http://henk.villasalmi.it/pub/1985%20Pied%20Piped%20Inf.

pdf
Acesso em: 13 mar. 2017

ON PIED-PIPED INFINITIVES IN CEKMAN RELATIVE CLAUSES*

tienk van Ric~llsdijk

Tilburp. l l ~ ~ i v e r syi t

Among tl~emore cunvus in Gemian

pl~e~io~ilelia syntax. we find sen.
tencts of the followins typc:

(1) a. Jetzt hat cr siclr cprrclliclrdcrr h'ogc.rr. [den zu kaufi~rl,cr

now h a s Ilc t o - l ~ h l e s c l ffinally tlic car wllich to b u y he
sick sclrc~rr larrgc~~vrgcrrorrrrrrt~rr
Irattc. leistcrl kfinrrcn
to-himself alrcady l ~ ) n gplanncd l13d afford been-able-to
"Now Ilc has tin:~lly bcen ablc t o al'li)rtl tllc car wliicl~h c had
planned l o buy for a long li~nc."
b. 6faran Iut Alaria, lrllir dcr k dell (irlo~rb ar f a l r ~ e nich
]~
one has MarU with wl~cimill tltc vacalion to drivc I
mcirrcvrr Lollc:4c.rI cprstmr :wiTagc~rrcrrr~~ji~ltl(~n
lwt tc, gatcrrl
to-my collcayc jtrsl a p l two days rccommcndcd hat yesterday
abcrrd tot irr i1rrc.111
%irrrrrrttrarrjiCc./rrrrtlcrr
evening d c ~ din hcr roo111 found
"Marb. wit 11 wl1~1111I I ~ a d~ I I S It\vo L I ; I ~ S ago recolnn~cndcdt o
nly collcagus (o go 011 a V ~ C ; I ~ I ~ ) was
II. Ii)r~llddead in l ~ c r o o m
last night ."

Thcse constrrlctions contain rclativc zlauscs. usually IIOII-restrictive oncs.

in which the rclativc prolloun is coi)t3irlcd in ; I I ~ infiiiitival coniplc~lient
Wliat is renlarkablr' is tllat thc wliolc i~il'initivalclause. a in the
clause.
examples in ( I ) , is movcd under 1~11-11iovcn)cnt.Alongside ( I ) we alsv find

This aniclc is a somcwl~atrcviwd translation of tily 'Zum Rattcnfingcrcffckt bci

lnfinitiven in deutscllcn Rrhtivdt~en'. wllicl~rppC;lrc.d in C'n>trCrgcrArhcifcrr zitr
Gennarrisfischen Litr~rrisrik Nr 21. 1982. T l ~ cstin~ulusfiir tlic paper wasa discussion
during the Fust (and Iwprfr~lly not h s t ) Vienna Rortnd Tablc on Comparativc
Syntax. June 1981. I u,nr~klkcto thank tllc participants of that \\.orksl~op,and in
paicular the 'locale'. for I I ~ V I I cffccfivcly
I~ dispcllcd niy original sccpticisln towards
the analysis which I prcwlr1 1lt.r~-in w c r i c ~2.~ ~111 ~ d d i ~ i o It iwould Iikc t o thank
Gugliclnio Cinque. Iluiwrt I l a d ~ r .Til11ia11Iliil~k.ant1 Tltilo Taplic for their mni-
mcnts on olrlicr vcriotrs ol' 1 l ~ i zart ~i'lc.
think about the positinti oTa itself. (3) does not specify whether a is in
COMP or wliet her it in SOIIIC ot11cr way occupies a S C I ~ ~ C I ~initial CC position.
In view of the fact I11at w'lr-n~ove~i~cnl of an over1 wll?-phrase is always
obligatory in German relative clauscs. it seems reasonable to assume that
a in effect does urldcrpo ~ t ~ l ~ - n i o v 311~1 c ~ ~IICI~TE
~ e ~ ~isl in COMP. This in-
stance o f w l t - r n o v c o ~ ~we
~ l will call ' C Z I C ' ~ I)~~~~~I I - I I ~ O V CNotc
~ I C IIlia1
I~'.
internal ic.11-nioven1c111callrlot Ijc ~ I I V O t~oCsalisl'v ~ tlie obligntoriness of
wlr-movc~iient in rclativc clauses si~lcci t cat1110t ~11ara11tce that a will cnd
up in a sentence i ~ ~ i t i a~lositiol~.
l I t 1 vir\v of tllcsc considrrations wc will
assunle without fl~rtl~crdisc~rssic~utllat c * t c r ~ ~ awh-n~ovc~nentl applies
and that a is in COhll'."

2. THE ANSWER

If it can be shown t11at t11c relative pronoun illside a nlust be in COMP. in

other words, that such sentences evidcncc wliat we m y call 'internal
wh-movement'. tl\c~iit must a fortiori bc the casc that a = 3 . Most o f t h e
arguments to be presented hclow havc illis st~uc.lt~rc.

2.1 Position

Hliile the linear ordcr o f c o ~ ~ s t i t u e is~ ~relatively

ts free in Ccrnlan. there
are nevertlleless a number ol' cascs wllcrc there is at least a strong pre-
ference for one of tllc possihlc orders. This is parlic~~larly truc for un-
stressed (i.c. clitic-like) prclnouos. as in (4).

(4) a. 1~11IICIIIII~~c3strrIf i11t11m1/'

I takc it wit11 I~inl111)
"I c11aIIc1ig~ I~irtr"
b.?*lcIr rrelrtnc trrir ilrtrr r s m~!'

In PPIs t l ~ cconlrast gocs ~ I I C ~ I I I P I . way:

(5) a. ?* Afol~a~t~r~rtrl
Ali 1st cirl Afurrrr. t s rlrir drnr orcjirel~t~lol zrc
Mohamnicd Ali is a nian it wit11 wlioni up takc to
wollcri, rcincr I~'u1111si11trwire
want sl~ccr nladncss would-bc
"M.A. is a oian, tu cl~allengewllon~would bc sheer madness"
b . MoIlot?rtnc.cl.4li ist eitr Alarrtr .t ~itr ( k s ~ rc,s orrf,zehmetr zu wollen,
reirlcr kbl~t~sirrtr
n~rc

The assumption Ilia1 internal ~ c l l r - ~ ~ ~ o v chas

t i i ctaken
~ ~ t place within the
(9) a .?*Wir habcn nrit clicsctn Bursclrctr dcn l f a r ~ s
we have with this boy tho flans
tatrcrr sclrrrr ttniissc~r~
dance sec Iii~d-to
"We had t o scc Ilans dalicc wit11 this boy"
b . W u lrabrrr dell //arts r r ~ i f~ ~ C ' S L ' IBr4m(.I1i~tr
II tatr:en S C ~ C I Imiissen

Again, t l ~ econtrast is invc~lrd in t IIC 1'1'1 ~.onsIruct ion.

(1 0) a. Dk 1,orrc isr cirl l t a ~ l t * I ~rnir

c ~ ~ ,dcr unseren
the Lotte is a girl with wllom o u r
Soh11 arrsgchcrr :I( lassclrl rllir rrltrr ck1t.11
son go-out tu Icl t o - n ~ eerlipl~.particles
ctwas UII~~~SIIIII crs~.lrcirrt
somewl~atu ~ ~ r c c . o l ~ ~ ~ ~ ~sccnlscr~dahls
"Lottc is 3 girl. to let our so11go out wit11 w11o11ireally doesn't
see111 rccor~~l~~cr~dabIC to IIIC"
b. *Die Lorre ist cirl ~ l l : d c h c ~rrnsrrc~l
~. Sohn mit der arrgehcn zu
lasserr rnir rrurr tk)t.lr etrvas ut~ratsonrcrsclrcir~t

(I 1) a. Dcr B~crsc.1~. ,tit clrn~ den llar~starcerl sel,ert r u mli'sscri,

the boy with wlionl the Hans dance see t o have-to
rnir grossctr h'rmrmer hcrcitct hat. sclrcirlt ;ctzt eincn andcnr
to-me great p i c f causcd 113s secr~ls now an otller
Frcurld pc.firnllc~~zrr habcrr
freind found t o have
"The boy t o llavc to sec Ilans dance with whom has caused me
great grief, scelns 10 have found another boyfriend now"
b .*Dcr Bursclrc~.dc.rr Ifarrs nrit llc~rtr tan:or sclrar i t / mussor, r?lir
grossctl Krrrnrrrcr hcrcitct Irat. sclrcint j~ptztcit~crtandem Frcrrrrd
gcfur~llcozu habcrt

The ungramlmticality 01' ( IOb and I I I h) is ayain a conscqucncc of tllc

template ( 6 ) . And i! is ir~tcrr~:llr c l t - r ~ i ~ ~ ~~l1ic11 c r ~ ~ 111akcs
c ~ ~ t i t possible for
(IOa) and ( I l a ) t o es~.:~pc l.r1>111I I I V Iilrcri~~g cf1bc.t 01. t l ~ cI C I I ~ ~ I : I I C . TIICSC
facts t l ~ ~SrIs~ C I I ~ I ~0111
I ~ I; I~ \ s u ~ ~ i IpI I t~ ~
I I tile
o ~ ~1110vcdrvlr-pl~~asc. must be7.

The conclusii)~~ d ~ a w iI ~' I ~ I I I 111e ~ ~ ) < . I I O I I ) ~ ' I I ; I ~ I I ~ ~ I I S S C iCl lI 2.1. viz. tj131
there is intcrnal rrlt-lllovc~llclll.113s ( W o 1:lirI) ~ ~ : I I ~ - I L ' ~ Lfurtl~cr ~ ~ I ~ I I ~consc-
 rI 1
-
5

"
COMP S

I NP VP
-
mir, wohl kaum je in den
Si~mkommen wurde

- I
zu glauben COMP S
I
I
I

h b e n konnte

The iterative PPI effect can be seen in examples such as (15) and (1 6).

(1 5) Noch so ein hlann, den zu Cbeneugen

another such a man wl~orn to convince
dir vonunehmen ich dir unbedingt
to-you to-plan I to-you definitely
empfehlen wiirde, ware der O~ornsky
recommend would would-be the Chomsky
"Another man. whom I would definitely recomnlend that you plan
to convince, is Chomsky"

(1 6) Die Femsehkihe. die amusehen dir zu

the TV-series which to-watch to-you t o
empfehlen, mir kaunl einfallen wiirde,
recommend to-me hardly occur would
he@ ubrigens 'Dallas'
is-called by-the-way 'Dallas'
'The TV-series, which it would hardly occur to me t o recommend
that you watch. is called 'Dallas', by the way"
 , : jtl[i?s L, 12 ptn

- I
2.3 me anti-crossover effect
There is a further argument t o the effect that a in (I) must be taken t o
be 3, and this argument is independent of the question as t o whether.
there is internal wh-movement. It has to d o with the so-called anti-cross-
over effect.'
The well-known crossover situation can be characterized as follows:
wh-phrases, and all their parts, behave with respect t o rules of (non-)
coreference as if they had nor been moved. In example (IB), wessen and
- sie cannot be coreferential, a fact which corresponds directly t o the
atuation in the parallel example (19) in which n o wh-movement has
taken place.

(18) * [Wesseni WagenIjglmbt sie, duo er e. genommen h a ?

whose car believes she that he ' -
taken has
'Whose car does she believe that he has taken?"

(19) *Ghbt siei, dap er Monikasi Wagen genommen hat?

believes she that he Monika's car take? has
"Does she believe that he has taken Monika's car?"

There is a systematic class of exceptions t o this principle which has been

known for a long time but has remained unexplained. Examples of this
class, which we may call the anti-crossover case, are o f the following
type

(20) [ Welches Bild, das du von der Monikai gemalt

which picture that you o f the Monika painted
ha~t,]j
glmtbst du, dass siei schiin finder?
have believe you that she beautiful finds
'Which picture that you painted of Monika d o you believe that she
fmds beautiful?"

In this sentence. Monika and sie can be interpreted as coreferential. even

though Monika is inside the preposed wh-phrase and. contrary t o the
general case, the unmoved variant does not allow coreferentiality.

(21) G h b s t du, dap siei das Bild, das

believe you that she the picture that
du von der Monika, gemalt hast, sclzon firuiet?
you of the Monika painted have beautiful finds
"Do you believe that she finds the picture that you painted of
Monika beautiful?"
 iOFi:,.l L,-L,I :! J O
~ Iilr~e, 12 ptn

-
The anti-crossover effect yields yet another argument in favor of a = S.
This argument derives from the contrast between (25) and (27).

(27) Dm ist die Frm, [mit der Herrn MiiUeri bekamt zu m a ~ h e n ] ~

ich ihm, niemals raten (= advise) wude

This contrast can be readily explained on the assumption that the PPI
contains the PRQsubject of the infinitive, and hence cannot be VP. Under
this assumption the contrast follows directly from the different control
- properties of the verbs versprechen "promise" and raten "advise". as is
shown by the following representations.

(28) ...[mit der PROj H.MI bekannt zu machenj, ichj ihmi niemals
versprecllen wurde
(29) ... [mir der PROi H-M .i bekannt zu machen]= ichj ihmi niemals
mren W d e

Since mten is a verb of object control. PRO and Herm Muller are coin-
dexed in (29) but not in (28). Therefore, the principles of (non-Norefer-
ence1', will always predict that H e m Muller and ihm cannot be corefer-
ential, regardless of the anti-crossover effect. If only the VP had been
moved, the PRQsubject would have remained in its base position. In
that case it would be quite obscure why the anti-crossover effect shows
up in one case but not in the other.
On the basis of the arguments presented in this section we may regard
two central properties of the PPI construction as firmly established. First.
a-3,and second, inside a internal wh-movement applies.

3. FURTHER PROPERTIES

Let us now turn to some further characteristic properties of the PPI

construction.

3.1 Infinitives only

It is remarkable thit an 3 can only be pied-piped if it is infinitival, i.e.

when its inflection marker is [-tense] and hence when its main verb is
an infinitive. In other words. sentences of the following type are sys-
tematically impossible.

(30) a. *Das ist dcr Wagen, [dab er den gekaufi Iut]si

that is the car that he whicli bought has
 'The man. whom one needs a lot of luck to catch, has now also
disconnected his phone"

Note that if we assume that the infinitival complementizer um is not a

preposition but a COMP, despite Tappe (1983), the ungrarnmaticality of
(32) will follow from our template (6). And to the extent that internal
wh-movement has taken place, the DFC filter will yield the same result.
Interesting confirmation of this analysis can be found in an example
cited in Van de Velde (1977). In this case, an instance of the obligatory
urn is deleted in a PPI-construction."
(33) a. Eine Musik, deretr teill~aftigzu werden man wolvalrren
a music of-which partaking t o become one pilgrim
muke wie die Amerikancr t1acI1Baymitll
had-to like the Americans t o Bayreuth
"A music which one had to undertake a pilgrimage like the
Americans to Baureuth in order t o partake o f '
b. Man mupte walvahren wie die Amerikaner nach Boyreuth,
um/*p dieser Musik teilhafiig zu rverden

3.2 Consequences o f internal wh-movement

The necessary assumption of internal wh-movement is far from trivial

from a theoretical perspective. There is a mostly implicit but nevertheless
powerful principle floating around according to which an operator-like
element (such as a relative pronoun o r a wh-phrase) is interpreted (i.e.
gets scope) in the COMP-position which it occupies at s-structure. More
generally speaking. many linguists assume that there is a virtual isomorphism
between structures that result from move-wh at s-structure and the cor-
responding operator-variable representations at LF.
Consider again the structure (3c) which was shown to give a correct
characterization of German PPls. This structure is repeated in tree-form
as (34).
--- --- --

Graphically. the following percolation possibilities result."

(36) a. COMP b. COMP c. COMP

Observe that (36) implies. so t o speak. a type of recursion, in that (36a) or

(37b) can be embedded under ( 3 6 ~ ) as. indicated by the [q, trel] in the
lowest COMP in (36c). Such a possibility is illustrated in (37).

(37) Der Mann, 66mit [dessen] baters Freudin ] ausgehen zu

+re1
the man with whose father's girl-friend go-out to
wonen,& ich mi& nie er-dreisten wtirde
want I me never have-the-cheek would
"The man, to want t o go out with whose father's girl-friend I
would never have the cheek"

Thus, the percolation mechanism proposed provides a specific way of

implementing the template (6) discussed earlier. We may now ask: does
it also provide a way of uniting the template with the analogous problem
in LF. Recall that !he main problem tliere was that some operator-like
element, such as a relative pronoun, which is in some COMP can take its
scope outside that COMP in some higher COMP which dominates a phrase
or clause containing the lower COMP in question. We might now assume
that the nodes along which the feature [+re11 percolates constitute a
percolation chain in the obvious sense." Using this notion, we may
formulate the following principle of LF.
(cf. Cinque (1981)). H'e will not pursue the issue any further in the present
context.Ig

3.3 The contrast betwee11German and Du tcl~

In Dutch. sentences with PPI are completely excluded. The Dutch version
of (la), for example, is ungrammatical.
-- - - . -

(40) *Nu heefi hij zich eindelijk de auto, die re kopen hij zifh
now has he himself finally the car which to buy he himself
al lang had voorgenomen kunnen permitteren
already long had planned been-able-to afford
"Now he has finally been able to afford the car which he had
planned to buy for a long time"

I l e question arises. then, why these two languages, which are in many
respects quite similar. differ so clearly in this respect. The question is all
the more pressing since wh-phrases in Dutch have essentially the same
structure as in German. In other words, they are subject to template (6),
or, in terms of percolation. wh-features must percolate along left branches.
Why, then. does Dutch allow (36a) and (36b) but exclude (36c)?
It would be interesting if this difference could be related to some in-
dependently existing difference between the two languages. Such a differ-
ence can indeed be found if we study the arrays of possible types of
complement clauses in German and Dutch. In Dutch, an infinitival comple-
ment clause can only be of one of two types: either it is extraposed or its
verb undergoes verb raising, cf. Evers (1975). In the verb raising variant,
the complement clause is to the left of the matrix verb, but its verb is
extracted and adjoined to (the right of) the matrix verb. Under extra-
position. the complenient clause as a whole stands to the right of the
matrix verb. In German, on the other hand, there is, contrary to Dutch
and contrary to Evers' claim, a third type in which the infinitival comple-
ment clause as a whole is to the left of the matrix verb and in which verb
raising does not apply to adjoin the complement verb to (the left of) the
matrix verb.m
Schematically, we have the following situation:

(41) German Dutch

Vk ...V
a. ...[ ......
-
t -
+ + (verb raising)
b . . . [ ...... @...J
(extraposition)
c. ...[.v,
F + j$+ .
 b. ...weil er (uns)drohre, seinen RnaIcn zu toten
(control interpretation)

(45) a. *seine Behemlzurtg, die zu verIierer1 er (uns) schon lange

dmhte
b. ? sein Rivale, den zu toten er (uns) scl~onIange drollte
(control interpretation)

These arguments establish conclusively that PPI is incompatible with verb

raising.
Let u s now push the analysis one stcp further. Verbs which permit the
PPI construction are characteristically verbs which can occur in the form
+
......V k X V. where X $. In many cases. including many of the
examples given in the present article, X is an inherently reflexive pronoun,
for example. Observe that in the non-moved variant the alternative order
X [. .... .V]S V is generally also grammatical. Therefore it is not possible
to estabkh with certainty that in the PPl construction X intervened
between the complement clause and the matrix verb. In other words it is
difficult to choose between (46a) and (46b):

The weaker fact can be established. however: PPl cases are always such
that (46b) can be their structure. This generalization is statistically con-
firmed by the fact that the corpus of PPl cases which is presented in Van
de Velde (1977) contains not a single example which is not amenable to an
analysis of the form (46b). In view of this generalization it becomes
attractive to speculate that this option, i.e. (46b), is exactly what Dutch
lacks. In other words, we may hypothesize that the difference between
Dutch and German given in (41) reduces t o the following difference:
-.- -- -- .
(47) - German Dutch
_S X V : OK *
(where X # g)
In addition, we need a principle which excludes the corresponding structures
in which the left-hand clausal complement is adjacent to the matrix verb
unless verb raising has applied. say (48):
 extraposed clauses appears to be quite plausibly excluded under the
assumption of the principles of the government-binding theory, in particu-
lar if (proper) government is assumed to be directional (cf. Stowell (1981),
Kayne (1983). Hoekstra (1982)). In Dutch and German the verb governs
leftward. In this view, the empty category principle (ECP) of Chomsky
(1981) will block extraction of an e x t r a p o s e d ~ l a u s e . ~ ~
This completes the argument. ECP linlits PPI to lefthand complements
in Dutch and German. The *W-filter limits PPI to non-adjacent lefthand
complements. And according t o (47) non-adjacent lefthand complement
- clauses can exist in Gernlan but not in Dutch. Hence German has PPI but
Dutch doesn't. Recall that. unfortunately, this is only half an explanation.
The absence of PPI in Dutch is shown to follow from the independent
difference (47). However it remains utterly mysterious, at least to the
present author. why the difference (47) obtains in the first place.

4. MORE QUESTIONS

This means that, as usual. a small step in the direction of understanding

'raises many more questions than it answers. In conclusion, let us list some
of the more salient ones:

1. Why do Dutch and German differ as stated in (47)?

2. Why do some Romance languages which are otherwise similar t o

Italian, French for example. lack PPI?

3. Why is internal wh-movement in Italian not only not necessary but

virtually impossible?

4. Why should a principle llke the *VV-filter be operative in a variety of

languages?

Future research will hopefully shed some light on these questions. But by
way of speculation, let us briefly dwell on the last of these questions.
Several proposals have recently been made which provide a more general
rationale for the existence of such a filter. Kaynez has suggested that the
core case of the case-filter is *N-NP. Kayne proposed that this core case
could be made to follow from some otherwise mysterious principle which
requires that predicates take arguments and that arguments be next to
predicates. Such a principle. in turn, is close in spirit to Stowell's 'Case
Resistance Principle' which requires that there is a bifurcation of cate-
gories into case-asigning and case-receiving ones, and furthermore, that
 NOTES
! -~ - - ~.
: 1 - -
1. In most vilrictics of German 'long wh-movement' as in (2) is supposedly urn
grammatical. The present article p r e t n t s the facts from the perspective of the
mostly southern variants in which long movement is not excluded. In addition, the
degree of ungrammaticality which obtains in northern varieties is relatively low, as
aompared to, say, island vio htions. Consequently, the relevant contrasts are assumed
t o hold for the northcrn variants as wcll, albeit at a somewhat lower level of accept-
abitity. Cf. also footnote 5.
2. Cf. Nanni and Stilluigs ( 1 9 7 8 ) for discussion.
-- 3. Many of these properties arc discussed, though somewhat implicitly, in the rich
material on the issue of PPI constructions presented in Van de VeMe ( I 977).
4. I ignore here the possibility that the infinitival complement clause might be a
VP-complement lacking a PRO-subject. I take such an option to be excluded on
principled grounds, cf. Koster and May ( 1 9 8 2 ) . More interestingly, the reasoning
presented below provides an a foniori argument against such a possibility and in
favor of PRO-subjects in infinitival clauses.
5. Tilman Hohle has pointed out to me that for him complement clauses can quite
easily precede a personal pronoun subject, which is, again according t o him, general-
ly impossible for NPs. He cites the following as an exarnplc:

(i) Ich h b e schon rnehrfach betonl, dap sie mif diesem Kerl bekannt zu
I have already often stressed that her with this guy aquanted t o
machen ich mich immet strikt geweigen hube
make I myself always strictly refuscd have
"1 have alrcady stressed sevcral times that I havc always strictly refused to
introduce her to this guy"

I d o not share Hohle's intuitions completcly. I find that NPs and clauses by and large
behave alike in this respect. Cf.

(ii) ?*... weil diesen Kuchen ich nichr mag

... becausc this cake I not like
"because I d o not like this cake"

(iii) ?*.. . weil dies zu sagen ich nichr wiinsclre

... because this to s y 1 not wish
"'ternuse I d o not wish t o say this"
- -.- .-

Alongside (i), which I would characterize with a question mark, we have (iv):

(iv) ? Ich hube schon melvfach beronr, dap eines sulcl~enL'or\vur/r ich rnicl~
I have already often stressed, that of-a such reproach l myself
hrna srrikt erwehren wrirde
a h a y s strictly defcnd would
"I havc alrcady strcsscd rveral times that I would always strongly
defend myself again51 such a reproach"

However, if Hdhle is right, little follows because my main argument has t o do with
the internal dnrcture of a. On the other hand r v e r d other problcms would arise if
we were to assume that a is in sentence initial position by virtue of some process
 -
of the anti-croisover effect is roughly identical in German and English. on-sen: ,
tential right adjuncts in German, for examplc, produce the crossover effect contrary
to Guiron's principle:

(ii) Mit welcher Frau vom Scheichi glau brt du schbft eri am licbsten?
with which wife of-the sheikh believe yousleeps he the dearest
'With which wife of the sheikh do you believe he likes t o sleep most?

10. As expected, the strong crossovu effect remains intact for the relative pronoun
itself:
.-

(i) *Das ist die Frau, mit der Herrn AWller bekannt zu machen ich ihr
that is the woman with whom Mr. M. aquanted t o make I to-her
nicht empfehlen wurd
not recommend would
'That is the woman t o whom I would never recommend her to introduce
Mr. Miikr"

(ii) *Das irt die Frau. mit d m ich ihr nichr empfehlen wurde,
that is the woman with whom I to-her not recommend would
Herrn Miiller bekannt zu machen
Mr. M. acquanted t o make
. .

11. Such as the binding theory of Chomsky (1981 ).

12. There are wme dialects of German in which it is possible to violate the DFC
f ~ e r This
. is true in particular of Bavarian. The standard varieties of German dis-
cussed in the text allow no such violations, however.
Cf. Baya (1983) and Lencn (1983). It should also be pointed out that there
is one construction in which the obhatory presence of dap is overridden by the
presence of a wh-phrase which takes scope in some higher COMP. as indicated by a
soope marker (was). The following illustrates this:

(i) Was g h b r t du wen (*dap) Peter gesehen hat?

what believe you whom (that) Peter secn
- has
.
'Whom d o you believe Petcr has seen?"

See Van Riemsdijk (1983) for a brief discussion o f this construction. See also example
(39) bebw.
13. The t a m purposive is used here in a very loose and unsemantic way t o identify
the urn-zu infinitives under discussion.
14. (33a) corresponds t o example (94) in Van de Velde (1977).
IS. Rehtive pronouns in German can be either [+w]-pronouns, such as in ulomif
"with what" or zu wekher ''to whom", or [+dl-pronouns, such as dem "whom" or
dessen "Whoae". This is why I usc the neutral feature [+rel].
16. Interestingly, percohtion from a true complement position appears to be im-
possible, in view of the impossibility of piedpiping with postnominal, leftward
governing, adjectives (cf. Van Riemdijk (1981)):
- (i) der Konb, Idem trculAp er eu-ig blieb
the king to-whom loyal he forever stayed
Finally. Thilo Tappe suggests that there is a correlation between clitic extraction and
bng wh-movement. According to him, peoplc who do not accept long wh-movement
rlso fmd (42a) awkward. If this correlation holds. it has interesting consequences
which, unfortunately, 1 cannot pursue here.
23. Condition (i), which is thc mirror image of the corresponding condition for
Italian, is taken to follow from the directionality of government. In German and
Dutch, both SOV languages, the verb governs leftward, while in Italian the verb
governs &htwatd since Italian is SVO. Condition (iii), which is also applicable in
Italian, follows if participles arc neutralized categories, i.e. not nnalyzrble as J+V.-N].
24. (50a) giver the Dutch surface order. The corresponding structure for Gennan
would be as in (i):

(Sob), which abstracts away from reordering, is, of course, identical for the two
hguges.
25. It might, in fact, be more correct to say that government into A-positions is
directional while government into A-positions works both ways t o allow for long
wh-movement out of extraposed complement clauses in languages like Dutch. This
view may, however, be problematic in view of the fact that stranding by r-movement
out of a PP to the right of the verb is excluded:

(0 H q heeft eri de delcr geverfi lei mecjpp

he has it the door painted with

I t is generally nssumed that the r-position, h e n ei, is an x-position. If it is. ECP can-
not be ured t o account for the ungrarnmaticality of (i) under the awmptions stated
above.
26. Talk at the 1982 GLOW conferencc in Paris entitled 'Predicates and Arguments'.
Cf. llso Hoekstra (1983) for an extension of Kayne's proposal.

REFERENCES

Aoun, Y. 1981. "Parts of speech, a cas: of redistribution."in A. BeUetti et al., eds.:

Theory of Markedr~essin Ger~craril*~ Gmn~mar.Proceedings of the 1979 GLOW
Conference. P i s : Scuola Normale Supcriore.
Bayer, J. 1983. ' T o w a d an explanation of certain tl~ar-tracephenomena: the COMP
node in Bavariam" Unpublished manuscript. Aachcn. Originally presented at the
conference on rntential complementation, UFSAL, Brusselr
Besten, J.B. den. 1982. 'Some xcmarks on the ergative hypothesis." Gronitlger
Arbeiten zur Germanistischen Lhtguisrl 2 1: 6 1-82.
Chomsky, N. 1981. Lectures on Governmenr atrd Binding. Dordrecht: Foris.
cinque, G. 1981. "On the theory of relative clauses and markedness." The Linguistic
. Review 1 (1981182): 247-294.
Cinque, G. 1983. 'ronnedcdness in constructions with sentence peripheral phrases
and move a,"Unpublished manurript,Venice.
Evers, A. 1975. The Transformational Cycle in Dutch and German. Dissertation,
-- Utrecht
... .
Univerdty;distributcd by the Indiana University Linguistics Club.