This dissertation deals with one of the central concerns of syntactic theory since Ross 1967: How local is syntax and what are the measures of syntactic locality? These questions lie at the core, for example, of both the theory of movement and the theory of binding. A constant theme has been the issue of whether or not movement and anaphoric relations are governed by a unified concept of locality. I argue here that they are. On an empirical level, I bring together and present the results of three (partly) independent strands of research on German: (i) the study of reduced infinitive constructions, starting with Bech’s (1955/57) classic work on COHERENCE versus NON-COHERENCE in German, (ii) the POSSESSOR DATIVE CONSTRUCTION (PDC), with a dative nominal playing the role of both possessor and affectee, and (iii) BINDING, the conditions under which reflexive and non-reflexive pronouns may occur. One of the principal results of the dissertation is that there is a single determinant of locality for these three apparently disparate phenomena. The initial goal is to show how possessor datives and binding bear on the clause structure of various types of infinitival structures, primarily CONTROL and A CCUSATIVUS

I NFINITIVO constructions. Both the PDC and binding are

phenomena involving relations between two structural positions, and both are


sensitive to the “size” (in the sense of ‘internal complexity’) of intervening material. Exploiting this sensitivity, I propose that possessor datives and binding can serve as probes for infinitival clause size. Building on Wurmbrand 2001, I provide new evidence for a distinction between infinitival complements that is more fine-grained than, and thus goes beyond, Bech’s original and traditionally assumed binary distinction between coherence and non-coherence. These results provide the foundation for addressing two larger issues: the typology of clause size and what makes a given phrase-type transparent (constructed coherently) or opaque (constructed non-coherently) to grammatical interactions with elements beyond its boundaries. The category of clauses that are “satzwertig” (literally ‘of sentence-value’) is uniquely important to an understanding of language, since that is the category through which we accomplish core speech acts like the assertion of what is true. It is the category which, since Aristotle, has been taken to express the core semantic relation of predication holding between a subject and a predicate. The two issues above are closely related since one of the properties of sentences is that they are, in a sense, complete in and of themselves. As a consequence, elements trapped within them do not in general enter into grammatical interactions (such as agreement or case-marking) with elements beyond sentence-boundaries. The type of infinitive construction which is my primary focus involves infinitival complements known as Accusativus cum Infinitivo (henceforth AcI), selected by


causative and perception verbs. AcI-complements are a “hybrid” category in that they have (some of) the properties of sentencehood, but they are also porous, in that they permit (some) grammatical interaction across their borders. By examining this hybrid case, I aim to shed light on the larger question of what it takes for a phrasetype to qualify as “satzwertig”. Since the opacity property of phrase-types that are “satzwertig” is the intuition behind Chomsky’s (2000, 2001) notion of PHASE , and since there are other Minimalist assumptions I adopt, this dissertation provides arguments in favor of the theoretical shift from the traditional Principles & Parameters view, which defined much work in theoretical syntax in the 80s and 90s, to a Minimalist system. I implement my analyses in a framework broadly compatible with Chomsky’s (1995, 2000, 2001) work, but with at least one crucial difference which is discussed in detail in chapter 3. I ultimately propose the phase as the single determinant of locality which unifies all three of the syntactic phenomena examined here. In a sense, the phase – a subpart of the derivation of a sentence, which, once completed, is closed off to grammatical interactions with elements introduced later in the derivation – marks a return to the core intuition behind Chomsky’s (1973) SPECIFIED SUBJECT CONDITION (SSC). Just as the SSC constrained both movement configurations and coreference possibilities, in the system I develop, phases impose the crucial locality restriction on both PDraising and binding. However, while the SSC, i.e. the opacity-inducing presence of


an intervening ‘subject’, plays an important role in my accounts of the PDC and binding, I will show that appealing to phasehood covers more ground in that it captures the opacity effects triggered not only by verbal and nominal (vP and DP) domains but also by clausal and prepositional (CP and PP) domains. The dissertation is divided into three major parts, each covering one of the three strands of research I present. Part I (chapter 2) offers an overview of the literature on coherence, paying particular attention to the traditional coherence tests and to Wurmbrand’s (2001) new take on the binary distinction between coherence and noncoherence. Her restructuring typology provides a more fine-grained set of

distinctions between types of infinitival complementation. Part II is concerned with the possessor dative construction (PDC). Following Landau (1999), I argue for an A-movement (POSSESSOR RAISING) account. Chapter 3 develops the account for German and shows how the German PDC differs from the Hebrew PDC. Chapter 4 presents possessor raising as a new coherence diagnostic. I argue that, in important ways, possessor raising is a more reliable probe for the presence of a phase-defining domain than other coherence tests, in particular SCRAMBLING and LONG PASSIVE. Part III introduces the notion ‘phase’. In chapter 5, I present a phase-based analysis of reflexive and pronominal binding, focusing primarily on the context of AcIconstructions. I show that the relevant binding domain for reflexives and

pronominals alike is the minimal phase which contains them, and that the apparent long-distance binding ability of the reflexive can be explained by covert reflexive raising to the phase-edge. Finally, chapter 6 extends the new phase-based

understanding of locality to possessor raising and coherence phenomena. I tentatively propose a definition of ‘phase’ which promises to account for both the well-known opacity effects induced by finite embedded clauses (CPs) and the constraints on movement and binding across sub-clausal categories (vP, DP, and PP) discussed in Parts II and III of the dissertation. The following chapters then take the reader “beyond coherence” in several respects. First, I provide further evidence for Wurmbrand’s proposal of a fine-grained distinction between types of complements selected by control verbs – the binary coherence/non-coherence distinction is not enough. Second, I show that AcIcomplements, though clearly sub-clausal in a purely structural sense, have properties of “Satzwertigkeit” that are incompatible with the label ‘coherent construction’. Finally, the characterization of ‘phase’ I arrive at in chapter 6 potentially accounts not only for coherence and non-coherence phenomena in Germanic infinitive constructions but also for transparency and opacity effects cross-linguistically, including contexts other than the verbal domain.



1 (Non)finite complementation and transparency 2.1. 2. as one would say in 7 . Mary saw them leaving town. This chapter reviews the literature on C OHERENCE and RESTRUCTURING with the goal of conveying what it means for an infinitive construction to be “reduced”. b. The perception verb saw takes a complement which consists of the pronominal them and the nonfinite predicate leaving town. Given that the embedded nonfinite domain consists of a subject and a predicate – them is the subject of leaving town. The cleft-construction in (1b) confirms that the accusative-marked pronominal forms a constituent with the embedded predicate. What Mary saw was [them leaving town].1 The phenomenon Consider the English examples in (1). The traditional picture of coherence versus non-coherence as a binary distinction will be contrasted with Wurmbrand’s (2001) more fine-grained typology of infinitival clause size. (1) a.2 Coherence and Restructuring One of the three major strands of research this dissertation brings together is the study of reduced infinitive constructions. just as Mary is the subject of saw – we expect the nonfinite domain to exhibit clausal behavior (or “Satzwertigkeit”.

The fact that the embedded subject bears accusative. d. as opposed to nominative case. bearing nominative case. They were seen [ __ leaving town]. (2) a. however. Theyi saw [each otheri negotiating]. *Theyi saw [that each otheri were negotiating]. b. b. in the case of the finite complement clause in (3b). that case-checking must span the nonfinite clause boundary. and thus. Similarly. however. 8 . but not across the finite boundary in (d). case-checking does not span the clauseboundary in the case of a finite complement clause. (3) a. where the embedded subject bears nominative case. Mary saw that they were leaving town. The embedded subject in (3a) can cross the nonfinite domain boundary and become the subject of the matrix clause. What Mary saw was [that they were leaving town]. The examples in (3) provide even more striking evidence of the contrast in transparency between nonfinite and finite domains. literally ‘the property of having sentence value’). *They were seen [that __ were leaving town]. Movement of the embedded subject into subject position of the (higher) matrix clause is impossible.German. examples (cd) illustrate that the matrix subject can bind the anaphoric element each other across the nonfinite domain boundary in (c). c. As shown in (2). indicates that it is the matrix verb which case-licenses this nominal.

Er hat versucht [den Hund einzufangen]. the dog (NOM) was (PASS) run let ‘The dog was allowed to run. there are transparency contrasts even within the class of constructions involving nonfinite complementation. he has tried the dog (ACC) in-to-catch ‘He tried to catch the dog.’ (6) a. Der Hund wurde [ __ laufen] gelassen.’ 9 . Der Hund wurde versucht [ __ einzufangen]. he let the dog (ACC) run ‘He let the dog run. this difference in transparency of embedded complement clauses goes beyond the finite-nonfinite distinction.’ (5) a. in-to-catch the dog (NOM) was (PASS) tried ‘They (impersonal) tried to catch the dog. As illustrated by the German data in (4)-(6). *Der Hund wurde behauptet [ __ zu vermissen]. he has claimed the dog (ACC) to miss ‘He claimed to miss the dog.’ b. Er hat behauptet [den Hund zu vermissen]. (4) a. the dog (NOM) was claimed to miss ‘They (impersonal) claimed to miss the dog.’ b. Er ließ [den Hund laufen].’ b.In fact.

All three constructions in (4)-(6) have a matrix verb which takes an infinitival complement. in that the complement of versuchen is transparent. are accompanied by the infinitive marker zu ‘to’ (in Bech’s (1955/57) terms. Matrix verbs which allow grammatical operations to cross the domain boundary of their infinitival 1 AcI-constructions will be discussed in detail in later sections of this chapter and in chapter 5. Notice also that the accusative-marked nominal in (5) and (6) is the direct object. not the subject of the nonfinite verb. the contrast in transparency evident in (5) and (6) has been referred to as KOHÄRENZ (COHERENCE) versus INKOHÄRENZ (NON-COHERENCE). however. Unlike the infinitive in (4). 10 . and an infinitive with zu is of the 2nd status). an infinitive without zu is of the 1st status. and the complement of behaupten is opaque to long passive movement of the embedded direct object into the subject position of the matrix clause. Both versuchen ‘try’ in (5) and behaupten ‘claim’ in (6) are traditionally analyzed as SUBJECT CONTROL verbs: the matrix subject “controls” a null pronominal element (PRO) in the subject position of the infinitival complement. the embedded verbs in (5) and (6). The constructions differ. but can become the nominative-marked subject of the matrix clause (b). (4) is the German equivalent of the English perception verb CUM INFINITIVO construction in (1) and is known as ACCUSATIVUS (AcI). Since Gunnar Bech’s celebrated work on the syntax of German infinitive constructions. the subject of the nonfinite complement is accusative-marked in its base position (a).1 As in English.

other terms for the same phenomenon. The term ‘clause union’ originated in the Relational Grammar (RG) literature and referred to a process by which all dependents of the embedded verb become dependents of the matrix verb. Rizzi 1978.1. The phenomenon is a cross-linguistic one. various attempts have been made to account for the contrast.2 Accounting for the phenomenon Since Bech (1955/57) identified the existence of these two classes of infinitive constructions. 1983.g.complements are coherence (transparency)-inducing. 2. and Japanese (see e. This process was first recognized in connection with causative constructions in Romance and was extended to certain infinitival constructions in Spanish by Aissen & Perlmutter (1976. in particular C LAUSE UNION and RESTRUCTURING. as the coherence/non-coherence distinction holds not only for Germanic languages like German and Dutch but also for many other languages. while matrix verbs which do not are non-coherence (opacity)-inducing. The universal character of clause union phenomena is confirmed by the 11 . and Miyagawa 1987). Certain “trigger” verbs optionally cause matrix and embedded domain to merge into a single clause. While the term ‘coherence’ is used primarily for Germanic. Their main claim was that the wellknown clitic-climbing phenomenon (where a clitic which is a semantic argument of an embedded verb cliticizes to a higher verb) is a consequence of clause union. Aissen & Perlmutter 1976. are used more broadly. Italian. among them Spanish. 1983).

like (e. where the two verbs form a unit. Early accounts of the clause union/coherence phenomenon cast in a generative transformational framework were proposed by Aissen (1974) for Turkish and French and by Evers (1975) for German and Dutch. In these works. are universally transparency-inducing. are universally opacity-inducing. which optionally transforms an underlying bi-clausal structure into a mono-clausal one and thus creates a unique verbal complex consisting of both matrix and embedded verb.g. it has been claimed (see e.g. Wurmbrand 2001) that some verbs.fact that. The term ‘restructuring’ was originally used by Rizzi (1978). there are two classes of verbs. like TRY (e. 12 . a clause union/coherent structure is argued to be derived by raising of the embedded verb into the matrix clause. the so-called ‘restructuring rule’. and others. who argued that a restricted class of matrix verbs in Italian govern a rule. so that nominal complements originating in the embedded clause become part of the matrix VP. While the members of these two classes vary from language to language and even from speaker to speaker. and those which cannot trigger transparency. This raising process then causes pruning of the leftover embedded structure. those which can. German behaupten and Spanish afirmar). German versuchen and Spanish CLAIM/AFFIRM tratar).g. in all languages which have grammatical operations that appear to cross clause-boundaries.

3 is devoted to 2 3 See also Rosengren 1992. and other derivational approaches. Wurmbrand’s typology of infinitival clause size goes beyond the binary distinction between coherence-inducing and non-coherence-inducing predicates. von Stechow & Sternefeld 1988). into a mono-clausal one. in one way or another. based on Baker 1988). see Gibson & Raposo 1986.Besides VERB R AISING (Aissen 1974. Characteristic of the latter type of approaches is that they do not assume that every infinitival complement starts out as a full clause (CP). For a cross-linguistic RG account. respectively). argues that infinitival complements in German are transparent to local grammatical operations when matrix and embedded verb are base-generated as a verbal complex with a complex projection base (V ‡ Vinf Vmatrix) and blended argument structures. Evers 1975)2. certain matrix verbs and their complements form a coherent unit because the complements of these matrix verbs (which Wurmbrand calls ‘restructuring predicates’) are introduced into the derivation as subclausal. 13 . all of section 2. for example. and ABSTRACT INCORPORATION (Grewendorf & Sabel 1994. According to Wurmbrand (2001). Among the derivational approaches proposed for German are processes known as REANALYSIS (Haegeman & van Riemsdijk 1986. Haider (1993). that is they are phrases which lack a tense/agreement and nominative case position and thus must at least be smaller than TP and CP (see also Moore (1991) and Chung (2003) who make similar proposals for Spanish and Chamorro. Since it is a major goal of this dissertation to provide evidence for the existence of (at least part of) Wurmbrand’s typology. Rizzi’s restructuring rule. there are also nonderivational approaches.3 which have in common that a bi-clausal structure is transformed. EVACUATION (Fanselow 1989).

and the other is the class of optionally coherent control-zu-predicates (Class 25). Haegeman & van Riemsdijk (1986). Before bringing this proposal into the picture. and a “third” construction 2. I will present the two major verb classes which have been established for German by the traditional coherence/non-coherence distinction. An infinitival complement which can be extraposed6 (as illustrated in (7a)) is traditionally considered to have CP-status and is thus taken as a sure sign of non-coherence.2 Coherence.2. non-coherence. and den Besten & Rutten (1989) – to name at least some among the many contributors to this research program – control predicates which take an infinitival z u (‘to’)complement can roughly be divided into two major classes. it cannot be used to determine whether a given predicate always induces non-coherence or also has the option of entering into a coherent construction with its complement. von Stechow & Sternefeld (1988). Since extraposition is an option for all control-zu-predicates.the details of her proposal. Höhle (1978). I do not necessarily assume that the position of a postverbal infinitival complement is derived. Typical examples of Class 2 are versprechen ‘promise’ and versuchen ‘try’. den Besten & Edmondson (1983).1 Two major verb classes Based on the work of Bech (1955/57). however. 14 . Rather. 2. Although I use the traditional term ‘extraposition’ here. the way to identify 4 5 6 Typical examples of Class 1 are bedauern ‘regret’ and behaupten ‘claim’. One is the class of obligatorily non-coherent control-zu-predicates (Class 14). however.

versus bi-clausality. are SCRAMBLING (8). … dass wir [INF den Lehrer zu mögen] that we the teacher to like bedauert regretted haben.2. (7) a.members of Class 1 versus Class 2 is to test for transparency/opacity effects when the complement is intraposed (as illustrated in (7b)). designed to probe for mono. P RONOUN F RONTING (9). … dass wir that we bedauert regretted haben [INF den Lehrer zu mögen]. have the teacher to like behauptet claimed versprochen promised versucht tried b.2 Coherence tests It is generally assumed that the absence or presence of an embedded CP is what determines mono. the 15 . Among the well-established coherence tests. have behauptet claimed versprochen promised versucht tried 2.versus bi-clausality and thus whether a construction is coherent or non-coherent.

’ 7 8 The traditional term is ‘relative clause pied-piping’.3. …dass jeder [den Schlüssel verloren zu haben] bedauern würde. In the remainder of this section. is a common coherence diagnostic because it is generally assumed to be clause-bounded and thus restricted to applying within a CP-domain (see e. roughly defined as a local type of argument dislocation. and VERB-CLUSTER (VC)-FRONTING (see (14)).g. it will have been established that the binary coherence/non-coherence distinction based on monoversus bi-clausality is not sufficiently fine-grained to account for the range of transparency/opacity effects apparent in control verb constructions. where I illustrate the cohesion test. but for the purposes of introducing the classic coherence tests listed above. In (12). that everyone the key lost to have regret would ‘…that everyone would regret to have lost the key. In (8b) and (d). Grewendorf & Sternefeld 1990). I illustrate how the various tests apply to the control-zuverbs bedauern ‘regret’ and vergessen ‘forget’8 (see also Grewendorf 1987 for an overview of these tests). the embedded direct object has undergone scrambling into the matrix clause. I simplify the example by using versuchen ‘try’ instead of vergessen ‘forget’. By section 2. 16 . non-coherence can be equated with bi-clausality and thus the presence of an embedded CP. Scrambling.impossibility of CLAUSAL PIED-PIPING7 (see (10)-(11)). (8) a. where I discuss Wurmbrand’s (2001) view of coherence. COHESION (or the scope of negation) (see (12)-(13)). I use ‘clausal’ instead.

b.’ d. scrambling of the embedded direct object into the presubject position of the matrix clause is not allowed.e. alle ‘everyone’. whether definite or indefinite. i. …dass niemand [das Zimmer abzuschließen] vergisst. …dass das Zimmer niemand [ __ abzuschließen] vergisst. it is not a full DP but a pronoun which undergoes the movement. Here. einer ‘some person’. pronoun fronting shows that the complement of bedauern is opaque. obligatorily constructs noncoherently. Other types of subjects (common nouns or proper names). while that of vergessen is transparent to movement of an embedded argument into the matrix clause. i. has the option of constructing coherently. 9 Note that this pre-subject position is only available with certain types of subjects. more specifically quantificational pronominals like niemand ‘nobody’. while vergessen is a member of Class 2. keiner ‘not anyone’. jeder ‘each’. viele ‘many’. This means that bedauern is a member of Class 1. In the context of bedauern. that nobody the room off-to-lock forgets ‘… that nobody forgets to lock the room.9 The opacity apparent in (b) is taken as evidence of biclausality and the transparency apparent in (d). c. generally do not allow full DPs to precede them in an embedded clause. as evidence of mono-clausality. Like the scrambling test. whereas it is allowed in the context of vergessen.e. *…dass den Schlüssel jeder [ __ verloren zu haben] bedauern würde. 17 . however. jemand ‘somebody’.

to have regretted it (MASC) lost ‘… that the student regretted to have lost it. forming a single clausal domain. the so-called WACKERNAGEL position. including a CP-projection and thus a closer potential landing site for the pronominal. … dass der Hausmeister [es that abzuschließen] vergisst. forgets the superintendent it (NEUT) off-to-lock ‘… that the superintendent forgets to lock it.’ b. If the matrix verb is of Class 1 and the infinitival complement constitutes its own clause. movement of the pronominal into the matrix clause is blocked. The traditional analysis of data like these is that the pronominal direct object of the infinitive (ihn in (a-b) and es in (c-d)) can only occupy the high position between the complementizer dass and the subject. when the matrix verb is of Class 2 and has entered into a coherent construction with its complement. In contrast to scrambling and pronoun fronting. and the relative pronoun pied-pipes the whole infinitival complement into 18 . shown in (10). a nominal in the infinitival complement is relativized. c. clausal pied-piping.’ d … dass es der Hausmeister [ __ abzuschließen] vergisst. is expected to lead to a grammatical result precisely when the infinitival complement does have CP-status. *… dass ihn der Student [ __ verloren zu haben] bedauert. … dass der Student [ihn that the student verloren zu haben] bedauert. In this construction.(9) a.

deals of politics ‘The article which Tim regretted/forgot not having read is about politics. this diagnostic cannot be used to distinguish between our test verbs bedauern (a member of Class 1) and vergessen (a member of Class 2) (see (10a-b)).Spec CP of the relative clause. A simple extraposition test yields the same results: while the complement of bedauern/vergessen can be extraposed and must therefore have CP-status. As in the case of extraposition. all control-zu-verbs may at least optionally take a CP-complement. on the traditional view. Since. namely a CP. (10) a. Der Artikel [REL deni Tim [ ti nicht gelesen zu haben] bedauerte/vergaß] the article which Tim not read to have regretted/forgot handelt von Politik.’ b. What it can be used for is the distinction between control verbs and RAISING verbs like scheinen ‘seem’. and (b) and (d) show it in the pied-piped position in Spec CP of the relative clause. the complement of scheinen cannot be extraposed and is therefore taken to be smaller than CP. unlike bedauern/vergessen (see (10a-b)). is incompatible with a CP-complement. which is a member of neither Class 1 nor Class 2. Examples (a) and (c) show the infinitival complement in its intraposed base position. this is only expected to be possible when the infinitival complement is a moveable constituent. Der Artikel [REL [den nicht gelesen zu haben]i Tim ti bedauerte/vergaß] handelt von Politik. 19 . The clausal pied-piping test illustrates that scheinen (see (10c-d)).

i. raising verbs are traditionally classified as obligatorily coherent (members of Class 3). The following data confirm the validity of clausal pied-piping as coherence test by showing its interaction with pronoun fronting.e. Der Artikel [REL deni Tim [ti nicht gelesen zu haben] schien] the article which Tim not read to have seemed handelt von Politik. clausal piedpiping is impossible.c. Unlike control verbs. 20 . and Wurmbrand classifies them as functional restructuring predicates. when a pronominal argument of the infinitive shows up as part of the matrix clause.’ d. once pronoun fronting has occurred.e. Examples (a-b) show that the matrix verb vergessen allows clausal pied-piping when pronoun fronting has not happened. As discussed in later sections. indicating that the construction is coherent. deals of politics ‘The article which Tim seems to not have read deals with politics. (c) shows the result of pronoun fronting. and (d) shows the expected interaction between the two diagnostics: application of one excludes application of the other (see also Grewendorf 1987. taking a CP-complement) and thus never allow CP pied-piping. raising verbs like scheinen then do not have the option of constructing non-coherently (i. The prediction is that. The data in (11) illustrate that this prediction is borne out. *Der Artikel [REL [den nicht gelesen zu haben]i Tim ti schien] handelt von Politik. 1988).

e. c. In (11d). niemanden ‘nobody’. Der Student [REL demi esj der Professor [tj ti zu erklären] vergessen hat] ist verwirrt. 21 . a negation (corresponding to the lexeme nicht ‘not’) and a quantifier (corresponding to the lexeme jemanden ‘somebody’). The infinitival complement is sub-clausal. i. and therefore cannot be pied-piped into the specifier of the relative clause. The matrix verb in (12) (here I use versuchen ’try’ instead of vergessen to illustrate the test) is optionally coherence-inducing. d. the intraposed infinitival complement includes a negative quantificational pronominal. *Der Student [REL [dem tj zu erklären]i esj der Professor ti vergessen hat] ist verwirrt.(11) a. Der Student [REL [dem es zu erklären]i der Professor ti vergessen hat] ist verwirrt. where it is clear that vergessen induces coherence – otherwise the pronoun could not have fronted – clausal pied-piping is not an option.’ b. Der Student [REL demi der Professor [es ti zu erklären] vergessen hat] the student whom the professor it to explain forgotten has ist verwirrt. is confused ‘The student to whom the professor forgot to explain it is confused. smaller than CP. In these examples. The data in (12) and (13) illustrate the cohesion (scope of negation) test. which is traditionally analyzed as a ‘cohesive’ combination of two operators.

so that the negation can take (wide) scope over the matrix verb versuchen. the two operators of the cohesive combination can be “distributed” (in a nontechnical sense) over the matrix and the embedded domain. and thus only the narrow scope reading of the negation is available. The fact that the negation in (12) can take wide scope indicates that the infinitival complement may be smaller than CP.(12) … dass der Student [niemanden zu mögen] versucht.’ (negation takes wide scope) b. ‘… that the student does not try to like anybody.’ (negation takes narrow scope) Here. only the “non-distributive” interpretation of the cohesive combination. that the student nobody to like tries a. and this in turn is an indication of coherence. The narrow scope reading of the negation is evidence of the presence of a CP-boundary and thus non-coherence. niemanden zu mögen (the student tried that there be no one x. an interpretation of the negative quantifier only having scope over the embedded domain is also available. ‘… that the student tries not to like anybody. jemanden zu mögen (there is no one x. 22 . When the matrix verb is an obligatorily non-coherence-inducing (Class 1) verb like bedauern in (13). As expected with optionally coherence-inducing (Class 2) verbs. such that the student likes x). This interpretation (see gloss in (12a)) is synonymous with the unambiguous German paraphrase … dass der Student nicht versucht. such that the student tries to like x). The unambiguous paraphrase of this interpretation (see gloss in (12b)) is … dass der Student versucht. on the other hand.

As shown in (14). while the complement of versuchen.(13) … dass der Student [niemanden zu mögen] bedauert. niemanden zu mögen (the student regrets that there is no one x. In (14b) and (d). that the complement of bedauern obligatorily has CP-status.’ (negation must take narrow scope) Here. such that the student likes x). that the student nobody to like regrets ‘… that the student regrets not liking anybody. (part of) the verb sequence has fronted and is followed by the finite auxiliary (here hat ‘has’) in C. the only possible paraphrase is … dass der Student bedauert. 23 . like vergessen. The sequence of adjacent verbs is said to form a frontable verbal cluster (traditionally analyzed as a complex head. VC-fronting is another phenomenon that has been argued to be possible only in a coherent construction. see e. The last of the coherence tests discussed here is verb-cluster (VC)-fronting.g. Examples (14a) and (c) show the verbal elements in their assumed base position before fronting. then. not when it is a member of Class 1. Haegeman & van Riemsdijk 1986) when the matrix verb is a member of Class 2. like that of vergessen (the Class 2 matrix verb I use to illustrate the other coherence tests) may lack a CP-boundary and can therefore be integrated into the matrix clause. this test centers on the possibility of moving all or at least two of the nonfinite verbs of the verbal sequence at the right edge of an infinitive construction to a left-peripheral position. like bedauern. It is clear.

that a fronted verb sequence in this context is only 24 . … weil der Student noch nie [das Zimmer abzuschließen] yet never the room off-to-lock because the student bedauert/vergessen hat. Abzuschließen *bedauert/3vergessen hat der Student das Zimmer noch nie. Thus. for example. The verb sequence (or a subsequence thereof) in (14a) and (c). (part of) which can be extracted and fronted. Note. … weil der Hausmeister noch nie [das Zimmer abschließen zu lassen] never the room off-lock to have because the superintendent yet bedauert/vergessen hat.’ d. The traditional analysis of the VC-fronting phenomenon is that only a mono-clausal structure allows the sequence of nonfinite verbs to form a verb-cluster.(14) a. regretted/forgotten has ‘… because the superintendent has never regretted/forgotten to have the room locked before. however. the ungrammaticality of verb sequence fronting in the context of bedauern is taken to indicate that a CP-boundary is present. regretted/forgotten has ‘… because the student has never regretted/forgotten to lock the room. is argued not to be frontable as a unit when the matrix verb is separated from the infinitive by a CP-boundary (probably because CP forms an impenetrable barrier to head movement).’ b. c. Abschließen zu lassen hat der Hausmeister das Zimmer noch nie *bedauert/3vergessen.

ungrammatical if the infinitive is transitive and thus leaves behind something when fronted (compare (14c-d) with (15a-b)). (15) a. to sleep regretted/forgotten has the student yet never ‘Regretting/forgetting to sleep is something the student has never done. can be fronted even in the context of the non-coherence-inducing matrix verb bedauern. The CP-boundary intervening between the non-coherence-inducing verb bedauern and the infinitive it embeds then only interferes with fronting of the respective nonfinite verb sequence when the infinitive leaves behind an argument which must have scrambled out of the infinitival complement before fronting. This means that the phenomenon here must involve fronting of VP. Here. rather than VC. Analyses which claim that the possibility of verb sequence fronting depends on verb-cluster formation and is only possible when the matrix verb is coherence-inducing have no account of the facts in (15).’ The verb sequences in (15a-b). in (14). Zu schlafen bedauert/vergessen hat der Student noch nie. where the infinitive is the intransitive verb schlafen. fronting of the constituent which contains the matrix verb and the infinitival complement is possible regardless of whether or not the complement is 25 . timely sleep to go has the student yet never regretted/forgotten ‘Going to sleep on time is something the student has never regretted/ forgotten. Rechtzeitig schlafen zu gehen hat der Student noch nie bedauert/vergessen. This suggests that.’ b. it is the inability of the direct object to scramble out of the clausal infinitival domain which causes the ungrammaticality.

In particular. which contains both the matrix verb and the infinitive. and vergessen ‘forget’ (as well as versuchen ‘try’. There are reasons to believe. which I used to illustrate the cohesion test) is representative of Class 2. that the classic coherence tests illustrated here establish a binary distinction between types of control-zu-predicates: bedauern ‘regret’ is representative of Class 1. and what fronts in examples like (14b) and (15a) is not a complex verbal head but rather the matrix VP. 26 . The possibility that there are more than two classes of control-zu-predicates is in line with current models of phrase-structure which posit 10 See Wurmbrand 2004 and Hankamer & Lee-Schoenfeld forthcoming for recent discussions of the types of verbal constituents that can front. the following subsection discusses two constructions which suggest that not all Class 2 verbs are equally coherence-inducing. then. however. matrix verbs which obligatorily induce non-coherence.10 We have seen. and remnant fronting is only possible in a coherent infinitive construction. that this binary classification incorporates an oversimplified view of the distinctions that are needed. Scrambling of an argument of the infinitive into the matrix clause domain before movement of the matrix VP to Spec CP is a case of remnant fronting (Wurmbrand 2001 uses the term ‘remnant topicalization’). In sum.a CP. in order for the fronting facts in (14) to serve as a coherence diagnostic. involving a Class 2 matrix verb. matrix verbs which optionally induce coherence. it is crucial that they be analyzed in connection with scrambling (see also von Stechow & Sternefeld 1988).

to the right of the matrix verb). While at least one argument originating in the infinitival complement is in preverbal position (i. again in the context of our test verbs bedauern ‘regret’ and vergessen ‘forget’. vP. This is illustrated in (16).e. including the infinitive. the rest of the complement.several clausal categories smaller than CP.3 Subdivisions in the class of coherent verbs Reis & Sternefeld (2004) point to two constructions which seem to be compatible with only a subclass of verbs in Class 2. and the other is a phenomenon den Besten & Rutten (1989) coined THIRD CONSTRUCTION (recently discussed in depth in Wöllstein-Leisten 2001). which are sensitive to the presence of CP. One. In order to probe for transparency/opacity effects.and bi-clausality. 2. namely TP. induced by matrix verbs taking one of these “reduced” categories as their complement.e. other diagnostics need to be found. known as L ONG PASSIVE (first discussed by Höhle (1978)). are not sufficient. is passivization of the matrix verb accompanied by “long” movement of the embedded direct object into the matrix subject position. to the left of the matrix verb).2. 27 . What distinguishes this latter construction from coherent and non-coherent structures is that it appears to be a combination of both. is in postverbal position (i. the classic coherence tests. displaying properties of both mono. Clearly. with the crucial difference that the infinitive is preverbal there but postverbal here in (16). and VP. The examples here are similar to those in (8) and (9).

that the room nobody forgets off-to-lock ‘… that nobody forgets to lock the room. ?*… dass der Student den Schlüssel bedauert [ __ verloren zu haben]. … dass der Hausmeister vergisst [das Zimmer abzuschließen].(16) a. If the subject in the matrix clause is of the right type (namely a quantificational pronominal like keiner ‘no one’). due to the mixture of intra. (17) … dass das Zimmer keiner vergisst [ __ abzuschließen]. … dass der Student bedauert [den Schlüssel verloren zu haben]. the infinitive is neither obviously coherent nor obviously non-coherent. that the student regretted the key lost to have ‘… that the student regretted to have lost the key. that the superintendent forgets the room off-to-lock ‘… that the superintendent forgets to lock the room. despite the postverbal infinitive (in traditional terms. … dass der Hausmeister das Zimmer vergisst [ __ abzuschließen]. the preverbal element das Zimmer in (16d) can even scramble to the pre-subject position. as shown in (17). c. These facts in themselves are also a challenge to the 28 .’ d.and extraposition. despite the possibility of extraposition). This suggests that.’ b. we are dealing with a coherent type of construction.’ Reis & Sternefeld (2004) confirm that examples like (16) and (17) “prima facie present a problem for the standard conception of coherence because.

Geilfuß (1991). with complements following verbs. the possibility of movement out of a post-verbal infinitival complement is not surprising. SOV order in embedded clauses would then be due to movement of the complement to a position to the left of the verb. They all have in common that the infinitival complement is assumed to be extraposed (i. Assuming either that the infinitival complement extraposes and then allows one or more of its arguments to move into the matrix clause (den Besten & Rutten 1989) or that the infinitival complement starts out as intraposed and allows movement of an argument into the matrix clause before extraposing (Santorini & Kroch 1990). behind. has CP-status) and that at least one of its arguments (in one way or another) gets to be in the matrix clause domain (on the other side of the matrix verb). If this is true.standard assumption that extraposition is possible only with CPs” (p. so that seemingly extraposed infinitival complements are in their base-position.e. Rutten (1991). where it is argued that the Third Construction is underlyingly mono-clausal and the matrix verb can be licensed in front of. In traditional terms. or in between the arguments of the infinitive. or a non-CP constituent can be extraposed. 29 . as long as the complement is not a CP. movement of an argument of the infinitive across the left edge of the complement boundary into the matrix 11 Other analyses of the Third Construction have been proposed by Bayer & Kornfilt (1989).11 we would have to accept one of two arguably undesirable consequences: either a CP-boundary can sometimes be transparent for scrambling of an argument. and Sabel (1994). A possible solution to this Third Construction problem is Zwart’s (1997) proposal that Dutch (and presumably also German) is actually an SVO language. 472). A radically different analysis is Wöllstein-Leisten 2001.

they are widely attested. It is not clear. I discuss an instance of argument (A-)movement. While instances of the Third Construction are not considered as readily acceptable as clear cases of intra. which can lead to a Third Construction and is dependent on the infinitival complement being no more complex than a VP.and extraposition. The question of how “small” exactly infinitival complements have to be in order to allow scrambling of an argument from a postverbal position within the infinitival domain into the matrix clause becomes particularly urgent in light of data like (18). new diagnostics are needed to determine the size of complements that are smaller than CP. while the rest of the infinitival complement is separated from this domain by the matrix verb. is very strong. The Third Construction could then be used as another coherence test: the possibility of one (or more) argument(s) of the infinitive showing up in the matrix clause domain. the assumption that infinitival complements originate postverbally becomes inevitable. Again. namely possessor raising. and the contrast between examples involving verbs from Class 1 versus verbs from Class 2 (see (16)). Different members of Class 2 show different degrees of compatibility with the Third 30 . how “small” a postverbal complement has to be in order to allow an argument to scramble out. however. is an indication of coherence and arguably the absence of an embedded CP-boundary. there certainly could not be an intervening CP-boundary. In Part II of the dissertation. Given that VPs are not expected to extrapose. On Zwart’s (1997) view.clause is unproblematic.

’ b. that the key now nobody anymore to search decides ‘… that nobody will decide to search for the key anymore now. movement of the direct object of the infinitive into the matrix subject (nominative case) position under passivization of the matrix verb. while both members of the larger class of coherent verbs (Class 2). 31 .Construction. long passive is considered by many a construction too marginal to be used as a reliable diagnostic (see e. for example. While the verb beschließen ‘decide’. Höhle 1978. Different kinds of scrambling will be discussed more thoroughly in chapter 4. … dass den Schlüssel jetzt keiner mehr [ __ zu suchen] beschließt. ?*… dass den Schlüssel jetzt keiner mehr beschließt [ __ zu suchen]. The other construction at issue here is long passive. is diagnosed as a member of Class 2 by the classic scrambling test (18a). Since T-scrambling can cross CPboundaries.12 The data in (17)-(18) confirm. Unlike the Third Construction. it is not the type of scrambling that is traditionally used as a probe for coherence. and Reis & Sternefeld 2004). that beschließen and vergessen. it does not allow the Third Construction (18b). the 12 Note that all the ungrammatical (?*) scrambling examples I present here become at least marginally acceptable when the moved DP has “T-scrambled” (see Haider & Rosengren 1998) and is thus part of the so-called “Hutkontur” (‘hat contour’) intonation. As in the case of the Third Construction. induce different degrees of coherence and thus call for a sub-classification within Class 2 based on the exact size of the infinitival complement. Kiss 1995. then. however. (18) a. Nonetheless.g. only some members of Class 2 allow long passive.

?*… dass der Schlüssel [ __ zu verlieren] befürchtet wurde. … dass der Schlüssel [ __ zu finden] versucht wurde.judgments in (19) are relatively clear. The classic coherence tests are reliable in probing for an embedded CP but are unable to make more fine-grained distinctions.’ d. that the key (ACC) nobody to lose fears ‘… that nobody fears to lose the key anymore.’ To what extent the subdivisions within Class 2 created by the Third Construction and long passive overlap is not quite clear. (19) a.’ b. that the key (ACC) nobody anymore to search tries ‘… that nobody tried to find the key anymore. different authors have come to different conclusions. … dass den Schlüssel keiner mehr [ __ zu finden] versucht. … dass den Schlüssel keiner [ __ zu verlieren] befürchtet. and those constructions which do seem to subdivide the class of coherence-inducing verbs are either too mysterious structurally 32 . but only versuchen is readily acceptable in a long passive construction. that the key (NOM) to find tried was (PASS) ‘… that they tried to find the key. that the key (NOM) to lose feared was (PASS) ‘… that they feared to lose the key. This opens the analytical space for one of the contributions this dissertation will make. Since the grammaticality judgments are extremely subtle.’ c. Examples (a) and (c) show that both versuchen ‘try’ and befürchten ‘fear’ pass the scrambling test.

g.g. 33 . Chapters 3 and 5 present the possessor dative construction and binding as constructions which I believe fulfill these criteria. perception verbs (e. the impossibility of “extraposing” a complement of a Class 3 verb has to be accounted for by making movement of the complement (i. have’). a characteristic typical of raising verbs. aspectuals (e. können ‘can’. This is the class of obligatorily coherent predicates. allow.e.e. i. or. Its members either take complements with infinitives of the 1st status. The following are some examples of this rather diverse class of verbs:13 modals (e. “intraposition”) obligatory. there is a Class 3 of predicates taking verbal complements. can never occur postverbally. in non-root clauses. they do not q-mark their subject. scheinen ‘seem’). if they do select a zu-infinitive. and raising verbs (e.g. To complete the traditional picture of the coherence/non-coherence distinction. on Zwart’s (1997) view that infinitival complements are underlyingly postverbal. However. müssen ‘must’). Since the infinitival complements of these verbs cannot be extraposed.or too marginal empirically to be used as reliable diagnostics for the different degrees of coherence which matrix verbs in Class 2 can induce. 14 Note that. anfangen ‘start’. auxiliaries selecting a participial verb form as their complement are also members of this class. aufhören ‘stop’).14 13 I am only listing verbs which take infinitival complements here. which. This must also be the way to account for object complements. hören ‘hear’). There is clearly a need for diagnostics based on syntactic phenomena which are both well-understood phrasestructurally and well-documented empirically. without zu.g. sehen ‘see’. causatives (lassen ‘let.

AcI-introducing. 34 . Although it is true that AcI-complements look coherent in that they never extrapose (see (20b)). the fact that the transitive AcI-subject die Studenten in (20c) blocks movement of the direct object den Artikel into the matrix clause immediately brings 15 See Grewendorf 1987. it can precede the AcI- subject (see Grewendorf 1987. for example.members of Class 3 are assumed to necessarily induce coherence. 1988. … dass der Professor [ACI die Studenten den Artikel lesen] lässt. the inclusion of perception and causative. that the professor the students the article read lets ‘… that the professor has the students read the article. they behave as if they are non-coherent in that they can induce opacity.e. however. we need a distinction based on the presence/absence of an embedded ‘subject’. 1988). More specifically. These facts suggest that. cannot scramble out of the AcI-complement into the matrix clause. verbs in this class is somewhat problematic. *… dass der Professor lässt [ACI die Studenten den Artikel lesen].16 (20) a. c. *… dass der Professor den Artikel [ACI die Studenten __ lesen] lässt. 16 Interestingly. when the AcI-object is the clitic-like pronominal es. for an analysis of AcIs as being closed off by an S- bar boundary and thus as being “satzwertig”. i. in addition to the coherence/non-coherence distinction. The embedded direct object in (20c).’ b. There can then not be an embedded CP-boundary.15 As noted by Reis & Sternefeld (2004).

Wurmbrand’s (2001) (non-)restructuring typology is a proposal designed to deal with some of the coherence/non-coherence mismatches at issue here. in principle. but is instead interpreted as a marker of verbal case/status in the sense of Bech (1955/57). Wurmbrand is able to make transparency distinctions that go beyond the traditional mono-versus bi-clausal split. I mean a zu-infinitive without functional (vP) structure. which is sensitive to intervening A-positions. By “bare VP”. and her typology leaves unresolved the question of how AcI-introducing predicates fit into the picture. i. vP.17 Since this typology postulates the existence of several complement types that are smaller than CP. She does not. 2. it looks like a promising approach to those verbs in Class 2 and 3 17 As alluded to earlier. infinitival complements can. or bare VP. however.3 A typology of (non-)restructuring Wurmbrand (2001) takes a non-derivational approach to coherence. TP. does not signal the presence of a TP. Analyzing long passive as an instance of A-movement. is provided in chapter 5. in particular in the context of reflexive and pronominal binding. A detailed discussion of transitive/unergative versus passive/unaccusative AcI-constructions. I am making the common assumption that the German infinitival marker zu does not mark tense. and using it as a crucial diagnostic for infinitival clause size. Within her system.to mind the SPECIFIED SUBJECT CONDITION (Chomsky 1973). 35 . originate as a CP.e. address the problem of the Third Construction.

1 Four degrees of (non-)restructuring Like the traditional coherence/non-coherence classification. vP. LEXICAL R ESTRUCTURING (LR). which Wurmbrand calls (F U L L ) CL A U S A L N ON -R ESTRUCTURING (NR) predicates. or VP) complement. 2. 327). An overview of Wurmbrand’s classification with examples and some characteristic properties of each type of (non-)restructuring predicate under her analysis is given in TABLE 1 (see Wurmbrand’s Table 1. TP. The former. raising. Wurmbrand makes a clear-cut distinction between matrix verbs taking a full CP-complement and matrix verbs taking a smaller (in her case. p. 3 and Table 40.3.which remain incompletely analyzed in a theoretical context which assumes only a binary coherence/non-coherence (CP/non-CP) distinction. 36 . correspond to the type of verbs traditionally classified as occurring in non-coherent constructions (Class 1). while LR and RNR predicates are the control-zu-predicates which make up Class 2 in the traditional classification. Members of the FR class are the finite verbs in modal. and R EDUCED N ON -R ESTRUCTURING (RNR) predicates. and other Class 3-type constructions. and the latter can roughly be associated with the class of verbs occurring in coherent constructions (Classes 2 and 3). p. Wurmbrand subdivides this latter verb class into F U N C T I O N A L R ESTRUCTURING (FR).

3. aspectual. 37 . have’. Distribution • thematic properties are determined by infinitive18 • possible with: modal. raising. behaupten ‘claim’ vergessen ‘forget’ The crucial phrase-structural distinction between LR and RNR predicates is that the LR-type takes just a bare VP-complement. The presence of an embedded subject is argued to entail a vP-projection.TABLE 1 Type FUNCTIONAL RESTRUCTURING (FR) Infinitive = main predicate (vP or VP) Properties. is associated with the capability of licensing an object (cf. gehen ‘go’. The external argument position (‘external argument’ in the sense of ‘subject’) is one of the keys to diagnosing Wurmbrand’s phrase-structural distinctions in complement size. 18 Notice that this is not true in the case of AcI-introducing predicates like lassen ‘let. Thus.2. allow. whereas the RNR-type takes a more complex. perception. causative. BURZIO’ S GENERALIZATION (Burzio 1986)). As discussed in subsection 2. lassen ‘let’ scheinen ‘seem’ vergessen ‘forget’ versuchen ‘try’ wagen ‘dare’ beschließen ‘decide’ planen ‘plan’ versprechen ‘promise’ bedauern ‘regret’. AcI-constructions do not quite fit into Wurmbrand’s typology. motion verbs LEXICAL RESTRUCTURING (LR) Infinitival complement = VP REDUCED NON-RESTRUCTURING (RNR) Infinitival complement = vP or TP (FULL) CLAUSAL NON-RESTRUCTURING (NR) Infinitival complement: CP • no embedded (PRO) subject • no embedded structural case • possible with: control verbs • embedded (PRO) subject • embedded structural case • possible with: control verbs • embedded (PRO) subject • embedded structural case • possible with: control verbs Examples dürfen ‘may’. in constructions traditionally analyzed as control structures. hören ‘hear’. and a vP-projection. in turn. which do assign a q-role to the argument in their specifier. subject-containing vP or TP-complement.

and the embedded direct object (here das Zimmer ‘the room’) precedes the matrix subject (see (21b)). An object that is thematically related to the infinitive but shows up as part of the matrix clause. but her scrambling examples are in fact Third Constructions. its complement is just a bare VP. possible only when the argument(s) of the infinitive cannot be case-licensed in the embedded domain. Wurmbrand would 19 Wurmbrand does not use this terminology. 38 . on the other hand. repeated here as (21a-b). without the functional (vP) layer needed to case-license an object. is argued to indicate that the infinitive is a bare VP. When the infinitival complement is preverbal. and thus without a PROsubject position. its complement must be bigger (at least a vP). Wurmbrand motivates this distinction between LR predicates (VP-selecting) and RNR predicates (vP-selecting) by appealing to two diagnostics: scrambling and long passive. If it does not allow scrambling. The embedded object is then indirect evidence for a PRO-subject in Spec vP. they are instances of A-movement.where an embedded subject is not overtly expressed. The examples Wurmbrand uses to illustrate scrambling all have postverbal infinitival complements. as in my examples (8c-d). Wurmbrand takes the presence of an embedded object to indicate vP-status of the infinitival complement. according to Wurmbrand. Both are movement operations.19 where movement of the direct object into the matrix clause is never string-vacuous. and. Consequently. if a matrix verb allows scrambling from the infinitival domain into the matrix clause.

…dass niemand that nobody [CP das Zimmer abzuschließen] das Zimmer [VP __ abzuschließen]. the room off-to-lock vergisst forgets ‘… that nobody forgets to lock the room. 20 In Wurmbrand’s (2004) more recent work.analyze the complement as a bare VP. If this movement is not overt. In the following subsection. on the other hand. When the direct object appears to remain in situ (see (21a)). Thus. or that the embedded domain consists of only a VP and the direct object checks case by overtly (here string-vacuously) or covertly moving into the matrix clause. direct object movement into the matrix clause is obligatory. in a restructuring context. 39 . but which does not seem to have a clear-cut place in Wurmbrand’s (non-)restructuring typology. the notion of ‘covert’ movement is replaced by a static Agree relation between the two case-checking heads. Wurmbrand would argue either that the embedded domain consists of a CP and the direct object is case-licensed within the infinitival complement. A thorough critique of both scrambling and long passive as diagnostics for the presence of a subject-introducing (henceforth ‘agentive’ or ‘transitive’) vP is provided in chapter 4. …dass das Zimmer niemand [VP __ abzuschließen] vergisst.20 (21) a. I turn to the type of infinitival complement which provides one of the most interesting testing grounds for issues of “Satzwertigkeit”. then it must happen covertly.’ b.

can be bound by the matrix subject. As is well known from binding facts (see chapter 5). 1988 where it is argued convincingly that not all AcIs can be classified as obligatorily coherent. but unlike other verb-types in the FR-category. of the PROTO-AGENT type22). The former type of structure is characteristic of lexical (LR) and the latter of functional (FR) restructuring. arguments with proto-agent properties are.21 An AcI-embedded pronominal. for example. as long as the intervening AcI-subject is agentive (i. AcIs can induce opacity.2. 40 . 22 I am appealing to the notion PROTO-AGENT (versus PROTO-PATIENT) in the sense of Dowty 1991 here. In Wurmbrand’s 21 See also Grewendorf 1987. sharing properties with both FR and LR predicates. experiencers and causers (see chapter 5 for a detailed discussion of the syntactic correlate of ‘agentivity’).3. for example. Besides agents. they do not form a completely coherent unit with their complement. AcI-introducing verbs are analyzed as a type of FR predicate.e. Wurmbrand argues for another subdivision and analyzes AcI-introducing verbs as SEMI-FUNCTIONAL RESTRUCTURING (SFR) predicates. In accordance with this distinction between AcI-constructions and purely functional coherent constructions.2 AcI: A hybrid category Verbs in Wurmbrand’s class of restructuring (LR and FR) predicates have in common that the construction they enter into can have maximally one external argument (or ‘subject’) which originates in the functional projection of either the matrix verb (in a control structure) or the infinitive (in a modal or raising-type structure). I interpret ‘semi-functional’ to mean that AcIs are best thought of as a hybridcategory.

but they cannot be classified as either because they potentially contain more than one subject. in a world where complements underlyingly follow the verb (see Zwart 1997). the impossibility of extraposition translates into obligatory movement of the complement into preverbal position. and in LR constructions. on the other hand.24 In this respect. Yet they are unlike FR predicates in that they assign an external argument role. Unlike LR predicates. there is only one (pronounced) subject. AcI-introducing verbs are like FR predicates in that they are introduced as functional/aspectual v-heads and form a syntactically inseparable unit with their complements – extraposition is impossible. though. complements including a ‘subject’ (in the sense of ‘protoagent’).system. it originates in the infinitival complement. can host two referentially distinct subjects – one in the matrix clause. Wurmbrand deliberately does not take a stand with respect to the complexity and 23 Note. that. it originates in the matrix clause. Thus. 24 To be exact. AcI-introducing verbs can have “satzwertige”. semantically “complete”. they are more like LR predicates. i. it is the agentive light-verb projection of the AcI-introducing verb which assigns the “external” argument role (see chapter 5). and one in the infinitival complement – much like nonrestructuring predicates. AcIconstructions. In both FR (modal and raising-type) and LR (control) constructions. in the system I develop in later chapters. again.e. in FR constructions. Although her basic proposal for the organization of German clause structure suggests that SFR v-heads take just a bare VP complement.23 and the complement is not a separate tense or negation domain. 41 . AcI-constructions share properties with both FR and LR contexts.

and Kratzer 1996).’ In line with much recent work on verbal phrase structure (see e.g. The AcI-complement in (18a).exact configuration of the complements of SFR predicates. repeated here as (22). transitive and unergative verbs project an agentive vP.3 Restructuring. On this view. (22) … dass der Professor [ACI die Studenten den Artikel lesen] lässt. clearly has a subject position.3. Consequently. Both phenomena are sensitive to the transparency/opacity of infinitive constructions and are therefore relevant to diagnosing the phrase-structural distinctions between different types of 42 . Chomsky 1995. 2. unlike passive and unaccusative verbs. transitive and unergative AcIs must either be vP-complements. I assume that. and binding One of the goals of this dissertation is precisely to probe for the presence of AcIembedded vPs and thus diagnose the restructuring status of AcIs in order to correctly classify them with respect to both the traditional picture of coherence/non-coherence and Wurmbrand’s more fine-grained typology. Hale & Keyser 1993. or else contain vP as a proper subpart. possessor datives. v assigns the external argument (proto-agent) role to the argument in its specifier and checks accusative case with the VP-internal argument. I appeal primarily to two grammatical phenomena: the possessor dative construction and binding. that the professor the students the article read lets ‘… that the professor has the students read the article.

in particular for the distinction between Wurmbrand’s LR and RNR predicates. it does not address the Third Construction and depends crucially on two diagnostics (long passive and scrambling). which Wurmbrand classifies as SFR predicates but leaves to be further investigated. Both phenomena will be established as coherence diagnostics which are sensitive to the presence of an embedded agentive vP-projection. 43 . To conclude this review of the coherence and restructuring literature and to indicate the place Parts II and III of this dissertation have in it. While Wurmbrand’s (2001) more fine-grained (non-)restructuring typology is designed to solve this problem (see TABLE 2 for an overview of how Wurmbrand’s classification lines up with the traditional coherence/non-coherence verb classes). the optionally coherent predicates. Besides serving as much needed additional tools for the classification of control-zu-verbs. unaccounted for. Part II of the dissertation focuses on the possessor dative construction.infinitival complements. possessor datives and binding phenomena also shed light on the internal structure of complements to AcI-introducing verbs. which will be shown to be problematic. and Part III on binding. I have shown that the traditional binary distinction between coherence and non-coherence leaves the coherence status of some members in Class 2.

and RNR-parts of Wurmbrand’s typology. 44 . In the following chapters. Their hybrid status makes AcIs particularly difficult to classify. LR. while pursuing the broader goal of investigating what makes different phrase-types transparent or opaque to grammatical interactions across their boundaries and thus what it means for a phrase to be “satzwertig”. I aim to both supplement and fine-tune the FR.TABLE 2 Wurmbrand’s Classification Predicate Type FUNCTIONAL RESTRUCTURING (FR) Complement Size VP/vP Class 3: obligatorily coherent (complements diagnosed as smaller than CP by traditional coherence tests) LEXICAL RESTRUCTURING (LR) (verbs allow long passive and scrambling) REDUCED NON-RESTRUCTURING (RNR) (verbs do not allow long passive and scrambling) FULL NON-RESTRUCTURING (NR) CP Class 1: obligatorily non-coherent (complements diagnosed as CPs by traditional coherence tests) vP/TP Subclass of Class 2: optionally coherent (complements diagnosed as smaller than CP by traditional coherence tests) VP Subclass of Class 2: optionally coherent (complements diagnosed as smaller than CP by traditional coherence tests) Traditional Classification of ±Coherence I have also drawn attention to the problem AcI-constructions pose to both the traditional system and Wurmbrand’s.


I have cut the hair to Pierre (DAT) ‘I cut Pierre’s hair.3 German Possessor Datives: Raised And Affected The goal of this chapter is to show that the German P OSSESSOR DATIVE CONSTRUCTION (PDC) is best analyzed as POSSESSOR RAISING. Typical examples from German (a). washed Tim has the neighbor (DAT. FEM) the car ‘Tim washed the neighbor’s car.’ (Guéron 1985: 59) 46 . (1) a.1 External Possession Many languages around the world make use of a construction known as EXTERNAL P OSSESSION (see e. an instance of Amovement.e.1. i. J’ai coupé les cheveux à Pierre.1 Introduction 3.g. and Hebrew (c) are given in (1).’ b. Payne & Barshi 1999 and Vergnaud & Zubizarreta 1992). French (b). and that a dynamic structure-building (Minimalist) system provides a way to account for the fact that possessor datives have to be assigned both a possessor and an affectee role. Tim hat der Nachbarin das Auto gewaschen. 3. The proposed analysis will then play an important part in chapter 4. where I argue that an account of POSSESSOR D ATIVES (PDs) as undergoing Amovement makes the PDC a much-needed new coherence diagnostic.

c. The challenge posed by these structures is to understand the mechanisms that make this dual functioning possible. a single dative-marked nominal (for instance der Nachbarin in (1a)) acts simultaneously as a possessor. This is the intuition behind accounts that analyze the phenomenon of external possession as P O S S E S S O R ASCENSION/RAISING (see e. and as a complement to a verb (waschen in (1a)). and is thus interpreted as such complements normally are. One says that the nominal der Nachbarin in (1a) first occupies the usual possessor position within the larger nominal and is thus interpreted as possessors normally are. However. It subsequently occupies a different position in the structure. a complement position to the verb waschen.1.’ (Landau 1999: 3) In such structures.e. a subpart of a larger nominal phrase.g. Allen et al. This is just the kind of situation for which classical generative grammar introduced the device of the movement transformation. 3.2 The dual role of possessor datives I argue here that the intuition behind possessor raising accounts is fundamentally correct and present some new evidence for its correctness. ha-yalda kilkela le-Dan the-girl et ha-radio. 1990 and Landau 1999). the analysis is difficult to implement within the terms of the standard Principles & Parameters view 47 . spoiled to-Dan (DAT) ACC the-radio ‘The girl broke Dan’s radio. i.

In that conception of how syntax is organized. To reiterate. as an argument in favor of this crucial theoretical shift. I explore the ramifications of this theoretical shift in connection with such structures as (1) (the PDC). then. 2000. the person who benefits from the car washing) in its derived position. or additional. the possessor is assigned the semantic role of AFFECTEE (more specifically. 2001) is exactly the elimination of the level of deep structure. But in (1a). in a system where heads with their selectional features are introduced in the course of the derivation. In this chapter. it is impossible to move a nominal into a derived position in which it will be assigned a new. semantic role. One of the consequences of making the transition from the traditional Principles & Parameters framework to a Minimalist system (Chomsky 1995.because that theory is committed to the existence of deep structure – a level of representation in which all core semantic role relations are fixed before any movement operations apply. This work can be seen. 2001) to fulfill another 48 . I propose that. it is in principle possible that an argument which gets merged into the structure to take on one thematic role raises into a newly built sentence domain (or PHASE in the sense of Chomsky 2000. I argue that the elimination of deep structure opens the way to a much improved understanding of such constructions. the challenge posed by the PDC is to account for the fact that the dativemarked possessor argument (the PD) also plays the role of an affectee argument.

formal feature)-driven. for example. Pereltsvaig 2003.thematic role (see also Hornstein 1999). according to Landau. i. McIntyre to appear. Hole to appear-a. McIntyre (to appear). Baker to appear. a PD is not only a possessor but must also be an affectee argument of the verb. however. 1991) and for Romance by Guéron (1985) and Kempchinsky (1992). Only an additional case-checking head can save the derivation. without assignment of an affectee-role. it is a voice-head (Aff). 49 . and for Pylkkänen (2002) it is one of the (v-)applicative heads she proposes for the introduction of non-core arguments. that this head is a malefactive or benefactive (affectee) light verb which assigns inherent dative case to its argument. can be analyzed without a syntactic correlate of PD-affectedness.e. For Hole (to appear-a). which. As confirmed for German by Hole (to appear-a). that is they are due to the fact that in its origin site. I argue. the raised argument is not case-licensed. 1 McIntyre (to appear). in line with much recent work (Anagnostopoulou 2002. calls this head ‘VDAT’ and argues that it assigns to its specifier an interpretation parallel to that found with subjects of English have. as well as Pereltsvaig 2003.1 My approach is similar to Landau’s (1999) possessor raising analysis but goes beyond the seemingly special case of Hebrew. and Pylkkänen 2002). and Wegener (1985. Miyagawa & Tsujigka 2004.e. McFadden 2003. This movement and the resulting double qrole assignment are crucially case (i.

the PD in (3a) does not.) a. focus-moves as a unit with the possessed DP. Crucially. Mein Bruder hat der Mami my (2) das Auto zu Schrott gefahren. for example. the phrase in focus is given in capital letters. Mami is the possessor of das Auto.’ 50 .2.’ b. When the possessed DP gets fronted. to scrap driven brother has mom’s (GEN) car ‘My brother totaled mom’s car. 3. (PD and possessee are in bold face.3. the PD must stay in its lower position (see (3b)). Unlike genitive-marked possessors (see (2b)). PD-movement is not intended to account for the non-PD constructions covered in subsection 3. In (2a).3. Mein Bruder hat Mamis my Auto zu Schrott gefahren. PDs do not show up as part of the same constituent as the possessed DP. to scrap driven brother has the mom (DAT) the car ‘My brother totaled mom’s car (totaled the car on mom).2.2.2 Scope of the chapter Before I discuss possessor raising and how Landau’s (1999) analysis differs from my proposal starting in section 3. this section establishes the scope of the chapter. for example. While the genitive possessor in (3c).1 Possessor datives A PD is a dative-marked nominal that is interpreted as the possessor of one of its clausemates.

Mein Bruder wollte der Mami my helfen. he totaled. Even in the case of inalienably 2 When used intransitively. he totaled. driven has he the mom (DAT) to scrap ‘Mom’s CAR. *Der Mami DAS AUTO hat er zu Schrott gefahren.’ The fact that the PD der Mami is not licensed without a possessed DP like das Auto (see (4a) and similar examples in Wunderlich 2000). he totaled. despite this obligatory thematic connection between PD and possessed DP. the mom (DAT) driven b. a. DAS AUTO hat er der Mami the car zu Schrott gefahren. *Mein Bruder hat/ist2 der Mami my brother has/is (4) gefahren. unless the verb takes a dative complement independently of the possessor relation (4b). syntactically speaking. a PD behaves like an independent argument of the verb. he totaled on mom.)’ c.’ The puzzle is that. (The CAR. brother wanted the mom (DAT) help ‘My brother wanted to help mom. mom’s (GEN) car has he to scrap driven ‘Mom’s CAR. Mamis AUTO hat er zu Schrott gefahren. the data in (3) seem to suggest that.’ b.(3) a. fahren ‘drive’ takes the perfect auxiliary sein ‘be’. the mom (DAT) the car has he to scrap driven ‘Mom’s CAR. 51 . shows that there is an obligatory thematic connection between the PD and the possessed nominal.

Unlike in a PDC.’ b. Ein guter Ehemann massiert seiner Frau jeden Abend den Rücken. The use of a possessive pronoun is degraded. This is illustrated in (6a-b). a good husband massages his wife (DAT) each evening her back ‘A good husband massages his wife’s back every night. In many dialects of German.g.’ It is clear that the PD (here seiner Frau) and the possessed DP (here den Rücken) can be separated. however. the combination of dative possessor plus possessed DP with a possessive pronoun in Spec DP is not only acceptable but actually replaces the standard genitive construction. Instead of Mamas Auto ‘mom’s car’. The definite article of the possessee can be replaced with a possessive pronoun when the possessee is a non-body-part DP.4 to scrap driven brother has the mom (DAT) unfortunately her car ‘Unfortunately my brother totaled mom’s car. the dative possessor and the possessee in this construction cannot be separated. a good husband massages his wife (DAT) each evening the back (5) ‘A good husband massages his wife’s back every night.’ 3 4 See Guéron 1985 and Vergnaud & Zubizarreta 1992 for similar examples from French. particularly in casual speech. so called PERTINENCE DATIVES (see (5) and many more examples in Isac&enko 1965 and Wegener 1985)3.) 52 . PD and possessed DP do not form a syntactic constituent. speakers of these dialects can say der Mama ihr Auto ‘(to) the mother her car’ (see e. ?Ein guter Ehemann massiert seiner Frau jeden Abend ihren Rücken. a. with a body-part DP.possessed body parts. (Note that (6a) is not an instance of this construction. Wegener 1985). Mein Bruder hat der Mami my (6) leider ihr Auto zu Schrott gefahren.

the use of a possessive pronoun (which serves the sole purpose of establishing a possessor relation) is then simply redundant. The coocurrence of non-body-part nominals with a possessive pronoun ties in with the discussion provided in the following subsection – examples like (6a) are. 3. non-PD constructions – and will be fully explained in section 3. corresponds to the so called ETHICAL DATIVE which Borer & Grodzinsky (1986) discuss in their study of dative constructions in Hebrew. The dative mir ‘me’ in (7). little one!’ Here. in fact. As noted by Borer & Grodzinsky. for example. Schlaf mir sleep (7) jetzt schön ein.4. this contrast probably stems from the fact that body-part nominals are special in that they are automatically understood to be inalienably possessed by the referent of the dative nominal.2 Non-possessor datives There are several types of dative-marked nominals (henceforth non-PDs) which appear to be licensed by neither the presence of a possessed DP nor a verb that selects a dative complement. 53 .2.As pointed out by Shibatani (1994). the person referring to him or herself in the first person expresses an emotional attitude toward the situation of the child’s falling asleep. The referent of an ethical dative thus deeply cares about the given situation. Intuitively. Kleines! little one me (DAT) now nicely in ‘Kindly fall asleep for me now.

is known as the DATIVUS IUCANDIS or ESTIMATIVE DATIVE. and are only compatible with verbs having an external argument. ethical datives in German are compatible with unaccusative verbs (see subsection 3. This type of dative typically cooccurs with modifiers like zu ‘too’ and genug ‘enough’.’ The interpretation here is that my brother’s driving was too fast for mom’s liking. 54 . are what McIntyre (to appear) calls FICIARY (BENEFICIARY/MALEFICIARY) DATIVES. may not be expressed by a nonpronominal dative phrase. i. the distribution of ethical datives is not as restricted – examples like (7) show that. Non-PDs that fall under the rubric of neither ethical nor estimative datives.2) – but it is true that the construction is most commonly found in imperatives with the dative first person pronoun mir. exemplified by (8). like (9). Mein Bruder ist der Mami my brother is (8) zu schnell gefahren.3.Hebrew ethical datives are obligatorily clitics. which could be argued to exhibit clitic-like behavior. just like PDs.e. Another type of non-PD. driven the mom (DAT) too fast ‘My brother drove too fast for mom. In German.

It is clear that the genitive nominal Bushs establishes the possessor relation here. as in (2a). The verbs in (7)-(9) do not in any way need a dative argument. This explains why fahren ‘drive’ alone. Similarly. As in the case of PDCs.’ (McIntyre to appear: 7) This type of dative is interpreted like a PD but without the possessive aspect. The non-PD mir in (9). can occur in neither a PD nor a non-PD construction – both require a predicate which can assign an affectee role. and Hole to appear-a). the well-formedness of all three of the non-PD constructions discussed here does not depend on the presence of the dative DP. 1991. The well-formedness of any construction with a non-selected (non-core) dative does. in (6a). translated she has me (DAT) Bush’s speech ‘She translated Bush’s speech for me.2.(9) Sie hat mir Bushs Ansprache übersetzt. McIntyre to appear.1. either physical or emotional – on the dative referent (see also Wegener 1985. depend on the ability of the verb to express some kind of affectedness – a negative or positive effect. an obligatory possessor relation between the dative DP and another nominal in the sentence only holds for the PDC. for example. cannot be the “possessor” of the speech. while all the dative constructions discussed above seem to be subject to an affectedness condition. Getting back to examples like (6a) in subsection 3. Mein Bruder hat der Mami (DAT) leider ihr (POSS) Auto zu Schrott gefahren. it is not the dative but the possessive pronoun ihr 55 . however.

this does not make a significant difference in interpretation. while compatible with the Hebrew facts. In the case of (6a). the “classic puzzle” of the PDC is that an argument in the clause (the PD) can derive its semantic role from another argument (the possessee) but its syntactic behavior from the predicate.2. I will show that the split between semantic role and syntactic behavior. Landau (1999) identifies two major paths to take in analyzing PDCs: 56 . more specifically.3 Solving the classic puzzle According to Landau (1999). which stand both in an affectee and a possessor relation. The dative in these cases must then be a non-PD. Since the possessive pronoun ihr has the same referent as the dative der Mami. I will occasionally refer back to non-PD constructions for purposes of comparison.which establishes the possessor relation with the car. the possessor relation established by the possessive pronoun is the same as the possessor relation established by the dative nominal in the corresponding PDC (with a definite article instead of the possessive pronoun). In German and the Romance languages at least. a bene/maleficiary. does not accurately describe the more general case of the PDC. but the main focus will be on PDs. 3. The truly puzzling question with respect to the general case of the PDC is thus how to avoid the apparent violation of the qCriterion. PDs derive not only their syntactic behavior but also one of their semantic roles from the verb.

Borer & Grodzinsky (1986) analyze the Hebrew PDC following path (a).5 As laid out in section 3. after incorporation of the possessee Nº into Vº. Vergnaud & Zubizarreta (1992). control of PRO in the possessee. Its misleading syntax is due to syntactic raising to a position typically occupied by verbal arguments (p. Other path (a)-type analyses have been given for German by Hole (to appear-a) and for Romance by Kempchinsky (1992). which assigns both accusative and dative case in this framework. the argument for syntactic movement (i. Since the class of verbs that allow the PDC in German seems to be more restricted than the corresponding 5 6 See Landau (1999) for a more comprehensive overview of path (a)-type analyses.e. where the post-nominal genitive des Mannes raises to become the dative dem Mann. while Landau reanalyzes the Hebrew facts according to path (b). PD is an argument of the verb (male/benefactive). 2). possessor raising) that Landau proposes for Hebrew generally extends to German. Gallmann (1992) argues that. PD is an argument of the possessee. Isac&enko (1965) proposes a dative transformation rule which turns genitive constructions like Der Rücken des Mannes schmerzt (‘The man’s back aches’) into the corresponding PDC Dem Mann schmerzt der Rücken (literally ‘to the man hurts the back’).a. and Guéron (1985). 57 .3. I will therefore follow Landau (as well as Isacenko (1965) and Gallmann (1992) who have proposed & possessor raising analyses for German)6 in taking path (b). raises and adjoins to V' to get structural dative case from Vº. namely the possessor-NP. the caseless complement of Nº. The possessor interpretation arises through binding of an anaphoric element or through b.

the following examples hint at the generalization that many more verbs imply affectedness. while I do agree with Landau that a PD originates in the specifier of the corresponding possessed DP and then raises to a specifier position within the verbal domain. In particular. but not for German. Dispensing with a syntactically encoded affectedness condition then might be an acceptable solution for Hebrew (see also Pereltsvaig 2003. which gets better the more obviously the negative (10c-d) or positive (10e) effect on the dative referent is expressed. 1). the Hebrew equivalent in (10a) is judged grammatical by Landau. Gil gar le-Rina ba-xacer. Gil lives to-Rina in-the-yard (10) ‘Gil lives in Rina’s yard.’ (Landau 1999: 4) 58 . contra Landau. clearly involves assignment of an affectee role. PDs must play the role of affectee. Besides acting as the possessor of the DP which is its origin site. I will argue that certain aspects of path (a) must be integrated into the analysis. in Hebrew than in German. While the German PDC in (10b) is clearly unacceptable. an analysis of the Hebrew PDC as possessor raising to a dative light-verb head which is defective in that it does not assign a semantic role to the argument in its specifier).verb class in Hebrew. fn. are compatible with the PDC. I claim.e. The German PDC. that PDs are also thematically restricted by the verb. however. 3. a. i. Although Landau agrees that “[the] PDC is always associated with an affectedness implication for [the] PD” (Landau 1999: p.

Lena (DAT) the beautiful garden ‘Tim ruins Lena’s beautiful garden.3 Possessor raising The goal here is to show that several of the basic properties Landau (1999) identifies for the PDC in Hebrew hold for German as well.4 that the affectedness condition can be explained within a dynamic structure-building framework where a second q-role becomes available to an argument after movement.’ c.3 that Landau’s arguments for a raising analysis generally hold for German.b. *Tim wohnt Lena Tim lives im Garten. ?Tim steht Lena im Garten herum.’ d. Tim ruiniert Lena Tim ruins den schönen Garten.g. Lena (DAT) in-the garden ‘Tim lives in Lena’s garden.’ e. Tim stands Lena (DAT) in-the garden around ‘Tim stands around in Lena’s garden.’ After showing in section 3. the German facts illustrate that a syntactic movement analysis is superior to a thematic approach that bases the connection between possessor and possessee on binding or control (e. Like Landau’s data. Tim gräbt Lena den Garten um. Tim digs Lena (DAT) the garden around ‘Tim aerates Lena’s garden. 59 . I will propose in section 3. 3.

the dative-marked nominal is obligatorily interpreted as possessor. subsection 3. to appear-b. and Wunderlich 1996.3. subsection 3. As discussed in section 3. car. at least with respect to the general (non-Hebrew) case of the PDC.3. Finally.4. Vergnaud & Zubizarreta 1992. Kempchinsky 1992. and Guéron 1985). etc. it will become evident that the latter is superior.Hole to appear-a.4. Although Landau’s proposal is very similar to the dynamic structure-building analysis I present in section 3.1 Obligatory possessor interpretation The crucial distinction between a regular dative-marked benefactive or malefactive argument of the verb and a possessor dative is that the latter must cooccur with a clausemate nominal with which it stands in a possessor relation.1-3. If this obligatory possessor relation does not hold. computer.4 introduces Landau’s movement analysis and thus provides the basic building blocks for a formal structural account of the PDC and its properties.. the account proposed here avoids the main problem these authors have with traditional possessor raising analyses like Landau 1999 and Gallmann 1992. 60 .7 After an informal description of three major characteristic properties of the PDC in 3. garden. 3.g Hole to appear-a.3. the structure contains a 7 Note that several authors have specifically argued against a possessor raising analysis for German (see e. 2000).3. Pylkkänen 2002. The possessee is typically an inalienably possessed body part or something that counts as inalienably possessed by extension (house.5 points out the advantages this approach has over non-movement alternatives. see Vergnaud & Zubizarreta 1992). In a PDC. Borer & Grodzinsky 1986.

at least ‘transitory’ possession must hold. Often this possessor relation is not literally one of possessing or owning something but must be interpreted in the broader sense of being responsible for something. such as an ethical or estimative dative (see subsection 3. (11) a. but PDs can only be the possessor/creator (see (11b)). An important restriction on this aspect of the PDC is that the range of relations that it may subsume is narrower than the range which can be expressed by an overt genitive (pre. The remainder of this subsection presents evidence for this. As Landau puts it.2). Gil higdil et ha-tmuna s&el Rina. however.or postnominal) possessor.verb which either independently selects a dative argument or is compatible with a non-PD. Landau argues that PDs are obligatorily interpreted as the subject of the corresponding possessed DP. even if just temporarily.’ [Rina = possessor/creator/theme] 61 .2. benefactive or malefactive interpretation is “superimposed upon” but crucially may not replace the possessor relation between the possessed nominal and the dative-marked DP. Based on the observation that postnominal of-possessors in Hebrew picture noun constructions can be interpreted as either possessor/creator or theme (see (11a)). Gil enlarged ACC the-picture of Rina ‘Gil enlarged Rina’s picture. crucially not as an internal (theme) argument. In a PDC.

a noun referring to an institution.b. we expect that the PDC should be incompatible with nouns like process nominals which require a non-possessor. If PDs can only originate in Spec DP. Gil enlarged to-Rina ACC the-picture ‘Gil enlarged Rina’s picture.’ 8 Note that it is not the genitive DP der Stadt ‘of the city’ following the head noun Zerstörung ‘destruction’ that makes (12a) ungrammatical. As these examples are ungrammatical for independent reasons. The examples in (12) shed light on this question. 1991). the city (GEN) the army (DAT) the destruction ‘I photographed the army’s destruction of the city. (12a-b) are the German equivalents of Kempchinsky’s (1992) Spanish and Landau’s Hebrew examples. which require an agent as subject.e. *Ich fotografierte der Armee I photographed (12) die Zerstörung der Stadt. German allows for multiple genitive-marked nominals in DP (see Longobardi 1996). does not have a referent that can be affected – I appeal to example (12c) to prove the point: process nominals. and die Armee ‘the army’. not Spec NP.8 however – German sehen ‘see’ does not express affectedness (see Wegener 1985. not individual people. in the external argument position) of DP or NP. 62 . a. as subject.’ [Rina ≠ theme] (Landau 1999: 5) This subject-requirement calls for further specification in that it needs to be established whether PDs are the subject (i. are indeed incompatible with the PDC. Gil higdil le-Rina et ha-tmuna. As shown by examples like Ottos Beschreibung Marias ‘Otto’s description of Maria’. namely an agent (in Spec NP).

given in Hole to appear-a (see (13)9). assign an affectee role. Walter hat (?unsx) den Baux Walter has (13) der Mauer befürwortet. a. us (DAT) the construction the wall (GEN) in prospect ‘Ed dangled the prospect of constructing the wall before us. of several prisoners the army (DAT) the execution ‘The journalists saw the army’s execution of several prisoners.’ Given a PDC-interpretation. Ed stellte unsx Ed put den Bau(x) der Mauer in Aussichtx. *Ich habe Ulli gestern die Wiederaufarbeitung des Kunstwerks fotografiert. *Die Journalisten sahen der Armee the journalists saw die Hinrichtung von einigen Gefangenen. I have Ulli (DAT) yesterday the re-working the artwork (GEN) photographed ‘I photographed Ulli’s remodeling of the artwork. As confirmed by examples like Ich musste Ulli (DAT) gestern die abgebrannte Küche fotografieren ‘I had to take pictures of Ulli’s burned-down kitchen’ (maybe because he needed the photos for insurance purposes). do not convincingly disprove the point here. The ungrammaticality cannot be attributed to the verb fotografieren.’ c. Seemingly grammatical examples of process nominals in PDCs. 63 . in principle.b. where the PD Ulli is obligatorily interpreted as “possessor” of the re-modeling process. According to Hole (to appear-a). (12c) is unacceptable. fotografieren can. both den Bau and Aussicht are possible bindees in (13b).’ b. us (DAT) the construction the wall (GEN) supported ‘Walter supported (for us) the construction of the wall (by us).’ (Hole to appear-a: 16-17) 9 Subscript ‘x’ marks a binding relation between the dative and another nominal in the sentence.

for example. this expression is a PDC. It is not a grammatical addition to just any verb that has an affectee role to assign. More generally. the dative behaves like it is subcategorized for. To clarify.10 This means that uns in (13b) is not an “extra” or “free” dative (as in the other PDC-examples discussed here) and thus cannot originate as possessor of the process nominal Bau. In her thematic binding account. the addition of the dative uns is marked as degraded. It cannot function as possessor of a different nominal. and it cannot be left out like a PD in a regular PDC. Hole’s data in (13) then do not undermine Landau’s and my claim that the possessor relation in a PDC is not equivalent to the relation established by a genitive nominal functioning as an agent. Unlike a beneficiary non-PD. with the dative being the “possessor” of Aussicht. the fact that the PDC imposes restrictions on the type of nominal that a PD can cooccur with – not with process nominals – corroborates Landau’s claim that the possessor relation between the PD and the other involved nominal cannot be replaced by a thematic restriction imposed by the verb. but since it is a frozen combination. and in (b). 64 . a PD cannot occur as an argument of the verb independently of other DPs in the clause.In (13a). Kempchinsky (1992) is forced to say that examples like (12) are ungrammatical because the dative nominal cannot bear both an agent and 10 The Redewendungen edition of the Duden (Drosdowsky 1992) lists the dative as part of the expression. the dative is clearly part of the expression jemandem (DAT) etwas in Aussicht stellen ‘to dangle the prospect of something before somebody’.

65 . The most natural explanation. can be given within the dynamic structure-building system I propose in section 3. the possessee cannot be the external argument of the verb. the possessee is either a direct object or a PP that is an argument of the verb. is precisely the position from which possessor raising is launched.3. As pointed out by both Guéron (1985) and Borer & Grodzinsky (1986). The possessed nominal may only surface in subject position if 11 Kempchinsky’s “non-genuine” possessor is similar to what Guéron (1985) calls a “secondary” q-role.2 C-command restriction In the data considered thus far. Spec DP. subjects which originate in Spec NP of the head nominal.3. where an agent is not required. assignment of which is supposed to be exempt from the q-Criterion. she argues that their co-occurrence with a PD is acceptable because possessor is not a “genuine” q-role and can thus be assigned to the PD in addition to the benefactive role coming from the verb. however. however. As for non-process nominals.4.4. have no way of getting to the specifier of the nominal’s DPprojection. however. Landau’s movement analysis allows for a more straightforward account of the incompatibility of process nominals with the PDC. This is confirmed by the ungrammaticality of the Hebrew example and its German equivalent in (14a-b).a benefactive role.11 As explained in subsection 3. It will become apparent that agents. 3.

Der Hund ist Lena the dog überfahren worden is Lena (DAT) over-driven was (PASS) ‘Lena’s dog was run over (by a car). i.’ (Landau 1999: 7) b. and the result is ungrammatical. is Lena (DAT) around-run ‘Lena’s dog ran around.it has moved there from inside the VP. (ii) … weil mir der Arm eingeschlafen ist.’ b. however. arm is me (DAT) in-slept ‘My arm fell asleep. the possessee gets introduced directly as the verb’s external argument. originates above the PD. the possessee in subject position starts out as the internal argument of the verb. In the unmarked (neutral) word order.e. In (14). 66 .’ (15) a. the clause-initial (Spec CP) position is occupied by the nominative-marked DP. the dative precedes the accusative nominal. *ha-kelev hitrocec le-Rina the-dog ran-around to-Rina ‘Rina’s dog ran around. as shown in the embedded clauses in (i) and (ii): (i) … weil Lena der Hund überfahren worden ist. There must thus be a restriction on the PDC that requires the PD to 12 In (15a-b). *Der Hund ist Lena the dog herumgelaufen.’ In the well-formed examples in (15). Der Arm ist mir the eingeschlafen.12 (14) a. as in a passive (15a) or unaccusative (15b) configuration.

67 . cannot be separated by a subject-containing category (vP. after PD-raising. Only a reduced infinitival complement (introduced by a coherent/restructuring predicate. the clausemate condition holds at both deep and surface structure. 3. or.3. CP). In the following French examples. (Guéron 1985: p. the condition is that possessor and possessee must be “clausemates”.3.3 Locality Guéron (1985) observed that the possessor and the possessee must be clausemates. see chapter 2) allows for a PD with a possessee in the infinitival complement to be part of the matrix clause domain. 48 (18)) As laid out in detail in chapter 4.’ b. more specifically. him (DAT) have washed the hair ‘Jean seems to have washed his hair. *Jean lui semble [TP avoir lavé les cheveux]. infinitive clauses with TP or vP-status are opaque for the relation between PD and possessee in German as well. the possessee is an inalienably possessed body part. As for the account supported here. a. Jean semble [TP lui Jean seems (16) avoir lavé les cheveux].c-command (at some point in the derivation) the possessee in its base position. In her non-movement account. TP.4. The exact position of PDs will be discussed in subsection 3.

Put another way. but the syntax does not encode this reading. Thus. seems to support Landau’s conclusions. which is properly contained in (i. it is the puppy that must be interpreted as belonging to Lena. the relation between the PD and the possessor position within the possessee may not extend into the DP (into the domain of its head). The German equivalent of Landau’s Hebrew examples. The first intuition is that Lena is the caretaker of the foal in (a) and of the mother in (b). (17) a. In a case where the direct object is a complex DP. in both cases. for example.’ b.Expanding on Guéron’s clausemate condition. but rather may access only its highest (outermost) specifier position. as in (17). given in (18). Gil ripe le-Rina et ha-ima s&el ha-gur. the larger DP corresponds to the possessed DP. the PD may only be associated with the larger (containing) DP rather than with the genitive. Gil cured to-Rina ACC the-mother of the-puppy ‘Gil cured the puppy’s mother which belongs to Rina.e. Gil cured to-Rina ACC the-puppy of the-dog (FEM) ‘Gil cured the dog’s puppy which belongs to Rina. Landau argues that the locality of the PDC even goes beyond clause-boundedness. whereas in (17b).’ (Landau 1999: 15) In (17a). It may be pragmatically inferred that the referent of the embedded DP also belongs to Lena. Gil ripe le-Rina et ha-gur s&el ha-kalba. 68 . it is the mother of the puppy. a subpart of) the larger DP.

(18) a.’ b. Dann stecke ich mir then stick I (19) einen Ring auf [einen Finger [der linken Hand]]. in that they appear to allow for an interpretation of the dative mir as the possessor of the embedded genitive DP. the foal (GEN) healthy Tim treated Lena (DAT) the mother ‘Tim cured the foal’s mother which belongs to Lena. the possessor relation between the PD and the embedded DP need not be syntactically encoded.’ b. However. examples like (19a-b) seem to be exceptions to Landau’s generalization. since the finger in (a) and the tip in (b) are necessarily possessed by the same person as the left hand and the left index finger. Mir fiel der Hammer auf [die Spitze [des linken Zeigefingers]]. First (as pointed out to me by Andrew McIntyre). the situation is more complicated than this initial assessment would suggest. foal the mare (GEN) healthy Tim treated Lena (DAT) the ‘Tim cured the mare’s foal which belongs to Lena. The key observation 69 . Tim pflegte Lena [die Mutter [des Fohlens]] gesund. on the tip the left index-finger (GEN) me (DAT) fell the hammer ‘The hammer fell on the tip of my left index finger.’ However. a. ring on a finger the left hand (GEN) me (DAT) a ‘Then I put a ring on a finger of my left hand. Tim pflegte Lena [das Fohlen [der Stute]] gesund. both the left hand in (19a) and the left index finger in (b) must be interpreted as belonging to the referent of the dative mir. The data in (20) corroborate this.’ Clearly.

the specifier of the embedded DP. it either originates in the possessor position of the larger DP or is really a maleficiary non-PD (not standing in a possessor relation at all).1).e. if there is a syntactic possessor relation at all. mir in (19a) is probably the possessor of the body-part DP einen Finger.’ All three examples involve a body-part nominal specified by a possessive pronoun.’ c. (b) and (c) are not. Dann stecke ich mir then stick I einen Ring auf [einen Finger [meiner linken Hand]]. Mir fiel der Hammer auf [die Spitze [meines linken Zeigefingers]].2.’ b. (20) a. ?Ein guter Ehemann massiert seiner Frau jeden Abend ihren Rücken. ring on a finger my left hand (GEN) me (DAT) a ‘Then I put a ring on a finger of my left hand. Since the possessive pronoun in (b) and (c) can cooccur with the PD mir without degrading the utterances at all. This means that. i. I tentatively conclude that the PD in these examples does not originate in the position occupied by the possessive pronoun. Rather. a good husband massages his wife (DAT) each evening her back ‘A good husband massages his wife’s back every night. on the tip my left index-finger (GEN) me (DAT) fell the hammer ‘The hammer fell on the tip of my left index finger.regarding examples (b-c) is that the PD cooccurs with a possessive pronoun as part of the embedded DP. but. while (20a) is clearly degraded (see also section 3. not der linken Hand. Just as in expressions like Er hob die Hand ‘He raised his hand’ and Sie schloss die Augen 70 .

in fact. Man verweigerte ihmx one denied die Auszahlung des Lohnsx. it is plausible that. there is no 1st person subject pronoun here to satisfy this need. Other examples which seem to suggest. be possessors of the embedded nominal of complex DPs are presented in Hole (to appear-a) and shown here in (21a-c). the wages (GEN) him (DAT) the payment ‘They denied him the payment of his wages. Man zerriss dem Jungenx die Papiere der Mutterx. I suggest that we may be dealing with a maleficiary non-PD. contra Landau. in (19a). one tore-apart the boy (DAT) the documents the mother (GEN) ‘They tore apart his mother’s documents on the boy.’ 71 . there is a mere pragmatic relation between mir and der linken Hand. The reason that the example is degraded when mir is left out is not that the dative is necessary to indicate the possessor of the body part but rather that some human referent is needed in the linguistic environment of a body part.‘She closed her eyes’.’ b. Unlike in (19a). where the logical possessors of die Hand and die Augen are (non-derived) subjects and thus cannot originate in the possessor position of the respective body-part nominals (see section 4). (21) a. that PDs can. As for (19b).

13 suggesting that. Kinship terms like Mutter are (inherently) relational nouns which. so to speak. again. it can be argued that (21a) may be explained on a par with (19a-b). and (37)) can be properly interpreted without the extra dative argument: The possessor variable (which Hole assumes to be 13 Under “Phrases and Collocations (3-4 words)” for the entry of the verb verweigern. Man verweigerte ihmx one denied die Auszahlung des Lohns der Mutterx. in the absence of a syntactic possessor. with the possessive pronoun. Hole himself states that the definite articles in examples like (13) and (21) (his (34a). (35a). cc online dictionary lists jemandem (DAT ) die Erlaubnis verweigern ‘refuse somebody permission’ and jemandem (DAT) etwas verweigern ‘refuse somebody something’. and a Google search confirms the frequent occurrence of datives in the context of this verb. 72 . I take this to mean that the dative dem Jungen may not be in competition. verweigern is a verb that regularly occurs with a dative argument.’ (Hole to appear-a: 18) In support of Landau’s generalization. As for (21b) and (c). him (DAT) the payment the wages (GEN) the mother (GEN) ‘They denied him the payment of his mother’s wages. No possessor relation between ihm and either of the two DPs then needs to be accounted for. it could either originate as possessor (here: person who is temporarily in charge) of the larger DP die Papiere or be a maleficiary non-PD. are automatically interpreted as related to the speaker or the referent of a nominal in the near linguistic context. the dict. The utterance is not degraded when the definite article preceding Mutter is replaced with the possessive pronoun seiner ‘his’. the dative in these examples may not be an extra or free argument but rather one that is selected by the verb.c.

when more of the analytical material has been developed. I do not know whether similarly complex effects hold in Hebrew. At that point. All of these matters are subtle and somewhat unclear. we will encounter examples which seem to pose yet more serious difficulties for the claim that the PD relation cannot reach into the DP domain. I will be in a position to show that the phenomena are in fact quite compatible with the ultimate definition of locality I arrive at in that chapter.included in one of two lexical entries of every nominal) “may be mapped to some arbitrary referent. in the absence of the extra dative” (Hole to appear-a: 17). For now. I will return to a more nuanced discussion in chapter 6. the principal conclusion to be taken away is that the PD relation in German and the PD relation in Hebrew are subject to apparently similar locality constraints. with the goal of highlighting incompatibilities of his approach with the German PDC to be accounted for here. 73 . For present purposes. and at a later point (in chapter 6). or be absent altogether. I will end this section by giving an overview of Landau’s main points. since my proposal takes Landau’s possessor raising analysis as a starting point.

a Minimalist framework allows for caseless Spec DP positions because the operation which creates the lexicon for a given language is not subject to well-formedness conditions. Keach & Rochemont 1992). for example. Ura 1996. While the lexicon for German and Hebrew. b. Kubo 1990.4 Landau’s possessor raising account Based on the characteristic properties of the PDC discussed above and drawing on possessor raising analyses that have been proposed for a variety of other constructions (Szabolcsi 1983. a lexicon containing Ds that lack case-licensing ability is not in any way “ruled out”. a. c. It then raises to check its case features with V. It is generated with dative case features. As I explain in section 3. (Landau 1999: 9) (22) 14 Landau (1999) does not discuss why this position should be caseless. this is precisely where the distinction lies between languages that have the PDC and languages that do not. The possessor is generated in a caseless Spec position14 within the possessee.3. includes non-case-licensing Ds.3. the lexicon for English does not. In other words.4. 74 . In fact. Landau (1999) proposes the case-driven movement analysis summarized in (22) and illustrated in (23).

Since PDs form a chain with their possessee-internal trace. however.3. as far as affectedness is concerned. Since German and Hebrew seem to differ. namely the obligatory possessor interpretation of PDs. In Landau’s framework. and since a chain may only bear a single semantic role. I give a preview here of how the dynamic structure-building system I appeal to in section 3.4 resolves these difficulties. PDs must bear the q-role they receive in their base 75 . the first basic property discussed above. Landau’s analysis cannot be directly extended to German. falls out from the definition of chains.(23) Possessor raising: vP 3 DP v' Subject 3 V+v VP 3 DP V' Possessor 3 tv DP 3 tPD D' 3 D NP Possessee This version of possessor raising works for both Hebrew and German in as far as the basic PDC properties of the two languages overlap.1-3 fall out from Landau’s analysis but also how this analysis is at odds with the German affectedness condition. The goal of this subsection is to show how the basic properties of the PDC discussed in 3.

76 . Consistent with the facts discussed in subsection 3. where movement proceeds via phase edges (in this case. Although the obligatory possessor interpretation also holds for the German PDC. As the base position is Spec DP. and not an agent role. that is higher than. A detailed discussion of the notion ‘phase’ with respect to locality restriction on syntactic operations is provided in Part III of the dissertation (see in particular subsection 5. not the internal theme role.e. the lexical shell of the possessee.2.position.15 and is driven by formal (including case. but not q-) features. the former straightforwardly falls out from Landau’s version of possessor raising because PDs originate in the specifier of. PDs must be assigned the role of possessor (or creator. The analysis I propose in section 3. Any lower origin site would violate restrictions on movement operations. i. Spec DP). Furthermore.3. Landau’s chain-based explanation precludes an account of the fact that the German PDC must allow for the assignment of an affectee role in addition to the possessor role. the possessor role may not be overridden by an affectee role from the verb. the origin site of a PD is necessarily Spec DP. the topmost ‘subject’ position of the possessed DP. As for the second and third basic PDC properties.4 allows for double q-role assignment while still ruling out PD-raising from a DP-internal (agent or theme) position. which is assigned in Spec NP.2).4. the c-command and the locality condition. In a dynamic structure-building system. in the case of Hebrew picture nouns). the structure 15 See McCloskey 2000 and Svenonius 2004 for analyses which suggest that DPs are phases in the sense of Chomsky 2000.1 and section 6. 2001.

the PD argument is prevented from moving out of the clause. (i) [IP [DP t1 ha-kovec ha-xadas]2 nimxak [VP le-Gil1 [v' tv t2]]] the file the new was-erased to Gil ‘Gil’s new file was erased.16 The locality condition results from the fact that possessor raising is an instance of Amovement. “a case of remnant movement (Müller 1996) where a constituent containing a trace moves outside the c-command domain of the antecedent of that trace” (p. Subject-containing categories like vP and DP prevent an argument from moving across their left edge to another A-position. and in the case of complex DPs. The locality restriction correctly predicts the incompatibility of the PDC with process nominals.’ (Landau 1999: 12) This is not a problem for the c-command condition since the now standard assumption is that the ccommand condition on movement is satisfied derivationally.3. 12). Note. as described in subsection 3.in (23) therefore forces the PD to c-command the possessee in its base position. it is unable to raise out of the possessee if it starts any lower than the specifier of the larger (containing) DP. and process nominals need an agent-subject which is thematically related to N and therefore occupies Spec NP. Although it is clear that PDs cannot move out of DP across an occupied subject position. the entire possessor-possessee complex raises to Spec TP. As noted by Landau (1999). not on post-movement structures. the subject position of the sentence. then a PD cannot be an appropriate ‘subject’ for a process nominal. 77 . A Hebrew example is shown in (i). however. nothing in 16 In a passive or unaccusative constellation (see (15)). this leads to an unbound trace. If PDs must start out in Spec DP. In the case of vP. that this is where Landau’s determination of Spec DP as the base position of PDs involves some degree of stipulation.1.

why. Even if this edge. and that is the idea of DERIVATION BY PHASE (Chomsky 2001). should there not be instances of caseless N. the main theoretical advantage of a possessor raising approach is that it only makes one PDC-particular claim: PDs are 78 . is unoccupied. However. a dynamic structure-building approach. D is defective and thus cannot attract a case-seeking nominal. if certain Ds can be caseless and thus force the argument in their specifier to check case elsewhere. in Landau’s system. While N certainly is caseless in this framework. the complement of N or an agent nominal in Spec NP cannot reach this position because in a PDC-context. and that a PD generated in Spec NP would have no need to move. As compared to non-movement alternatives. which incorporates the requirement that movement be strictly formal-feature-driven and proceed via the closest phase edge. there is a non-stipulated reason for why a DP in Spec NP is unable to move out of DP. Only a nominal that originates in Spec DP (i. the topmost specifier of the possessee) then has the chance of moving out of the DP-phase. an element needs to be at the edge of the minimal phase containing it.Landau’s version of possessor raising predicts that PDs could not start in Spec NP or as the complement of N and then move out via Spec DP if this specifier is unoccupied. here Spec DP. In order to move or be accessible to positions higher in the syntactic object. Landau argues that the complement of N is the domain of dative case checking in Hebrew.e. forcing agent arguments to raise for case-checking purposes? Again. has the benefit of naturally ruling out PD-raising from Spec NP or the complement of N to the caseless Spec DP position.

Jan1 hat dem Direktor versprochen [vP/TP PRO1 zur Party zu kommen]. the nature of PD-raising and the interpretive consequences. The next subsection presents some specific evidence against control and binding accounts. 3. subject to the strict locality requirements that characterize A-movement. in general.5 Arguments against control and binding Guéron’s (1985) control/PRO-analysis is inherently incompatible with (and thus relies on a PDC-particular stipulation in order to account for) the local nature of the PDC because the relation between PRO and its controller is not. ‘John has a list of books to read. Everything else. Jan has the director promised to-the party to come ‘Jan promised the director to come to the party.generated in a caseless position. As shown by the French data in (24) and similar examples from German in (25).’ b. Jean1 a [DP une liste de [DP livres à PRO1 lire]]. ‘John promised the director to come to the party. a. Jean1 a promis au directeur de [TP PRO1 venir à la soirée].’ (Landau 1999: 12) (25) (24) a.3. it is perfectly grammatical for a vP/TP boundary and more than one DP boundary to intervene between PRO and its controller. follows from general tenets of the respective theoretical framework (Landau’s Principles & Parameters framework and the Minimalist system proposed here).’ 79 .

typical adjunct PPs expressing.’ (idiomatic) b. This evidence stems from argument-adjunctsensitivity. locative.b. Landau presents convincing evidence that it is a trace. German is similar to Hebrew in this respect: the PDC works as expected when the possessed DP is associated with direction. Jan made a whole sequence of tries the article to read ‘Jan made a whole bunch of attempts to read the article. Eine Katze kommt meinen Eltern nicht [ins Haus]. trotz ‘despite’.’ Both the possessor raising analysis and the standard non-movement alternatives have in common that there is an empty category inside the possessed DP. cause and opposition block possessor raising out of the prepositional object. a cat comes my parents (DAT) not in-the house (26) ‘A cat is not allowed in my parents house. Das Kind legte sich dem Papa [auf den Bauch].’ 80 . As shown by the examples in (26)(29). a. Jan1 machte [DP eine ganze Reihe von [DP Versuchen PRO1 den Artikel zu lesen]]. As for the type of empty category. the child lay self the dad (DAT) on the belly ‘The child lay down on the dad’s belly. and ohne ‘without’. rather than PRO or a null anaphor. the verb does not license a dative-marked argument independently of the possessor relation. however. or source PPs that are selected (at least as optional arguments) by the verb. In all of the following examples. for example. While it is possible in Hebrew to extract a PD from locative and source PPs. but a possessor relation is impossible to establish in the case of non-selected PPs headed by prepositions like wegen ‘because of’.

according to Landau (1999). example (29c) would also be bad if the preposition were mit ‘with’ (cf. INSTRUMENTAL PPs are compatible with the PDC. 81 . Das Buch lag Tim the [direkt vor der Nase]. 17 Unlike in Hebrew. the ungrammaticality is two-fold. Landau’s (35a)).’ Er hat der Frau etwas [aus der Handtasche] genommen.(27) a.17 Tim has the mom (DAT) without dish-soap off-washed ‘Tim did the dishes without mom’s dish soap. *Tim musste seiner Schwester [wegen der Katze] aufräumen.’ b. Tim ate the mom (DAT) despite the plea not up ‘Tim didn’t eat up despite mom’s plea.’ b. *Tim hat der Mama [ohne Geschirrspülmittel] abgewaschen. it is impossible to interpret the respective dative-marked nominal as possessor (of the cat. *Tim aß der Mama [trotz der Bitte] nicht auf. First.’ In the unacceptable examples (29a-c). purse taken (28) he has the woman (DAT) something out the ‘He took something from the woman’s purse. he stood the bride (DAT) on the train ‘He stood on the bride’s train.’ a. Tim had-to his sister (DAT) because-of the cat up-tidy (29) ‘Tim had to clean up because of his sister’s cat. where. book lay Tim (DAT) directly in-front-of the nose ‘The book was lying directly in front of Tim (literally: in front of Tim’s nose).’ c. Er stand der Braut [auf der Schleppe].

these same verbs do license the dative case on the “extra” nominal. Lena (DAT) the kitchen up-tidy ‘Tim had to clean up Lena’s kitchen. and abwaschen ‘do the dishes’ (in their unergative use. i. the verbs in (29a-c) then express affectedness. This is shown by the grammatical examples in (30).’ b.the plea. and second. when used transitively. allowing it to be interpreted as affectee. the preferred context is an imperative with a first-person pronoun as the PD. with a direct object instead of an adjunct PP.18 Crucially. even when used unergatively. which lacks an overt direct object but implies it) cannot license a dative-marked nominal. 82 . off-washed Tim has Lena (DAT) the plate ‘Tim rinsed off Lena’s plate. as in Iss mir jetzt erstmal brav auf! ‘Be good and eat up for me!’ In this context. Tim aß Lena netterweise den Spinat auf. Huang 1982. the verbs aufräumen ‘clean up’.’ c. at least not in the given context.’ The generalization is then that only argument PPs are compatible with PDCs. a. Longobardi 1985). Tim musste Lena Tim had-to (30) die Küche aufräumen. the spinach up Tim ate Lena (DAT) nicely ‘Tim was nice enough to eat Lena’s spinach. Assuming that arguments are transparent and adjuncts are opaque to extraction (Chomsky 1986. Landau’s movement analysis 18 The examples in (29) could pass as ethical dative constructions but for that interpretation.e. aufessen ‘eat up’. and the dish soap). Tim hat Lena den Teller abgewaschen.

As shown in (31)-(32). the (b)-examples of the minimal pairs in (33)-(34) confirm that the PD may not be separated from its associated possessee by boundaries of PP-adjuncts like the neben or ohne-PPs here. while a binding analysis can account for the locality of the PDC. the anaphor is even bound across a vP-boundary (see chapter 5 for an analysis of binding in AcI-constructions). The empty category inside the possessee must be a trace. 83 . Tim lets Lena not next-to self eat ‘Tim doesn’t let Lena eat next to him.’ (32) a.19 In contrast.’ Both PRO and the anaphor sich can be coindexed with the respective matrix subject despite the intervening PP-adjunct boundary.’ b.makes perfect sense of this generalization. Der Direktori lässt die Versammlung [ohne sichi] anfangen. it has no explanation for the fact that the construction is not licensed across a PP-adjunct boundary. neither control nor anaphoric binding is sensitive to the argument-adjunct distinction. Britta has self at-the warm-running before the game injured (31) ‘Britta injured herself while warming up before the game. the director lets the gathering without self start ‘The director lets the gathering start without him. 19 In (32). Timi lässt Lena nicht [neben sichi] essen. not PRO. It cannot be a null anaphor either because. Brittai hat sich [beim PROi Warmlaufen] vor dem Spiel verletzt.

’ b.(33) a.’ b. Not assuming movement of the PD from inside the possessee means that the PD should be licensed independently of the presence of a possessed DP. It is clear. the director lets the gathering without self start (34) ‘The director lets the gathering start without him. where PDs are introduced by an Aff voice-head and bind a variable in the possessee. who proposes a Kratzer-style voice account of dative binding in German.20 Whether the possessee is embedded in an argument or adjunct. in fact. however. *Tim hat der Mama [ohne Geschirrspülmittel] abgewaschen. can only speculate on a generalization that explains why DPs should block possessor-related binding. Timi lässt Lena nicht [neben sichi] essen. for example. that the PDC is sensitive to 20 Hole (to appear-a).) 84 . Tim lets Lena not next-to self eat ‘Tim doesn’t let Lena eat next to him. Der Direktori lässt die Versammlung [ohne sichi] anfangen. whether there is a possessee at all should not interfere with the PDC. *Tim musste Lena [neben dem Sessel] aufraümen. Tim had-to Lena next-to the armchair up-tidy ‘Tim had to clean up next to Lena’s armchair. Tim has the mom (DAT) without dish-soap off-washed ‘Tim did the dishes without mom’s dish soap.’ In short. non-movement accounts of the PDC simply do not have a natural explanation for restrictions on the construction.’ a. (On Hole’s view not all DPs are opaque to the possessor relation between the non-core dative and the possessee. Restrictions on the cooccurrence of PDs with other nominals in the clause would thus be unexpected. and.

is subject to the affectedness condition discussed in section 3.4.2.e. example (35) is ungrammatical if the dative-marked DP does not cooccur with a possessee. As discussed in subsection 3. Tim ate his sister (DAT) (the spinach) (35) ‘Tim ate his sister’s spinach. I follow Landau in arguing for the latter. Why should the possessor come with a dative case feature? This is where my proposal crucially differs from Landau’s.2). Disregarding non-PDs for now (section 3.’ Summing up but also looking ahead to the following section.21 Tim aß seiner Schwester *(den Spinat). I will propose that the dative form of the PD and its interpretation as an affectee participant are linked in the way that such facts 21 The star in (35) indicates that the example is bad without the content of the parentheses. The true puzzle of the German PDC is that the possessor receives a new qrole after raising. The PD is not only an argument of the possessee but also a malefactive or benefactive argument of the verb (i. there are two basic choices for the analysis of PDCs: the binding/control approach and the movement approach. Since it is impossible to translate the possessee-less version of this sentence into English.2 offers a more thorough discussion). What Landau does not discuss at all is the connection between POSSESSOR and DATIVE embodied by the PD. The PD raises from Spec DP into a verbal argument slot. dative-marked DPs that are not possessors are only allowed to occur if the verb selects a dative-marked complement or if the DP is what I call a ‘non-possessor dative’.2. 85 .these factors. the given translation includes the parentheses.

g. allows double q-role assignment.usually are.1) and then present in detail (3. an apparent violation of the q-Criterion. by focusing on the Hebrew PDC. suggests that Hebrew is untypical in this respect. Kempchinsky 1992 and Guéron 1985). This makes the current approach more attractive than traditional possessor raising analyses which have been criticized for 86 . Evidence from Spanish and French (see e. under certain circumstances such as inherent casechecking.4. Landau avoids the problem of double q-role assignment. where the PDC is as restricted as in German. In order to explain the more general case of the PDC.2) a dynamic structure-building approach to account for the German PDC. the task is then to find a theoretical framework that. The goal of the following section is to integrate the basic ideas of Landau’s possessor raising analysis into such a framework.4) and thus enables PDs to play the role of both possessor and affectee. which does not need to be encoded syntactically. I claim that this framework allows for double q-role assignment (3.4. 3. affectedness seems to be an implication of the given verbs in a particular context.4. I continue to motivate (3. which is tolerated by a wider range of verbs than its German counterpart.4 Possessor datives in a framework of dynamic structure-building In this section. In Landau’s Hebrew examples. Dative (in this use at least) is an inherent (or thematically-linked) case which is associated lexically with the assignment of a particular semantic role (affectee in the present case).

2. If it turns out that the Hebrew PDC is subject to the same syntactically encoded affectedness condition as the German PDC. This discrepancy may be due to speaker variation or contextualization effects. The remaining question would be why the Hebrew dialect described by Landau (and also Pereltsvaig (2003)) should be so different. Landau’s data truly represent a special case of the PDC. Landau’s judgments could be based on possible but pragmatically unusual situations. 87 . Like examples (10a-e) in subsection 3.3. the native speaker of Hebrew I asked to confirm Landau’s judgments rejected all the examples that do not satisfy the affectedness condition. the contrast between Hebrew and German apparent in (36)-(39) would be unexpected. I will also make reference to non-PDC examples of double q-role assignment provided by López (2001) and show that the system I propose has a better solution to the problem of overgeneration than López’ account does.not taking the obligatory affectedness of the dative referent into account (see especially the criticism in Hole to appear-b and Pylkkänen 2002). 3. A more concise (but still informal and descriptive) statement of what I mean by “affectedness condition” is given in (36).4. More native speakers need to be consulted to clarify this. these example-pairs suggest that. unlike in German. 22 Interestingly.22 The proposal to be developed in this section aims to account for this condition on the German PDC. and his “classic puzzle” (see (41)) solves itself with respect to the more general case.1 The facts: Hebrew versus German If Landau’s (1999) possessor raising account were applied to the German PDC without modification. the PDC in Hebrew requires no appeal to a syntactically encoded affectedness condition.

(36) PDC affectedness condition: In German. Gil looked-at to-Rina on the-house (38) ‘Gil looked at Rina’s house. Gil histakel le-Rina al ha-bayit. Gil lakax le-Rina et ha-tik. a PD is licensed only if the verb which takes the possessorpossessee complex as its complement can accommodate two internal arguments.’ (Landau 1999: 27) b. Gil found to-Rina ACC the-ring (39) ‘Gil found Rina’s ring. Tim found Lena (DAT) the ring ‘Tim found Lena’s ring. Lena (DAT) the house at ‘Tim looked at Lena’s house.’ 88 . *Tim nahm Lena Tim took die Tasche.’ (Landau 1999: 26) b.’ (Landau 1999: 8) b. Gil maca le-Rina et ha-taba ‘at. *Tim schaute Lena Tim looked das Haus an.’ a. Gil took to-Rina ACC the-bag (37) ‘Gil took Rina’s bag. One of these arguments must be assigned an affectee role.’ a. a. Lena (DAT) the bag ‘Tim took Lena’s bag. ?Tim fand Lena den Ring.

All these changes implicate that the action the verb expresses must have immediately obvious physical or emotional consequences for the referent of the possessor which can be viewed either negatively or positively. I thus conclude that the ungrammaticality of the German sentences is due to precisely this lack of PD affectedness. This confirms that.’ (Landau 1999: 28) b. anschauen ‘look at’ to anstreichen ‘paint’. a violation of the affectedness condition.) 89 .(40) a.’ The only difference between well-formed German PDCs and the (b)-examples in (37)-(40) appears to be that the verbs in the latter do not imply an obvious effect on the referent of the PD (here Lena). and Hole to appear-a. nehmen ‘take’ could be changed to tragen ‘carry’. (Again. 1991. McIntyre to appear. besides being a possessor.)’ and lachen ‘laugh’ to herumstehen ‘stand around’. finden ‘find’ to verbaseln ‘lose (colloq. *Tim lachte Lena in der Küche. Tim laughed Lena (DAT) in the kitchen ‘Tim laughed in Lena’s kitchen. In order to improve the German PDCs. Gil caxak le-Rina ba-mitbax. PDs must play a malefactive or benefactive (affectee) role. see also Wegener 1985. at least in German. Gil laughed to-Rina in-the-kitchen ‘Gil laughed in Rina’s kitchen.

In a dynamic structure-building framework like Chomsky’s (1995. 2001) Minimalist Program.4. that is how to allow for a doubly q-marked DP without relying on dubious distinctions like “primary” vs. 90 . This opens the possibility that selectional features can in principle be satisfied either by drawing material from the lexicon (or numeration (see next subsection))23 or else by way of movement. under certain conditions. I will show that a slight revision of Chomsky’s system makes it possible for an argument to first receive a semantic role in situ and then. 2000. The terminology is misleading here. “non-genuine” (Kempchinsky 1992) q-roles. the Projection Principle and to an extent also the q-Criterion lose their relevance because the levels of deep and surface structure are eliminated. The first is to understand the PDC affectedness condition (36) in a deeper way – to derive it from independent principles rather than stipulate it. “secondary” (Guéron 1985) or “genuine” vs. the two q-roles of the chain linking the initial position of the raised constituent to its landing site do not violate any principles that 23 Note that complex phrases do not come directly from the lexicon or numeration. two related challenges arise.4. The second is to understand “double” q-role assignment. “Drawing material from the numeration” should be interpreted as parallel construction of a phrase in a so-called work-space followed by its merger with the topmost head in the larger syntactic object (sentence) that is being derived. The crucial property of this framework is that heads with their selectional requirements are introduced in the course of the derivation. check its formal features and take on another semantic role.At this point. raise to a higher head. As will be explained in subsection 3.

Since this means that PDs derive not only their syntactic behavior but also one of their semantic roles from the predicate. An argument in the clause (the possessor) derives its semantic role from another argument (the possessee) but its syntactic behavior from the predicate. (41) 3.3 and restated here in (41)). the German PDC (which is probably the general case) ceases to be anomalous. This is 24 A numeration is a random array of feature-bundles selected from the lexicon.2 Possessor datives as both possessed and affected Assume that in the numeration24 that is the source of a particular instance of a PDC there is a nominal that gets introduced as the possessee.hold for the revised system. 91 . Assume further that the Dhead of the possessee comes without genitive or dative case licensing ability. at least in German. The actual task here is to find a theoretical framework that allows for a consistent account of the German facts without allowing for unwanted derivations. which is in turn made up of all legal lexical and functional feature combinations existing in the language. I therefore propose that a dynamic structure-building framework provides the answer to what Landau calls the “classic puzzle” of the PDC (mentioned in subsection 3. The following subsection explains how case-checking and crucially the double q-role assignment work in the framework I propose.4.2. What is the possessor dative an argument of? (Landau 1999: 2) My claim is that. a PD is both an argument of the possessee and of a verbal head that gets merged as the sister of the possessor-possessee complex.

on the other hand. contains non-case-licensing (or defective) Ds. which have possessor datives (unlike the lexicon of English which does not). It seems plausible to assume that there is a semantic rule applying in the syntactic context in (i) which has the effect that the referent of DP1 stands in some relation R (specified by context) to the referent of DP0. I propose that this element is a functional (or light) v-head (henceforth affectee v) which gets merged with the VP containing the possessor25 By saying that the possessor role is assigned by the possessee.25 but its dative case feature must get checked by an element introduced later in the derivation. If. Continuing with the derivation at hand. The nature of the actual thematic relation involved is context dependent. If the elements of a numeration are not combined “correctly”. the derivation can still converge and yield a grammatical sentence. an element like the defective D-head at issue here is matched with another element that makes up for the defect.plausible because the content of a numeration is not controlled by well-formedness conditions. The possessorrole (which Kempchinsky (1992) appropriately calls a “non-genuine” q-role) must then be assigned by D. that assigns the role. if a DP with a dative case feature is introduced as the specifier of the defective D.4) and fear-type nouns whose subjects must be based in Spec NP because there is a clearly identifiable thematic relation between agent and process or experiencer and sensation. possessed nouns have their subjects in Spec DP. namely N. In fact.1 and 3. unlike process nominals (see subsections 3.3. I follow Landau (1999) in assuming that.e. the derivation crashes. it is no surprise that the lexicon of languages like German and Hebrew. i. (i) DP0 / \ DP1 D' / \ D NP [poss] 92 . it can receive a q-role from the possessee. if (some of) their features cannot be matched to form A GREE relations. I do not mean that it is the lexical head of the possessed DP.3.

a previously introduced phrase can be raised from a position within the same syntactic object that contains the verbal head which assigns the male/benefactive role. the DP out of which the PD has moved (the possessee) enters into a non-movement Agree relation and checks structural accusative case with the topmost functional (light verb) head. assigns a protoagent role to the (“external”) argument in its specifier.1 for a more thorough discussion).possessee complex. while unaccusative verbs just consist of a bare VP (see chapter 5. In contrast. In other words. if the numeration does not provide for another nominal suitable for assignment of the male/benefactive role. i. Other v-projections may be added to these basic structures because. following Pylkkänen (2002). this topmost verbal projection.26 It is considered the 26 Following Hale & Keyser (1993). The DP sister of V. In its post-raising position. the affectee v comes with the need for an argument to which it can assign an affectee (male/benefactive) role. section 5. fulfills the theme role.3. and Kratzer (1996). Then.e. this movement (or INTERNAL MERGE) operation targets the possessor DP (the PD) and raises it from the specifier position of the possessor-possessee complex to the specifier of the affectee vP. the affectee v assigns inherent dative case to the argument it attracts into its specifier. especially those involved in 93 . Chomsky (1995). In particular. I assume that transitive/unergative verbs project a double-layer verbal structure with the outer shell being an agentive vP. As explained in chapter 2 in connection with Wurmbrand’s (2001) restructuring typology. I assume that a number of other thematic role-types. the PD both checks its dative case feature and receives the male/benefactive role. headed by an agentive v. the possessor-possessee complex. While the lexical V has a theme role to assign.

27 V ERB-SECOND word order will be spelled out correctly after the verb (which has already raised via head movement from V to the highest v) moves from v to T to C.4. including PD-movement and q-role assignment. ‘He ruined my place.27 this will yield Er ruinierte mir die Wohnung. After completion of subject and verb movement. hence my proposal of PDs being licensed by affectee vPs (see subsection 3.3 for a critique of Pylkkänen’s analysis of the German PDC). are also introduced by light verbs. To illustrate all of this.’ (42) vP 3 DP v' Subject 3AGENT Er vP v 3 [ACC] DP v' ruinierte [DAT] 3MALE/BENEFACTIVE mir VP v 3 <arg> V' [DAT] 3 tv DP V THEME 3 <arg> tPD D' tv POSSESSOR 3 D NP [∅] | [ACC] N die Wohnung applicative alternations. is diagrammed in (42). 94 .instantiation of Burzio’s Generalization (Burzio 1986) in that it links the presence of an external argument to the assignment of accusative case. the approximate configuration of a sample PDC. and the subject moves via Spec TP to Spec CP (see Vikner 1995 but Haider 1993 for a different view).

This follows from the standard assumption that checking of inherent case goes hand in hand with the assignment of a designated q-role. it has 95 . If the verbal shell does include an affectee v and thus provides a dative case licensor. in (43a). Without assignment of an affectee role. and no possessor raising occurs. the source of ungrammaticality is the absence of that crucial light verb projection. the numeration happens to provide the elements needed for another DP. dative case cannot be licensed.2. In this case. the PD will not find a head to check dative case with.The affectedness condition and thus the ungrammaticality of the German examples in (37)-(40) fall out from this analysis in the following way. as shown. If the lexical verb does not project an affectee v. taking a slightly different view.e. The result is a non-PD (ethical. Based on the data presented in subsection 3. satisfaction of the affectedness condition. estimative. the PD then ends up in situ with an unchecked [DAT]-feature (or. or ficiary dative). i. for example. in addition. and the derivation crashes.2. which needs an argument in its specifier to which it can assign its q-role. the derivation is successful if the possessor DP comes with a genitive case feature that can be licensed by D. the raising operation is blocked because introducing an element from outside the syntactic object that is being built (EXTERNAL MERGE) is preferred over the more complex operation involving movement of an element from inside this object (INTERNAL MERGE). an unvalued case feature). Without an affectee v. and if. then. In (37b)-(40b). The additional DP then gets introduced directly into the specifier of the affectee vP.

3. 7 (9)) Here Spec DP is available for the PD.already been established that a non-PD construction does not depend on the presence of a possessee (another example confirming this is given in (43b)). In a case like (43a).’ 96 . The dative-marked nominal never started out in this position and was thus never assigned the possessor role. possessor raising is compatible with a genitive construction if the genitive is expressed as a PPcomplement to the possessee. the specifier of the possessor-possessee complex is filled with a genitive possessor.’ 28 Note that case-checking with an externally merged argument goes against Chomsky’s (1995) early assumptions concerning the non-interaction of Checking and q-Theory. (ii) Tim hat Lena die Brille von Silke zerbrochen. 29 In contrast to (43a). Instead. This will be discussed in subsection 3. It is clear that inherent case checking represents a necessary area of checking and q-overlap. where the possessor is not forced to and therefore does not move. made 29 (43) doch hoffentlich nicht Omas hopefully not Geschirr kaputt broken you have the mom (DAT) but grandma’s (GEN) dishes ‘I sure hope you did not ruin Grandma’s dishes on mom. (i) Gil s&avar le-Rina et ha-mis&kafayim s&el Sigal. The Hebrew genitive construction is translated as a von (‘of’)-PP.’ (Landau 1999: p. Now we see why this is so.4. As Landau puts it. and the possessee must be interpreted as possessed by two different individuals. it got externally merged into the affectee argument position. Rina has ‘transitory’ possession of the glasses. The German equivalent of Landau’s Hebrew example is given in (ii).28 There is no raising involved here. A Hebrew example is given in (i). a. Silke broken Tim has Lena (DAT) the glasses of ‘Tim broke Silke’s glasses on Lena. Gil broke to-Rina ACC the-glasses of Sigal ‘Gil broke Sigal’s glasses on Rina. Du hast der Mama gemacht.

there is a natural explanation for the incompatibility of the PDC with “dative” verbs (see examples above) shown in (i) and (ii). This makes sense with respect to the Hebrew facts. If all instances of dative case-checking are indeed tied to a particular type of q-role and thus inherent. the daughter (DAT) helped ‘I helped our neighbors’ daughter. Die Kinder schlafen mir the children sleep nicht schnell genug ein.g.g. in the context of both PDCs and non-possessor-related dative constructions30 are thus accounted for by the analysis I sketched in (42). gefallen ‘please’. and consequently. A more thorough investigation of the connection between PDs and core datives is certainly worthwhile but is not my focus here. two datives can marginally cooccur only if one is the first person pronoun mir in an ethical dative construction. inherently connected with the assignment of an affectee role. Maldonado (2002) argues that the dative-marked participant is always affected. only one of the two can check its dative case feature. fehlen ‘lack’). by verbs like helfen ‘help’.’ The mechanisms of dative case checking. It could be that German mir in examples like Mach mir der Lena bitte nicht die Brille kaputt ‘Please do me a favor and don’t break Lena’s glasses’ behaves like a clitic. the affectee role can only be assigned to either the PD or the core dative argument. In German.) 97 . my proposal is compatible with the assignment of a male/benefactive role in applicative contexts (see e.’ (ii) *Er hat seiner Freundin dem Vater gratuliert.e. PD-raising out of a possessee that is itself a dative is possible if the PD is a clitic that does not absorb the case of the predicate. (i) *Ich habe unseren Nachbarn der Tocher I have our neighbors (DAT) geholfen.b. he has his girlfriend (DAT) the father (DAT) congratulated ‘He congratulated his girlfriend’s father. gratulieren ‘congratulate’. either positively or negatively. As noted by an anonymous JCGL reviewer. (See Wegener 1985. fast enough in me (DAT) not ‘The children don’t fall asleep fast enough for me. As for the nature of the affectee light verb projection. i. core dative arguments that are selected by the verb (e.’ Assuming there can be maximally one affectee v-head per clause. 1991 for a discussion of the cooccurrence of different datives. Baker to 30 As for datives that are neither PDs nor non-PDs.

the general case of a PDC arises. we expect affectee light verbs to show up independently of defective Ds. In many languages.4. In (35). from the presence in a given lexicon of two elements: (i) an instance of D which defines the semantics of possession but happens to lack the ability to case-license the possessor. there is one more DP to be licensed than there are heads to license DPs. i. we will take a 31 Since the cooccurrence of these two elements in a numeration is random.4 deals with the legitimacy of double q-role assignment and addresses the question of how to prevent overgeneration of Internal Merge structures. This goes back to the aspectual restriction that the predicate in non-PD constructions must express a result or imply a consequence which obviously affects the person referred to by the PD. One of the examples I give in subsection 3.5. however.31 The problem posed by (i) is how to case-license the possessor. The solution to this problem is partially provided by (ii).3. In effect. In order to take advantage of this.e. Tim aß seiner Schwester den Spinat ‘Tim ate his sister’s spinach’. Tim cannot simply eat for his sister’s benefit. To summarize. Subsection 3.appear and Pylkkänen 2002). and (ii) a light verb head which assigns an affectee role and has the means to case-license the argument that receives this role. in 3. This expectation is borne out in the case of non-PD constructions which can but do not need to coincide with a possessed nominal. a morpheme. First.4. however. the possessee den Spinat cannot be left out. seems to contradict the independence of affectee light verbs and the PDC.3. the male/benefactive aspect comes in the form of a functional marker. The affectee v has an extra case feature to check. on this view. however. The lexical verb is argued to incorporate the applicative morpheme by raising to the light verb head. 98 . the other part of the solution is the relatively costly one of using a movement operation. The ultimate outcome is a doubly q-marked DP.

3. and LOW S OURCE applicatives. Pylkkänen labels them HIGH. expresses a thematic relation between (the referent of) the applied argument and the event described by the verb. A high applicative construction.3 Arguments against a low applicative account In Pylkkänen’s (2002) typology of non-core argument introducers. (44) VoiceP 3 he 3 Voice 3 wife 3 APPLBEN 3 eat food ‘He is eating food for his wife.’ [Chaga] (Pylkkänen 2002: 19) VoiceP hosts the external (proto-agent) argument. and the applicative (APPLBEN)-head introduces the dative benefactive argument. there are three types of applicative heads. As the English 99 . as illustrated by the Chaga benefactive example in (44). LOW RECIPIENT. the wife. the subject he.closer look at Pylkkänen’s (2002) analysis of the PDC as a low applicative construction which avoids the problem of double q-assignment by maintaining that PDs are like the dative in English DOUBLE OBJECT CONSTRUCTIONS and that there is no direct relation between the verb and the dative nominal at all.4. The applicative head is merged above the verb and thus part of the verbal shell.

Crucially. like the English Double Object Construction (DOC) in (44). The only difference between low recipient and low source applicative constructions is the direction of transfer of possession. namely the direct and the indirect (applicative) object. In the case of a source applicative. In low recipient applicative constructions. This from-transfer of possession is precisely the relation Pylkkänen claims holds between 100 . there is no direct relation between the applicative argument and the verb. the verb expresses a cake-baking event. and the applicative object is the recipient of the cake. the direct object is from the possession of the indirect object.gloss indicates. (45) VoiceP 3 I 3 Voice 3 bake 3 John 3 APPL cake ‘I baked a cake and the cake was to the possession of John.’ [English] (Pylkkänen 2002: 19) Here. since the applicative head is merged below the verb. the eating event happens for the benefit of the wife. In contrast to high applicative constructions like (44). the assertion is that the direct object is to the possession of the indirect object. low applicatives express a transfer of possession relation between two individuals.

101 . is incompatible with a DOC and thus correctly classifies the English DOC as low. (46) VoiceP 3 thief 3 (NOM) Voice 3 3 steal Mary 3 (DAT) APPL ring (ACC) ‘The thief stole a ring and it was from Mary’s possession. Since the event in a low (as opposed to a high) applicative construction must result in transfer of possession. it makes incorrect predictions about the German PDC. One of Pylkkänen’s diagnostics for the high-low distinction between types of applicatives appeals to verb semantics. The stative verb hold in (47). for example. the first two take issue with the transfer of possession relation.the direct object and the dative non-core argument in PDCs. the verb cannot be stative.’ [Korean] (structure corresponds to Pylkkänen 2002: 21) While a PDC account based on transfer of possession works for this Korean example and can probably be extended to a number of others. In the case of the English DOC. and the third is based on the incompatibility of low applicatives with PP-internal DPs. the diagnostic leads to the desired result. Her structural analysis of the Korean PDC is illustrated in (46). The following are three arguments against Pylkkänen’s account of the German PDC as a low applicative construction.

3. in (49b). The diagnostic classifies the German PDC as high. The notion of possession transfer is compatible with the obvious loss of possession expressed by the Korean example in (46) – the ring was taken away from Mary. In contrast.1).’ Pylkkänen also appeals to the transfer of possession relation between the applicative argument and the direct object to account for the obligatory possessor relation which holds between the PD and the possessed nominal (see subsection 3. the possessor of the shirt. this possessor relation must always coincide with a possession transfer. The fact that (48) with the stative verb halten (the German equivalent of hold) is grammatical indicates that the transfer of possession relation characteristic of low applicatives mischaracterizes the German PDC. (Pylkkänen 2002: 24) When applied to German. Pylkkänen argues that the transfer of possession relation is reflected in the privacy of the undershirt being taken from Sanna. the diagnostic does not support Pylkkänen’s claim. it is possible to interpret the event of Riikka’s seeing the undershirt as a loss of privacy for Sanna.(47) *I held him the bag. It can also be extended to account for the Finnish examples in (49). In Pylkkänen’s system. where the direct object is an overcoat and thus “publicly 102 . 3Ich habe ihm I (48) die Tasche gehalten held have him (DAT) the bag ‘I held his bag for him. however. In (49a).

yet compatible with a PDC. no transfer of possession has taken place. FEM) yesterday the car ‘Tim washed the neighbor’s car for her yesterday.’) (Pylkkänen 2002: 47) The abstract notion of privacy loss as an instance of possession transfer.possessed”. Riikka. does not work for German examples like (50a-b). As desired.’ b. Ein guter Ehemann massiert seiner Frau jeden Abend den Rücken.NOM saw Sanna I-ABL undershirt-ACC ‘Riikka saw Sanna’s undershirt. and hence. Tim hat der Nachbarin gestern das Auto gewaschen. Riikka’s seeing Sanna’s overcoat cannot be expressed as a PDC. Riikka näki Sanna-lta aluspaida-n.NOM saw Sanna I-ABL overcoat-ACC ‘Riikka saw Sanna’s overcoat.’) b.’ 103 . The car in (a) is “publicly possessed”.’ (Lit: ‘Riikka saw an overcoat from Sanna. #Riikka näki Sanna-lta päällystaki-n. and the husband’s massaging his wife’s back in (b) is surely not an event that should be associated with a loss of privacy. (49b) is judged to be awkward.’ (Lit: ‘Riikka saw an undershirt from Sanna. no loss of privacy is involved. a. however. washed (50) Tim has the neighbor (DAT. a. a good husband massages his wife (DAT) each evening the back ‘A good husband massages his wife’s back every night. (49) Riikka.

There must then be a direct (q-)relation between the PD and the verb. As thoroughly discussed in section 3. *John sat Mary in the car. Another argument against the PDC as a low applicative construction is that. and I have shown for German that this PD-affectedness condition must be syntactically encoded. Pylkkänen claims that the Hebrew example in (52). and transfer of possession is not at all representative of PD-affectedness. a PDC (in any language) implies that the PD is somehow affected by the event the verb expresses. (Intended meaning: ‘John sat in a car which was to Mary’s possession.’) (Pylkkänen 2002: 56) Based on the ungrammaticality of (51).Pylkkänen’s notion of transfer of possession relation then does not fully capture the German PDC. in Pylkkänen’s system. a low applicative cannot stand in a relation to a DP that is embedded in a PP. is really a different type of construction. which looks like a PDC with a PP-embedded possessee. not a requirement. This is the case in high. Gil gar le-Rina ba-xacer.’ (Landau 1999: 4) 104 . This is illustrated by the ungrammatical English DOC in (51). not low applicative constructions. Gil lives to-Rina in-the-yard (51) (52) ‘He lives in Rina’s yard. It seems that transfer of possession is a possibility.2.

Standard German does not have be-possessor constructions32 and is thus predicted to be incompatible with a PP-embedded possessee. use be. is ungrammatical for independent reasons. Das Kind legte sich dem Papa [auf den Bauch]. which have be-possessor constructions. not have.’ b. 105 . i.’ The one German example provided by Pylkkänen. like Hebrew. literally (there) is to Jon a son. are completely unacceptable in Standard German. into-the house ‘A cat is not allowed in my parents’ house. here is argued to be introduced by the verb be. le-Rina. (53) a. which are common in some dialects of German. the foot he stood her (DAT) on ‘He stood on her foot. as in simple possessor constructions like Jon has a son. The examples in (53) are perfectly grammatical. in simple possessor constructions. 32 Utterances like Das Buch ist mir (DAT) ‘The book is mine’.’ c. This line of argumentation leads to the prediction that only languages. Er stand ihr [auf dem Fuß]. This is counter to fact.The dative. however. Eine Katze kommt meinen Eltern nicht [ins a cat comes my parents (DAT) not Haus]. given here in (54). where it is possible for the possessee to be embedded in a PP.e. have PDC-“look-alikes” like (52). the child lay self the dad (DAT) on the stomach ‘The child lay down on dad’s stomach.

account of the PDC makes the right prediction with respect to examples like (53). PD-movement out of PP is expected to be grammatical. There must then be a distinction between genuine low applicatives. All the German facts discussed here are correctly accounted for if the PDC is analyzed as a high applicative construction. 106 . and high applicatives in which the applicative argument happens to originate as a possessor. like the English DOC. the verb wohnen ‘live’. but regardless of whether the dative is a PD or non-PD. This distinction eliminates the dubious notion of privacy loss and avoids incorrect predictions about the German PDC. i.e. while maintaining the core of Pylkkänen’s otherwise attractive typology. yard lived Hans has him (DAT) in his ‘Hans had him living in his yard. A possessor raising. does not imply affectedness and is thus incompatible with the dative-case-licensing affectee vP projection.’ (Pylkkänen 2002: 57) The cooccurrence of the dative ihm with the possessive pronoun in the specifier of the possessed nominal indicates that ihm must be a non-PD (possibly a maleficiary). the possessive aspect of its meaning derived by possessor raising rather than a transfer of possession relation. as long as the PP is an argument. unlike its Hebrew equivalent (see (52)). A-movement. which really do involve transfer of possession.(54) *Hans hat ihm in seinem Hof gewohnt.

4 Double q-assignment According to Landau’s (1999) possessor raising analysis. not q-roles. PDs get their q-role from the possessee and check dative case with V after raising to Spec VP.Having established now that an accurate analysis of the German PDC must provide an account for both the possessor relation between the PD and the other nominal involved and the direct thematic relation between the PD and the verb. complementary to featurechecking. q-assignment and feature-checking thus happen in different positions. q-roles are not formal features in the relevant sense. While I agree that movement should be driven exclusively by formal features (case and agreement). typically they are assigned in the internal domain. and the following subsection will show that this is not necessarily a problem. 107 . not the checking domain. the analysis I am developing is incompatible with the assumption that the domains of feature checking and q-assignment cannot overlap. and they differ from the features that enter into the theory of movement in numerous other respects. There should be no interaction between q-theory and the theory of movement. This is in fact consistent with Chomsky’s (1995) claim that the modules of feature-checking (Checking Theory) and q-role assignment (q-Theory) are complementary. double qassignment is inevitable. … q-relatedness is a “base property”. 3. which is a property of movement (Chomsky 1995: 312-313).4.

causing John to be inactive and thus frozen in place. John [VP t' [BELIEVE [ t to be intelligent]]] (Chomsky 1995: 313) The actual verbs hit and believe would cause these derivations to crash because they (or. a. When case-marking is inherent. my proposal is clearly incompatible with the claim that “a raised element cannot receive a q-role” (Chomsky 1995:113). i. should not exist. The motivation for ruling out q-assignment after movement is to prevent illicit double q-marking as in (55) (Chomsky’s (113)). which share the q-structure of the actual hit and believe but lack case features. the counterexample I am concerned with here involves the assignment of a q-role to an argument due to movement. there must be overlap of the two domains. where the possibility of receiving a q-role after movement seems to allow for these derivations to converge. because John is 33 (55) I assume here that inherent case is like structural case in requiring checking in the syntax. Although the movement is still case-driven and therefore in accordance with Chomsky’s assumptions. to be more exact. their agentive v-projections) have accusative case-licensing ability and must therefore eliminate their case-features by checking them with John.33 In addition to inherent case-checking. 108 . q-related. and this is an even more serious offence (see also Rizzi to appear).One obvious counterexample to this assumption is inherent case-checking. John [VP t' [HIT t]] b.e. The derivations with the impossible verbs HIT and BELIEVE seem to converge. although the verbs HIT and BELIEVE. however.

In PDCs. The only possibility is direct raising to [Spec. Chomsky actually solves the problem of unwanted convergence without having to appeal to checking and q-complementarity. I]. Surely no strong feature of the target is checked by raising to the [Spec. lacking the external argument required by the verb (Chomsky 1995: 313). but if the only well-formedness requirement is that movement be driven strictly by formal features. so overt raising is barred. is illicit because it is not driven by formal features – this specifier is not a case-position – is enough to rule out these unwanted configurations. The fact that the first move of John to Spec HIT or. no checking relation is established. both in need of checking their uninterpretable case-feature. The resulting sentences John HIT and John BELIEVES to be intelligent are therefore deviant. the PD raises to the specifier of the affectee v. not for q-purposes but because the v-head is an active probe (attractor) and the head of the PD is an active goal. in fact.able to pick up both the theme and the agent role and then move on to Spec TP to check case and agreement features. This latter scenario is precisely of the type I am dealing with here. to make this compatible with (little) v-projections. double q-assignment is thus illicit. Immediately after bringing up the configurations in (55). HIT] position. In (55). The PD receives the affectee role as a by- 109 . assignment of a second q-role is not banned when it coincides with feature-checking. to the specifier of the agentive v.

34 The restriction given in (56) should therefore be sufficient to prevent overgeneration of double q-assignment constellations. are involved in the matching relation (Agree). PD-raising is an instance of A- movement.product of the feature-driven movement. is just the requirement of LAST RESORT. must itself be an A. movement to intermediate specifier positions results in checking of interpretable features on the goal but does not inactivate it because its uninterpretable (case or [Q]) feature has yet to be deleted. the Spec of the possessed nominal. like [f] (agreement) or [WH ] on a DP. 1983). draws a parallel between DP and CP and therefore takes Spec DP to be an A-bar position. Kayne proposes that Spec DP of a possessed nominal becomes an A-position via incorporation of D into the verbal head be.c. from the very start. the analysis is then incompatible with Kayne’s (1993) account. 35 Satisfaction or checking of formal features does not necessarily mean feature deletion. I will not follow Kayne and Szabolcsi in assuming that Spec DP is an A-bar position. the origin site of the PD. in one form or another. 110 . in cases of “unbounded” or successive-cyclic movement like Wh-movement or Subj-to-Subj raising. Thus. It means that a DP can be an active goal for movement only if it has an uninterpretable formal 34 (56) Note that. To make DP-movement out of a possessed nominal via the Spec of this nominal to an A-position legal. The derived Spec of D+ BE counts as an A-position. formal features of the goal and probe are satisfied. Restriction on Internal Merge: Movement is driven by formal features. Since nothing in my account hinges on have being derived from D+BE (see Kayne’s analysis). in turn. but do not get deleted as a result of the movement. i. which. a legal operation only if. not an A-bar position. Interpretable features. following Szabolcsi (1981. as a direct result. get checked. since it is driven by formal features (case). which has been a feature of the Minimalist Program. As pointed out to me by Marcel den Dikken (p.e. The goal establishes as many [f] or [WH] Agree relations with intermediate probes as it needs to reach a position where its uninterpretable feature can be deleted. In order for this move to be legal.). No incorporation is needed then.35 But this.

in order to get the proto-agent q-role. Besides preventing configurations like (55) from converging. a non-case position. this movement restriction also rules out illicit possessor raising constructions like the German example in (57a) with the meaning given in (b). As already discussed in connection with Chomsky’s examples in (55).feature. Convergence of this derivation is an undesired result because (57a) does not force the possessor reading given in (b). Chris will receive the possessor role in situ. take on the proto-agent role. *Chrisi bewunderte [DP ti den Bruder] Chris admired the brother b. Without the restriction in (56). With the movement restriction in place. Chris bewunderte seinen Bruder Chris admired his brother ‘Chris admired his brother. raise to the specifier of the agentive vP. and if there is no other way to satisfy the matching formal features of the probe. It is not clear whose brother is being admired. case. e. this type of nominativemarked possessor constellation has no chance to converge. and end up in Spec TP to check its nominative case and agreement features. It is 111 . (57) a.’ Here the possessor has been moved into external argument (subject) position. we have the following scenario: If the DP Chris happens to come with a nominative case feature which it cannot check in Spec DP and there is no other nominal to fill the subject position of the sentence. the PD Chris has to move to the specifier of the agentive vP.g. however.

but only when higher structure. has been built. including the nominative case-checking head. only a DP newly (i. v cannot attract an argument to move into its specifier. There are subjects that are generated in Spec vP and stay there because they are not forced to move by an EPP feature but enter instead into a static Agree relation with T (see Wurmbrand 2004). In a system where Internal Merge is strictly formal-feature-driven. The derivation fails as desired. the operation is illegal. 37 It is worth pointing out that the restriction in (56) rules out movement of the possessor not only into subject position but also into the position of the direct object.e. Since no higher structure has been built at the point when the agentive v looks to assign its qrole. direct movement of the PD to Spec TP is impossible because Tº will find the newly introduced DP in Spec vP to check nominative case with. It should also be noted that Ura (1996) has argued for v being able to assign ergative case.36 Thus. In fact. the direct object position is not a case position. Tº cannot look further down to find the PD. with the case feature of the PD not being checked as a result of this move. Once this happens. Spec vP then is a case position. accusativecase-checking v has not yet been merged in at the point when the verb looks to assign its internal argument role.commonly assumed that the first specifier of an agentive v is never a position in which formal features are checked. Despite the occurrence of examples like 112 .37 36 Note that it is a slight simplification to say that Spec vP is not a case position. Besides entering into an accusative case-checking Agree relation with a DP in the structure that has already been built. externally) assembled from elements in the numeration can be merged into this specifier. the selectional requirements of v must be met. Direct movement of the PD to Spec TP would allow for nominative case checking but would prevent the agentive v from assigning its q-role. before Tº can even be introduced. the agentive v must be supplied with an argument in its specifier to which it can assign its q-role. Since the agentive.

It is thus possible to account for the cooccurrence restrictions on the PDC with process nominals (see subsection 3. the accusative mich can be argued to not have originated in the specifier of the Magen-DP. It also selects a PP. Use of the accusative. being headed by a defective D. Spec DP is not a case position. the construction in (i). not the particular body part added by the PP. however. in den Magen. I maintain that (56) makes the right prediction here. on this view. constructions like (i) do not involve possessor raising. nothing prevents the affectee v from assigning its male/benefactive role to the argument that has been merged into its specifier. i. as hinted at in section 3. the operation is legal. the body part in (i) represents the whole person. Having given up on strict checking and q-complementarity. as in Er hat ihn in den Rücken geschossen ‘He shot him in the back’ has to be treated as an exception because it is not grammatical with just a direct object. (i) as apparent PDC-alternatives (see also Hole 2005).e. Hence. expresses a different kind of affectedness.1) without having to stipulate that the PD is based in Spec DP (though see chapter 6 for a characterization of ‘phase’ which may complicate this matter). (i) Er trat (ii) Er trat mich mir in den Magen. the restriction in (56) does not rule out PD-raising. the verb schießen ‘shoot’. and the PP in den Magen is an adjunct. This is in line with Hole 2005.) 113 . Since PDs move for inherent dative case-checking with the affectee v-head.3. Furthermore. If DP is a phase (and movement must proceed via phase-edges). Unlike in (ii).3. The accusative is then an ordinary direct object. movement to Spec DP from either Spec NP or the complement of N is illegal because. he kicked me (ACC) in the gut he kicked me (DAT) in the gut In (i). It is the referent of the accusative pronoun which plays the internal argument (patient) role. allowing movement only for formal-feature-checking provides a natural explanation for why the PD must originate in Spec DP. that. as opposed to Spec NP or the complement of N. (Note.To reiterate.

(cf. (DAT) made repair ‘I made my favorite mechanic repair my car.’ (López 2001: 705) According to López. Movement) and q-Theory are provided by López (2001).e.) (López 2001: 703) (59) 114 .Other counterexamples to Chomsky’s strict separation of Checking (i. Sue estimated Bill’s weight to be 150 lbs. the agent argument of the verb in the embedded clause is argued to additionally receive a q-role from the matrix verb. in López’ system. the causee mi mecánico favorito is both the agent of reparar and the affectee of hice ‘make’. Yo le hice reparar mi coche a mi mecánico favorito my car to my mechanic favorite (DAT) (58) I cl. In the Spanish causative construction in (58) (López’ (21)). He reports on cases of double qassignment in Spanish and English. Since. Sue estimated Bill’s weight.) b. *Sue estimated Bill. López’ English examples are ECM constructions like (59a). The causee thus receives a second q-role after being copied and raised into the position where it surfaces as the dative clitic le. (cf. the matrix Spec VP in an ECM construction is a position that allows both checking of accusative case and assignment of a q-role. *Sue estimated Bill to weigh 150 lbs. a. accusative case is checked by the lexical V-head. for instance.

López has a point in noting that at least for the Spanish causative example in (58). the ECM-subject does not raise overtly. In order to prevent instances of illicit double q-role assignment. there must be a way to allow for case-checking and q-assignment overlap. Still. Chris saw me hit myself. He claims the structure in (60a) cannot result because the object is never in the checking domain of the embedded external q-role assigner v. as in *Chris saw me hit. the ECM-subject me does not enter into a potentially pied-piping (or movement-triggering) Agree relation with 115 (60) . According to Chomsky’s (1995) account of ECM-constructions. it is not clear that the ECM-subject really does receive a second q-role. Since the judgments given in (59) are extremely subtle. (López 2001: 698) With V being both q-assigner and accusative case checker. where the embedded direct object me receives both the internal and the external q-role of the embedded verb hit. meaning Chris saw me hit myself (see (60)). *Chris saw [vP me [v v + hit] [VP tv tobj ]] b. Bill’s weight then not only gets a qrole from the head of the embedded VP be 150 lbs but also from the matrix verb estimate. López has to appeal to his somewhat controversial move of taking accusative case-checking ability away from the external-argument-introducing v. a.The ungrammaticality of (59b) is supposed to show that the verb estimate imposes thematic restrictions on the raised ECM-subject.

the possibility of having both structural accusative case and an external argument will be absent too (see López’ section 4 for a discussion of this consequence).e. the first specifier of this vP is not a case position. again. it is not in a position to raise to Spec vP. The ECM-subject stays within VP and is thus not in danger of receiving the external q-role from v. No formal features are checked as a result of this move.v.e. This means that agentive v s are no longer the formal element capturing Burzio’s Generalization: if v is absent. Note also that López does not address how his revision of Chomsky’s system would handle the type of overgeneration scenario I show in (57). I have shown that there is reason to believe that the modules of Checking and q-Theory cannot be strictly complementary. The movement restriction in (56) makes raising of the ECM-subject me to Spec vP an illegal operation because. Any dynamic structure-building framework that does not stipulate strict complementarity of Checking and q-Theory. i. The controversial side effect of this solution to the problem of illicit double q-role assignment is that the function of the agentive v is reduced to the introduction of the external argument. Within the system I develop here. i. a framework that allows q-assignment after movement. must find a different way of preventing the operation Internal Merge from raising an argument via the specifier of the agentive vP (picking up the external q-role) to Spec TP (checking nominative case). In sum. PD constructions in German (and 116 . López’ problem case in (58) is taken care of without having to give up Burzio’s Generalization.

be other overgeneration scenarios that the system developed thus far does not prevent.5 Residual issues Since random numerations. however. never by thematic needs. A PD cannot accidentally raise to the highest Spec vP projection and receive a proto-agent role. Overgeneration of double q-role assignment can be avoided by requiring that movement be driven exclusively by formal features. and López’ (60). are a core characteristic of a Minimalist system.arguably in many other languages as well) are a prime example of doubly q-marked DPs. my (57). Nothing prevents the entire possessorpossessee complex from raising into the specifier of the affectee v to check its dative case feature and the possessor DP from entering into a static (non-movement) Agree 117 . Say the possessee DP comes with a dative and the possessor DP with an accusative case feature. 2001) system is called for. 3. Operations like External and Internal Merge must be designed to disallow illicit combinations of feature bundles from being spelled out. As explained in the previous section. 2000. the movement restriction given in (56) successfully rules out overgeneration cases like Chomsky’s (55). López’ Spanish causative example and (less convincingly) his English ECM example also suggest that a revision of Chomsky’s (1995. There may. One such scenario is the following. the only way to prevent ungrammatical derivations from converging is through restrictions on the structure-building process. which can contain elements made up of any combination of features allowed in the language.

there must be a structural reason that renders this sentence unacceptable: word order. If it is at all possible to imagine a house with feelings which is negatively affected by the burglar’s ruining the mother. there is a puzzle to be solved here. (62) vP 3 DP1 v' AGENT Der Einbrecher 3 vP v [ACC] DP2 ruinierte AFFECTEE [DAT] 3 v' DP3 POSS D' 3 [ACC] 3 VP v meine D NP g [DAT] Mutter dem Haus V' tv 3 tDP2 V tv Unless we can straightforwardly rule out this constellation because of a semantic feature clash between the malefactive aspect and the inanimate house. If the accusative 118 . the burglar ruined my mother (ACC) the house (DAT) The tree structure in (62) shows this problem-case before v-to-T-to-C movement and raising of the subject from Spec vP via Spec TP to Spec CP (i. accusative-case-checking v. the movements resulting in VERB-SECOND word order) have taken place. A possible result of this (61) *Der Einbrecher ruinierte meine Mutter dem Haus.e. scenario is the ungrammatical example in (61).relation with the higher.

it is not clear that there is a possessor relation between das Auto and the respective parent. The possessor raising configuration in (62) must then clearly be kept from converging. not MOM’s car. and even when dem Papi is contrasted with der Mami.e. which has the smaller possessor DP in its specifier. the probe (the affectee v) has to look for any DP that is active. ?*Mein Bruder hat das Auto my (63) der Mami zu Schrott gefahren driven brother has the car (ACC) the mom (DAT) to scrap ‘My brother totaled mom’s car. In order for this to work. which seems at least better than (a). and since raising of the entire possessorpossessee complex happens for case reasons. This is confirmed by the examples in (63).’ Without special emphasis.’ b. not a PDC. it is probably a scrambled non-PD (here maleficiary dative) construction. the dative argument (the PD) must precede the accusative one (the possessee). (63a) is clearly degraded. the possessee DP. One could argue that raising of the bigger DP. as in (63b). nicht der MAMI. i. the movement restriction in (56) is not sufficient here. ?Mein Bruder hat das Auto dem PAPI. zu Schrott gefahren my brother has the car (ACC) the dad (DAT) not the mom (DAT) to scrap driven ‘My brother totaled DAD’s. a. whose case-feature needs to be 119 . is an illegal operation because it would be more economical to just move the smaller DP. Economy considerations might provide at least a temporary solution. If this sentence is acceptable at all.argument is not a pronominal (pronominals occur high in the structure and thus precede full DPs).

40 I leave a more thorough investigation of this issue for future research. Another interesting possessor construction to be explored in the system I develop here is shown in (64).39 v must attract the smaller one. Here the possessor is allowed to be in subject position (cf. it is the bigger DP that gets raised to the specifier of the affectee v. (57a)).c.38 If given a choice between two equidistant DPs.e. who gives a control-based account of the French PDC.41 (64) he (NOM) raises the hand ‘He is raising his hand. 120 . 39 According to asymmetric c-command (Chomsky 1995). 40 As pointed out to me by Theresa Biberauer (p. 41 See Wunderlich (2000) for an analysis of this example in the framework of Lexical Decomposition Grammar and Vergnaud & Zubizarreta (1992) for a discussion of similar examples in English and French.’ According to Guéron (1985). DPs come with unvalued case-features that need to be filled in by case-licensing heads. the worry here is that we know from instances of “generalized pied-piping” (Chomsky 1995) that pied-piping of more material than the syntax actually needs to move routinely takes place.).valued. Er hebt die Hand. The economy principle of moving a smaller rather than a bigger phrase would then ensure that the PD. She analyzes predicates like lever la main ‘raise the hand’ 38 On this view of case-checking. not the possessee. Since. the derivation is deviant. these constructions are limited to expressions of “natural gesture” (i. neither of the two DPs is closer to the affectee v. ends up with dative case. functional movement of a body part). in (62).

Er bewunderte den Bruder ‘He admired the brother’. where no obligatory possessor relation gets established between er and den Bruder. a. I thank Jorge Hankamer for bringing up this sentence. In effect. Er massiert sich die Füße. the subject er in (64) cannot have originated in Spec DP of the possessee die Hand. for example. the verb and the body part form an idiomatic unit expressing a particular kind of bodily movement. a “non-natural gesture” sentence.as “pronominal verbs” or “reanalyzed V+NP” constructions which are transitive in syntax but intransitive at LF. the question is how the example in (64) is different from the one in (57a). 121 .’ 42 Note that this does not hold for similar constructions where the nominal in possessee- position is not a body part. does not establish a necessary possessor relation between the subject Er and die Tasche ‘the bag/pocket’. Since the movement restriction given in (56) prevents possessor raising to the specifier of an agentive v. The sentence Er griff in die Tasche ‘He reached in the bag/pocket. *Er hebt sich die Hand. (65) he massages self (DAT) the feet ‘He is massaging his feet.42 As for the PDC-analysis I propose. While the reflexive PD in (65a). is fine. This is confirmed by the fact that *sich die Hand heben ‘to raise one’s hand’ is impossible. The possessor relation must then be established differently here. he raises self (DAT) the hand ‘He is raising his hand. it is unacceptable in (65b).’ b.

this makes no sense in the case of (67) (#How did he raise his hand?) Thus. the subject is automatically the possessor of the body part. he broke the leg (66) ‘He broke his leg. and since it is possible to say Er hebt ihr die Hand ‘He raises her hand’. when used as a body part belonging to the subject er is not a theme argument of heben and also cannot assign a possessee role to the DP in its specifier. If die Hand were the theme argument of heben ‘raise’. a. as in (67). since there cannot be external causation with natural gesture sentences. In fact. in contexts where there is no distinction between the causing and the resulting event.This contrast corroborates Guéron’s reanalysis of V+NP. One way to make sense of the ungrammaticality in (65b) is then to follow Guéron and maintain that the DP die Hand.’ 122 . we would expect it to be able to host a PD in its specifier. *Er brach das Bein. the possessor relation does not need to be expressed through a special construction (namely the PDC). While it is possible to ask about the manner of causation given the case of (66) (How did he break his leg?). Another possible explanation is that. taking the theme-status away from the NP. the difference in grammaticality between the examples in (66) and (67) suggests that this possessor relation really is different in that it is not syntactically encoded. It seems plausible that there is no structural connection (neither via binding nor movement) between the subject and the possessor position. we know that generally. perhaps in a context where she is unable to raise her own hand. heben can project an affectee v.

Er brach sich das Bein. have a PD in the former case (see (66c)) and neither PD nor possessive pronoun in the latter case (see (67a)). *Er hob sich die Hand. “complex reanalyzed”) verbs are die Augen schließen ‘close one’s eyes’. ?Er brach sein Bein.’ The (b)-examples show that the body part in both non-natural-gesture (66) and natural-gesture (67) constructions can marginally be modified with a possessive pronoun. however.’ c. he raised self (DAT) the hand ‘He raised his hand. The unmarked versions of these sentences. Other examples of natural-gesture (according to Guéron.’ c. Er hob die Hand.’ a. he broke self (DAT) the leg ‘He broke his leg. he raised his hand ‘He raised his hand.b. ?Er hob seine Hand. In short. he raised the hand (67) ‘He raised his hand. mit 123 . I suggest that natural-gesture constructions like (64/(67) cannot and need not be analyzed as PDCs. he broke his leg ‘He broke his leg.’ b.

as long as the possessor moves directly to Spec TP without an intermediate. b. purely q-related stop-off point. a. which is similar to (64)/(67) in that it potentially has a possessor in subject position. The athlete tore a muscle. (Hole to appear-b: 372) Since. there is no reason to argue against Spec DP of the possessee being the origin site of the subject because the subjects in (68) are not agents. This means that movement of the possessee from Spec DP to the nominative case position (Spec TP) does not have to proceed via the specifier of the agentive vP and thus does not cause the derivation to crash. possessor raising into subject position is compatible with the PDC account presented here. c. and mit der Wimper zucken ‘blink (idiomatic)’. the question is how the possessor relation gets established here. (68) 124 . in these examples. In other words. there is no PD or possessive pronoun. The car burst a tire. A type of construction found in English but not in German.den Ohren wackeln ‘to wiggle one’s ears’. is given in (68). The ship tore a sail. In this case.

The PD plays the role of both possessor and affectee. Wegener (1985. Obvious cases of illicit double q-role assignment can be ruled out by the restriction that the movement operation Internal Merge may only be applied if the moving element can check its formal features as a direct result of the movement. as proposed for German by e. 2000. to appear-b) and for French and Spanish by e. Chomsky’s Minimalist Program (1995.g. Overall.6 Conclusion This chapter presents a PDC analysis which is able to account for the fact that German PDs are not only raised. and Hole (to appear-a. but also obligatorily affected. The most attractive aspect of the analysis is that it provides a unified way to account for both “ordinary” affectee datives (non-PDs) and possessor datives. Other. Guéron (1985) and Kempchinsky (1992). 2001).3. the affectee v introduces as its specifier an argument that is externally 125 . as proposed by Landau (1999). McIntyre (to appear). 1991). must be modified. I have shown that the proposed dynamic structure-building approach is a plausible (if not the only) way of making Landau’s (1999) convincing possessor raising account compatible with the German facts and thus the more general case of the PDC.g. which prevents a moved argument from receiving a q-role. Chomsky’s strict separation of the modules of Checking and q-Theory. less obvious cases may exist and will have to be carefully investigated. The framework I propose to allow for double q-role assignment is a dynamic structure-building system generally based on. In the case of the former. but in certain points crucially distinct from. As also argued by López (2001).

the costly solution of moving the non-case-licensed DP to the specifier of an additional case-checking vhead (the affectee v) is the only way to allow for the derivation to converge. The basic idea on which the account is built is that selectional features of heads can in principle be satisfied either by drawing material from the numeration or by way of movement. the affectee v merges with an argument from inside the syntactic object being built (Internal Merge). In a PDC constellation with a complex DP containing two heads that require feature-checking but only one feature-licensing head. in fact) in chapter 4 is that it involves two structural positions which potentially span infinitival clause boundaries. the result is possessor raising. In the case of the latter. It seems worth exploring to what extent this basic idea of “external” or “internal” satisfaction of featural requirements (unconstrained by Chomsky’s strict checking and qcomplementarity) is applicable beyond the PDC and causative contexts. the PDC can serve as coherence diagnostic. 126 . and since I follow Wurmbrand (2001) in arguing that only infinitival complements that are bare VPs allow A-movement of an embedded argument into the matrix clause (see chapter 2).merged. Since I have shown that the relation between these positions is subject to the locality requirement of A-movement. The property of the PDC I explore (and exploit.

and R EDUCED N ON-RESTRUCTURING (RNR) predicates. which make up the subclass of SEMI-FUNCTIONAL RESTRUCTURING (SFR) predicates (not shown as a separate category in the table). FR predicates themselves include causative and perception (ACI-introducing) verbs. LEXICAL R ESTRUCTURING (LR) predicates. As summarized in TABLE 1 of chapter 2.4 Possessor Raising as Coherence Diagnostic This chapter returns to the distinction between COHERENT and NON -C OHERENT infinitive constructions. first discovered by Bech (1955/57) and later reformulated by Wurmbrand (2001) as a more fine-grained set of distinctions between infinitival complements of varying degrees of structural complexity. repeated below. Wurmbrand distinguishes three subclasses within the class of what are traditionally considered coherence-inducing matrix predicates: F UNCTIONAL R ESTRUCTURING (FR) predicates. 127 .

In Wurmbrand’s analysis. behaupten ‘claim’ vergessen ‘forget’ The main difference between the traditional coherence/non-coherence distinction and this new classification is that non-functional coherence-inducing verbs are divided into LR and RNR predicates. lassen ‘let’ scheinen ‘seem’ vergessen ‘forget’ versuchen ‘try’ wagen ‘dare’ beschließen ‘decide’ planen ‘plan’ versprechen ‘promise’ LEXICAL RESTRUCTURING (LR) Infinitival complement = VP REDUCED NON-RESTRUCTURING (RNR) Infinitival complement = vP or TP (FULL) CLAUSAL NON-RESTRUCTURING (NR) Infinitival complement: CP • no embedded (PRO) subject • no embedded structural case • possible with: control verbs • embedded (PRO) subject • embedded structural case • possible with: control verbs • embedded (PRO) subject • embedded structural case • possible with: control verbs bedauern ‘regret’. Distribution • thematic properties are determined by infinitive • possible with: modal. “nonfocus scrambling”) and LONG PASSIVE. The diagnostics Wurmbrand appeals to as probes for the presence of an embedded agentive vP are SCRAMBLING (more precisely. causative. raising. motion verbs Examples dürfen ‘may’. Although RNR predicates are larger than 128 . In particular. an infinitive heading this type of complement is argued to project a subject-introducing (i. aspectual. transitive/agentive) v-head.e. which induces opacity in that it does not allow for an argument to move from the embedded infinitival domain into the matrix clause. perception. gehen ‘go’. the characteristic property of RNR predicates is that they take an infinitival complement consisting of more than a bare VP.TABLE 1 Type FUNCTIONAL RESTRUCTURING (FR) Infinitive = main predicate (vP or VP) Properties. hören ‘hear’.

I discuss scrambling and long passive as diagnostics for the presence of vP. The presence of a transitive light verb projection (an agentive vP) is known to block A-movement from within its domain. while RNR predicates. such as versuchen ‘try’ and vergessen ‘forget’. the latter a vP (or TP)-complement.2. the contrasting behavior of LR and RNR predicates can be understood if the former lack 129 . I propose the PDC as an additional and. and in section 4. 4.1. the former argued to take a bare VP. this is the subclass of FR predicates which Wurmbrand leaves partly unanalyzed. in important ways. The basis for this conclusion is that they are transparent for movement operations which are blocked by CP. namely pronoun fronting and “focus scrambling”. LR predicates. As noted in chapter 2.VPs in Wurmbrand’s analysis. In section 4.1 Scrambling and long passive as diagnostics for infinitival clause size Wurmbrand’s (2001) distinction between LR and RNR predicates. allow both non-focus scrambling (displacement of an argument which does not bear focus-stress) and long passive. Finally.3. I turn to AcI-constructions and show how the PDC sheds light on the complement to SFR predicates. allow neither. Therefore. Both of these processes are taken to be instances of A-movement and therefore subject to the standard locality constraints on A-movement. is based on two diagnostics: non-focus scrambling and long passive. less problematic probe. such as planen ‘plan’ and beschließen ‘decide’. they are also no larger than TP. in section 4.

for example. %… dass Hans den Traktor geplant hat [vP/TP __ zu reparieren]. In the following subsections. This effect can be obtained by assuming that RNR predicates take either vP or TP-complements. “object-shift type movement” (p.’ 130 . RNR predicates. 4. One is that the assumed distinction between non-focus and focus scrambling is not always clear-cut.1 Scrambling There are several problems with the use of non-focus scrambling (in Wurmbrand’s terms. while focus scrambling is less restricted. 274)) as a probe for vP. and is therefore argued to select just a VP-complement. select a bare VP-complement) and thus permit A-movement from within their complement. with the matrix verb versuchen ‘try’. It is argued that non-focus scrambling is sensitive to intervening case positions.an agentive vP (i. which allows any kind of direct object scrambling out of its complement. and material in the domain of v is closed off to A-movement. that Hans the tractor planned has to repair ‘… that Hans planned to repair the tractor. where”% ” stands for the judgment that the scrambled direct object (den Traktor) is only acceptable when it is focused. This is contrasted with (1b). (1) a. (1a).1. I scrutinize more closely the reliability of scrambling and long passive as diagnostics for different types of complementation. select a complement which subsumes at least an agentive vP-projection. is taken to show that planen ‘plan’ selects a vP or TP-complement. on the other hand.e.

While judgments vary with respect to (1a). Just like (1b). 131 . the two forms of scrambling are not always easy to distinguish and hence speaker variation is not fully systematic” (fn. mostly from northern Germany).b. tractor tried has to repair because Hans the ‘… because Hans tried to repair the tractor. The contrast between (a) and (b) is considerably stronger than in (1). However. (1a) seems at least marginally acceptable even without special emphasis on den Traktor. the judgments on instances of scrambling from an infinitival complement into the matrix clause are very subtle: “irrealis infinitives [like the complement of planen] allow focus scrambling and disallow non-focus scrambling for most speakers. … weil Hans den Traktor versucht hat [VP __ zu reparieren]. with the matrix verb bedauern. 21). which takes a propositional or factive complement and clearly selects a CP-complement. unless the matrix verb is of the b e h a u p t e n / b e d a u e r n (‘claim/regret’)-type.’ (Wurmbrand 2001: 270) The problem here is that there are speakers (myself included)1 for whom the contrast between (1a) and (1b) is close to non-existent. there is no question regarding the ungrammaticality of the scrambled direct object in (2a). 1 The judgments on the data in this chapter are based on my own intuitions and on those of my informants (two frequently consulted and 8 other. As Wurmbrand points out herself. occasionally consulted speakers.

but note that this cannot be taken as evidence that speakers accept extraposition of complements smaller than CP. regardless of the complexity of material intervening between origin and landing site of the moved phrase. it may be that speaker judgments are. based on the (im)possibility of TP/vP/VPextraposition rather than on the operation of scrambling itself. because the tractor no-one to repair tries ‘… because no one tries to repair the tractor. Since 132 . instances of the T HIRD CONSTRUCTION (see chapter 2).(2) a. Given Wurmbrand’s assumption that examples like (1a-b) are derived by extraposition of the infinitival complement followed by scrambling of an argument from the infinitival domain across the matrix verb into the matrix domain. ?*… weil den Traktor keiner [CP __ repariert zu haben] bedauert. at least in part. in fact. because the tractor no-one repaired to have regrets ‘… because no one regrets having repaired the tractor.’ The possibility of focus-related scrambling. What further complicates Wurmbrand’s use of scrambling as a diagnostic is that all her examples (as opposed to the examples I provide in (2)) involve object movement from a postverbal infinitival complement. Wurmbrand does not use the term. but these examples are.’ b. … weil den Traktor keiner [VP __ zu reparieren] versucht. which can cross vP/TP-boundaries seems to introduce a confounding factor which may lead speakers to judge examples of scrambling acceptable.2 2 The non-scrambled versions of (1a-b) are completely grammatical.

however. 15). the examples would be unacceptable.3 restructuring verbs can take either a full or a reduced infinitival complement. as given in (3). as given in (4). If they were pronounced with a falling intonation accent (which is typical of focus-marking in German). as seems to be the case. and von Stechow & Sternefeld (1988) argue that DPscrambling can even be unified with instances of AdvP and AP-movement. If. This. 3 Falling intonation (“\”) on freiwillig in (4a) and on betrunken in (4b) is to be distinguished from rising intonation (“/”) on freiwillig and betrunken followed by a high plateau and then falling 133 . which is associated with a distinct intonation pattern (see footnote 3). the type of scrambling in this example (i. the moved direct object in (1a) does not need to bear special focus.e. there is a worry regarding Wurmbrand’s claim that scrambled elements are (and must in fact be) “focused” when they cross a vP/TPboundary. The 5th generalization in Grewendorf & Sternefeld’s (1990) discussion of scrambling is that “scrambling cannot apply to focussed phrases” (p. Webelhuth (1987) analyzes DP-scrambling on a par with instances of PP-movement. DP-scrambling) looks very much like non-focus movement of phrases other than DP. the moved phrases are not focused here. does not appear to be the type of scrambling which leads to the acceptable interpretation of (1a). Reis & Sternefeld (2004) suggest that Wurmbrand’s focus-scrambling may be special in that it is a marked type of seemingly unbounded movement known as ‘T-scrambling’ (Haider & Rosengren 1998). Crucially.Aside from these data questions. the non-scrambled versions of (1a-b) could have full CP-complements.

because voluntarily that nobody do would ‘… because nobody would do that voluntarily.’ b. the moved phrase itself is not focused. non-focus scrambling in intonation on niemand (a “Hutkontur”).’ b. … weil [PP über Scrambling]i keiner etwas because about scrambling Vernünftiges ti sagen kann. and knowing that the latter cannot possibly be case-driven.’ (von Stechow & Sternefeld 1988: 465) (4) a. … weil [PP ohne Liebe]i niemand ti glücklich werden kann. and APs. in Büring’s (1997) terms. because drunk nobody inside-comes ‘… because nobody would get in drunk. … weil [IP [AdvP freiwillig]i [IP dasj [IP niemand ti tj tun würde]]. (4a-b) are acceptable. 134 . Wurmbrand’s example given in (1a) is grammatical without this special intonation contour. then. … weil [IP [AP betrunken]i [IP niemand ti hineinkommt]. a “Brückenkonstruktion”. it has been moved out of the focus domain (see Steube 2001). With this latter type of focus intonation. that Wurmbrand’s direct object scrambling is the same type of operation as scrambling of unfocused PPs. because without love nobody happy become can ‘… because nobody can find happiness without love. say can no-one something reasonable ‘… because nobody has anything reasonable to say about scrambling. (4a) (4b) weil / freiwillig das niemand \ tun würde weil / betrunken niemand \ hineinkommt. Crucially. rather.’ (von Stechow & Sternefeld 1988: 466) Having reason to believe. but that is precisely because in this case. associated with T-scrambling (Rosengren & Haider 1998) or.(3) a. AdvPs.

According to Hinterhoelzl & Pili. regardless of whether scrambling is argued to be more like A-movement or more like A-bar movement. again. In a more recent account of scrambling as A-movement.g. Webelhuth 1987). this type of A-position is not a case position. it seems to target an A-bar position. Grewendorf & Sternefeld (1990) discuss two major proposals as to what kind of movement operation scrambling might be: (i) NP-movement (i. Fanselow 1990) and (ii) a special kind of Wh-movement (see e.4 The moved argument then must check case before it undergoes scrambling. Both types of proposals posit that the landing site of scrambling is an adjoined position between CP and VP (in Grewendorf & Sternefeld’s terms. Like NP-movement.general can probably not be conceived of as case-driven. scrambled DPs move to the specifiers of heads licensing clitics). there is general agreement on the landing site being a non-case position. but.2).e. This view is consistent with the mainstream take on scrambling in the literature. Scrambling shares properties with both types of movement. not a case feature. the type of “NP-movement” he identifies with scrambling clearly differs from A-movement in that it does not target a case position.3. This clearly speaks against Wurmbrand’s appeal to scrambling as an operation which is sensitive to intervening case positions. an instance of ‘Move a’) (see e. it is adjunction to IP). Even if scrambling is analyzed as an optional EPP-driven object-shift-type movement into the second specifier of the agentive vP (see also subsection 4. scrambled DPs move to check a specificity or topicality feature. 4 Although Fanselow (1990) argues that scrambling is like A-movement in that it is clause- bounded and leaves an A-bound trace.g. Hinterhoelzl & Pili (2003) claim that scrambling targets an A-position (more specifically. In their Scrambling and Barriers volume. it does not happen for the purpose of case-checking. Thus. but like Wh-movement. 135 . it cannot cross CPboundaries.

It seems that. undergoes CASE CONVERSION). Wurmbrand categorizes predicates of Class 2 (coherence-inducing verbs) which do not pass the long passive test. they tend to also accept (5b). for example. (5) a. This is based on Wurmbrand’s judgment that the long passive example in (5b) is ungrammatical. as RNR predicates. although it does pass traditional coherence tests like pronoun fronting (see (5a)) and is thus commonly associated with coherence. versuchen ‘try’. have an infinitival complement that is opaque for movement of the direct object of the infinitive into the matrix subject position.1. is a phenomenon involving passivization of the matrix verb and movement of the embedded internal argument into the matrix clause. is classified as reduced non-restructuring. is classified as an LR predicate. to repair planned because it (MASC) the Hans ‘…because Hans planned to repair it. which passes both the pronoun fronting test (see (6a)) and the long passive test (see (6b)). The verb planen ‘plan’. it appears to become the subject of the matrix clause. as often stated in the literature. It is important to note that the contrast argued to exist between the (b)-examples in (5) and (6) is far from robust.’ 136 . … weil ihn der Hans [ __ zu reparieren] plante. In constrast. first discussed by Höhle (1978) and introduced here in chapter 2. once speakers are sure that they accept (6b).2 Long passive Long passive. i.e.4. As the moved internal argument obligatorily surfaces with nominative case (or.

’ (Wurmbrand 2001: 267-268) Within Wurmbrand’s typology – assuming that long passive is an instance of casedriven movement triggered by the lack of an embedded case-licensor – matrix verbs of the planen-type.’ b. pass the pronoun fronting test is that fronted pronouns are assumed to target the matrix clause Wackernagel position. like planen. the long passive test results in (5)-(6) line up with the corresponding scrambling test. which are judged not to allow long passive. Intervening A-positions can thus not hinder pronoun fronting. to repair tried because it (MASC) the Hans ‘…because Hans tried to repair it. As shown in (1).b. non-case-driven. which do allow long passive. that the tractor to repair planned was (PASS) ‘… that they planned to repair the tractor. that the tractor to repair tried was (PASS) ‘… that they tried to repair the tractor. The reason Wurmbrand expects that verbs of the RNRtype. take a bare VP-complement. repeated here as (7). which is generally associated with A-bar. i. According to Wurmbrand. must then take a vP or TP-complement. whereas verbs of the versuchen-type. *… dass der Traktor [ __ zu reparieren] geplant wurde.e. … dass der Traktor [ __ zu reparieren] versucht wurde. she considers 137 . … weil ihn der Hans [ __ zu reparieren] versuchte.’ (Wurmbrand 2001: 267-268) (6) a. movement.

… weil Hans den Traktor versucht hat [ __ zu reparieren].1). Hence. In contrast.2. tractor tried has to repair because Hans the ‘… because Hans tried to repair the tractor. %… dass Hans den Traktor geplant hat [ __ zu reparieren]. 138 . however. (7) a. if there is a good chance that both the grammatical (7a) and (b) are instances of the same type of movement. any type of scrambling across the complement boundary of versuchen is possible (see (b)).’ (Wurmbrand 2001: 270) Since one of the generalizations Grewendorf & Sternefeld (1990) list about scrambling is that focused phrases may not be scrambled (see the discussion in subsection 4.’ b. that Hans the tractor planned has to repair ‘… that Hans planned to repair the tractor. the scrambling test really yields no difference between the complexity of the complements to planen and versuchen.scrambling out of the extraposed complement of planen infelicitous unless the scrambled element is focused (see (a) where “% ” indicates that scrambling is ungrammatical when den Traktor is not focused). it is not clear that the interpretation on which (7a) is grammatical is really focus-scrambling. Scrambling is not a good way to confirm the long passive data in (4)(5) then.

ertragen ‘endure’. beschließen ‘decide’. Wöllstein-Leisten (2001) presents the results of an empirical study on the acceptability of long passive5 and comes up with a list of matrix verbs allowing long passive which includes a number of verbs that Wurmbrand classifies as RNR predicates. Although there are other authors who consider the possibility of long passive significant enough to be used as coherence diagnostic (see e. vergessen ‘forget’. Sabel 2002. Bayer & Kornfilt 1989. erwarten ‘expect’. aufgeben ‘give up’. more complex type on the other hand. but others are on her long-passive-disallowing RNR list. versäumen ‘miss’. i. vorschlagen ‘suggest’.4. hoffen ‘hope’. They follow Höhle (1978) and Kiss (1995) in considering it a highly marked construction which leads to acceptable results with very few verbs only. genießen ‘savor’. In fact. and Schmid et al. and wünschen ‘wish’.3 Need for a new diagnostic While I follow Wurmbrand in proposing that infinitival complements with the two different degrees of transparency claimed to be apparent in examples like (5)-(7) should be subdivided into a bare VP-type on the one hand and a bigger.1. forthcoming). verweigern ‘refuse’. trigger about 75% acceptance of long passive in the context of a Third Construction. a number of verbs. vorziehen ‘prefer’. glauben ‘believe’. and again others were not included in Wurmbrand’s study. geloben ‘vow’. Some of these verbs are also on Wurmbrand’s long-passive-allowing list of LR predicates. verbs that 5 According to this study. Reis & Sternefeld are skeptical about relying on long passive data.g. I also agree with Reis & Sternefeld (2004) that this cannot solely be based on long passive and scrambling. beabsichtigen ‘intend’. I agree that judgments on examples with matrix verbs other than versuchen ‘try’ (and perhaps vergessen ‘forget’) vary considerably. anbieten ‘offer. Wöllstein-Leisten 2001. These verbs are ablehen ‘decline’. 139 .e. besides versuchen (which triggers 100% acceptance).

it is difficult to eliminate the possibility that it may be a fully lexicalized construction.2. As for the possibility of long passive. The average rating for pronoun fronting was 2. (forthcoming). in a recent empirical study by Schmid et al. and that for verbcluster fronting was 3. that neither scrambling nor long passive are fully reliable diagnostics for the internal structure of infinitival complements. it does establish that the infinitival complement lacks case-licensing positions. beschließen ‘decide’. namely that there is a fine-grained phrase-structural 140 . glauben ‘mean’. With the goal of providing additional evidence for what Wurmbrand sets out to establish. vorschlagen ‘propose’. subjects rated examples of long passive as barely acceptable (they gave an average rating of 3. wünschen ‘wish’). In fact. but native speaker judgments are only consistent in the case of very few matrix verbs. In the face of this welter of conflicting and unreliable test results. we cannot be sure that an application of scrambling of an embedded argument really means that the infinitival complement lacks a subject and an accusative case position and thus consists of nothing more than a bare VP-projection. a new diagnostic will be very welcome.5 – with 1 being perfectly grammatical and 5 being completely ungrammatical).85. significantly less acceptable than examples of other phenomena used to probe for coherence.Wurmbrand claims do not allow long passive and scrambling (anbieten ‘offer’. Furthermore. then. More specifically. It seems. given how unproductive long passive is.

The PDC is a syntactic phenomenon which generally leads to more robust results than long passive and scrambling in that it is more productive than the former and more clearly case-driven than the latter. given that possessor raising is obligatory and 141 . however.2 Possessor datives: A more reliable probe Chapter 3 has established that the German possessor dative construction (PDC) involves case-driven movement. this new tool should be used as a means to verify and refine some of the results of the other tests. PD-raising is then restricted to apply within the minimal agentive vP which contains it. i. It follows – and this is the property of the PDC which makes it relevant for diagnosing coherence – that the PDC is subject to the locality restrictions typical of A-movement: an argument may not raise beyond the edge of a subject-containing phrase (namely a CP. I propose the PDC as an additional diagnostic to probe for vP. More precisely. a PD must move to the specifier of its case-licensor (see chapter 3). which can check accusative case with the agentive v-head “at a distance”. and a complex DP) to a higher A-position.e.distinction within the class of verbs traditionally classified as coherence-inducing. an agentive vP. that the PDC can replace scrambling and long passive as diagnostics. Unlike an embedded direct object. 4. the affectee v-head which licenses the dative case on the PD must be on the same side of the agentive vPboundary as the origin site of the PD (the specifier of the possessee nominal). Rather. via a static Agree relation. a TP. I am not proposing. Thus.

a reduced infinitival complement (which lacks an agentive vP- projection) can project an affectee vP. Thus.strictly local. 142 . I will refer to the latter option as “long” PD-movement). The goal of the following subsections is to lay out in detail how the PDC (analyzed as discussed in chapter 3 and briefly described above) interacts with the different types of (non-)restructuring contexts covered in Wurmbrand’s (2001) typology of infinitival clause size. the complement lacks an agentive vP-projection. If. does not cooccur with an agentive vP. in principle. the PD will remain in the infinitival complement or move into the matrix clause (henceforth. If the complement is bigger than a bare VP. affectee vPs do not always have to be dominated by an agentive vP. PD-movement into the matrix clause is expected to be blocked. the possibility of a PD moving from an embedded infinitival complement into the domain of the matrix verb is expected to depend on the complexity of the infinitival complement. we expect that the agentive vP- 6 I assume that. What is crucial here is simply that. the affectee vP which licenses the PD. In other words. the PD may raise beyond the infinitival domain boundary. when an infinitival complement which lacks an agentive vP does not have the ability to check dative case. The prediction is that a PD which originates in an infinitival complement can only undergo long movement into the matrix clause in the context of a restructuring (FR or LR) predicate. on the other hand. Given the latter scenario. for example. depending on whether the affectee vP is projected by the infinitive or the matrix verb (I assume that both options exist)6. nothing prevents an embedded PD from raising into the higher clause to find a licensor. In a simple unaccusative PDC like …weil dem Jungen (DAT) der Stein ( ACC ) auf den Kopf fiel ‘because the rock fell on the boys head’. dem Jungen.

(8) a. (9b) with the PD der Nachbarin as part of the matrix clause domain is then an ungrammatical instance of the Third Construction.boundary intervening between the PD origin site and the matrix clause domain in the context of a non-restructuring (RNR or NR) predicate is opaque for PD-raising. which takes an infinitival CP-complement with a null C (see (9)) is expected to be just as incompatible with long PD-movement as a matrix predicate which takes a finite embedded clause (see (8)).’ b.’ b. (9) a. Tim hat behauptet [CP der Nachbarin schon den Hof gefegt zu haben]. Notice that the infinitival complement in (9) is postverbal.1 NR predicates A full NR predicate. *Tim hat der Nachbarin bedauert [CP dass er das Auto waschen musste]. Since the (un)grammaticality of all the examples that follow does not hinge on the fact that they are Third Constructions. In neither case should a PD be able to move into the matrix clause. *Tim hat der Nachbarin behauptet [CP schon den Hof gefegt zu haben]. this is indeed the case. Tim hat bedauert [CP dass er der Nachbarin das Auto waschen musste]. Tim has claimed the neighbor (DAT) already the yard swept to have ‘Tim claimed to have already swept the neighbor’s yard. 4. I will continue to use 143 . As the (b)-examples of the following data show. Tim has regretted that he the neighbor (DAT) the car wash must (PAST) ‘Tim regretted that he had to wash the neighbor’s car.2.

e. but PD-movement to the left of such a subject necessarily involves scrambling which is precisely what the PDC-test is meant to supplement. may allow movement of an embedded argument into the matrix clause. the prediction is again that long PD-movement is ungrammatical. PD-movement can be made visible if the matrix clause subject is a quantificational pronominal (see (i)-(iii) below). (i) *Dass der Nachbarin that alle den Hof gefegt zu haben behaupten. which is not crucial for the main point here but which I propose as a reasonable way to deal with the Third Construction. the yard swept to have claim is but clear the neighbor (DAT. 144 .’ While the judgments on the high PD-position in (i) and (iii) are clear and identical to the judgments on long PD-movement in the corresponding Third Construction context (see (9b) and (11b)). 7 In many cases.7 Given Zwart’s (1997) view. the infinitival complement is more natural in postverbal position. Furthermore. where the matrix verb is planen. FEM) all ‘It’s obvious that everyone claims to have swept the neighbor’s yard. finde ich lustig. is just as hard to judge as Wurmbrand’s example of direct object scrambling in (7a).2 RNR and LR predicates Moving on to the PDC in the context of RNR predicates. glaube ich nicht. 4. that the Tim (DAT) really no-one the bike to repair plans believe I not ‘I don’t believe that there’s really no one who plans on reparing Tim’s bike. This is confirmed by (10b).2. ist doch wohl klar. ‘intraposed’). that his sister (DAT) there-for somebody the radio intact to make tries find I funny ‘I think it’s funny that somebody tries to fix his sister’s radio instead. PD-movement is string-vacuous and therefore does not reveal whether the complement boundary has been crossed or not. the high PDposition in (ii). in traditional terms.examples with postverbal complements. depending on their complexity. postverbal infinitival complements are in their base-position (i. not literally extraposed) and. if the complement is preverbal (or.’ (iii) Dass seiner Schwester dafür jemand das Radio heile zu machen versucht.’ (ii) ?Dass dem Tim wirklich keiner das Fahrrad zu reparieren plant.

’ b. but not Wurmbrand’s long passive and non-focus scrambling diagnostics. Die Nachbarin hatte geplant [vP/TP dem Tim dafür das Fahrrad reparieren the neighbor had planned the Tim (DAT) there-for the bike repair zu lassen].] 145 . In contrast to RNR predicates like planen. are expected to allow long PD-movement. the PDC test in (10) helps solidify the RNR-status of planen. make lieber versucht [vP/CP seiner Schwester das Radio heile zu his sister (DAT) the radio intact to Tim would-have rather tried ‘Tim would have rather tried to fix his sister’s radio. however. Since I am not sure I agree with Wurmbrand’s judgments on the relevant data (see (5)-(7) above).’ b. Tim hätte machen]. *Die Nachbarin hatte dem Tim geplant [vP/TP dafür das Fahrrad reparieren zu lassen]. which take a bare VPcomplement. LR predicates. The data in (11) show that this prediction is borne out as well.(10) a. to let/have ‘The neighbor had planned to get Tim’s bike repaired in return. The ungrammaticality of (10b) is exactly in line with Wurmbrand’s test results. (11) a. Recall that planen passes the traditional coherence tests. Tim hätte lieber seiner Schwester versucht [VP das Radio heile zu machen. for example pronoun fronting.

the complement does. however.The reason the infinitival domain boundary in (11a) is marked as vP/CP is that all LR predicates. so there need not be an agentive vP in the complement. though they may just take a bare VP. It could be argued that the high position of the PD in (8)-(11) is a result of complement-internal possessor raising followed by scrambling and thus non-casedriven movement into the matrix clause. again. the complement could be of either the restructuring or the full clausal type. Since there is no evidence of restructuring here. The PDC would then not be a diagnostic for complement size at all because the origin and landing site of the PD would be on the same side of the complement boundary. Wurmbrand’s example in (7b)). need to include an affectee vP because the inherent dative case on the embedded PD seiner Schwester cannot be checked via static Agree. The reason I believe that the PDC-examples in (8)-(11) and also in (12)-(13) below cannot be treated on a par with instances of scrambling is that the judgments on examples with irrealis matrix verbs like planen are much more clear-cut in the context of a PDC than in contexts of “regular” object movement (see. Making the traditional assumption that scrambling is adjunction to IP (TP) and therefore not 146 . Rather. The accusative case on das Radio could be licensed by either the matrix or an embedded agentive v-head (the former via static Agree). Recall that the affectee vP needs an argument in its specifier to assign its q-role to. also have the option of taking a full clausal complement. Given the word order in (11a). the judgments would reflect the (im)possibility of scrambling out of the complement.

not TP. yet the indefinite PD in (11’) is grammatical as part of the matrix clause.8 8 What exactly it is that rules out scrambling of the PD into the matrix clause after case- checking in (10b) and (12) is not clear to me. Scrambling across any complement boundary smaller than CP should be equally acceptable. we 147 . there is no explanation for the strong contrast between the (a) and (b)-examples in (10)-(11) and between most of the examples in (12) and (13) below. If scrambling is in fact restricted to applying within vP. The fact that long PD-movement in (10b) and in all of the examples in (12) is clearly degraded suggests that we really are not dealing with scrambling here.blocked by intervening case-positions. (11’) Tim hätte machen]. make lieber einem hübschen Mädchen versucht [VP das Radio heile zu tried the radio intact to Tim would-have rather a beautiful girl (DAT) ‘Tim would have rather tried to fix a pretty girl’s radio. Another argument against treating PD-movement on a par with scrambling is that an indefinite DP is not expected to be allowed to scramble (see Büring 2001). PD-movement is subject to a stricter locality condition and therefore serves as a better diagnostic for complement complexity than direct object scrambling. These data could be taken as evidence for scrambling being adjunction to vP.’ If not for case-reasons. The position of the PD here then cannot be the result of scrambling into an adjoined position. however. an indefinite DP should not move out of its DATO > ACCO position inside VP.

According to Wurmbrand.’ are left with the unexplained judgments on scrambling examples like (7a). which can be used with either a full or reduced infinitival complement. footnote 3). unless the scrambled element is part of a “Brückenkonstruktion” with a “Hutkontur” intonation pattern (see subsection 4. the matrix verbs in (12) are RNR predicates and the matrix verbs in (13) are LR predicates. hair red to dye ‘The hair-dresser simply decided to dye the client’s hair red. (12) a. on the other hand. In (13). where we have LR matrix verbs. Der Lehrer hat (*dem Schüler) entschieden [(dem Schüler) das Leben the teacher has (the student (DAT)) chosen (the student (DAT)) the life zur Hölle zu machen].’ b. to-the hell to make ‘The teacher chose to make the student’s life hell.1. The star on the PD in the higher position in the examples in (12) indicates that the PD may not occur in the domain of RNR matrix verbs. The PDC-test results corroborate this. Scrambling of the embedded direct object into the matrix clause should not be possible at all. 148 . both the lower PD-position within the infinitival complement and the higher PD-position within the matrix clause are (at least marginally) acceptable. Der Frisör hat (*der Kundin) einfach beschlossen [(der Kundin) die decided (the client (DAT)) the the hair-dresser has (the client (DAT) simply Haare rot zu färben].1.

Miller contemplated taking away his son’s allowance. hair to stroke ‘The dad has just now begun to stroke the little one’s hair. Der Papa hat (der Kleinen) the dad gerade erst begonnen [(der Kleinen) begun die has (the little one (DAT)) just now (the little one (DAT)) the Haare zu streicheln]. teeth to clean ‘I tried to brush my little niece’s teeth. pocket-money to cross (out) ‘Mr.’ d.c. Herr Müller hat (*seinem Sohn) erwogen [(seinem Sohn) das Mr.’ (13) a. video-recorder to repair ‘My husband planned to repair my parents’ video recorder.’ b.’ c. Mein Mann hat (*meinen Eltern) geplant [(meinen Eltern) den my husband has (my parents (DAT)) planned (my parents (DAT)) the Videorekorder zu reparieren]. Der Mann hat (seiner Frau) tatsächlich vergessen [ (seiner Frau) den the husband has (his wife (DAT)) actually forgotten (his wife (DAT)) the Rücken zu massieren].’ 149 . Ich habe (meiner kleinen Nichte) versucht [(meiner kleinen Nichte) die I have (my little niece (DAT)) tried (my little niece (DAT)) the Zähne zu putzen]. Miller has (his son (DAT)) contemplated (his son (DAT)) the Taschengeld zu streichen]. back to massage ‘The husband actually forgot to massage his wife’s back.

the guitar to tune ‘My brother actually had the guts to tune the rock star’s guitar. I would like to return to the list of verbs that Wöllstein-Leisten (2001) classifies differently than Wurmbrand. Ich habe (?der Professorin) irgendwie versäumt [(der Professorin) die I have (the professor (DAT)) somehow missed (the professor (DAT))) the Hand zu geben].3. vorschlagen ‘propose’. As discussed in subsection 4. while LR predicates like versuchen and beginnen have the option of taking a transparent VP-complement. Before we turn to the interaction of the PDC with FR predicates in subsection 4. The PDC diagnostic supports Wurmbrand’s test results in that beschließen (see (12b)) and wünschen (see (14b)) take an infinitival complement which is not transparent to possessor raising. RNR predicates like planen and beschließen take at least a vP -complement which prevents movement of an embedded argument beyond the infinitival domain boundary. hand to give ‘I somehow missed the opportunity to shake the professor’s hand.2. this list includes the following verbs: anbieten ‘offer’.’ Long PD-movement then provides new evidence for Wurmbrand’s distinction between RNR and LR predicates.’ e. but it supports Wöllstein-Leisten’s test 150 . and wünschen ‘wish’.1. glauben ‘believe’.3. Mein Bruder hat tatsächlich (?dem Rockstar) gewagt [(dem Rockstar) my brother has actually (the rock star (DAT)) dared (the rock star) (DAT)) die Gitarre zu stimmen]. beschließen ‘decide’.d.

’ The fact that the high position of the PD in (14a) is judged to be at least marginally acceptable also sheds light on Reis & Sternefeld’s (2004) observation that glauben. Der Student hat (?dem Professor) geglaubt [(dem Professor) die Tasche the student has (the professor (DAT)) believed (the professor (DAT)) the bag tragen zu müssen]. Bech’s original (1955/57) object scrambling example 10 is most readily acceptable when there is an intonation break between the dislocated nominal and glauben.results in that the complement to glauben is transparent (see (14a)).’ b. carry to must ‘The student believed he had to carry the professor’s bag. The high position of the PD is clearly more readily acceptable in (14a) than in (b). 9 (14) a. as shown in Bech’s (1955/57) example in (15a). 10 does not pass the long passive test shown in (15b). intact make to can ‘The mother had wished she could fix her son’s teddy. while allowing object scrambling in the context of a Third Construction. Die Mutter hatte (*ihrem Sohn) gewünscht [(ihrem Sohn) den Teddy the mother had (her son (DAT)) wished (her son (DAT)) the teddy heile machen zu können]. 9 Note that (17a) is best when there is an intonation break between Professor and geglaubt. 151 . Just as in the PDC example in (14a).

The possibility of long PD-movement confirms the scrambling/Third Construction test result in (15a) and thus helps classify glauben as an LR predicate. The major limitation of the PDC as restructuring diagnostic is that PDCs are incompatible with verbs which select both an infinitival complement and a dative argument. taking a bare VP-complement. so to speak.’ (Reis & Sternefeld 2004: 473) In the case of conflicting test results like this. because the car to repair believed was ‘… because they believed that the car was being repaired. for example. der Tochter ‘the daughter’ in (a) and dem Vater ‘the father’ in (b). disclosed lay ‘that they believed to be able to hide an intention which was so clearly visible’. the PDC test result in (14a) casts further doubt on the reliability of the long passive test. helfen ‘help’ and gratulieren ‘congratulate’. unseren Nachbarn ‘our neighbors’ and 152 . *… weil der Wagen [ __ zu reparieren] geglaubt wurde. (Bech 1955/57: 66) b. Correspondingly. select a dative-marked nominal as their internal argument. a PD may not originate as the possessor of a core dative argument. As briefly touched upon in chapter 3 (see footnote 30). die that they an intention believed hide so to be-able-to which so zutage lag]. dass sie eine Absicht glaubten [ __ verbergen zu können. the PDC can be used as a tie-breaker. In this case.(15) a. In (16). the respective non-core datives.

(17) a.seiner Freundin ‘his girlfriend’ cannot be interpreted as PDs. Sie hat ihrem Mann versprochen [ das Sofa reinigen zu lassen]. the daughter (DAT) helped ‘I helped our neighbors’ daughter (for their benefit).’ b. (16) a.’ Since empfehlen and versprechen both take a core dative argument.’ b. The dative nominals ihr in 153 . and in the context of these verbs. despite its cooccurrence with a possible possessee in the infinitival domain. Man hat ihr one empfohlen [das Auto zu verkaufen]. in fact. the couch clean to have she has her husband (DAT) promised ‘She promised her husband to have the couch cleaned. *Ich habe unseren Nachbarn der Tochter I have our neighbors (DAT) geholfen.’ The PDC can then not be used as a diagnostic to confirm the restructuring status of the dative-taking control verbs empfehlen ‘recommend’ and versprechen ‘promise’ in examples (17a-b). is not normally interpreted as a PD. they cannot be accommodated at all. the father (DAT) congratulated ‘He congratulated his girlfriend’s father (for her benefit). the addition of a PD would be ungrammatical. to sell has her (DAT) recommended the car ‘They recommended that she sell the car. *Er hat seiner Freundin dem Vater he has his girlfriend (DAT) gratuliert. a single dative nominal in the matrix clause.

e. and this is so despite the fact that these verbs can take a core dative argument. which the PDC diagnostic cannot properly classify. unlike empfehlen and versprechen. as an element not selected by the verb in the same way as a regular dative argument is selected.3 FR predicates Finally. The reason is that these verbs never take both a core dative argument and an infinitival complement. there appears to be no way to test whether a PD can move from the domain of the infinitive into the domain of the finite verb because there really is just one lexical domain (see Wurmbrand’s chapter 3). but which itself is a non-q-assigning functional head. glauben and wünschen. as in Der Student hat seinem Professor (DAT) geglaubt ‘The student believed his professor’ and Die Mutter hat ihrem Sohn ( DAT) nur das Beste gewünscht ‘The mother wished her son only the best’. 154 . non-possessor arguments. in the context of a modal or raising verb (see (18)). a modal or raising verb construction with a transitive 11 Note that. i. Whether they are potentially VP-taking LR predicates or vP/TP-taking RNR verbs thus remains to be established. Assuming Wurmbrand’s organization of clause structure. The datives here are then not automatically interpreted as core. Recall that these verbs did pass Wöllstein-Leisten’s but not Wurmbrand’s long passive test. are anbieten ‘offer’ and vorschlagen ‘propose’.(17a) and ihrem Mann in (17b) are automatically interpreted as arguments selected by the verb and are thus grammatical regardless of whether or not they are interpreted as possessor of the respective embedded direct object.11 Other examples of dativetaking verbs. are in principle compatible with a non-core dative argument in the matrix clause domain. 4. The purpose of the intonation break between the PD and the verb in (14a) (see footnote 11) is probably to facilitate the interpretation of the dative as non-core. the verbs in (14).2. turning to FR predicates. which can take either a VP or vP-complement.

PD-raising has but one option of applying.’ b.or unergative infinitive consists of a lexical VP hosting the infinitive. the mono-clausality of FR constructions necessarily follows from the architecture of the clause. make seemed ‘… that the professor seemed to do the student’s homework for her. If such a construction includes a PD. AcI-introducing semi-functional restructuring 12 On the view that modals and raising (FR) verbs are V-heads which project a defective vP and select a vP-complement. Whether this is indeed possible remains unclear both as a theoretical and an empirical matter. Since word order would not be affected. … dass der Student [vP der Professorin that the student das Auto waschen] musste. … dass der Professor [vP der Studentin that the professor die Hausaufgaben zu to the student (DAT. FEM) the car ‘… that the student had to wash the professor’s car for her.12 The examples in (18) show the PDC in the context of the modal müssen ‘must’ (a) and the raising verb scheinen ‘seem’ (b). and layers of functional structure which host the modal/raising verb and case-license the subject. an agentive vP introducing the subject. 155 . it is necessarily the infinitive (the lexical V) which projects the PD-licensing affectee vP. the verbal shell of an FR predicate could in principle include an affectee vP. The PD then raises from the specifier of the possessee within the VP to the specifier of the affectee vP. FEM) the homework machen] schien. As discussed in the following section. and there is no chance of this affectee vP being outside the domain of the infinitive.’ As Wurmbrand puts it. wash must (PAST) the professor (DAT. there may not be a way to probe for this structure. (18) a.

a zuless infinitive or a past participle) are always coherently constructed.3 Possessor datives in the context of AcIs Picking up the task of going beyond the traditional coherence/non-coherence distinction at the point where Wurmbrand (2001) left off. According to Bech (1955/57). the matrix clause. 1988 for a critique of this view). verbs governing the 1st or 3rd status (i. the property of AcIs I aim to shed light on here is that AcI-infinitives are clearly able to project an opacity-inducing. Furthermore. SFR-type complements. the fact that AcI-complements can neither occur postverbally nor constitute a tense or negation domain separate from the matrix clause makes them seem very much dependent on. Recall from chapter 2 that.e. namely where the focus is on the internal structure of Accusativus cum Infinitivo (AcI). however. Their ability to host an agentive subject that is referentially distinct from the matrix subject is a 156 . although it is well-known that AcIs can be headed by a transitive infinitive and thus have an agentive subject. AcI-constructions are commonly described as obligatorily coherent and therefore “non-satzwertig” (but see Grewendorf 1987. agentive vP. and thus in a sense “incomplete” without. We will see why classifying SFR predicates as a special type of FR predicate is not an adequate way of capturing the restructuring status of AcIs.(SFR) predicates behave very differently from modal and raising verbs in this respect. 4. that AcIs cannot be “complete” semantically. This does not mean.

1 Transitive and unergative versus unaccusative AcIs Given that the PDC is subject to the locality restrictions of A-movement – PDs may not move across subject-containing and adjunct boundaries – possessor raising is only expected to be able to span an AcI-boundary if the AcI is not closed off by an agentive vP. I already anticipate these assumptions here. while the failure of long PD-movement indicates that the AcI is more complex. AcIconstructions differ with respect to their compatibility with long PD-movement. If the AcI-infinitive projects a proto-agent-introducing vP. however. Since the impossibility of the infinitival complement occurring postverbally and the lack of an independent tense and negation domain speak against the presence of a TP and thus also a CP-projection. PD-movement is restricted to applying within the AcI. just like infinitive constructions of the LR-type.3. it is in fact safe to assume that vP is the highest level of 157 . The following subsections will establish that. In order to show how the PDC interacts with AcI- constructions.property shared by finite complement clauses. The success of long PD-movement then indicates that the AcI is a bare VP. My assumptions concerning the syntactic correlate of agentivity and thus the phrasestructural distinction between transitive and unergative AcI-infinitives on the one hand and passive and unaccusative AcI-infinitives on the other hand will be laid out in detail in chapter 5. 4. and there is no question that finite embedded clauses are fully opacity-inducing.

that the subject of an unaccusative AcI-infinitive (a proto-patient) induces transparency. Der kleine Junge lässt seinem Freund den Stein auf den Kopf fallen. the AcIinfinitive. (19) a.’ b. An example of an unaccusative AcI is given in (20). The fact that the PD must stay inside the AcI. has an agentive AcI-subject. here. confirms that this AcI is closed off by an agentive vPboundary. FEM) the feet ‘Maja lets/has Willi massage her friend’s feet. fallen ‘fall’. These data suggest. then. Again. the results are as expected.complexity an AcI can have. Here. (20) a. Der kleine Junge lässt den Stein the little boy lets seinem Freund auf den Kopf fallen. has a non-agentive AcI-subject. Maja lässt Willi ihrer Freundin die Füße massieren.’ b. The infinitive. massieren ‘massage’. den Stein ‘the rock’. The PDC-test results are as expected. to the right of the AcI-subject. on the head fall the rock (ACC) his friend (DAT) ‘The little boy lets the rock fall on his friend’s head. The fact that the PD can be on either side of the AcI-subject confirms that unaccusative AcIs are not closed off by an agentive vPboundary which could prevent long PD-movement. while the subject of a transitive AcI-infinitive (a proto-agent) induces opacity and must 158 . An example of a PDC in the context of a transitive AcI is given in (19). Willi. *Maja lässt ihrer Freundin Willi die Füße massieren. massage Maja lets/has Willi (ACC) her friend (DAT.

agentive AcIs even share properties with complements of full NR predicates taking a finite complement. In the transitive AcI in (19). the structural positions are straightforward. Like the complement of FR predicates. the AcI (the circled part of the structure) includes both an agentive vP and an 13 In the structures in both (21) and (22). which I adopt to make sense of the Third Construction. According to Vikner (1995). and I am abstracting away from verb-second-related movements (the TP and CP-projections are not shown). AcI-introducing verbs could be grouped with either coherenceinducing/restructuring or non-coherence-inducing/non-restructuring predicates. In fact. and the verb moves via T to C (the verb-second position). verb phrases are head-initial. AcIs are syntactically inseparable from the matrix clause (regardless of whether they are bare VPs or agentive vPs). but. Thus. I simplified the matrix clause by making vP left- headed. Note that on Zwart’s (1997) view. like the complement of RNR predicates. as well as the position of the AcI-subject are not immediately obvious (at least not in (20)). where the AcI-subject is clearly the external (proto-agent) argument of the infinitive. The subject then moves via Spec TP to Spec CP (see Haider 1993 for a different view).therefore be associated with an agentive vP-layer. As shown in (21)13. since this second subject can be referentially distinct from that of the matrix predicate. AcIs can host a second subject. depending on the agentivity of the AcI-subject. 4. all verbal heads and T are phrase-final in German.3.2 The position of affectee vPs The reason I do not indicate the boundaries of the AcI in examples (19)-(20) is that the structural position of the affectee vP. and SOV order is derived by movement of 159 . the landing site of the PD.

affectee vP. The AcI-subject is in the specifier of the former, and the PD in the specifier of the latter projection. (21)

vP 2 DP v' Maja 2 (agentive) v VP lässt 2 vP V 2 tv DP v' Willi 2 vP v (agentive) 2 DP v' ihrer Freundin2 (PD) VP v (affectee) 2 DP V 14 2 massieren tDP D' (PD) 2 D NP die Füße

‘Maja lets Willi massage her friend’s feet.’

In contrast, when it comes to the unaccusative AcI in (20b) (diagrammed in (22)), we are dealing with a different instantiation of lassen, one which selects a complement without (verbal) functional structure, certainly without an agentive vP and, as I

object and clausal complements to the left of the verb. In my tree structures, I use a mix of the standard head-final and Zwart’s head-initial verbal structure to present the familiar picture of German being an underlying SOV language, while also saving space, i.e. getting the word order right without having to show the matrix verb-second domain.

Whether or not non-finite Vs in German move to the light verb (v) layers they project is not

a clear-cut issue. See Hankamer & Lee-Schoenfeld forthcoming for an analysis of VP-fronting which provides an argument against nonfinite V-to-v movement. 160

assume here, also without an affectee vP.15 The affectee vP must then be part of the matrix verb shell. Notice that word order does not distinguish between an

unaccusative AcI-complement that includes both the AcI-subject and the PD and one that only includes the AcI-subject. The unaccusative AcI-subject, den Stein ‘the rock’ in (22), originates inside the embedded lexical VP and is thus necessarily merged lower than the landing site of the PD (the specifier of the affectee vP), whether it be projected by the AcI-infinitive or the matrix verb.16,17
15 16

But see footnote 6, for the possibility that the affectee vP may also be part of the AcI. In order to have the affectee vP in (22) be part of the matrix clause, I must assume that the

AcI-introducing verb lassen is introduced into the derivation as a lexical V-head which projects and raises to an agentive v, not as an aspectual, ‘semi-functional’ v-head, as Wurmbrand (2001) proposes. I know of no evidence against this.

It should be noted that, if the linear order of den Stein and auf den Kopf in (20b) reflects

their hierarchical order, as shown in (22), den Stein would be closer to the affectee v than the possessor (PD) in the specifier of den Kopf. Instead of targeting the PD, seinem Freund, to raise and check case with, the dative-case licensing affectee v would then target den Stein. This would lead to the wrong outcome, of course, and the derivation would, in fact, crash as desired – den Stein would cause a defective intervention effect with respect to case-licensing of the possessor, and the inanimate Stein is incompatible with the affectee role. The question is, however, how to guarantee that the “right” derivation converges. The solution is to reverse the hierarchical order of the DP den Stein and the PP auf den Kopf in (22). This is reasonable given that the DP is the obligatory internal argument of the embedded verb fallen and the PP, while also an argument, is optional. The DP should then be introduced into the derivation by first Merge with V, and the PP by second Merge. In this reversed configuration, the PD and den Stein are equidistant with respect to the affectee v (because neither commands the other and asymmetric command is the standard measure of relative prominence), and, given the semantic mismatch between the affectee role and den Stein, only raising of the PD allows the derivation to converge. Linearization must then be responsible for deriving the correct surface order of den Stein and auf den Kopf. If the DP is indefinite (e.g. einen Stein), the hierarchical order of PP > DP is in fact also a possible linear order. 161

vP 2 DP v' Der kleine Junge 2 (agentive) v vP lässt 2 DP v' seinem Freund 2 (PD) VP v (affectee) 2 tv V VP tv 2 DP V' den Stein 2 PP V 2 fallen P DP auf 2 tDP D' (PD) 2 D NP den Kopf‘ The little boy lets the rock fall on his friend’s head.’

It may not be a meaningful question to ask whether the PD seinem Freund ‘his friend’ should be an argument of the AcI-infinitive fallen ‘fall’ or the matrix verb lassen ‘let, allow, have’. The questions raised here about compositionality and argument structure are very subtle. If the affectee vP is part of the infinitival verb shell, it is the caused event, namely the falling of the rock, that affects the friend. If, on the other hand, the affectee vP is part of the matrix verb shell, it is the causing event, namely the boy letting something happen, that has consequences for the friend. These two interpretations are very hard (perhaps impossible) to distinguish. It is for these kinds of reasons, I believe, that so many investigators have had the intuition that the two verbs, fallen and lassen, form such a close unit that their respective argument structures blend. Haider (1993), for example, has proposed that verbs in coherent

constructions are base-generated as a verbal complex with a complex projection base and fused argument-structures. In line with Wurmbrand’s idea of restructuring infinitives being bare VPs, I suggest here that the “extreme” transparency of an unaccusative AcI is reflected structurally in that the AcI has no case-licensing heads at all, not even an inherent dative-case-checking affectee v, but the derivation of the sentence in (22) would converge and yield a syntactic object with virtually the same interpretation if the AcI did include the affectee vP. Perhaps a more meaningful question and one which permits a reasonably clear-cut answer, is how to account for the word order in (20a), where den Stein precedes seinem Freund. This order could be the result of either scrambling in the traditional sense, i.e. non-case-driven movement of den Stein into a TP-adjoined position – since the matrix subject and the finite verb move into the CP (verb-second)-domain, they will still precede den Stein – or a case-driven type of movement triggered by an optional EPP feature on the agentive v. In the latter case, den Stein would be raised into the second specifier position of the matrix v, which would be the equivalent of object-shift. Returning to the main issue at hand here, what is most noteworthy about the structures in (21) and (22) is that AcI-introducing verbs like lassen do not always have the same complement type. Just as there are two different options of infinitival

complementation in the case of LR verbs, AcI-introducing verbs come with the selectional need for either a bigger, clausal (vP) complement or a smaller, purely verbal (VP) complement.


4.3.3 From the PDC to binding to phases At this point, it has been established that a PD which originates in an AcI can only precede the AcI-subject when the AcI is not closed off by an opacity-inducing, agentive vP-layer. Since chapter 5 will show that agentive vPs also turn out to provide a domain in which syntactically-bound pronominals are free, i.e. do not incur a Condition B violation, despite having an antecedent in the same sentence, I ultimately propose to connect the observed opacity/non-coherence effects with Chomsky’s (2000, 2001) notion of phase (see Part III of the dissertation). Intuitively, what makes transitive AcIs phase-like is their semantic “completeness”. Clearly, AcIs can be much more “satzwertig” than their syntactic dependence on the matrix verb seems to suggest. In sum, this chapter has shown that the use of the PDC as a coherence/restructuring diagnostic, in particular as an addition to Wurmbrand’s use of scrambling and long passive, provides a more solid foundation for the existence of the LR-RNR subcategorization of the class of coherent verbs. The PDC also helps establish that AcIintroducing verbs are unlike any other type of (non-)restructuring predicate in that the complement of a transitive AcI not only includes an opacity-inducing vP but also hosts a subject that is referentially distinct from the matrix subject. The following chapter discusses reflexive and pronominal binding as another way to show that not all AcIs can simply be labeled subclausal in the sense of “nicht satzwertig”. AcIs

including an agentive subject are opaque for pronominal binding. namely D and P. which have in common that they are potentially phase-defining. Other categories. can also head domains within which a syntactically bound pronominal is free. while those with an unaccusative AcI-subject are not. The binding data will furthermore suggest that opacity-inducing domains are not necessarily headed by an agentive v. 165 .


analyzed as an instance of A-movement (see chapters 3 and 4). 167 . Since reflexive binding is generally assumed to be clause-bounded. Von Stechow & Sternefeld (1988).’ (corresponds to subscript j) (von Stechow & Sternefeld 1988: 409) Parts I and II of this dissertation have already made it clear that AcIs cannot simply be classified as coherent. it is commonly used as a coherence test. the king lets the people for self work ‘The king has the people work for him.’ (corresponds to subscript i) ‘The king lets the people work on their own. for example. I will further strengthen this finding by showing that AcIs which are closed off by an agentive vP are opacity-inducing with respect to pronominal binding. I now turn to the interaction of reduced infinitive constructions with binding. serves as a diagnostic for infinitival clause size.5 A Phase-Based Binding Account of (Non-) Complementarity in German Having established now that the POSSESSOR DATIVE CONSTRUCTION (PDC). and that the long-distance binding possibility for the reflexive in (1) does not actually indicate that AcI-introducing verbs are obligatorily coherenceinducing. present the observations in (1) as evidence that ACIS construct coherently. Here. (1) Der Königi lässt die Leutej für sichi/j arbeiten.

When the environments in which two forms occur never overlap.g. the cases discussed here have the useful theoretical property that they cannot be dismissed as being beyond the scope of a theory of binding. Since the empirical evidence comes from German. 5.In this chapter. The main body of research on syntactic complementarity comes from the study of anaphora. we say that the forms stand in complementary distribution. Furthermore. My contribution here to this body of research is the investigation of anaphoric relations in contexts where complementarity seems to break down. I revisit some of the key literature on binding in AcI-constructions and present a new PHASE-based analysis of reflexive and pronominal binding which also accounts for binding facts in non-AcI contexts. more specifically.1 Introduction Patterns of complementarity are found in many areas of linguistic inquiry. In chapter 6. the binding behavior of reflexive and non-reflexive pronouns in various phrase-structural contexts (see e. 168 . I focus specifically on binding as a way to probe for the complexity of AcI-complements and extend the notion ‘phase’ to the PDC and other coherence diagnostics. Safir 2004). I argue that the distribution of reflexive and non-reflexive pronouns provides crucial evidence regarding the clause structure of reduced infinitive constructions. assuming a configurational theory of binding. which does not have logophorically used reflexives.

and spüren ‘sense’ (members of Wurmbrand’s (2001) SFR-predicates). However. however. the distribution of reflexives and pronominals is complementary. I conducted an informal study in the form of two questionnaires (see Appendix A and B). and Frey 1993). and other configurations that involve embedding of a subclausal constituent. I share their judgments. fühlen ‘feel’. An example is given in (2). certain contexts are known to allow the two forms to overlap. In 169 . As indicated by my initials (L. allow. Primus 1989.In most syntactic environments. The results generally match up with my judgments. Haider 1985.1. When I present other authors’ examples and add my initials to theirs. Although binding in AcI-constructions has been extensively discussed in the literature (see e. I am generalizing over myself and my informants.1 AcIs: A context for (non-)complementarity AcI-constructions are found as complements of permissive or causative lassen ‘let.). sehen ‘see’. There may. have’ and perception verbs like hören ‘hear’.1 1 In order to verify my native speaker intuitions. the full extent of noncomplementarity in AcIs. Use of one of the forms obviates the other form. when I refer to “my judgments”. 5. Thus. Grewendorf 1983.g. has not been given a satisfactory account. Reis 1976. the coreference relations given here are based on my judgments. Pustejovsky 1984.-S. For each questionnaire a number of native speakers of German (mostly from northern Germany) were presented with sentences containing AcI-constructions and asked to rate coreference relations between anaphoric elements and their antecedents on a scale from 1 (perfectly grammatical) to 5 (absolutely ungrammatical). German AcI-constructions provide one such context. be additional binding possibilities for me that are not indicated.

3. A working definition of ‘subject’ will be developed in sections 5. 2 As in previous chapters. If the infinitive were also embedded in a TP. The nominal in the embedded clause. the reflexive sich can either refer to the lower subject den Mann or engage in seemingly long-distance binding with the matrix subject. 170 . Since there is no TP in an AcI. as well as Haider 1993). it must check case with a verbal projection in the matrix clause. and Frey’s (1993) empirical generalizations. Martin hears the man (ACC) about self/him talk (INF) (L.2 In the matrix clause.3. the AcI-subject would check case with the lower T.2 and 5. I will explicitly take issue with Haider (1985). We have a case of noncomplementarity. matrix subject Martin or some other male person mentioned in previous discourse. Here. regardless of its semantic role.(2) Martini hört [AcI den Mannj über sichi/j/ihni/*j reden]. 1976). and I will be calling it the AcI-subject. section 5. Reis (1973.-S. my use of ‘AcI-subject’ is to be distinguished from ‘subject’. Martin is the nominative-marked subject of hören and checks case with the matrix clause T-head.’ While the pronominal behaves as expected in that it can only refer to the higher. The standard assumption is that the accusative case on AcIsubjects results from a checking relation with the matrix clause verb (hören in (2)). den Mann. it plays the agent role with respect to the infinitive reden.) ‘Martin hears the man talk about himself/him. however (see chapters 2 and 4. is marked with accusative case. ‘AcI-subject’ (in my use of the term) stands for the topmost accusative-marked nominal in the AcI. The domain in which the reflexive must be bound is bigger than the domain in which the pronominal must be free.

Hansi lässt [AcI die Verantwortungj [PP auf sichi/auf ihni] zukommen]. (R. ‘Hans wants to cross that bridge when he gets to it. Haider specifies that these PPs have to be “non-arguments” and backs this up with examples like (4). the AcI-subject does not interfere with the binding relation between the matrix subject and sich.As for the unexpected long-distance binding ability of the reflexive in examples like (2). L. Reis (1973.’ b.’ (Haider 1985: 244) 171 .-S. If the AcI-infinitive is unaccusative. Frey (1993) argues that another factor which comes into play here is the unaccusative-unergative distinction. he let the people for self/him liquor get (H. (3) a. Reis characterizes PPs out of which this apparent long-distance binding of sich is possible as “less obligatory” and gives examples such as those shown in (3a-b). 1976) and Haider (1985) claim that the reflexive pronoun sich can be bound across the intervening AcI-subject here because it is embedded in a certain type of PP.. L. Hans lets the men upon self/upon him fall (R.-S.’ (fig. Hansi lässt [AcI die Männerj [PP über sichi/über ihni] herfallen].’) (Reis 1973: 522) (4) Eri ließ [AcI die Leutej [PP für sichi/j/ihni] Schnaps besorgen].) ‘He had (allowed) the people (to) get liquor for themselves/him.) ‘Hans lets the men attack him...) Hans lets the responsibility on self/ on him to-come ‘Hans lets the responsibility come to him. L.-S.

This is illustrated by the following examples in (5a-b).-S. while preferably bound within the minimal CFC. stick ‘The mother lets the little girl stick the chocolate in its/her mouth.-S. Haider (1985). it appears to be an argument of the AcIinfinitive and thus a coargument of the AcI-subject. it is allowed to be bound by the matrix subject and. and Frey (1993) in section 5.2. 1976). across its own subject. my conjecture is that German sich. (5) a. I will argue that. Die Mutteri lässt [AcI die Kleinej the mother lets sichi/j/ihri/*j die Schokolade in den Mund (L. the reflexive can have an antecedent outside of this CFC. for some speakers.2 Scope of the chapter After a detailed discussion of the accounts by Reis (1973. (L. crucially. in both cases.3 and since. Here the reflexive is not embedded in a “less obligatory” or “non-argument” PP. Die Spieleri hören [AcI die Fansj the players hear sich?i/j/siei/*j anfeuern]. the binding of sich is in fact even less restricted than the data in (3)-(4) suggest.’ Since the AcIs in (5a-b) can each be considered a COMPLETE FUNCTIONAL COMPLEX (CFC). Rather.’ b. 172 .) the little girl (ACC) self/her (DAT) the chocolate (ACC) in the mouth stecken].1.) the fans (ACC) self/them (ACC) on-cheer ‘The players hear the fans cheer them on. Yet. has the possibility of being anteceded by any subject within the minimal TP 3 A Complete Functional Complex (CFC) is a maximal projection which contains a lexical head and in which all the grammatical functions compatible with that head are assigned (from Chomsky (1986)).5.

I claim here that this upper-limit boundary may in fact be the only insurmountable domain-limitation for the reflexive. German reflexives (unlike English anaphors) do not have a logophoric or emphatic use.4 (6) a. Die Spieleri hören. While the English reflexive in (7a) is grammatical because. in Reinhart & Reuland’s (1993) terms. The apparent long-distance binding ability of the reflexive thus cannot be dismissed as going beyond the scope of a theory of binding.) ‘The players hear the fans cheer them on. for German. Gurtu (1985) makes a similar claim for Hindi. the German equivalent in (7b) is ruled out. the players hear that the fans self on-cheer (L. This letter was addressed only to himself.-S. 173 .-S.’ b.’ As mentioned above. the players hear the fans self on-cheer (L. (7) a.) letter was only to self addressed As pointed out by Harbert & Srivastav (1988). [CP dass [TP die Fans sich*i anfeuern]]. As exemplified by the strong contrast in (6) – the reflexive is clearly worse in (a) than in (b) – it is a well-established fact that sich cannot be bound across a CP or TP-boundary. this 4 (L.-S. and Kluender (1986). *Dieser Brief war nur an sich adressiert.containing it. it does not reflexive-mark the predicate and is thus exempt from Condition A of the Binding Theory. Die Spieleri hören [AcI die Fans sich?i anfeuern]. (adapted from Reinhart & Reuland 1993: 672) b.) ‘The players hear that the fans cheer them on.

There is no variability in judgments. and there is no CP or TP-boundary intervening between sich and its matrix-clause antecedent.5 This 5 As in previous chapters. in particular 2 and 3. as long as it is separated from its antecedent by an external argument. As for pronominal binding. Case 3 is exemplified by (5a-b) and (6b): the reflexive is in a non-PP AcI-argument position (dative or accusativemarked). (6a) is an example of Case 1: reflexive and antecedent are separated by a CP-boundary. Again. Here. though more subtle than in Case 1.The data then force a three-way distinction among relevant cases. I propose that a pronominal can be bound in the same domain in which a reflexive must be bound (i. and the distinctions among them. others allow it at least marginally. TP). The goal of the analysis I present is to account for all three cases. Finally.e. 174 . Haider’s Schnaps-example given in (4) is a proto-type of Case 2: the reflexive is embedded in a PP. This type of long-distance binding is clearly ungrammatical. the judgments are variable. Many speakers categorically rule out long-distance binding between sich and the matrix subject. the judgments are relatively clear: long-distance binding between the reflexive and the matrix subject is generally allowed. more specifically an agentive subject. I am using ‘agentive’ in the sense of ‘proto-agent’ (see Dowty 1991).

In (8b). The examples are adapted from Frey (1993) and will be discussed further in sections 5. At that point.’ For now. I will use these examples to provide a descriptive preview of the account I propose for pronominals in AcI-constructions. Finally. where the AcI-subject.3.4. however. a central notion in all three parts of this dissertation. this is a harmless expositional simplification with respect to the material of this chapter. I also propose to extend the analysis from AcIs to the nominal domain. is non-agentive. ihm is impossible. the pronominal ihm is grammatical when referring to the matrix subject der König.) ‘Hans lets the rock fall on his head. In section 5. the king lets the prisoner before self/before him down-kneel (L.) ‘The king has the prisoner kneel down before him. den Gefangenen.6 (8) a.2 and 5. I reinterpret the results in terms of a phase-based understanding of binding domains. Hans lets the rock self/him on the head fall (L. 175 .’ b.-S. The reflexive and the pronominal thus overlap.claim is supported by the type of binding contrast illustrated in (8a-b). in section 5. As discussed further in footnote 20.3.-S. Der Königi lässt [AcI den Gefangenenj vor sichi/vor ihmi niederknien]. Hansi lässt [AcI den Stein sichi/ihm*i auf den Kopf fallen]. is agentive. where the AcI-subject. den Stein. 6 The bracketing in example (8b) abstracts away from the possibility that both the AcI-subject and the anaphoric element might have raised out of the AcI into the matrix clause. In (8a). I propose that the existence of a domain which allows the pronominal to be free and thus grammatical falls out from the syntactic correlate of ‘agentivity’.

’ (Haider 1985: 244) 176 .2.) ‘Hans lets the men attack him.’ b..-S. Examples of such long-distance reflexive binding were given in (3)-(4) above and are repeated here in (9)-(10).The analysis will unify the binding conditions for AcI and DP-constructions and account for the three cases of long-distance reflexive binding ability mentioned above.. L. 5.-S. he let the people for self/him liquor get (H. Hansi lässt die [AcI Verantwortung [PP auf sichi/auf ihni] zukommen]. (R. the coreference relation represented by the i-index in examples (5a-b) and (6b) (Case 3) should be ungrammatical because their accounts only allow the reflexive sich to be bound across the intervening AcI-subject when it is embedded in a PP.’ (fig.) ‘He had (allowed) the people (to) get liquor for themselves/him.1 Reis 1973.’) (Reis 1973: 522) (10) Eri ließ [AcI die Leutej [PP für sichi/j/ihni] Schnaps besorgen].-S. L. 1976 and Haider 1985 According to Reis and Haider.. Hansi lässt [AcI die Männerj [PP über sichi/über ihni] herfallen]. Hans lets the men upon self/upon him fall (R. ‘Hans wants to cross that bridge when he gets to it. L.2 Previous accounts 5. (9) a.) Hans lets the responsibility on self/on him to-come ‘Hans lets the responsibility come to him.

Haider’s (1985) analysis is partially successful when applied to examples like (10). He proposes the following reflexive binding rule (his (51b), p. 243). (11) A reflexive pronoun has as its antecedent the external argument of its governor7. In AcI-constructions where the reflexive is governed by the infinitive this rule predicts that the reflexive must be bound by the external argument of the infinitive, i.e. the AcI-subject. However, in the case of AcI-constructions like (10), where the reflexive is governed by P, which does not have an external argument, the rule, as stated above, does not apply and thus wrongly predicts that the reflexive is ungrammatical. Haider therefore adds another clause to his rule. If the governor of the reflexive does not have an external argument, i.e., as Haider puts it, if the reflexive is embedded in a “non-argument” PP, the reflexive must find an antecedent elsewhere in the sentence (TP). In (10), there are two choices: The reflexive can be linked either with the external argument of the AcI-infinitive, die Leute, or with the external argument of the matrix verb, er; hence the ambiguity.


By “its governor”, Haider (1985) means the element that is responsible for its case valuation.

According to Haider’s “Realisationsprinzip,” the governor assigns a case index to its argument. If this case index is structural (NOM or ACC ), case must be valued externally, and that means that it is not valued through the verb which assigns the index (p. 232). In an AcI, the AcI-subject then gets its case index from the infinitive, but its case is valued through the matrix verb. 177

Haider states that the converse of the reflexive binding rule in (11) holds for pronominals: a personal pronoun may not be anteceded by an argument of its governor (p. 244). With respect to the pronominal, however, Haider does not add a second clause. If the governor of the pronominal does not have an external argument, the converse of (11) is vacuously satisfied and allows for the pronominal to be bound by any other nominal. In the case of (10), this wrongly predicts that the pronominal can have the AcI-subject as its antecedent. Even if it were plural (sie ‘them’), the pronominal could not be bound by die Leute. Thus, Haider’s (1985) system is successful in accounting for the binding ambiguity regarding reflexives, but it fails to sufficiently constrain the binding possibilities of the pronominal. Furthermore, it is not obvious how Haider would treat examples like (9a-b), taken from Reis 1973. The AcI predicates are the idiomatic expressions über jemanden herfallen ‘to attack (lit. to fall over) someone’ and auf jemanden zukommen ‘to approach (lit. to come toward) someone’. Since the PPs are clearly complements of the verbs, they should be arguments of the AcI-infinitive and have the AcI-subject as their external argument. Although Haider’s system, according to which PP-

embedded reflexives are governed by P, presumably regardless of whether the PP is an argument or adjunct (see footnote 6), makes the right prediction for the reflexive here, the only cases he discusses involve adjunct-PPs. Examples with argument-PPs like (9a-b) certainly seem to be at odds with Haider’s claim that binding ambiguity can only result if the reflexive is part of a “non-argument”.

Reis (1973) remains vague regarding the issue of whether the PPs in her examples are arguments or adjuncts. She simply states that the constraint which disallows reflexives to be bound across an intervening deep structure subject “can be escaped by prepositional (and therefore less obligatory?) object NPs, although a good deal of lexical variation is to be observed” (p. 522).8 In her later work (1976), Reis actually categorizes the PPs in (11) and (12) as obligatory. This then clearly goes against restricting long-distance binding to PP-adjunct-embedded reflexives.

5.2.2 Frey 1993 An alternative account, which is endorsed in Haider’s later work (1993) and goes beyond the adjunct versus argument status of the constituent containing the anaphoric element, has been proposed by Frey. He gives the following binding conditions for reflexives and pronominals (his (28)-(29), ch. 7).


As discussed by Harbert & Srivastav (1988), the availability of the higher subject as an

antecedent for an embedded reflexive is equally disputed in Hindi. While some speakers allow longdistance binding when the reflexive is part of an argument, most speakers only allow it when the reflexive is part of an adjunct. 179


Principle (A)9: (i) An anaphor must be bound in its local domain K, when K contains a SUBJECT distinct from the anaphor, otherwise, (ii) it must be bound by a SUBJECT in the minimal CFC that contains the anaphor and a domain-closing element. Principle (B): A pronominal must be free in the minimal CFC containing the pronominal, its governor, and a SUBJECT. (Frey 1993: 120)

If all AcI-constructions were CFCs containing a SUBJECT, only reflexives in AcIsubject position would be allowed to have an antecedent outside the AcI. Reflexives that are object-DPs or embedded in a PP would never be expected to be bound by the matrix clause subject. In order to account for sentences that exhibit precisely this –

In order to understand Frey’s (1993) binding conditions as translated in (12), the following

definitions must be kept in mind. Since some of these definitions are not entirely clear to me, I am providing both Frey’s exact words in German (pp. 119-120, (23-24), (26-27)) and literal English translations.
(i) Ein CFC ist die minimale abschließende Kategorie, in der sämtliche Elemente, die durch einen gegebenen lexikalischen Kopf eine Projektionslizenz erhalten, realisiert sind. ‘A CFC is the minimal domain-closing category in which all the elements that get a license to project from a given lexical head are realized.’

(ii) Die lokale Domäne für einen Ausdruck A ist der minimale CFC, der sämtliche Lizensierer von A enthält. ‘The local domain for an expression A is the minimal CFC that contains all licensors of A.’ (iii) Domänen abschließende Elemente sind: I und Elemente, welche die [Spec, DP]-Position realisieren. ‘Domain-closing elements are: I and those elements that realize the [Spec, DP]-position.’ (iv) Unter dem Begriff ‘SUBJEKT’ werden jene syntaktischen Repräsentanten einer externen Argumentstelle, welche in eine Bindungsbeziehung mit einer DP eintreten können, und Domänen abschließende Elemente zusammengefasst. ‘The cover term ‘SUBJECT’ stands for domain-closing elements and those syntactic representatives of an external position which can enter into a binding relationship with a DP.’


thus far unpredicted – binding possibility in his system, Frey appeals to the distinction between unaccusative and unergative verbs. Assuming that auxiliary choice and passive verb forms are direct indications of argument structure, Frey claims that all verbs selecting sein ‘be’ (as opposed to haben ‘have’) as their perfect auxiliary are unaccusative and thus do not have an external argument. For unaccusative AcI-verbs, Frey’s binding conditions make the following predictions. An AcI with an unaccusative infinitive is a SUBJECT-less local domain within which requirement (i) of Principle (A), as stated above, cannot be met. As a consequence of requirement (ii), the entire sentence (TP) is the relevant CFC, and the matrix clause subject must bind the reflexive. Once the domain is extended to include the whole sentence, the pronominal cannot be free and is thus predicted to be ungrammatical. In discussing example (13) (his (10b), ch. 7), Frey refers to Haider’s (1987) and Grewendorf’s (1988) notion of argument structure unification. According to this notion, the whole argument structure of an unaccusative AcI-infinitive blends with that of the matrix verb. The result is a coherent, reduced structure with only one complex predicate (see chapter 2 for an overview of various approaches to coherent infinitive constructions).


3. Since it is a sein-selecting verb. as a consequence. The AcI thus does not have a SUBJECT. who also uses this example (her (49g)). The only available SUBJECT-antecedent is der König. The following sentences are two more of Frey’s unaccusative AcI examples (his (10a) and (10c). ch. The reflexive must find its antecedent in the next higher CFC that does contain a SUBJECT. the king lets the prisoner before self/before him down-kneel (F. 10 Note that I do not agree with Frey’s judgment here. 7). coherent domain. the AcI-infinitive niederknien is unaccusative. and den Gefangenen is not realized as its external argument.(13) Der Königi lässt den Gefangenenj vor sichi/*vor ihmi niederknien.2. As discussed in subsection 5. the pronominal cannot be free. 182 . and in fact. the account of (13) is as follows. the majority of my informants find the indicated binding possibility for the pronominal acceptable. Reis (1976).’ (Frey 1993: 116) Combining Frey’s binding conditions and his assumptions about unaccusativity with Haider’s and Grewendorf’s notion of argument structure unification. namely the matrix clause. it is claimed that the reflexive is allowed to be. Again. and. Since the argument structures of lassen and the unaccusative infinitive blend.) 10 ‘The king has the prisoner kneel down before him. confirms that the pronominal is at least marginally acceptable. the interpretation indicated in (13) is unavailable. Within this blended. and there is no intervening subject to worry about. the AcI is not considered a sentential complement of lassen.

in which the word order of the anaphoric element and the AcI-subject is fixed.11 Even when den Stein intervenes.-S. the reflexive can and must be bound by the matrix subject Hans.’ (Frey 1993: 116) In both (14a) and (b). In (14a). 183 . In (14b). L. Hansi lässt sichi/*ihmi ein Buch Hans lets von Maria geben.must be bound by the matrix subject because the AcI does not contain a SUBJECT and is not even a domain that can be considered separate from the matrix clause. the anaphoric element precedes the DP that I have been calling the AcI-subject (namely the topmost accusative-marked nominal in the AcI). This is consistent with Frey’s judgment on (13).. the word order can be changed.’ b. L.. (14) a. Hansi lässt sichi/*ihmi einen Stein Hans lets self/him (DAT) a auf den Kopf fallen. which is the example I adapted in (8b). 11 In order for the accusative object Stein ‘rock’ to be allowed to precede the dative reflexive pronoun sich. give (F. we have an example of a passive lassen-construction (equivalent to the causative faire par infinitive in French).) self/him (DAT) a book (ACC) by Maria ‘Hans has Maria give him a book. it must be definite (den Stein ‘the rock’) (see Büring 2001).-S. so that the AcI-subject precedes the anaphoric element: Hansi lässt den Stein sichi/*ihmi auf den Kopf fallen. head fall (F.) rock (ACC) on the ‘Hans lets a rock fall on his head.

Hansi lässt [AcI mich *sichi/ihmi ein Buch geben]. According to Frey’s Principle (B). Frey’s Principle (A) predicts that.’ b. Frey contends that the argument structures of the AcI-infinitive and the matrix verb do not blend because both the matrix verb and the infinitive have an external argument.) ‘Hans has me give him a book. Examples (15a-c) (his (11). Der Königi lässt [AcI den Gefangenen *sichi/ihmi huldigen]. 7) illustrate that these predictions are consistent with Frey’s grammaticality judgments. the king lets the prisoner self/him honor (F.’ (Frey 1993: 116) 184 .) ‘The king has the prisoner honor him.) ‘Hans hears the professor speak with him. Hans lets me self/him a book give (F. a pronominal must be used in order to refer to the matrix subject. In other words. the reflexive must be bound within its local domain and cannot have the matrix subject as its antecedent. Hansi hört [AcI den Professor *mit sichi/mit ihmi sprechen]. Rather. the pronominal is grammatical because it is free in its minimal SUBJECT-containing CFC. Hans hears the professor with self/with him speak (F. reflexive binding across the intervening AcI-subject should not be possible.’ c. (15) a.When it comes to AcIs with transitive infinitives. ch. since the AcI contains a SUBJECT.

the PP bei sich.127) – there is no SUBJECT in the local domain of the reflexive. the ambiguity results from the fact that the reflexive binding condition (Frey’s Principle (A) given in (12)) consists of a two-part requirement. 7). Frey’s system is similar to Haider’s. L.) ‘Hansi lets himj work at hisi/j place. L. does not contain an external argument.. with a transitive AcI-infinitive where the anaphoric element is embedded in what Haider (1985) calls a non-argument PP. (16) Eri ließ [AcI die Leutej [PP für sichi/j/ihni] Schnaps besorgen].’ (Frey 1993: 128) The reflexive sich can be bound by either Hans or ihn. Since the minimal CFC..) ‘He had (allowed) the people (to) get liquor for themselves/him.-S.-S. Hans lets him at self work (F. repeated here as (16).’ (Haider 1985: 244) If the preposition lacks an external argument – in Frey’s terms. As in Haider’s system. the reflexive must be bound by a SUBJECT in the minimal CFC that contains a domain closing element. he let the people for self/him liquor get (H. ch. This is illustrated in (17) (Frey’s (55a). and according to part (ii) of Frey’s Principle (A).As for examples like (4). it is SUBJECT-less and therefore 185 . if the external argument of the preposition is identified with the event q-role of the sentence (p. The extended binding domain is then the whole sentence. (17) Hansi lässt [AcI ihnj [PP bei sichi/j] arbeiten].

If the infinitive is transitive or unergative. with the AcI-subject as the SUBJECT. With the entire sentence as its extended binding domain. Frey also has an account for PP-embedded pronominals (i. all of Frey’s adjunct-PP examples are locatives introduced by prepositions like neben ‘next to’ and bei ‘at (someone’s place). the reflexive then has two possible antecedents.’ There is no question about the adjunct status of these PPs since they are clearly optional and unpredictable (in the sense that their content is not selected by the verb). and legen (all ‘put’). In this domain.e.’ are in fact selected. and the matrix subject. where the binding behavior of a reflexive embedded in an adjunct-PP (neben sich ‘next to self’) is contrasted with that of a reflexive embedded in an argument-PP (mit sich ‘with self’).12 Frey gives examples like (18a-b) (his (11c) and (55b). where locative PPs. Frey’s Principle (B) differs from his Principle (A) in that it consists of only one step. there is no local domain defined as a CFC that contains all the licensors of the anaphoric element. the AcI-subject. like neben ‘next to. non-reflexive pronouns). 7). 12 This does not hold for the context of verbs like setzen. crucially not to the next bigger CFC that contains an external argument (the AcIsubject) but to the minimal CFC that contains a domain-closing element. the pronominal can be free and therefore grammatical. stellen. ch. Part (ii) demands that the binding domain now be extended. For pronominals. Unlike Haider (1985). namely T. 186 . Hans. ihn. The only domain that counts for a pronominal is the minimal CFC that contains a SUBJECT. the CFC is the AcI. Interestingly.does not fulfill part (i).

if it is embedded in an adjunct-PP. not the preposition.(18) a. p.) ‘Hans hears the professor speak with him.. this für-PP is much more closely connected to the verb besorgen 13 The event q-role. (Frey 1993. Frey is more explicit than Haider in that he distinguishes between adjunct-PPs and argument-PPs by assuming that the former constitute a CFC with an external argument that is identified with the event q-role of the sentence. First. Hans hears the professor next to self speak (F. Hans hears the professor with self/with him speak (F.) ‘Hans hears the professor speak next to him. the reflexive can only be bound by the matrix subject.’ (Frey 1993: 116) As also claimed by Haider (1985). this external argument does not count as a SUBJECT.’ b. is not licensed by the adjunct. however. and the binding domain for the reflexive must be extended beyond the PP to include a possible antecedent. the referential argument of the sentence. Hansi hört [AcI den Professor [PPadj neben sichi] sprechen]. 187 . The licensor of an anaphoric element embedded in an argument-PP is the verb. Intuitively. both Haider and Frey categorically classify the für (‘for’)-PP in (16) as an adjunct.13 whereas argumentPPs are not CFCs at all because they do not contain all the licensors of the anaphoric element. 45). across the intervening AcI-subject. Consequently.-S. Hansi hört [AcI den Professor [PParg*mit sichi/mit ihmi] sprechen]. Although Frey’s system is an improvement over Haider’s. L. there are still problems. though the distinction between adjuncts and arguments is notoriously fuzzy.

Reis (1973).e. Again. as explained above.’) Since the PP-versions of applicatives (like benefactives and passive by-phrases) are considered systematically optional arguments.14 it seems that the für-PP in (16) could be either an adjunct (licensed by the preposition) or an argument (licensed by the verb).” The second problem concerns Frey’s unaccusativity analysis. repeated here as (19a-b). Hansi lässt [AcI die Männerj [PP über sichi/über ihni] herfallen]. (19) a. More specifically. 522). is often complemented by a benefactive. who acknowledges these problems.’ This intuition is confirmed in that besorgen just like English get or buy.. the problem is that auxiliary choice does not seem to correlate with the binding possibilities in the way that Frey’s account suggests.) ‘Hans lets the men attack him. 188 . Hans lets the men upon self/upon him fall (R. i. (Sie besorgten ihm (DAT) Bier.’ 14 Reis (1976) calls für-PPs “semi-obligatorische Verbergänzungen” (p. the person for whom something is gotten or bought.‘get/buy’ than the neben (‘next to’)-PP in (18b) is to the verb sprechen ‘speak. notes that “a good deal of lexical variation is to be observed (p.-S. ‘They got him some beer. The benefactive can either be expressed as a für-PP or a dative DP. L. It unexpectedly rules out the pronominal in Reis’ (1973) examples given in (9a-b). 28).

-S. This in turn means that the infinitives cannot be unaccusative despite the fact that they select sein. and consequently be subject to argument structure unification.’ (fig. ‘Hans wants to cross that bridge when he gets to it.’) (Reis 1973: 522) The infinitives über jemanden herfallen ‘attack someone’ and auf jemanden zukommen ‘come toward/approach someone’ select sein as their perfect auxiliary. One of the points I make in the following subsection is that pronominal binding facts are a better probe for unaccusativity than auxiliary choice (see also LeeSchoenfeld (to appear)).3 Reconsidering the facts As the preceding discussion reveals.. L.2. neither of the previous analyses presented here is able to account for all of the commonly agreed upon binding facts in examples involving AcI-constructions. Thus.) Hans lets the responsibility on self/on him to-come ‘Hans lets the responsibility come to him. The pronominal is predicted to have no chance of being free. 5. The fact that it can be free here suggests that. (R. According to Frey. they should thus be unaccusative. Hansi lässt [AcI die Verantwortung [PP auf sichi/auf ihni] zukommen]. neither Haider nor Frey offer a convincing account for Reis’ well-established data in (19a-b).b. Furthermore. argument structures have not blended and that the nominals die Männer ‘men’ and d i e Verantwortung ‘responsibility’ have external argument status. the empirical generalizations presented in 189 . in Frey’s terms.

namely coreference of a reflexive in argument (or non-PP) position with a DP beyond the intervening embedded subject is strictly ruled out. binding across the intervening 190 . where sich is a non-PP argument of the AcI-infinitive and can be bound by either the AcI or the matrix subject. for (5a-b). then.’ In (20a). Die Mutteri lässt [AcI die Kleinej the mother lets sichi/j/ihri/*j die Schokolade in den Mund (L. Case 3.) the fans (ACC) self/ them (ACC) on-cheer ‘The players hear the fans cheer them on. (20) a. Although the more local binding possibility is generally preferred for the reflexive (especially in (20b)). (1973. it is a direct accusative-marked object. 1976). Section 5.-S.4 aims to give an account of binding in AcI-constructions that explains both the facts reported in the literature thus far (Case 2) and the judgments at issue here (Case 3). there is no reflexive binding ambiguity when the reflexive is an argument (or. according to their work. There needs to be an explanation. stick ‘The mother lets the little girl stick the chocolate in its/her mouth. and in (b). for Reis.’ b. a non-prepositional object NP) of the AcI-infinitive. and Frey (1993) are in need of sharpening and revision.Reis. Haider (1985. Thus. In particular. repeated here as (20a-b).) the little girl (ACC) self/her (DAT) the chocolate (ACC) in the mouth stecken]. Die Spieleri hören [AcI die Fansj the players hear sich?i/j/siei/*j anfeuern].-S. sich is a (non-core) possessor dative (PD). (L. 1993). sich has to be bound by the external argument of the AcI.

When it comes to an accusative-marked reflexive as in (20b). 191 . it is most natural to think of the pronominal in (20a) as referring to a third person not mentioned in the sentence. or be used deictically.4 presents the analysis ultimately proposed here). there are three options: They can be bound by the matrix subject. As for the pronominals (ihr and sie). it seems that acceptability of the reflexive decreases. There does not seem to be a perfect way of establishing this binding relation. At the same time. the reflexive cannot be ruled out – it is at least possible and in this way contrasts sharply with (6a) in which the reflexive is within a finite CP and binding is utterly impossible. it is precisely this ambiguity involving the pronominal that allows the reflexive to provide an alternative way of referring to the matrix subject. since German reflexives cannot be used logophorically and thus be exempt from the binding conditions. Still. if the speaker puts him or herself in the position of die Spieler ‘the players’. refer to a DP from previous discourse. For many of the consulted informants. Descriptively speaking. Again. the long-distance binding possibility is even harder to get. and the context of the described situation is clear.embedded subject is not impossible. they do not feel completely comfortable with the reflexive referring to the matrix subject either. Intuitively. the more clear-cut the argument status of the phrase containing it is. the judgments in (20a-b) are a significant empirical finding which a binding account must at least attempt to explain (section 5. although they find it possible.

or are less constrained than they seem to be. Crucially. depending on lexical choices and possibly perspective. (21) a.15 he let the server self/him (DAT) a liquor bring (L.As shown by the example pairs in (21) and (22).’ (Reis 1973: 522) 15 Coreference between den Ober and sich is pragmatically very odd here. (R. 192 . the anaphoric element is a dative-marked (non-PP) nominal.) ‘He had (allowed) the server (to) bring him a shot of liquor/bring liquor for himself. Eri ließ [AcI die Leutej sichj/*i/ihmi/*j Schnaps besorgen]. however.) self/ him (DAT) the letter give ‘Hinz has Kunz give him the letter. With the addition of the emphatic element selbst ‘self’. Eri ließ [AcI den Oberj sichj/?i/ihmi/*j einen Schnaps bringen]. The (b)-examples are slightly altered versions of the respective counterparts in (a) and show that the binding possibilities change.) ‘He had (allowed) the people (to) get liquor for him/themselves. what rules out coreference of the reflexive with the matrix subject in Haider and Reis’ data is probably not the given syntactic configuration. he let the people self/him (DAT) liquor get (H. Hinzi lässt [AcI Kunzj *sichi/ihmi Hinz lets Kunz den Brief geben].-S. The (a)-examples are taken from Haider and Reis and represent their judgments of the binding facts.’ (22) a.’ (Haider 1985: 244) b. the coreference relation becomes acceptable and is therefore marked as grammatical here. in all of the following examples.

based on the judgments I report on here. embedded subject. As for pronominal binding. has no way of accounting for the binding facts in (23). the king lets the prisoner before self/him down-kneel (L. a system like Frey’s. this is unsurprising. of course. as discussed in Safir (2004). (23) Der Königi lässt [AcI den Gefangenenj vor sichi/j/ihmi niederknien].) ‘Hinz has (allows) Kunz (to) put the letter on his desk. Given the strong tendency of sich to be bound locally. the coindexation of sich and den Gefangenen is only possible if the non-linguistic context provides a mirror.b.16 In sum. The same kind of observation can be made about Frey’s (non-PP) examples in (15a-b).’ Despite the fact that niederknien is a sein-verb. The reflexive can reach beyond the embedded subject if the context is slightly changed. Hinz lets Kunz self/him (DAT) the letter on the desk put (L.’ Without making a significant phrase-structural difference.) ‘The king has the prisoner kneel down before him. many of my consultants and I find that both reflexive and pronominal are perfectly acceptable when coreferring with the matrix subject. 193 .-S. Unlike the pronominal.-S. the reflexive also has the possibility of being bound by the closer. Hinzi lässt [AcI Kunzj sich?i/ihmi den Brief auf den Schreibtisch legen]. the slightly altered context in the (b)-examples clearly facilitates the binding possibility between reflexive and matrix subject. in which all sein-selecting verbs are considered unaccusative. Pragmatically. the binding relations in (23) are no 16 This corresponds to a Proxy-reading of the reflexive.

The judgments do not seem to vary when it comes to examples like (14a) (the causative passive example) and (14b).. L. however. where the pronominal is clearly ungrammatical and the reflexive only has one binding possibility. Hans lets self/him (DAT) a rock (ACC) on the head fall (F.’ b. 194 . it is reasonable to attribute the transparency of the AcI to 17 Note that.-S. L. the AcI-introducing verb lassen has many different shades of meaning going beyond permissive and causative (see Höhle 1978 for a discussion of 8 types of lassen). There is then no motivation for argument structure unification and thus no evidence of a coherent construction.) ‘Hans lets a rock fall on his head. which reflects at least some of the semantic differences between the many types of lassen.) self/him (DAT) a book (ACC) by ‘Hans has Maria give him a book. repeated below as (24a-b). in assuming that there is no evidence for structural distinctions based solely on these different shades of meaning. I follow Reis (1976).’ (Frey 1993: 116) In these cases.different from examples with transitive or unergative AcIs. Hansi lässt sichi/*ihmi einen Stein auf den Kopf fallen.3. I propose a structural distinction between transitive/ unergative and unaccusative AcIs. (24) a.17 Here. Maria give (F. In section 5. Hansi lässt sichi/*ihmi ein Buch Hans lets von Maria geben. an account based on unaccusativity and blended argument structure becomes much more attractive (though. as we will see. complex verb formation and argument structure blending are not ultimately devices that will be needed for the proposal I develop)..-S.

that niederknien ‘kneel down’ in (23). as in the (b)examples. it can be coindexed with both the matrix and the AcI-subject where pragmatically possible. the pronominal in the (b)-examples is at least marginally acceptable and consistently 18 The focus is on the acceptability of the pronominal here.the unaccusativity of the infinitive. Some minimal-pair-like examples that support this contrast in agentivity and its correlation with the binding facts are shown in (25)-(28). it is the agentivity (i. I conclude that auxiliary selection is not a reliable diagnostic for unaccusativity. 195 . coreference between the matrix subject and the pronominal is generally impossible. As for the reflexive. While the reflexive is always preferred. sich can be bound by the AcI-subject die Polizisten if it takes on its reciprocal function. despite the fact that it selects sein. as suggested by the contrast between (23) and (24b). must not be an unaccusative verb. einen Stein ‘a rock’ in (24b) and (25a) is non-agentive and does not constitute a domain boundary relevant for the pronominal. While den Gefangenen ‘the prisoner’ in (23) is agentive and seems to be able to turn the AcI into an opaque domain within which the pronominal can be free. In (28b). on the other hand. which does not enter into a coherent (in the sense of ‘blended’) construction with lassen. for example. This means. as in the (a)-examples.e. it is suddenly much easier to accept the pronominal as coreferring with the matrix subject. Rather. however. When the AcI-subject is agentive.18 When the AcI-subject is non-agentive. the properties associated with proto-agent arguments) of the AcIsubject which classifies an intransitive AcI-infinitive as unaccusative or unergative.

(L. Der kleine Jungei lässt [AcIden Stein sichi/ihm*i auf den Kopf fallen]. whether the AcI-subject precedes it or follows it. and the non-agentive AcI-subject. subjects that are agents. the grandmother lets the parakeet self/her on the head fly (L.’ 19 In (25)-(28).-S. Recall from chapter 2.20 (25) a.) ‘The grandmother lets the parakeet fly onto her head.’ b.) (L.) (L. As explained there and also in chapter 6. are not agents but (according to my judgments) still induce opacity in that they are enough of a separation between matrix clause antecedent and pronominal. Crucially. that I am using the term ‘agentive subject’ to refer to any subject with proto-agent properties in the sense of Dowty (1991). experiencers. causers. the pronominal here cannot be bound by the matrix subject. all the (b)-examples have proto-agent AcI-subjects. however. the bracketing in the examples with a possessor dative is an expositional simplification in that it abstracts away from the discussion in chapter 4. I chose sein-verbs for all of the following AcI-infinitives.’ 20 (L.-S. To show that it really is agentivity19.-S. etc. for examples. which are literally “agents”. may precede the PD as a result of scrambling. The AcI-subjects in (i)-(iii).) the little boy lets the rock self/him on the head fall ‘The little boy lets the rock fall on his head.’ (iii) Der Arzti sah das Medikament sich?i/ihm?i helfen. 196 . (i) Hansi ließ die Krankheit sich?i/ihni ohne jede Gegenwehr töten. not auxiliary selection. ‘The doctor saw the medication help him. a PD-licensing affectee vP in a construction with an unaccusative AcI is probably projected by the matrix verb.) Again. which originates in Spec VP of the AcI. that makes the difference here.’ (ii) Hansi ließ die Kugel sich?i/ihni nicht treffen. ‘Hans let the disease kill him without any resistance. ‘Hans did not let the bullet hit him. i.better than in the (a)-examples.-S. Die Großmutteri lässt [AcIden Wellensittich sichi/ihr?i auf den Kopf fliegen].-S.e.

-S.) Willi lets the chance self/him not through the fingers slide ‘Willi doesn’t let the chance slip through his fingers.’ (27) a.-S.-S.’ b. (L. Der Königi lässt [AcIden Gefangenen vor sichi/ihmi niederknien].-S. Britta let the ball on self/her to-roll (L.’ b. (L.) ‘The demonstrator saw the policemen come toward her.’ (28) a.4.’ b.) the scaffolding on self/him down-crash the construction worker sees ‘The construction worker sees the scaffolding crash down on him. the king lets the prisoner before self/him down-kneel (L. As I explain in section 5. Majai lässt [AcIdie Katze sichi/ihr?i nicht ins Maja lets the cat self/her not Haus kommen].) into-the house come ‘Maja doesn’t let the cat enter her house. PP-embeddedness can render a syntactically 197 .) ‘The king lets the prisoner kneel down before him.-S. (L. the demonstrator (FEM) saw the policemen on self/her to-come (L. While the pronominal possessor datives are clearly ungrammatical in (25a) and (26a) and noticeably better in the corresponding (b)-examples.) ‘Britta let the ball roll toward her.(26) a.-S. Die Demonstrantini sah [AcIdie Polizisten auf sichi/siei zukommen].’ It is evident that the pronominal generally becomes more acceptable when embedded in a PP. in both the (a) and (b)examples. the PP-embedded pronominals in (27) and (28) get better judgments overall. Der Bauarbeiteri sieht [AcIdas Gerüst auf sichi/ihn?*i niederstürzen]. Willii lässt [AcIdie Chance sichi/ihm*i nicht durch die Finger gleiten]. Brittai ließ [AcIden Ball auf sichi/sie?*i zurollen].

I will show that it is the presence or absence of the syntactic head introducing the agentive AcI-subject which determines the binding possibilities for the pronominal. As explained in chapters 3 and 4.bound pronominal acceptable. It has been established that the crucial property of a non-coherent (opaque) AcI is the presence of an agentive AcIsubject. that this framework yields a relatively straightforward account of the facts. that I explore a different path. It would be possible. This line of thought opens up the possibility of defining binding domains in phrase-structural terms and thereby capturing the ‘agentivity effects’ just documented indirectly.3 Binding domains and agentivity To reiterate the basic intuition that drives my reanalysis of the binding facts in German AcI-constructions. the instantiation of Burzio’s Generalization.3. regardless of whether or not the AcI-subject is agentive. this head is v. Recent work. however. I propose that the reflexive binding possibilities need to 198 . beginning in section 5. in principle. to build reference to ‘agentivity’ directly into the definition of binding domains. 5. functioning as both assigner of the external argument (proto-agent) role and licensor of accusative case. It should be clear from the previous chapters of this dissertation. has explored the syntactic correlate of expression of an agentive (in traditional terms ‘external’) argument. More specifically. I argue. in the Minimalist Program and elsewhere.

If. the analysis will be extended to instances of binding in the nominal domain in 5. the argument of an unaccusative verb. as traditionally assumed.1 A phrase-structural analysis of unaccusativity Instead of relying on a concept like Frey’s (1993) argument structure unification (either base-generation of a complex verbal head or a derivational process of restructuring). I appeal to a theory of phrase structure which allows for a clear-cut and purely syntactic distinction between passive and unaccusative verbs on the one hand and transitive and unergative verbs on the other. Within this framework. for some speakers.2. it can be bound within the same TP as the reflexive.3. 2000. the configurations of these types of verbs are more radically different than in the classic Principles & Parameters system.1. as long as it is contained in a smaller domain within which it can be free. After a discussion of the syntactic correlate of agentivity in 5. the only binding restriction on the reflexive seems to be that it be bound within the minimal TP containing it. which is difficult to reconcile with recent assumptions concerning the building blocks and operations available to narrow syntax (see Chomsky 1995. 2001). As for the pronominal. 5.3.3. moves 199 . This more radical difference is desirable because it offers a solution to the following puzzle. More specifically. though base-generated as the verb’s internal argument.be less restricted than usually assumed and that the distribution of reflexives and pronominals partially overlaps when the AcI-subject is agentive.

to check case in external argument position, it ends up in the same position as the argument of an unergative verb and the higher argument of a transitive verb. Thus, structurally speaking, both types of verbs have an ‘external’ argument. Why then should the binding behavior of their arguments (or more specifically, the transparency/opacity-effects they induce) be different? Recall that, within the framework of the phrase structure theory assumed here (see Hale & Keyser 1993, Chomsky 1995, and Kratzer 1996), transitive and unergative verb structures are syntactically complex in that they subsume both a lexical VP and an agentive vP-projection, as shown in (29). The verb originates as the V-head and raises to little v. 21 Each of the verbal heads assigns a q-role to the argument with which it merges. The verb’s “internal” argument then is the complement (or specifier) of V, while the “external” argument is in Spec vP. Crucial to the analysis to be developed here, an agent role can only be assigned by v. (29)

vP 2 DP v' SUBJ 2 VP v 2 (DP) V (OBJ) | unerg./(tr.)


At least in the case of finite verbs, V-heads in German are generally assumed to move to

the v-heads they project. 200

In contrast to this double-layer configuration of unergative and transitive verbs, the characteristic structure of passive and unaccusative verbs is less elaborate. It lacks vP and thus consists of the lexical VP only. No agent role is assigned. This is shown in (30). (30)

VP 2 DP V SUBJ unacc.

It follows that only subjects of transitive and unergative, not passive and unaccusative verbs can receive an agent role. I assume that either one of the verbal structures in (29) and (30) can occur as complement of AcI-matrix verbs. The tree structures in (31a-b)22 show both the unergative and the unaccusative type of AcI-configuration embedded under lassen ‘let, allow, have’. The former corresponds to the (b)-example and the latter to the (a)-example of the sentence pair in (27).


As in previous chapters, to save space, my tree structures include a mix of left and right-

headed verb phrases. Abstracting away from verb-second related movement allows me to leave out the CP-layer of the diagrammed sentences. On the view that the underlying order (at least in Dutch) is SVO (see Zwart 1997), the left-headed agentive vP in the matrix clause of my structures is in fact standard. 201



TP 2 DPi T' Der König 2 T vP 2 ti v' 2 v VP lässt 2 vP V 2 tv DPj v' den Gefangenen 2 AGENT VP v | V' 2 PP V vor niedersichi/j/ihmi/*j knien


TP 2

DPi T' Der 2 Bauarbeiter T vP 2 ti v' 2 v VP lässt 2 VP V 2 tv DP V' das Gerüst 2 PP V auf niederstürzen 23 sichi/ihn*i


I give a categorical *-judgment here, although there is an interpretation of this sentence

(especially when the matrix verb is sieht ‘sees’) which allows the pronominal, at least marginally (see (27a)). This has to do with either perspective or the finding discussed in subsection 5.4.4-5 that certain PPs can constitute their own binding domains. 202

Case-checking and q-assignment proceed as follows. In both (31a) and (b), the matrix subject checks nominative case with T, while the AcI-subject checks accusative case with the matrix v. The matrix v assigns an external argument role to the matrix subject, which then moves to Spec TP, leaving a trace in Spec vP. In the unergative AcI-structure in (a), the AcI-subject is assigned an agent role by the embedded v, whereas there is no embedded v to assign an agent role to the AcIsubject in the unaccusative AcI-structure in (b). This latter structure crucially lacks a vP-projection. These two types of AcI-structures lead to different binding possibilities. The extra structural layer of unergative and transitive AcIs, resulting from the presence of vP (see (31a)), provides a domain in which the pronominal can be free. The assumption that v is needed to assign a proto-agent role to the AcI-subject explains the intuition that the pronominal is grammatical as long as it is separated from its antecedent by an agentive subject. The crucial binding domain for the pronominal should thus be the minimal agentive vP containing it. The reflexive, on the other hand, can transcend agentive vP boundaries. While it is preferably bound within the same domain in which the pronominal must be free, some speakers find it grammatical, as long as it has a binder within its minimal TP. The preliminary binding conditions for AcI-


constructions are thus given in (32). I assume provisionally that ‘subject’ refers to ‘DPs in Spec vP’.24 A formal definition is offered in the next subsection. (32) a. A reflexive g must be bound by a ‘subject’ within the minimal TP containing g.

b. A pronominal d must be free within the minimal agentive vP containing d. In section 5.4, I will propose a way to eliminate the disjunction (TP versus vP) implicit in (32). For now, consider how this formulation will do its work. In (31a), the pronominal ihm can refer to the matrix subject der König because it is free in the minimal vP containing it. The AcI-subject den Gefangenen is the intervening agentive subject. If the AcI-infinitive does not include a vP, as is the case in (31b), the minimal vP containing the pronominal is the matrix vP, which also contains the trace of the matrix subject antecedent. Within this higher vP, the pronominal cannot be free and is thus ruled out. As for the reflexive, sich has two binding possibilities in (31a). Both den Gefangenen and der König are within the minimal TP that contains sich and can thus antecede it. (Again, the prisoner would have to be in front of a mirror). In (31b), only the matrix subject der Bauarbeiter is a possible antecedent. Pragmatically, only very few verbs allow for non-agentive subjects to antecede a reflexive. An example is in sich zusammensacken ‘to (internally) collapse’ as in Er sah den Kucheni in sichi zusammensacken ‘He saw the cake collapse’. In general, we


I focus solely on subject-oriented anaphora here. For cases of reflexives with object

antecedents, see e.g. Grewendorf (1985). 204

Before proposing a way to unify the reflexive and pronominal domains in section 5.4. select sein ‘be’ as their perfect auxiliary does not necessarily mean that they are unaccusative.3.2 An extension to the nominal domain In the previous subsection. I focus here on 25 See Lee-Schoenfeld to appear for an in-depth discussion of the non-correlation of agentivity and auxiliary choice.only get non-complementarity of the reflexive and the pronominal if the phrase structure of the AcI corresponds to (31a). for example. i. The point is that unaccusativity dynamically depends on the subtleties of sentence interpretation rather than being fixed once and for all for a given lexical item.25 5. Although agentivity (or control) are cross-linguistically associated with HAVE-selection. may lead to BE-selection (see Sorace’s (2000) Auxiliary Selection Hierarchy). A consequence of the proposed analysis is that pronominal binding facts may. the transitive/unergative type. there are other factors like change of location. combined with agentivity. 205 . it has been established that AcI-constructions call for binding conditions which have TP as the relevant domain for the reflexive and the minimal agentive vP as the relevant domain for the pronominal. be taken as a reliable probe for unaccusativity. Agentivity and thus the presence of an agentive subject is only one of the factors that influence auxiliary selection. but auxiliary choice cannot. Since the former domain is bigger than the latter. The fact that motion verbs. which. we get non-complementarity.e.

Compare (33) with (34).’ The reflexive sich is ambiguous in that it can be bound either by the subject/possessor in the embedded domain or.) stories about self/him with-pleasure Thorsten’s ‘Martin doesn’t like to hear Thorsten’s stories about himself/him.-S. The pronominal.’ The binding conditions as stated in (32) do not predict the coindexation of the pronominal ihn with the matrix subject to be possible because there is no embedded agentive vP within which the pronominal is free. (34) Martini hört [AcIThorstenj über sichi/j/ihni/*j reden]. does the current analysis extend to non-AcI contexts? This subsection explores two such contexts: complex DPs with a possessor in Spec DP and plain (i. (L. Martin hears Thorsten about self/him talk (L. Here. possessor-less) DPs.-S.e. can only be bound by the matrix subject or refer to someone mentioned in 206 . Consider first the complex DP example in (33). by the matrix subject. within TP. That is. There is a remarkable parallel between the binding facts in this complex DP example and those in unergative and transitive AcI-constructions. ihn is embedded in a PP that is part of a complex DP. on the other hand.) ‘Martin hears Thorsten talk about himself/him.determining what impact the findings thus far have on the study of German anaphora in a broader sense. (33) Martini hört nicht gern Martin hears not [DPThorstensj Geschichten über sichi/j/ihni/*j].

The revision (adding another disjunction to be eliminated shortly) is given in (36). the pronominal binding condition must now allow for a pronominal to be free within the minimal DP containing it. 207 . The fact that the pronominal in (33) is at all grammatical suggests that DP. The definition of ‘subject. (35) Safir (2004): The syntactic subject of a. in (35).previous discourse. and b is in an A-chain relation with SPEC-a. Both intervene between the pronominal and its matrix clause antecedent. The possessor in Spec DP (see (33)) is the equivalent of the agentive subject in Spec vP (see (34)). constitutes a sufficient domain within which the pronominal can be free. as stated in (32a). is any b such that b is the SPEC of an extended projection of a. a a lexical category. If the possessor in Spec DP is considered a ‘subject.’ however. must be broadened now. 5).’ the binding condition for the reflexive. Furthermore. TP is still the only upper boundary needed. just like vP. As for the reflexive binding facts. which I first give in its original wording and then paraphrase in Minimalist terms. I propose to adopt Safir’s (2004) definition (his (21). ch. still holds. It needs to include DPs in the specifier of both agentive vPs and DPs.

27 According to this definition of ‘subject’. Whether or not it can be maintained that possessor datives are ‘subjects’ in the more general (non-binding-related) sense. Both the AcIintroducing matrix verb and the AcI-infinitive are Vs and thus q-assigning lexical categories. these nominals are correctly defined as ‘subjects’. As discussed in chapter 6. Since TP is an extended projection of the matrix V. even when it comes to object-oriented reflexive binding. and the respective matrix subjects (der König in (31a) and Hans in (b)) are in Spec TP. is a different issue.Adaptation: A ’subject’ is any DP-specifier of (the extended projection of) a q-assigning head. Grewendorf 1985). The DP den Gefangenen in the embedded Spec vP in (a) also qualifies as ‘subject’ because Spec vP is the extended projection of the 26 This reformulation of Safir’s definition of ‘subject’ is based on the ‘bare phrase structure’ definition of complement and specifier. possessor datives do not have the same opacity-inducing quality as proto-agent subjects (introduced by agentive v-heads). 208 . possessor datives. With respect to the AcIconstructions in (31a-b). however. according to which complements are phrases that are incorporated by first merge to a given head and all subsequent merges produce specifiers. Although it has been established in the literature that accusative-marked nominals are “better” reflexive binders than dative nominals. My adaptation of Safir’s definition of “syntactic subject” includes the specifier of the immediate or extended projection of any lexical category. the definition may be applied as follows.27 (36) A pronominal d must be free within the minimal agentive vP or DP containing d.g. the ‘subject’ definition in (35) roughly makes the right predictions. which originate in the specifier of the possessed nominal and raise to the specifier of a dative-case-licensing vP (see chapter 3). In connection with the reflexive binding condition stated in (32a).26. it is not impossible for datives to antecede sich (see e. are ‘subjects’ as well.

The wellformedness of (37) could be explained by arguing that das Boot neben sich/ihm has the structure [DP [PP ]]. Hence.lexical V of the AcI. As in the complex DP example in (33). a pronominal should not be grammatical in an unaccusative AcI.-S. At first sight. the pronominal is free. Thorsten. It appears that even DPs without a possessor in Spec DP constitute a domain for pronominals. i. If the [DP [PP ]]-analysis is forced. All the possible binders of sich in examples like (31a-b) and (33) are ‘subjects’ as defined in (35).) ‘He saw the boat next to him sink. In sum. N is a lexical category with DP as its extended projection. The lack of an agentive vP and thus an intervening agentive subject between the pronominal and its antecedent is predicted to rule out the pronominal. (37) Eri sah [AcI das Boot neben sichi/ihmi untergehen]. he saw the boat next to self/him under-go (L. the possessor in Spec DP. Safir’s definition and my adaptation make the right predictions for the reflexive binding facts in constructions with both AcIs and complex DPs. As for the complex DP example in (33). the anaphoric element is then embedded in a PP that is part of a DP.’ According to (32b).e. data like (37) seem to suggest that the answer is no. is a ‘subject’ in the relevant sense. Within the domain of the DP. if the possibility of 209 . A question that arises from this discussion is whether the disjunction “vP or DP” in (36) can be eliminated by referring instead to a “subject-containing category” (which would be natural).

) sichi/ihmi]] untergehen]. Note. Just as verbal binding domains need to be closed off by an agentive subject.-S. that the difference between the complex DP example in (33) and the plain DP examples in (37)-(38) is that the pronominal in the former is embedded in what looks like an argument PP.interpreting the DP and the PP as separate arguments of the infinitive is excluded. Hence. Subsection 5. but not the boat behind him sink. aber nicht [DP das Boot [PP hinter he saw the boat next-to self/him but not the boat behind (L.’ a DP behaves like an agentive vP in that it provides enough intervening structure between a pronominal and its antecedent to license the pronominal. This is shown in (38). whereas the pronominal in the latter is embedded in an adjunct PP. there is no reason to believe that plain DPs are equally opacity-inducing as complex DPs. the pronominal seems even more natural. self/him under-go ‘He saw the boat next to him. I will address what agentive vPs and complex DPs have in common and 210 . (38) Eri sah [AcI [DP das Boot [PP neben sichi/ihmi]].4. and not a consequence of the plain DP-boundary. however. even without a ‘subject. In the next section.’ Examples like (37) and (38) would then suggest that. The fact that the pronominal is free in (37)-(38) may thus be a consequence of the adjunct PP-boundary which intervenes between the matrix clause antecedent and the embedded pronominal.4 confirms that pronominals embedded in adjunct PPs are free regardless of what type of DP the PP may be contained in. nominal binding domains seem to require a ‘subject’ (a possessor in Spec DP) in order to be opacity-inducing.

but that. 5. between vP and DP as binding domains and (ii) to simultaneously explain the widely attested default case of complementarity between reflexive and pronominal.e. it has been established that a German reflexive which is not embedded in a PP is most readily acceptable when bound locally (i. more generally. for at least some speakers. 2001) notion of ‘phase’. both agentive vPs and complex DPs have been shown to be relevant binding domains for the pronominal within TP (Case 1). which leads to non-complementarity (Cases 2 and 3). The goals of this final section are (i) to account for the parallel between the binding facts in transitive/unergative AcI and complex DP-constructions and thus. 211 . vP/DP). it can also reach beyond an embedded vP-boundary and engage in apparent long-distance binding.sketch a proposal of how to eliminate both the “vP or DP”-disjunction in the pronominal binding condition and the need for distinct domains for reflexive and pronominal (TP vs.4 Taking the analysis to the next phase At this point. while still allowing for the (at times marginal) long-distance binding ability of the reflexive. 5.4. Furthermore. within the minimal agentive vP containing it).1 Unifying vP and DP One way to shed light on the parallel between vP and DP as pronominal binding domains is to appeal to Chomsky’s (2000.

the specifiers of that head and any adjoined material. Chomsky (2000) (building on work by Fox (2000) and Nissenbaum (2000)) makes the argument for vP. for example. causes the derivation to crash.Within a Minimalist framework. One of the category-types that define phases is CP. it is crucial that vP and DP have also been argued to constitute phases. extraction seems to proceed via the respective specifier position. The only parts of a phase which can interact with external elements (introduced later in the computational sequence) are those at its edge. the derivation of a sentence proceeds in phases. or material that is otherwise dependent on phase-external elements. A phase is a subpart of a derivation whose internal content is closed off to grammatical interactions with external elements. Any unchecked features. With respect to the current analysis. As shown. by the successive-cyclic nature of Wh-movement. Among the grammatical operations which cannot penetrate phase boundaries are feature-checking operations. the binding condition for the pronominal does not need to be 212 . In both cases. McCloskey (2000) and Svenonius (2004) for DP. it follows that higher heads can establish such relations with material inside a lower phase only if that material is at the phase-edge. Once a phase is completed. though that will be of less concern here). its contents get evaluated at LF (and also at PF. The edge of a phase in turn consists of its defining head. If vP and DP indeed have this commonality. raising out of a CP entails stopping off in Spec CP (McCloskey 2002).

This issue will be addressed in chapter 6. Since the internal contents of a phase are not accessible to higher elements. 28 Since we have come across at least two different kinds of vP – agentive and affectee – it remains to be seen whether all kinds of vP have the opacity-inducing quality that is characteristic of phases. The question is then how to explain the possibility (for some speakers) of long-distance binding for sich in AcI-examples like (31a) and complex DP-examples like (33). What allows sich to be bound by the matrix subject? The following subsections offer a solution based partly on Safir’s (2004) proposal of drawing a parallel between German sich and reflexive clitics in Romance.stated as a disjunction (see (35)). While the ‘subject’ in Spec vP of transitive or unergative AcI- constructions. It can simply require that the pronominal be free in the smallest phase that contains it. which are known to be able to raise from inside VP to the inflectional layer. is an accessible binder for a phase-internal sich. the binding requirements of a phase-internal reflexive cannot be satisfied by a phase-external antecedent. more general pronominal binding condition. 213 . for example. the proposal that vP and DP (in addition to CP) define phases has interesting and potentially problematic consequences for the reflexive binding condition.28 While allowing for a unified. the matrix subject (being external to the embedded vP-phase) is not.

His discussion is based on the mainstream view that “sich can be bound in a clause higher than its thematic assignment” (p. 19. 5) when it is embedded in a PP. Safir gives one of Reis’ (1976) examples. 5. the distribution is complementary. Hans lets the tiredness over self come (R. here shown in (39). 1). Non-complementarity can only exist if there is a difference in interpretation between the use of the reflexive and the use of the pronominal.-S.2 Reflexive raising In The Syntax of Anaphora.) ‘Hans lets tiredness overcome him. the empirical generalizations seem incompatible with Safir’s theory. however.5. p. 3. Safir does point out a characteristic of the reflexive pronoun sich that provides the means for reconciling his theoretical claims and the empirical observations here. ch.’ (Safir 2004: (28a). 19) 214 . ch.4. Safir (2004) develops a theory in which the distribution of anaphors and pronominals is determined by “universal principles applying to select the ‘best available’ form-to-interpretation match” (ch. In his discussion of German AcI-constructions. p. (39) Hansi lässt [AcIdie Müdigkeit [PPüber sichi] kommen]. L. As there can only be one ‘best available’ form. Since the data at issue here show a large area of noncomplementarity which does not coincide with clear interpretive differences..

. uniting subject-orientation and movement domains. It can then find the matrix subject as its antecedent.’ (Reis 1973: 522) Safir does not discuss the pronominal in this context. 215 .To account for the “larger domain” of the reflexive. in his terms. Reis (1973) puts a question mark next to the pronominal. If sich is able to covertly move up and adjoin to the edge of its vP or DP-phase. the ability of the reflexive to raise covertly. i. the most dependent available form. Although I follow Safir in rejecting Pica’s account of head movement. even if it is not introduced as the object of a preposition. It is unclear why. justified by the fact that the Romance reflexive has the ability to do so overtly. it becomes accessible to elements merged later in the derivation. constitutes the starting point for the account of reflexive raising I develop in the following subsections. it should be noted that Safir’s proposal of covert clitic movement for German sich relies on the essence of Pica’s analysis. L. ch. namely the reflexive sich. the reflexive comes to be in the same domain as its antecedent by covert movement from the AcI into the higher clause. and I agree that ihn ‘him’ is at least marginally acceptable. (i) Hansi lässt [AcIdie Müdigkeit [PPüber sichi/?über ihni] kommen]. does not obviate the pronominal ihn.-S. while still being pronounced as part of the embedded 29 See also Pica 1987. 5).) ‘Hans lets tiredness overcome him. Hans lets the tiredness over self/over him come (R.30 Safir’s covert clitic movement. 30 This explains the grammaticality of the reflexive. but it does not provide an answer for why the pronominal can be considered grammatical as well (see (i)).29 He assumes that “covert clitic movement from prepositional object position is possible in German for sich and that certain causative constructions permit the domain of covert clitic movement to pass a specified subject” (p.e. 19. In other words. Safir compares German sich to the French reflexive clitic se.

Instead of deleting (or not pronouncing) all but the highest copy of the moved element. merge. I will lay out some basic assumptions concerning movement and the nature of reflexive binding.domain. LeSourd & Chung (to appear)). Cross-linguistically. Both clitics and A-moved phrases can engage in apparently unbounded grammatical interactions by means of establishing successive-cyclic local relations. must be syntactically bound. the binding behavior of French clitics involves a type of agreement relation that is closely related to the system of A-movement. As has been established by Kayne (1975). On this view. The only difference lies in the deletion-part of the two types of movement. it is crucial that the pronominal be unable to undergo this covert raising process. covert movement only leaves the lowest copy to be pronounced (see e. Although it is unlikely that the feature-checking operation driving A-movement and 216 . and Reintges. Since the goal here is to explain a case of non-complementarity. however. But this seems reasonable given that reflexives are generally grammatically active in ways that pronominals are not. Before we get to the details of the account. while pronominals can refer to an antecedent mentioned in previous discourse or may not have a linguistic antecedent at all. Bos&kovic@ 2001. reflexives in particular have special morphosyntactic properties that often implicate A-movement (Burzio 1986). Bobaljik 2002. according to which movement consists of the operations copy. covert reflexive raising then happens in narrow syntax. Assuming the COPY T HEORY OF MOVEMENT. Reflexives. for example.g. the first two steps of ‘covert’ movement proceed just as they would in overt movement. and delete.

the mechanism responsible for establishing anaphoric binding relations are the same thing, it is reasonable to assume that the two are subject to the same basic locality restriction. Within the theoretical landscape of Minimalism, where derivations are subdivided into phases, such a locality restriction is necessarily encoded featurally. Features are either actively involved in narrow syntax and must be checked before LF, or they persist throughout narrow syntax and get evaluated at LF, i.e. once the syntactic object which has been built up to that point gets transferred to the LF interface.31 In the case of binding, I assume that evaluation of the relevant features happens at LF, upon completion of each phase (see also Baltin 2003). The reason is that, unlike A-movement, binding appears not to be driven by f and case-feature checking. Both reflexives and pronominals show person and number agreement32 with the nominal they refer to, but case-checking of an anaphoric element and its antecedent involves two completely separate checking relations. Binder and bindee check case independently of each other with two different case-licensing heads. The local nature of reflexive binding must then be the result of a feature or property which


Note that “evaluation at LF” does not mean that there is a separate derivational LF level

which has access to the entire syntactic object and where this object can be further manipulated. Rather, it means that the feature combinations created by narrow syntax are interpreted at the LF interface. If there are any narrow-syntactic featural requirements which are not satisfied at the interface, the derivation cannot be properly interpreted. I propose here that Condition A does not involve such uninterpretable narrow syntactic features.

While the 3rd person reflexive pronoun is the invariable sich-form, the 1st and 2nd person

forms vary. They are homophonous (or, on another view, identical) with the corresponding nonreflexive pronouns. 217

does not get eliminated in narrow syntax but demands that, at the LF interface, reflexive and antecedent be part of the same portion of the syntactic object (phase), being evaluated at that point (Condition A). The opposite requirement (Condition B) holds for the pronominal: its antecedent may not be part of the same phase. The reason we get cases of non-complementarity is precisely that reflexives, but not pronominals, have the ability to undergo raising of a type similar to the classic Amovements. Note that the inability of the reflexive to be bound across a TP or CP-boundary (Case 1), i.e. the fact that cases of non-complementarity do not extend beyond tensed clauses, also falls out from the parallel we are drawing between covert reflexive raising in German and its overt counterpart in Romance. It is a matter of fact that overt reflexive clitics target a position no higher than the inflectional layer (i.e. not the edge of a CP-phase). In Reinhart & Reuland’s (1993) terms, reflexives form a special kind of predicate, so that (loosely speaking) reflexive pronouns most naturally occur in the verbal domain (including functional vP and inflectional projections, but not CP). Put another way, the movement operations which reflexives undergo are Amovements, solely within the inflectional layer (again, see Kayne (1975)). In the general case of local reflexive binding, then, where the reflexive is not at the phase-edge, the only possible antecedent is the closest ‘subject’. When it comes to long-distance reflexive binding, however, there are two ways (corresponding to Case


2 and Case 3) for the reflexive to be a part of the next higher phase. Case 2, which exists for all speakers of German, will be addressed in subsection 5.4.4. Case 3, which is at issue here and only available to some speakers, involves covert reflexive raising. This next subsection discusses the details of the narrow-syntactic

mechanisms which I propose lead to Case 3.

5.4.3 Binding by phase Consider again the AcI-binding scenario in (40). (40) Die Spieleri hören [AcIdie Fansj sich?i/j anfeuern].
the players hear the fans self on-cheer


‘The players hear the fans cheer them/themselves on.’ The reflexive binding possibility that is most readily available to all speakers (although pragmatically dispreferred) is marked with the j-index. In this case, no binding-related operation takes place in narrow syntax. The feature bundle

representing sich probably includes a feature that identifies it as a reflexive, but this is not a feature which triggers an Agree or movement relation. It is presumably an interpretable feature which persists throughout narrow syntax and comes to be significant at LF. It is not clear whether this interpretable feature is connected to the LF evaluation process we associate with Condition A, but it seems safe to assume that Condition A (whatever it is exactly) comes into the picture once the narrow syntax has completed the embedded vP (the AcI)-phase (again, see Baltin 2003). The AcI

passes the evaluation here because the phase contains a binder (die Fansj) for the reflexive. Since only the material at the edge of the AcI-vP, namely the AcI-subject in Spec vP is part of the next higher phase and thus still accessible to the rest of the derivation, sich, which is trapped within VP, cannot have a matrix-clause antecedent. The other (more marginal) reflexive binding possibility in (40), namely Case 3, is marked with the i-index. Here, a binding relation is established between the reflexive and the matrix subject (die Spieleri) although sich is the internal argument of the AcIinfinitive (within the embedded VP). To be accessible to the matrix subject at the point when the matrix clause portion of the derivation gets transferred to the LF interface, sich must have raised to Spec vP, the edge of the AcI. Since the material at the edge of the embedded vP and the contents of the matrix vP undergo the LF interpretation process as part of the same phase, Condition A is satisfied. The crucial question is what triggers reflexive raising. Since reflexive pronouns in many languages have special morphology that distinguishes them from their non-reflexive counterparts (in German, this distinction exists for all 3rd person forms), let us follow up on my speculative suggestion above and postulate that all reflexive pronouns (cross-linguistically and cross-dialectally) bear an interpretable reflexive feature. This may then be the same feature that Condition A recognizes when it checks whether reflexive and antecedent are in the same phase at LF. For speakers who allow the long-distance binding scenario in (40)


and thus have covert reflexive raising in their grammar, there must be an additional reflexive feature that is uninterpretable and can, when paired with the EPP feature,33 trigger movement. Since, in the case of AcIs,34 reflexive raising targets the edge of the embedded Spec vP, the uninterpretable reflexive feature and the EPP must be on v, rendering it an active probe. Whether the reflexive feature also needs to be uninterpretable on the head of the reflexive DP depends on one’s assumptions concerning the exact mechanism of the Agree-relation. It is not entirely clear that both probe and goal must be active. If, in the case at hand, the goal does need to be active and thus bear an uninterpretable feature, this could be a second kind of reflexive feature, which is only part of some speakers’ grammar. This issue, however, is not central to the proposed analysis. What is crucial is the uninterpretable reflexive feature paired with the EPP on v because it is this feature combination which seeks out the reflexive DP and moves it to Spec vP. (Recall that we are dealing with ‘covert’ movement here. The copy of sich which gets pronounced is the lower (‘in-situ’) copy.) More generally, it is then the presence of an uninterpretable feature on the embedded v which, by widening the reflexive range, enables sich to be in the same domain as its distant binder. This scenario is very familiar from apparently unbounded syntactic
33 34

The EPP feature demands that the head bearing this feature acquire an extra specifier. We should keep in mind that German also allows long-distance binding across a DP-phase

boundary. This means that the raising mechanism described here must also hold for covert movement of sich to the edge of DP. 221

The conditions stated as such account for the general case of reflexive-pronominal complementarity.4. there must be stop-off points at intermediate phase-edges.4. but not the pronominal. the ability of the reflexive. categorically) when sich is embedded in (certain) PPs (Case 2)? An answer to this question is offered in subsection 5. however. All the possible binders in the type of AcI-constructions we have been examining here are ‘subjects’ by the definition given in (35) anyway.phenomena like raising and Wh-movement. In order for the moving element to interact with and reach its ultimate destination. what is it that makes longdistance reflexive binding possible for all speakers (i. this condition has to be refined: the reflexive must be bound within the minimal phase which contains it and in which its binding requirements can in principle be met (Chomsky 1986).4 -4. Both pronominal and reflexive now have the phase as their relevant binding domain. 222 . This leads us to the next question: If only some speakers have the mechanism justdescribed.35. Before we add PPs to the picture.e.e.4. i. and the movements from phase-edge to phase-edge must be featurally-driven. (41) a. needed for reflexive raising. in their grammar. to covertly 35 As will become clear in subsections 5. The particular case of non-complementarity seen in (40) is a result of reflexive raising.5. I will restate the binding conditions (cf. 36 I am leaving out the restriction that the reflexive must be bound by a ‘subject’ here. (32) and (36)) in phase-based terms.36 b. A reflexive must be bound within the minimal phase containing it. A pronominal must be free within the minimal phase containing it.

if a reflexive in an embedded vP or DP moves to the edge of its phase. on the other hand. does not have the ability to raise and is thus always trapped within the lower phase. it is contained in the matrix vP. H1 edge H2 Material at the edge of H2 can be bound by elements in the domain of H1 or by the external argument introduced by H1. Crucially.4 Why PP-embedded reflexives are different While long-distance binding between sich and the matrix subject in examples like (40) is only a possibility for some speakers (Case 3). More specifically. A pronominal.4. 223 . all native speakers of German seem to agree that the PP-embedded sich in examples like (42) can have either the AcI or the matrix subject as its antecedent (Case 2). the higher and lower.raise to the edge of its phase. Put another way. Within this higher phase. edge material of a phasedefining head belongs in a certain sense to both phases. arg. given two phase-defining heads H1 and H2 (assuming no other phase-defining head intervenes between them): ext. 5. being located at the phase-edge means being part of the next higher phase (see Chomsky 2001). it can find the matrix subject in the higher Spec vP as its antecedent. Thus.

(42') TP 2 DPi Hans T' 2 T vP 2 ti v' 2 v VP lässt 2 vP V 2 tv DPj v' seinen Kollegen2 PP v' bei sichi/j/ihmi 2 VP v tv arbeiten 37 See Hestvik’s (1991) distinction between three types of PPs: (i) PPs which assign an independent q-role to the prepositional object (these PPs are CFCs. 224 . where the prepositional object gets its q-role directly from the verb (these PPs are not CFCs). 38 A recent account of long-distance binding out of PPs which appeals to the meaningfulness of P is Gunkel 2003.) ‘Hans lets his colleague work at his place. with a P that assigns its own internal q-role independently from the verb. it seems reasonable to postulate v' as the relevant adjunction-site.38 are not complements of V but adjoined higher (see Grewendorf 1983).-S.127). i. and (iii) PPs which are not involved in q-role assignment at all.e. We then get the following constellation. Assuming that non-selected PPs. Hans lets his colleague at self/him work (L. “The more concrete the meaning of the preposition.(42) Hansi lässt [AcIseinen Kollegenj [PPbei sichi/j/ihmi] arbeiten]. (ii) PPs which assign a q-role to the prepositional object through the verb (these PPs are not CFCs). the more likely it is that the PP in an AcI-construction can undergo (long) reflexivization” (p.37.’ The reflexive is embedded in a clearly optional and unpredictable bei-PP here. regardless of whether they are complements or adjuncts).

This then explains why both speakers who have covert reflexive raising in their grammar and speakers who do not. it runs the risk of compromising what has thus far been said about the pronominal. both the matrix and the AcI-subject are in positions that allow them to antecede the reflexive. and DP. sich is part of the edge of the embedded vP-phase and is thus contained in the next higher. accept the reflexive binding ambiguity here.39 This 39 As in the case of a vP-phase. while the PP-adjunction story accounts for the binding behavior of the reflexive. which contains both seinen Kollegen and Hans. PPs are inherently subjectless and thus cannot possibly fulfill the binding requirements of the reflexive. PP can be a phase as well. no reflexive raising to the vP-phase-edge is involved. the matrix phase. Crucially.Being adjoined to v'. Hence. the way a reflexive embedded in an inherently subjectless PP- phase gains access to the next higher binding domain must be by raising to the phase-edge. vP. besides CP. From the high PP-adjunction site. treating PPs as phases in the sense of CFCs. If the adjoined PP in (42') is part of the higher phase. However. how can ihm (with the given coindexation) be free? The only way to prevent the matrix subject Hans and the pronominal ihm from being in the same minimal phase is to claim that. the reflexive binding domain must then be extended to the next higher subject-containing domain (‘phase’ in my terms). sich can have access to both subjects without having to move. This does not affect the reflexive binding behavior because. Regardless 225 . Following Chomsky (1986).

namely between the matrix subject and a PP-embedded pronominal at the AcI-phase-edge. in Er lässt seine Kollegini bei ihri (zu Hause) arbeiten ‘He lets his colleague work at her place’. in fact. As further discussed in the next subsection.5 PP-phases In order to account for the pronominal binding possibility in (42). ordering. while the notion of CFC is of use only in the domain of binding. and more generally. if it is independently plausible to assume that PP-adjuncts are phases. this binding relation is predicted to be a possibility. reduction of “search space” (Chomsky 2000). a reflexive must be able to find an antecedent introduced later in the derivation.40 5.4. as. Since I argue that the phase-edge-adjoined PP here is a phase. a possibility. certain PPs constitute pronominal binding domains as well. we are now asking the question whether. thus reaching beyond the PP-phase. No index is given for the relation between the AcI-subject seinen Kollegen and ihm. 40 Note that (42) does not show the full paradigm of the pronominal binding possibilities. 226 . Hans. and it is. both the reflexive and the pronominal binding facts in examples like (42) are accounted for when the PP is adjoined high and thus part of the matrix vP-phase. If of whether or not the raising mechanism is the same within PPs as within vPs. for example. as well as instances of pronominals which can be bound by the matrix subject when embedded in nothing but a PP. When there is this choice of antecedents. The reason ihm does not seem to be able to refer to seinen Kollegen in (42) is that both Hans and seinen Kollegen are masculine singular and thus agree with the pronominal ihm. but the merit of replacing CFCs with phases is that the latter are independently needed to account for island phenomena.may seem like a step backward in that it rephrases part of Frey’s (1993) CFC-based binding conditions in terms of phases. in addition to agentive vPs and complex DPs. the pronominal is naturally used to refer to the higher antecedent.

there are no embedded vP or DP-boundaries which could explain the acceptability of the pronominals in (43b) and (c). PPs may indeed be a reasonable addition to the class of phase-like constituents.-S. and if the goal is to maintain phase-based binding domains. Pronominal binding then serves as a phasehood diagnostic. (43) a. Since the use of untergehen in (43a) triggers an unaccusative AcI-structure here. argument or adjunct. I follow Hestvik (1991) in assuming that CFC/phasehood is characterized by independent and phrase-internally complete q-role assignment. More specifically.they do. Welches Boot ließ eri [PP-phase neben sichi/ihmi] untergehen? which boat let he next-to self/him under-go (L. Assuming that extraction via the specifier of a phrase is a viable diagnostic for phasehood. at least certain PPs must be added to the types of constituents that potentially qualify as phases. Similarly. letting phases do the work of the binding-specific construct CFC.e.) ‘Which boat did he let sink next to him?’ 227 . phrase self-sufficiency and saturation. As it turns out. I assume that all PPs. The following are both AcI and non-AcI examples which suggest that a pronominal can be free inside a PP that is not contained in a vP or DP-phase. Baltin (1982) has argued that extraction from PP proceeds by way of its specifier. there is no embedded vP-projection. The PPs alone must be the relevant binding domains for the pronominals here. Furthermore. i. whose prepositional object receives its q-role from P (without involvement the verb) are phases.

The reason that ihn in (42c) is marginal could be that the object of the preposition here gets its q-role from both the P and the verb setzen. the directional nature of this relation is specified by the verb (cf. in both cases. (i) Shei put the book next to heri/??herselfi. at least for those speakers who share the judgments in (i). however.b. If all three PPs in (43) constitute pronominal binding domains and thus phases.) ‘He sat the big teddy bear next to him. it is clearly better than the pronominals in the q-dependent PPs auf and für in (44b-c). The English facts in binding contexts like these are notoriously unclear. Some speakers find pronominal and reflexive equally acceptable here.41 he put/sat the big teddy-bear next-to self/him (L. while the exact locative relation between the direct object and the object of the preposition is specified by P. The verbs setzen. (L. 42 While the pronominal in (43c) is only marginally acceptable. Thus. 228 . stellen.’ c.-S.’ These data confirm that both adjunct PPs (43a-b) and argument PPs (43c) can be phases.) he saw directly next-to self/him a snake on the ground ‘He saw a snake on the ground directly next to him. section 5. Eri sah [PP-phase direkt neben sichi/ihmi] eine Schlange auf dem Boden. Eri setzte den großen Teddybären [PP-phase neben sichi/ihn?i]. the immediate and only projection of passive and unaccusative verbs). footnote 32). another question worth asking is which sub-sentential phrases do not qualify as such domains.42 Crucially. the P assigns its own (independent) q-role to the prepositional object.3 has already established that they do not 41 The facts here seem to be the opposite in English.-S. As for bare VPs (in my system. The current analysis has no explanation for this contrast between German and English. legen (all ‘put’) select a directional PP.

-S.provide enough (or not the right type of) structure for a syntactically bound pronominal to be free. 2001). In neither case can the pronominal be syntactically bound. and parasitic gaps in English. the data presented here thus suggest that the projection of passive and unaccusative verbs (in Chomsky’s system a defective vP) is not an opacity-inducing (strong) phase.43 This is confirmed by simplex clauses with a transitive verb and a pronominal in direct object position. …weil der Manni [VP sichi/ihn*i kennt].-S. It is also clear that APs and argument-PPs in simplex clauses like (44b) and (c) are not pronominal binding domains. self/him knows (L.) ‘The woman is only interested in herself.) ‘The parents are proud of themselves. and the q-role is supplied directly by the inherently reflexive verb sich interessieren. the parents are proud on self/them (L. Die Elterni sind [AP stolz auf sichi/sie*i]. Die Fraui interessiert sich nur [PP(non-phase) für sichi (selbst)/sie*i]. The VP-internal pronominal cannot be coreferent with the VPexternal subject.) because the man ‘…because the man knows himself.’ b. quantifier raising. Note that the P für in (44c) does not assign a qrole to the prepositional object. In line with Chomsky (2000.’ c.-S. Her claim is based on reconstruction. the P is semantically contentless. 229 . who argues that all vPs as well as bare VPs constitute phases. In other words. as shown in (44a). the woman interests self only for self (emphatic)/her (L. (44) a.’ 43 This is contra Legate (2003).

L.4. Der Bauarbeiteri niederstürzen]. or they analyze the auf…zu-PP as an adjoined PP-phase (see footnote 43).) the construction-worker sees ‘The construction worker sees the scaffolding crash down on him.’ (ii) Hansi lässt [vP die Verantwortung [PP(non-phase) auf sichi/auf ihni] zukommen]. ‘Hans lets the men attack him. The verbs would just be stürzen and rollen. allows for a syntactically bound pronominal because.45 (45) a. repeated here as (ii). ‘Hans lets the responsibility come to him. repeated here as (45a) and (b). (i) Hansi lässt [vP die Männerj [PP(non-phase) über sichi/über ihni] herfallen]. Either way. the pronominal cannot be free. 45 In contrast to (45). down-crash sieht [VP das Gerüst [PP(non-phase) auf sichi/ihn?*i] the scaffolding on self/him (L. As for (19b).. die Männer is an agentive subject in Spec vP and therefore makes the AcI the relevant binding domain for the pronominal..4.Non-phase argument-PPs in unaccusative AcIs are expected to show the same pronominal binding pattern as (44c). repeated here as (i).and post-positions auf…nieder and auf…zu. either speakers interpret die Verantwortung as an agent or causer.’ (fig.-S. The question of why speakers who do not have ‘covert’ reflexive raising would get long-distance binding of sich here. in my terms. so that it is a proto-agent and turns the AcI into a vP-phase. As illustrated by the (a)examples of (27) and (28).’) (Reis 1973: 522) 230 (R. As explained in subsection 5.44.-S. will be addressed in connection with ‘semi-obligatory’ PPs below. consisting of the pre. ‘Hans wants to cross that bridge when he gets to it. Reis’ (1973) example given in (19a). and the PPs. ihn is embedded inside a phase and thus not at risk of violating Condition B. L. would be optional specifications of direction.) (R.-S. Since there is no vP-layer.’ 44 The fact that speakers may not completely rule out the pronominals in (45a-b) could have to do with the possibility of interpreting the PPs as non-selected and thus as phases. the facts tend to support this expectation.) . the reflexive would still be able to find the matrix subject as its binder because PPs are inherently subjectless (see Hestvik (1991)) and therefore allow the reflexive to look beyond a PP-phase. and since the PP is qdependent on the verb.

-S. subsections 5.’ To sum up. so to speak. 1976).4. Brittai ließ [VPden Ball [PP(non-phase)auf sichi/sie?*i] zurollen].4-4. while the claim that q-independent PPs are phases explains the acceptability of the syntactically bound pronominal. the AcI-phase-edge) accounts for the invariable grammaticality of the reflexive. a reflexive embedded in an inherently subjectless binding domain (phase) has relatively easy access. and Frey’s (1993) intuition concerning the long-distance binding ability of PP-embedded reflexives into the broader framework of the current proposal.b. 231 . The proposed analysis of PPs then allows for a way to incorporate Reis’ (1973.e. Britta let the ball on self/her to-roll (L. Haider’s (1985). to the next higher domain which contains a potential antecedent.5 have dealt with the following Case 2 binding scenarios: TABLE 3 EXAMPLE TYPE OF ACI POSITION OF ANAPHORIC ELEMENT (42) unergative (vP) PP-adjunct (phase) ¸ ¸ (43) unaccusative (VP) PP-adjunct/argument (phase) ¸ ¸ (45) unaccusative (VP) PP-argument (nonphase) ¸ ?* REFLEXIVE PRONOMINAL In all three sets of examples. The assumption that PP-adjuncts are adjoined to v' (i. To reiterate.) ‘Britta let the ball roll toward her. the argument/adjunct status of the PP is relatively clear.

-S. I have assumed that only q-independent PPs can occur outside the thematic selection domain of the verb.As discussed by Reis (1976). why speakers who do not have covert reflexive raising. So far. Reis presents a number of examples in which both pronominal and reflexive can be anteceded by the matrix subject although they are embedded in a PP that does not straightforwardly qualify as a phase (Reis calls these PPs “semi-obligatory”). Since it is not obvious that PPs which are potentially selected by the verb should be allowed to occupy a VP-external position.’ Although the embedded agentive vP ensures that the i-index of the pronominal is accounted for. regardless of whether the PP is a phase or not. Since. suggests that this PP may be treated like the qindependent PPs in (42)-(43). (46) Martini hört [AcI den Mannj [PP über sichi/j/ihni/*j reden]]. there are other instances of Case 2 that are less clearcut. Martin hears the man about self/him talk (L. One of my examples that falls into this category is (2). then. the reflexive is only expected to be judged grammatical by all speakers if it is part of a PP that is adjoined to the AcI-phase-edge. besides the 232 . This would explain.) ‘Martin hears the man talk about himself/him. when the emphatic element selbst ‘self’ is added. repeated here as (46). The fact that the über-PP in (46) seems to marginally license a syntactically bound pronominal in simplex clauses like Eri spricht nur [über ?ihni selbst] ‘He only talks about himself’. can get the long-distance binding option here: sich has a non-movement way of reaching the embedded phase-edge. we are faced with a puzzle.

Hansi lässt den Mannj auf sichi/auf ihn*i eifersüchtig werden.g. In transitive AcIs. The crucial mechanism needed to explain Case 3 is reflexive raising. even for speakers who categorically rule out Case 3. it is not surprising that. Reis’ data suggest that. there are exceptional contexts that make long-distance binding across an embedded external argument less of a violation. although the pronominal should be a possibility in these contexts. raising and Wh-movement). the pronominal is judged to be the more acceptable way of referring to the matrix subject (e. 233 . the chance of using sich obviates the pronominal. depending on 46 To address just a few of the non-syntactic factors at play here. and involvement of idiomatic expressions which often make the reflexive “sound better” than the pronominal. there could well be other reasons for the acceptability of Case 2-binding examples like (46). various non-syntactic factors46 may have an impact here.g. Hansi lässt den Vaterj ruhig stolz auf sich*i/auf ihni sein. Assuming that syntactic derivations proceed by phase. ‘Hans has no problem letting the father be proud of him. Other non-syntactic factors. a type of movement which is independently needed for many apparently unbounded phenomena (e.notoriously fuzzy argument-adjunct distinction. ambiguity could arise. complicate the facts even further. The judgments Reis documents implicate that. for example.’ (Reis 1976: 31)). however. on the other hand. use of the reflexive to refer to the matrix subject is perfectly acceptable despite the intervening external argument (e. where it is pragmatically unlikely that the anaphoric element corefers with the AcI-subject. Since transitive AcIs containing a sequence of two nonprepositional arguments (often both accusative-marked) are marginal to begin with.’ (Reis 1976: 31)). even without the involvement of anaphora. ‘Hans lets the man get jealous of him.g. overt or covert movement to phase-edges is necessarily an integral part of the system. If. Abstracting away from Case 2-examples involving “semi-obligatory” PPs. such as avoidance of two homophonous reflexive pronouns in the same sentence. the system I propose has clear-cut ways to account for both Case 2 and Case 3 binding possibilities.

no new technology needs to be introduced: the postulation of both high PP-adjunction and PP-phases is in line with previously made claims or uncontroversial assumptions. speakers may or may not make covert reflexive raising part of their grammar. The reflexive – whether part of a PP or not – can be bound across an agentive AcI-subject or a possessor in a complex DP.5 Conclusion The proposals I have made in this chapter have consequences for two areas of grammar: binding and the phrase-structure of reduced infinitive constructions (in particular AcIs). The non-complementarity results from the fact that the reflexive is more versatile in finding a binder than the pronominal in being free. As for Case 2. the proposed analysis accurately captures the invariable judgments involving PPs that are either clearly arguments or clearly adjuncts. it is accessible to the contents of 234 . Chomsky’s (2000. and the pronominal may be grammatical even if its antecedent is only a vP. The main empirical contribution made to the study of anaphora is the finding that there are several contexts (more than previously recorded) in which the reflexive and the pronominal are not in complementary distribution. 2001) notion of ‘derivation by phase’ offers an explanation for both the versatility of the reflexive and the easily gained “freedom” of the pronominal. This can be formalized configurationally. or PP-boundary away. Again. without reference to argument structure and the binding-specific construct CFC. DP. 5.exposure. As long as the reflexive is at an embedded phase-edge.

While both reflexives and pronominals can reach the phase-edge via PP-adjunction. is then not surprising. and given that Condition A and B apply upon completion of each phase. Both the majority of the previously recorded and the newly discovered empirical observations are accounted for. This.both the embedded and the next higher phase. The variability in judgments on binding. is a reflection of the larger pattern that reflexive pronouns are morphosyntactically active in a way that “ordinary” pronouns are not. it is important to keep in mind the marginal status of transitive AcI-constructions in general. 235 . probably influenced by various non-syntactic factors. we have assumed. Its binding requirement can thus be satisfied within a widened range. Given that it is reasonable to treat not only vP and DP but also PP as potentially phase-defining categories. only reflexives are endowed with the ability to covertly raise. As for the potentially problematic reflexive binding possibilities in what Reis (1976) calls “semi-obligatory” PPs. the proposed analysis is largely successful at covering the facts.

I established that the same two phrase-types – agentive vPs and complex DPs (with a genitive DP embedded in a larger DP) – are also relevant domains in POSSESSOR DATIVE CONSTRUCTIONS (PDCs). One of the central questions this chapter addresses is what reference to phasehood adds over and above what is given by the notion ‘intervening subject’ (i. it is also blocked by a “double-layer” DP-boundary. Whether reference to phasehood actually turns out to be a simplification. In Part II of the dissertation. as long as pronominal and antecedent are separated by an agentive vP-boundary. A PD may not raise beyond an agentive vP-boundary and. I have shown. Possessor Datives. however. depends on the extent to which phases and the binding/locality domains identified here overlap. 236 . The possibility of unifying the categories which define the relevant domains for both binding and the PDC then certainly looks attractive. that a pronominal can be bound by the matrix subject of an AC I-construction. for example. it should also be extendable to the locality restriction on possessor raising. apparently. and Phasehood The phase-based analysis of binding phenomena I propose in chapter 5 is to a large extent grounded in the finding that both agentive vPs and complex DPs constitute binding domains.e. Chomsky’s (1973) SPECIFIED SUBJECT CONDITION).6 Binding. If reference to the notion P HASE can be substituted for vP and DP as binding domains.

however. as another COHERENCE/RESTRUCTURING diagnostic. AcIs which are closed off by an agentive subject provide a legitimate domain in which a syntactically 237 . I point to the parallel between binding and the PDC by reviewing some of the relevant PDC-test results from chapter 4 and examining them alongside the pronominal binding facts. addressing issues of opacity. Hence.Before tackling this broader question. This will involve. section 6.1 Parallels between binding and possessor datives as probes for transparency Chapter 5 presents binding. I aim to integrate into a single proposal the two strands of analysis I have developed in earlier chapters to account for the PDC and binding in a range of syntactic contexts. the notion ‘subject’.2. in particular the binding possibilities of AcI-embedded pronominals. section 6. is devoted to the broader question raised above. and then. 6. Finally. and then on how the common notion of opacity which emerges from that discussion can best be understood. assessing what commonalities hold of the PDC and the patterns of pronominal binding. Then.1 is structured as follows. undoing an expository simplification I made in chapter 5 regarding the position of affectee vPs in unaccusative AcIs. first. I start by providing an overview of the crucial pronominal binding facts from chapter 5. which is more speculative. and phasehood. The main focus will be on the types of phrases which binding and the PDC diagnose as opacity-inducing.

Vikner 1995). PD and possessee (i. the AcI must consist of an agentive vP. the professor lets the students him at-home call ‘The professor lets the students call him at home.1. Der Professori [vP ti lässt [vP die Studenten ihni zu Hause anrufen]]. On Zwart’s (1997) view. it must be the embedded agentive vP. 2 (1) a. Siei [vP ti lässt [vP ihn mit ihri tanzen]]. In (1). (9) and (10).e.’ b.bound pronominal is free. Thus. The subject is assumed to move via Spec TP to Spec CP. if an AcI-embedded pronominal bound by the matrix subject is grammatical.’ c.g. The following data (re-)present the crucial evidence. the origin site of the PD is marked with a trace. Die Großmutteri [vP ti lässt [vP den Wellensittich ihr?i the grandmother lets the parakeet auf den Kopf fliegen]]. On the traditional view of Germanic verb-second structures (see e. whereas in (2). where I show the matrix v as left-headed. all verbal projections are head-final. they are unaccusative (a-b) and passive (c). this is in fact the correct structure. she lets him with her dance ‘She lets him dance with her.’ Assuming that the PP in (1b) has argument status and is q-dependent on the verb (the fact that *Siei tanzt mit ihri selbst is ungrammatical suggests that the mit-PP is not a separate binding domain). intervening between 1 The bracketing in (1)-(3) corresponds to the tree structures in chapters 4 and 5. In (3). head fly her (DAT) on the ‘The grandmother lets (allows) the parakeet fly onto her head. 238 . the AcI-infinitives are transitive (a) and unergative (b-c). 2 In (1c) and (2b) (as in the PDC-examples in chapters 3 and 4). and verb-second is derived by V-to-I-to-C movement. origin and landing site of the PD) are in bold face.

Die Großmutteri [vP ti lässt den Ballon ihr?*i [VP direkt aufs Auto fliegen]]. (2) a. The AcIinfinitive fallen ‘fall’ in (2b) is another motion verb. I assume. we have a passive AcI (similar to the French faire-par)construction. The subject of fliegen is agentive here and. Its subject is normally non-agentive. depending on the agentivity of the subject. projects either an unergative or an unaccusative structure. where fliegen has a non-agentive subject and is used in an unaccusative structure. is a directed motion verb. but there is less variation with respect to its use. Like the mit-PP in (1b). in (2c).’ 239 . In none of these examples is the pronominal acceptable. the pronominal PD ihr is at least marginally acceptable. Hansi [vP ti lässt ihm*i [VP ein Buch von Maria geben]].’ b. It is noticeably better than the pronominal in (2a). the grandmother lets the balloon her (DAT) directly on-the car fly ‘The grandmother lets (has) the balloon fly directly onto her car. Hand lets him (DAT) a book by Maria give ‘Hans has a book given to him by Maria. fliegen.’ c. forcing an unaccusative structure. the auf-PP in (2a) is assumed to have q-dependent argument status. which makes it possible for the pronominal to be bound by the matrix subject in all three examples. The infinitive in (1c). Der kleine Jungei [vP ti lässt den Stein ihm*i [VP auf den Kopf fallen]]. as predicted. the little boy lets the rock him (DAT) on the head fall ‘The little boy lets the rock fall on his head. Finally.the subject trace and the pronominal. which.

however. an unaccusative AcI allows a PD to move from its possessor position within the possessee into the matrix clause. The bracketing in (2c) shows the dative complement of geben as AcI-external as well. Unlike the PDs in (2a-b). only allows the PD to occur to the right of the AcI240 . whether the verbal projections which license the dative pronominals in (2a-c) are part of the respective AcIs or not (I suspect that they are not). are bare VPs. Recall from chapter 4 that the affectee vP which licenses the PD is probably not part of the AcI. on the other hand. the PD may occur on either side of the AcI-subject. Overall. even in the case of (2a-b). the possibility of scrambling is certainly a confounding factor which contributes to the complexity of the task speakers face in having to judge these examples. there is no agentive vP-boundary intervening between the ungrammatical pronominals and their binders. which involve PDCs. has the option of scrambling in front of the PD (see (3b')). which lack an agentive subject.I take the ungrammaticality of the pronominals here to indicate that these AcIs. the results of the binding test in (1)-(2) correlate accurately with the possibility of long PD-movement. The transitive AcI shown in (3a). As for the subtleties of the judgments provided here. Importantly. I assume that the affectee vP is projected by the matrix verb. and that the AcI-subject (den Ballon in (2a) and den Stein in (2b)) can precede the PD by scrambling from the AcI-VP into the matrix clause. which originates inside the embedded VP. As already shown in (2a-b) and confirmed below in (3b). the core dative in (c) does not originate in the AcI. Since the non-agentive AcI-subject.

given that the über-PP is a q-dependent argument of the noun. Maja [vP lässt (*ihrer Freundin) [vP Willi (ihrer Freundin) t die Füße massieren]] Maja lets (her friend (DAT.’ b. with a possessor in Spec DP. In 241 . provides a domain in which a syntactically bound pronominal can be free. The relevant example from chapter 5 is repeated here in (4).subject. (3) a. it must be the DP-boundary which is responsible for the possibility of pronominal binding here.’ A similar parallel between pronominal binding and the PDC concerns the opacity of complex DPs. indicating that PD-movement may not cross the AcI-boundary. FEM)) the feet massage ‘Maja lets Willi massage her friend’s feet.’ Again. FEM)) Willi (her friend (DAT. (4) Thorsteni hört nicht gern Thorsten hears not [DP Martins Geschichten über ihni]. then. the little boy lets the rock his friend (DAT) on the head fall ‘The little boy lets the rock fall on his friend’s head. the little boy lets his friend (DAT) the rock on the head fall b'. Der kleine Junge [vP lässt seinem Freund [VP den Stein auf t den Kopf fallen]]. that the presence of the AcI-subject in the specifier of an agentive vP induces opacity. about him with-pleasure Martin’s stories ‘Thorsten doesn’t like to hear Martin’s stories about him. It is evident. It has been established that a complex DP. Der kleine Junge [vP lässt den Stein seinem Freund [VP auf t den Kopf fallen]].

’ It is implied in these examples that the report and the story are written and told by somebody other than the respective subjects. (6) a.contrast to this complex DP. Chomsky 1986). 242 . the plain DPs in (5) seem not to induce opacity. the woman writes a book about her ‘The woman is writing a book about herself. The pronominals are unacceptable with the given coindexation. Thorsten hears not with-pleasure stories about him ‘Thorsten doesn’t like to hear stories about him. that these seemingly plain DPs are in fact complex.’ Apparent counterexamples. It is reasonable to assume. (5) a. Die Kinderi haben nur [DP Interesse an ihnen*i].’ b. Maria and Thorsten. Die Fraui schreibt [DP ein Buch über sie*i]. can be explained by assuming that the specifiers of these seemingly plain DPs are actually occupied by a PRO-subject which is referentially distinct from the pronoun’s antecedent (see e.g. Thorsteni hört nicht gern [DP PROj Geschichten über ihni]. Mariai liest [DP PROj einen Bericht über siei]. the children have only interest at them ‘The children only have interest in themselves.’ b. Maria reads a report about her ‘Maria is reading a report about her. like those in (6). then.

At first sight. but not the boat behind him sink.’ b.As for the plain DPs presented in chapter 5. which constitute their own binding domains. owner or caretaker) of the larger (containing) DP. presented in chapter 3. The preferred interpretation of examples like (8). Complex DPs which contain a genitive DP embedded in a larger DP appear to be opacity-inducing domains.’ 243 . ‘He saw the boat next to him. is that the PD Lena is the possessor (here. Tim pflegte Lena [DP die Mutter [DP des Fohlens]] gesund. the mother the foal (GEN) healthy Tim treated Lena (DAT) ‘Tim cured the foal’s mother which belongs to Lena. (8) a. the foal the mare (GEN) healthy Tim treated Lena (DAT) ‘Tim cured the mare’s foal which belongs to Lena. aber nicht [DP das Boot [PP hinter he saw self/him the boat under-go next-to self/him but not the boat behind sichi/ihmi]] untergehen]. (7) Eri sah [AcI [DP das Boot [PP neben sichi/ihmi]]. we now know that the reason the pronominals are acceptable is that they are embedded in adjunct PPs. Tim pflegte Lena [DP das Fohlen [DP der Stute]] gesund.’ This provides reason to believe that plain DPs are transparent for binding relations in the same way that bare (agentless) VPs are. the complex DP data in the context of PDCs. for instance. seem to line up with the binding facts. not of the embedded DP. repeated here in (7).

As discussed in chapter 3. given the structure in (9) (see Longobardi 2001). If the PD originated in the specifier of the embedded. given my analysis of the facts in (8) (which I return to in subsection 6. however. not the lower Spec DP is a possible origin site for a PD. this falls out from the locality restrictions which characterize A-movement. it would have to move across the specifier position of the larger DP and thus across an intervening A-position. it seems that the PD must originate in the specifier of the structurally higher accusative-marked nominal.Although it is clear that both foal and mother somehow belong to Lena. is not quite the same. a DP that is opaque for PD-movement is 244 . The circled specifier positions in (9) indicate that. While a DP that is opaque for pronominal binding is complex in the sense of having a filled specifier. (9) DP [ACC] 3 PD D' 3 D FP das 3 F PossP | 3 N DP [GEN] Poss' Fohlen 1 3 *PD D' Poss …NP 1 tN 6 D NP tN der Stute I have been using the term ‘complex DP’ to refer to nominals which induce opacity both for pronominal binding and the PDC. The nature of the complexity.4).2. Thus. only the higher. it is primarily the foal that is interpreted as being Lena’s in (8a). genitive-marked DP. and the mother in (b).

its contents are transferred to the (LF and PF) interfaces and are therefore inaccessible to elements introduced later in the derivation. and like a COMPLETE FUNCTIONAL COMPLEX (Chomsky 1986). Like the nodes formerly identified as bounding nodes and barriers. a phase is a domain in which all the selectional requirements of the head of the domain are satisfied.e. guaranteeing SUCCESSIVE CYCLIC derivations). Chomsky (2001) makes a distinction between STRONG and 245 . As explained in chapter 5. a phase then forces extraction via its specifier (i. this Aposition is filled. 6. phase-heads are argued to trap elements inside their complement.complex in the sense that there is a DP-boundary intervening between the origin site of the PD and its landing site.2 The phase as the key to opacity effects Building on the notion BOUNDING NODE (Chomsky 1973. impose a strict locality on syntactic computation. respectively). once a phase is built. it is not. Like a domain closed off by a bounding/barrier node. Only material at the phase-edge is still accessible. defined by C and v.e. 1977) and the core idea of the B ARRIERS-framework (Chomsky 1986). In the binding context. In both cases. Chomsky 2000 proposes that phases. in the PDC context. between binder and bindee and between landing site and origin site. In Derivation by Phase. there is an A-position intervening between the relevant two points of interaction (i. Whether both types of opacity are subsumed under the notion ‘phase’ is one of the questions I speculatively address in the following section.

While verbal shells of the former type consist of both a lexical VP projection and a functional vP-layer. 246 . Legate 2003. D. Kratzer (1996). however.1. and P qualify as (strong) phases3 is the focus of much recent work (see e. and Wurmbrand (2001). and other locality-driven phenomena identify as opacity-inducing. Abels 2003. Following Hale & Keyser (1993). D and P may be phase-defining as well. Unlike proto-agent-introducing 3 I use the term ‘phase’ to refer to what Chomsky labels ‘strong phase’. a “verbalizer” vP-layer is a part of all verbal shells. Chomsky (1995). Exactly what types of v.W EAK phases. I contribute to this line of work by tentatively proposing a definition of ‘phase’ based on the phrase-types the PDC.g. According to Chomsky’s (2000. verbal shells of the latter type consist of a lexical VP only. arguing that not all types of v-heads have the strong-phase-defining property of inducing opacity. 6. 2001) later work.2. binding. He also alludes to the possibility that C and v are not the only phase-heads. passive and unaccusative AcIs are transparent for both PD-movement and pronominal binding. In this section. including those projected by passive and unaccusative verbs. and Svenonius 2004). I have been assuming that the difference in transparency between transitive and unergative verbal shells on the one hand and passive and unaccusative verbal shells on the other hand is reflected in their internal structural complexity.1 Agentive versus “verbalizer” vPs As confirmed by the data in section 6.

(10) Der kleine Junge [vP lässt seinem Freund [vP-def [VP den Stein auf t den Kopf fallen]]]. The PD. the unaccusative AcI in (10) has the structure given in (10'). Burzio’s Generalization). the little boy lets his friend (DAT) the rock on the head fall ‘The little boy lets the rock fall on his friend’s head.agentive vPs. 247 . I assume that the PD-licensing affectee vP is projected by the matrix verb.’ (10') vP 3 DP v' Der kleine Junge 3 (agentive) v vP lässt 3 DP v' seinem Freund 3 (PD) VP v (affectee) 3 tV vP V 3 tV VP v (defective/verbalizer) 3 DP V' den Stein 3 PP V 3 fallen P DP auf 3 tPD D' 3 D NP den Kopf As explained in chapter 4 and reiterated in the previous section of this chapter. these verbalizer vPs are considered to be “defective” in that they neither introduce an external argument nor have accusative-case-licensing ability (cf. On this view.

4. The pronominal is degraded here because the verbalizer vP does not define a domain in which a syntactically-bound pronominal is free. the verbalizer vP projected by the unaccusative AcI-infinitive fallen intervenes between the possessor position within the possessee and the affectee vP. If it is an adjunct PP.5 (11) Der Bauarbeiteri [vP ti lässt [vP-def [VP das Gerüst the construction-worker lets auf ihn?*i niederstürzen]]]. if the affectee vP were projected by the AcI-infinitive (here fallen). then. then raises from the AcI into the matrix clause. down-crash the scaffolding on him ‘The construction worker lets (has) the scaffolding crash down on him. for a discussion of why the affectee v does not target the closer DP. The word order would remain unchanged. den Stein. yielding virtually the same interpretation.4 The structure in (11') illustrates that defective verbalizer vPs are also transparent for pronominal binding.which originates in the specifier of the possessed nominal (here den Kopf). however. possessor raising is not blocked. subsections 5. and the derivation would converge. is more in line with Wurmbrand 2001 in that the characteristic property of reduced infinitival complements is their lack of case positions. it could constitute its own binding domain and therefore allow the pronominal to be free. 5 As discussed in chapter 5. the reason the pronominal in (2a) is not completely ruled out may be due to the possibility of analyzing auf…zu as a pre.(and post-) position which is not necessarily selected by the verb fliegen. Yet. 248 . Given the structure in (10').4-5. The assumption that it is not.’ 4 See chapter 4. instead of the PD. footnote 18.

(12) [TP Es wurden damals [vP-def [VP viele Professoren it were (PL) then eingestellt]]].(11') TP 3 DPi T' Der Bauarbeiter 3 T vP 3 tDPi v' (agentive) v lässt 3 VP 3 vP 3 V tV v (defective/verbalizer) VP 3 DP V' das Gerüst 3 PP V auf ihn?*i niederstürzen The lack of opacity induced by the defective verbalizer vPs in (10) and (11) is corroborated by evidence from “long-distance” case and agreement marking in impersonal. many professors (NOM. PL) hired ‘Many professors were hired then. there is no interference with case and agreement marking in the unaccusative expletive constructions in (13). The defective vP projected by the passivized verb in the impersonal passive construction in (12). 249 .’ Similarly. for example. does not interfere with the static Agree relation between the nominative case-licensor T and the VPinternal subject. expletive-es constructions.

extending the notion ‘defective verbalizer vP’ to the complements of Wurmbrand’s (2001) restructuring predicates. pronominal binding.’ (fig.’ Possessor raising. and the (b)-example is an instance of long object movement out of the complement of an unaccusative restructuring predicate. [TP Es ist noch nie [vP-def [VP ein Meister never vom Himmel gefallen]]]. [TP Es haben aber schon [vP-def [VP viele it have (PL) but already ihr Glück versucht]]]. to repair tried the tractors (NOM. tried many (NOM.’ 6 As in the tree structures in (10') and (11'). Relevant examples are shown in (14). PL) were (PL) ‘They tried to repair the tractor. ‘It takes practice to become good at something. PL) their luck ‘But many have already tried their luck.6 (14) a.’) b. fallen it is (SG) yet a master (NOM. no CP-layer is shown here. on the lack of opacity induced by the defective outer layer of passive and unaccusative verbal shells. SG) from-the sky ‘It has not yet happened that a master fell from the sky.(13) a. then. 250 . [TP Die Traktoren wurden [vP-def [VP __ zu reparieren]] versucht]. any vP-layer projected by a restructuring infinitive must be transparent for the “long” object movement operations discussed in chapter 2. The movement operation in the (a)-example is an instance of long passive. and case/agreement marking in impersonal passive and unaccusative constructions all converge. Furthermore.

Given that the characteristic property of a phase-defining head is precisely that its complement is inaccessible to elements introduced later (higher) in the derivation. the defective verbalizer vPs projected by passive/ unaccusative verbs and restructuring infinitives cannot be phases. [TP Der Brief ist ihm [vP-def [VP __ zu entziffern]] gelungen].b. the Agree relation between T and the respective nominal is coupled with movement here. to decipher succeeded the letter (NOM.2.2. then. any layers of structure intervening between the matrix agentive v and the AcI-subject must be transparent for casechecking. in neither case does the highest layer of the embedded verbal shell make the argument of the infinitive inaccessible to an Agree relation with the matrix T.’ Unlike in (12)-(13). is whether affectee vPs are of the phase-defining. they are unlike agentive vPs.2 Affectee vPs The possessor raising analysis proposed in chapter 3 and illustrated again in (10') of subsection 6. Crucially. Thus. 6. The obvious question. SG) is him ‘He managed to decipher the letter. verbalizer type. agentive type or the defective.1 introduces a third type of vP: the PD-licensing affectee vP projected by verbs which are compatible with affected dative-marked possessors. which clearly are phases. Since a phase-boundary would induce opacity and since the affectee vP in the unaccusative AcI-construction in (10') necessarily intervenes between the matrix v 251 . Making the standard assumption that the accusative case of AcI-subjects comes from the matrix verb.

The possessor in complex DPs is not usually a protoagent. and PPs. Chomsky’s (1973) Specified Subject Condition). unpublished work by Bresnan). but it introduces new problems. but it also predicts that affectee vPs are phases. which are phases by all other criteria. This understanding of phasehood works for the contrast between agentive and defective verbalizer vPs. (15) Phases are defined by those verbal shells whose highest projection has a filled specifier. In (15). they pattern with verbalizer vPs (projected by passive/unaccusative verbs) in that they lack the phase-defining opacity property of agentive vPs. a phase could simply be defined as any phrase closed off by a ‘subject’ (cf. a phase would then be defined by any q-assigning head with a filled specifier. building on earlier. and in everyone’s system. this cannot be right. Based on the fact that the crucial opacity-inducing property of vPs and DPs with respect to pronominal binding is the presence of a ‘subject’ in their specifier. affectee vPs must not be phases.and the VP-internal AcI-subject. 252 . Given the definition of ‘subject’ in chapter 5 (see (35)). As just discussed. An even stronger argument against the ‘Specified Subject’-definition of phase is that it excludes CPs. Appealing to the notion ‘agentive (proto-agent) subject’ instead of just ‘filled specifier’ might take care of excluding affectee vPs. Rather. in all probability lack subjects altogether (Hestvik 1991. I propose a characterization of ‘phase’ which makes the correct distinction and does not appeal to the notion ‘Specified Subject’. which can also be opacity-inducing.

D. estimative. an ethical.e. not if it can only be filled in virtue of the semantically vacuous EPP feature. we have four potentially phase-defining heads: v. since the specifier of the agentive vP is occupied. C. the affectee vP is embedded under a defective verbalizer vP. If the verbal shell of an affectee vP is headed by a passive/unaccusative verb. 6.2. DPs. since C and P never select more than one argument (merged as a complement) and only attract an argument into their specifier 253 . In this case. P.e. If the verbal shell of an affectee vP is headed by a transitive/unergative verb. and CPs. The idea is that a filled specifier is only a phase-defining property if the position can be filled in virtue of pure selectional requirements. and the verbal shell is not a phase. PPs. the verbal shell is a phase. and CPs Extending the definition of ‘phase’ given in (15) to the non-verbal domain.3 DPs. i. the affectee vP is embedded under an agentive vP. Since this vP has an empty specifier. Affectee vPs do have a filled specifier – the position is filled either via Internal Merge by a case-seeking PD or via External Merge by a non-PD (i. the requirement of the highest projection having a filled specifier needs to be modified. the specifier of the highest verbal projection is empty.The highest projection of a passive/unaccusative verbal shell is a defective verbalizer vP. on the other hand. In that case. passive/unaccusative verbal shells are not phases. In other words. In order to make the definition work for P and C. PPs. or ficiary dative) – but they are never the highest projection in the verbal shell.

a filled specifier is a necessary condition because both v and D can potentially select two arguments. a filled specifier is not a phase-defining property for these heads. As for vP and DP. (17) A phrase of type a is saturated if it has the maximum number of arguments that lexical items of type a can in principle take. which maximally take one semantically selected argument.if they have the EPP property. or C. Together with the definition of ‘saturated’ in (17). one merged as a complement (by first Merge) and the other merged as a specifier (by second Merge). This means that defective verbalizer vPs. are not phases. with a being v. Given this distinction between the nature of P and C on the one hand and v and D on the other hand. which is saturated and topmost is a phase. projected by passive/unaccusative verbs. (18) Characterization of ‘phase’: A phrase of type a. are only identified as non-phase-defining if they take no semantically selected argument at all. I propose the characterization of ‘phase’ in (18). P and C-heads. P. The requirement that a be 254 . now going beyond the verbal domain. which can in principle take two arguments. P and C-heads then do not need a specifier to be saturated. are not phasedefining when they do not have an argument in their specifier. (16) A phrase of type a is topmost of it is not itself the complement of a phrase of type a. however. D. this characterization of ‘phase’ ensures that v and D-heads.

despite being saturated. because it is necessarily embedded under either an agentive v or a defective verbalizer v. As for DPs. 255 . it explains the opacity of agentive vPs with respect to possessor raising and pronominal binding. the characterization of ‘phase’ in (18) correctly predicts that complex DPs with a filled possessor position should induce opacity. Since a D with both a complement (an internal argument) and an (external) argument in its specifier is not defective. more needs to be said. do not qualify as phases. Since (18) identifies agentive vPs as phases. it explains the opacity of q-independent PPs with respect to pronominal binding. The understanding of phasehood expressed by the characterization in (18) then accounts for the well-established opacity effects induced by CP as well as most of the opacity/non-coherence effects presented thus far in Parts II and III of this dissertation. and since it also identifies PPs as phases.topmost (see (16)) ensures that affectee vPs. On the one hand. The local nature of derivations proceeding phase by phase essentially subsumes the locality restriction associated with A-movement. The fact that q-dependent PPs with a P which is semantically contentless and thus lacks the ability to q-mark its complement do not induce opacity falls out from the requirement that a phasedefining phrase be saturated (see (17)). it is not saturated and thus not phase-defining. An affectee vP is the complement of a phrase headed by type a. Since a contentless P takes no semantically selected argument at all. namely another v. it qualifies as phase-defining.

Notice that all these examples involve relational nouns. On the other hand. embedding a genitive DP. Tim pflegte Lena [DP das Fohlen [DP der Stute]] the foal gesund.’ b.This accounts for the fact that complex DPs. the mother the foal (GEN) healthy Tim treated Lena (DAT) ‘Tim cured the foal’s mother which belongs to Lena. but not plain DPs. Tim treated Lena (DAT) the mare (GEN) healthy ‘Tim cured the mare’s foal which belongs to Lena. ring on a finger the left hand (GEN) me (DAT) a ‘Then I put a ring on a finger of my left hand.’ (20) a. are opaque with respect to pronominal binding. Dann stecke ich mir then stick I einen Ring auf [einen Finger [der linken Hand]]. the larger DP. has the opacity-inducing quality of a phase despite not having a (semantically) filled specifier. (18) does not predict that complex DPs with a genitive-marked nominal embedded in a larger nominal do not seem to allow possessor raising out of the embedded DP.2. containing DP. (19) a. 6. If Landau’s (1999) analysis of the relevant data (see (8)) presented in chapter 3 is correct. This clearly does not fall out from the understanding of phasehood this section has developed.4 “Double-layer” DPs revisited My conclusions regarding the opacity of DPs which embed a genitive DP (henceforth “double-layer” DPs) have been based almost entirely on the data in (19) and (20) (first introduced in chapter 3). Tim pflegte Lena [DP die Mutter [DP des Fohlens]] gesund. only out of the larger.’ 256 .

The same holds for (b). depending on the lexical items involved.’ In this subsection. on the tip the left index-finger (GEN) me (DAT) fell the hammer ‘The hammer fell on the tip of my left index finger. the PD could have originated in the specifier of either die Spitze or des linken Zeigefingers. it seems that either there is 257 .b. there is no detectable preference for a possessor relation with the larger. DP in (20). rather than the embedded. when the two nouns of the double-layer DP are relational. repeated below in (21). which is whether the specifier of the embedded genitive DP in the structure in (9). Logically. Mir fiel der Hammer auf [die Spitze [des linken Zeigefingers]]. In (a). (21) DP [ACC] 3 D' 3 D FP das 3 F PossP | 3 N DP [GEN] Poss' Fohlen 1 3 ?PD D' Poss …NP 1 tN 6 D NP tN der Stute While it is true that the interpretation of a possessor relation between the dative Lena and the embedded DP in (19) is dispreferred. is a possible PD-origin site. Thus. I revisit these facts and return to the question addressed in chapter 3. there is virtually no difference in interpretation between a syntactic configuration with the DP einen Finger versus the DP der Hand being the origin site of the PD mir.

for our best client. Since the nominals in a double-layer DP consisting of relational nouns will either necessarily have the same possessor. the finger must be. acquaintance (GEN) fixed ‘We fixed. 258 .no preferred possessor interpretation. Tim pflegte Lena [DP das Pferd [DP t einer Freundin]] Tim treated Lena (DAT) the horse a friend (GEN.’ b. one would say das Auto vom Sohn ‘the car of the son’ since the use of the genitive is rather formal. FEM)) the computer an Bekannten]] repariert. healthy ‘Tim cured the horse of one of Lena’s friends for her (Lena). too – or at least tend to have the same possessor. as in the kinship examples in (19). which involve nouns that are not inherently related.7 the son (GEN) gardener washed the woman (DAT) the car ‘The gardener washed the woman’s son’s car. (22) a. as in the body-part examples in (20) – if the tip of the finger is mine. or there is a slight preference for the referent of the larger DP belonging to the referent of the PD. FEM) gesund. the computer of an acquaintance of hers. it is clear that there must be a way for the PD to originate in the specifier of the embedded DP.’ c. Wir haben unserer besten Kundin [DPden Computer [DP t einer we have our best client (DAT. perhaps because the raised N of that DP is linearly closer to the PD. Der Gärtner wusch der Frau the [DP das Auto [DP t des Sohns]]. Considering the double-layer DPs in (22). these types of examples are not the best test cases.’ 7 In colloquial German.

unlike a verb’s “external” argument. given Longobardi’s (2001) DP structure in (21) – only DPs with a SAXON GENITIVE. for example.3. a noun’s “possessor” is often argued to be introduced as either the specifier of D or the specifier of N. subsection 3. PD-movement from the embedded Spec DP of a double-layer DP is then not at odds with the binding facts in (4)-(6). This means that – again. which occupies Spec DP. which is generally assumed to be introduced as the specifier of v. not those with only a genitive in the specifier of the lower PossP. the dative is a beneficiary non-PD – the use of a PD to express this relation must be a legitimate alternative. a DP is not a phase and therefore does not block PD-raising across its left edge to the specifier of the affectee vP. the new PDC facts presented here are accounted for by the characterization of ‘phase’ given in (18). which showed that a syntactically bound pronominal can be free in a DP closed off by a possessor in Spec DP. In the case of deverbal nouns.While the “long-distance” possessor relation between the dative nominal and the embedded DP is most efficiently expressed by a possessive pronoun (see chapter 3. the topmost position in the nominal shell.3) – in that case. Unless its specifier is filled (by virtue of semantic selection). A potential argument against drawing this parallel between vP and DP is that. DPs can then be treated on a par with vPs. needing two arguments in order to be semantically saturated. Like the binding facts. constitute a phase. but not in a plain DP. 259 .

In German. about him with-pleasure Martin’s stories ‘Thorsten doesn’t like to hear Martin’s stories about him. 260 . the external argument is commonly assumed to originate in Spec NP. the experiencer. Martini ist erstaunt über Martin is surprised about [DP Thorstens Angst vor ihmi].which stand in an obvious q-relation to both their internal and their external argument. or the main character – while Angst (a fear-type noun) and its possessor can only stand in one relation to each other: sensation-experiencer. I assume that both the PPs here are q-dependent and thus do not qualify as phases. the owner. Since a DP with a Saxon genitive in Spec NP (and thus an unfilled Spec DP) is not defined as a phase by (18). Geschichten in 8 See Sturgeon (2003) for a discussion of binding in the context of story versus fear-type nouns in Czech. a syntactically bound pronominal embedded in such a DP should not be free. Thorsteni hört nicht gern Thorsten hears not [DP Martins Geschichten über ihni]. The crucial opacity-inducing domain must then be that of the noun. this is counter to fact. And this is so despite the fact that Geschichten (a story-type noun8) and its possessor could stand in a number of semantic relations to each other – the possessor could be the writer. Thorsten’s fear of him ‘Martin is surprised about Thorsten’s fear of him. As shown by the acceptability of the pronominals in (23a-b). (23) a.’ b. the possessor of both the noun Geschichten ‘stories’ and the noun Angst ‘fear’ renders the nominal domain opaque for pronominal binding.

This leads to at least two possible conclusions. A final concern to be addressed here is the fact that a syntactically bound pronominal can apparently be free even in the absence of a Saxon genitive. Since the former of these conclusions is incompatible with the understanding of phasehood developed here.10 It certainly 9 Note that the N Geschichten head-moves to F via the Poss-head (see (21)). Spec DP is always filled.’ A possible solution to this puzzle is that PossP. 261 . does not qualify as a phase. Either the possessor of Angst sits in Spec NP. a double-layer DP structure with a genitive DP embedded in a larger DP (see (21)). the head of a phase-defining category is part of the phase-edge. can take two semantically selected arguments. N could still move out because.(a) and Angst in (b). See Grimshaw’s (1990.e. As just discussed with respect to the PDC. or. and even plain DPs (with an unfilled topmost specifier) can be phases. movement from Spec NP to Spec DP). his sister (GEN) about him with-pleasure the stories ‘Thorsten doesn’t like to hear his sister’s stories about him. which. 2000) proposal of extending the clausal architecture of the verbal domain to the nominal domain. This means that. like its specifier. may be a phase-defining category. whether via direct External Merge or Internal Merge (i.9. 10 PossP could. The binding possibility between the matrix subject and the pronominal in (24) is surprising then. be equivalent to nP. like vP and DP. in fact. in the presence of a Saxon genitive. and I know of no evidence against the latter. (24) Thorsteni hört nicht gern Thorsten hears not [DP die Geschichten [PossP seiner Schwester über ihni]]. if PossP were a phase. I tentatively assume the latter.

In contrast. it would be at the edge of this phase and therefore accessible to elements in the next higher phase. the proposal that PossP is a phase is not at odds with the ability of a PD in the specifier of a genitive DP to move out of the nominal domain to check case with an affectee v.2. Importantly. and in support of. the characterization of ‘phase’ I offer here potentially lays the groundwork not only for a unified analysis of coherence/noncoherence phenomena in German but also for locality constraints cross-linguistically. it is at the edge of PossP and thus.fulfills the criterion of being semantically saturated. The notion ‘intervening subject’ alone makes sense of the opacity induced by agentive vPs and complex DPs. Since the embedded genitive DP of a double-layer DP structure is the specifier of Poss. 6. Building on.5 Beyond coherence: A unified account In conclusion. this analysis accounts for various control verb phenomena and the often misanalyzed hybrid case of AcI-constructions. if PossP were a phase. and it has no explanatory value with respect to inherently subjectless PPs and CPs. effects of “Satzwertigkeit”) which I bring together in the form of the three strands of analysis corresponding to the three parts of this dissertation can indeed be unified by the notion ‘phase’. Having developed a more nuanced understanding of Bech’s (1955/57) original binary distinction between 262 . Wurmbrand’s (2001) fine-grained typology of infinitival clause size. there is reason to believe that the various opacity effects (i.e. but it falls short of accounting for the transparency induced by affectee vPs.

certainly beyond coherence.coherent and non-coherent infinitive constructions. 263 . I hope to have taken issues of “Satzwertigkeit” to a new level.

then the same sentence with the pronominal. mostly from northern Germany. respectively.Appendix A: Questionnaire Results for Pronominal Binding in AcI-constructions The following shows the pronominal binding results of the two questionnaires I designed to elicit grammaticality judgments on binding in AcI-constructions. Some of the judgments may have been influenced by factors I could not control for. In most cases. the sentences were read to the participants. After each version of the sentence. I do not include the individual results of each participant here (see Appendix B for a complete list of sentences and results). but there are nonetheless clear patterns which generally support my empirical generalizations. but the two questionnaires were completed by eight and ten speakers. This was an informal study used only to back up my own judgments as a native speaker. they indicated which of the given antecedents they felt the anaphoric element referred to by picking a number from 1 to 5: 1 = immediately comes to mind 2 = fine with appropriate context but isn’t the first thing that comes to mind 3 = possible but awkward 4 = sounds pretty much wrong 5 = absolutely impossible 264 . First they heard a given sentence with the reflexive.

which are non-agentive and should therefore make the respective pronominals less acceptable.’ 4. Der kleine Junge lässt den Stein sich/ihm auf den Kopf fallen. 265 . and the sentences with more acceptable pronominals have more agentive AcI-subjects. or the verbs kommen and zukommen auf ‘come toward’ caused participants to somehow personify the non-agentive AcI-subjects. The sentences are ordered according to the acceptability of the pronominal. ‘Britta let the ball roll toward her.3 11 Obvious exceptions to this generalization are the AcI-subjects die Müdigkeit ‘the tiredness’ in (5) and die Verantwortung ‘the responsibility’ in (7). Since it is generally the case that the sentences with less acceptable pronominals also have less agentive AcI-subjects (underlined). I suspect that either the PPs über ‘over’ and auf…zu ‘on to’ can be interpreted as not selected by the verb kommen ‘come’. ‘Willi doesn’t let the chance slip through his fingers. going from least to most acceptable.’ 4. The results for the reflexive and the binding possibilities with respect to other antecedents are not shown here (again.8 Willi lässt die Chance sich/ihm nicht durch die Finger gleiten. ‘The little boy let the rock fall on his head. so that the PPs themselves constitute a binding domain for the pronominal.4 (3) Britta ließ den Ball auf sich/sie zurollen.11 the results of this questionnaire support my claim that the AcI-binding facts correlate with the agentivity of the AcI-subject. see Appendix B).’ (2) (1) 4.To the right of each sentence I show the average of the evaluation numbers the participants gave for the pronominal in coreference with the matrix subject (both in bold face).

‘The demonstrator let the policeman come toward her. ‘The policeman let the lifeless body fall on him.’ 3 (12) Die Demonstrantin ließ den Polizisten auf sich/sie zukommen. ‘The construction worker saw the scaffolding crash down on him.’ 3.2 (11) Die Großmutter lässt den Wellensittich sich/ihr auf den Kopf fliegen. ‘James Bond let the young woman fall into his arms.’ 3.’ 3. ‘James Bond let the young woman fall on him.4 (14) Der König ließ den Gefangenen vor sich/ihm niederknien. The young parents let the responsibility come toward them.(4) Der Bauarbeiter sah das Gerüst auf sich/ihn niederstürzen.3 (9) James Bond ließ die junge Frau auf sich/ihn fallen. ‘The pedestrian saw the bicyclists race toward him.6 (7) Die jungen Eltern ließen die Verantwortung auf sich/sie zukommen. ‘The king let the prisoner kneel down in front of him.’ 3.6 (6) Der Polizist ließ den leblosen Körper auf sich/ihn fallen. ‘The grandmother lets the parakeet fly onto her head.’ 2.5 (13) Der Fußgänger sah die Radfahrer auf sich/ihn zurasen.’ 2.4 (8) Andrea lässt die Katze sich/ihr nicht ins Haus kommen.’ 3. ‘Andrea doesn’t let the cat come into her house.7 (5) Maja ließ die Müdigkeit über sich/sie kommen.2 (10) James Bond ließ die junge Frau sich/ihm in die Arme fallen.’ 266 2.3 .’ 3.’ 3. ‘Maja let tiredness overcome her.

After each version of the sentence. In most cases. Unlike Appendix A. or a complex DP. First they heard the sentence with the reflexive.Appendix B: Questionnaires for Reflexive and Pronominal Binding in AcI-constructions. the sentences were read to the participants. they indicated which of the given antecedents they felt the anaphoric element referred to by picking a number from 1 to 5: 1 = immediately comes to mind 2 = fine with appropriate context but isn’t the first thing that comes to mind 3 = possible but awkward 4 = sounds pretty much wrong 5 = absolutely impossible 267 . PPs. The first survey was completed by eight speakers and the second by ten speakers. a PP within an AcI. the data here also include the individual results for each participant with respect to both pronominal and reflexive binding. which focuses solely on the average score of the judgments concerning the pronominal binding possibilities. The anaphoric element is embedded in either just an AcI. and complex DPs The following shows the complete list of sentences and results of the two questionnaires I used to elicit grammaticality judgments on pronominal and reflexive binding. mostly from northern Germany. then with the pronominal.

The data within each of the questionnaires are organized by binding context. F.: 1.: 5 • ihm bezieht sich auf: Hans 5 V.: 1. E. S. then for the use of the pronominal.: 5. das Personalpronomen (ihn/ihm/sie/ihr…) bezieht. S.S. K.: 5.: 1. 3 Ja.S. falls erforderlich.S.S.S.S. M. M.: 1 Hans lässt den Stein sich/ihm auf den Kopf fallen.: 5.S.: 1 andere Person 5 V.: 1. I.: 5.S. E. F.: 1.S.: 1. F.F.: 1. Sie werden oft Mehrdeutigkeiten feststellen. The first set of sentences (I) embed the anaphoric element in just an AcI.: 1.: 1. E. worauf sich das Reflexivpronomen (sich) bzw.K.S. einen erklärenden Kommentar hinzu.S. Tragen Sie also in jedes Kästchen eine Zahl von 1 bis 5 ein. 4 Kaum möglich.F. vielleicht.K. M.S.O. S. I. S. S. S.S.S.: 5. S.: 1.: 1.S. F.O.: 1. hört sich falsch an.: 5.: 5. S. E. E.: 5 • ihm bezieht sich auf: Hans 4.S. I. • sich bezieht sich auf: Hans 1 V.S.: 5.: 1.S.: 1.: 1 (2) 268 .S. eindeutig falsch.S. S.: 5.: 5. K.: 5.K. F. I.: 5. S.: 5.: 5. E.: 5 andere Person 1 V.: 1.: 1.O.: 1.S.: 5. the third set (III) in a q-independent PP within the AcI. Bitte nehmen Sie sich Zeit und fügen Sie.K. I.S.: 5. S. the second set (II) in a q-dependent PP within the AcI.The 1-5 evaluation results are shown with respect to the different antecedents.S.S.S.S.: 5. S.S.S. M.: 1. Fragebogen zur Bindungstheorie (#1) Bitte lesen Sie die folgenden Sätze und entscheiden Sie.: 5.: 1. mit entsprechendem Kontext.: 5 andere Person 1 V.: 1.F. M.: 5.S. aber kommt mir komisch vor.O.: 1.: 1. M.S. M. I.S.S.S.9 V.K. E. F. K.: 1. The individual results for each speaker are listed following the speaker’s initials.: 5. (1) Hans lässt sich/ihm einen Stein auf den Kopf fallen • sich bezieht sich auf: Hans 1 V. first for the use of the reflexive. K.O. S. K.F. I. I.: 5. S.F.: 1.S.: 1.F. I. E. K.F.K. F.K. S. kommt mir aber nicht als erstes in den Sinn. F. K.F.: 5. S. Benutzen Sie die vorgegebene Bewertungsskala (1-5). and the fourth set (IV) in a complex DP. K.S. Dieselbe Zahl kann mehr als einmal pro Satz benutzt werden.S. 5 Nein.: 1 andere Person 5 V.O. Bewertungsskala: 1 Ja.: 1.: 5.: 1.O. The average score for each binding possibility is the underlined number following the different antecedents.: 1.: 5.O.: 4.S.S.: 5.S. 2 Ja. M.: 5.S.K. kommt mir sofort in den Sinn.: 5.

: 1.S. M. S.: 5. E.: 5.S.S.: 5.: 5.F. S. I.F. S.: 5.: 2. S.: 2 (4) (5) (6) II.S. F.S.: 5.: 5.K. S.O.: 1. K. E.K.S. I.: 5. I. F.F. M. K.: 5.: 5.S.K.: 5. F.S. I.S.S. S.: 2 Hans hört den Professor mit sich/ihm sprechen.: 4. K. F. I.: 2. F. M. S. I.K.: 2. M. S.S.5 V.S.: 5.S. I. K.: 5.: 1 andere Person 5 V.S.: 4. • sich bezieht sich auf: Hans 3 V. S.: 1.S.1 V.: 2 (8) 269 .S.S. K.: 1.O.: 2.: 4 Gefangener 1.S.: 1. K.S.: 1.: 1.: 1.: 1.5 V.O. F. E. K.S.: 4. S. S.S.: 5.: 5.: 1. E. I. S. S.S.S.: 5.: 1.: 2.S.S. F.K. I.: 5.: 1.: 1.: 5.: 1.F.3 V.: 1. M.: 1.: 2. F.: 5.S.: 5.: 5. S. K.S.: 5. K.F.: 5 • ihr bezieht sich auf: Mutter 1.O.S. I.S. S.: 5.: 2.S.5 V.: 5.: 3.S.4 V.: 2.S.S. M.S.: 5.S.: 1. M.: 5 • ihm bezieht sich auf: Hans 1.: 1 andere Person 5 V.: 5.S.: 5.: 1.: 5.9 V. F.: 5 andere Person 1 V.O. • sich bezieht sich auf: Hans 1 V. E. M.: 5. I.O.: 5. S.F. S. M.: 5.S.S.S.: 1.: 5.S.: 1.: 1.S.S. I.S.: 1.S.: 4 Thorsten 1.S.S. K. F. S. F.O. E.S.S.: 2.: 1.S.S.K.: 1.: 1. E.: 2.: 5. I.: 5.S. E.: 1. F.K.: 1. S.F.: 1. S.S. M.F.: 1.: 1. S.: 1.: 5 andere Person 1.: 2.S. S.S.: 5.: 5 • ihn bezieht sich auf: Martin 1.F.S.: 1.O.S.S.K.S.: 1. S.O. S. F.: 5. K. F.5 V. K. I.S.S.S. M.S.S.: 1.: 1.: 1.: 4 Professor 1 V. K.S. M.F.O. S.S. F. I.S. M.: 5.: 5.S. E.: 1 Thorsten 4.F.S.O.: 1. F.: 5. S.S.O.O.S.: 5 andere Person 1.: 3.: 2. E.: 2.F.S.F.: 1. F.K. E.: 2.: 5.: 2.: 1.S. • sich bezieht sich auf: König 2.: 1.: 1.S.K. E.S.S.S.: 1 andere Person 5 V.S.: 5.: 1.K. S.S.S. F.S.S.F.O.: 1.3 V. M.O.S. S. F.S. • sich bezieht sich auf: Martin 2.F. S. E.: 5.: 1.S.O.: 5.: 5. S.K.S.: 1.: 5.1 V. F. M.: 2. S. I.S.: 5. K.: 5.: 2.S.: 2.: 1.F.S.: 5.: 2.S.F. K.S.O.S.: 3. F.: 1 Gefangener 5 V.: 5 • ihm bezieht sich auf: Hans 5 V.O.O.S. K. E. I.: 1. M.: 1.S. S.: 5. M. S. F.O.O.K.: 1.O.6 V.S.S. M.: 5. F.F. M.: 1 Professor 5 V.S. K. K.: 2.S. S.O.: 1. F. K.S. S.F. I.: 2.K. F.: 1.S. S.: 1 andere Person 1. F. S.S. M.: 5 • ihm bezieht sich auf: Hans 1.: 1. I.: 1.: 5.S.S.: 3 Kind 1.: 5.S.: 2.: 1.S.: 5 andere Person 1.S. I.S. E.S.O.: 1. M.S.S.: 2. E. S.: 2.F.K. S.: 5.S.K.F. F.: 1.(3) Die Mutter lässt das Kind sich/ihr die Schokolade in den Mund stecken.: 1. M.: 1.: 1. S.F.S.K. E.: 1. S.: 1. E.: 2.: 1.5 V.: 1.: 5.: 1. S.: 1. S. K.: 2.: 5.S.K.F. S.K. (7) Martin hört Thorsten über sich/ihn reden. E. E.: 1.: 2 Der König lässt den Gefangenen sich/ihn anschauen.: 5.S.: 5 andere Person 5 V.: 1.S.S. K. S.: 1 andere Person V. I.: 5. S.K. K.S.S.S. I. K.S. I.1 V.S.F.: 1. S.: 5.: 2.: 5.K.S.F.: 1.S.: 1.: 1. K. I. E.3 V.F.K. S.: 5.: 1.S. F. S. F. M. M. S.S.S.: 2. K. E. S.S.S.: 1. S.K.4 V.F. M.: 5.: 1.S. M.: 2. M.: 3. F.S. M.: 4.O.: 1.O. S.: 1 andere Person 2 V.S.: 1.: 5. E.S.: 2.: 5.S.: 1. K. E.S. K.: 1.S.: 5.S.: 2.S.: 2.K.O.S.: 3.: 1.S.: 2.S.: 5.: 1.: 2.5 V.S.: 2.: 1. S.S.: 4.S.K. • sich bezieht sich auf: Mutter 2.3 V.: 1.O.F. M. I.: 2. E. E.S.: 1.: 2.S. K. E. F.S. M. S.: 1.K.S.F.K. I. K.S.: 1 andere Person 5 V.: 5.S.: 1.: 5.: 5. I.: 1.S. I. M.: 5. S. I.O. S.K.: 5.: 1. • sich bezieht sich auf: Hans 3.: 5. S. K. E.S. S. E.K. S. I. S.K.O.: 5 • ihn bezieht sich auf: König 1.: 1 Hans lässt mich sich/ihm ein Buch geben.F. K.: 1.: 2. E.F.: 3.: 1. I.: 1. S. E.O.S.: 5.: 5.: 5.: 5.S.: 1 Hans lässt sich/ihm ein Buch von Maria geben.K.: 2.S.: 5.: 1.S.S.

I.S.F. S.S.S.O.K.S.O.S.5 V.: 4.K. E.: 5. S. E. M.S.: 1.O.K.: 2. E. E.: 5. F.O.F. E.: 5 andere Person 1.K. K.: 1. E.F.: 2. K. K.: 1. S.S. K. S.: 5.S. S. E.9 V.S.S.: 1.: 2.: 1. S. M.: 5. M. F. S.O. S. K.: 1.: 2.: 3.S.F.: 1.: 5 Thorsten 1 V.: 5. S. M.S.S.: 3 andere Person 5 V.: 4. M. S.: 4.F. M.K. • sich bezieht sich auf: Jane 3.: 1 andere Person 5 V.: 4.: 4.: 1.: 2.: 1.: 2.: 2. F. E.: 1. S. I. M. S. M.: 5.6 V. K. E.: 2. S.: 3.S.S.: 5.K.S.: 5*.: 5. • sich bezieht sich auf: Martin 3.: 2. I. F.S.S.O.S.O.F. S.K.: 3.: 5 andere Person 1.O.S.F. M. S.: 1 Daniela 4.K.: 5.: 1.F.S. I. M.: 1.S. F.: 1.S.S.S. S.: 5.: 1.: 1.: 4.S. S.S. M.S. E.: 2 IV.: 1 andere Person 5 V.: 1.O. K. E.S.K.: 1.: 1.: 1.: 2.S.S. M. F.O.F.: 5.O. K.S. S.: 5. S. S.: 1.: 1. K. M.K.F. S.: 5 *Kommentar: aber möglich. S.: 1.S.: 5.K.S. I.: 5.: 2.S.F.K.S. F.S.S.S.F.: 2.F.S. F. S.S.: 1.: 5. F.S.S.: 5 • ihn bezieht sich auf: Professor 2. I.: 1.: 2 (12) (13) 270 .: 2.: 1. F. E.: 2. S. K.S.: 5.: 1.: 5.S. S.: 5. S.: 5.S. I. K.: 4.4 V. I.S.O.: 5.F.: 1. S.S.: 1.F.: 1. K. E. K.: 1.S. K. S.: 5.S.S.O.S. K.8 V.: 5.: 1. K. M. S. • sich bezieht sich auf: Martin 2.: 5.: 5.: 1.O.: 1.: 5.S. F.S.: 1.: 2.S.S.: 5.S. I. M. K.F.O.4 V.: 1. F. K.: 1. I. • sich bezieht sich auf: König 1 V.K.: 5. M.: 5. F.: 5. F.: 4.S.3 V.O. M.: 5.: 1.: 5.F.S.S. K.: 1. S.: 2.: 1.: 1.: 1. I. M.S. S. • sich bezieht sich auf: Professor 1 V.S.O.S. I. F.9 V. F.S.K.: 5.K.: 1. I.4 V. F.: 1.: 1 Assistent 2 V.F.O. F.: 5. E.S.: 2. S.: 2.S. I.F. I.: 2.: 5.: 1. I.: 5.S.F. F. K.S.: 1. F. S. S. E.S. S.: 3.S.S.F.: 5.S.S.: 5.S.: 1 Thorsten 4.1 V.S. S. (10) Der Professor lässt den Assistenten für sich/ihn arbeiten.: 5.: 5.S. S.F. K.5 V. F.S.K. E.: 5.: 1.: 1.8 V.: 1. S.S. M.S. M. F.S.K. S. I.: 5 Martin ist entsetzt über Thorstens Meinung von sich/ihm.S.: 5.: 5.: 1. S. S.S.S. S.K. K.: 1.: 2.K.S.K.: 1.S.: 1. S.: 1.S.: 5. S. E. F.: 1.: 5.S. E. S. E.: 5.: 1.S.: 1.: 1.: 2.: 1.F.S. M.: 5. S.: 5.: 4.1 V.S.S. E. M.S. I.S.: 5.(9) Der König lässt den Gefangenen vor sich/ihm niederknien.: 1 Thorsten 3.: 2. E.: 5.: 5 • ihn bezieht sich auf: Martin 1.: 2. F.S. F.S.S.S.S. E.: 3.: 5. E.: 2.: 1.: 2 Jane ist erstaunt über Danielas Wut auf sich/sie.: 5.: 4 Daniela 1 V.: 1.F.: 5.S.: 2. S.: 5.S.: 5 andere Person 1. S.: 3. M.: 5.S.S.S.9 V.: 1 III. S.S.: 1.: 2.S.S.: 2. E.F. K.: 3. I.S.O.: 5.: 1.S.: 5. I.K.: 3.F.S.: 2. wenn vorm Spiegel • ihm bezieht sich auf: König 2.: 1.: 4 Gefangener 5 V.: 1 andere Person 5 V. S.: 3.: 5.O.: 5. F.S.: 1.: 1 Gefangener 3.S. S.K.S.K.3 V.: 1.: 5.: 5 • sie bezieht sich auf: Jane 1.S. I.: 1.S. M.: 5.S.S.K.S.K.: 1 andere Person 5 V.: 2. S.S.S.: 1. K.: 5. S. S.O. K.K. M. E.S. M. K.S. K.S.: 4 Thorsten 1.: 5.S. I. S.: 5. F.: 1. I.O.S. M.S.: 1. M.S.S.S.: 5. S.S. I. F. I.S.: 4.S.S.: 2.K.S.F. M.: 5.O.: 5 andere Person 2.K.: 5*.S.: 3.: 2.: 1. K.: 2.: 5 andere Person 1. E.O.: 2.: 1.S.: 1.: 2.: 2.: 4. I.: 5. E.: 5.O.S. I. F. (11) Martin hört nicht gern Thorstens Geschichten über sich/ihn.O.: 1.: 5.3 V.: 1. S. M. S.S.O.5 V.S.F.S. I.S. I. I.S.S.: 1.: 1.: 2. E.S.: 1. S. K.F.S.S.: 5 • ihm bezieht sich auf: Martin 1.: 2. E.: 2.: 1.S.S.1 V. K.K.: 2.: 5.O. S. E.S.: 5 Assistent 4. F.K.O.S.O.F.8 V.S.: 3.

S.R. eindeutig falsch.: 1.S.: 1.F.: 1 Der kleine Junge lässt sich/ihm den Stein auf den Kopf fallen. R.: 1.: 1. A. 1.: 5.S.: 1.S. P.S. P. V.: 1 • ihm bezieht sich auf: Willi 4.: 2. S.: 1.: 5.: 5.: 1.: 1.S. F.: 3 andere Person 1.F.: 1.S. • sich bezieht sich auf: Willi 1.S.F. V. V. F. M. P.R.: 2.: 1.R.F. A. 1.R.K.M.F.: 1. F.S.: 1. A. F.: 2.: 1 Willi lässt die Chance sich/ihm nicht durch die Finger gleiten.F. S.: 5. F. V. das Personalpronomen (ihn/ihm/sie/ihr…) bezieht. S.: 1. 2. P.: 5.S.S.: 1.: 1. R.: 1.M.: 1. vielleicht.S.: 1 • ihm bezieht sich auf: Willi 5 E.: 2. (15) Der kleine Junge lässt den Stein sich/ihm auf den Kopf fallen.S.: 1. F. 5. S.S. 1.: 5.M.: 1. 5.: 1. M.S. 1. F.S.K.S.: 4.: 2.S.M.: 2. F.: 4. • sich bezieht sich auf: Der kleine Junge 1 E. R. F.K.: 1.: 1 Die Großmutter lässt den Wellensittich sich/ihr auf den Kopf fliegen. P.K. F.S.K.: 1. P.: 5 andere Person 1 E. M. F. P.: 1.: 5.S.: 5. S.: 1 • ihm bezieht sich auf: Der kleine Junge 5 E.: 5 andere Person 1. F.K. 1.: 2.M.: 5. F.: 1.: 5.M.: 4.: 1.S. A. V. hört sich falsch an.: 5.S. F. R.S. R.: 1. 1. A.S.S.S. M.R.S.S.S.: 1. kommt mir aber nicht als erstes in den Sinn.S.S. F.K. A.S. 1. S. Benutzen Sie die vorgegebene Bewertungsskala und tragen Sie in jedes Kästchen Ihr Urteil.S.S. M.: 5. S.R.S.: 1.: 3. 5.: 2. 5.M. A.K. V.: 5. S.S.: 1. R.R. F.: 2.S. • sich bezieht sich auf: Die Großmutter 1. S.: 4 andere Person 3. A. A.: 2. R.: 2. F.R. F. S.F.S. 4 Kaum möglich.: 5.F. F. S. V.: 5.S.S.: 4.: 1. S.M.M. M.3 E. V. worauf sich das Reflexivpronomen (sich) bzw. S. R.: 1.: 4.S.S. S.M.: 3 • ihr bezieht sich auf: Die Großmutter 3 E.: 4. S. R. M.: 1.S.K.S. P.: 5. S.: 1.: 2.F.: 5.5 E.S.R. S. M.: 1 • ihm bezieht sich auf: Der kleine Junge 4. F. 3 Ja. kommt mir sofort in den Sinn.: 1. R.F. S. M. P. A.: 2. Wenn Sie meinen den Kontext genauer erklären zu müssen. ein.S.: 5.3 E. F.: 1. M.S.: 4. S.S.: 1.S.F.S.S. P.F.K.S.M.S. M.: 2.K.: 2.4 E. S.: 2. F.: 1. mit entsprechendem Kontext. 2 Ja. S.2 E. M.: 1. M. R.: 1.: 4. S.S.: 5 andere Person 3. R.F.F.S.: 5. A.M. V.: 5.S. P. A. P. P. Dieselbe Zahl kann mehr als einmal pro Satz benutzt werden.F.R.K. V.S.7 E. V.S.: 1.: 1. F.S. • sich bezieht sich auf: Willi 1 E.S.R.S. M.K. S. F.S. V.: 5. A. R.S. S. fügen Sie bitte einen Kommentar hinzu. S.: 1.: 5. Vielen Dank fürs Mitmachen! Bewertungsskala: 1 Ja.: 4.: 5. also eine Zahl von 1 bis 5.S.R.S.: 2.M.: 5.S. V.Fragebogen: Bindung in AcI-Konstruktionen (#2) Bitte lesen Sie die folgenden Sätze und entscheiden Sie.: 1.M. R.S. M. I.3 E.: 1.K.M.S.: 5. Sie werden sowohl Mehrdeutigkeiten als auch unmögliche Kombinationen vorfinden.: 4. V.: 3.: 2.2 E. 1.: 1.2 E.: 4 Willi lässt sich/ihm die Chance nicht durch die Finger gleiten. V.: 4.: 1.K.: 1.: 5.S.S.S.S.: 1.: 1.: 5. • sich bezieht sich auf: Der kleine Junge 1.: 2. R.S. S.: 1. 1.: 2.: 1.: 4 (16) (17) (18) (19) 271 .R.: 2. F. F.: 1.R.: 4. 5 Nein. F. F. A.S.S.: 5. aber kommt mir komisch vor. S. 5.: 1.: 4.: 1.: 4. P. F.R.: 5. S. A. S. F. S. P.

S.: 3.: 5.: 5. P. F.: 3 den Jungen 1. P.: 5 • ihr bezieht sich auf: Die Mutter 4.: 1.S. S. V. M. R.K.: 1.: 1.8 E.S.S.M.: 2. P.: 5. S.F.S.: 3.S.: 1.S. F. M.: 1 Maja lässt Willi sich/ihr eine Geschichte erzählen.9 E.: 1 • ihr bezieht sich auf: Die Mutter 1.K.S.K. V.S. F.M.: 1.S.: 5. 5. F.S.S.F.: 1. V.: 2. R.: 5.: 5.S. M.: 3.: 1.: 5. R.S.: 2. P.: 5.M. R. A.F. M.S.: 1.R.: 2. F. S. R.: 1.: 5.S.S.K.: 5 andere Person 1.: 4. P. S.: 5.F.F.7 E.S.M.: 1.S.S.: 1.S.S. V.: 1. P.: 2. S.S.: 1.: 3.S.K.S.S.S.: 2.: 4.S. 2. F.: 3.S.: 5. 5.: 4. S.: 2.: 2.: 2. • sich bezieht sich auf: Andrea 1.: 4. V.S.: 1 Der Vater lässt den Jungen sich/ihm Zigaretten besorgen. F.5 E.S. P.3 E. V.: 1.: 5 andere Person 2. M.: 5.R. F.K.: 1.S.: 5.K. M.S. A.: 5. S. M.S.S.K. 5.: 5.S. P.M.S.M.: 2.: 5. 2.R. M.M.S.: 2.: 1. S. R. S.: 5. S. P.: 4.S.: 1. P.1 E.S. P.: 1.R.F.: 2.: 1 • ihr bezieht sich auf: Andrea 4. S. 1.: 1.K.: 4.S.R. 5.F.: 5. F.9 E.: 1. P. F.: 1.: 2.: 1.: 4.: 2.: 5. M.F.S.R. • sich bezieht sich auf: Die Mutter 3. S. P.S.: 1. R.S. 5.: 5.M. F.: 3.: 5. M.S. S. S.: 4.: 2. F.9 E.S.: 3. A. A.S.: 5.6 E. A.: 1. A. M.K.S. A.S.: 5. F. • sich bezieht sich auf: Der Vater 2.K.: 4. F.K.M. S.F.S.: 3. A.: 1.M. S.: 5.S.F. S.R.S.S. 1.4 E.9 E.: 5. V.: 5 den Jungen 5 E.K.: 5.M. F.M.: 2. R.: 1. 1.S.R.F.: 5. S.S. 3.: 3.: 1.: 2.R. F. S.: 5.: 2. F. R. F. F.S.S.: 5. F. A. S.S. S.S. F. F. M.: 1.: 5. V.: 1. A.: 2.: 5 • ihm bezieht sich auf: Der Vater 4.S. S.S.: 3.: 1. P. S.: 4.: 2. S. F. F.2 E.S. F. M. 1.K.S.: 1.K.: 5.K.S.5 E.: 5.: 4 den Jungen 3.S. M.: 5. M.: 2 andere Person 2. 5. M. P. S.: 5.7 E. F.K. R. S.S.: 5.: 3. M. F. S. M.: 2 Die Mutter lässt sich/ihr die Kleine die Schokolade in den Mund stecken.S. V.S. F.M.S. F. R. M.: 1.: 3.7 E.S. V.: 2.S.M. F.: 3.: 1.: 1.R. P. R. S. F. S.M.R.F.(20) Andrea lässt die Katze sich/ihr nicht ins Haus kommen.: 1.: 4.: 5.: 2.: 1.: 4.: 3. F.M. 3. M.R.: 3.S.: 5. F. S.S. P.S. M. S. P.: 3.M. S.: 2. R.M. P.2 E.F.: 2.3 E.S.M.S.S.: 2 • ihr bezieht sich auf: Andrea 3.: 1.S.: 5.: 3.S.3 E. P.R. S.: 1.S.: 5.: 5. V.F.M. S. R. A.S.S. F.S.2 E. V.M.: 4 Willi 2 E.M.K. A.: 1. F. R. S.S. F. S.S.R.4 E.: 5. F.R.M. F.: 3.: 1 den Jungen 4.: 1.S.S.: 1.S.: 2.K.: 1 Andrea lässt sich/ihr die Katze nicht ins Haus kommen.S.: 1.S. 1. S.: 3. A. 3. S. S.: 4.: 2.: 2.: 4.: 1. P.M.: 2 (9) (10) (11) (12) (13) (14) 272 . V.: 3.: 5.R.M.: 5.F.: 1. V.: 1. S.F. V. R. S.: 5.: 3.F.R. S.S. R. A.F.S.S. P.: 5.R. S.: 3.: 5. A.K.S. M.: 5. A.R.R.R.R.S. M.: 4.S. M.S. S.: 5 die Kleine 3.S. P. A.: 1.R.K. F.: 2 • ihr bezieht sich auf: Maja 1.S.S. S. V. F.S.: 5. F.: 1.F.: 2. R.: 5.: 2. R.S.: 4.K.S.S. S. V. S.: 5. F.S. V. F.S. 5.F.: 1. • sich bezieht sich auf: Die Mutter 4.: 5.S. R.: 1.R.: 1.: 1. A. V.R.: 1. 3. S. 3. F.: 5.: 5.K.K.M.K.: 2.S. 1. F. F.K.: 2. V. F. 3. F.R.R.: 1. • sich bezieht sich auf: Maja 2.: 2.: 1 andere Person 1. S.S.: 5.S.S.S. F.F.S. F.S. M.S.S.4 E.: 1.: 5. • sich bezieht sich auf: Der Vater 3.: 2.F.M.: 3. M.M.F. R.: 3.: 2. A. F.S. A.S.R. 1.S. F.S.: 5. 1.S.: 1.M. V. S.: 1 Die Mutter lässt die Kleine sich/ihr die Schokolade in den Mund stecken. 5. V. F. 1.: 5.: 5 die Kleine 5 E.: 5. R.: 1.S.: 5 andere Person 1.K. R. F.7 E.F. 1.S.S. S. P.: 1.S. S. R.: 4. A. P. R.: 5.S.: 5. A.: 1.S.K.S. M.: 1. F. A.: 1.S.S.: 2.S.S.9 E. S.: 3.F. S. S.: 5.S.: 5.F. A.S. M.: 4. M.S.6 E. V.: 1. • sich bezieht sich auf: Andrea 1. A. A.F. F.: 1.8 E.S. S.K.F. F.7 E.S.S. 3. R.S. P.: 2.S.: 5.S. V. S.: 5.: 1.: 1. 5.: 1. V.: 1.: 1. P.: 2 Der Vater lässt sich/ihm den Jungen Zigaretten besorgen.: 5.: 5 andere Person 1.K.S. A.: 1.: 2. A.: 3 die Kleine 1 E. F. F.: 5.: 5.S.: 5.S.: 1.: 5. R. S.S.R.M. V.: 3. V. V. R.: 5.: 2.: 5 andere Person 2.F. S.: 1. P. 5.: 1.S.: 5.: 2.: 5. P.: 5.S.S.F. S.: 1. R. P. 2.: 5.: 1 die Kleine 4.: 2.: 1.: 1.: 1.: 5. M.S. R. V.R. F. A.: 1.: 1 • ihm bezieht sich auf: Der Vater 1. A.: 2.: 5.: 1. V.S.: 5.: 1.

S.S.: 4.S. A. A.: 5.: 1. S.: 5. P.: 5.S.K. M. S. P. F.F.S.S.: 3.S. M. F.: 1.: 1.K. F.: 5.R.S. M.K.S. P.S.S.M.: 2 Die Spieler hören sich/sie die Fans anfeuern.: 2.R.: 3. P. S.: 4.9 E.K. • sich bezieht sich auf: Die Spieler 4.S.M.S.: 4. A.: 2.: 5 die Fans 4.S. R. R.S.M.S. P.R.: 4. F. S.: 5.M.S.K.: 4. R.M.S. S.: 3. P.: 1.: 5 die Fans E.: 3.: 1 • sie bezieht sich auf: Maja 3. R. S. S.: 2.: 4. M.: 5. F.: 2. 3.: 2.F.M.: 1.S.: 2.: 2. M.M. F.F.: 1.S.F.F. S.: 5.S.: 5 • sie bezieht sich auf: Die Spieler 5 E. P.: 1. S. F.: 2.S. A.K. 3. V.: 4. A. A.: 1.S. M.S. S.M.S.: 3.: 1. S. S.M. 5.S. S.: 1.S. R.S.S. • sich bezieht sich auf: Maja 3.: 5 andere Person 2.R.: 3 • ihm bezieht sich auf: James Bond 3. V. S.5 E.K. V.: 5.M. P. F. F. 1.S.F. S.: 5.: 2.: 5.R.M.: 2.: 4.: 5.: 4.S.S. V.: 3.: 5. F.: 5.S.S.S. F. 1. M.R.: 5.S. R.: 5.S.F. P.S.: 2 andere Person 1. S.S.: 1. S.S. M.5 E. P.S. S.K.: 2.: 3.S.: 5. • sich bezieht sich auf: Maja 1 E. A.: 3.S.8 E.M. 3.: 4.: 1. M.K.S. R.: 5. V. S. F. P. P. • sich bezieht sich auf: Die Spieler 2. S. R.: 5.: 1.S.: 5 andere Leute 1.S.: 5.K.: 5.K. S.: 3. R. P.: 5.: 1.F. F.: 2.: 4. F. M. A.: 1. 3.F. A.F. A.: 5.S.: 4. R.: 4.: 5.M.: 5 andere Person 3.M. F.: 1.S. S.S.R. 1.S.S.S.M.R. S. S.R.: 1. 3.: 5.R. F.: 1.: 3 die Fans 1.R.: 5.S.F.8 E. V.S. 3.: 4. V.7 E. P.: 1.: 2.S. A.S.: 2. P. P.M.: 5.S.S. A.S.: 1.: 2.S.S.S. 5. M.K.: 5.: 3 Maja ließ sich/sie die Müdigkeit überkommen.: 3.: 1.: 5.: 1. R. R.: 3. V.: 2.4 E. P.: 2.K. 5. R. F.M.S.: 3.: 1. 1.S.K.: 5.R. S.K.: 5.: 5. P.S.R. S.S.K.S. S.R. V. F.F. F.S.: 4. 5.: 3.: 1. 1.: 3.S. V.: 2.S.S. S.: 4.M. M.: 5 andere Leute 1.S.: 4. V.: 1.: 1 • sie bezieht sich auf: Die Spieler 1.: 5.: 1 Die Spieler hören die Fans sich/sie anfeuern.: 2. A.S.S.S.: 4 • sie bezieht sich auf: Maja 4.8 E. F.: 5. S. V. V. R.: 4. P.S.K.F. V. A.: 4. A.: 4. V. A. 5.: 1.: 1.: 3.S. A.M.: 5.: 2.: 2. M.: 3.: 2.: 3.K.: 1.: 5. F.K. 2.S.F. M.6 E.S.: 5. F. R. S.: 4.: 1. R.4 E.8 E.: 5. A. P.S.: 1.M. M.: 2 die Fans 4.: 5 • ihr bezieht sich auf: Maja 4. S. 5.: 5.: 5.: 2.: 5. F.: 2 andere Person 3. R.M.F.: 1.S.S.R. R. F.S. S. F.F.S.S.: 2 (16) (17) (18) (19) (20) II. S.: 5.S.: 3.S. F.F.K. M.: 2.: 3.S. 5.S. A.: 3.S. F. S.S. F. S. F.F.: 1.S.: 5. A.: 4. S. P. S. M.: 5.K.: 2 273 . R.: 3.K. S. F.S.9 E.R.S.S.: 4. R. A.: 3 F.F.: 3. F. M. R. F.R. F. V.: 1.: 4.: 5.: 2. M. A.M.: 2 andere Person 2.M.M.S. A.: 1.: 5. • sich bezieht sich auf: James Bond 1. M. M.: 1.: 1.: 5. S. V. S.(15) Maja lässt sich/ihr Willi eine Geschichte erzählen.: 2.: 5. F.S.: 5.: 1. P.: 2.: 5.: 4.S. F.: 1.: 5. R.: 5.: 2. S.S.S. M. V.1 E. S.: 3. F.: 2.: 2. M.M. P.R. S. R. V.S.: 2.S.: 5.5 E. S.S.: 1. F.: 1.: 2.R.: 1. S.: 3 James Bond ließ die junge Frau sich/ihm in die Arme fallen.S.F. S. P.R.: 3. M. F.: 3.: 5.: 2. S. F.S. M. F.S.F.S.2 E.1 E.R.R.S.R.R. 3.: 1.F. A. S.F. V.: 2.: 2.2 E.S.K. 5.: 5.R. F.: 5.: 5. V. F. F.: 5.: 2.: 1.M.: 5 Willi 3. 5.S. M. A.: 1 • sie bezieht sich auf: Maja 2.: 3. F. F.: 5.: 5.: 1.: 4.9 E. • sich bezieht sich auf: Maja 3.: 1. F. R. F.F. R.S.S. 3. (21) Maja ließ die Müdigkeit über sich/sie kommen. P.1 E.: 3.: 3.6 E. S.: 2.S. V. R. V. P.: 5.7 E. S. S. A.S.: 1 Maja ließ die Müdigkeit sich/sie überkommen. F.9 E.: 4. V.: 5.: 5.S.F.S. V. F.S. 5.: 1.S. S.S.S.S.S.S.: 1. 3.K.S.S.S.S.S.: 2.: 5.S.: 1.: 2.F.: 5.6 E.: 4.S. V. F. • sich bezieht sich auf: Maja 3.R. 1. F.K.K.

F. P.M. F.R.: 2.S. 5.R.: 1 • ihn bezieht sich auf: Der Bauarbeiter 3. M.S.: 1.: 4.S.S. F.S. 5. V.S.: 4.M.: 1.: 5.: 1 Der Fußgänger sah die Radfahrer auf sich/ihn zurasen.S.: 1.: 2. S. P.F. A.: 1.: 2.F.S.: 1.: 2.F. • sich bezieht sich auf: Der Polizist 1 E.K. F.S.S. A.4 E. 1.R. F. 2.R.: 1.: 1 andere Person 1.: 2.: 5.: 5.S. 1. R. M.K.S.: 1.M.: 3.R.K.K.: 1.S.S. 1.: 1 • sie bezieht sich auf: Britta 4. 5.S.: 3.R.S.S.1 E.: 1.F.: 1.S.F.: 2.S. F.: 2.: 1. S.: 2.: 1. V.S.: 1 (23) (24) (25) (26) (27) (28) 274 .: 3.S. P. A.: 4. • sich bezieht sich auf: Die jungen Eltern 1 E.: 1.: 1. A.S.R. A. P.M.: 1.: 2 *nur wenn vorm Spiegel • ihm bezieht sich auf: Der König 2.: 5.S. 1. 3. M.: 1.S.S. F.R.: 2. S.: 4.: 1.R. 1. S.: 2.: 3.S.S.: 1.S. F.: 5.M. M. S.: 1.: 2. P.: 1.S.: 5*. A.: 1.F.: 2.K.: 1. F. A. F.: 1.: 1. S.S.S.M.: 1. V. R. F.: 1.: 1. S.K.: 1. • sich bezieht sich auf: Die Demonstrantin 1 E. S.: 2 den Gefangenen 5 E.: 1 den Gefangenen 4. F. M.: 3. V. A.: 2 andere Person 1.: 1. F.R. M. M.S.S.K.: 2.M.: 1. M. F.: 1.: 1 die Radfahrer 3.: 3.: 3 andere Person 1.: 3.R.S. M. S.: 1. F. • sich bezieht sich auf: Britta 1 E.: 3.M.: 5.: 1. A.: 1. F. A.S. R. F.: 1. M. S.S.F. S.S.: 1.: 1. V.R.S. V.: 3. V. S.: 3. P.K.R. 5.7 E. S.: 1. R.K.K.: 1.: 1. P. P.: 1.S. R. 5.2 E.: 2 Der Bauarbeiter sah das Gerüst auf sich/ihn niederstürzen.: 1. S.S. R. V. F. R. R. F. 1.: 1. A. V. S.: 1 Der König ließ den Gefangenen vor sich/ihm niederknien.S.: 1. F.: 5.: 1. A. M. V. M.: 1.: 2.6 E. M. S. S.: 1.: 2.M. V.F. S.: 1.: 1.: 1.: 2. P.: 1.K.R. A.1 E. P. P.F.: 1.S.: 1.S.S. S.K.S.: 2.S.S. F.: 1.S.: 3.M.: 1.S. P.S.: 1. V. V. R.F.R.: 5*.S. P.S.: 3.S.: 1. A.S.: 1.S.: 5.M. S. S.: 2.: 5.: 1. S.R.S. P.S. S. M.M. 1.F.: 2.K. V. F.: 4.: 5.K.: 4.S.S.: 1. V.S. P. 1.: 1.M. S.4 E.: 1.M.F.: 1.: 3.: 5*. A.K. F.S.: 3.: 2. R.: 2. P.: 1.: 2.: 1.S. V.S. F. S.: 1.F.: 1. 1.S.: 1 • sie bezieht sich auf: Die jungen Eltern 3.S. P. S. F.: 4.S. S.4 E.S.: 1. R. F. F. F.S. F. S. R. R. P.: 1. S. 1. R. S.: 1.F.S.S.S.F.1 E.: 3. F. R.S. A.M.: 2.: 5.F.F.F.S.S. F. A.: 1. M. V. F.: 5.S.K.: 1.: 5.1 E.: 5. 5.S.: 2 andere Person 1.: 1.R. F.K.S.S. V.: 1.: 5.: 1. V.: 1.: 5.R.: 1.S.: 3.F.S.S.K.: 4. M. S.: 3 andere Person 1 E.K. S.: 4.K. P.: 1. P.: 1.: 5.: 3.S. R.: 5.: 3 andere Person 1.: 1. S.: 1.: 1.K.S.: 5. S.: 1. F.M.: 5.M. M.: 1 Der Polizist ließ den leblosen Körper auf sich/ihn fallen.S. V.S.S.: 1.S. S. A.F. R.: 4.M.: 2.R.R.S.: 1.: 4.: 1.: 1.S. R.R. S. V. A.M. F.: 1.S.S. M.: 2.: 1. R.S.: 1.K.R. A.5 E.: 1. F.S.: 1.: 1. R.M.S.: 1. M.: 1 Britta ließ den Ball auf sich/sie zurollen. S.S. 5.S. S.K.S. S.: 1. S.S.: 1.3 E.: 1.S. R. F. V.: 1 • sie bezieht sich auf: Die Demonstrantin 2.: 2.: 1.S.S.F. 1.: 1.S. P. M.: 1 Die Demonstrantin ließ den Polizisten auf sich/sie zukommen. F.M. S. F. V.S.R.: 1. F. F.: 1. S.S.(22) Die jungen Eltern ließen die Verantwortung auf sich/sie zukommen.1 E.: 5.S.S. S.: 4 • ihn bezieht sich auf: Der Fußgänger 2.S. M.S. F.S.M. R.S. A.3 E.S.: 4. 1. F.F.M.S. A.: 4. S. M. S. M. R. • sich bezieht sich auf: Der König 1 E. S.: 1. A.: 1.S. V. • sich bezieht sich auf: Der Fußgänger 1 E. M.F.: 4.S. A.: 1.: 1 • ihn bezieht sich auf: Der Polizist 3. F. P. F.: 1.K. S.: 1.: 5 andere Person 1.S.: 3. S. 1.R. 1. F. F.S.: 1. R.S. P.: 2.S.: 1. P.: 4. 5. • sich bezieht sich auf: Der Bauarbeiter 1 E. F. F.M.S.S.4 E.

: 1.R.: 1.4 E.: 1.: 1 Aber er ließ den Mann neben sich/ihm untergehen.S. V.: 4. S. R.: 2.R.: 1.F. V.: 2.: 1.: 1. P.: 1.M. V.: 2. R. R.K.: 1.: 1.: 1.1 E.: 1. F.S.: 1.S.: 1. R.S.: 2. • sich bezieht sich auf: James Bond 1.: 1.: 3. P.: 3.M. S. 1.F.S.: 1 III.K.S. M. P. 1.: 2.K.: 1.4 E.: 3.: 1. V. R.S. P. A.S.S.S.: 3. S.: 3. P. R.S.: 1 • ihr bezieht sich auf: Mitbewohnerin 2.S.: 1. S. S. S.F. F. 1.: 2. S.1 E.: 3.S.S.S.S. S.: 1. S.M.M.S.: 1.M. P.S.M.: 3.: 1.: 1.: 2 andere Person 1.F. M.R.: 1.S. R. F. S.S.S.: 4.F.: 3.R.: 3.F. (30) Der Pessimist fühlte den Himmel über sich/ihm einstürzen. S.: 1.: 1. F.: 1.: 1.S. F.S.: 1. A.: 1.K.F. F.: 3.: 2.: 1. F. M.K. F.: 2 andere Person 1.S.M. A.: 1.: 3.S.S.: 3.: 1.: 2.: 1. F.F.R.: 1.: 3.: 1.S. F.: 1.S.S. P. M. P.: 1.: 2.: 2.: 1.: 5. S. 2.F.: 1.S.: 3. S.S.2 E.F.S.S. A.: 1.S. S.S.: 4.S.K.: 1.: 3 andere Person 1 E.: 1.: 1. S. A.K.: 1. M. S. F. S.5 E.S.M. S. A. A.: 1 Meine Mitbewohnerin ließ das Essen bei sich/ihr unterm Bett verschimmeln.: 1.: 4. M.: 1.S. F.S. A.: 3.M.: 1. F. P. V. A. R.: 1.K.S. 1. A. P. 2. 1. V. A.: 1. R. F.R. M.R. M.S. V.R. S. F. F.: 2.: 3 andere Person 2.: 1.R.: 1. S.S. -. M.: 4. F.S. F.: 2.: 3.: 2.M.S.S. S.: 2. A.: 1. S.: 1 • ihm bezieht sich auf: Der Pessimist 3 E.: 1. • sich bezieht sich auf: er 1 E.K. V. F.S. R.: 1.S.S.F.: 5. V. F.S.K.S.S.S.K.S.: 2.: 2.M.S.4 E. • sich bezieht sich auf: Mitbewohnerin 1 E. F. M.F.R. R.S. M. M.M. 5.S. • sich bezieht sich auf: Der Pessimist 1 E. P. R. S.: 1.: 1 • ihm bezieht sich auf: er 2.S. F. F.S.S. P. -. 1.: 3.R.: 2 (31) (32) 275 .: 1 • ihn bezieht sich auf: James Bond 3. S.K.S. V.: 1.R. F.: 3. V.(29) James Bond ließ die junge Frau auf sich/ihn fallen. 1. V.

1-38. Judith & Perlmutter. Applicatives. Ph. Incorporation. Josef & Jaklin Kornfilt. (1978. In E. Successive cyclicity. J. 1982. 215-246. V. Tortora (eds. Edge. Bayer. In M. M. Oxford: Blackwell. To appear. Barbara. Clause reduction in Spanish. Aissen. Mark. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press. Syntax Companion (SynCom). & R. David. dissertation. anti-locality. Studies in Relational Grammar 1. 1990. Josef. Donna Gardiner & David Perlmutter. Reconstruction effects in German. 1976. LI 13 (1). 2003.D. 1988.) Aissen. 1974. 360-403. In P. Baltin. possessor ascension. den Dikken & C. Engdahl et al.) The function of function words and functional categories. 2002. 321-383. 1-30. New York: Garland. Donald Frantz. The interaction of ellipsis and binding: implications for the sequencing of Principle A.) Allen. (eds. Petruck.Bibliography Abels. Clause union and clausal position. Judith. Harvard University.) Parametric variation in Germanic and Romance. Kopenhagen. 21-42. University of Connecticut. Gunnar. Ms. Whistler. Jaeger. To appear. Studien über das deutsche Verbum infinitivum. Mark. Ph. 1955/57. Bayer. NLLT 21. K. C.) Proceedings of BLS 2. Van Valin (eds. 2nd edition 1983. Mark. Baker. 1990. University of Crete. 276 . The syntax of causative constructions.D. Tanja Schmid & Markus Bader. Anagnostopoulou. (1983. Javkin. Baltin. In H. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Bech.) Studies in Relational Grammar 3. Two clauses of double object verb. Joseph (eds. 2003. and adposition stranding. R. Baker. Tübingen: Niemeyer. dissertation. Mark. A landing site theory of movement rules. Postal & B. Storrs. and multistratal representation in Southern Tiwa. Smeall. Thompson. The University of Chicago Press. Klaus. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press. Elena. Verb agreement.

Noam.) Syntax and Semantics 19.) Formal syntax. 2000. Luigi. MA: MIT Press. Besten. extraposition and free word order in Dutch. Berlin & New York: de Gruyter. (eds.Besten. Hans den & Jerold Edmonson. Borer. Daniel. Burzio. MA: MIT Press. Syntactic cliticization and lexical cliticization: The case of Hebrew dative clitics. 1997. In D. On the nature of the syntax-phonology interface: Cliticization and related phenomena. New York: Holt. T. 69-105. Büring. The minimalist program. The meaning of topic and focus. In R. Rinehard and Winston. Martin. In S. Chomsky. Michaels. Studies in Generative Grammar 49. Borer (ed. G. New York Academic Press. Conditions on transformations. On verb raising. Cambridge. 175-217 Bobaljik. A-chains at the PF-interface: Copies and ‘covert’ movement. 1989.) Sentential complementation and the lexicon.) Competition in syntax.) Step by step: Essays on minimalist syntax in honor of Howard Lasnik. Büring. Cambridge. Barriers. Amsterdam: Benjamins. London & New York: Routledge. In P.) On the formal syntax of the Westgermania. 1986. Dordrecht: Foris. Kiparsky (eds. 2002. MA: MIT Press. Studies in honor of Wim de Geest. Chomsky. New York: Academic Press. NLLT 20. In W. 1983. Z&eljko. 1995. & J. Chomsky. Noam. 277 . 41-56. Sternefeld (eds. Chomsky. 1986. Anderson & P. On wh-movement. Noam. Noam. 71-132. Noam. The 59th Street bridge accent. Hagit & Josef Grodzinsky. 89-156. Akmajian (eds. Abraham (ed. Cambridge. Jonathan. 1973. 2001. Dordrecht: Reidel. 155-216. Jaspers et al. D. Italian Syntax: A Government-Binding Approach. Hans den & Jean Rutten. 1986. Chomsky. Wasow. & W. Let’s phrase it! In Müller. Minimalist inquiries: The framework. Amsterdam: Elsevier. 1977.) A festschrift for Moris Halle. & A. Uriagereka (eds. Bos&kovic@. In H. 2001. The verbal complex in Continental West Germanic. 197-267. Cullicover. Daniel.

2003. the stratal uniqueness law and the chômeur relation. Mannheim: Dudenverlag. Universität Stuttgart/Tübingen. Syntaktische Bedingungen für die semantische Interpretation. Löbel. Dowty. 1993. Cambridge. Berlin: Akademie Verlag. Frey. Cambridge. In M. Fanselow. Werner. Arbeitspapier Nr. Arnold. Grewendorf & W. Dativanhebung? Groninger Arbeiten zur Germanistischen Linguistik 35. Fanselow. 199-233. Kenstowicz (ed. 1986. 11 des SFB 340. 1991.D. Günther & Werner Scholze-Stubenrecht. Evers. Noam. University of Utrecht. 113-140. Syntax 7. Coherent infinitives in German. Studia Grammatika 35. Peter. Sternefeld (eds. 1989. 1975.Chomsky. The Netherlands. David. 92-122. Language 67. 1992. Jochen. Danny. MA: MIT Press. Scrambling und Pseudoscrambling. In G. Amsterdam: Benjamins. Clause union. 1992. Economy and semantic interpretation. Drosdowski. In C. Gallmann. & C. Duden: Redewendungen und sprichwörtliche Redensarten (Band 11). Gisbert.) Ken Hale. 547-619. Amsterdam: Benjamins. Bhatt. Chung. Derivation by phase. The transformational cycle in Dutch and German. 278 . Fox. 1-16. Schmidt (eds. Gibson. Ph. Scrambling as NP-movement. 1-51. 1991.) Syntactic phrase structure phenomena in noun phrases and sentences. 295331.) Scrambling and barriers. Restructuring and verb-initial order in Chamorro. MA: MIT Press. Geilfuß. 1990. Sandra. E. dissertation. Jeanne & Eduardo Raposo. 2001. 2000. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 4. Thematic proto-roles and argument selection. A life in language. Gisbert.

43-86. Grewendorf. Gunkel. Jacqueline.) Neuere Forschungen zur Wortbildung und Historiographie der Linguistik. Anaphoric relations in Hindi and English. 1990. M. Tübingen: Narr. Roggenhofer (eds.) Erklärende Syntax des Deutschen. 3-37. Linguistik Aktuell 5. Tübingen: Narr. & G. Anaphern bei Objekt-Koreferenz im Deutschen: Ein Problem für die Rektions-Bindungs Theorie. Abraham (ed. Kohärenz und Restrukturierung. 1988.) Scrambling and barriers. 223-254. Guéron. Grimshaw. Central Institute of English and Foreign Languages. PhD Dissertation. Everaert & J. Grewendorf & W. 1985. Obenauer. Inalienable possession: PRO inclusion and lexical chains. Abraham (ed. In G. Günther. Zifonun (eds. Grewendorf. 115-133. Scrambling theories. Jane. 2000. Tübingen: Narr. Lutz. Gurtu. Liliane & Henk van Riemsdijk. 1985. Haider.-G. LI 17. In W. 2003. scope. Tügingen: Niemeyer. M. Günther & Wolfgang Sternefeld. Argument structure. J.-Y. Zu verbalen Komplexen im Deutschen. Günther & Joachim Sabel. 263-308. Über sein oder nicht sein: Zur Grammatik des Pronomens sich. Guéron (eds. 1994. Günther. MA: MIT Press. Jane. Pollock & J. 137-171. and the typology of rules affecting verbs. Locality and extended projection. 1985. 1985. Amsterdam: Benjamins. Hubert. 1990. Gunkel.) Arbeiten zur Reflexivierung. Hyderabad. Grimshaw (eds. 1987. Grewendorf. Verb projection raising. Grimshaw. In B. In W. In H. Long Scrambling and incorporation. Haegeman. 115-133. Reflexivierung in AcI-Konstructionen.) Erklärende Syntax des Deutschen. Grewendorf. 417-466. Amsterdam: Benjamins. Cambridge.) Grammatical representation. Aspekte der deutschen Syntax. LI 25. G. In P. Dordrecht: Foris. Günther. In L. Sternefeld (eds.) Lexical specification and insertion. 279 . 123-144. Coopmans. 1986. Tübingen: Narr.Grewendorf. Asbach-Schnitker & J. Müller.

Hubert. Hinterhölzl. Ms. 2003. Hale. Scrambling. Subjectless binding domains. In J. GLSA Publications. Höhle. and Mandarin. Ms.) Event arguments in syntax. A complement/adjunct binding asymmetry in Hindi and other Languages. Deutsche Syntax – Generativ. 280 . Tübingen. Lander (eds. 1988. MA. 1987. Reconciling “possessor” datives and “beneficiary” datives – Toward a unified account of dative binding in German. Tübingen: Narr. and discourse. Ph. On argument structure and the lexical expression of syntactic relations. Partee. Humbold University. Cornell Working Papers in Linguistics 8. MA. To appear. 2005. Sprache und Pragmatik 49. & W. Norbert. Daniel. dissertation. 53-109. Niemeyer. Cambridge. 1991. 79-105. Hankamer.) View from Building 20. 69-96. What moves in German VP“topicalization”? LSA Annual Meeting. 1999. Huang. Logical relations in Chinese and the theory of grammar. Movement and Control. Robert & Diana Pili. B. James. Deutsche Syntax – Generativ. 455-496. Parameter der deutschen Syntax. In C. In K. 1-104. Arild. Amherst. 1982. Hole. Wayne & Veneeta Srivastav. Die Aktiv-Passiv-Relation und andere Infinitivphrasen im Deutschen. Wöllstein-Leisten (eds. Hubert.) Possessives and beyond: Semantics and syntax. Jorge & Vera Lee-Schoenfeld. Berlin and University of Siena.D. 1998. English. Kim. CA. Daniel. NLLT 9. H. University of Vienna. Kenneth & Samuel Keyser. Keyser (eds.Haider. Tübingen: Niemeyer. Hornstein. Hole. Maienburg & C. Haider. 2005. Haider. Harbert. Argument shift phenomena across language types. Hale & S. Extra argumentality – A binding account of “possessor raising” in German. 1993. 1993. LI 30. Hubert & Inger Rosengren. Hestvik. Tilman. Oakland. Lexikalistische Syntax. semantics.-Y. A. 1978. MIT.

& J.) Phrase structure and the lexicon. Camillia and Michael Rochemont. (To appear in conference volume. Toward a modular theory of auxiliary selection. Alexander. 135-149. Das syntaktische Verhältnis der Bezeichnungen von Körperteilen im Deutschen. 1993. 1975. Studia Linguistica 47. Richard. 1992. Paula. Tibor. Kayne. Vera. Infinite Komplementation. Kratzer. auxiliary choice: evidence from pronominal binding in German AcI-constructions. MA: Cascadilla Press. MIT. 2003. 109-137. Talk given at the Workshop on Cross-linguistic Auxiliary Selection. 2003. CSLI Publications 2001. Kubo. Hirschbuhler (ed. Lee-Schoenfeld. Flickinger & A. 1995. A comparative treatment of anaphoric binding in German and English. Ms. Miori. French syntax: The transformational cycle. 1-37. Dordrecht: Kluwer. Kathol (eds. Possessor raising and the structure of VP. On the syntax of possessor raising in Swahili. Somerville. 1999. Keach. Kiss. Tibor.) Proceedings of NELS 16. Amsterdam: Benjamins. In S. MA. 81-106. May 2003. 1990. Kempchinsky. Berman. Richard. Japanese Passives. Studies in African Linguistics 23. In P. 1996. Sätzchen: German small clauses as Ss. R. Severing the external argument from its verb. 1965. Kiss. 1986. Tübingen: Niemeyer. 1992. In D. LI 34. 274-292.) Legate.-W. Rooryck & L. Studia Grammatica 5. 281 . Agentivity vs.Isac&enko. Angelika. Cambridge.) The Proceedings of the 7th International Conference on Head-Driven Phrase Structure Grammar. 2001. Anaphora and Exemptness. 7-27. Lingua 107. J. UC Davis. Cambridge. Idan. Kayne. 3-31. McDonough (eds. Julie. 182-197. Some interface properties of the phase. 506-516. MA: MIT Press. Zaring (eds. Choe.) Linguistic Symposium on Romance Languages 20. Landau. In J. The Spanish possessive dative construction: q-role assignment and proper government. Kluender.

2004. Resumption. D. 2001. 1996. Epstein & D. Maldonado. In W. Andrew. Shigeru. On the (non)complementarity of q-theory and checking theory. Giuseppe. University of California. & A. James. Seeley (eds. McCloskey. Utrecht. Connectedness. Giuseppe. 1985. The structure of DPs: Some principles. 1987. Amsterdam: Benjamins. Longobardi. Shigeru & Takae Tsujigka. Ph. Thomas.) Derivation and explanation. 2002. The position of morphological case in the derivation. Reduced construction in Spanish. OTS Working Papers-TL-96-005. In T.) The handbook of contemporary syntactic theory. Quantifier float and Wh-movement in an Irish English. In M. successive cyclicity. 184–226. 273-300.Longobardi. 1991. 2001. Argument structure and ditransitive verbs in Japanese. John. To appear. Müller.D. Objective and subjective datives. 1996. Journal of East Asian Linguistics 13. and the locality of operations. 2004. Giuseppe.) Dative and similar cases (working title). Miyagawa. López. parameters and problems. 57-84. McCloskey. 694-716. Collins (eds. Baltin & C.) Issues in Japanese linguistics. dissertation. Moore. Longobardi. McIntyre.D. McFadden. Hole. University of Pennsylvania. 1-38. Luis. Gereon. Cognitive Linguistics 13. LI 31. 282 . 1-66. Miyagawa. The interpretation of German datives and English have. Blackwell Publishing. scope and c-command. 163192. LI 16. 562-603. dissertation. Ph. 2000. Imai and M. Abraham. Ricardo. Blackwell Publishers. James. NLLT 14. The syntax of N-raising: A minimalist theory. LI 32. Dordrecht: Foris. In S. Restructuring in Japanese. Santa Cruz. 2002. 355-407. Saito (eds. A constraint on remnant movement. Meinunger (eds.

Plunkett (eds. dissertation. and why. In C. Whagreement. Restructuring and clause structure. To appear. MA: MIT Press. Syntax of denominal and ditransitive verbs reconsidered. 1999.) Proceedings of NELS 14. Cambridge. 1976. United Kingdom. Keyser (ed. Is there a rule of subject-to-object raising in German? CLS 9. Reflexivity.Nissenbaum. In L. 1993. Asya. Cambridge. Movement. Review of Wurmbrand. Ein transformations-grammatisches Dilemma. Pylkkänen. 2003. Reinhart. Tanya & Eric Reuland. Jon. MA: MIT Press. Parameter der Herrschaft: Reflexivpronomina im Deutschen. MA: Cascadilla Press. Somerville. In S. Marga & Wolfgang Sternefeld.c. Ms. 2002. 113-158. Doris & Immanuel Barshi. Luigi. Papiere zur Linguistik 9. Reis. 483-499. Investigations of covert phrase movement. Pica. Reis. Beatrice. In D.-Konstruktionen. how. Payne & I. McDonough & B. Liina. LI 24. Linguistics 42. Cambridge. 5-82. MA. Chris.D.) Proceedings of NELS 17. 1973. In J. Rizzi. Cover (eds. A restructuring rule in Italian.) WhMovement on the Move. 53-88. MIT. On the nature of the reflexivization cycle. Barshi (eds.c. 2004. Cheng & N. MA. 2000. External possession: what. 1989. Pierre. 1978. Ph. Susanne: Infinitives. 469-508. 519-529. MIT. Pereltsvaig. Philip LeSourd & Sandra Chung. 360-376. 1987.I. and apparent Wh-in-situ. Pustejovsky.I. Reintges. Reis. Cambridge. Sells (eds. Zeitschrift für Sprachwissenschaft 8. Amsterdam: Benjamins. Reflexivierung in deutschen A. 657-720. Jones & P. where. Introducing Arguments. Somerville.constructions.) Recent transformational studies in European languages. University of Sheffield. 1984. Marga.) External possession. 283 . Marga. James. MA: Cascadilla Press. PhD dissertation. Primus. Opacity and the accessibility of subject in German A. Payne.

Linguistische Arbeitsberichte 77. On the form of chains: Criterial positions and ECP effects. Schmid. 265-295. Shibatani. Oxford University Press. University of Siena. Ph. 284 . Tübingen: Niemeyer. Ross. Joachim.D. Stechow. Santorini. Forthcoming. ethical datives and adversative passives. Masayoshi. Deutsche Sprache 29. dissertation. Restrukturierung und Lokalität: Universelle Beschränkungen für Wortstellungsvariationen. Rosengren. Markus Bader. dissertation. Infinitival complements and auxiliaries. Suchsland (ed. Tanja. Sabel. An integrational approach to possessor raising. Cambridge. Remnant extraposition in German. Language 76. In P. 1994. Das deutsche Verbum infinitum. 1991. MA. dissertation. Beatrice & Anthony Kroch. 1990. University of Amsterdam.D. University of Pennsylvania. Bausteine syntaktischen Wissens: Ein Lehrbuch der modernen generativen Grammatik. 7-29. Luigi. 2004. Gradients in auxiliary selection with intransitive verbs. Sabel. Philadelphia. Forthcoming. Zum Problem der kohärenten Verben im Deutschen. 2001. MIT.Rizzi. Constraints on variables in syntax. Ms. Safir. 1994. 1992. Steube. Antonella. University of Frankfurt. Joachim. 2000. Inger. 461-486. Jean. University of Konstanz. Coherence – An experimental approach. Opladen: Westdeutscher Verlag. Arnim von & Wolfgang Sternefeld. 2002.D. Proceedings of BLS 20.) Biologische und soziale Grundlagen der Sprachen. John. 859-890. 148175. The Syntax of anaphora. Ms. Sorace. Ph. 1988. Grammatik und Pragmatik von Hutkonturen. Rutten. Anita. Ms. & Josef Bayer. Ph. 1967. Ken.

Predicate composition and argument extension as general options – A study on the interface of semantic and conceptual structure. Anne. Tsoulas (eds. Gert. Kim. In V. Tübingen: Niemeyer.) Lexicon in Focus. Berlin: Akademie Verlag. Tübingen: Narr. Der Dativ – Ein struktureller Kasus? In G. 1981. Rothstein (eds. Peter. Ura. Hiroyuki. Der Dativ im heutigen Deutsch. Fanselow & S. Zubizarreta. & R. Partee. In B. Svenonius.-Y. In B. Heide. Anna. de Cat & G. 1983. 331-360. Sten. Felix (eds. University of Bergen.) Papers from the Tenth Scandinavian Conference on Lingusitics 2. Dieter. Webelhuth. Vikner. Stiebels and D. Dordrecht: Kluwer. The definite determiner and the inalienable constructions in French and in English. 1996. Wunderlich. 1995. Rosén (ed. Heide. The Linguistic Review 3. Adger. New York & Oxford: Oxford University Press. 2004. Multiple feature checking: A theory of grammatical function splitting. Mi: Michigan Slavic Publications. Tübingen: Narr. 2000. The possessor that ran away from home. MIT. 70-103.L. MA. 1991. W. C. Acta Linguistica Academiae Scientiarum Hungaricae 31. & M. 1996. Ann Arbor. Szabolcsi. Vergnaud J. Wunderlich. A universal theory of scrambling. 495-514. Anna. 2003. 247-270. Dem Freund die Hand auf die Schulter legen. 1985.) Peripheries. On the edge. 1992.D. dissertation. 1987. In G. Wegener. J. 595-652.-R. Wunderlich (eds.Sturgeon. Harras and M. 285 . Cambridge. 259-287. Verb movement and expletive subjects in the Germanic languages. 89-102. LI 23. Dieter.) Proceedings of the 11th Annual Formal Approaches to Slavic Linguistics.) Wenn die Semantik arbeitet. Wegener. Bierwisch (eds. Szabolcsi. In D. Ph.) Strukturen und Merkmale syntaktischer Kategorien. Brown. The possessive construction in Hungarian: A configurational category in a non-configurational language. Two-tiered approach to binding domain formation: Evidence from Czech.

Dordrecht: Kluwer. Morphosyntax of verb movement. Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter. Licensing case. Tübingen: Stauffenburg. Jan-Wouter. Zwart. University of Connecticut. 1997. Wurmbrand. 286 . Angelika. 2004. Wurmbrand.Wöllstein-Leisten. 2001. Susi. Infinitives: Restructuring and clause structure. Die Syntax der dritten Konstruktion. Ms. Susi. 2001.

Sign up to vote on this title
UsefulNot useful