An Information Structural Account of German Integrated Verb Second Clauses

  • Christian Ebert
  • Cornelia Endriss
  • Hans-Martin Gärtner


In this paper, we present data of German integrated verb second clauses and verb final relative clauses that seem problematic for a compositional analysis. We show that although the compositional analysis of restrictive relative clauses in [Janssen, T. M. (1982). In: Groenendijk et al. (eds.) Formals Methods in the study of Language (pp. 237–276). Amsterdam: UvA publications] can be adapted, it cannot be sustained due to overgeneration and must be considered unintuitive in light of the paratactic syntactic analysis for the verb second clauses from Gärtner [(2001). Journal of Comparative Germanic Linguistics, 3, 97–141]. Hence we present a conceptually simpler analysis along the lines of [Endriss and Gärtner, 2005 In: F.-J. d’Avis (ed.) Deutsche Syntax: Empirie und Theorie, (pp. 195–220). Göteborg], which makes use of information structural properties of the involved clauses. We conclude with a brief discussion on the compositional status of such an approach.


Verb-second Relative clauses Information structure 


  1. Bach E., Cooper R.H. (1978) The NP-S analysis of relative clauses and compositional semantics. Linguistics and Philosophy 2, 145–150CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Barwise J., Cooper R. (1981) Generalized quantifiers and natural language. Linguistics & Philosophy 4, 159–219CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Brandt M. (1990) Weiterführende Nebensätze. Almqvist and Wiksell, StockholmGoogle Scholar
  4. Chierchia G. (1995) Individual-level predicates as inherent generics. In: Carlson G., Pelletier F.J. (eds). The Generic Book. University of Chicago Press, Chicago, pp. 176–233Google Scholar
  5. den Dikken M. (2005) A comment on the topic of topic-comment. Lingua 115, 691–710CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Ebert, C., & Endriss, C. (2004). Topic interpretation and wide scope indefinites. In Proceedings of the NELS 34. Amherst, GLSA.Google Scholar
  7. Ebert, C., & Endriss, C. (2007). Functional topics. In Proceedings of the Sinn und Bedeutung 11.Google Scholar
  8. Endriss, C. (2006). Quantificational topics. Ph.D. thesis, Universität Potsdam.Google Scholar
  9. Endriss C., Gärtner H.-M. (2005) Relativische Verb-Zweit Sätze und Definitheit. In: d’Avis F.-J. (eds). Deutsche Syntax: Empirie und Theorie. Acta Universitatis Gothoburgensis, Göteborg, pp. 195–220Google Scholar
  10. Engdahl E. (1997) Relative clause extractions in context. Working Papers in Scandinavian Syntax 60, 51–79Google Scholar
  11. Frey W. (2004) Notes on the syntax and the pragmatics of German left dislocation. In: Lohnstein H., Trissler S. (eds). The syntax and semantics of the left sentence periphery. Mouton deGruyter, Berlin, pp. 203–233Google Scholar
  12. Gärtner H.-M. (2001) Are there V2 relative clauses in German?. Journal of Comparative Germanic Linguistics 3, 97–141Google Scholar
  13. Gärtner H.-M. (2002) On the Force of V2-Declaratives. Theoretical Linguistics 28, 33–42CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Groenendijk, J., Stokhof, M. (1984) Studies on the semantics of questions and the pragmatics of answers. Ph.D. thesis, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam.Google Scholar
  15. Hendriks, H. (1993). Studied flexibility: Categories and types in syntax and semantics. Ph.D. thesis, University of Amsterdam.Google Scholar
  16. Herburger E. (2000) What counts: Focus and quantification. MIT Press, Cambridge, MAGoogle Scholar
  17. Janssen T.M. (1982) Compositional semantics and relative clause formation in Montague grammar. In: Groenendijk J., Janssen T., Stokhof M. (eds). Formal methods in the study of language. UvA-Publications, Amsterdam, pp. 237–276Google Scholar
  18. Kadmon, N. (1985). The discourse representation of noun phrases with numeral determiners. In J. S. Berman, & J. McDonough (Eds.), Proceedings of NELS 15.Google Scholar
  19. Krifka M. (1992) A compositional semantics for multiple focus constructions. In: Jacobs J. (eds). Informationsstruktur und Grammatik, Linguistische Berichte, Sonderheft 4. Westdeutscher Verlag, Opladen, pp. 17–53Google Scholar
  20. Krifka M. (2006) Association with Focus Phrases. In: Molnar V., Winkler S. (eds). Architecture of focus. Mouton de Gruyter, Berlin, pp. 105–136Google Scholar
  21. Lambrecht K. (1988) There was a farmer had a dog: Syntactic amalgams revisited. BLS 14, 319–339Google Scholar
  22. Milsark G. (1977) Toward an explanation of certain pecularities of the existential construction in English. Linguistic Analysis 3, 1–29Google Scholar
  23. Partee, B. (1988). Many quantifiers. In Proceedings of ESCOL’88. pp. 383–402.Google Scholar
  24. Partee, B. (1991). Topic, focus and quantification. In S. Moore, & A. Z. Wyner (Eds.), Proceedings from semantics and linguistic theory, Vol. 1 of Cornell working papers in Linguistics (pp. 159–188) Cornell.Google Scholar
  25. Reinhart T. (1981) Pragmatics and linguistics. An analysis of sentence topics. Philosophica, 27, 53–94Google Scholar
  26. Reinhart T. (1997) Quantifier scope: How labour is devided between QR and Choice functions. Linguistics & Philosophy 20, 335–397CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Reis, M. (1997). Zum syntaktischen Status unselbständiger Verbzweit Sätze. In C. Dürscheid (Ed.), Sprache im Fokus (pp. 121–144). Tübingen: Niemeyer.Google Scholar
  28. Wechsler S. (1991) Verb second and illocutionary force. In: Leffel K., Bouchard D. (eds). Views on Phrase Structure. Kluwer, Dodrecht, pp. 177–191Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2007

Authors and Affiliations

  • Christian Ebert
    • 1
  • Cornelia Endriss
    • 2
  • Hans-Martin Gärtner
    • 3
  1. 1.Fakultät für Linguistik und LiteraturwissenschaftUniversität BielefeldBielefeldGermany
  2. 2.Institut für LinguistikUniversität PostdamPostdamGermany
  3. 3.Zentrum für Allgemeine SprachwissenschaftBerlinGermany

Personalised recommendations