Prompt for Writing Sample Comparative Germanic Word Order LGCS 105: Syntax, Paper 3 Professor Michael Diercks, Pomona College Your task is to articulate the word order puzzles that arise in the data below (both within German and Danish, and between German, Danish, and English), and to give an analysis that takes explains the various word orders that are present in the data. The only prompt I am giving you is that there is a word order puzzle to be solved here. In the paper you must 1) identify and articulate the puzzle(s) clearly (i.e. give the reader a succinct explanation of what the puzzle is, with data that illustrate this) and offer an analysis that explains the puzzles, with data to support your conclusions. Data set available at the back of this paper
Karen Eisenhauer Movement and Verb-second Languages Introduction Syntax, among other functions, serves us the purpose of predicting the order in which we pronounce our words. Our pronounced order is often different from the sequence predicted by the X -structure we re familiar with. This original sequence, known as the D-structure, is what allows us to decode the meaning of the sentence. Through sets of syntactical movements, the D- structure rearranges to become the S-structure that is, the structure that actually comes out of our mouths. This S-structure often adds inflection, implication, and complexity to our phrases. It is these movements which allow for the grand diversity of language word orders that cannot be produced by the relatively limiting generative systems of X -structure. In this paper, we will examine German and Danish, two related languages which both illustrate how movement allows for diverse word orders. I will begin by examining the puzzling word order of both German and Danish, and follow up by suggesting some new syntactical rules that allow for these S-structures to exist. German and Danish are closely related, with the data only illuminating a few relevant differences between the two. Because of this, I will omit Danish examples for the bulk of my analysis, under the assumption that the two languages are behaving in similar ways. I will end by discussing the situations in which these two languages diverge. Verb Second Phrases and Topical Movement German is a verb-second language. As the nomenclature suggests, this means that German verbs always appear as the second word or phrase in the sentence. (This has several notable exceptions, which I will address later in the paper). This seems congruous with English at first. For example, take this simple English sentence and its German translation: (1) You come tomorrow. (2) du kommst morgen you come.2sg tomorrow You come tomorrow. These two sentences are identical in order both have the verb as the second word in the phrase. But let s examine a variant translation of (1): (3) morgen kommst du tomorrow come.2sg you Tomorrow, you come. Here, the difference between English and German is revealed. As the gloss illustrates, the literal English translation * tomorrow come you is unacceptable. But in German, it seems that it doesn t matter what comes first in the sentence, as long as the verb comes second. In order to explain this phenomenon, we must first map the D-structures of these sentences. The agreement between the subject DP and the verb (spec-head agreement) suggest a similar D- structure to English. There is only 1 major difference, which is that German TPs are head-final. I
will address the evidence for this in the following section, but for now we will take it as given fact. (4) (5) According to the Expanded Projection Principle, we cannot leave the Spec TP position open; therefore, we must use A-movement to move the verb-internal subject to the spec TP position. Both languages also use V T head-to-head raising. The trees now look as follows: (6) (7) With English, this is all the movement necessary for a [-Q -WH] phrase like (1). However, it is apparent that the requisite movements for English produce neither of the acceptable structures for German. This problem can be solved by proposing two additional movements which would be required in a standard German phrase. The first of these is a second head-to-head movement, which would raise the new T (formerly in V position) to the C head. This movement would happen in every sentence unless for some reason C was already occupied; these cases will be discussed later in the paper.
The second proposition is a new type of A -movement, which I will call topical movement. According to this rule, a standard sentence in German would require any one of the arguments of the phrase to move up to the spec-cp position. The argument to be moved is determined simply by its pertinence to the meaning of the sentence. This movement is an A - movement, and therefore may bypass any locality laws which otherwise apply to A-movement or head-to-head movement. Topical movement additionally ignores the relative locality rules of English A -movement (also called WH-movement), meaning arguments are not blocked by others closer to the vacant spec CP position. The only rule governing this movement is that in the case of two CPs in a single sentence, the argument must move to the closest one. Adding these two new movements, the German trees for (2) and (3) would look as follows: (8) (9) Both acceptable sentences can now be generated, thanks to the flexible nature of topical movement. It should also be noted that the now standard T C movement has rendered the [±Q] feature of English unnecessary. As for [±WH], its usefulness will be discussed in the next section. Question-forming There are several important exceptions to the verb-second rule of German which our data presents. One such exception is that of the formation of yes/no questions. Consider the following query: (10) Kommst du morgen come.2sg you tomorrow Will you come tomorrow? Example (10) is an illustration of an acceptable German sentence in which the verb comes first, not second. I posit that while T C raising still occurs, there is something about yes/no question forming which blocks Topical raising to spec-cp position. This would create a tree as follows:
(11) To explain this phenomenon, a feature called [±TOP] be added to the C node. The [±TOP] feature would mandate topical raising when positive and forbid it when negative. If we accept the existence of this feature, then one can safely assume that yes/no question forming is an environment in which it is negative. Fortunately, WH-words do not require any new hypotheses. WH-questions would simply be a [+TOP] environment in which the WH word takes the role of the topical argument and moves to spec CP. (This makes sense, because of course the question word is the topic of your question). This creates sentences like the following: (12) Wann kommst du? when come.2sg you? When do you come? As we can see, questions are easily addressed with the addition of the [±TOP] feature. Additionally, it renders the [±WH] feature in English redundant. The proposed grammar for German and Danish therefore only requires the single feature, [±TOP]. Complements Another environment in which the verb-second order of German (and of Danish) is disrupted is that of complements and embedded clauses. Let s take a German sentence as an example once more: (13) Paul weiβ daβ Peter nach hause kommt Paul knows that Peter to home comes Paul knows that Peter is coming home.
In example (13), the main verb [weiβ] acts as we expect it to, appearing directly after the topical phrase (in this case, the subject). Curiously, though, the embedded clause s main verb [kommt] appears last. Fortunately, this easily explained thanks to our previously stipulated necessary T C movement. The verb in example (13) currently occupying the T head cannot move to the C head, because that position is already occupied by the overt complementizer [daβ]. As an additional rule, I will advance that an overtly realized complementizer is another [-TOP] environment, meaning that the C head blocks any topical argument from moving to the spec CP position. The tree for sentence (13) would now look as follows: (14) This hypothesis is further validated by sentences like (15): (15) Peter sagte, er komme morgen Peter said, he comes.sbj tomorrow Peter said that he would come tomorrow. In (15), the complementizer is no longer overtly realized. Consequentially, the T head is free to raise once more, and the verb appears second in the embedded clause. Incidentally, these structures can also serve as proof of the head-finality of Tense phrases. In the case of embedded clauses like (13), V T movement is realized but T C movement is blocked;
this leaves a surface pronunciation of the main verb occupying the T position. The result is the exposition of German s D-structure tense head position, the location of which is usually obscured by movement to C. And since the verb in question occurs at the very end of its embedded clause (after its sister VP, which includes all non-subject arguments), we can conclude that German TPs are indeed head-final. Conditionals The German data also includes conditional phrases, such as the following sentence: (16) Wenn ich mehr Zeit gehabt hätte, hätte ich mehr Bücher gelesen if I more time had had, would I more books read If I had had more time, I would have read more books. I would like to briefly comment on this example. Primarily, I include it to validate once again the notion of necessitated T C movement. This is evidenced in the second clause by the appearance of the conjugated verb [hätte] raising from its tense head (at the end of the clause) to the C position (at the beginning). In the first clause, [wenn] also seems to behave like a complementizer, blocking the movement of [hätte] from its T head position. There is, however, a puzzle to be found in this phrase. The second clause of the sentence has no overtly realized complementizer, giving it no reason to be a [-TOP] phrase; nevertheless, there is no topical movement. This complicates, but does not fundamentally problematize, the current grammar. It rather has something to do with the unique structures of conditional phrases. My guess is that conditional sentences allow CPs to take the specifier position of other CPs, blocking topical movement: (17) This is only a hypothesis; yet, it still illustrates that there is nothing about conditionals which truly problematizes the current hypothesized grammar. Parameter Differences with Danish
Up to this point, I have been analyzing only German data, under the assumption that German and Danish have fundamentally similar phrase structure rules. There are, however, several major parameter differences between the two languages. Most importantly, Danish differs from German in that its TPs are head-initial. As evidence, consider the following Danish examples: (18) Han siger at børnene har har set denne film he says that the.children have seen this film He says that the children have seen this film. (19) Han siger denne film har børnene set He says this film have the.children seen He says the children have seen this film. Following the same logic as was applied in the complements section of this paper, we can deduce that the overt complementizer [at] in example (18) blocks T C movement and therefore reveals the true position of the T head, which appears after the subject (which has raised as discussed to spec TP) but before its sister VP [set denne film]. This order suggests that Danish is indeed a TP head-initial language. Besides this parameter, Danish and German movements seem to be identical examination of (19), for example, shows that when the overt complementizer is missing, both T C movement and topical movement take place, creating this structure: (20)
As a side note, there is one additional parameter difference between Danish and German, which is that Danish is V-head initial and German V head-final. This German sentence serves as evidence: (21) ein Kind hatte das Lied gesungen a child had the song sung a child had sung the song. The auxiliary verb [hatte] takes the T position, leaving the V head [gesungen] in its initial position, after its complement [das lied]. This is contrasted with example (18), wherein [har] occupies the T position and the V head [set] precedes its sister [denne film]. This is brief but clear proof of the parameter difference between the two languages. Conclusion Both German and Danish prove an important point about language structure. On the D- structure level, German is surprisingly similar to English, with only two major parameter differences (TP head-finality and VP head-finality). Danish is even more so in fact, it seems to be completely identical (with TP and VP head-initial paramaters). Yet both languages surface word orders are not only different from English, but are surprisingly flexible in their construction. These differences are resolved by new movement parameters, mainly requisite T C movement and a new A -movement called Topical Movement. With these powerful tools, the seemingly impossible word orders of German and Danish are suddenly just as intuitive as our native English grammar.
Data Set GLOSSES: SBJ=subjunctive Assume that locations in verbs of motion (come to the house) are complements. Assume a ternary branching structure for ditransitive verbs where both objects are complements of the verb. German 1) a. du kommst morgen you come.2sg tomorrow You come tomorrow. b. morgen kommst du tomorrow come.2sg you Tomorrow, you come. 2) Kommst du morgen come.2sg you tomorrow Will you come tomorrow? 3) Wer kommt morgen? who come.3sg tomorrow? Who comes tomorrow? 4) Wann kommst du? when come.2sg you? When do you come? 5) Ich weiβ, du kommst morgen I know you come.2sg tomorrow I know, you re coming tomorrow. 6) Ich frage mich, wann kommst du I ask myself, when come.2sg you I ask myself when you are coming. 7) Peter sagte, er komme morgen Peter said, he comes.sbj tomorrow Peter said that he would come tomorrow. 8) Paul weiβ daβ Peter nach hause kommt Paul knows that Peter to home comes Paul knows that Peter is coming home. 9) *Paul weiβ Peter nach hause kommt Paul knows Peter to home comes Paul knows that Peter is coming home. 10) Peter hat geschlafen Peter has slept Peter has slept.
11) Gestern hatte ein Kind das Lied gesungen yesterday had a child the song sung Yesterday a child had sung the song. 12) *Gestern hatte gesungen ein Kind das Lied yesterday had sung a child the song Yesterday a child had sung the song. 13) ein Kind hatte das Lied gesungen a child had the song sung a child had sung the song. 14) *ein Kind hatte gesungen das Lied a child had sung the song 15) Peter schickte den Kindern das Paket Peter sent the children the parcel Peter sent the parcel to the children. 16) Den Kindern schickte Peter das Paket the children sent Peter the parcel To the children Peter sent the parcel. 17) Das Paket schickte Peter den Kindern the parcel sent Peter the children The parcel Peter sent to the children. 18) Um schnelle Beförderung hatte er gebeten about fast transportation had he asked He had requested fast delivery. 19) Peter hat den Kindern das Paket geschickt Peter has the children the parcel sent Peter has sent the children the parcel. 5 20) Welchen Kindern hat Peter ein Paket geschickt? which children has Peter a parcel sent To which children has Peter sent a parcel? 21) Was hat Peter den Kindern geschickt? what has Peter the children sent? What has Peter sent the children? 22) Wer hat den Kindern ein Paket geschickt? who has the children a parcel sent Who has sent the children a parcel? 23) Hast du eine Katze gesehen? have you a cat seen Have you seen a cat?
24) Siehst du eine Katze? see you a cat Do you see a cat? 25) Ich habe oft eine Katze gesehen. I have often a cat seen I have often seen a cat. 26) Ich sehe oft eine Katze I see often a cat I often see a cat. 27) Er weiss, daβ ich oft eine Katze gesehen habe. he knows that I often a cat seen have He knows that I have often seen a cat. 28) *Er weiss, daβ ich habe oft eine Katze gesehen. he knows, that I have often a cat seen 29) Er weiss, ich habe oft eine Katze gesehen. he knows I have often a cat seen He knows I have often seen a cat. 30) *Er weiss, ich oft eine Katze gesehen habe. he knows I often a cat seen have 31) Welches Buch hat Peter gelesen? which book has Peter read Which book has Peter read? 6 32) Dieses Buch hat Peter gelesen? this book has Peter read This book, Peter has read. Cf. English *This book has Peter read. 33) Vielleicht hat Peter dieses Buch gelesen maybe has Peter this book read Maybe Peter has read this book. Cf. English *Maybe has Peter read this book. 34) Die Kinder sahen den Film the children saw the film The children saw the film. 35) Diesen Film haben die Kinder gesehen this film have the children seen This film the children have seen. Cf. English *This film have the children seen. 36) Gestern sahen die Kinder den Film
yesterday saw the children the film Yesterday the children saw the film. Cf. English *Yesterday saw the children the film. 37) Er sagt daβ die Kinder diesen Film gesehen haben he says that the children this film seen have He says that the children have seen this film. 38) Er sagt diesen Film haben die Kinder gesehen he says this film have the children seen He says the children have seen this film. 39) Er sagt die Kinder haben diesen Film gesehen he says the children have this film seen He says that the children have seen this film. 40) *Er sagt daβ diesen Film haben die Kinder gesehen he says that this film have the children seen He says that the children have seen this film. 41) *Er sagt daβ die Kinder haben diesen Film gesehen he says that the children have this film seen He says that the children have seen this film. 42) Wenn ich mehr Zeit gehabt hätte, hätte ich mehr Bücher gelesen if I more time had had, would I more books read If I had had more time, I would have read more books. 43) hätte ich mehr Zeit gehabt, hätte ich mehr Bücher gelesen had I more time had, would I more books read If I had had more time, I would have read more books. 44) *Wenn hätte ich mehr Zeit gehabt if had I more time had If I had had more time 45) *Hätte wenn ich mehr Zeit gehabt had if I more time had If I had had more time Danish 46) Hvilken bog har Peter læst? which book has Peter read Which book has Peter read? 47) Denne bog har Peter læst this book has Peter read This book, Peter has read.
Cf. English *This book has Peter read. 48) Máske har Peter læst denne bog Maybe has Peter read this book Maybe Peter has read this book. Cf. English *Maybe has Peter read this book. 49) Børnene sá filmen the.children saw the.film The children saw the film. 50) Denne film har børnene set this film have the.children seen This film the children have seen. *This film have the children seen. 51) I gár sá børnene filmen yesterday saw the.children the.film Yesterday the children saw the film. Cf. English *Yesterday saw the children the film. 52) Han siger at børnene har set denne film he says that the.children have seen this film He says that the children have seen this film. 53) Han siger denne film har børnene set he says this film have the.children seen He says the children have seen this film. 54) Hvis jeg havde haft mere tid, ville jeg have læst flere bøger. if I had had more time, would I have read more books If I had had more time, I would have read more books. 55) havde jeg haft mere tid, ville jeg have læst flere bøger. had I had more time, would I have read more books If I had had more time, I would have read more books. 56) *Hvis havde jeg haft mere tid... if had I had more time If I had had more time 57) *Havde hvis jeg haft mere tid... had if I had more time If I had had more time