Clausal architecture and subject positions [Elektronische Ressource] : impersonal constructions in the Germanic languages / vorgelegt von Sabine Mohr

Sabine Longin

Sujets

• Deutsch

Informations

• Publié par: universitat_stuttgart
• Publié le: 01 janvier 2004
• Nombre de lectures: 16
• Langue: English

Extrait

Clausal architecture and subject positions:
impersonal constructions in the Germanic languages
Von der philosophisch-historischen Fakultät der Universität Stuttgart zur
Erlangung der Würde eines Doktors der Philosophie (Dr. phil.) genehmigte
Abhandlung
Vorgelegt von
Sabine Mohr
aus Waiblingen
Hauptberichter: Prof. Dr. Artemis Alexiadou
Mitberichter: Prof. Anders Holmberg PhD
Prof. Ian Roberts PhD
Tag der mündlichen Prüfung: 2. April 2004
Institut für Linguistik/Anglistik der Universität Stuttgart
20042
Table of contents
Acknowledgements 5
Abbreviations 7
Deutsche Zusammenfassung 8
I. Introduction 13
II. Theoretical framework 19
1. Subject positions and the EPP – the evolution of the two concepts 19
1.1. From principle to feature – the history of the EPP in the works
of Chomsky 19
1.2. From deconstruction to cartography – subject positions and
their features 28
1.3. Universality reconsidered – the EPP as a parameter 41
2. The EPP and the Extension Condition 50
2.1. The EPP-feature – the general idea 50
2.1.1. Some data 50
2.1.2. Different ways of realising head-positions 52
2.2. Head-movement – is it syntactic or a PF-phenomenon or even
an illusion? 53
2.2.1. The Extension Condition and Chomsky’s objections 53
2.2.2. Head-movement and the interfaces 55
2.2.3. Does head-movement exist after all? 57
2.3. Head-movement and the Extension Condition – how can these
two be reconciled? 59
3. Clause structure 64
3.1. The projections of the C-system 65
3.1.1. Sentence-initial XPs in V2 clauses and their positions 65
3.1.2. Locality and why the finite verb in Fin can only be
preceded by one XP 71
3.2. The projections of the I-system 76
3.2.1. Overview 76
3.2.2. TopP, FocP and Scrambling 773
3.2.3. Two subject positions in the Mittelfeld 79
3.2.4. RefP and the EPP 80
3.3. The projections of the V-system 81
4. Checking 86
4.1. Types of features 86
4.2. Matching features 87
4.3. Checking configurations 88
4.3.1. Specifier-head configuration 88
4.3.2. Checking in a head-head configuration and types of
V-movement 92
A) no V-movement 93
B) short V-movement 94
C) long V-movement 98
D) morphologically triggered V-(stem-)movement 100
4.3.3. Consequences of the restrictions on checking –
Scrambling vs. Object Shift and a note on typology 104
5. The “universal EPP” on T 109
5.1. Feature checking on T 109
5.1.1. Nominative Case 109
5.1.2. T and the Extension Condition 110
5.2. The EPP-feature as a subject-of-predication feature? 113
6. Summary 118
III. Applications 121
1. Background 121
1.1. The data 121
1.1.1. Presentational sentences 121
1.1.2. Impersonal passives 125
1.2. Expletives 127
1.2.1. Expletives everywhere 127
1.2.1. Against non-overt expletives 131
1.3. Locatives in Small Clauses 133
1.4. Positions and movements involved in the derivation of TECs 135
2. The derivation of presentational sentences and impersonal passives 139
2.1. Not all of the alleged expletives can be expletives 1394
2.2. Event arguments 141
2.3. Comparing German and Dutch 142
2.3.1. Presentational sentences and impersonal passives as
expletive constructions – German 142
2.3.2. Event arguments mistaken for expletives – Dutch 149
2.3.3. Some remarks on German ‘da’ 152
2.4. Icelandic 156
2.5. Mainland Scandinavian 159
2.6. English 164
2.6.1. The ‘there’-construction as a focus construction 164
2.6.2. The Case of the subject DP 168
2.6.3. Impersonal passives 169
2.6.4. Locative Inversion 171
3. Weather verbs 174
3.1. Preliminary remarks 174
3.2. German, Dutch, MSc and English 174
3.3. Icelandic 176
4. Impersonal psych verbs 179
5. Summary 185
IV. Conclusion 188
V. References 192
Erklärung 1995
Acknowledgements
At the end of writing this PhD dissertation comes the hardest part of all – to say thank-you to
all those who have contributed to it in one way or another and, above all, not to forget anyone.
First of all I’d like to thank Ian Roberts for having aroused my interest in theoretical
syntax, for having always supported me and my idea of writing this dissertation and above all
for a lot of interesting, encouraging and helpful comments (though timing was sometimes a
bit of a problem). A big thank-you goes to Artemis Alexiadou for having so naturally taken
care of all the doctoral students who were stranded when Ian left for Cambridge, for creating
such an agreeable atmosphere and fruitful environment at the department of English
linguistics in Stuttgart, for her presence and last but not least for exerting a gentle pressure.
Finally, I’d like to say thank-you to Anders Holmberg for his amazing support and
encouragement – when I presented my dissertation proposal at the first meeting of the
graduate school in July 2000 he naturally discussed the proposal with me though we had
never met before. Ever since then, he has accompanied my work with great interest and lots of
comments.
This study also benefited considerably from discussions with the following people
either during their visits to the graduate school in Stuttgart or at conferences: Elena
Anagnostopoulou, Adriana Belletti, Theresa Biberauer, Patricia Cabredo Hofherr, Anna
Cardinaletti, Kleanthes Grohmann, Eric Haeberli, Richard Kayne, Gereon Müller, Henk van
Riemsdijk, Halldór Ármann Sigurðsson, Tim Stowell, Peter Svenonius and Sten Vikner. In
addition, I’d like to thank the audiences of my presentations at the graduate school, and those
of the TiLT workshop in Utrecht in 2002, of the GGS conferences in Frankfurt in 2002 and in
thCologne in 2003 and of the 18 workshop on Comparative Germanic Syntax in Durham in
2003 for their feedback.
I’m deeply indebted to Darcy Bruce Berry, Tim Cox, Jeroen van Craenenbroeck,
Gunnar Hrafn Hrafnbjargarson, Hans Kamp, Arne Martinus Lindstad, Anna Mcnay and her
friends, Jan-Wouter Zwart and my New Zealand friends and family. Without their help and
patience this study would never have been a cross-linguistic one. My German fellow
Kollegiaten, colleagues at the linguistic departments, friends and family helped out when I
didn’t trust my own judgements any more – thank you all.
A big thank-you also to Darcy Bruce Berry, Anna Erechko and Manuela
Schönenberger for in-depth linguistic discussions just as well as hours of private conversation6
– I’ll never forget those Tuesday afternoons in Manuela’s cosy office or outside in the bright
sunshine. I had never thought that reading Chomsky’s Derivation by Phase could be so much
fun!
Artemis, Björn, Britta, Florian, Gunnar, Enyd, Inga, Matthias, Kirsten, Peter, Silke and
Susann have contributed a lot to making my time in the graduate school and at the department
of English linguistics an enjoyable one. Unfortunately, there were also times when the future
looked rather bleak for linguistics in Stuttgart and I’m particularly grateful to Anna, Arne,
Fabian, Manuela and Roberta for having always been such good friends.
Turning to a matter-of-fact point, I owe a lot to the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft
(DFG) because they financed my research as part of the project GRK 609/1.
Last but not least, I’d like to thank my parents Klaus and Birgit Mohr for their support
and love.7
Abbreviations
Acc Accusative Case
AspP Aspect Phrase
Dat Dative Case
DCE Dictionary of Contemporary English
DE Definiteness Effect
EPP Extended Projection Principle
MSc Mainland Scandinavian
Nom Nominative Case
OS Object Shift
Part Partitive Case
PRT particle
SC Small Clause
sop subject of predication
TEC Transitive Expletive Construction
V2 Verb Second8
Deutsche Zusammenfassung
Hauptziel dieser Arbeit war, eine Analyse von Transitive Expletive Constructions (TECs),
unpersönlichen Passiva, Witterungsverben und unpersönlichen psych verbs im Deutschen,
Niederländischen, Isländischen, in den festlandsskandinavischen Sprachen und im Englischen
im Rahmen des Minimalistischen Programms zu entwickeln. Geleitet von der Idee Kaynes
(1994) einer einheitlichen Basisstruktur für alle Sprachen, sollte meiner Analyse eine
Satzstruktur zugrunde liegen, die sowohl auf OV- wie auch auf VO-Sprachen anwendbar ist
und damit ohne Kopf- und Lizensierungsrichtungsparameter auskommt. Des weiteren sollte
die Analyse ohne die Annahme eines expletiven pro auskommen, da dieses konzeptionell
erhebliche Probleme aufwirft. Zum einen fordert Chomsky (1995), daß eine Numeration nur
Elemente enthält, die entweder einen PF- oder einen LF-Effekt aufweisen. Als Null-Element
hat das expletive pro natürlich keinerlei Einfluß auf die PF, aber es führt auch zu keinem
semantischen Effekt, wie z.B. zu einem Definitheitseffekt (cf. Alexiadou & Anagnostopoulou
1998), weshalb man keinerlei Beweise für seine Existenz hat. Zum anderen kann die
Gegenwart eines expletiven pro zu Problemen beim Überprüfen der Nominativ-Kasus-
merkmale führen – je nachdem, wie man den Proze&#