This paper discusses a variant of German V2 declaratives sharing properties with both subordinate relative clauses and main clauses. I argue that modal subordination failure helps decide between two rivaling accounts for this construction. Thus, a hypotactic analysis involving syntactic variable sharing must be preferred over parataxis plus anaphora resolution. The scopal behavior of the construction will be derived from its 'proto-assertional force,' which it shares with similar 'embedded root' constructions

Gärtner, Hans-Martin

English

Hochschulschriftenserver - Universität Frankfurt am Main

On the force of V2 declaratives* Hans-Martin Gartner (ZAS Berlin) gaertner@zas.gwz-berlin.de Abstract: This paper discusses a variant of German V2 declaratives sharing properties with both subordinate relative clauses and main clauses. I argue that modal subordination failure helps decide between  two rivaling accounts for this construction. Thus, a hypotactic analysis involving  syntactic  variable  sharing  must  be  preferred  over  parataxis  plus anaphora resolution. The scopal behavior of  the construction will be derived from its 'proto-assertional force,' which it shares with similar 'embedded root' constructions. It is well-known that the syntactic position of finite verbs in German is sensitive to the main  vs. subordinate clause distinction. VI  and V2 structures tend to be main clauses while  V-final  order  usually  indicates  subordination.  However,  exceptions  in  both directions  have repeatedly  been  reported  and even  studied in  more or less detail  (cf. Reis 1997 and references cited there.) Here I would like to further our understanding of 'embedded V2' declarative clauses by investigating the following question. (1)  QI:  Are there V2 relative clauses in German? I suggest that a proper answer to Q1 requires close analysis of  minimal triples like the following. (Finite verbs are underlined in the relevant clauses.) (2)  a.  Das Blatt hat eine Seite (I),  die ganz schwarz &. the sheet has one side  that entirely black is 'That sheet of paper has one side that is entirely black' b.  Das Blatt hat eine Seite (I),  die &  ganz schwarz. c.  #Das Blatt hat eine Seite (\). Die &  ganz schwarz. While (2a) involves a standard V-final relative clause and (2c) displays the sequence of two independent main clauses, the status of  (2b) is unclear. This will be reflected in the following terminological convention. (3)  Terminological Convention a.  Call  the  second  clause  in  (2b)  'V2  Relative'  (V2R)  if  you  want  to emphasize  properties it shares with its counterpart in (24. For  comments  and  suggestions,  I  would  like  to  thank  the  participants  of  the  workshop  on 'Informationsstruktur  und der referentielle Status von sprachlichen Ausdriicken'  at the DGfS meeting in Leipzig (2001) and the one on 'The Roots of Pragmasemantics 11'  in Szklarska Poreba (2001). The paper is submitted to a special issue of 'Theoretical Linguistics', edited by  Klaus von Heusinger and Kerstin Schwabe ZAS Papers in Linguistics 23, 2001, 103-109 Hans-Martin Gartner b.  Call  the  second clause in  (2b)  'Integrated  Verb  Second'  (IV2)  if  you want to emphasize properties it shares with its counterpart in (2c). Remaining neutral  at this  stage, I will  conflate the two terms  in (3) and refer to the sentence type at issue as 'V2WIV2.' To begin with, the following three properties of V2WIV2 should be noted. (4)  (Curious) Properties of VZWIV2 a.  V2WIV2  has  to  be  immediately  preceded  by  non-final  phonological boundary marking (I). b.  V2WIV2 can only modify indefinites in the putative matrix clause. c.  V2RJIV2 is able to restrictively modify its antecedent. (4a) is important for distinguishing V2WIV2 from parenthetical counterparts, for which most  of  the  generalizations  discussed  here  do  not  hold.  The  issue  of  quantifiers compatible with V2WIV2 indicated in (4b) will not be taken up in this paper, although one way to account for it may be inferable from the analysis presented below.' (4c) can be substantiated by the observation that the initial clause in (2c) triggers the Horn-scale implicature (5). (5)  The sheet of  paper has no more than one side (5) arises  in  order to  restore  informativity  to  an  otherwise  vacuous  sentence, given world knowledge such as is expressed in (6). (6)  Vx [ Sheet of Paper (x) +  3Y  [ Y = {z  I  Side of (z, x) ) A IYI  = 2 ] ] The  inconsistency  of  (5)  and  (6) then  result  in  pragmatic  anomaly  (#).  Crucially, implicature (5)  does not arise with (2a) or (2b). This is evidence that there the initial clause is not evaluated in  isolation. Instead the indefinite  description  is semantically intersected  with  the  content  of  the  adjacent  clausal  modifier,  i.e.  it  is  restrictively modified. Another curious property of V2WIV2 concerns scope. (4)  d.  V2WIV2 forces its indefinite antecedent to take wide scope, Thus, consider (7). (7)  a.  Maria mochte einen Fisch fangen (I),  der kariert  &. Maria wants  a  fish  catch  that checkered is 'Mary wants to catch a fish that is checkered' b.  Maria mochte einen Fisch fangen (I),  der &  kariert. c.  Maria mochte einen Fisch fangen (\). Der &  kariert. Here only (7a) is neutral  as for the scope of the indefinite. (7b) and (7c), on  the other hand,  invariably  induce a de  re  reading.  In  order to account for that effect, we may assimilate (7b) to (7c) on the basis of (8). 1  For detailed discussion and an account based on different premises, see Gartner (1998, forthcoming) 104 On the force of V2 declaratives (8)  Paratactic Hypothesis (PH)~ V2WIV2 is a case of parataxis. This  could  be  fleshed  out  syntactically  by  postulating  the  existence of  a  functional category z~,,  which takes V2RIIV2 as its complement and another clause containing an indefinite as its specifier. (9) illustrates that idea. PH predicts  that  V2WIV2  involves anaphora resolution  like (7c), that process being subject to standard conditions  on accessibility. Therefore,  (7b) would require a de re reading of the indefinite. A closer look at pronouns linking the two clauses provides a fairly subtle additional argument in favor of PH and the concomitant amphora-resolution view of V2WIV2. (2) has already shown that all three constructions tolerate weak demonstratives. (10) adds w-pronouns and personal pronouns, none of which can figure in V2RlIV2. (10)  a.  Das Blatt hat eine Seite (/), welche ganz schwarz &. b.  *Das Blatt hat eine Seite (I),  sie ganz schwarz &. c.  *Das Blatt hat eine Seite (I), welche &  ganz schwarz. d.  *Das Blatt hat eine Seite (/), sie  ganz schwarz. e.  *Das Blatt hat eine Seite (\). Welche &  ganz schwarz. f.  #Das Blatt hat eine Seite (\). Sie &  ganz schwarz. This is summarized in (I I) (wd = weak demonstrative; w = w-pronoun; pers = personal pronoun). (1 1)  Pronoun Compatibility a.  Standard Relative Clauses:  [+ wd I/ [ + w I/ [ - pers  ] b.  V2RlIV2:  [+wd]/ [-w]/[-pers ] c.  Cross-sentential anaphora:  [+wd]l[-w]/[+pers] The following paradigm, again  in  the  domain  of  weak  demonstratives,  provides  the crucial contrast. (12)  a.  *Es gibt  Lander (I),  da  das Bier ein Vermogen m. It  gives countries  there the beer a  fortune  costs b.  Es gibt Lander (/), da-  das Bier ein Vermogen. c.  #Es gibt Lander (\). Da koster das Bier ein Vermogen. While most weak demonstratives are (homonyms of) relative pronouns, the pronoun da ('there') is not. It can  be used  in contexts of cross-sentential  anaphora but is banned from V-final  relative clauses. Its compatibility with V2WIV2 (12b) indicates that this construction patterns with cross-sentential anaphora. However,  the picture just  outlined must be further complicated  in  the light of  the following question. See Girtner (1998, forthcoming) for a comprehensive version of PH, including independent empirical evidence and a DRS-update mechanism able to cope with (most of) the scope facts. 105 Hans-Martin Gartne~ (1 3)  42:  Does PH predict the possibility of modal subordination for V2lUIV2? Curiously, this prediction underlying PH/Q2 is not borne out, as (14) demonstrates. (14)  a.  Maria mochte einen Fisch fangen (I), den sie essen m. Maria want  a  fish  catch  that she eat  could 'Mary wants to catch a fish that she could eat' b.  *Maria mochte einen Fisch fangen (I), den kiinnte sie essen. c.  Maria mochte einen Fisch fangen (\).  Den  sie essen. Note, however, that property (4a) makes one suspect that V2WIV2 does not give rise to text  formation  the  way  a  sequence of  sentences  does.  In  fact,  integration  into  the preceding clause is obligatory, given property (4e). (4)  e.  V2FUIV2 forms an 'information unit,' definable as a single partition into focus and background, with its putative matrix clause. (4e) is one of the essential building blocks in developing a formal account for the facts in (14). Thus,  according to  Groenendijk&Stokhof  (1989)  (cf.  Honcoop  1998, Saeb0 1999). modal subordination involves a propositional  discourse referent provided by an antecedent  clause  and  picked  up  by  a  covert  anaphor  in  the  restrictor  of  a  modal operator  in  the follow-up clause.'  Given (4e), however, V2WIV2 is itself  part  of  the minimal proposition able to provide the required discourse referent. That is, V2WIV2 is evaluated  before  the  required  discourse  referent  may  become  available. Therefore, modal subordination must fail and unacceptability of (14b) is predicted.4 Unfortunately, this way of dealing with (14b) runs into additional problems with PA. Q3 formulates the relevant issue. (15)  Q3:  Doesn't PH rely on the mechanism of anaphora resolution and thus evaluation of V2RlIV2 after evaluation of the putative matrix clause? Clearly, in order to avoid contradiction I must revise PH. I suggest that PH be replaced by (16).~ Concretely, Groenendijk&Stokhof (1989:38ff) argue that (i) should be given the meaning in (ii), (i)  Ein Tiger konnte hereinkommen (\I. Der wiirde dich zuerst fressen. (ii)  Possibly (a tiger comas in) and necessarily (if a tiger comes in, it eats you first) Technically this is implemented as in (iii). (iii)  a.  would v=  hp  1  I "D,,,,,,,,,  VJ I  A "p I b.  possibly $ = EDhp [ 0.1 'D  A "p  I(@) 'by  dynamic  conjunction'  +  'some  plausible  assumptions  about  the  semantics of  this extension of  DIL' + 'some obvious reductions': c.  hp10.1$~  L[O*VIA"PI Crucially, the indefinite in + becomes accessible for dynamic binding of a pronoun in y,  within the scope of  . As far as I can see, this account carries over to the presuppositional theory of modal subordination developed in Geurts (1999). This move will leave the above mentioned pronoun facts without a satisfactory account. On the force of V2 declaratives (16)  Hypotactic Hypothesis (HH) V2WIV2 is a case of standard (relative clause) hypotaxis. Under  HH,  V2WIV2  would  share  a  variable  with  its  indefinite  antecedent, due  to syntactic copying. Thus, the issue of anaphora resolution does not arise. Of course, HH generates the follow-up question in (17). (17)  44:  How can V2WIV2 and standard relative clauses be distinguished on the basis of HH? The answer to 44  lies in property (40, the final one discussed in this paper. (4)  f.  V2WIV2 is an instance of 'embedded root phenomena' (a.k.a. 'dependent main clause phenomena'). Building on  earlier work  in  this  area (cf. Hooper&Thompson  1973, Wechsler  1991, Reis 1997), I would like to defend the following hypothesis. (18)  Proto-Force Hypothesis (PFH) V2 declaratives have proto-assertional force Proto-assertional force forces V2RIIV2 together with its indefinite antecedent out of the scope of modal operators and negation (among many others). Interaction with negation is documented in (19). (19)  a.  Kein Professori mag eine Studentin (I), [ die ihni nicht  ] No  professor likes a  female  student  who him not  cites 'No professor likes a female student that doesn't cite him' b.  *Kein Professori mag eine Studentin (I), [ die zitiert ihni nicht ] Since the negative quantifier in (19) binds the personal pronoun, the modifying clause is forced into the scope of negation. This fails in the case of V2RIIV2. My claim  then  is  that  combining HH  and  PFH  properly  treats  the  properties  of V2RIIV2. HH prevents modal subordination, which accounts for the unacceptability of (14b). PFH prevents syntactic 'scopal subordination.'  This predicts the unacceptability of (l4b) and (19b), as well as the unavailability of a de dicto reading in (7b). At this stage, I cannot present a formal theory underlying PFH. Yet, a number of adequacy criteria indicative  of  the  structure  of  such  a  theory  are  fairly clear. Thus, consider (20). (20)  Adequacy Criterion for PFH 'Embedded Force Exclusion' should be met. This well-known issue has recently been raised again by Green (2000, p.440). (2  1)  Embedded Force Exclusion (EFE) If  cp is either a part of  speech or a sentence, and  cp contains some indicator f of illocutionary force, then cp does not embed. Hans-Martin Gartner Thus, it  is  preferable to  avoid  simplistic direct endowment of  V2 declaratives  with assertional force (potential).  This requirement  is  met by  PFH. Proto-forces  will  then have to be supplemented by (projection) rules of the following kind. (22)  Proto-Assertional Force Construal a.  Unembedded  proto-assertional  force  translates  into  assertional  force (potential). b.  Embedded proto-assertional force can be 'absorbed' by assertional force (potential) if there is no intervener. c.  Embedded  proto-assertional  force can  be  'absorbed'  on  arguments of predicates that denote acts of assertion etc. d.  Non-absorbed  proto-assertional  force  leads  to  semanticlpragmatic deviance. (22c)  takes  care of  complementation  by  V2  clauses,  the  content of  which  is  not  a speaker assertion. An example is given in (23). (23)  Ich hoffe du glaubst mir I  hope you believe me The main theoretical burden of (22) rests on a notion of  'intervener,'  which will have to be the subject of further re~earch.~ In  sum, I have argued that V2RlIV2 should be given a hypotactic analysis. Its scopal behavior,  resulting  in  modal  subordination  failure,  must  be  derived  from  its  proto- assertional force. Proto-force in  turn should be  linked  to the embedded root  nature of V2RlIV2. If  such an analysis is on the right track it would also justify giving a positive answer to question Q1. References: Gartner, Hans-Martin (1998): "Does German Have V2 Relative Clauses?" Sprache zrnd  Praglnatik 48. Giirtner,  Hans-Martin  (forthcoming):  "Are  There  V2  Relative  Clauses  in  German?"  Journal  of Conlparative Gen?~anic  Lir~gz~isfics  3.3. Geurts, Bart (1999): PI-emppositions  and Pronouns. Oxford: Elsevier. 6  To the extent that material  in the scope of a universal quantifier is not (directly) asserted, universal quantifiers may count as 'interveners.'  It is therefore  important  to  note that  V2MV2 can  -  under certain conditions (see Gartner  1998, forthcoming) - modify an ~ndefinite  in  the scope of a universal quantifier. This is shown in (i). (i)  a.  Jedes Haus  hat ein Zimmer, [ in dem  &  es gemiitlich ] Everj house has a  room  in thatDAr  is it  COS)' h.  Jeder Berg;  hat eine Flanke, [ uber die  &  eri sich leicht besteigen I Evev  nlountain has a  face  over thatAcc lets it itselfeasil)' climb 'Every mountain has a face across which one can climb it easily.' However, a functional  interpretation  of the  indefinite  as proposed  by  Groenendijk&Stokhof (1984) would  remove the  content  of V2RIIV2 from  the scope of  the  universal  quantifier ever)'  house, as indicated in (ii). (ii)  3f[ R(f) A Vx.COSY-ROOM(f(x)) A Vy[ HOUSE(y) +  HAVE( y, f(y)) I  I On the force of V2 declaratives Green, Mitchell S. (2000): "Illocutionary Force and Semantic Content," Lingnistics and Philosophy  23: 435-473. Groenendijk,  Jeroen  & Martin  Stokhof  (1984):  "Interrogative  Quantifiers  and  Skolem  functions,"  In Groenendijk,J.&M.Stokhof, Studies on the Semat~tics  of Questions and the Pragmatics of Answers, Ph.D. dissertation, University of Amsterdam. 165-208. Groenendijk, Jeroen & Martin  Stokhof  (1989):  "Dynamic  Montague  Grammar,"  ITLI  Prepublication Series X-89-04. University of Amsterdam. Honcoop,  Martin  (1998):  Dynamic  Excursions  on  Weak  1slrmrl.s.  The  Hague:  Holland  Academic Graphics. Hooper, Joan & Sandra Thompson (1973) "On the Applicability  of Root Transformations," Linguistic Inquir)' 4: 465-497. Reis, Marga (1997): "Zum syntaktischen  Status unselbstiindiger  Verbzweit Satze," In  D'Avis,  F.  & U. Lutz (eds.), "Zur Satzstruktur des Deutschen,"  Arbeitspapiere  des SFB 340 Nr.  90. Stuttgart and Tubingen. 121-142. Szba, Kjell Johan (1999): "Discourse Linking and Discourse Subordination." in Bosch, P. & R.  van der Sandt (eds.), Focus. Cambridge: CUP. 322-335. Wechsler, Stephen (1991): "Verb Second and Illocutionary Force." in  Leffel, K. & D. Bouchard (eds.), Views on Phrase Strnctrrre. Dordrecht: Kluwer. 177-1  91. 

(ii) 3f[ R(f) A Vx.COSY-ROOM(f(x)) A Vy[ HOUSE(y) + HAVE( y, f(y)) I I On the force of V2 declaratives

6 To the extent that material in the scope of a universal quantifier is not (directly) asserted, universal quantifiers may count as 'interveners.' It is therefore important to note that V2MV2 can - under certain conditions (see Gartner

Discourse Linking and Discourse Subordination.&quot;

Does German Have V2 Relative Clauses?&quot; Sprache zrnd Praglnatik 48. Giirtner, Hans-Martin (forthcoming): &quot;Are There V2 Relative Clauses in German?&quot;

On the force of V2 declaratives

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

Hochschulschriftenserver - Universität Frankfurt am Main