The Short Life Cycle of External Arguments in German Passive Derivations Gereon Müller ...

50 Pages·2016·0.3 MB·English

The Short Life CycleofExternal Arguments inGermanPassiveDerivations
Gereon Müller,UniversitätLeipzig
Abstract
Inthisarticle,Ipursuetwomaingoals. First,Iargueforanewempiricalgeneral-
ization: AnexternalargumentinGermanpassiveconstructions (DP )isaccessible
ext
from positions below it but inaccessible from positions above it. And second, I
present anewtheoryofpassivization fromwhichthisgeneralization canbederived:
I suggest that an elementary operation Remove should be postulated in phase-based
minimalistsyntaxthatisthecompletemirrorimageofMergeinthatittriggersstruc-
ture removal rather than structure building, and that obeys exactly the same restric-
tions (with respect to triggers, strict cyclicity, etc.). Remove provides a principled
approach to conflicting structure assignment and reanalysis in general, with short
lifecycleeffects(derivable fromstrictcyclicity) atitscore.
Keywords:
Merge, StrictCycle Condition,passive,minimality,Agree(binding,control),reanalysis
The Short Life CycleofExternal Arguments inGermanPassiveDerivations
1. Introduction
In this article, I pursue two main goals. First, I argue for a new empirical generalization:
An external argument in German passive constructions is accessible from positions be-
low it but inaccessible from positions above it. And second, I present a new theoretical
approach to passivization from which this generalization can be derived: I suggest that
an elementary operation Remove should be postulated in phase-based minimalist syntax
thatisthecompletemirrorimageofMergeinthatittriggersstructureremovalratherthan
structure building, and that obeys exactly the same restrictions (with respect to triggers,
strict cyclicity, etc.). I proceed as follows. In section 2, I show that there is conflicting
evidenceconcerning thepresence ofan external argument DP in passiveconstructionsin
German, and proposeto resolvethisconflict by postulatingtheAccessibilityGeneraliza-
tion according to which the external argument is accessible from items that are lower in
the structure and inaccessible from items that are higher in the structure. In section 3, I
argue that from a conceptual point of view, there is every reason to postulate an opera-
tion of structure-removal (Remove) as a counterpart to an operation of structure-building
(Merge). Insection4,Iputthetwothingstogetherand showthatanapproach toGerman
passive constructions in terms of structure removal accounts for the Accessibility Gen-
eralization without further ado, by correctly predicting (via strict cyclicity) a short life
cycle ofexternal arguments. Afterthis, section5 addresses thequestionof howvariation
in the area of passivization can be accounted for in the new model. Section 6 draws a
conclusionand presentsageneraloutlook. Inanappendix,Idiscussattemptstomaintain
strict accessibilityorstrictinaccessibilityin thelightof theempiricalevidencepresented
in section2.
2. Accessibility
2.1. Downward Accessibility
Approaches to passivization differ with respect to the question of whether an external
argument DP (DP ) is syntactically accessible or not. Over the last decades, some evi-
ext
dence has been presented that DP is indeed present in the syntax in passive construc-
ext
tions, and can be accessed by other operations; cf., e.g., Chomsky (1957), Perlmutter
& Postal (1983), Roberts (1987), Baker, Johnson & Roberts (1989), Sternefeld (1995),
Stechow (1998), Collins (2005), Harley (2013), Merchant (2013), and Georgi (2014b)).1
1 ForapproachesinwhichDP isnotsyntacticallyrepresented,seeHöhle(1978),Chomsky(1981),Bres-
ext
nan(1982),Kiss(1992),Wunderlich(1993),Müller,St. (2007)andKiparsky(2013),amongmanyothers;
andforapproacheswhereDP issyntacticallyrepresentedbutnotaccessible, see Bach(1980),Keenan
ext
1
A first, well-known argument for the syntactic accessibility of DP is that DP can
ext ext
control intoadverbialclauses;cf. thecaseofpurposeclauses in(1-ab).
(1) a. Das SchiffwurdeDP versenkt[ um PRO dieVersicherungzu
ext1 CP 1
the ship was sunk in order theinsurance to
kassieren ]]
collect
“The shipwas sunkin ordertocollect theinsurance.”
b. Der Reifen wurdeDP aufgepumpt[ um PRO dieFahrt
ext1 CP 1
the tire was inflated in order thejourney
fortzusetzen ]
to continue
“The tirewas inflated inorderto continuethejourney.”
Second, DP can controlintosubject-orientedsecondary predicates,as in (2-abcd).
ext
(2) a. DieDaten wurden DP [ PRO nackt ]analysiert
ext1 AP 1
the data were naked analyzed
“The datawere analyzed bysomeonewho was naked.”
b. Das HandoutwurdeDP [ PRO übermüdet]verfasst
ext1 AP 1
the handout was tired written
“The handoutwas writtenby someonewhowas tired.”
c. Es wurde[ PRO absichtlich]einFehler gemacht
AP 1
it was deliberately a mistakemade
“Someonedeliberately madeamistake.”
d. Dort wird[ PRO freiwillig] gearbeitet
AP 1
there is voluntarilyworked
“People worktherevoluntarily.”
Third, control by DP into a regular complement infinitive is also possible; see (3-ab)
ext
(with impersonal passives based on a transitive control verb and a ditransitive subject
control verb,respectively).2
(1980),Stechow(1987;1992),Bruening(2013;2014),Schäfer(2012b),Alexiadou&Doron(2013),Hole
(2014),andAlexiadou,Anagnastopoulou&Schäfer(2015).
2 As argued by van Urk (2013), examples like (3-b) do not violate Visser’s generalization because this
generalization should be taken to state that control by an implicit subject in the passive (DP ) into a
ext
complementinfinitiveisimpossibleifanovertDPagreeswithT;thisisnotthecaseintheexamplesin(3),
whichbothexhibitimpersonalpassives(dativecaseisnotabsorbedbytheregularpassiveauxiliarywerden,
andagreementisonlypossiblewithnominativeargumentsinGerman). Inlinewiththis, anexamplelike
(i),wheredativecaseisabsorbedbythemarkedpassiveauxiliarykriegenandtheremainingovertargument
(sie(‘she’))agreeswithT,iscorrectlypredictedtobeimpossibleunderVisser’sgeneralization.
(i) *Gestern kriegteDP [ sie] versprochen[ PRO dasZimmerzureinigen]
ext1 DP2 CP 1/2
yesterdaygot she promised the room to clean
nom
“Yesterdayshewaspromisedbysomeonethat(s)hewouldcleantheroom.”
2
(3) a. Es wurdeDP versucht[ PRO zu schlafen ]
ext1 CP 1
it was tried to sleep
“One triedto sleep.”
b. Gestern wurdeDP [ ihr] versprochen[ PRO das Zimmerzu
ext1 DP2 CP 1/∗2
yesterday was her promised the room to
dat
reinigen ]
clean
“Yesterday shewas promisedbysomeonethat (s)hewouldclean theroom.”
Fourth, reflexive pronouns and reciprocal pronouns in German passiveconstructions can
satisfy Principle A, which suggests the presence of an accessible co-indexed subject
DP .
ext
(4) a. HierwurdeDP sich nichtgeprügelt
ext1 1
here was REFL not hit
“There wereno rowshere.”
b. Es wurdeDP einander gedankt
ext1 1
it was each otherthanked
“People thankedeach other.”
Fifth,DP cannoteasilybeinterpretedascoreferentialwithapropernameobject,which
ext
followsas aPrincipleC effect ifDP issyntacticallyaccessible;cf. (5-ab).3
ext
(5) a. *Gestern wurdeDP Fritz eingeladen
ext1 1
yesterday was Fritz invited
“Yesterday, Fritzinvitedhimself.”
b. ?*Gestern wurdeDP Fritz [ vonsich ] eingeladen
ext1 1 PP 1
yesterday was Fritz by himselfinvited
“Yesterday, Fritzinvitedhimself.”
Thus, data such as those in (1)-(5) indicate that DP is present in the syntax. Note,
ext
however,thatalltheevidencepresentedsofarconcernsmateriallowerinthestructure,in
domainsc-commandedbyDP . Therefore,weendupwiththefollowinggeneralization.
ext
(6) Downward AccessibilityGeneralization:
The external argument in passive constructions (DP ) is accessible for items that
ext
itc-commands.
3 Baker, Johnson & Roberts (1989) analyze this as a strong crossover effect in English; however, since
Germandoesnothaveobligatoryfrontingtosubjectposition(cf.Grewendorf(1989),Haider(2010),among
manyothers),strongcrossovercannotsolelyberesponsiblefortheillformednessofthesentencesin(5).
3
2.2. UpwardInaccessibility
In contrast, a question that does not seem to have been as widely pursued is whether the
external argument in passive constructions is also accessible for items higher up in the
structure. Closer inspection reveals that this is not the case. Note first that DP can
ext
never be bound by a quantified item in a higher clause (see Alexiadou et al. (2015)); this
isshownforimpersonalpassives,wherenonominativeargumentremainsafterpassiviza-
tion, in (7-a).4 Such bindingis unproblematicif theexternal argument is resumed as part
ofa by-phrase, asin (7-b).
(7) a. *Kein Student gibtzu [ dassDP schlechtgearbeitet wurde]
1 CP ext1
no student admits that badly worked was
“No studentadmitsthathedidnotwork well.”
b. Kein Student gibtzu [ dassDP schlecht[ von ihm ]gearbeitet
1 CP ext1 PP 1
no student admits that badly by him well
wurde]
worked was
“No studentadmitsthathedidnotwork well.”
In the same way, personal passives disallow binding of DP by a quantified item in a
ext
higherclause; cf. (8-a)vs. (8-b).
(8) a. *Erhat den meistenLehrern gesagt [ dass DP derMaria Bücher
1 CP ext1
hehas the most teachers said that the Maria books
dat dat nom
geschenkt werden sollen]
given are should
“He toldmostteachers thattheyshouldgivebookstoMaria.”
b. Erhat den meistenLehrern gesagt [ dass DP derMaria [ von
1 CP ext1 PP
hehas the most teachers said that the Maria by
dat dat
ihnen ] Bücher geschenktwerden sollen]
1
themselvesbooks given are should
nom
“He toldmostteachers thattheyshouldgivebookstoMaria.”
Third, as observed in Stechow & Sternefeld (1988, 447-451), Wunderlich (1989), Ste-
chow (1989), and Haider (2010, 293), control infinitives must have an accessible subject
argument. DP in passiveclauses can evidentlynot satisfy this condition; this is shown
ext
for controlintoimpersonalpassivesin (9).
(9) a. *Erversucht[ DP gearbeitet zu werden ]
CP ext
hetries worked to be
“He triesto ensurethatwork isbeingdone.”
4 Hereandhenceforth,DP inasyntacticrepresentationsignalsthatDP seemstobeinaccessible.
ext ext
4
b. *weil [ bald DP geschlafenzu werden ]gewünschtwird
CP ext
because soon slept to be wished is
“because someonewishesthatsleep comesoverpeople.”
Fourth, non-overt material can in principle satisfy criterial movementconstraints in Ger-
man. This is standardly assumed for extraction from embedded verb-second clauses as
in (10-a) (where the intermediate movement step to SpecC can satisfy a verb-second C
projection’s specifier requirement), and it also holds for topic drop constructions as in
(10-b).
(10) a. Wer glaubstdu [ –hat Recht ] ?
1 CP
who think you is right
nom
“Who do youthinkisright?”
b. – habeichschon gesehenheute
(her) have I already seen today
“I havealready seen hertoday.”
However,DP canneversatisfyacriterialmovementconstraintinpassiveconstructions;
ext
cf. (11-a)vs. (11-bc)(with aby-phrasePP andan expletiveinSpecC, respectively).
(11) a. *Ich denke[ DP istgut gearbeitet worden]
CP ext1
I think is wellworked been
“I thinkthat peopleworked well.”
b. Ich denke[ [ vonihr ]ist gut gearbeitet worden ]
CP PP 1
I think by her is well workedbeen
“I thinkthat sheworked well.”
c. Ich denke[ es istDP gut gearbeitet worden]
CP ext1
I think it is wellworked been
“I thinkthat peopleworked well.”
Thefifthobservationconcernstheabsenceofminimalityeffectsinpassiveconstructions.
As noted by Collins (2005), if DP is structurally represented in passive constructions,
ext
it is a priori unclear why movementof the internal argument to subject position can take
place, given that movement obeys minimality: DP in Specv is invariably closer to
ext
SpecT than DP (i.e., an internal argument DP) in VP. The relevant derivation is given
int
in (12).
(12) [TP [T′ T[vP DPext [v′ v [VP V DPint ]]]]]
x
A derivation as in (12) should be expected to be ill formed. However, DP moves to
int
SpecT in Englishpassiveconstructions, which suggests that DP is in fact not syntacti-
ext
cally accessibleand can thusnotintervene;see(13).
5
(13) [TP John2 was [vP DPext,1 [v′ v [VP killedt2 ]]]]
DP canalsomovetoSpecTinGermanpassiveconstructions,whichthenalsoindicates
int
that that DP is not syntactically accessible. However, German differs from English in
ext
that movement to subject position in general is optional (see footnote 3), and that much
TP-internal word order variation can be traced back to scrambling. A test for optional
movement to SpecT in German is devised in Müller (2001): First, only a nominative
subject argument DP can precede unstressed pronouns and at the same time follow C
elements (cf. (14-a) vs. (14-b)); object DPs cannot do so (cf. (14-cd)). This strongly
suggests a designated position in which only a nominative DP can show up: SpecT.
ext
On this view, unstressed pronouns move to a domain that precedes the landing sites for
scrambling (viz., specifiers of vP or VP) but crucially follows SpecT. This rules out both
(14-c) (where DP is scrambled to a position preceding the unstressed pronoun) and
dat
(14-d) (where DP is moved to a domain that cannot be reached by scrambling, viz.
dat
TP).
(14) a. dass es [ derFritz demKarl t gegeben]hat
3 vP 1 3 2
that it the Fritz the Karl given has
acc nom dat
“that Fritzgaveitto Karl.”
b. dass derFritz es [ t demKarl t gegeben]hat
1 3 vP 1 3 2
that the Fritz it the Karl given has
nom acc dat
“that Fritzgaveitto Karl.”
c. *dass derFritz dem Karl es [ t t t gegeben]hat
1 3 2 vP 1 3 2
that the Fritz the Karl it given has
nom dat acc
“that Fritzgaveitto Karl.”
d. *dass demKarl derFritz es [ t t t gegeben]hat
3 1 2 vP 1 3 2
that the Karl the Fritz it given has
dat nom acc
“that Fritzgaveitto Karl.”
Given this state of affairs, it is clear that optional movement of a nominative DP in
int
German passive constructions has taken place in (15-a) (but not in (15-b)); and such
movementisevidentlynotblockedby an interveningDP .5
ext
5 Notethatthisreasoningrequirestwofurtherassumptions.First,movementoperationslikescramblingand
unstressedpronounfrontinghavesomewaytocircumventminimalityeffects,unlikeclassicalA-movement
toSpecT;thishaslongbeenknownandholdstrueoftheseoperationsalmostbydefinition. Onepossible
explanation for this is that the landing sites of scrambling and pronounfronting show evidence of being
A-bar rather than A-positions(see Müller (1995)). Second, A-movementof DP in (14-b)or of DP
ext int
in(15-a)toSpecTacrossafrontedpronoun(orascrambledDP)alsocanavoidminimalityeffects,again
incontrasttoA-movementthatwouldcrossanon-overtDP initsbaseposition. Again,itwouldseem
ext
reasonable to account for this by assuming that A-bar specifiers (scrambled DPs, fronted pronouns) can
neverinduceminimalityeffectswithA-movement,incontrasttoitemsintheirbasepositions.
6
(15) a. dass derKarl2 ihr3 [vP DPext,1 [v′ [VP t3 t2 vorgestellt]v ]]wurde
that the Karl her introduced was
nom dat
“that Karl was introducedtoher.”
b. dass ihr3 [vP DPext,1 [v′ [VP t3 derKarl2 vorgestellt]v ]]wurde
that her the Karl introduced was
dat nom
“that Karl was introducedtoher.”
A sixthobservationisthatDP doesnotblock anaphoricbindingfrom aboveinpassive
ext
constructions,incontrasttootherexternalargumentsinGerman,whichactasinterveners
(see Pitteroff (2014)). This is shown by the active/passive pair in an AcI construction
with lassen (‘let’) in (16). In (16-a), the subject DP die Diener (‘the servants’) blocks a
satisfaction of Principle A by sich with the matrix subject DP as antecedent; in contrast,
in the lassen-passiveconstructionin (16-b), DP does not preclude sichfrom satisfying
ext
Principle A with the matrix subject DP as antecedent; in this derivation, the reflexive
bears index 1.6 Alternatively, the reflexive can also take the embedded subject as an
antecedent, signalled here by index 2. Thus, the two possible readings of (16-b) show
both inaccessibility of DP (in the case of index 1) and accessibility of DP (in the
ext ext
case ofindex2,based onthesamereasoningas in(4)) inoneexample.7
(16) a. Der König lässt[ dieDiener sich rasieren ]}
1 act 2 ∗1/2
the king lets theservants REFL shave
nom
“Thekinglets theservantsshavethemselves.”
b. Der König lässt[ DP sich rasieren ]
1 pass ext2 1/2
the king lets REFL shave
nom
“Thekingletspeopleshavethemselves.”/“Thekingletssomeoneshavehim.”
Taken together, weend upwiththegeneralizationin(17).
(17) Upward AccessibilityGeneralization:
The external argument in passiveconstructions (DP ) is not accessible for items
ext
6 NotethatGermanAcIconstructionssometimespermitlong-distancereflexivization,butthiseffectonly
showsupwithPPs; cf. Reis(1976),Grewendorf(1983),Gunkel(2003),Barnickel(2014). Also,binding
bythematrixsubjectin(16-b)cannotbeduetoraisingofthereflexivepronounsich tothematrixclause
becausesichcanparticipateinVPtopicalization.Finally,lassen-passivesarespecialinsofaraspassivization
isnotaccompaniedbyanymorphologicalreflex;however,thestatusoftheconstructionasaregularpassive
isuncontroversial(amongotherthings,aby-phraseispossible,andlexicalrestrictionsonpassivizationare
identicaltothoseactiveinstandardpassives).
7 Asamatteroffact,thereisathirdreadingofthestringin(16-b),irrelevantinthepresentcontext,where
lassendoesnothaveacausativeorpermissiveinterpretation(aspresupposedsofar)andsichisnotanobject
oftheembeddedverbrasieren;rather,sichlassenactsasamodalpassiveauxiliary.Onthisreading,(16-b)
would mean“Itis possible to shave the king”. See Höhle(1978)fora comprehensivedescriptionof this
construction.
7
thatit doesnotc-command.
Combining the two generalizations in (6) and (17), the Accessibility Generalization in
(18)emerges.
(18) AccessibilityGeneralization(preliminaryversion):
DP in passive constructions is accessible for items that it c-commands and in-
ext
accessibleforitemsthatitdoes notc-command.
While I take (18) to be descriptively correct for the most part, the following subsection
showsthatthereisafurtherempiricalphenomenonthatwillleadtoaslightmodification.
2.3. ARefinement: QuantificationalVariabilityEffects
Consider quantificational variability effects in English, as they arise with indefinites
(see Heim (1982), Diesing (1992)) and embedded wh-clauses (see Berman (1991)); cf.
(19-ab), respectively.
(19) a. A cat is usuallysmart ∼= Mostcatsare smart
b. Johnpartly rememberswho cheated
A standard assumption that I will adopt here (though see Hinterwimmer (2005) for a
qualification) is that an indefinite DP (which can also be a wh-phrase) denotes an open
sentence with a free individual variable that can be unselectively bound by an adverb of
quantification; in line with this, existential binding in general comes about as a default
operation. As observed in Alexiadou & Müller (2015), the external argument in German
passive constructions is also subject to quantificational variability effects. This is shown
bythedatain(20-ab),withtheadverbsofquantificationgrößtenteils(‘forthemostpart’)
and zum Teil(‘partly’), and theinterpretationsas specified by thefree translations.
(20) a. Es wurdegrößtenteils DP geschlafen beim Vortrag
ext
it was forthemostpart slept at thetalk
“Mostpeoplesleptduringthetalk.”
b. Dann wurdederSprecher zumTeil DP ausgebuht
ext
then was the speaker partly booed
“Then apropersubsetofpeoplebooedthespeaker.”
For binding by the adverb of quantification to be possible in (20-ab), DP needs to be
ext
c-commanded by it, and thus must be accessible for some item outside its c-command
domain after all. This requires a modification of the Accessibility Generalization. As
it turns out, there is evidence that the adverbs of quantification in question are properly
included in the vP; thus, they can participate in vP topicalization, unlike, e.g., sentence
8
adverbialswhich aremerged outsideofvP; see(21-a)vs. (21-b).
(21) a. [ Größtenteils DP geschlafen ]wurdebeim Vortrag
ext
for themostpart slept was at thetalk
“Mostpeoplesleptduringthetalk.”
b. *[ Wahrscheinlich DP geschlafen ]wurdebeim Vortrag
ext
probably slept was at thetalk
“People probablysleptduringthetalk.”
Note also that DP cannot be bound by an adverb of quanfication outside the minimal
ext
clause; see (22-ab) (where only a reading is available where the adverb quantifies over
timespans).8
(22) a. Es war größtenteils so[ dassDP geschlafenwurdebeim Vortrag ]
CP ext
it was forthemostpart so that slept was at thetalk
“*Most peopleslept during the talk.”/“Formost of thetimepeople slept dur-
ingthetalk.”
b. Es war zumTeil so[ dass derSprecher DP ausgebuhtwurde]
CP ext
it was partly so that the speaker booed was
“*A propersubsetofpeoplebooedthespeaker.”/“Atsomepointsthespeaker
was booed.”
ThefactthatDP inGermanpassiveconstructionsissubjecttoquantificationalvariabil-
ext
ity effects can thenbe accomodatedby a minimalrefinement of(18), withtheconcept of
c-command replaced by theslightlymoreliberalnotionofm-command.
(23) AccessibilityGeneralization(final version):
DP in passive constructions is accessible for items that it m-commands and
ext
inaccessibleforitemsthat itdoesnot m-command.
If the Accessibility Generalization in (23) is correct, it implies that it is not possible to
maintain either strict syntactic accessibility or strict syntactic inaccessibility of DP in
ext
German passive constructions. For the time being, I will abstract away from possible
attempts to neverthelessmaintain existingapproaches where DP either is always, or is
ext
never, accessible in the syntax, in view of the empirical evidence presented so far; I will
addressthisissueintheAppendix(andtheconclusionwillbenegative). Beyondthat,the
Accessibility Generalization in (23) raises the question why it should hold. While there
are several ways in which (23) might in principle be derived, the null hypothesis would
clearly seem to be that accessibility is simply correlated with existence: Where DP
ext
8 Thingsaredifferentwithovertindefinites,whichcanbenon-locallyboundbyanadverbofquantification;
cf. Heim(1982).
9