Werner Abraham University of Groningen Dept. of German

74 Pages·2007·1.8 MB·English

by  Rijksuniversiteit Groningen

Werner Abraham
University of Groningen
- 1 -
Dept. of German
UNACCUSATIVES IN GERMAN
Introduction
This paper investigates the common properties of what are, at
first sight, three different grammatical phenomena: passive
constructions, middle constructions, and ergative verbs. It
will be shown in detail that there is one main common property
uniquely uniting the three phenomena, namely the fact that they
generally cannot govern accusative objects. In the passive and
middle some sort of syntactic absorption mechanism takes place
to exclude a direct object and, in the case of ergative verbs,
the only structural argument, while displaying commonness with
a direct object along distributional lines, has to surface as
a subject nominative.
There are exceptions to this unaccusative principle, however.
In passives and middles, the structural accusative can remain in
situ: in the passive, though not fully productive, quite un
mistakably; in the middle very regularly. We draw the conclusion
that such processes with an unabsorbed structural accusative are
derived in lexical structure. This is corroborated by the tricrger-
ing property of both the middle and the passive in German, namely
agentivity of the designated external argument, thus enabling
middles and passives to be derived from intransitive verbs and
even lexically (interent) reflexive verbs.
Particular attention is devoted to 3 different types of
middles, and their derivation. It will be seen that German middles
are basically different from the English middle. Not only will
an account be offered for this difference. What is even more in
triguing is the question why Dutch, which betrays the same
properties otherwise in the passive and the middle, is different
in one crucial respect: German cannot do without the anaphorical
clitic sich in the accusative; Dutch and Frisian have no such
element.
In the third section, attention is paid to the diagnostic
properties of ergatives. It will be claimed that lexical ergativity
- 2 -
is not a discrete, but rather a gradient property. Our claim
will be that the richer morphological means of German permit a
clearer diagnostic range for lexical ergativity than e.g. English
(AUX-selection; past participle attribute; argument extraposi
tion/ head of a prepositional infinitive structure). Drawing on
conclusions in a previous paper (Abraham 1985) an explanation,
more so than a structural account, will be presented in terms
of aspectual properties of lexical ergativity.
Werner Abraham
- 3 -
Groninaen
PASSIVATION - A MULTI-FACETED PHENOMENON IN GERMAN
1. The facts as seen from English
It will not be interesting to focus on passivation in any language
without reference to a powerful syntactic theory. Any attempt to
address its characteristics in general, extra-theoretical terms
will be doomed to failure as far as I can see. Let me therefore
stick to Chomsky's G&B-theory (1981). Passivation in English,
according to Chomsky, is to be explained as a fundamentally
syntactic process with accompanying semantic and morphological
characteristics. It involves (a) the loss of case on the subject-
NP, and (b).the "absorption"V (i.e. loss) of the case-markina of the
DO-NP.
(1.1.) phrase-structure^ tNVV NV INFLOW W2«£ ACTIVE
STRUCTURE
(1.2.) ©-structure e e
1 2
(1.3.) case structure omin ecus
The remainder is taken care of by the general principles of
conficrurationality and the case filter ("no NP must be realized
in sentential structure without realizing case"). Since only
the preverbal position is a case-carrying position (a nominative),
NP« must obtain the new, passive subject-position.
(2.1.) 9-structure 0 92 CASE ABSORPTION ON NP
(2.2.) case structure nomin 0 CASE ABSORPTION ON NP
(3.1.) phrase-structure NP2 V-e d by-NP1 PASSIVE
STRUCTURE
(3.2.) 9-structure 62 91
(3.3.) case structure nomin -
These mechanisms hold for the vast majority of verbs, though not
for all. Exceptions of a not inconsiderable amount and variety
in type have been discussed by (among others) Couper-Kuhlen 1979
and Granger 19 83. I shall disconsider them here and assume that
the mechanism sketched in (1.)-(3.) accounts for the "core grammar"
cases of passivation in English.
Werner Abraham
- 4 -
Groningen
2. Inadequacies of descriptive and explanatory quality
While in Chomsky's G&B-model (1981) the position of a head of
a constituent with respect to its complements is solely accounted
for in terms of the base-rules of the syntax (at least as far as
this position is not defined in terms of the theories of case
and of 0-structure), several other linguists have made attempts
at attributing more explanatory power to aspects of linear order :
as described in the base rules. The idea is to reduce the con
ditioning power of the base rules which can be shown to be in
adequate not only in terms of explanatory, but also in terms
of descriptive quality (see Stowell 1981, Hoekstra 1984, Koopmann
1984 and Haider 1982, 1983, 1984). While undoubtedly one main
stream of these ideas, namely Hoekstra's principle of directional
government is an important step forward, it will be seen
that the enriched theory of G&B cannot do justice to all the facts.
Let us survey a number of counter-arguments in German. As I
proceed I shall assume as a minimal position that the liberal word
order in German will not permit a systematization only by way of a
positional parameter. This, in any case, rules out a purely syntactic
trace-account of passivation in German.
2.1. The composite mechanism of subject-dethematization and the
case-filter effect
(2.1.), (3.1.) and (3.2.)/(3.3.) above represent the composite
mechanism of what in Relational Grammar is called the "demotion
of the subject" and the "promotion of the direct object (DO)".
The latter is a consequence of the case filter principle ("no
NP without case-assigment"). In German, however, there is no
such comDOsite mechanism at all for the pseudo-passive, where a
subject is demoted (i.e. the verbal valency of the subject is
dismantled) without a DO even being existent.
(4.1.) ONE-PLACE VERB:
Da/Es wurde (von allen Gästen) heftigst getanzt
there/it became (by all the guests) most vehemently danced
"There was vehement dancing by all the guests"
Werner Abraham
Groningen - 5 -
(4.2. ) TWO-PLACE VERB WITH GENETIVE OBJECT:
Dessen wurde nie vergessen
this(gen.) was never forgotten
"Noone ever forgot this"
(4.3.) TWO-PLACE VERB WITH PREPOSITIONAL OBJECT:
An soziale Pflichten wird in Holland nicht gerne erinnert
of social duties becomes not gladly reminded
"One does not like to be reminded of social duties in Holland'
In no single case is there a DO that has to be part of the pas
sivizing process. The demoted subject can, but need not, be
realized. That this is, albeit marginal in occurrence, not an
idiosyncrasy of modern German can be made up by examples in MHG
(according to Grosse 1982: 398).
(5) es enwart nie geste mere baz ge-pflegen
it AUX(Sg.) never quests(gen.pl.) more well treated
While such phenomena are a good case against the assumption of
a passivizinq syntax based on categorial traces and their positional
definition, they do not, however, constitute a counter-argument
against the analytic account of the German passive. Note
that all we have to do is losen the composite character of the subject
demotion and the promotion of the DO. If there is no DO present
the case filter simply will not have to apply.
2.2. Absorption of the accusative case
"Absorption" is a metaphorical terminology for the phenomenon that
a passive participle never subcategorizes for a DO in the ac
cusative. Thus, by de-selecting the accusative of NP in (1.1.)/
2
(1.3.) - see (2.2.)/(3.2.) - the case-less NP becomes the subject
2
to the case-filter and "moves" to some other NP-landing site
where an unimpaired case-marking, but no 0-role marking, is to be
found. I think this is in itself an adventurous story implying,
in a mysterious way, preordained directionality of this movement
(namely leftwards to the nominative site deserted by the subject-
6) as well as the exclusiveness of the "external" case position
of the subject as a landing site. All other, inherent (=lexically
selected), case positions are exempted from such movements and
landing properties. See (6)
(6) Den Novizen wurde vom Abt zuerst der Bandstand den Handstand gelehrt
10-3 AG SUBJ-1 T DO-4 V-passive
f
t x ' x ' —'
the novitiates (dat.) became by the abbot first the handstand taught
The SUBJ-nominative has to go to the AG-PP. The DO-accusative has
no other option but to "move" to the enroty nominative position.
Whatever the real nature of the complex mechanism, however, there
are passives in German without the absorption of the accusative.
(7.1.) Es wurde besinnungslos Dämme abgebrochen, Straßen
It became(sg.) uncontrolled dams (ace.) breken off, streets(acc.pl.)
aufgerissen, den Stra&enasphalt aufgebrochen und riesige
ripped open, the tarred surface (ace. sg.) broken uo and huge
Mengen Sperrmüll in Kanäle geworf:en
amounts(acc.pl.) of heavy waste into canals thrown
(7.2.) (warden at the door to the lecture-hall):
Es wird jetzt gerade Lyrikgedichte vorgelesen
It becomes right now lyrical poems read
Note that (7.1., 2.) dismiss the counter claim that such "passive
DO's" occur only in imperatives like (8).
(8.1.) Hier wird keine Faxen gemacht!
Here becomes(sq.) no fuss(acc.pl.) made
(8.2.) Heute wird anständig Zähne geputzt!
Today becomes(sg.) properly teeth(acc.pl.) brushed
To be true, intuitively there is a flair of an incorporated DO
to be noted in such cases warranting the canonic compounding
orthography in German. See (9).
(9.1.) FREE DO:
Hier darf nicht Teppiche geklopft/den Kinderwagen
Here must(sg.) not carpets(acc.pl.) beaten /the buggy(ace.sg.)
geschoben werden
pushed become
(9.2.) VERBAL COMPOUNDING:
Hier darf nicht teppichgeklopft/kinderwagengeschoben werden
Note, however, that this just relegates our problem from the base
syntax to the lexicon. We will come to this type of passive present
ly. Furthermore, distributive properties such as (9.3.) in contrast
Werner Abraham
Groningen - 7 -
to (9.4.) /-C9.6.), do not run counter to our conclusions, since, as
will be noted, the pronominal ihn, in topicalized position, is a
strongly rhematic element and consequently can only obtain the
prototypical rheme (=focus) position next to the lexical predicate.
See, for a different, but wrong conclusion, Nerbonne (1982: 342).
Extra-grammatical factors of this nature have been discussed
by Abraham (1986).
(9.3.) *Ihn wird gefeiert
him (ace.) AUX celebrated
(9.4.) Es wird ihn jetzt gefeiert
it AUX him(acc.) now celebrated (no further discussion!)
The pronominal ihn in (9.3.) is clearly of a less independent,
since verb-incorporated, status. See (9.5.) and (9.6.): ihm in
(9.5.) can be topicalized, and focussed, without any difficulty.
(9.5.) Ihm wird geholfen werden
him (dat.) AUX helped become
(9.6.) An unsere Pflicht braucht nicht erinnert zu werden
of our duty need not reminded to AUX
That the passive DO, however restricted in token, is un
mistakably there in type is demonstrated by middle constructions.
(10.1.) Da wurde sich heftigst bekriegt
There became reflex.-ace. ardently fought
"There was vehement fighting among them"
(10.2.) Heute wird sich einmal anständig gewaschen'.
Today becomes refl.-acc. once • properly washed
"There will have to be a good wash-up today!" (imperative)
The semantic reading of sich in (10.1.), of course is not that
of a syntactic reflexive, but that of a reciprocal. See (10.3.),
which is excluded, because the reflexive anaphor requires a
subject on the surface. Compare (10.4.) and (10.5.), which provide
the logical subject, which, however, is not accessible for the
required assignment of the anaphor.
(10.3.) *Es wurde sich selbst gewaschen
It AUX(sg.) reflex, self washed
(10.4.) *Es wurde sich selbst von den Zöglingen gewaschen
It Aux(sg.) reflex, self by the pupils washed
Werner Abraham
- 8 -
Groningen
(10.5.) Es wurde von den Zöglingen endlich gründlich Unterhosen
It Aux(sg.) by the pupils finally carefully underpants (acc.pl.)
gereinigt
cleaned
This array of examples would seem to lead to the conclusion that
in order to account for the passive in German we will have to drop
the requirement of accusative absorption, at least under the impact
of specific extra-grammatical factors.
3. Analytical (phrasal) passive vs. lexical passive
While the reflexive anaphor (see, for that reading, (9.2.)) will
be readily accounted for as a lexical complex with the verb and
therefore is unmistakably a candidate for a lexical treatment of
this type of the impersonal passive, the readino with the reciprocal
will not a priori be taken as an argument for such a principled
solution. There is evidence, however, for such a conclusion (the
mainstream of this argument is due to Nerbonne 1982: 344ff.). If
we attend carefully to the distributionally motivated division of
reflexives, namely the division between syntactic ("free") and
lexical ("non-free") reflexive pronouns, it will be seen that
impersonal passives will not allow syntactic reflexives, while
they cio in each case of the lexical reflexives.
LEXICAL REFLEXIVES
(11.1.) Es kann sich nicht dauernd geschämt 'werden MEDIO-PASSIVE
It can reflex not constantly ashamed AUX
"One cannot be ashamed all the time"
(11.2.) Glaubt man denn da?> sich hier einfach nur so
3
Believes one that reflex here simply just
angeschaut werden kann?
looked at AUX can RECIPROCAL
"Does one believe that all there can be done here
is simply looking at one another"
(11.3.) Hier wird sich kaum deutlich ausgedrückt
Here AUX reflex hardly clearly expressed
werden kommen DETRANSITIVE
AUX can
"There will hardly be a clear way of expressing oneself
here"
Werner Abraham
Groningen
On the other hand, the impersonal passive does not allow for
a syntactic reflexive meaning. See (12) in addition to (9.3.). Surely,
über sich is not lexically selected by denken "think" since it
is governed by Geschichte.
(12.1.) ACTIVE: Sie dachte an eine Geschichte über sich
She thought of a story about herself
(12.2.)PASSIVE: *Es wurde an eine Geschichte über sich gedacht
It Aux of a story about reflex thought
This is so because impersonal passives provide no subject acces
sible as an antecedent for the reflexive anaphor. In line with
this, we expect that sich in active structures which are ambiguous
between the reflexive and the reciprocal only allows for the reci
procal reading in the impersonal passive reflecting the meaning
of the active sentence. This is in fact borne out as (13.2.) shows.
See also (9.1.) and (9.2.) above.
(13.1.) Die zwei haben sich nur angeschaut REFLEXIVE + RECIPROCAL
Those two have reflex just looked
(13.2.) Es wurde sich nur angeschaut 0 RECIPROCAL
It AUX reflex just at-looked
"There was just looking at one another"
4. Passivation and government
If we accept the assumption that the theory of government will
involve a categorial parameter of the d i r e c t i o n a l i ty
of government (Stowell 1981, Haider 1984, Hoekstra 1984), then a
number of syntactic questions, among which verb-derived nominali-
zations, can be shown to receive a fairly plausible description
and explanation. See first (14) for this subpart of the theory ac
counting for Dutch and German.
(14) DIRECTIONALITY OF GOVERNMENT
/•—'s»
Noun: [+N,-V], N X rightwärd government
Adj : [+N,+V] , fAf~^X1 right- and leftward government
Verb: [-N,+V], X*r~^V leftward government
Prep: [-N,-V], P'^~*X rightward government1
Together with Hoekstra's assumption that government encompasses
Werner Abraham
- 10 -
Groningen
both 9-government and case-government this parametrized set of
linear restrictions can explain the following impersonal passives
in Dutch (van Haaften 1985: 74).
(15.1.) *Er wordt [de beplanting van de oevers] verboden
There AUX . the plant-setting of the banks forbidden
(15.2.) *Er wordt verboden [het jagen op olifanten]
There AUX forbidden the hunting of elephants
(15.3.) *Er wordt [je hond slaan] verboden
There AUX your dog beat-INF forbidden
This distribution entails a local restriction on the assignment
of case: the parenthesized nominalized constituents will have to
be placed in those sentential positions which permit case-as
signment.2 Remember that verbs govern their complements to the left ir
Dutch. See (15.4.), which is in line with this assumption.
(15.4.) [De beplanting van de oevers] wordt verboden
idem for (15.2.) and (15.3.)
If this explanation is correct how would we account for the
following distribution in German which excludes the aforementioned
solution? Compare again (15.1.-4.):
(16.1.) E's wird die Bepflanzung der Ufer verboten
(16.2.) *Es wird verboten die Bepflanzung der Ufer
(16.3.) Es wird das Jagen auf Elephanten verboten
(16.4.) Es wird deinen Hund schlagen verboten
The type of linearization in (16.2.) is out, while, contrary to
Dutch, (16.1.) and (16.3.) are acceptable. (16.4.) is restricted
insofar as it is substandard; within this vernacular, however,
it is absolutely idiomatic.
If we stick to Hoekstra's principle of category-dependent
directed government there seems but one solution possible with
respect to the difference between the Dutch and the German im
personal passives: case and 8-government depend on the lexical
item in the category of verb in German, but not on the first in
flected constituent (INFL ) such as in Dutch.