DGfS-Jahrestagung 2013, Potsdam

AG 5: The Syntax and Semantics of Pseudo-Incorporation

On indefinite NPs participating in the German predicate complex Werner Frey, ZAS Berlin

Thesis: German exhibits pseudo-incorporation, that is, it offers the option of incorpo-rating an indefinite NP-argument into the predicate. Data suggesting this involve - the positioning of indefinite NPs relative to manner adverbials - what has to participate in predicate-preposing (‘VP-preposing’) - parenthetical niches - the so called NP-PP-split-construction - external arguments participating in ‘VP-preposing’

German verb-second clauses Prefield Left Sent. Bracket middle field Right Sent. Bracket postfied XP1 Vfin XP2 XP3 …. Particle Vinf1 Vinf2 … XPn XXn+1 … [SpecCP [C0 [TP [VP […V…]]…]]] adjoined

I. A predicative maximal projection can be part of the predicate complex in Ger-

man

Resultatives

Evidence

(i) a. The base position of resultatives is lower than the base position of manner adverbials.

- b. The base position of manner adverbials is lower than the base of all other arguments and adverbials (e.g. Frey 2003).

(1) a. Paul hat (*langsam) alles (langsam) unter das Klavier (*langsam) gelegt. Paul has slowly everything slowly under the piano slowly put b. Otto hat (*kräftig) den Tisch (kräftig) sauber (*kräftig) gewischt. Otto has the table forcefully clean forcefully wiped

(2) a. Maria schaut sich gerade was ganz genau an. Maria looks at REFL currently something to a hair’s breadth PRT b. Max hat sich nach dem Vortrag mit wem leidenschaftlich unterhalten. Max has REFL after the lecture to someone tempestuously talked c. Die Katze hat vorher wo tief geschlafen. The cat has before somewhere deeply slept W-indefinites do not scramble (3) a. dass wer was lesen will that someone something (to) read wants

- 2 -

b. *dass was1 wer t1 lesen will c. *Max hat sich mit wem1 nach dem Vortrag t1 leidenschaftlich unterhalten. Compare (1) with (4) containing standard prepositional objects and depictive APs

(4) a. Maria wird jeden auf dieses Problem nachdrücklich hinweisen. Maria will everyone of this problem emphatically point out b. Otto hat über die Euro-Krise sehr leidenschaftslos gesprochen.

Otto has about the Euro crisis very dispassionately talked b. Otto hat den Tisch nackt kräftig gewischt. Otto has the table naked forcefully wiped (ii) Resultatives have to participate in predicate-preposing (‘VP-preposing’)

(5) a. Gelesen hat Max heute was ganz genau. (manner adverbial) read has Max today something very accurately b. Gesprochen hat Max erst gestern über dieses Thema. (PP-object) talked has Max only yesterday about this subject c. Gekocht hat Maria bei diesem Wetter die Suppe nackt. (depictive) cooked has Maria in this weather the soup naked d. *Gewischt hat Paul die Tische sauber. (resultative) e. *Gelegt hat Paul alles unter das Klavier. (resultative)

(6) a. Sauber gewischt hat Paul die Tische. b. Unter das Klavier gelegt hat Paul alles. (iii) Prosody (cf. Truckenbrodt 2012)

(7) [What happened while I was gone?] Max hat sein Auto weggefahren.

The last stress is strengthened to the strongest of the clause. Normally, only given XPs do not receive phrasal stress:

(8) What did he do? a. Er hat sein Auto weggefahren. b. Er hat seiner Frau sein neuestes Gedicht vorgelesen.

However, a non-given directional PP does not need to carry phrasal stress.

(9) [What happened while I was gone?] Heute hat1 ein Junge eine Geige [V [VP [PP an seinen Freund] geschickt] t1]. - Because the PP is part of a V-constituent, which is mapped to a prosodic word, it

does not receive phrasal stress.

- 3 -

(i), (ii), (iii) ⟹ (10) Resultatives are part of the Right Sentence Bracket (‘Rechte Satzklammer’) of

the German clause. They constitute a complex predicate with the verbal cluster of the clause (cf.

Abraham 1986, Helbig & Buscha 1986, Neeleman 1994, Neeleman & van de Koot 2002).

(10) → Resultatives cannot scramble

(11) a. Otto hat den Tisch (vorher) sauber1 (*vorher) t1 gewischt. Otto has the table before clean before wiped b. *Paul hat unter das Klavier1 alles t1 gelegt. • Could one alternatively explain (I)-(III) by assuming: Resultatives are base gener-

ated below manner adverbials and cannot be scrambled? No,

- (5) could not be explained: predicate preposing does not presuppose scrambling of VP-internal material, cf.

(12) Bestellt hat Otto gerade was. ordered has Otto just now something - The intonation pattern in (9) would be difficult to explain. • Would a small clause analysis be feasible? — No!

(13) a. *[Den Tisch sauber] hat Otto gewischt. constituency b. dass Otto nichts sauber gewischt hat c-command that Otto nothing clean wiped has ‘It is not the case that Otto has anything wiped clean.’ c. He cut to pieces the letter. Pied-piping in VO-languages (cf. Haider 2013) Why do resultatives belong to the complex predicate? - Resultatives express a predication on an argument, which becomes true as a re-

sult of the event denoted by the main verb: → The main verb and the resultative together express a predication on an ar-

gument. The resultative and the verb together take an argument. (14) a. [V [VP [AP sauber] gewischt] hat] b. [V [VP [PP unter das Klavier] gelegt] hat] (14) disallows examples like (5d,e) and allows examples like (6a,b) and (15):

- 4 -

(15) a. Sauber hat Paul die Tische gewischt. b. Wohin hat Paul alles gelegt?

II. Incorporated indefinites (i) Non-specific indefinites may follow a manner adverbial.

(16) a. Otto hat heute sehr heftig einen Kollegen beschimpft. Otto has today very heavily a colleague-ACC berated b. Sie hat heute ganz wunderbar Mozart-Sonaten gespielt. she has today marvellously Mozart-sonatas played Manner adverbials are base generated adjacent to the verbal complex, cf. Section I

Thus, (16) suggests (17) Non-specific indefinites may be part of the predicate complex, i.e. they may

pseudo-incorporate into the predicate. Further evidence for (17)

(ii) Only non-specific indefinites may follow a manner adverbial.

Pseudo-incorporation is said to only affect NPs, not DPs. The same holds for complex predicate formation with a nominal phrase in German:

(18) a. ??Otto hat heute sehr heftig jeden Kollegen beschimpft. Otto has today very heavily every colleague berated b. ??Sie hat heute ganz wunderbar die letzte Mozart-Sonate gespielt. she has today marvellously the last Mozart-sonata played c. Max hat heute wunderbar viele/fünf/*alle/*die meisten Lieder/ Max has today marvellously many/five/all/the most songs/ *jedes Lied gesungen. every song sung Note: indefinite determiners in German may be preceded by the definite determiner; non-specific indefinites may appear as predicates in the be-construction. (19) a. die vielen Lieder / das eine Lied the many songs / the one song b. Meine Nachbarn sind fünf Studenten. my neighbours are five students

- 5 -

(iii) If an indefinite follows a manner adverbial, it cannot be left behind under predi-cate preposing (‘VP-preposing’).

An indefinite preceding a manner adverbial may be left behind.

(20) a. *Beschimpft hat Otto heute sehr heftig einen Kollegen. b. *Gespielt hat sie heute ganz wunderbar Mozart-Sonaten. c. Beschimpft hat Otto heute einen Kollegen sehr heftig. d. Gespielt hat sie heute Mozart-Sonaten ganz wunderbar. (iv) Prosody (21) What happend today? In der Mittagpause hat ein Kollege einer Kollegin ein Lied vorgesungen. during lunch break has a colleague-NOM a colleague-DAT a song sung Ein Lied may remain without phrasal accent. Modification Sometimes, it is taken as a kind of defining property of pseudo-incorporation that it allows modification of the nominal constituent by a complex constituent.

German incorporated indefinites allow modification – e.g. by a restrictive relative clause, (22a), in contrast to a non-restrictive one, (22b).

(22) a. Max hat (laut) ein Lied, das er seit langem kennt, gesungen. Max has loudly a song which he for a long time knows sung a. Max hat (*laut) ein Lied, das ja jeder nur zu gut kennt, gesungen. Max has loudly a song which PRT everyone only too well knows sung Why can non-specific indefinites belong to the complex predicate?

- The indefinite’s external, free ‘referential’ variable is identified with the perti-nent argument variable introduced by the main predicate. This variable is bound by dynamic existential closure (triggered by the complex predicate).

III. Three phenomena supporting (17) Parenthetical niches (23) a. Er hat (– so sagt Maria –) ein Lied (– so sagt Maria –) sehr laut gesungen. he has so says Maria a song very loudly sung b. *Er hat sehr laut ein Lied – so sagt Maria – gesungen. - In a German clause, following each sentence constituent there is a parenthetical

niche.

- 6 -

- Such a niche is not available following an indefinite belonging to the verbal com-plex.

The same can be observed with regard to resultatives or verbal forms:

(24) a. *Max hat alles unter den Flügel – den Steinway – gelegt. Max has everything below the piano the Steinway put b. weil Max das Buch (, übrigens freiwillig,) gelesen (*, übrigens freiwillig,) hat since Max the book by the way voluntarily read has - Inside the verbal complex, there are no parenthetical niches.

The so called DP-PP-split construction

Standard analysis of (25): the PP is a complement of the object-DP and is moved to the left.

(25) Von Peter hat Maria einen Freund/Freunde beschimpft. of Peter has Maria a friend/friends berated ‘Maria has berated a friend/friends of Peter.’ However, this analysis cannot explain that - the construction is not possible with any old DP, (26a), - it is not possible with a modifier-PP, (26b). (26) a. *Von Peter hat Maria fast jeden Freund/die meisten Freunde beschimpft. of Peter has Maria nearly every friend/most friends berated b. *Von Peter hat Maria einen Hund geschlagen. of Peter has Maria a dog beaten

and it is not possible if the object occurs to the left of a manner adverbial, (27b).

(27) a. Von Peter hat Maria lauthals einen Freund beschimpft. of Peter has Maria full-throatedly a friend/friends berated b. *Von Peter hat Maria einen Freund lauthals beschimpft. c. *Von Peter hat wer einem Freund das Auto geliehen. of Peter has someone a friend the car lent d. *Von Peter ist heute ein Freund mit Maria ausgegangen. of Peter is-AUX today a friend with Maria went out (27c,d) show that the ungrammaticality of (27b) is not due to a freezing effect in-duced by scrambling. ▸ The presumed DP-PP-split construction in fact is a construction with an incorpo-

rated indefinite NP.

- 7 -

→ The PP in (25) is not an argument of the object, but it is an argument of the complex predicate einen Freund/Freunde beschimpfen.

As a sentence constituent it also can appear in the middle field:

(28) Maria hat von Peter heute einen Freund beschimpft. - The main verb alone cannot be moved to the prefield.

(29) *Beschimpft hat von Peter Maria heute einen Freund. External arguments participating in ‘VP-preposing’

- The subject of a non-ergative may appear in a V-projection in the prefield, if it is a non-specific indefinite, cf. (30a,b), any object also is positioned in the prefield and is non-specific too, (30c,d). (30) a. Ein Linguist gesprochen hat hier noch nie. a linguist spoken has here yet not b. *Dieser berühmte Linguist gesprochen hat hier noch nie. this famous linguist spoken has here yet not c. *Ein Linguist gehalten hat eine/die Laudatio. a linguist given has an/the encomium d. Ein Linguist eine/*die Laudatio gehalten hat hier noch nie. a linguist an/the encomium given has here yet not An ergative subject does not induce such restrictions

(31) Eine/die geeignete Taktik eingefallen ist dem Trainer heute Nachmittag. an/the appropriate tactic occurred has to the coach this afternoon Thesis: ▸ The subject of a non-ergative verb may only appear inside a V-projection in the

prefield if it is pseudo-incorporated. (30b): a referential DP cannot be part of a complex predicate. (30c,d): the non-ergative subject can only pseudo-incorporate if the object incorpo-rates too.

IV. German weak definites seem to be pseudo-incorporated (32) a. Hans hat gestern intensiv die Zeitung gelesen. Hans has yesterday intensively the newspaper read b. Hans hat gestern die Zeitung intensiv gelesen.

- 8 -

(32a) has a ‘weak’ reading - Hans could have read different newspapers. In contrast, (32b) does not have this reading.

(33) a. Jeder hat gestern die Zeitung intensiv gelesen. wide scope b. Jeder hat gestern intensiv die Zeitung gelesen. narrow scope (34) a. Gelesen hat gestern jeder die Zeitung. wide scope b. Die Zeitung gelesen hat gestern jeder. narrow scope possible

IV. Main points

- In German, the verbal complex may contain the predicative maximal projections PPs, APs, VPs or NPs.

- German verbs taking a nominal argument do not necessarily subcategorise for a DP but just for a nominal argument. If an NP is taken, it has to incorporate to avoid an unbound variable. Incorporation triggers the dynamic existential clo-sure of the variable (van Geenhoven 1998).

- In German, pseudo-incorporated XPs are not in a standard argument position, i.e. they are not just inside the VP.

- In German, weak definites seem to be pseudo-incorporated, i.e. they are not in a standard argument position.

- Some notorious phenomena of German make some sense under the assumption that an indefinite complement is incorporated.

References Abraham, W. (1986): Word order in the middle field of the German sentence. In: W. Abra-

ham & S. de Meij (eds.), Topic, focus and configurationality. Amsterdam: Benjamins, 1-38.

Frey, W. (2003): Syntactic conditions on adjunct classes. In: E. Lang et al. (eds): Modifying Adjuncts. Berlin: de Gruyter, 163-209.

Haider, H. (2013): Symmetry Breaking in Syntax. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Helbig, G. & Buscha, J. (19869): Deutsche Grammatik. Ein Handbuch für den Ausländerunter-

richt. Leipzig: Enzyklopädie. Neeleman, A. (1994): Complex Predicates. PhD dissertation, Utrecht University. Neeleman, A. & H. van de Koot (2002): Bare resultatives. The Journal of Comparative

Germanic Linguistics 6.1, 1-52. Truckenbrodt, H. (2012): Effects of indefinite pronouns and traces on verb stress in German.

In: T. Borowsky et al. (eds.): Prosody matters: essays in honor of Elisabeth Selkirk. Shef-field, UK & Bristol, USA: Equinox, 487-513.

van Geenhoven, V. (1998): Semantic Incorporation and Indefinite Descriptions. Standford: CSLI Publications.