Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-t7fkt Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-22T00:09:56.275Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Binding by Phase: (Non-)Complementarity in German

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 June 2004

Vera Lee-Schoenfeld
Vera Lee-Schoenfeld
Affiliation:
University of California, Santa Cruz
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This paper explores areas of reflexive and pronominal noncomplementarity in German Accusativus cum Infinitivo (AcI)-constructions and other configurations that involve embedding of a subclausal (smaller than IP) constituent. The main empirical finding is that there are several non-complementarity-inducing contexts that have not been noticed before. In examples with embedded AcIs or complex DPs, a reflexive may be bound across an intervening subject, and a pronominal may be free even if its antecedent is only a vP-, DP-, or PPboundary away. The proposed account of these facts is based on the claim that vP, DP, and PP are all potentially phase-defining categories (Chomsky 2000). The expected “regular” cases of complementarity are accounted for by postulating as the relevant binding domain for both reflexive and pronominal the minimal phase containing the anaphoric element. Newly discovered cases of non-complementarity that exist at least for some speakers stem from the ability of reflexives, but not pronominals, to covertly raise to the edge of their phase (Safir 2004). Finally, well known cases of non-complementarity in AcIs where the anaphoric element is embedded in a PP can be explained if θ-independent (that is, internally saturated) PPs are adjoined high, to the AcI (vP)-phase-edge. This then achieves a unified account of both the well established binding facts documented in the literature and the surprising long-distance binding of reflexives reported as acceptable for some speakers.My thanks to Judith Aissen, Jorge Hankamer, and especially Jim McCloskey, who have helped me with and greatly contributed to the various drafts of this paper. Thanks also to my JGL reviewers for their helpful feedback. (Any remaining errors are my own.) Finally, I am indebted to all my native speaker consultants.

Type
ARTICLES
Information
Journal of Germanic Linguistics , Volume 16 , Issue 2 , June 2004 , pp. 111 - 171
Copyright
© 2004 Society for Germanic Linguistics

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Baltin Mark. 1982. A landing site theory of movement rules. Linguistic Inquiry 13. 1– 38.Google Scholar
Baltin Mark. 2003. The interaction of ellipsis and binding: Implications for the sequencing of Principle A. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 21. 215– 246.Google Scholar
Bobaljik Jonathan. 2002. A-chains at the PF-interface: Copies and “covert” movement. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 20. 197– 267.Google Scholar
Boskovic Zeljko. 2001. On the nature of the syntax-phonology interface: Cliticization and related phenomena. Amsterdam: Elsevier.
Büring Daniel. 2001. Let's phrase it! Competition in syntax, ed. by Gereon Müller and Wolfgang Sternefeld, 69– 105. (Studies in generative grammar, 49.) Berlin and New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
Burzio Luigi. 1986. Italian syntax: A government-binding approach. Dordrecht: Reidel.
Chomsky Noam. 1986. Barriers. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Chomsky Noam. 1995. The minimalist program. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Chomsky Noam. 2000. Minimalist inquiries: The framework. Step by step: Essays on minimalist syntax in honor of Howard Lasnik, ed. by Roger Martin, Daniel Michaels, and Juan Uriagereka, 89– 156 Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Chomsky Noam. 2001. Derivation by phase. Ken Hale, a life in language, ed. by Michael Kenstowicz, 1– 51. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Dowty David. 1991. Thematic proto-roles and argument selection. Language 67. 547– 619.Google Scholar
Fox Danny. 2000. Economy and semantic interpretation. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Frey Werner. 1993. Syntaktische Bedingungen für die semantische Interpretation.(Studia grammatica, 35.) Berlin: Akademie Verlag.
Grewendorf Günther. 1983. Reflexivierung in deutschen AcIKonstruktionen—kein transformations-grammatisches Dilemma mehr. Groninger Arbeiten zur Germanistischen Linguistik 23. 120– 196.Google Scholar
Grewendorf Günther. 1985. Anaphern bei Objekt-Koreferenz im Deutschen: ein Problem für die Rektions-Bindungs Theorie. Erklärende Syntax des Deutschen, ed. by Werner Abraham, 137– 171. Tübingen: Gunter Narr.
Grewendorf Günther. 1988. Aspekte der deutschen Syntax. Tübingen: Gunter Narr.
Grimshaw Jane. 2000. Locality and extended projection. Lexical specification and insertion, ed. by Peter Coopmans, Martin Everaert, and Jane Grimshaw, 115– 133. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Gunkel Lutz. 2003. Reflexivierung in AcI-Konstruktionen. Arbeiten zur Reflexivierung, ed. by Lutz Gunkel, Gereon Müller, and Gisela Zifonun, 115– 133. (Linguistische Arbeiten, 481.) Tübingen: Max Niemeyer.
Gurtu M. 1985. Anaphoric relations in Hindi and English. Doctoral dissertation, Central Institute of English and Foreign Languages, Hyderabad.
Haider Hubert. 1985. Über sein oder nicht sein: Zur Grammatik des Pronomens sich. Erklärende Syntax des Deutschen, ed. by Werner Abraham, 223– 254. Tübingen: Gunter Narr.
Haider Hubert. 1987. Deutsche Syntax, generativ—Parameter der deutschen Syntax. Unpublished manuscript, University of Vienna.
Haider Hubert. 1993. Deutsche Syntax generativ. Tübingen: Gunter Narr.
Hale Kenneth, and Samuel Keyser. 1994. On argument structure and the lexical expression of syntactic relations. View from Building 20, ed. by Kenneth Hale and Samuel Keyser, 53– 109. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Harbert Wayne, and Veneeta Srivastav. 1988. A complement/adjunct binding asymmetry in Hindi and other languages. Cornell Working Papers in Linguistics 8. 79– 105.Google Scholar
Hestvik Arild. 1991. Subjectless binding domains. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 9. 455– 496.Google Scholar
Höhle Tilman. 1978. Lexikalistische Syntax. Tübingen: Max Niemeyer.
Kayne Richard. 1975. French syntax: The transformational cycle. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Kluender R. 1986. Sätzchen: German small clauses as Ss. North East Linguistic Society Proceedings 16, ed. by S. Berman, J.-W. Choe, and J. McDonough, 274– 292. Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Press.
Kratzer Angelika. 1996. Severing the external argument from its verb. Phrase structure and the lexicon, ed. by Johan Rooryck and Laurie Zaring, 109– 137. Dordrecht: Kluwer.
Lee-Schoenfeld Vera. To appear. Agentivity versus auxiliary choice: Evidence from pronominal binding in German AcI-constructions. Workshop volume on Crosslinguistic Variation in Auxiliary Selection, University of California, Davis, May 2003.
Legate Julie. 2003. Some interface properties of the phase. Linguistic Inquiry 34. 506– 516.Google Scholar
McCloskey James. 2000. Quantifier float and wh-movement in an Irish English. Linguistic Inquiry 31. 57– 84.Google Scholar
McCloskey James. 2001. Resumption, successive cyclicity, and the locality of operations. Derivation and explanation in the minimalist program, ed. by Samuel Epstein and Daniel Seeley, 184– 226. Cambridge: Basil Blackwell.
Nissenbaum Jon. 2000. Investigations of covert phrase movement. Doctoral dissertation, MIT.
Pica Pierre. 1987. On the nature of the reflexivization cycle. Proceedings of the North East Linguistic Society 17, ed. by J. McDonough and B. Plunkett, 483– 499. Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Press.
Primus Beatrice. 1989. Parameter der Herrschaft: Reflexivpronomina im Deutschen. Zeitschrift für Sprachwissenschaft 8. 53– 88.Google Scholar
Pustejovsky James. 1984. Opacity and the accessibility of subject in German A.c.I.-constructions. Proceedings of North East Linguistic Society 14, ed. by C. Jones and P. Sells, 360– 376. Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Press.
Reinhart Tanya, and Eric Reuland. 1993. Reflexivity. Linguistic Inquiry 24. 657– 720.Google Scholar
Reintges Chris, Philip LeSourd, and Sandra Chung. To appear. Movement, whagreement, and apparent wh-in-situ. Wh-Movement on the move, ed. by L. Cheng and N. Cover. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Reis Marga. 1973. Is there a rule of subject-to-object raising in German? Chicago Linguistics Society Proceedings 9. 519– 529.
Reis Marga. 1976. Reflexivierung in deutschen A.c.I.-Konstruktionen. Ein transformations-grammatisches Dilemma. Papiere zur Linguistik 9. 5– 82.
Safir Ken. 2004. The syntax of anaphora. New York and Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Sorace Antonella. 2000. Gradients in auxiliary selection with intransitive verbs. Language 76. 859– 890.Google Scholar
Svenonius Peter. 2004. On the edge. Peripheries, ed. by D. Adger, C. de Cat, and G. Tsoulas, 259– 287. Dordrecht: Kluwer.
Vikner Sten. 1995. Verb movement and expletive subjects in the Germanic languages. New York and Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Wurmbrand Susi. 2001. Infinitives: Restructuring and clause structure. Berlin and New York: Mouton de Gruyter.