiry lA: 239-2iT3r I97?r Xfwriugue's Setmwtie Thwry wid Tnwtfftrwtitiomt Sytttax. Ph.D, ,

An]i Arbtjr. MI. Microtilm.

CtHiper, Robin.

"Variable Binding and Relative Clauses1'. In B.K. Partee, B. fEd.},

Montagu? Grammar. 131 -170.

Culiuovcr. Pultr W. & Michuicl RochcmcriL 19 0. "Extraposition and Contplcnttnt Pivxai if*. Unguhtic hquiry 2\[\)\ 23 47. Dumajiio. Anthony R. & Hannii Dtimasio. 1992. "Sprudie tmd Geliirn". Spekfrum der Wissenschofr. 30-93, Danes, FninLcsck fEd.). 1974. Papers on FifiicJiaiial Sentence Perspei ftve. Aeademiay Prahii.

Dikkcn. Murttl den. 19 5. PartU'iejt. On the syntax ofverb-parnete. triadic, and causalive '

constructions. Oxl ord

Studies in CumpurDtive Syntax. Oxford University Press. Die sing. Molly. t992:i. Indefinita.lA Monographs. Ciimhridjic. MussachtiSL: Els: MIT Press, Die sing. Molly. I992t>. "Bare Pltirnt Subjects and the Derivation of Logical Rep resent litions"r Linguistic Inquiry 23: 353-3JB. LH-L-sing. Molly

I-.Iolsj- SLhij-i-k. J 'J.3-. "Tlij- SmUiix

nd Scr.Ki]iLic:> . I Object Sjnil".

Working Papers in Scandinavian Syntax 5/. Dohrovic-Soiin, Carmen. 199t). "Clitic Doubling. WH Movement und U Lintitieation in Romaitian". LinguisTtc tftqifiry 2\: 35l--3<)7.

RtiPLRtNCES

E>i)nh[iti!icrn Kurin. L99{>. "Modcmc Kti u kor/.cplioncn urd die Kj?iii?i i:lziin ini Althtjehdeutsfhen". In A. Bet ten (Ed.), Nvisew Forachungwi hisioriwiwn Syfifaxdes PftH.wiii'it. Tubingen, ISficmcycr, 9ft 512. DunnclEnn, Kccth. I IA. "Rdeicncc and dclinllc descriptions". Reprinted rr{)]n The

Phik)H)phieul Review LXXV f 1966). In D D. Steinberg & L.A. Jakobtivits (Eds.), Sfmairrics - Air {iitirdisciptiiituy Rwufw iu Phiiosophy, Linguixrifs mid Psychoiogy, 100-114

LHinicriet], Hlisti di. 1994. The Dcnoljlion P]"ineip]e, Ms. Ui jeh Erieh. 19 9. d midgedauke'n der Deut.ichen Sarzk'firc. KrLinkf'jn/MLLin. Diubig. Hjns-Bcnibird. [')['>]!92. Zur l-ni i: dtr mmnmiisfhen Rcpa eiULHiosi iheti ehtr tind kjlc jriiiehtr Siii/.t. In J. J[Lecibs [Ed.}, infoimaiwiisxti uktuf mut iii ummafik Liftgitisthcfip itefivhte Sofideffi ft 4). Dfubig. Htins-Bernhjrd. ]9LJ>. LiKjlity and Licensing in the Grammtirol" Focns. UrLiJ't. Dfubig. HLLns-Befnluifd. Iiihnd fonslruiiUji und the syntactic nadire ol" jiicns tind LisjiiieiLiliii]! with I ocui. In Arbeit ptipiert'd Simdcrfor dnm sh ichts 140. Nr. 51. Drubtg. ! Luis-Bern hard. 1996. Fokusstniklur und Ft)ku(tkon!itruk(ion ini En lischen. Ms, Uni Tiibin cn. Enuu . JoNtph. 1979. "Apposiiive rclLiiivcs lutve no propenics1'. Ufifiifistif hitjuifi [&. ,

,

'

2\[

34J.

Emonds. Joseph. 1993. "Prijjccctuj: indit-cci objects". Tiw Liuiiiiistif /fn/cn1 I0f3): 211-265.

En \ Misrvtt. !9S6. 'Ttiwurds a Rcjcrcnlinl Anitlysiji of Tecnporal Expressions". Lin nistksauif Philosofyhy 9: 405-426. En '. Miin'd. 1990. "The ScmEintics of Spcei(icily11. Lingwstir Inquiry 22; 1-25. Enjiel. IN rich. I9KS. Dcitfsclic Gramnuuik. Heidelberg.

Fubb.Ni eL J990, 'The difference between English restrictive Etnd n nrestrictive relative clauses

"

LiTtguistics 26: . 7-78. FiinseUiw. Cfishert. 1987. Kflnfiguy-ariofwiftiii Uritrrwcluwxi'it -af Uiuvctwi rawmutik
.

.

'

j-Lv.1 . < ri l- -n. j'JUl--. The R tinn i>: lIil- I lis-c Clenerjtorji. \U. Tni PEissau.

Ftinsclow. Gisbert. 1992 b. "Eioltigisehc Alllcinnmie der CiKirmiatitik . In P. Suehshind

(ed.), Biohigisfhc j u\d so-iuie Cntudlaiifu < fn Spi ut-hi'. Fit mi: Lir uisli seh e Arbe iler, Nieineycr. Fiinsclow

Gisfaert. 1995. Scmmbling [ird Anb-.Scrambling. HLird out &. talk at the v» ]rfcshi]p on Leonoiny in JunjLiiy 1995 at the Arhehs ruppe Slrjkturelic Gljjii,

"

malik MPGV

Ferguson, K. Seotl & Erich M. Groat. 1994. Dclining 'Shortest Move'. GLOW htindoiit. Ficngo, Robert. t9S6. "Dclinilcncss. Spccilieity Lind HaitiitiLihly". L/ r/.v /i Irufuiry 17.

229

Ficngt), R ibcTt & J iimcs Hi yinbcuhLim. J Wl. ""Opiifiiy in NP". Unssn'stic Aiwlypsn;

Firbas, Jan, 1964, On Dffiwng ih? Them? in functional Sentence Anaiysis. TLF J. Fjknt. Ncioki & Margam Spcas, |9S . LLSpctlficr>i and Frojetlion". ,WT Working Faiwx

in Linguistics S; Giorg[LL Alessandra, 1994, On Ttmpora] and Aspctiual PhciHimcrn. GISSL Scmirar Material,

Oiorgi. Altrssandru & Cjiuscppc Longobardi. E9K9, TJie Syntax ofNoun Phrases: ConfigU' rations, Faramftfiz and Empty Categoriesr Cambridge Univcnsiry Press. Ciiusik Giulitira, ]99{>, "Floating Quartificni. Scrapribling and Contiguratitirality",

Linguistic Inquiry 21: 633--641, GivtSn. Talmy. J976. 'Topit. Pronoun, ttnd Grammarical Agreement". In Ch, Li & S, Thompson ifidt.}. Sitbifrt amf Topic. Acudemk Press New York. Gohbcl. Edward, 1 94. Die 'Dtmblc-Object Construetkm' und Topte-Gommcnr Gticdcninj;. Ms. Grewendorf. Gunther, i9S9. Ergativity iti German. \tv. vSludies in Generative Grammar 35, Grewcndorl . Giinther (ft Wobgang Stemcfeld fBds.J 1990. SerambUng wui Barriers. Jolin Bcnjannins Publishing Com puny. Anvilerdam'Philadelphia. Griee. Pnul. 1968. "Ullerers meaning sentence meaning, and word me Lining". Foundations of fMngitage 4: l-lfi. Griee. Paul. 1975. "Logic and conversation" In P. Cole & J.I.. Morgan (Eds.), Syntax and Setnantics 3: Speech Acts. Wew York: Academic Press, Grimshaw. Jane. L99ft. Argument Structure. MIT Press. Cambridge. Massaehusetls. Grimshaw. Jane. 199.V Minimal Projection. Heads, and Oplimality. Ms.. Rutgers L'nivtrsitv.

Grimsliaw. Jane. & A. Mesicr 1988. "Light Verbs and

\ LmgmstivInquiry 19;

205-232.

Grocncndijk. Jeroen. & Martin StockhoL I9C)I. Dynamic Predicate Logic1'. Linguistics and Phiiowphy J4. 39-100. GrnmfriiKe finer deatsiben Grainmatfk. fl98L Hcidolf, K.E.. Fliimig. W. & W. Motsch [EdsJ Berlin: Akademie Verlag. Gueron. Jacqueline. I97K. The Grammar of PP extraposition. Ms, Guci'on. Jacijueline. J980. "On the Syntax and Scmuntics of PP Extraposition", ;? : f Inquiry 11. 637-678. Gueron. Jacqueline & Robert May. 1984. "Extraposition and Logical Form". Lingiti.ttie Inquiry 65: I--32. t I

m :iIkivl:i. CjNuv .

\

'

?

.

W ui. Mudu .iad Nucleus"

"

touftwi

LfuxuiMh

P.):

77 417.

Hiiberli. Erik. 1993. "Serambllng & Feature Checking". GenGanP I h nb.2: lb 47. Haegeman. Lilians. 1993. Die di>thbulion of Object Pronouns* in Wi:>t Fie mi i. Ms. Unlversile de Geneve.

Haeijcman, Lilmnc. 1994. Inirtxiuetion to Governmeni Black well.

liimting Titeoiy. 3nd edition.

230

HLillcn. Ton var. Smitii. Rik & Jan Vlii. 19 rctonsmLction

. "Left DiskiLiHion. ctmncctcdnciis und

"

In Ehrlich. K. A H. v;ir Ricmsdijk (Eds. ? Discourse and Text. Tilhurg, .

.

ComrwdHrw in Sfntcmr,

Hal'lkti, Bri ittti. ! K(). "EcwnBtscinsprtiscn/i und jktucElc GLic-dciiing von Ati crtingcr".

tJntersiwiiiHigtft zw dcutsckeu Gnimmutik it Lrnginstisciie Studie/i 6rSj 1-94. Htil'lka Brigi
Ilwnllmit zrilKPUffxxisclii'r FtmrfiuHK. Berlin: S46 Sfi7.

Haider, Hnbcn. t 90. "TdpkiilLJtEtlkm und Other Pn lcs of German SyrtaJ(". In:

Grvwcrdtjrl', Glimhcr & Wolf in Sicrnefcld (Eds.). Scrambfins and Barriers. John Bc-njj]inin Pjblkhing C{)]inpiiny, Am?itLTdj]n.,'Phi[jdclphij.

Haider. Hubert. \992. Branching and Dist-fiarxe. Univcrslity oJ' Sijtig arlj Pn} ricss Report 2 V Arbcicspiipicrc des Sondcrt'onschnngyherek-hes 540. tLiider. Utilitft. [f)9}d. Dvulsdii' Syulay Ci'twruiiv. Vorstudicn /ur Tlicone cincr ptojcklivcn G ram mati k. Gunter Nurr Vcrln Tubintien. Hnidcr. Hubert. 1993b, A Note on ihc Litensln und Idcntitieation of Empty Function ill Head PositHms. Ms. UnivcrsicLit Slultgart. Haider, Kuben. 1994ll. Di'fc/t ht'd Ciause.i - The Later The Deeper. Arbcitspapicrc dca & mde r tVirythu ng?ibL-]-e iehes 34U. Haider. Hubert. 1994b. On iht mclcvEinte oJ' more examples than tlii;; one. Talk Iven at
.

'

Press.

Halllday, Miehael A.K. I%7. "Notes on transitivity [ind theme in English, pan 11". In: Jtnimai of Linguistics: IS9--202. HLispelmuth. Murtin. J994. "Functional categories. X-bur theory and j rammatkLili/ation lheor> STUF, voi 47: 3-15. lliiliiiAj. G., Ar.uuv.-.:. S.

K. Shimiy.u. l1? ?. E:n million oIli r.u'LiUil Lib 1.1 l' Lj :br vonipiitii

tion und ist use tis [i memcory device lor digits: A devclopmcnlal tudy. Devclopmentai Psyebology, 23: S52 -S . Hawk inn h John. I97S. Dejinitt'tu-ss mui fridffifuti'fu'ss. Loiidon. C'rotHin Helm. He arly. Miehuel. J9 l. Adjunet extraction und ehuin am urations. MIT Ph.D. thesis. Hcim. Irene. [ 2. TSw Senumfirx of Defmiff ami hukfiwh' Noun Phmses. Doctoral Dissertation. University of Massuehusctls. Amhersl. Heim. Ire re. J9 7. 'Where does the dcfinileress icslrielion apply?" In E. Ren lard & A, ler Meulcn lEds. , The RfpiFseniafwii nfflrijcfefoiitefii'jui. Cambridge, MA: MIT. Higgin hot ham. James. 1 145. "On Semantics". Linguistic inquiry \b: 547--593. Hohlch Tilman. 1 2. "EAplikatkmen (ul ioljiulIc tictonung' 11 nd Lnormalc Wortstcllujtg"1. In W. Abraham (Edjn Stit-giietkr im Deittscheii. Tilbinjicn: Niemeycr, 75-153.

Ho hie. Tim an. |9QJ. PmfcktioiissHil'en bci V Projcktioncn. Ms. Uni Tilbinger,

REFERENCES

231

Hoop. Hdcn tic. 1992. Cus? Coftfiguraiimi ami Ntnw Phrast' hnerpwunim}. Ph.D. thciiiii. Rij uiii vtrs itt it Gron lh o n. Hoop Helen dc & Hcnricttc dc Swwrt. 1990. "Jndcjinilt Objccli" In R. Bok-Bcnncma & P Cupopmans ( Eds.J, Lfiiguixfics iu fhe Ncfkerlaiuis fWO. Dordrecht: Poris. HtuTstctn, N'orbcrl, t994. "An Argument f(ir MirmTmltsm: The Cmc ot Artcfcdcnt ConlaircU Deletion", LwRiihlw Inquiry 25: 4?. -4 0. Horvuth. Juliu. I9S4. "Rcmiuks or the Coriignmionalily Issue". In: W. Abriihiiin & S. dt Moij (Edi.) Topit:, Focus, and Configumfonafiry. Linguisiit Akmcll 4. 65- S7. Huiin Jiiinc;};. I K2. Logirtii ftt'lutions itt Chined and the Theory of Gnnnmnr. Ph.D. ,

.

.

r

thesis, MIT.

Huiin , Ja]injcs. tW . "RccorsCiiKEior tind the Slrjetune ol" VP". Uitguitfic Inquin' 24: 103-138.

Jackcrdoll. Rny. J972. S mmfir iuwypt i'Sati/w in swwrafivc grammar, CEimbridgc: MJT Press.

Jatobs, Joathim. 1934. "FunkLionLile Sulzperspcktivc und lllukolioiissejiuiuik". Lhi uisfhche Berichte *)J: 25-58,

Jjeobs, Jdiithim. L991. Bcwe nr ills Vukn minsftrr. Tiicni if des Lfxikoua Nr.l, K. Heine Univcrsttiii Diissclclorf,

Jacobs. Joiichim. 199J/92.

Keutral Sirens ard the P( ition of HeEids". In J. JikoIjs (Ed.)

InffH-tmuiwissTrukntr und Grtimmafik r- Liusuistfsch? Bwichte. Sfwdcriwfr 4}, Jaeobfi. JoLiehim. 19 2. Integration. Berlchte des SFS 2H2. Theoriedes Lexikonj.

Ja cr. Cicrfiard. 1992. DiskijrsverfcnlLpJim

urd der Stadien-Zlndividucnttrntrajit. MA.

Leip/.ig. Jiigcr. Cicitiard. 1993. Topte. iienimhling unit nklionsLirl. Tidk given nt ConSQLE 3. Jagcr Gtrfuind. 1994. Dcr Stadicn'/Endividucnkontrnsi a Is Dixkursiunklidr. Mi. MasPljuck-Grupi Berlin, Jigcr. Gerhard. J995. Tupit s in Dymntiic Si'iiuinticx. Doeiand dissertdtion. CES-Berieht% 92 Lrni Miirchcn. .

Jae li, Oswtildo. 19S2. Topics in Romance SyniWC. Dnndrefhl; Foris, Tohnwin. Kyle. 1991. "Qbjcet Positions". Nafnraf Language and Linguistic Theory 9: .

?77 536.

r

Joppcn. Sundrn & Dieler Wunderlich. 1994. ArguintLH Linking ii Basque. Theorit des Lexikons Nr. 6J, SFB 2«2 eptsrt. Juiiyhjiins. Uwe ticrhdd ZybLiEtiw. 1995. H«kiis in k jssi.sehcn. Talk given al I lie Ftieua W'brkshtip.

l17

iahresta ung dcr DGJS, Unlversiial Ciiittinpcn". Kaiwic. Ellen £981. "Appositivc reaUives and the ditcization of who", PnKffdinfrs ofthe .

7r/r CLS: I0B-II3.

KLimp. llunji & Uwc Reyic. 1993. From Diat'oune to Logic. Kluwer. Dtirdrechl. Karlsisicm, Fred.

Finnish Gntmnw. WSOY. Juvu.

K ul'mnn]!. In
Ktiii/epluellc Cirnndlii cn se]iriiinlLHehcrDck{)mpiisitions!itruktjrcn. DHttora] dissenii"

tion. Universilui Dussoldort

,

232

Kuyni.'. Kiuhiird. \975. Freud} Synlti.w The Ihtusfttffutititttfitl Cyt-k. MIT Pre s. Cainbridge:. Mjjis, Kaync. Richiird. J9K4. Cofmccl tfru'sx wftf Biriary Bcaiichinfi. Dordrecht; Foriii. Kaync. Richard. I993j. Ttiwjrds li Modular Thccir} ol Ajxilijrj1 Selection. Ms. CUNY. (appeared in: Siudia Linguistiiia All 3-Jl>

Kaync. RLchaid. J993b. The Amisymmtiry of Syftfax. Ms. CUNY. Kaync. Richard.

The Antisymmetry of Syntax. LI Monograph 25. Cambridge MA:

MIT Press.

Kipurtiky, Paul. 1966. "Ubcr den deutschen Akzcnt". Sfudia GwmmatiLa Vi! . 69-98. Ktpjrfiky, Paul. 19 2. "Fntim Cyclic Plionology l 5 Lcxlcll] Phonology". Ir H. van dcr Huist & N. Smith (Ed*.}, struciuir ttf tyhonohgiail fvptrsntsatums. Pun I.

Linguistic Models: 131-175, Kipursky. Puul & Cai\)\ KipLiRky. lcn(>. Il-\ii'r. In M. Bicrwiith & K.E. Hcidoir {lid*.} PtfweM ill LinKUfxtii-s. Moulon. The Hiigiic, Ki s. Kalaiin E. J996. Tbc Tocus Operator Lind lnibnTiLLiion Focus. In Wofkifig Papers w the Timmy of Grammar, I. N o 2. HungariEin Acadcniy ol' Sciences. '

.

Klcinhcn/.. Ursula. J997. On weirds ard phrases in phorology. Doclordl disscdalion, '

L | iivL -

,

L ;Ll -

-

-.!

"

'

[ i;l-'i:ii:ciL.

Ktjmlosy. Andras. I9S4. "Ftjcussing on Ftjcus in Hungarian". In W. AbrLiliam & S. de Mcij (Eds.), Topic. Focus, and ConfiguraiionalUy. Amslcrdaincr Arbcllcn /ur theorctischc]! u]id anyewandten Linguislik: 215 236. Koopnnm, Hilda & Dominique Spurtsehc. i99(). Tlie Position {jf Subjccls. Ms. UCLA. Koopninn, Hilda &. Dominique Sportichc. L l. L"Thc Position ol Subjcclii". Unf>jf{i 85:

Koslcr. l 7n, "Wl y jiubjed stiutnccii don't vwC. In Kuvslt (FjJ,> Rfnwf Trtmxfanjmtwmii Sfudirt m Km wtftt iMfixutixw. MIT Press. Kostcr. Jan, 19 5. Ex transit ion m C«9rdiiinti(>n. Talk at the workshop on Economy in January 1995 a( the Arbcilsgrappc Struklurelic Cirajnmatik MPCi. Kra]n;;ky. Jioi. (1972 The Article andihe Concept of Deftniseuess in Language. Monton. The Hague-Par is. Kratzcr. Angclika. 19S9. Stage-Level and and Individual-Level Predicates. Ms. University ol Amherst.

Kraliccr. Angclika. [9*)]. "Ttie Repnesentalion oJ' Focus". In A. v. Stechow & D. Wunderlich fEd Semanirkr Eiu Handhuch dcr zeitgenomiixefien farschuftg. KriJka, Manfred. 199t/92. "A compotiitional seinanEic!; lor multiple locufi constructions". l]i JLicobfi, J, (Ed.) htftwukifituwsffiiktuf uttd Cratunwifk (= Lin timiache Bi'rifhfe,

Softdprhrft4}. Kural. Muml. 1992. Properties of SerjiirihlLn in Turkish. Ms. UCl.A. Larson h Richard. I hh, "On the Double Object Con si rue (ion", Un ifixuc inqitin1 \9\ 2

2S9.

Laka. [iziar. 1993. "Unergalivcs thai Assign Ergativc asid Unaccusalivcs that assign Accusative". MiT Working Papers, in Linguistics IS. .

233

RLJliKLNCHS

Laka. IXY.vdv, 1 94, On Ceisc Theory. Course material and Cities n"tcs from the Girona SiL]iimcr Sfhool \994.

Lissnifc. HtnvMitL. 1 95. \lini]n[L]E?it Ctmccpts Lird Tcrdcncics & Another Type of ACD. Course nijicrijl for the titrli

ki'turt: .

Lcncri, JJrge]i. 1 77. Zitr Abjhig? fUwiinuU'i Snt:Riit'iiw sm Dfutu Iwrj. Tiibitigen: N rr. Levin don, Slephtti C. t W. Pmgmatik timnshULOii into Germaii by U. FricsJ. Nitnieycr Tiibingcn. Lewis. D:ivid. 197*). "Seorc kecpinj: in n lan iiLL);*: game1', [n R. Bfierlc, Lr. E li unti A. v Stechow (Ediij. Semcmiicsfrom Diffhi'ttf Point.-i vfViny. Sprijiger. Berlin. .

Lir Charles N. & Sandra Thompfton fEds.>,

Podlc/hiidhehce i (opik. novuya

tipol iysL ysiy.yktjv. In: Novopv z(Jrn!w~ hnof iingvi.tike, vypusk ! J. Rtissinn irjnsLalkm .

front: i[97b) Subject [ind T»pic. New Ytjrfc. Aeadcmie Press. Mahivjnn, An(Hjp. \9 i). The AJA-hardixUnctioH and Movcawnt Theory. Ph.D. lhc(iii. MIT. Muhajan, Anotip. I99L '"Clilie Dtiublint;, Objce( A rec]tient urd Speeilicity11. [n Proceedings ofNELS 21. MliikIL ] I... Gmlxn1. II. &. A. R nkl J J. KonlextuaLisLuirun}; von Expert we Por lmut; -

MEUhciiius. Vilcni. I91S. "'0 piissivu v modenii tinglictinc". Sbonuk fiioiogkky 5, I9S-220.

Mtiy, Riehard, 19S5, Logicai Farw. /r.T SFracture midDi'iivarion. MIT Pressi. Ctinibridgc. MLissiseliiLseUs.

Me endcHimiiin. KtLiine. 19 )5. Senimhiiini! and Seopal Internet ion in a Mininuili t Perspcttiv't:: j Unilicd Approjeh. Ms. USC Ltis Angeles. Meinu]l :eL,. Andre. 1992. QuelquesArgumentsenFttwurd'nn Syrttagmt Casuel. Th sc du Ctirlilk-Jl do sj clLiLi lion. llnivorsite tit; Geneve. Mcinungcr. Andre. 1993. "Case tonfiguration and rckTcntiality". \a R. Eekhardl & V, vim Gee hover ConSflie II ptvcerdirifi.-i: J37 Mcinun er. Ardrc. 1995ar "Foeus Relations and Weak I hinds". In CLLnuiebo. T.. L, Chtmreiri & M. Wattinabe (Rdsi.}, The pweeeding? of WCCFL XIV, Stan lord Linguislie Association: 335 -350. Mcinunger. Andre. i995hi. "Pnominenee hieranehy and phrase ordering". FAS Walking Paper*. Vol 2.: <>5--121. Mcinun cr. Andre. l 95c. L'akernation DATSACC, ACC>PP en alleniend ct I'hierjrehie Lirgianentale/easudle universe lie. Ms. FAS Berlin. Mcinunjrer. Andre. I995d. Rextricting FwuxDcpendejiciv.-iby Fariini Oukrin Context Sets. Arbcitspnpicre des SIB 340. SpraehlheorcUjithc Grundlagen 1 lir die Computerlinguistik. 59-S9, Meinun er. Andre. I995e. Foens Dcpende]ieies. Partial Drdcrln and Seope Taking. To appear in: MIT Working Papers.. = (SCIL VII) pnoeeediiigs. Meinunyer. Andre. iSi'J". ""[Tie Slruelure of Cleft .and Pseudt) Clel'l". l]i Moosally. M. & R Ullght (Ldsj. Sefth'im's Texus Litrxuisiic Forum JcV. The SyfUu.x undSettjuniica vf .

Predu ' -titioir. 335-246.

234

Miliwrk. Gary L. 1974. ExiMfMiaf Swrtaaw in Engtish. Ph.D, thesis. Cambridge. MA; MIT Press.

Mtk'k. Julinnc. \

Exlrapoznitw ausNFimEngiisi'ht'i}. ArbcilspLipicrc dcSsSfB 340.

Nb. 44.

Mohiruinn. Fridcrlkc. 1991. Sa-ambUng in Gerwan (wd rhe Spwiffcity E/hrL lc> be published in NiUurLiI Language and Linguislic Theory. Montague, Richard. 1974. The Proper Treatment of Quantipciitkm in Entfish. In; Formal Fhikfsophy: Sefoaed Papers of Rkiuird Monfagiie. Edited by R. ThomListm. Yale University. Miillcr. Gcrron. Oh Dwivm$ Mtwrnrtn Type Asymmetriw. Dtictoral disjicnaliiin, S fS Repori-05-93. Tii binge n. M tiller. Gere on. 1 94. Ami-Freezing. Striel Cytlieily and Eumoniy ol Dcrivjlion. Talk given al the PiHssdam Coiii erente on Economy. Dee. 12. 1994. + drui t of llie September nianuseript with the santc title. Ncclenmn. Ad. 1994. Complex Predivtites. Ph.D. OTS Ulrceht. Ncidic. Curtji. The Rote vf Ca.w in Russian Synictx. Studies in Njtitrjl Language and Linguiylie Theory. Obcnautr, Hj] -Gctsr5. E ii4-ti5. "On the Idcntslieation". The Unguistk Review 4: '

'

Obcnaucr. HtinA-Gcorg. 19 2. L'inlcrprctiUion des strut:tares wh el PEiteord du pLiitkipc pLLSH(5. Ms. Ondoncz. Fr iicisco. J994. P(jslvcrbii] usymniDlrics in Sptinis-h. CjLOW tjlk. Parlcc, Biirbtira H. 1972. "Opinjity, Corclcncntc. tind ProiiHuns". 3r D. Diividstir & G. Hin.Tirii.in (Eds.J, SettHintics vfticituraf Laitfiuagc. Rcidcl. Dordicchc. Piincc, BLirbara H. I972j. Sonic TrLinsJ'ormtilitinal Extensions of Montague Grjinmar. Piirtcc, Bartiara H. I97
Theory of Generaliyed Qtiwitifiers, Dordrceht; Foris. Piirtct. Bcirbjra H. J991. Tnpit Focus, and Qunatilicatitm. Corneif Working Fa/tfrs in Urtgidsrkw, SALT t0; I59- iS7. ,

PLmcc. Barbani H.. Alice a-r Mculer & RoEkh E. Wall I993r Mathematical Mrthods in

Linguistics* Corrcttcd Firsl Edition. Kluwcr (= Studies in Linguistics and Philosophy vol. 30)

Pcsctsky. David. 19K7. - V/p-in-silu; Movcinenl nnd Ur selective Binding". \i\ E. Real and Sl A. let" Meulen tEds. ) The Repu'sejisulion //[ \ttihiefinireriess. Cambridge. MA; .

.

MIT. 98-J92.

MU.

Pcjictuky. David. 1991. ZrroSynUiw Ms. MIT. appeared in 1995 us ZeroSyviax. Expwitmcers titid Cu.wtidw, MIT Press.

Phiiippi. Julia. 1994. 77Fij Rise ofthe Ai-nele in she Geivmnic LungHtiges. M . LUnvcrsitiei ol Sttittgan Lmd L'ti'eeht. '

335

RLJ-LKLNOiS

Picmchumbcrt, Jiinct B. (I KC). The Phanohtgy and PhvfteStcs ofFingiish IftfoiiatifUt. Ph.D. (liesis, MIT,

Pinlo, Manuelli. 1994. Subjctls ir Itnlkir: distribution ;ird imcrprctutinn. Ms. University of Utncht. Pol lot

Jc in-Yves.

''Voi-h movemeDt, Univcrsul GrLiimriLir

nd tlic sli'LK'Luirt of IP".

Littjitii.slh: jfitiuiiy \I: 191 IM. Prirttt. R i JiJ. "Toward ll ijxrHiojily oi' lvuii/jiuw inlomiLUHm". In \3. Colt; iEd.). Rtldfcai PragrtKifics. Kcw York, AtiidcinEf Press. 223-255.

Print1 , Eilcn F, J9B4, 'Tppitidljc fion und Ld diskicELtton: A Jurctitirti] jnnlysiji". Ir S.J, While & V, Teller flidio Discourse in reEtding and linguistics. Amals fyfttic iVfw York Aasdwny of Scii'm-es. Vol. 433; 213 -225, Piintc. Ellen F. 19H6. "On the syntuaif mLirkirj: of presupposed open propositions, Paniscssion papcrji". CLS 22: 20S-223. R-Aiiiy Janimi. 19

"

Object Fositknu, Interpretation und A rccincnl in Hungarian" In

UMOP i?,' Puiictscmtii Prvjccrivus, BcncditMo, E. & J. Rimnci' fbdsj.

Ramthjnd, GilUtin. [9 3. Aspect und Argument Strntturc in Modem Sfottish tpjelit. Ph-D, thesis. Stan lord University. CA, Ritposo. Ecfiutrdo. I9W7. "CEtse Theory tind Infl-to-Onnp: Tht In Heeled Infinitive in En rope nn Portuguese'1. Unguistif Inquiry J: 119. Ruinlwl. Tlllivll. "Priigjnalitui and Lin uislk1!;: An analysis ol' sciiLeiK'e Lopits". Pitihtvpliku 27: 53-94.

Rein hart, limya. 1 95. Fotus ihc PF Interlace. Ms. ptirt III ai' Inlcrlkee Slrjle kd, OTS Working Pajier.i. Utrecht. Rciii. Mar ii. "Mona Lisii kric t jcuvicl. Vom s ) e] lL L 1e] ReKipLcrrenpLi siv im Dcutsehen". Linguixtbchc BieU-hte 96: 140 155. Renlnnd. F-rik &. Alice icr Mculen (FjJs.). 1987. Tfw RrpreseutQiion of {in} iiefimieness. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Rit'msdijk. Hcnk van. I 'J? . .-Wcr.vc Siudy in Synnurii- MurkednexK. Tfw Bindin]* NtiUtwaf Pfcitosiiicftitd Phrases. Ri/ji. LuL<:i. 1 0. Av.vjff.v uj Iicifian Syniax. Dordrecht: l iris.

Riz/.i, Luigi. 1990. Ri'hitivized Minimaiity. LI Monogmphs, CiLmbritlyc. MA: MIT Press.. Rot he mop t, Michael S.

Focus ift Gewntive Grammar. AmstcrtUim: John Benjn-

mins,

Rodman. Robert. 1976. "Scope Phenomena, 'movement trans format ions', and relative "

clauses

.

RoiubLi .

In B.H. Par tec (Ed.) MontuRiw-Grammtr. 165-17 .

l 'i'J. Wil / vi-s

'LiiiL: lii K !n:J L llA-l||. l./Jn. M.A. uwriKLon. Tl

Berlin. RtHith, Muts. J

5. Association with Foe us. Ph.D. Thesis. GLSA. DMass, Amherii.

RtHith, Mais. 199 . LLA Thcon.' of Focus InLerpretation"1. Naturaf Language Semantics Vol,I. IVo.h 75-1J6.

Rosengnen, Inger. 1994. "Scrambling - was ist dasT In B. Hal tka (Ed.). Waa deter mittiers die Wortxseihmgsvaritition? Wesldeutschcr Verlag,

236

Rtwis. Johr Ross. t%7. Constrainls on vyrinblcs in syntax. Ph.D. (bcsis. MIT Bloomingion, IniiiLina. Iiidiaju University LLii uLsiius Club.

Runner. JclTrcy. 1 3. "A SpeciJic Role Tor A r". In E. Bcnedielo & J. Run nor iEdi.) iJMOP 17: Functiamii Projections. Rujisell, Bert rand. 1905. "On DenotiDg". Mind J: 1S2-2O0. Russell, Kevin A Chnrlotle RcirbolK. 19 , HicnLKhic ] Structure ir el Non-Confi urLi-

,

'

ttomi] LaaignLige. Tulk Lind hand-out j:ive]i nl WCXTL X]\
S ir. Ken. i*)B7. LlWhat cxplnins the dehnitcnewi c]lcct f" Jr H. Rctiltind & A. tcr Mcwlcn (EdsJ. The Rqtrfsaualhii /"i/jp

/p/r/

Pf.w

ambridgc. MA: MIT Press.

7J -97.

SLimck-Lodoviei, Vlcri. 1994. [ILilian's lotus position. Ms, Rutgers University.

St-halTar, Wolfrajn. 1 94. Fiikusbewe ung ul.s wh-Bewcgung: Evident au* dem Jiipj]iischLrr urd K )rc l ist:hc:n. Hdusjrhcit' ( Term paper) Univcrsitiil Tiibi]i cn. '

.

St,h]iiidt, CliudLLi MiiriLi. 199 . AGR{ a (ntk given at the DOfS-meeting in Bremen. Schmidt, Chiudiii MariiL J994lL S:iC/.stLiiktur nnd Verbbewcgung. Doctoral disscrution, Univcrsitat Kiiln.

Sehmtdi, Claudia Marm. 19 4b. n,Ziir syntakdsehen Position indirL-kicr Objcktu \m Dcjtschen: Ptjlloekischc Sitzc odcr Ljr onischc VPs?" In B. Hut'tka fEd.>, Was

dfti'mifufi! dn1 WcfiTsreMuugs'iY/iiiiSMij. Opladen, Wcstdeu[seher Vcrbg: [97-218, Selkirk. Elisiibctb. 1972. The phrase phonology of English and Erenth. Ph.D. thesis. MIT. Selkirk. ElisLibeth. I9S4. Fhorwhgy ntuf SytiUix: The Rchtifw brtweffi Sound und Sn tu ture Cam bridge. MA' MIT Press. Selkirk, Etisabcth. Iy93/95. '"Sentence prosody: Intonation, Stress and Phrasing". To

[ippcjr in: Goldiimith, J. CEdJ, Handhook of Ph<*noi\*%u:a} Theory. Sgall, Petr. HnjitovLt. Eva & Jarmihi PitnevovLi. 19S6. Th? Meaning of tiw Seulfwr in Sfmatmc and Pya tnanr Aspects, Aeademiii/FrLigue. S la

.

Xiuill.

I1'-

. Aji v LiL:it Lind MhiLL'.-. ]'[i.[>. tlicsis.

,ni L : la

AuU?iunn,,i d..

Eftirtelona.

Stili. Jlujitic. 19 4. Morphology, Jiyntax, Lind SemLinties: A One-to-one Ciinespondenec I [\ |-".,.th':-':L':. M -. [olii-jlI ;in ii JielT in

libiLii-. ll lli-j tiniversiuil lie Ghon

Speas. MLit Lirct. t990. Fitras? StmcTure in Nattual I-anguage. Studies ir Natural Lurj:uage und Linguistte Theory. Sportiehe. Dominique. IWJ. Movement. Agreement, and Case. UCLA. Ms. Starke. Miehal. 1993. Notes on prepositions and clause s true tare. Pre-Me moire, Univcriiti de Geneve.

Steehow, Arnim von. 1995. "'On the proper treatment of tense," In M. Simons & T, Galloway (eds.) Proceedings of SALT y 362 --3 6. Stctnbafh. Markus & Rail' Voj:et. 1995. On the fAbsence of u) Base Position lor Dative Objeels in Gerrnim. FAS Paper* in Unguixiics 4: Ji3-9fi.

237

REFERENCES

Stein it/, Rcnjle. J 994. Tow urds a revision of the Iv' icjl CELlcgori/ ition ('eEiCniie. Iimij iirjl Conference nn Univcnijl GrtLmmiLr urd Typnlogicjl VEiriEiEkm, FA.S Berlin. StiebrEsi, BEifbEirj. 1994. Li'xikaUstiu' Argument mid Adjimktc

Zum sfmaitlrsi-hfn

Brifrag van verbaffii Frafixen wui Paitiktiu. EKiclorjl diss.cnJ i m, UrEversitLit DLisseldorl'.

StowcM, Tyn, 1993. The SyrtiiK. ol'Tcns-c. Mniujifript, UCLA. Sjncr. \1 EirgEirEtti. E91iX. "The RuJe )f Agreemcrt in ClitiC'Dtmblcd Conjitriiftionsi"'.

Nansfid Larrgixigi' and Lin uisttc Ttwory 6: B9I-434. Swjrl, Herrlcttc de. 1992. LLInlcrvcn[it)]i cfTcets, monotdnicily Eind scope1'- In Ch. Barker & Dmvly, D. (EdsJ, SALT // Pioaeedings: 3S7-4()6. .

Szaboiesi, Anna. J9JiE. "The scnuintics oJ'Ttjpic Foe us ArtiejEEitiim". In T. M. V. JEin]i?icn &

.

M.B.J. .Siockhuj (Edsj, Fonmif wfthfufs in tfw .-itinly af kii\i*mss>o. Amsterdum:

Miithei¥iEHi?ieli Ccnlrnni: 53 3 54{}.

Szaboiesi, Annn & Frjns Zwarls. E99I. Unhotiiidcd Dependefjcfcf attd Algebfcttc SetnanTifs. Ctmrsc inEiteriLi]. Stim]ner school LLI E99!.

S/Libtjlesi, Anna & Frans Zwarts. J993. lL\VcLik Islands tind an AljjebrLiie Sc]iri[intics for Scope Takini]". Nuiuns! L(i}\(>u: 235-2S4.

Tj]icredi, Christtjpher. E992.. DeEclion, Deacccnting tind Presjpposition. Ph.D. Ihesis. MIT. dislribLited by MIT Working Papers.

Tiedcman, Rtibyn. J995. Some rernEirks on Antecedent ContEiined Deletion. Ms. Universi(y oi Ctmnccticut. Truckenbrodl, Hiibcrl. E99.ti. Ei.i]ic Pnosodische Beschrj]iknng bci der Extraposition tins NP lind ihre DcnLa]i<:. Ttilk given at PAS. Uhmtinn, SasiJiiiie. 199 J. Fttkux/tho/utftfy/c. Kuw Anaiys*.' iU'itrxchei ffitomitianskaniumi ritt fiuhnK'n der nivhl-lim.'iin'!i Phounhgie. Tubingen. Vainikkii. Anne M. J9X9. Deriving Syntaetic RiipncsenlEifitma in Finnish. Ph.D. thesis, L'Mass at Amhcrst.

VaLlduv], Enrie. E992. 'ffir infwrnutitmiii Camponent. OulsUindtng Dissertabtuis in Linguislits. L'niverstly oi' CEilil'omiEi. SantEi Cruz. Vallduv]. Knrie. 1994. Infomiation PackEiging: A Survey. Ms. University of Hdinbargh, Report prupjred lor WOPJS. VarEokostii. Spiridouhi. l994.Jssucs on N idci n deck Sentciibut ConipknicntiUion. E Ei.D. thejiii. University of MEirylEind. IRCS Report 94-25. Vcrkayl. Hcnk. 1992. A theory ol' iLspeetuLLlEly. Ms. to appear nt CLinibridgc University Ptcss. Vikiicr

Steti. 199i. Verb Movement tmd the Licensing o/NP Pox\ti<m.\ in tfu- iU'ntmmf Language*. l li.D. thesis. Universlte dc Geneve. (Revised version uppcured 1995 us ,

Verb Movement und Expletive Subjectii in the Gentian tc Ltinguages. Ox fond: Ox lord Univerity PncNi ] Vogcl, REiir & Murkus Slcinbtich. 1995. "On the J Abaencc of a) BiuvC Position for Dadve Objects in German". FAS W'wkinx Papers in Linguistics. Vol 4; 99-131. Webeltadi. CJert. l9K4yH5. "GcrniEin is Conitguralionar. The Linguistic Review A: 203-246. .

238

Wchclhuth, Gcrt. I M . Syntactic Satumion Phtnymci i and the Modern Gcnviiinie Lan jagcs. Ph.D. thesis. University tjf Mas Eieh jsctls, AmherM. Wcbclhuth, Gcrt. 1992. Fruuptes andPuiuweicrs ofSyftiartic Saluraiioi}. O lond SEndics in Compiirulivc Synuix. W gciier. Heidc. J990. Der Dtttiv im fieutig&i Dfuisrh. Tdbir n fs'jrr fSludicn zur dcutschen GrLinuiuuik 2R|

Wilder, Chris. Rightwurd Movement as Leftward Deletkm. Msj Max Pkntk Berlin. Wilder, Chris, Alexiadou, Artemis, Law, Paul & A]idrc Meinun cr. 1995. The synla\ til'

non-tanonital eooipkmentiititir Iprojcei proposal |, ZAS Bciiin. Williams,

Edwin. 19 0. 'LP cdicati(>n\ iLf/r f. /n /r il: 203-238. Will iairis. Edwin. 1983. "Sf nun tic vs. Syntiictic Cat L4g(>L ic ". Liuguislics tind Phiivsvphv 6: 423-446.

Williams

Edwin. J i f 4. lLGmmtnLilical rekuions". Uftguisti*: luquii-y 15: 659-673. Wiltsfhko. MLirtinu. I99.V BxlrLiposititm m Gernia]!. Ms. UiiEvcrsflal W'icn. Wirkler, Sns-urnc. 1994. Servftdary Pyftficatiou ift Engissh; A ayfifmtir and Focus,

Tfworftwa! Approach. Doctoral disscrtulion. University of Tubingen, published in: Arbciten des Stb J40.

Woisctsi.-hki i.T Liich. 19S3. "Oji ihu qin:slji>n i>i'delinitcncsa in 'An Oid Man's book1", LiHjitfi.ttic inquiry 14. Zimoiermunrt, Use. I9KK. "Die substanEivisehc Vcrwc]idjLi v ]n Adjektiven jnd Piirtizi"

In: Studiu Gu/nmititica XXIX. Synfax. Sfriwufik urd I.t'.xtkou: 279 $\2. Zw. Y. Paul iS: Paul Cole. 1974. "Relative Extraposition and (he Scope ol Definite pic]i

.

Descriptions in Hebrew [ind En liiih". In: CLS 10: 772- Sfi. ZubizsmtA, Maria-Limti. 1994. "Grammalical Rfpfu ntiition of Topit tind FotJii: hnpli iKHLs UiL Uu S'ililu-.il' c:' liu VL-.u ". In Cuadt'n\v\ di Liu iusiuu di-lLU.

Ortega y Casset* vol. 2: 181-208, Zubc/.nrrela, MnriLi Lulsa. l'99K. Prosody. Fofus. (ifid Wvrd Onk'r. LI Muno raphs. M3T Press. Cambridge. Mass Lie huscUs. Zwtirt. Jan-Wonter. 1992. sSOV lan unges are head initiLLl. Paper presented at the Sth Workshop on Germanic Compamivc Syntax. Tromsfl. Zwart. Jtm-Wouler. 1993. Duich Syntax A Mimmuiiaf Appivacii. Pii.U. thesis. Rijksiimiversiteit Groningen.

Niiinc index

A

Chomsky, N. 1.2, 6. 8. 16. 3.S. 39. 65.

Abncy. S. 38

104. 106. 114. 124. J39 145.

Abraham, W, 122, 166f.

J48,156, 176

Adamct, P. 35, 44

Adgcr, D. 77, 88, 1J4,

Cinque, G. II, 122, I2S, 129- 134

,

13hC..

J36. 152. 156. 176, 195, 207,

I68.2l7f,

222

Alcxiudou. A, J IS. 139, 147, 200

Cole. P. IB4f203

AnLiynoslopouloiL 1-, 8N, 114. HCt.

Collins, C. 213

121. 124. 177

Cooper. K. 26-28. 83. 203 Cu lie over. P. 181

B Baker. M. 35. 51. 143

D

BEirwisc, J. 26 IS, 83

Damasio. A. & H . 38

Bcltctti. A. 50r.. J58

Dieaing, M. 9. 24, 29 -32. 65. 69 7!.

Bcnvcnisic. E. 55

S3 88. 98, 139. 178, 1% ,

Bcsicr, H. den I85<-.

DobioviC'Sorin, C. E93

Biekcrttin, D. 35

Domcnico. E. de 108

Bicrwisth, M. 200

Donhuuiicr, K. 166

Bcibiiljik, J,D, 143. 17B

Drach. E, 36

Bonct. E. IJ7

Borer, H. 97, 106. 109. 113. 116 Borras. RM. 162

£

Brody, M. J3

Emonds. J. 203

Brojiiicwski. H.-U. 182J".

En . M. 3 L 164. 165. 217

Btiiii

. D. 37. 77L. 99. 164. t82f.. 199

r

Fabb, N. 180, 202 -204, 206f. C

Card in ale tti, A. 82

Carlson, G, 30, 67

Fansclow, G

1. 5. 6. 8. 37 63, 187

Ferguson, K.S. 149 Ficngo. R. 216. 217, 222 Fukui. N. 30.40, 103*.

,

240

NAME INDEX

<;

K

Qiorgi, A. 200

Kjisso. E. 2031.

( jicwcndorl'. G. bl

Kjr]sM>n- H. 159

(Sricc, P. f)

Kjul'munn. I. 53

.

Grimshuw, J. 39. 40, 43r SOJ"., 153, ,

KayncR. 39J. 53 55, US, 120, 139, ,

196

147f

Gtwu. B.M, 149

170. JKJL

Kipjirsky. P. 5, 130. 184. J94. 222

Gutron. J, I SI,

222

Kiss. K.E. 14, 16,20

Gusscrhovcr. C. 137, 138

Koopmui, H. 30,40. 103 Koslcr, J. 1. 180. 182

Jl

Knit/.or. A. 42, 65, 71. 95. 107. 113 KriHtu. M. 20, 22, 24 90, 163

Hul'tcn, T. van 1 Iti

,

Haftfca, B. 36

Kural, M. 44

Haider. H. 1, 40, 42, 44f 52, 58, 63, l\9f

133, 182. 137

L

Hulk. M. 129

Lakn. I. 106. 177

Hiillicliiy, M. 15

Larson. R. 40. 122

Hurtmium. K. 182f.. 199

Lasnik. H. 219

Huspolmalh. M. 37

Lcncne, J. 78 100 ,

Huliint). G. 7 Hawkins. J. 7K

M

Hcgarty, M. 195 196, 197, 191i

Mahajan, A. 44, 116. I6S-170

Hcim. L 15, IK. 24r. 2S. 30. 7<j"79,

Manet). H. 7

,

S3.85r 164r 1%

Mathesius, V. 15

Higginbolham, J. 196.216.222 HohlctT, 44f.. 49. 58, 133 Hoop, H. dc 9, 31 33, 63, 65-68 70, ,

May. R. 26, 115. 139. 181. 2i8 Megerdoomian, K. 44 Moinun r. A. 14 , 44. 50 . 65f. ,

72, 751-.. 81, «8, 931-. 9K, 102.

119, 148.!7H

,

105. 157-159,215

Homiicin, N. 1J5 214, 2IMC. ,

100.

Mculcn, A. tcr [75 Mllsark, G.L. 71 74 ,

Mollnunn, F. 63. !00, I4S

J

Montague. R. 32, 215

JackcndolT. R. 16

Mullcr, G. 58. 63. 99-101, 140, 149

Jjctibs. J, 77. 127. 135

Jjcgfli. (>. 170 Jjgcr G. 24, 78-80 89, 91, 94, 124, ,

222

]53L 184 187. 190-192. 212f. N

NeidletC,

Johnson, K. 219

Jtippcn, S, 44 Junghimns. U, 35

,

o

Obcraucr, Hr G, 171. 188 OrdoncK. F, 118

241

KAML IlNDLX

P

Stkboli.. 13. 41

Pluicc. B. K. IS, I?), 20, 23. 32, «5f.

,

88. 203. 215

StowellJT, 106, 200 Sutler. M. 116, 170

Pc tiky, D. 50f 17 J Philippi. J. 166

Swtirt, H. dc 72, LGB

SzaboLsi, A. 12. 16. 20. 54. 152. 17L

Pierrehiunbert, J.B. 33

193, 195,207,213f.

Prince, E.R 16 i Ji

TLintTcdi. C. 133, 176

Rad6, J. 172

TLcdcimnn R. 219

REtmthind G. IO*)-l U. 167 .

Truekcnbrndt. H. [all'.. LS4

,

,

KlIpuso.

J J I

Rcinhjrl. T. [19

Li

Rcinholtz, C. 35

UhniLinn. S. 135

Rculiind E. t75 ,

Ricmsdijk. H. vim

L'-M

\

Riiii, L. 501-., 140, 150 152. 154, 17J.

Vtillduvi, E. 15. 17, 20 89, JI7, ,

ikk. 195. :i.if.L..

120-122, 133, J37, J64, J76

Rochemont, M. S. 20

V[irUik(3sta, S. 195

Romberg. J. 19S

Vcrgmud. J. R. 129 Vcrkuyl, H 108 Vogcl, R. 59

Rooth. i\ J6, 201". Ross, J.R. 62, 1991'., 202, 212, 220

,

222 Runner. .1. ] J4. 2JK

W

Riuscll, B. 24

Wcbclhjih, G. 63

Rlis-scIJ. K. 15

Wilder. C. JB2

Williams E. 63, 206 ,

S

WiltsLhfco, M. IS I, 200

Sup, I.A. 2J7. 2J9

Winklcr, S. 33, 34, 127J'., 137f.

Sumck'L()d(>vici,V. 117

Woiseischliigcr, E. 175

Sthmidt, CM. 7, 100, I4S

Wundcrllch, D. 44

Selkirk, E. 12,

J27. 131. 137.

156, IS4

Z

Sola. J. 137, 219

Zimmcrmiinn. L 3S

Spcjs, M. 30. 40, 44, 53, 1031.

Ziv, Y.P. IS4, 203

Sportichc, D. 30

,

40. 1031".. 116

Starkc, M. 82, 1(9 StcLiib

h, M. 59

Sicchow. A. von 112

Zuhi/LinctLi. M. !.. II

Zwart. J.-W. 148. IHt, 207 Zwarts. P. 152, 171, J93, J95. 2131', Zvb4tt>w, G, 35

Subject index

agreement 9. 39. 44. 55. 77. 88. 97. t()0. 103 109. Ill

extraction 10. X8. I5lf.. 176. 179.

116. I25f.,

136. 140. 149. 152 157. E6S

1H5

1K8, 190

195. 19H. 207f.

7

211-214. 2161.. 222

extrapttaitifid 179. 180-185, I92

174. I77f., 222

Anlotcdcnl CunUiiiKHi l.k'k-iiun 217

r

J99,

200, 2081., 212,216,219

argnmcnt 7, 27. 34. 3K, 39, 40-46, 48-55. 57L6L 65. 7L8K.

familianty 3, 39, 54, 77, 79, S8..9I,

93-107, I14f. 119-122, 124, ,

m

.

130, 134. 136. 138. 140,

125L 165f., J70, 196,22!

149 153, I55f., 166, 169, 172

,

focus 12-14

,

16-24, 33f,t45- 47.49.

174. 177 m. 183. I85r.. I89r..

5K,69. 77J,

192, [94f., J97, 20J, 206r., 221

96, 98, IHf., !20. !27f.

83.85. 7,89.90. ,

13J-133. 136-J39. tSM.. IftJj'.. li

JK7, 19H,221

binding 2S.,25, 120, 132, 150, 151,

locus projection 16, 33. 45-4B, 90f.,

169, 196

J28, 137

Boolean operations 152. 154. 2141'. C r

inanponilion 4J. 541'.. 71, 87. 204. c 2. 9. 31-33 54. 55, 65.93. 971., ,

103

106. 109, 110-115. 119.

221

Indefinite 24. 26. 29, 48-50, 59, 62

,

140. [48. 155. 156 168, 170.

66 69, 71 73. 75f., 87. 93. 98f

174. 177. 180.215. 222

118. 1301'.. 158. 1601.. 170. 172.

clitk

189. 197

clitk doubling 89. 170. mC.

islands

weak islands, i hmd etm.strnints JO. 1>

151. 179. 185. 1921.. I94f..

definite 32. S4f,. 62. 66. 75 83. 85.

1981'., 2061-.. 211-213. 2l6f..

87f.. 91. 931. m.. 108, 124. r

130. I58f.. 163. 165. 170. 1721'., I75f.. 178. I96f.. 215f., 218

222

SUBJECT iNDEX

I

Turkish 31.44, I57f

.

laneuafes im.. 157. 167.

[74

164. 165. 174

West Flemish tOO

Ar lire nun 44 BLinlu J73. 177

M

Basque 44. J77

mapping hypnuhusis 9. 24. 291

Bavarian 4

'

.

.

70.

S3, 88. 189. 196. 217

Catalan J15-126, 134. J37. J40. J54-J77

IV

Chincsic 35

nudcur sctipt I SC.. 2S 30, 83, K5r 88 r

Danish J44. 14S

Dutch 65, 75, 100, !J6, 148, 155.

P

174, 18J, 191,215

panitivc 32. 67, 6Sf., 74 76, 87, [09, 114. 149, 1581"., 161, 163, 166f.,

English 3, 12 15, 29, 35.46, 63. 69.75.83 L!9.

92,94.99. 103,

1 7

I40J-.. J44J-.. J63,

possessor 54, 55. 56. 172

175, 176, I92r. 198, 202. 205. 2 16-219 Eskimo 93

quantifier

Finnish 93. 109. 157

161. 167

French 69 107. J12. 146, 157. 171 ,

QR 26. 115, 218 ,

QuanliLicr IS, 26. 115. 189, 190

IKS, 199. 204

Gcnnan 3, 4, 9, 30, 35 37 42, 44 , ,

K

52, 54L, 59, 63, 6Sr., 75 77f..

rrlLiiivc clause 170 179, I80f., 184,

SI . K4f., 89f, 92. 94, 99~|0|.

185, 199. 201. 204, 206,

,

,

r

LJ5r.. ILK

120, V21

133-136.!38. 146

126,

restrictive clause I8J

I4K.

"

..

8S. 162. 180. 182. 202 2LO 212. .

155 150. 166. 169. 177. 179. 181

28-31. S3, 851

216

185. I88f.. 191. 197.200.

202. 207. 210. 217. 219. 221

Greek 113f.. 118. 121. L24. 177

S

scope ISf.. 29. 66. 69. 73C.. 76. 85.

Hindi 44. 157. 16M.

92l,.

L26r L36. 152. 154, 163, 175, 193,207.213-216

Hungarian 12 14. 54. 157. 172 kdandk- 178

scrambling 6 ., 64 70, 74, 84r 92, r

Italian 2 1. 22. 117, 146, 155

Jjpuncsc 158, 174

r

120,129

speciticity 1, 3, 5 7. Ih. 311.. 40. 43.

Lu antia 174 Portuguese I I LI'.. 156

66f., 73, 76, 80, 95, 98 109h

Romanian (57

169-173. J77. 193. 2l6r.. 223

,

124. 140. L57. L60. L63 - 167.

Russian 35.44. Il3f., 146. 137. 160. 162. 174

Spanish 116. 118. 157. 170. L7.1 177

Swahili 157. 173

T

belicity (a)telic 84,95-98. 108 -110. 1131. tense 39. 105

108, 111

113. 156.220

245

SUBJECT INULX

lhcU-ro!c

104. 106. U.S. l>0f,.

Topic 9. 15. IK. 20. m\. 9L lOOf,.

155,206

]03t 105, 114. IJ6. 126. 156.

topic J41\. J7 20.22 -24.47. «9--92. 95-101. 103, 109. 114

192.207.216.222

116.

I20f.p 124. 126. 131-133. 136,

W

t39f.. 153. 156-159, 162

weak island 15!, 171, 194. 195. 222

164.

E70. 174, 176. 179. IK3. \m\.

190. 192. 194. I97r. 209, 212. 214. 217. 222

In iht scries LJNGUISTIK AKTUELULENGUISTICS TODAY (LA) the following dtlfa have; been ptiblishud tlius iur. or aru Nchedtilcd for pnhlicLilian: I

K.LA PPEN BACH, Rmh (1 11-1977): Studkn ZMr Modem en Deutschen Lexikograph ie> Aimwahf aun ifett Lexihogmptfischen Arbeiten von R\{!h Kfappenbach, enveirenum drei Beitrtige von Helen? biaiim.' Kfi/ppc/ihcji h. ]9S0.

2

HHLICH. K<)]iriid & Jt>chcn REH\$}i]y\:A\fgi'itkifnuttitmkasivii. Methodsnrefiexifm wtd

.

3

.

.

Beispieltii wlyse, 19 2. ABRAHAM, Werner (cd. : On the Formal Syntax of the Westgennania. Paper* from ihe 3i'd CiTniiftgeM Gnwiwui' TuIkxfSe (ii'vuin ei' Grdnnnmik if Hiicfm}, Gtwiiftgeii January mi. 19£3. ABRAHAM, Wenier & Sjxik Dc ME[J (cds): ToptL, Fotit.K and Cunfigtu'tititmaUry. Papers fiam the6th GroningenGrammay Talks, Gtvttingen, i9&4. 1 86. G REW EN DORF. G iinlhc r and Wolfgang ST ER NEFELD (eds V St-i -mnhiifix a nd Bam ,

4

5

.

.

erx, tWO. 6

.

BHATT. ClirLsu. Etisuhelh LOBEL and Claudia SCHMIDT (eds): Syuftictic Phrase Sa ni I.'ire ( u iwnu

7

.

S

.

>i> S,-u:\ /"'it i."

Srf}!, >u

[O J

A FAR LI. Tor A.; The Synitw f tf ,\'t i ( t fr Pctsxi ve Consrna-iiotfs. I,

FANSEI.OW. Giiibcrt {cd.); Th? ParametrizflTion o/Ufdrasaf Grammar. GELDFRHN. Elly vjin; 7 Rise of FimctUmaI Onewn?s. 1993. 10. CINQUE. Gitjjlidmo and Guiluinni Gil "ST! rtdsi: .-U/v jrrr.v j j fttmimnuw Lii nistir;;.

L>

.

1995.

I I. LEJTZ. L"li Ji]id .riir c-n PAFEL
ideas. Lin nixlic studies in the ininfniatistfnunework.. 1996. [?.. ALHXIADOU Arlemis and T. Akin HALL (cds): Studies on Universaf Grattitnar mid

Tvpotngica! Vuriativn. 1997. 14. ANAGNOSTOPt)LfLOU, Elena, Hcnk VAN RJEMSDIJK tind Frtinji ZWARTS (eds); Materials vn Left Disioratsati. 1997.

15. ROM RB AC HER, Bcmhard Woll ung: Motpholagy Driven Syntax. A theory o/Vw I raining eittci pro-drop. 199*). Ifi. UU, FENG HSI: Scope and Specificity. 1997. J7. BEER MAN. Dorothea David LE BLANC Lind llejik v jn RIEM.SDIJK (cds): Rightward Movement. J997.

tS. ALEXIADOU. Ailuniis; Adverb Fkicetnent. A case sttuh in atiltsvtfimetric svnwx. mi.

19. .TOSEF5SON. Gun log: Mittinud Words in a Minhtud Svntax. Woni fonnotion in Swedish. 1998.

20. LAENZLINGER, Chrislopher: Comparative Studies in Word Order Voriatiott. Adverbs. pronouns, ami ckntse structure in Romance ami Germamc. I99fi, 2 J. KLEIN. Hcnny: Adverbs of Degree in Dutch and Related Latigitages. I99W. 21. ALEXIADOU. Artemis and Chris WILDER (etM: Possessors. Predicates and Movement in the Determiner Phrase. 19%.

2 .V G1ANNAK1DOU. A nas Us In: Polarity Sensitivity as f Non} Veitdical Dependency. 199B. 24. REBEJSC HI, Georges and LauriLe TULLER icds : The Gmmftiar of Focus 1999. 25. FELSER, Cliudla: Veiba! Coiuph'itfeni Clauses. A minimalist study ofdirectperception eonstrm uons. 1999.

lb. ACKEMA. Pcler: Issues in Morphosvnta.x. 1999.

27. RUZICKA, Rudtilf: Contioi itt Cyammm {ind Pi-ayimnkx. A i ro.w-finxuistii- atitdy.

2S. HERMANS. B n ind Mli

van OOSTENDORE* {n&.y. The Derivutitmai Rtsidue ht

29. MIYAMOTO, TiuJiiu: The Li\>hi Verb CousiruciUMi in Japnticse. The rote of the verbai

M). BEl'KI-MA, Frit;) initl Marcc! dtn D1KKEN uds.K CHtu Pijemmftta in Euntpeuti LangmKe?, 2000. n

SVEKONIUS, Pclcr{cd.>: The Dcriwlion ofVO and OV 2000.

12

ALEXIADOU Arlc-miji, l u] LAW. AndrLi MHNUNGER utid Chri* WILDER (ccR):

3

The Syntax ofRelative dmixes. 20{K}. FU5KAS. Gcnovcva: Word Oidei in Hitngarian. The-lyftiax ofA-poxiiions. 2000. REULAND. Eric fed.): Ai nments and Ca.w. Expkiunnp Butzio's Generatr&ition.

.

.

.

.

14

.

.

,

15. HROARSDOTTIR. TliorbjorB- Word Order Chanfie in fcehndk. From OV to VO.

.

2000.

16. GERLACH, Birgil and Janc( GRIJZENHOUT (cdi ): CMcs in Phonology. Morpholo$y and Synfux. 2000. 37, LUTZ. Uli. acTcun MULLER tind Amim von STECHOW (cds,); VWf-ScuPjw Afflfftia e .

.

2000.

MEIN LINGER. Andre; Jywf f Ajpwr/J of Topic and Comment. 2000. 39. GELDEREN. Elly VLin: Wirtwrv of En$iixh Reflexive Pronouns. Person, Self', ond fnteipretahiiiiy. 2t}0(). 40. HOEKSEMA, Jack, Hol/c RLLLMANN, Vktor S ANCH EZ- V ALENC [A and Ton '

vtin dcr WOL

DHN (uds.h: Pef.ytet-livex on Nt ntion and Ptdnrity Iieinx. 2001. 41, ZFJ.LER. Jothcr : Purth le Verbs ond Loeai Dotmtins. n.y.p, 42. ALEXIADCJU.

Anemia : Functiofial Structure tu Nominals. NomifiaHzaiion and

ergativily. n.y.p. IV .

I T VI'lil'KS I'ON. Sill 1,.

':;,"iv

. . ( , '.if! Scffii i,-(C VV- rv-i.'n

. .

2
44. TAYLAN. Escr E. {cd.}: The Verb in Turkish, n.y.p. 45. ABRAHAM, Wcmtrand C. Jan-Woutcr ZWART (cda.): Issues in Forma! Germatrfif)

Typology, n.y.p 4ft. PANAGIOTIDIS, Phocvos; Pronouns. { Utics- and Empty Nouns. 'Pivnoniinahty' and Jicensing in syntax, n.y.p,