Auxiliaries and modals sneak up on quiet socks
Auxiliaries and modals sneak up on quiet socks
Reflections on the German VP structure
Larson (1988, 1990)1 and subsequently Chomsky (1993, 1995)2 proposed that the VP projection should be regarded as a VP-shell of the following form:
In this discussion, I will assume this thesis and explore whether the German clause-structure aligns with this framework. I find that fitting it into this structure is not straightforward. While it is possible with some effort, it appears rather cumbersome.
V-to-I movement
At first glance, Larson’s and Chomsky’s hypothesis about a universal VP structure seems applicable to the German clause structure. One could assume the presence of a head final IP above the VPs, and that V moves first to light v and then to the I-head (V-to-I movement). This results in the standard word order of embedded clauses in German:
(A)
[IP [vp Subj [v’ t [VP IO [V’ t DO]]]] [I’ Verb + I]]
This structure, however, does not account for complex VPs that include modal auxiliaries. The order of the modal-auxiliary-main verb complex in German, at least in finite clauses, is a mirror image of English. Consider the following examples of embedded German clauses with auxiliaries and modals:
(1)
… dass er es gegessen haben könnte.
… that he it eaten have may.
… that he may have eaten it.
(2)
… dass er betrunken war.
… that he drunken was.
… that he was drunk.
(3)
… dass er betrunken gewesen ist.
… that he drunken been has.
… that he has been drunk.
(4)
… dass er kommen wird.
… that he come will.
… that he will come.
These patterns are noteworthy. Modals or inflections select a bare infinitival verbal form, either an auxiliary or a main verb. An auxiliary such as haben, sein, or werden selects a past participle (known as Partizip II). This selection process involves choosing a complement and thus determining a hierarchical order. At first glance, V-projections appear to be head final in German. Therefore, the initial proposal (A) cannot be accurate.
Head-final VPs
Looking solely at the structure of the German clause, we can see that it exhibits a head-final VP-structure as exemplified in the following sentence:
(5)
.. dass die Frau geküßt worden sein wird.
... that the woman kissed been have will.
... that the woman will have been kissed.
While this proposal seems plausible, it contradicts a general argument put forth by Richard Kayne:3
… the human language faculty is in fact rigidly inflexible when it comes to the relation between hierarchical structure and linear order. Heads must always precede their associated complement position. Adjunctions must always be to the left, never to the right. That is true of adjunctions to phrases and it is true of adjunctions to heads.
This principle is known as the Linear Correspondence Axiom (LCA). It asserts that grammatical hierarchies in natural language must follow a universal order, namely specifier-head-complement branching order.
LCA is based on X-bar theory and posits that any phrase whose surface order is not specifier-head-complement must have undergone syntactic movements that disrupt this underlying order.
If Kayne's theory is correct, then the second proposal is problematic as it relies on a head-final structure. If German does exhibit a head-final structure on the surface, which is ruled out by LCA, we need to account for this through movement.
The first proposal, which involves simple movement to an IP-head, cannot explain German clause structure. It seems, however, that there are at least two more possible explanations for the fundamental clause structure of German, both of which involve V-movement.
Movement to functional heads above VP
Instead of assuming that German has a head-final VP structure, we could postulate the existence of functional heads above VP that display a reverse order, similar to what we see in English. Perhaps all Vs in German must move to these heads due to strong features or some other reason.
If we assume this hypothesis, the resulting structure would look like (B) with FP standing for some functional projection:
(B)
[FPpass-part …[FPpast-part …[FPbare-inf …[IP …[VPbare-inf …[VPpast-part …[VPpass-part …]]]]]]
Although this structure would be consistent with the LCA, there is little evidence in favor of this analysis. There are also several issues with this proposal:
(i) It is difficult to provide empirical evidence for it because the finite verb or a corresponding modal almost always appears at the end of the clause. There is nothing behind it that could be analyzed as an intervening constituent uncovering a head-V-movement.
(C)
… [FP verbal head [IP … [… ? … [VP trace]]]] …
(ii) If all functional heads (including IP) are V-projections, as this hypothesis assumes, then all arguments of the main verb and all adjuncts would also have to move, since they always appear in front of the Vs and never after them. In addition, VP-related adverbs like adverbs of manner always appear before the Vs and never after them. This is not consistent with what we observe in German:
(6)
... dass die Frau nur zaudernd / nicht geküßt worden sein wird.
*... dass die Frau geküßt worden sein wird nur zaudernd / nicht.
(iii) Assuming that all V-heads move out of VP would require many movements of arguments and adjuncts, which is not well-motivated and lacks empirical evidence.
Functional Projections within VP
A less ambitious proposal is to suggest that, while the IP is head-final, there are functional projections within the VP that the verbal heads move to. The structure could look something like:
(D)
[IP [VP [FPpass-part … [FPpast-part … [VPbare-inf … [VPpast-part …[VPpass-part … ]]]]]] I]
In this proposal, only the selected past and passive participles move, and the bare infinitive could move to I (out of VP), if there is no modal in that position. This solves problem (ii), but problems (i) and (iii) persist.
Additionally, all arguments of the main verb and all adjuncts would still have to move because they always appear in front of the Vs, never after them. Assuming all these movements seems unwarranted and lacks empirical support. Moreover, the clause in (7) is still ungrammatical:
(7)
*... dass die Frau geküsst worden sein nur zaudernd / nicht wird.
Oddities
I won't delve into the details of each proposal, but I would like to highlight two peculiarities that arise in all four of them.
(i) The first oddity concerns infinitival embedded clauses. In German, the equivalent of the Infl-position in English appears in front of the infinitive (here: zu sein):
(8)
Sie versucht, geküßt worden zu sein.
She tries kissed been to have.
She tries to have been kissed.
At first glance, this seems to support proposal (D). However, I would argue that instead of having a verbal position after Inf, the complex expression 'zu sein' is lexically generated and not syntactically derived properly, so it can sit with the bare infinitival in the I-projection.
To support this, I rely on composed infinitivals, i.e., verbs that have a prefix like zu, ab, auf, and so on. The infinitival marker 'to' appears between the prefix and the verb. For example:
(9)
Sie versucht, es abgeschrieben zu haben.
She tries it copied to have.
She tries to have it copied.
(10)
Sie versucht, es abzuschreiben.
She tries it to copy.
She tries to copy it.
I claim that the two words 'zu haben' in example (9) are actually not two components but one, which has the same position as abzuschreiben in example (10).
(ii) The second oddity, which is more complex, arises with CP-complement taking verbs, as these complements (and only these) always follow their V-head! To illustrate this with an embedded clause, we need to look at double embedded clauses:
(11)
... dass die Frau geglaubt haben wird, dass jemand sie küsste.
... that the woman believed have will that somebody her kissed.
... that the woman will have believed that somebody kissed her.
Although the following is also possible, it is clearly derived by topicalization movement:
(12)
... dass die Frau, dass sie jemand küsste, geglaubt haben wird.
This feature (that a CP-complement remains after all VPs) would also have consequences for the fourth proposal, which I repeat here:
(D)
[IP [VP [FPpass-part …[FPpast-part … [VPbare-inf …[VPpast-part …[VPpass-part …]]]]]] I]
If we stick to this structure, we would have to assume that the finite main verb doesn’t move to the I-head, because in this case, it would appear after the V-complement.
This alone wouldn't be too bad if we assume that the first position isn’t quite a VPbare-inf but a position where a base-generated finite verb could sit, so that its features could be checked by the I-head without movement (if it had weak features).
However, this assumption cannot be correct either. We can see this by looking at modals, which are not VP but IP-heads:
(13)
... dass die Frau glauben soll, dass jemand sie küßte.
... that the woman believe should that somebody her kissed.
... that the woman should believe that somebody kissed her.
(14)
*... dass die Frau glauben, dass jemand sie küßte, soll.
... that the woman believe that somebody her kissed should.
... that the woman should believe that somebody kissed her.
After considering all the factors, it appears that the German VP-system may actually align with the unpleasant third proposal. This would entail postulating numerous movements, including V-head movement, Aux-head movement, movement of all VP-related adverbials, and movement of most complements, except for CP-complements.
Furthermore, all DP-complements but no CP-complements would need to move, and even PP-adjuncts, which are supposed to appear in VP-adjunctions, would have to move out of VP.
Empirical testing of this structure is difficult, but the main reason for assuming it is the fact that CP-complements always follow the verb. While this is a reasonable feature of German clause structure, it raises questions about PPs, which are supposed to check their case internal to the PP.
Overall, this structure appears to be ad hoc and aesthetically unpleasing. To be truthful, it's a mess.
Larson, Richard K. (1988): “On the double object construction”, Linguistic Inquir 19 (3), 335-391; Larson, Richard K. (1990): “Double objects revisited: Reply to Jackendoff”, Linguistic Inquiry 21 (4), 589-632
Chomsky, Noam (1993): Language and Thought, Wakefield, RI: Moyer Bell; Chomsky, Noam (1995): The Minimalist Program, Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press
Kayne, Richard S. (1994): The Antisymmetry of Syntax. Linguistic Inquiry Monograph Twenty-Five. MIT Press, p. xiii