Complex Predicates in Head-Driven Phrase Structure Grammar

(1)

Complex Predicatesin Head-Driven Phrase Structure Grammar

Complex Predicates in Head-Driven Phrase Structure Grammar

Stefan M¨uller

Theoretische Linguistik/Computerlinguistik Fachbereich 10 Universität Bremen Institut für Linguistik Universität Potsdam Stefan.Mueller@cl.uni-bremen.de

December 4, 2005

Complex Predicatesin Head-Driven Phrase Structure Grammar The Verbal Complex

The Verbal Complex

•Certain verbs have to or may form a topological unit (Bech, 1955):

(1) weil because

er he

ihm him

das the

Buch book zu to

lesen read

versprochen promised

hat has

‘because he promised him to read the book’

•The finite verb may be separated from the remaining complex, but in our analysis, there is a trace that is part of the verbal complex:

(2) a. Hat has

er he

ihm him

das the

Buch book zu to

lesen read

versprochen?

promised

‘Did he promise him to read the book?’

b. Das the

Buch book

hat has er he

ihm him zu to

lesen read

versprochen.

promised

‘He promised him to read the book.’

c

Stefan M¨uller 2005, CL, FB 10, Universit¨at Bremen & CL, Uni Potsdam 1/77

Coherent and Incoherent Constructions

•Forming a verbal complex is not the only option:

(3) a. weil because

er he

ihm him

das the

Buch book zu to

lesen read

hat has

b. weil because

er he

ihm promised

versprochen has

hat, him

das the

Buch book zu to

lesen read

(3a) is called thecoherent constructionand (3b) is theincoherent construction.

•All verbs governing participles or bare infinitives have to form a verbal complex.

c

Coherent and Incoherent Constructions

•There are also obligatorily coherent verbs that governzuinfinitives:

(4) a. weil because

er he

das the

Buch book zu to

lesen read

scheint seems

‘because he seems to read the book’

b. * weil because

er he

scheint seems

das the

Buch book zu to

lesen read

But most verbs takingzuinfinitives allow for both coherent and incoherent constructions.

c

(2)

Permutation of Arguments

Arguments of complex forming verbs do not have to be realized adjecent to their verbs:

(5) weil because

es it

ihm him

jemand somebody

zu to

lesen read

hat has

(Haider, 1990a)

c

Passive

The Remote Passive

Accusative objects of embedded verbs can be realized as nominative in passive constructions:

(6) a. weil because

er he-nom

den the

Wagen car-acc

oft often

zu to

reparieren repair

versuchte tried

‘because he often tried to repair the car’

b. weil because

der the

Wagen car-nom

oft often

zu to

reparieren repair

versucht tried

wurde.

was

‘because many attempts were made to repair the car.’

den Wagenis the object ofreparieren, but is realized as nominative in (6b).

Explanation:zu reparieren versuchtacts as a complex verb and is passivized as if it were a simplex verb.

c

Passive

The Remote Passive

•Supporting evidence:

Remote passive is only possible in coherent constructions:

(7) a. weil because

oft often

versucht tried

wurde, was

den the

Wagen car-acc

zu to

reparieren.

repair

b. * weil because

oft often

versucht tried

wurde, was

der the

Wagen car-nom

zu to

reparieren.

repair c. Den

the Wagen car-acc

zu to

reparieren repair

wurde was

oft often

versucht.

tried d. * Der

the Wagen car-nom

zu to

reparieren repair

wurde was

oft often

versucht.

tried

c

Passive

The Remote Passive: Corpus Examples

(8) a. Dabei darf jedoch nicht vergessen werden, daß in der Bundesrepublik, wo ein Mittelweg zu gehen versucht wird, die Situation der Neuen Musik allgemein und die Stellung der Komponistinnen im besonderen noch recht unbefriedigend ist.¹

b. Noch ist es nicht so lange her, da ert¨onten gerade aus dem Thurgau jeweils die lautesten T¨one, wenn im Wallis oder am Genfersee im Umfeld einer Schuldenpolitik mit den unglaublichsten Tricksder sportliche Abstieg zu verhindern versucht wurde.²

c. Die Auf- und Absteigenden erzeugen ungewollt einen Ton,derbewusst nicht als lästigzu eliminieren versucht wird, sondern zum Eigenklang des Hauses gehören soll, so wünschen es sich die Architekten.³ See Wurmbrand, 2003 for additional data.

1Mannheimer Morgen, 26.09.1989, Feuilleton; Ist’s gut, so unter sich zu bleiben?

2St. Galler Tagblatt, 09.02.1999, Ressort: TB-RSP; HCT und das Prinzip Hoffnung.

3Z¨uricher Tagesanzeiger, 01.11.1997, S. 61.

c

(3)

Fronting

Parts from the left periphery of the verbal complex including non-verbal material may be placed in front of the finite verb:

(9) a. weil because

er he ihr her das the

M¨archen fairytale

erz¨ahlen tell

m¨ussen must

wird.

will

‘because he will have to tell her the fairytale’

b. Erz¨ahlen tell

wird will

er he ihr her

das the

M¨archen fairytale

m¨ussen.

must c. Erz¨ahlen

tell m¨ussen must

wird will

er he ihr her

das the

M¨archen fairytale . d. Das

the M¨archen fairytale

erz¨ahlen tell

wird will

er he ihr her

m¨ussen.

must e. * M¨ussen

must wird will

er he ihr her

das the

M¨archen fairytale

erz¨ahlen tell

.

Parts from the middle of the verbal complex may not be fronted.

c

Tests for Coherence/Incoherence

•Reordering of arguments→coherent

•Extraposition or intraposition of a verb and all its complements/adjuncts→incoherent

•partial fronting→strictly speaking nothing but patterns with the coherent verbs

•remote passive possible with the coherent construction

•Additional test: scope of an adjunct over a higher verb→coherent

c

The Analysis

The Lexical Entry for Obligatorily Coherent Verbs

(10) m¨ussen(‘must’ finite, obligatorily coherent):

subcat1⊕2⊕ hV[bse,lex+,subj1,subcat2]i

This is parallel to the lexical entry for the auxiliaries discussed in the passive session, except that thelexvalue was left out there.

lex+ describes word like clusters.

No non-verbal arguments have been combined with the embedded infinitive.

Thus we can ensure that the bare verb is combined withscheinen. (11a), but not (11b).

(11) a. weil because

er he ihr her

das the

M¨archen fairytale

[erz¨ahlen tell

muß]

must

‘because he must tell her the fairytale’

b. weil because

er he

[[ihr her

das the

M¨archen fairytale

erz¨ahlen]

tell muß]]

must c

The Verbal Complex The Analysis

The Predicate Complex Schema

•Elements from the verbal cluster may not be reordered as normal arguments may.

(12) * daß that

das the

Buch book

lesen read

niemand nobody

wird will

•A seperate schema for predicate complexes:

head-cluster-structure→







synsem h

loc|cat|subcat1i head-dtr h

synsem|loc|cat|subcat1⊕ h2ii nonhead-dtrsh[ synsem2]i







•Looks like the head-argument schema from the first session.

•The difference is that we useappendinstead ofdel.

c

(4)

Analysis of the Verbal Complex

"

head 1 subcat2⊕3

#

CL H

4





 loc





 head







subj 2hNP[nom]i vformbse verb







subcat3hNP[acc], NP[dat]i

















 head 1





 subj h i vformfin verb







subcat2⊕3⊕ h4i







erz¨ahlen muß

c

Accounting for the Ungrammatical Cases

•The constraints that were formalized so far do not rule out the following:

(13) a. * daß that

lesen read er he

den the

Aufsatz paper

wird will b. * daß

that er he

lesen read

den the

Aufsatz paper

wird will

There would be an analysis in whichlesenis combined withwirdvia the head-argument schema.

•Exclusion by specification of thelexvalue of the daughter:

head-argument-structure→







synsem|loc|cat|subcatdel(1,2) head-dtr|cat|subcat2

non-head-dtrsh[ synsem1[lex−]]i







c

Partial VP Fronting

•The combination of obligatroily coherent verbs with phrases was sucessfuly excluded, but what about (14b)?

(14) a. er he

ihr hir

[[ein a

M¨archen fairytale

erz¨ahlen]

tell muß]]

must b. Ein

a M¨archen fairytale

erz¨ahlen tell

wird will

er he

ihr her

m¨ussen.

must

•No problem iflexis a feature that is not inside oflocal, but undersynsem(M¨uller, 1997, 1999, 2002a; Meurers, 1999).

Since only information underlocalis shared between trace and filler, thelexvalue may differ.

•Structure Preservation Principle of Emonds (1976) does not hold.

But this is the case for HPSG grammars anyway, sincephonvalues differ anddtrsmay differ.

c

Partial VP Fronting

Analysis ofSeiner Tochter erz¨ahlen wird er das M¨archen.

V[fin, subcath i, slashh i]

F H

V[lex−, loc1[bse,

subcat2h3,4i]]

V[fin, subcath i, slashh1i]

C H H C

5NP[dat] V[bse,

subcath3,4,5i] V[fin, subcath7i] 7V[fin,

subcath i, slashh1i]

V1-LR C H

V[subcat2⊕6] 3NP[nom]V[fin, subcath3i, slashh1i]

C H

4NP[acc] V[fin,

subcat2h3,4i slashh1i]

CL H

6V[lex+, loc1, slashh1i]

V[fin, subcat2h3,4i ⊕ h6i]

Seiner Tochter erz¨ahlen wird er das M¨archen – –

c

(5)

Partial VP Fronting

Exclusion of Ungrammatical Cases

•What excludes (15)?

(15) * M¨ussen must

wird will

er he

ihr her

ein a

M¨archen fairytale

erz¨ahlen.

tell

•wirdselects an infinitive inbseform the arguments of which it attracts.

The attracted elements have to belex−.

Thereforeerz¨ahlencannot be attracted→structure in (16) is ruled out.

(16) * Müsseniwirdjer ihr ein Märchen [erzählen [i j]].

•The analysis in (17) is excluded, since extraction traces are not allowed in head positions:

(17) * Müsseniwirdjer ihr ein Märchen [[erzählen i] j].

c

Optional Coherence

versuch- (control verb, optionally coherent):

subcatD

NP[str]₁E

⊕2⊕D V[inf, subjD

NP[str]₁E

, subcat2]E

•versuchenis a control verb: the index of its subject is identified with the subject index of the embedded verb.

•Thelexvalue of the embedded verb is not specified→ both values are possible.

•If it is ‘+’, we get the coherent construction, if it is ‘−’ we get the incoherent construction.

c

Remote Passive

er he-nom

den the

Wagen car-acc

oft often

zu to

reparieren repair

versuchte tried

‘because he often tried to repair the car’

b. weil because

der the

Wagen car-nom

oft often

zu to

reparieren repair

versucht tried

wurde.

was

(19) a.zu reparieren:

subjhNP[str]iisubcathNP[str]ji b.versucht:

subcathNP[str]ki ⊕1⊕ hV[subjhNP[str]ki, subcat1]i c.zu reparieren versucht(finite):

subcathNP[str]k, NP[str]ji d.zu reparieren versucht wurde(passive):

subcathNP[str]ji c

Remote Passive

Remote Passive vs. Incoherent Constructions

The data explained:

oft often

versucht tried

wurde, was

den the

Wagen car-acc

zu to

reparieren.

repair

b. * weil because

oft often

versucht tried

wurde, was

der the

Wagen car-nom

zu to

reparieren.

repair c. Den

the Wagen car-acc

zu to

reparieren repair

wurde was

oft often

versucht.

tried d. * Der

the Wagen car-nom

zu to

reparieren repair

wurde was

oft often

versucht.

tried

The examples in (20) are incoherent constructions→Nothing is raised→ Case is assigned in the VP.→Object ofreparierengets accusative.

(20a) and (20c) are impersonal passives.

c

(6)

Complex Predicatesin Head-Driven Phrase Structure Grammar Copula Constructions

Scrambling

den Besten (1985, p. 60):

(21) a. daß that

die the

Sache matter-nom

dem the

Minister minister-dat

ganz completely

klar clear

war.

was

‘that the matter was completely clear to the minister.’

b. daß that

dem the

Minister minister-dat

die the

Sache matter-nom

ganz completely

klar clear

war.

was

c

Fronting

(22) a. Treu faithful

will wants

Karl Karl-nom

seiner his

Frau wife-dat

sein.

be

‘Karl wants to be faithful to his wife.’

b. Treu faithful

sein be

will wants

Karl Karl

seiner his

Frau.

wife c. Seiner

his Frau wife

treu faithful

will wants

Karl Karl

sein.

be d. * Sein

be will wants

Karl Karl

seiner his

Frau wife

treu.

faithful The adjective may be fronted with or without its complements.

Impossible to front the copula without the adjective.

Like partial verb phrase fronting.

c

Copula Constructions Intraposition and Extraposition

Intraposition

Intraposition and Extraposition

(23) ? weil

because stolz proud

auf of

seinen his

Sohn son

nur only

Karl Karl

gewesen been

ist.

is

‘because only Karl was proud of his son.’

Hoberg (1997, p. 1574) calls thisfocus split(focus movement).

c

Copula Constructions Intraposition and Extraposition

Extraposition

(24) a. Karl Karl ist is

auf on

seinen his

Sohn son

stolz proud

gewesen.

been

‘Karl was proud of his son.’

b. * Karl Karl ist is

gewesen been

auf on

seinen his

Sohn son

stolz.

proud c. * Karl

Karl ist is

gewesen been

stolz proud

auf on

seinen his

Sohn.

son Extraposition of AP is impossible.

Compare the incoherenct construction withversuchen:

(25) Karl Karl hat has

versucht, tried

dem the

Mann man

zu to

helfen.

help

‘Karl tried to help the man.’

c

(7)

Passive

The copula cannot be passivized.

c

The Analysis

Sketch of the Analysis

er ihr treu ist

AdjhNP[nom], NP[ldat]i VhNP[nom], NP[ldat], Adji NP[ldat] VhNP[nom], NP[ldat]i

V’hNP[nom]i NP[nom]

VPh i

•Adjective and copula form a complex

•Arguments of the adjective are attracted.

•Arguments in the list are saturated one after the other.

c

The Analysis

The Lexical Entries

sei- (copula):

"

head verb

subcathNP[str],1i ⊕2⊕ h[prd+, subjh1i, subcat2]i

#

seinembedds a predicative phrase and raises its subject and the other arguments.

treu(‘faithful’):





 head







subjhNP[str]i prd + adj







subcathNP[ldat]i







c

Complex Predicatesin Head-Driven Phrase Structure Grammar consider-Type Predicates

consider

-Type Predicates

(26) daß that

jeder everybody-nom

ihn him-acc

klug smart

findet finds

‘that everybody finds him smart’

c

(8)

Scrambling

(27) a. daß that

jeder everybody-nom

ihn him-acc

klug smart

findet finds

b. daß that

ihn him-acc

jeder everybody-nom

klug smart

findet finds

c

Fronting

(28) a. Klug

smart findet finds

er he

ihn.

him b. * Gefunden

found hat has er he

ihn him

klug.

smart

Intended: ‘He considered him to be clever.’

The adjective may be fronted.

Impossible to front theconsider-type predicate without the adjective.

Like partial verb phrase fronting.

c

Intraposition and Extraposition

(29) a. weil

because er he

niemanden nobody

klug smart

findet.

finds

‘because he doesn’t consider anybody to be clever.’

b. ?? weil because

er he

klug smart

niemanden nobody

findet.

finds Reordering marked, only under special conditions possible:

(30) die the

Virtuosit¨at virtuosity

pur pure

will wants

einem one

so so

virtuos virtuoso

nicht not

mehr more vorkommen,

appear [. . . ]⁴

‘The pure virtuosity doesn’t seem quite so virtuoso anymore.’

4Z¨uricher Tagesanzeiger, 09.03.1996, p. 57.

c

Extraposition

(31) a. daß that

jeder everybody-nom

ihn him-acc

klug smart

gefunden found

hat has

‘that everybody found him smart’

b. * daß that

jeder everybody-nom

ihn him-acc

gefunden found

hat has

klug smart Similar with PP-like predicate:

(32) a. Ich I

habe have ihn him

f¨ur for

einen a

L¨ugner liar

gehalten.

hold

‘I took him for a liar.’

b. * Ich I

habe have ihn him

gehalten hold

f¨ur for

einen a

L¨ugner.

liar PPs can extrapose in German.

c

(9)

The Analysis

Sketch of the Analysis

jeder ihn klug findet

AdjhNP[nom], NP[acc]i VhNP[nom], NP[acc], Adji

NP[acc] VhNP[nom], NP[acc]i

VPh i

•Adjective andconsider-type predicate form a complex

•Arguments of the adjective are attracted.

•Arguments in the list are saturated one after the other.

c

The Analysis

The Lexical Entries

find- (‘find’):

"

head verb

subcathNP[str],1i ⊕2⊕ hADJ[prd+, subjh1i, subcat2]i

#

findenembedds a predicative adjective and raises its subject and the other arguments.

klug(‘clever’):





 head







subjhNP[str]i prd + adj





 subcathi







c

The Analysis

The Passive

(33) a. weil

because ich I-nom

ihn him-acc

klug clever

finde consider

‘because I consider him to be clever’

b. weil because

er he-nom

klug clever

gefunden found

wird is

‘because he is considered to be clever’

(34) a. klug finde:subcathNP[str], NP[str]i b. klug gefunden wird:subcathNP[str]i

c

Complex Predicatesin Head-Driven Phrase Structure Grammar Resultative Constructions

Resultative Constructions

A verb (mono valent) plus accusative + predicate.

niemand nobody-nom

den the

Teich pond-acc

leer empty

fischt fishes

‘because nobody fishes the pond empty’

b. weil because

er he

die the

Zwiebel onion

in in

St¨ucke pieces

schneidet cuts

‘because he cuts the onion in pieces’

Accusative is not necessarily an argument of the matrix verb:

(36) * weil because

niemand nobody-nom

den the

Teich pond-acc

fischt fishes

c

(10)

Scrambling

argument ofleercan be placed before the arguments of the matrix verb:

niemand nobody-nom

den the

Teich pond-acc

leer empty

fischt fishes b. weil

because den the

Teich pond-acc

niemand nobody-nom

leer empty

fischt fishes

c

Fronting

Predicate can be fronted allone or with the governing verb:

er he

den the

Teich pond

leer empty

gefischt fished

hat.

has b. Leer

empty hat has er he

den the

Teich pond

(nicht) not

gefischt.

fished c. Leer

empty gefischt fished

hat has er he

den the

Teich pond

(nicht).

not

d. Den

the Teich pond

leer empty

gefischt fished

hat has er he

(nicht).

not e. ?* Gefischt

fished hat has er he

den the

Teich pond

(nicht) not

leer.

empty Fronting the verb allone is rather bad.

c

Intraposition

(39) a. Ich I

wollte wanted

die the

Zuchetti Zuchetti in into

Scheiben slices

schneiden.

cut b. * Ich

I wollte wanted

in into

Scheiben slices

die the

Zuchetti Zuchetti

schneiden.

cut (40) * Gustav

Gustav hat has die the

Tasse cup

leer empty

mit with

großen big

Schlucken gulps

getrunken.⁵ drunk Intended: ‘He drained the cup with big gulps.’

5Oppenrieder, 1991, p. 126.

c

Intraposition: Focus Movement

Neeleman (1994, p. 85) for Dutch:

(41) a. daß that so that

gr¨un green

selbst even

Jan Jan die the

T¨ur door

nicht not

streicht.

paints

‘that not even Jan would paint the door that green.’

b. daß that

Jan Jan so that

gr¨un green

selbst even

die the

T¨ur door

nicht not

streicht.

paints L¨udeling (2001, p. 50):

(42) Ich I

m¨ochte, want

daß that

der the

Prinz prince die the

Zwiebeln onions

in in

feine fine

W¨urfel cubes

f¨ur for die the Suppe

soup und and in in

Ringe rings f¨ur for

den the

Salat salad

schneidet.

cuts

‘I want the prince to cut the onions into small cubes for the soup and into rings for the salad.’

c

(11)

The Passive

The argument ofleercan become the subject of the whole construction:

er he-nom

den the

Teich pond-acc

leer empty

fischt fishes b. weil

because der the

Teich pond-nom

leer empty

gefischt fishes

wurde

c

The Analysis

er ihn leer fischt

AdjhNP[acc]i VhNP[nom], NP[acc], Adji

NP[acc] VhNP[nom], NP[acc]i

VPh i

•parallell to verb complexes: Subject of the embedded Adj becomes object of the embedding predicate

•Lexical entry for the verb in resultative constructions is licensed by a lexical rule.

•The LR also contributes the causative meaning.

c

The Analysis

Lexical Rule for Resultatives with Unergative Verbs





 . . .





 head

"

dah1i verb

#

subcat2D

1NP[str]E







stem





 7→





 . . .







subcat2⊕4⊕

*





 . . .





 head





 prd + subj4

D NPref

E adj-or-prep







subcathi











 +







stem







c

The Analysis

The Rule in Operation

(44) a. fisch- (intrans):subcathNP[str]i

b. fisch- (resultative):subcathNP[str], NP[str], Predi After inflection (44a) can be used to analyze (45a) and (44b) can be used to analyze (45b).

(45) a. Er he-nom

fischt.

fishes b. Er

he-nom fischt fishes

den the

Teich pond-acc

leer.

empty

c

(12)

The Analysis

Embick’s Argument Against Lexicalist Theories

(73) a.The door remained opened.

b. The metal remained flattened.

c. the recently hammered metal [. . . ]

(75) The metal is [hammered [^aPflatter than a pancake that has been run over by a steamroller and stomped on by elephants]].

Clearly, one would not want to derive the predicate (75) in the lexicon; it is a syntactic structure. Within standard Lexicalist assumptions, a lexical process cannot form an adjective out of hammer and the resultative secondary predicate in (75) because lexical processes cannot follow syntactic processes. Thus, the formation of resultative participles that have resultative secondary predicates must be syntactic, according to Lexicalist assumptions. If the Lexicalist view is to be maintained, this means that there must be two ways of forming resultative participles: one lexical rule for forming adjectival passive predicates like those in (73); and a second, syntactic process that creates an adjective out of hammer flat and the like. (Embick, 2004, p. 389)

c

The Analysis

Rule Interaction: Passive

Lexical rule for participle formation applies to (46a) and licences (46b):

(46) a. fisch- (resultative):subcathNP[str], NP[str], Predi b. gefischt(resultative, participle):subcathNP[str], Predi (46b) may be used to analyze sentences like (47):

(47) Der the

Teich pond-nom

wurde was

leer empty

gefischt.

fished

The passive auxiliary does not deblock the blocked elements.

The Case Principle assigns the first element in thesubcatlist nominative.

c

The Analysis

Rule Interaction and Refutation of Embick’s Argument

(48a) is input to the adjective formation lexical rule, which licences (48b):

(48) a. gefischt(resultative, participle):subcathNP[str], Predi b. gefischt- (adjectival stem):subcathPredi

(48b) can be used to analyze:

(49) der the

leer empty

gefischte fished

Teich pond

The complexity of the predicate does not matter.

The mistake in Embick’s thinking is that he believes that lexicalists combine actual words in the lexicon.

c

Complex Predicatesin Head-Driven Phrase Structure Grammar Particle Verbs

The Phenomenon

Particle Verbs

•Particle Verbs consist of a verb, which usually also appears in isolation, and a particle, often a preposition.

(50) Erlachtihnan.

•Particle Verbs are usually written together:

(51) weil er ihnanlacht.

c

(13)

Complex Predicatesin Head-Driven Phrase Structure Grammar Particle Verbs

The Phenomenon

Particle Verbs

•Particle verbs are morphologically and syntactically separable Example:einschlafen(‘to fall asleep’)zuandgeseparate the particle from the verb:

(52) a. Peter ist eingeschlafen.

b. Peter versucht, nicht einzuschlafen.

syntactic material separates particle and verb:

(53) a. daß Peter nicht einschl¨aft.

b. Schl¨aft Peter nicht ein?

•Question: Should particle verbs (always) be treated in the morphology component or should they always be analysed in the syntactic component?

c

Stefan M¨uller 2005, CL, FB 10, Universit¨at Bremen & CL, Uni Potsdam 48/77 Particle Verbs

The Phenomenon

Arguments for the Word Status of Particle Verbs

Arguments for a Morphological Analysis

•Nominalizations in German Dialects

•Nontransparency of Certain Particle Verbs

•Changes in the Argument Structure

•Fronting of Particles / Positioning of the Particle in the Mittelfeld

c

The Phenomenon

Arguments for the Word Status of Particle Verbs Nominalizations in German Dialects

Nominalizations in German Dialects (I)

Stiebels and Wunderlich (1994):

(54) a. Er he ist is

sein his

Zimmer room

am at.the

aufr¨aumen.

part(up).clearing

‘He is clearing up his room.’

b. * Er he ist is

am at.the

sein his

Zimmer room

aufr¨aumen.

part(up).clearing c. * Er

he ist is

sein his

Zimmer room

auf part(up)

am at.the

r¨aumen.

clearing

‘He is clearing up his room.’

Claim: Only words can followam

Particle verbs may appear there.→Particle verbs are words.

c

Stefan M¨uller 2005, CL, FB 10, Universit¨at Bremen & CL, Uni Potsdam 50/77 The Phenomenon

Arguments for the Word Status of Particle Verbs Nominalizations in German Dialects

Nominalizations in German Dialects (II)

Claim is empirically not correct:

(55) a. Wir we

sind are

die them

grade just

am at.the

komplett completely Durchbestellen.⁶

part(through).ordering

‘We are ordering all of them now.’

b. Er he ist is

st¨andig constantly

am at.the

Werbung advertisement

f¨ur for

sich self

Machen.

make

‘He is permanently indulging in self-promotion.’

c

(14)

The Phenomenon

Arguments for the Word Status of Particle Verbs Nontransparency of Certain Particle Verbs

Nontransparency of Certain Particle Verbs (I)

•Levitiene (1966): non transparent→word

•Reis (1985), Fanselow (1987): idioms are non-transparent, but nevertheless syntactically active.

Various passives exist, case of idiom parts changes:

(56) a. Man one-nom

liest reads

den the

Regierenden governors-dat

in in

Bonn Bonn die the

Leviten.

Leviticus-acc

‘The rulers in Bonn are read the riot act.’

b. Am at.the

1. Mai 1 May

werden are

den the

Regierenden governors-dat

in in

Bonn Bonn die the

Leviten Leviticus-nom

gelesen.

read (MM, 05.02.1998)

‘On 1 May the rulers in Bonn will be read the riot act.’

c. Ein a

Mann man-nom

bekommt gets

von by

seiner his

Frau wife die the

Leviten Leviticus-acc

gelesen, read

weil because

er he

beim by.the Fernsehquiz

TV.quiz versagte.

failed

(MM, 10.09.1989)

‘A man is read the riot act by his wife because he did not do well in the TV quiz.’

c

Arguments for the Word Status of Particle Verbs Nontransparency of Certain Particle Verbs

Nontransparency of Certain Particle Verbs (II)

(57) a. die the

Hunderttausende, hundred.thousands

die who-nom

wochenlang weeks.long auf on die the

Straße road

gegangen went

sind are

und and einem

a verrotteten rotten

Regime regime-dat

den the

Garaus stop-acc

gemacht made

haben have

‘The hundred thousands who went on the streets for weeks on end to put a stop to a decayed regime.’ (Bundestagsprotokolle)

b. in in

Heidelberg Heidelberg

wird get ”parasit¨aren

parasitic Elementen“

elements-dat unter under

den the

Professoren professors

der the Garaus

stop-nom gemacht made

(MM, 28.06.1999)

‘In Heidelberg “parasitic elements” among the professors are done away with’

Apart from this idiom parts may be scrambled and fronted.

c

The Phenomenon

Arguments for the Word Status of Particle Verbs Changes in the Argument Structure

Changes in the Argument Structure (I)

•Some particle verb combinations result in a change of the argument structure:

(58) a. Der the

Junge boy

schreit.

shouts b. * Der

the Junge boy

schreit shouts

den the

Lehrer.

teacher c. Der

the Junge boy

schreit shouts

den the

Lehrer teacher

an.

part.(towards)

‘The boy shouts at the teacher.’

•Some authors regard this as evidence for the morphological status of particle verbs: (Levitiene, 1966; Booij, 2002).

c

Arguments for the Word Status of Particle Verbs Changes in the Argument Structure

Changes in the Argument Structure (II)

•But: Resultative Constructions:

(59) Der the

Junge boy

schreit shouts

sich himself

heiser.

hoarse Everybody treats resultative constructions in syntax.

PPs can be resultative predicates→ Morphological analysis is not an option.

•We have to differentiate between morphological and lexical. Both particle verbs and resultative constructions should be licensed in the lexicon component.

c

(15)

The Phenomenon

Arguments for the Word Status of Particle Verbs Fronting of Particles

Fronting of Particles (I)

•Argumentation:

Extraction out of words is impossible. (Movement of the finite verb is different (Head-Movement))

•very frequent claim that particles cannot be fronted in various versions in: (Bierwisch, 1963; Engel, 1970, 1977, 1994;

Grewendorf, 1990; Stiebels and Wunderlich, 1992; Haider, 1990b, 1993, 1997a,b; Fanselow, 1993; Neeleman and Weermann, 1993; Kiss, 1994;

Haider, Olsen and Vikner, 1995; Kathol, 1996; Olsen, 1997a,b;

Eisenberg, 1999; Eschenlohr, 1999; Zifonun, 1999; Webelhuth and Ackerman, 1999)

c

Fronting of Particles (II)

•Empirically not correct. Examples for particle frontings can be found in:

•for German: Reis (1976), Lötscher (1985), Dürscheid (1989), Haftka (1981), Hoberg (1997), Lüdeling (1997), Müller (2002b)

•for Dutch: Hoeksema (1991) and Bennis (1991) (60) Auf

part(up) geht goes

die the

Sonne sun

im in.the

Osten, east

aber but

unter part(down)

geht goes sie

she im in.the

Westen.

west

‘The sun rises in the east, but sets in the west.’

c

The Phenomenon

Fronting of Particles: Corpus Data (I)

(61) a. Los

part ging went es it

schon already

in in

dieser this

Woche.

week

(taz, 11.10.95, p. 4)

‘It already started this week.’

b. Vor part(before)

hat has er he

das this

jedenfalls.

in.any.case

(taz, 07.15.99, p. 19)

‘He does plan this.’

c. Entgegen kam der EuGH den Streitkr¨aften, indem er . . . (taz, 01.12.00, p. 1)

‘The European Court of Justice accommodated the troops by . . . ’ d. Es

it klopfte, knocked

eintrat in.stepped

der the

Studienrat.

teacher

(Walser,Ohne einander, p. 51)

‘There was a knock on the door. The teacher came in.’

c

Fronting of Particles: Corpus Data (II)

(62) a. Auf

part f¨allt, falls

daß that

. . . (Duden, 1991, p. 62)

‘It is noticed that . . . ’ b. Fehl

part(fail) schlug beat

auch also

der the

Versuch, attempt

¨ uber over

die the

¨ ortliche local Kinder¨arztin

children.doctors die the

Identit¨at identity

des of.the

M¨adchens girl

zu to

erfahren.

find.out (Frankfurter Rundschau, 30.08.1997, p. 22)

‘The attempt to identify the girl by questioning the local paediatricians failed.’

c

(16)

The Phenomenon

Arguments for the Word Status of Particle Verbs Position of the Particle in the Mittelfeld

Position of the Particle in the Mittelfeld (I)

•The Mittelfeld is the area between the complementiser and the non-finite verbs and the finite verb.

•Analogous claim: Particles are a part of a word. Therefore syntactic material between particle and verb (in final position) is excluded. Moving the particle to the left in the Mittelfeld is impossible.

•This is also not correct:

(63) Andrew Andrew

Halsey Halsey ist is

auf on

dem the

Weg way

von from

Kalifornien California

nach to

Australien Australia

weit far

ab off vom

from.the Kurs course

gekommen.

come

(taz, 04.10.1999, p. 20)

‘On the way from California to Australia Andrew Halsey strayed way off course.’

abkommenis a particle verb. Ifweit ab vom Kursis treated as an adverbial phrase, meaning changes.

c

Position of the Particle in the Mittelfeld (II)

(64) Andrew

Andrew Halsey Halsey ist is

auf on

dem the

Weg way

von from

Kalifornien California

nach to

Australien Australia weit

far ab off

vom from.the

Kurs course

gekommen.

come

(taz, 04.10.1999, p. 20)

‘On the way from California to Australia Andrew Halsey strayed way off course.’

meaning of the particleabis further specified by avon-PP

c

The Phenomenon

Position of the Particle in the Mittelfeld (III)

•Olsen (1997a):

(65) a. Er he

legte laid

die the

Folie transparency

auf on

den the

Projektor projector

auf.

on

‘He placed the transparency on the overhead projector.’

b. Er he

warf threw

die the

Briefe letters in in

den the

Briefkasten letter.box

ein.

in

‘He posted the letters.’

There are no particle verbs in German that have avonas particle.abis used instead (Fourquet, 1974; Stiebels, 1996, p. 86, p. 94).

•If the particleabis further specified, avon-PP is used, as in (64).

c

Position of the Particle in the Mittelfeld (IV)

Projection of the particle is adjacent to the verb in (64), but also other data: Hoberg (1997), L¨udeling (2001):

(66) Ich I

weiß, know

daß that

die the

Sonne sun

auf part(up)

im in.the

Osten east

und and

unter part(under) im

in.the Westen west

geht.

goes

‘I know that the sun rises in the east and sets in the west.’

c