Advertisement

Displaced morphology in German verb clusters: an argument for post-syntactic morphology

  • Martin SalzmannEmail author
Original Paper

Abstract

In this paper I will provide a new argument for post-syntactic morphology. The empirical evidence comes from so-called displaced morphology in German verb clusters, where the non-finite verb form selected by a given governor does not appear on the immediately dependent verb but rather on the linearly last verb of the selector’s complement. The placement of the morphology thus partly depends on linear notions and not exclusively on hierarchical relations. I will provide an analysis within Distributed Morphology (Halle and Marantz in The view from Building 20. Essays in linguistics in honour of Sylvain Bromberger, MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, pp 111–176, 1993), where exponents for non-finite morphology are inserted into separate functional heads which are linearized after their VP-complements. At a late stage of the PF-derivation, the exponents are associated with their verbal hosts by means of Local Dislocation, an operation that applies under adjacency (Embick and Noyer in Linguist Inq 32(4):555–595, 2001). As a consequence, the non-finite morphology always comes last in the selector’s complement. Displacement arises once the immediately dependent verb is not the last verbal element in the complement of its selector; this is generally the case in strictly ascending orders, while in the strictly descending 321 order the morphology is faithfully realized. The placement operation is thus always the same, displacement only emerges as a side effect of certain cluster orders. Further evidence for a post-syntactic approach to the placement of non-finite morphology and against a pre-syntactic perspective comes from the absence of semantic effects under displacement, the emergence of non-finite verb forms specified for more than one non-finite category under multiple displacement and the distribution of default forms.

Keywords

Verb clusters Post-syntactic morphology Distributed Morphology Morphological selection Displaced morphology IPP-effect Participles Infinitives Local Dislocation Adjacency Haplology Lowering Cyclicity West-Germanic German dialects Swiss German 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Notes

References

  1. Abeillé, Anne, Olivier Bonami, Danièle Godard, and Jesse Tseng. 2006. The syntax of French à and de: an HPSG analysis. In Syntax and semantics of prepositions, ed. Patrick Saint-Dizier, 147–162. Dordrecht: Springer.Google Scholar
  2. Abels, Klaus. 2016. The fundamental left-right asymmetry in the Germanic verb cluster. The Journal of Comparative Germanic Linguistics 19 (3): 179–220.Google Scholar
  3. Adger, David. 2003. Core syntax. A minimalist approach. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  4. Arregi, Karlos, and Andrew Nevins. 2012. Morphotactics. Basque auxiliaries and the structure of spellout. Dordrecht: Springer.Google Scholar
  5. Bader, Markus, and Tanja Schmid. 2009. Verb clusters in Colloquial German. The Journal of Comparative Germanic Linguistics 12 (3): 175–228.Google Scholar
  6. Bader, Thomas. 1995. Missing and misplaced z’ in Bernese Swiss German. In Topics in Swiss German syntax, ed. Zvi Penner, 19–28. Bern: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
  7. Barbiers, Sjef. 2005. Word order variation in three verb clusters and the division of labor between generative linguistics and sociolinguistics. In Syntax and variation. Reconciling the biological and the social, ed. Leonie Cornips, and Karen P. Corrigan, 233–264. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
  8. Barbiers, Sjef, Johan van der Auwera, Hans Bennis, Eefje Boef, Gunther de Vogelaer, and Margreet van der Ham. 2008. Syntactic atlas of the Dutch dialects, vol. 2. Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press.Google Scholar
  9. Barss, Andrew. 1986. Chains and anaphoric dependencies. Doctoral dissertation, MIT.Google Scholar
  10. Bech, Gunnar. 1963. Grammatische Gesetze im Widerspruch. Lingua 12 (3): 291–299.Google Scholar
  11. Bech, Gunnar. 1983. Studien über das deutsche verbum infinitum. Tübingen: Niemeyer.Google Scholar
  12. Behaghel, Otto. 1923–1932. Deutsche syntax. Eine geschichtliche Darstellung. Heidelberg: Carl Winter.Google Scholar
  13. Bickel, Balthasar, Goma Banjade, Martin Gaenszle, Elena Lieven, Netra Paudyal, Ichchha P. Rai, Manoj Rai, Novel K. Rai, and Sabine Stoll. 2007. Free prefix ordering in Chintang. Language 83 (1): 43–73.Google Scholar
  14. Bölsing, Friedrich. 2011. Niederdeutsche Sprachlehre: Plattdeutsch im Kirchspiel Lindhorst, Schaumburg-Lippe. Hildesheim: Olms.Google Scholar
  15. Bruening, Benjamin. 2017. Consolidated morphology. A non-distributed, purely syntactic theory of morphology. Ms. University of Delaware.Google Scholar
  16. Chomsky, Noam. 1995. The minimalist program. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  17. Comrie, Bernard, and Uli Frauenfelder. 1992. The verbal complex in Gurinerdeutsch. Linguistics 30 (6): 1031.Google Scholar
  18. Cooper, Kathrin E. 1995. Topics in Zurich German syntax. Groningen: Germanistisch Instituut.Google Scholar
  19. De Vos, Mark. 2003. Past participles in Afrikaans dialects and Dutch. In Proceedings of the 22nd West Coast conference on formal linguistics, ed. Gina Garding, and Mimu Tsujimura, 519–532. Somerville, MA: Cascadilla.Google Scholar
  20. Demske-Neumann, Ulrike. 1994. Modales Passiv und tough movement. Zur strukturellen Kausalität eines syntaktischen Wandels im Deutschen und Englischen. Tübingen: Niemeyer.Google Scholar
  21. Den Dikken, Marcel, and Eric Hoekstra. 1997. Parasitic participles. Linguistics 35 (6): 1057–1090.Google Scholar
  22. Donaldson, Bruce C. 1993. A grammar of Afrikaans. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
  23. Ebert, Robert Peter, Oskar Reichmann, Hans-Joachim Solms, and Klaus-Peter Wegera. 1993. Frühneuhochdeutsche Grammatik. Tübingen: Niemeyer.Google Scholar
  24. Embick, David. 2007. Linearization and local dislocation: Derivational mechanics and interactions. Linguistic Analysis 33 (3–4): 303–336.Google Scholar
  25. Embick, David. 2015. The morpheme. A theoretical introduction. Boston/Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.Google Scholar
  26. Embick, David, and Rolf Noyer. 2001. Movement operations after syntax. Linguistic Inquiry 32 (4): 555–595.Google Scholar
  27. Grimm, Jacob. 1837. Deutsche Grammatik. Vierter Theil. Göttingen: Dieterichsche Buchhandlung.Google Scholar
  28. Haegeman, Liliane. 1998. V-positions and the middle field in West Flemish. Syntax 1 (3): 259–299.Google Scholar
  29. Haegeman, Liliane, and Henk van Riemsdijk. 1986. Verb projection raising, scope, and the typology of rules affecting verbs. Linguistic Inquiry 17 (3): 417–466.Google Scholar
  30. Haider, Hubert. 2010. The syntax of German. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  31. Haider, Hubert. 2011. Grammatische Illusionen–lokal wohlgeformt–global deviant. Zeitschrift für Sprachwissenschaft 30 (2): 223–257.Google Scholar
  32. Halle, Morris, and Alec Marantz. 1993. Distributed morphology and the pieces of inflection. In The view from Building 20. Essays in linguistics in honour of Sylvain Bromberger, ed. Ken Hale, and Samuel Jay Keyser, 111–176. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  33. Harizanov, Boris, and Vera Gribanova. 2014. Inward-sensitive contextual allomorphy and its conditioning factors. In Proceedings of the 43rd annual meeting of the North East Linguistic Society, vol. 1, ed. Hsin-Lun Huang, Ethan Poole, and Amanda Rysling, 155–166. Amherst, MA: GLSA.Google Scholar
  34. Heilmann, Axel. 1999. Die VP im Schwäbischen, Doctoral dissertation. University of Stuttgart.Google Scholar
  35. Hinterhölzl, Roland. 2009. The IPP-effect, phrasal affixes and repair strategies in the syntax-morphology interface. Linguistische Berichte 2009 (218): 191–215.Google Scholar
  36. Hinterhölzl, Roland. 2018. Implications of displaced affixes for the analysis of non-finite morphology and the headedness of the VP in German. In Syntax aus Saarbrücker Sicht 2. Beiträge der SaRDiS-Tagung zur Dialektsyntax, ed. Augustin Speyer, and Philipp Rauth, 69–88. Stuttgart: Steiner.Google Scholar
  37. Hodler, Werner. 1969. Berndeutsche syntax. Bern: Francke Verlag.Google Scholar
  38. Hoeksema, Jack. 1993. Tegenwoordig-deelwoordgroepen I: Een merkwaardig randgeval. Tabu 23 (3): 171–174.Google Scholar
  39. Hoeksema, Jack. 1995. Nevenschikking onder te. Tabu 25 (3): 156–157.Google Scholar
  40. Höhle, Tilman N. 2006. Observing non-finite verbs: some 3V phenomena in German-Dutch. In Form, structure, and grammar. A festschrift presented to Günther Grewendorf on occasion of his 60th birthday, ed. Patrick Brandt, and Eric Fuß, 55–77. Berlin: Akademie Verlag.Google Scholar
  41. Jäger, Agnes. 2018. On the history of the IPP construction in German. In Clause structure and word order in the history of German, ed. Agnes Jäger, Gisella Ferraresi, and Helmut Weiß, 302–323. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  42. Kramer, Ruth. 2010. The Amharic definite marker and the syntax-morphology interface. Syntax 13 (3): 196–240.Google Scholar
  43. Lötscher, Andreas. 1978. Zur Verbstellung im Zürichdeutschen und in anderen Varianten des Deutschen. Zeitschrift für Dialektologie und Linguistik 45: 1–29.Google Scholar
  44. Merkes, Peter Wilhelm. 1895. Der neuhochdeutsche Infinitiv als Teil einer umschriebenen Zeitform: Historisch-grammatische Betrachtungen, Doctoral Dissertation. University of Göttingen.Google Scholar
  45. Meurers, Walt Detmar. 2000. Lexical generalizations in the syntax of German non-finite constructions, Doctoral Dissertation. Universität Tübingen.Google Scholar
  46. Miller, Philip H. 1992. Clitics and constituents in phrase structure grammar. New York: Garland.Google Scholar
  47. Müller, Gereon. 2010. Movement from verb-second clauses revisited. In Language and logos. A Festschrift for Peter Staudacher, ed. Thomas Hanneforth, and Gisbert Fanselow, 97–128. Berlin: Akademieverlag.Google Scholar
  48. Müller, Stefan. 2003. Solving the bracketing paradox: An analysis of the morphology of German particle verbs. Journal of Linguistics 39 (2): 275–325.Google Scholar
  49. Pots, Cora. 2017a. Displaced morphology in Dutch: Variation in non-finite verb clusters. Paper presented at ConSOLE XXV—Leipzig, January 6, 2017.Google Scholar
  50. Pots, Cora. 2017b. Te-raising is clitic climbing. In Linguistics in the Netherlands 2017, ed. Sander Lestrade, and Bert Le Bruyn, 127–141. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
  51. Reis, Marga. 1979. Ansätze zu einer realistischen Grammatik. In Befund und Bedeutung. Zum Verhältnis von Empirie und Interpretation in Sprach- und Literaturwissenschaft, ed. Klaus Grubmüller, Ernst Hellgardt, Heinrich Jellissen, and Marga Reis, 1–21. Tübingen: Niemeyer.Google Scholar
  52. Sabel, Joachim. 2000. Das Verbstellungsproblem im Deutschen: Synchronie und Diachronie. Deutsche Sprache 28: 74–99.Google Scholar
  53. Salzmann, Martin. 2011. Resolving the movement paradox in verb projection raising. In Empirical issues in syntax and semantics, vol. 8, ed. Olivier Bonami, and Patricia Cabredo Hofherr, 453–485. Paris: CNRS.Google Scholar
  54. Salzmann, Martin. 2013a. New arguments for verb cluster formation at PF and a right-branching VP. Evidence from verb doubling and cluster penetrability. Linguistic Variation 13 (1): 81–132.Google Scholar
  55. Salzmann, Martin. 2013b. Rule ordering in verb cluster formation: On the extraposition paradox and the placement of the ininitival particle te/zu. In Rule interaction in grammar. Vol 90 of Linguistische Arbeitsberichte, ed. Fabian Heck, and Anke Assmann, 65–121. Leipzig: University of Leipzig.Google Scholar
  56. Salzmann, Martin. 2016. Displaced morphology in German-Evidence for post-syntactic morphology. In Replicative processes in grammar Vol. 93 of Linguistische Arbeitsberichte (LAB), ed. Katja Barnickel, Matías Guzmán-Naranjo, Johannes Hein, Sampson Korsah, Andrew Murphy, Ludger Paschen, Zorica Puškar, and Joanna Zaleska, 401–446. Leipzig: Leipzig University.Google Scholar
  57. Salzmann, Martin. 2019. On the limits of variation in Continental West-Germanic verb clusters. Evidence from VP-stranding, extraposition and displaced morphology for the existence of clusters with 213 order. Journal of Comparative Germanic Linguistics 22 (1): 55–108.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10828-019-09104-x.
  58. Schallert, Oliver. 2019a. A note on misplaced or wrongly attached zu ‘to’ in German. Journal of Germanic Linguistics (To appear).Google Scholar
  59. Schallert, Oliver. 2019b. Portrait of the clitic as a young affix: Infinitivisches zu im Niemandsland zwischen Morphologie und Syntax. In Syntax aus Saarbrücker Sicht 3. Beiträge der SaRDiS-Tagung zur Dialektsyntax, ed. Augustin Speyer, and Julia Hertel. Stuttgart: Steiner.Google Scholar
  60. Schmeller, Johann Andreas. 1821. Die Mundarten Bayerns grammatisch dargestellt. München: Karl Thienemann.Google Scholar
  61. Schmid, Tanja. 2005. Infinitival syntax. Infinitivus pro participio as a repair strategy. Amsterdam: Benjamins.Google Scholar
  62. Schmid, Tanja, and Ralf Vogel. 2004. Dialectal variation in German 3-verb clusters: A surface-oriented optimality theoretic account. The Journal of Comparative Germanic Linguistics 7 (3): 235–274.Google Scholar
  63. Seiler, Guido. 2002. Prepositional dative marking in Upper German: A case of syntactic microvariation. In Syntactic microvariation, ed. Sjef Barbiers, Leonie Cornips, and Susanne Van-derKleij, 243–279. Amsterdam: Meertens Institut.Google Scholar
  64. Sperschneider, Heinz. 1959. Studien zur Syntax der Mundarten im östlichen Thüringer Wald. Marburg: N. G. Elwert Verlag.Google Scholar
  65. Steil, Claudia. 1989. Untersuchungen zum Verbalkomplex im Schwäbischen, MA Thesis. University of Tübingen.Google Scholar
  66. Steube, Anita. 1995. Flexibler Umgang mit funktionalen Kategorien: Unterstützung aus einer Mundartgrammatik. In Chronologische, areale und situative Varietäten des Deutschen in der Sprachhistographie. Festschrift für Rudolf Große, ed. Gotthard Lerchner, Marianne Schröder, and Ulla Fix, 421–434. Frankfurt: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
  67. Stiebels, Barbara, and Dieter Wunderlich. 1994. Morphology feeds syntax: The case of particle verbs. Linguistics 32 (6): 913–968.Google Scholar
  68. Stump, Gregory T. 2001. Inflectional morphology: A theory of paradigm structure. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  69. Vogel, Ralf. 2009. Skandal im Verbkomplex. Betrachtungen zur scheinbar inkorrekten Morphologie in infiniten Verbkomplexen des Deutschen. Zeitschrift für Sprachwissenschaft 28 (2): 307–346.Google Scholar
  70. Weber, Albert. 1987. Zürichdeutsche Grammatik: ein Wegweiser zur guten Mundart. Zürich: Schweizer Spiegel Verlag.Google Scholar
  71. Weise, Oskar. 1900. Syntax der Altenburger Mundart. Leipzig: Breitkopf u. Härtel.Google Scholar
  72. Wiklund, Anna-Lena. 2001. Dressing up for vocabulary insertion: The parasitic supine. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 19 (1): 199–228.Google Scholar
  73. Williams, Edwin. 2004. The structure of clusters. In Verb clusters: A study of Hungarian, German, and Dutch, ed. Katalin É. Kiss, and Henk van Riemsdijk, 173–201. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
  74. Wurmbrand, Susi. 2004a. Syntactic vs. post-syntactic movement. In Proceedings of the 2003 annual conference of the Canadian Linguistic Association, eds. Sophie Burelle and Stanca Somesfalean, 284–295. Montreal: Université du Québec à MontréalGoogle Scholar
  75. Wurmbrand, Susi. 2004b. Two types of restructuring—lexical vs. functional. Lingua 114 (8): 991–1014.Google Scholar
  76. Wurmbrand, Susi. 2004c. West Germanic verb clusters: The empirical domain. In Verb clusters: A study of Hungarian, German, and Dutch, ed. Katalin É Kiss, and Henk van Riemsdijk, 43–85. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
  77. Wurmbrand, Susi. 2007. How complex are complex predicates? Syntax 10 (3): 243–288.Google Scholar
  78. Wurmbrand, Susi. 2012. Parasitic participles in Germanic: Evidence for the theory of verb clusters. Taal en Tongval: Tijdschrift voor Taalvariatie 64 (1): 129–156.Google Scholar
  79. Wurmbrand, Susi. 2013. Scandalous orders in German verb clusters: A corpus view. Paper presented at the 19th Germanic Linguistics Annual Conference, Buffalo.Google Scholar
  80. Wurmbrand, Susi. 2014. Tense and aspect in English infinitives. Linguistic Inquiry 45 (3): 403–447.Google Scholar
  81. Wurmbrand, Susi. 2017. Verb clusters, verb raising, and restructuring. In The Blackwell companion to syntax, 2nd ed, ed. Martin Everaert, and Henk van Riemsdijk. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell.Google Scholar
  82. Zwart, Jan-Wouter. 1993. Dutch syntax. A minimalist approach, Ph.D. dissertation. University of Groningen.Google Scholar
  83. Zwart, Jan-Wouter. 2007. Some notes on the origin and distribution of the IPP-effect. Groninger Arbeiten zur Germanistischen Linguistik 45: 77–99.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature B.V. 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of LinguisticsLeipzig UniversityLeipzigGermany

Personalised recommendations