Natural Language & Linguistic Theory

, Volume 34, Issue 4, pp 1445–1492 | Cite as

Interpreting verb clusters

Article

Abstract

We argue for syntactic verb cluster formation in certain restructuring configurations, the result of which is interpreted via function composition. This cluster formation can be diagnosed by its semantic consequences. In particular, we observe that in these configurations all embedded elements must receive a matrix interpretation even if there is no evidence that these elements leave the embedded VP at any stage of the derivation. We show that verb cluster formation and function composition provide a solution to this puzzle. We propose that the process of cluster formation takes place whenever two lexical verbs are part of the same phasal Spell-Out domain, which we relate to Richards’ (2010) distinctness proposal. Our analysis entails that (i) some instances of head movement have semantic effects and hence cannot take place at PF; (ii) the set of rules of semantic composition must include function composition; and (iii) it provides additional support for the notion of distinctness and extends its application to head movement.

Keywords

Head movement Function composition Restructuring Semantics of movement Distinctness Phases Long passive 

References

  1. Abels, Klaus. 2003. Successive cyclicity, anti-locality, and adposition stranding. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Connecticut, Storrs, Connecticut. Google Scholar
  2. Ades, Anthony, and Mark Steedman. 1982. On the order of words. Linguistics and Philosophy 4: 517–558. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Alexiadou, Artemis, and Elena Anagnostopoulou. 2001. The subject in situ generalization, and the role of case in driving computations. Linguistic Inquiry 32: 193–231. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Alexiadou, Artemis, and Elena Anagnostopoulou. 2007. The subject-in-situ generalization revisited. In Interfaces + recursion = language?, eds. Uli Sauerland and Hans-Martin Grätner, 31–60. Berlin: de Gruyter. Google Scholar
  5. Barrie, Michael. 2011a. Dynamic antisymmetry and the syntax of noun incorporation. Dordrecht: Springer. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Barrie, Michael. 2011b. Review of uttering trees by Norvin Richards. Journal of Linguistics 47: 736–741. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Barss, Andrew. 1986. Chains and anaphoric dependence. Ph.D. thesis, MIT Press, Cambridge. Google Scholar
  8. Bayer, Josef, and Jaklin Kornfilt. 1990. Restructuring effects in German. In Parametric variation in Germanic and Romance: Proceedings from a DYANA workshop, eds. Elisabeth Engdahl, Mike Reape, and Martin Mellor, 21–42. Edinburgh: University of Edinburgh, Centre for Cognitive Science. Google Scholar
  9. Bayer, Josef, and Jaklin Kornfilt. 1994. Against scrambling as an instance of move-alpha. In Studies on scrambling: Movement and non-movement approaches to free word-order phenomena, eds. Norbert Corver and Henk van Riemsdijk, 17–60. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Google Scholar
  10. Bech, Gunnar. 1955/1957. Studien über das deutsche Verbum Infinitum. Copenhagen: Munksgaard, 2 vols. Google Scholar
  11. Beck, Sigrid, and Kyle Johnson. 2004. Double objects again. Linguistic Inquiry 35: 97–123. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Bobaljik, Jonathan, and Susanne Wurmbrand. 2005. The domain of agreement. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 23: 809–865. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Chomsky, Noam. 1993. A minimalist program for syntactic theory. In The view from building 20: Essays in linguistics in honor of Sylvain Bromberger, eds. Ken Hale and Samuel Jay Keyser, 1–52. Cambridge: MIT Press. Google Scholar
  14. Chomsky, Noam. 1995. The minimalist program. Cambridge: MIT Press. Google Scholar
  15. Chomsky, Noam. 2000. Minimalist inquiries: The framework. In Step by step: Essays in syntax in honor of Howard Lasnik, eds. Roger Martin, David Michaels, and Juan Uriagereka, 89–155. Cambridge: MIT Press. Google Scholar
  16. Chomsky, Noam. 2001. Derivation by phase. In Ken Hale: A life in language, ed. Michael Kenstowicz, 1–52. Cambridge: MIT Press. Google Scholar
  17. Chomsky, Noam. 2013. Problems of projection. Lingua 130: 33–49. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Di Sciullo, Anna-Maria, and Edwin Williams. 1987. On the definition of word. Cambridge: MIT Press. Google Scholar
  19. Dowty, David. 1979. Word meaning and Montague grammar. Dordrecht: Kluwer. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Dowty, David. 1985. On recent analyses of the semantics of control. Linguistics and Philosophy 8: 291–331. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Elbourne, Paul D. 2005. Situations and individuals. Cambridge: MIT Press. Google Scholar
  22. Evers, Arnold. 1975. The transformational cycle in Dutch and German, Ph.D. dissertation, University of Utrecht, reproduced 1975 by, Indiana University Linguistics Club, Bloomington. Google Scholar
  23. Fabricius-Hansen, Cathrine. 1983. Wieder ein wieder? Zur Semantik von wieder. In Meaning, use and interpretation of language, eds. Rainer Bäuerle, Christoph Schwarze, and Arnim von Stechow, 26–41. Berlin: de Gruyter. Google Scholar
  24. Fanselow, Gisbert. 1987. Konfigurationalität: Untersuchungen zur Universalgrammatik am Beispiel des Deutschen. Tübingen: Narr. Google Scholar
  25. Fox, Danny. 2000. Economy and semantic interpretation. Cambridge: MIT Press. Google Scholar
  26. Frey, Werner. 1993. Syntaktische Bedingungen für die semantische Interpretation: Über Binding, implizite Argumente und Skopus. Berlin: Akademie Verlag. Google Scholar
  27. Gärtner, Hans-Martin. 2011. Function composition and the linear local modeling of extended neg-scope. In Local modelling of non-local dependencies in syntax, eds. Artemis Alexiadou, Tibor Kiss, and Gereon Müller, 337–352. Berlin: de Gruyter. Google Scholar
  28. Grewendorf, Günther, and Joachim Sabel. 1994. Long scrambling and incorporation. Linguistic Inquiry 25: 263–308. Google Scholar
  29. Haegeman, Liliane, and Henk van Riemsdijk. 1986. Verb projection raising, scope, and the typology of rules affecting verbs. Linguistic Inquiry 17: 417–466. Google Scholar
  30. Haider, Hubert. 1993. Deutsche Syntax – generativ. Tübingen: Narr. Google Scholar
  31. Haider, Hubert. 2003. V-clustering and clause union: Causes and effects. In Verb constructions in German and Dutch, eds. Pieter Seuren and Gerard Kempen, 91–126. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Haider, Hubert. 2010. The syntax of German. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Halle, Morris, and Alec Marantz. 1993. Distributed morphology and the pieces of inflection. In The view from building 20: Essays in linguistics in honor of Sylvain Bromberger, eds. Ken Hale and Samuel Jay Keyser, 111–176. Cambridge: MIT Press. Google Scholar
  34. Halle, Morris, and Alec Marantz. 1994. Some key features of distributed morphology. In Papers on phonology and morphology, eds. Andrew Carnie, Heidi Harley, and Tony Bures. Vol. 21 of MIT working papers in linguistics, 275–288. Cambridge: MITWPL. Google Scholar
  35. Heim, Irene, and Angelika Kratzer. 1998. Semantics in generative grammar. Oxford: Blackwell. Google Scholar
  36. Hinrichs, Erhard, and Tsuneko Nakazawa. 1994. Linearizing AUXs in German verbal complexes. In German in head-driven phrase structure grammar, eds. John Nerbonne, Klaus Netter, and Carl Pollard, 11–38. Stanford: CSLI. Google Scholar
  37. Hoekstra, Teun, ed. 1984. Transitivity: Grammatical relations in government-binding theory. Dordrecht: Foris. Google Scholar
  38. Höhle, Tilman. 1978. Lexikalistische Syntax: Die Aktiv-Passiv-Relation und andere Infinitivkonstruktionen im Deutschen. Tübingen: Niemeyer. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Jacobs, Joachim. 1992. Bewegung als Valenzvererbung. Linguistische Berichte 138: 82–122. Google Scholar
  40. Jacobson, Pauline. 1990. Raising as function composition. Linguistics and Philosophy 13: 423–475. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Jacobson, Pauline. 1992. Raising without movement. In Control and grammatical theory, ed. Richard Larson, 149–194. Dordrecht: Kluwer. Google Scholar
  42. Kiss, Tibor. 1995. Infinite Komplementation. Tübingen: Niemeyer. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Kornfilt, Jaklin. 1996. NP-movement and “restructuring”. In Current issues in comparative grammar, ed. Robert Freidin, 121–147. Dordrecht: Springer. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Kratzer, Angelika. 1996. Severing the external argument from its verb. In Phrase structure and the lexicon, eds. Johan Rooryck and Laurie Zaring, 109–137. Dordrecht: Kluwer. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Kratzer, Angelika, and Lisa Selkirk. 2007. Phase theory and prosodic spellout: The case of verbs. The Linguistic Review 24: 93–135. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Krifka, Manfred. 1995. The semantics and pragmatics of polarity items. Linguistic Analysis 25: 209–257. Google Scholar
  47. Krifka, Manfred. 1998. Scope inversion under the rise-fall contour in German. Linguistic Inquiry 29: 75–112. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Lebeaux, David. 2009. Where does binding theory apply? Cambridge: MIT Press. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Lechner, Winfried. 1998. Two kinds of reconstruction. Studia Linguistica 52: 276–310. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Lechner, Winfried. 2006. An interpretive effect of head movement. In Phases of interpretation, ed. Mara Frascarelli, 45–70. Berlin: de Gruyter. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Lidz, Jeffrey, and Alexander Williams. 2002. Reflexivity and resultatives. In West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics (WCCFL) 21, eds. Line Mikkelsen and Christopher Potts, 250–263. Somerville: Cascadilla Press. Google Scholar
  52. Lidz, Jeffrey, and Alexander Williams. 2005. C-locality and the interaction of reflexives and ditransitives. In North East Linguistic Society (NELS) 34, eds. Keir Moulton and Matthew Wolf, 389–404. Amherst: GLSA. Google Scholar
  53. Lødrup, Helge. 2014. Long passives in Norwegian: Evidence for complex predicates. Nordic Journal of Linguistics 37: 367–391. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Marantz, Alec. 1996. ‘Cat’ as a phrasal idiom: Consequences of late insertion in distributed morphology. Ms., MIT Press, Cambridge. Google Scholar
  55. Marantz, Alec. 1997. No escape from syntax: Don’t try morphological analysis in the privacy of your own lexicon. In UPenn working papers in linguistics, vol. 4.2, ed. Alexis Dimitriadis, 201–225. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania. PLC. Google Scholar
  56. Meurers, Walt Detmar. 2000. Raising spirits (and assigning them case). Groninger Arbeiten zur Germanistischen Linguistik 43: 173–226. Google Scholar
  57. Moro, Andrea. 2000. Dynamic antisymmetry. Cambridge: MIT Press. Google Scholar
  58. Müller, Stefan. 1999. Deutsche Syntax – deklarativ. Tübingen: Niemeyer. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Müller, Stefan. 2002. Complex predicates: Verbal complexes, resultative constructions and particle verbs in German. Stanford: CSLI. Google Scholar
  60. Müller, Stefan. 2006. Complex predicates, 2nd edn. In Encyclopedia of language and linguistics, ed. Keith Brown, 697–704. Oxford: Elsevier. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Nissenbaum, Jon. 1998. Movement and derived predicates: Evidence from parasitic gaps. In The interpretive tract, eds. Uli Sauerland and Orin Percus. Vol. 25 of MIT working papers in linguistics, 247–295. Cambridge: MITWPL. Google Scholar
  62. Ott, Dennis. 2012. Local instability: Split topicalization and quantifier float in German. Berlin: de Gruyter. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Ott, Dennis. 2015. Symmetric Merge and local instability: Evidence from split topics. Syntax 18: 157–200. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Pollard, Carl J., and Ivan A. Sag. 1994. Head-driven phrase structure grammar. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Google Scholar
  65. Preminger, Omer. 2011. Asymmetries between person and number in syntax: A commentary on Baker’s SCOPA. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 29: 917–937. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Pullum, Geoffrey. 1982. Syncategorematicity and English infinitival to. Glossa 16: 181–215. Google Scholar
  67. Rackowski, Andrea, and Norvin Richards. 2005. Phase edge and extraction. Linguistic Inquiry 36: 565–599. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Reich, Ingo. 2007. From phases to “across the board movement”. In Chicago Linguistic Society (CLS) 43, 217–232. Chicago: CLS. Google Scholar
  69. Reis, Marga, and Wolfgang Sternefeld. 2004. Review article of S. Wurmbrand “Infinitives: restructuring and clause structure”. Linguistics 42: 469–508. Google Scholar
  70. Richards, Norvin. 2010. Uttering trees. Cambrige: MIT Press. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. Riemsdijk, Henk van. 1988. The representation of syntactic categories. In Conference on the Basque language, Basque World Congress, Vol. 1, 104–116. Google Scholar
  72. Riemsdijk, Henk van. 1998. Categorial feature magnetism: The endocentricity and distribution of projections. Journal of Comparative Germanic Linguistics 2: 1–48. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. Romero, Maribel. 1997. The correlation between scope reconstruction and connectivity effects. In West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics (WCCFL) 16, eds. Emily Curtis, James Lyle, and Gabriel Webster, 351–366. Stanford: CSLI Publications. Google Scholar
  74. Sabel, Joachim. 1996. Restrukturierung und Lokalität: Universelle Beschränkungen für Wortstellungsvarianten. Berlin: Akademie-Verlag. Google Scholar
  75. Salzmann, Martin. 2011. Resolving the movement paradox in verb projection raising: in favor of base-generation and covert predicate raising. In Empirical issues in syntax and semantics 8, eds. Olivier Bonami and Patricia Cabredo Hofherr, 453–486. Paris: CSSP. Google Scholar
  76. Salzmann, Martin. 2013. New evidence for verb cluster formation of PF and a right-branching VP. In North East Linguistic Society (NELS) 42, eds. Stefan Keine and Shayne Sloggett, 135–148. Amherst: GLSA. Google Scholar
  77. Sauerland, Uli. 1998. On the making and meaning of chains. Ph.D. dissertation, MIT Press, Cambridge. Google Scholar
  78. Schmid, Tanja, Markus Bader, and Josef Bayer. 2005. Coherence: An experimental approach. In Linguistic evidence: empirical, theoretical, and computational perspectives, eds. Stephan Kepser and Marga Reis, 435–456. Berlin: de Gruyter. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  79. Sportiche, Dominique. 2006. Reconstruction, binding, and scope. In The Blackwell companion to syntax, vol. IV, eds. Martin Everaert and Henk van Riemsdijk, 35–93. Oxford: Blackwell. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  80. Stechow, Arnim von. 1992. Kompositionsprinzipien und grammatische Struktur. In Biologische und soziale Grundlagen der Sprache, ed. Peter Suchsland, 175–248. Tübingen: Niemeyer. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  81. Stechow, Arnim von. 1995. Lexical decomposition in syntax. In Lexical knowledge in the organization of language, eds. Urs Egli, Peter Pause, Christoph Schwarze, Arnim von Stechow, and Götz Wienold, 81–118. Berlin: John Benjamins. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  82. Stechow, Arnim von. 1996. The different readings of wieder: A structural account. Journal of Semantics 13: 87–138. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  83. Stechow, Arnim von, and Wolfgang Sternefeld. 1988. Bausteine syntaktischen Wissens: Ein Lehrbuch der generativen Grammatik. Opladen: Westdeutscher Verlag. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  84. Steedman, Mark. 1985. Dependency and coordination in the grammar of Dutch and English. Language 61: 523–568. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  85. Takahashi, Masahiko. 2010. Case, phases, and the nominative/accusative conversion in Japanese. Journal of East Asian Linguistics 19: 319–355. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  86. Takahashi, Masahiko. 2011. Some consequences of case-marking in Japanese. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Connecticut, Storrs. Google Scholar
  87. Takahashi, Masahiko. 2012. On restructuring infinitives in Japanese: Adjunction, clausal architecture, and phases. Lingua 122: 1569–1595. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  88. Travis, Lisa. 1984. Parameters and effects of word order variation. Ph.D. dissertation, MIT, Cambridge. Google Scholar
  89. Truckenbrodt, Hubert. 2006. On the semantic motivation of syntactic verb movement to C in German. Theoretical Linguistics 32: 257–306. Google Scholar
  90. Wechsler, Stephen. 1991. Verb second and illocutionary force. In Views on phrase structure, eds. Katherine Leffel and Denis Bouchard, 177–191. Dordrecht: Kluwer. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  91. Williams, Edwin. 2003. Representation theory. Cambridge: MIT Press. Google Scholar
  92. Wöllstein-Leisten, Angelika. 2001. Die Syntax der dritten Konstruktion: Eine repräsentationelle Analyse zur Monosententialität von ‘zu’-Infinitives im Deutschen. Tübingen: Stauffenberg. Google Scholar
  93. Wurmbrand, Susanne. 2001. Infinitives: Restructuring and clause structure. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Google Scholar
  94. Wurmbrand, Susanne. 2007. How complex are complex predicates? Syntax 10: 243–288. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  95. Wurmbrand, Susanne. 2013. Complex predicate formation via voice incorporation. Ms. University of Connecticut, Storrs. Google Scholar
  96. Wurmbrand, Susi. 2014. Restructuring across the world. In Complex visibles out there: Olomouc Linguistics Colloquium 2014: Language use and linguistic structure, eds. Ludmila Veselovská and Markéta Janebová, 275–294. Olomouc: Palacký University. Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.University of MassachusettsAmherstUnited States

Personalised recommendations