Deriving Asymmetric Coordination in German: A non-monotonic approach

Transkript

1 Deriing Asymmetric Coordination in German: A non-monotonic approach An der Philologischen Fakultät der Uniersität Leipzig eingereichte DISSERTATION zur Erlangung des akademischen Grades Doctor philosophiae (Dr. phil.) on Katja Barnickel Gutachter: PD Dr. Martin Salzmann Institut für Linguistik, Uniersität Leipzig Prof. Dr. Gereon Müller Institut für Linguistik, Uniersität Leipzig Datum der Einreichung: Datum der Verleihung:

2

3 Contents Acknowledgements List of Abbreiations List of Tables 1 Introduction and Outline 1 Challenges of SLF-Coordination 3.1 SpecialCharacteristicsoftheSecondConjunct Generalisation1: TheSubjectGap Generalisation: Agreement Generalisation3: BanagainstTopicalisation Generalisation4: NoObjectGaps ControersialData EmpiricalStudy: Horch(014) EmpiricalStudy: Bonitz(013) Generalisation5: NoVerb-FinalOrder ObserationsonMoement Generalisation6: NoATB-Moement Generalisation7: NoJointTopicalisation Scope/BindingEffects Generalisation8: Quantifiers Generalisation9: Negation Generalisation10: SubordinatingConjunctions Generalisation11: Binding SemanticInterpretation Generalisation1: Single-Eent Interpretation Voice Generalisation13: Passie MorethantwoConjuncts Generalisation14: StackedCoordination Generalisation15: Interening Conjuncts State of the Art ClausalCoordination BasicIdea Wilder(1994) Fanselow(1991)&Hartmann(1994)

4 CONTENTS Fortmann(005) Frank(00) PredicateCoordination BasicIdea Wunderlich(1988),Höhle(1990)&HeycockandKroch(1993) Johnson(00) Kathol(1995,1999) Adjunction BasicIdea BüringandHartmann(1998) Sternefeld(006,007) tevelde(008) Reich(008,009) Bonitz(013) DeriedCoordination Summary Theoretical Background BasicAssumptions MultipleWorkspaces RemoalofSyntacticStructure Non-MonotonicDeriations Analysis TheDouble-Duty-Problem TheParticipleSolution TheCoordinationSolution Discussion MoementtoaSeparateWorkspace: TriggerandRestrictions SidewardMoement: TriggerandRestrictions (Non-)Optionality of the Solutions: Justification of SLF-Coordination intermsoftenserelations TheInternalStructureofSmallClauses Summary Predictions and Implications of the Account SpecialCharacteristicsoftheSecondConjunct DeriingGeneralisation1: TheSubjectGap DeriingGeneralisation: Agreement DeriingGeneralisation3: BanagainstTopicalisation DeriingGeneralisation4: NoObjectGaps

5 CONTENTS DeriingGeneralisation5: NoVerb-FinalOrder ObserationsonMoement DeriingGeneralisation6: NoATB-Moement DeriingGeneralisation7: NoJointTopicalisation ScopeEffects,BindingandInterpretation DeriingGeneralisation8: Quantifiers DeriingGeneralisation9: Negation DeriingGeneralisation11: Binding DeriingGeneralisation1: Single-EentInterpretation Deriing Generalisation 10: Subordinating Conjunctions Voice DeriingGeneralisation13: Passie MorethantwoConjuncts DeriingGeneralisation14: StackedCoordination DeriingGeneralisation15: Interening Conjuncts SLF-Coordination s. ordinary -Coordination ComparisonGeneralisation1: TheSubject(Gap) ComparisonGeneralisation: Agreement ComparisonGeneralisation3: BanagainstTopicalisation ComparisonGeneralisation4: Object(Gaps) ComparisonGeneralisation5: WordOrder ComparisonGeneralisation6: ATB-Moement ComparisonGeneralisation7: JointTopicalisation ComparisonGeneralisation8: Quantifiers ComparisonGeneralisation9: Negation ComparisonGeneralisation10: SubordinatingConjunctions ComparisonGeneralisation11: Binding ComparisonGeneralisation1: Single-EentInterpretation ComparisonGeneralisation13: Passies Related Phenomena SLF-Coordinations. Symmetric(SubjectGap)Coordination OddCoordinations RemainingChallenge: SLF-CoordinationandUnaccusaties Conclusion WhatisAsymmetricCoordination? SummaryandconcludingRemarks

6 Acknowledgements Als erstes möchte ich mich herzlich bei meinem Dissertations-Betreuungsteam, bestehend aus Martin Salzmann, Gereon Müller, Philipp Weisser und Fabian Heck bedanken. Ich danke euch allen für die großartige Unterstützung, für Ermutigung und Lob, für konstruktie Kritik und Verbesserungsorschläge und insbesondere dafür, dass ihr euch wirklich immer sofort Zeit genommen habt, wenn ich Fragen und Probleme an euch herangetragen habe. Danke Martin für die Idee - ohne dich wäre ich ermutlich nie auf dieses Thema gestoßen! - und danke Gereon für deine Initiatie hinsichtlich des Seminars Case and Coordination, welches mir die Vertiefung ins Thema asymmetrische Koordination erheblich erleichterte. Da ich euch ja alle ier schon or meinem Dissertationsprojekt kannte, danke ich euch nicht nur für eure Unterstützung während meiner Zeit als Doktorandin, sondern auch für die Zeit daor, in der ich am Institut sowohl in zahlreichen Lehreranstaltungen als auch in persönlichen Gesprächen bereits on euch lernen durfte. Ich schätze es sehr, mit Leuten wie euch zusammen gearbeitet haben zu dürfen, die ihr für eure Arbeit spürbar brennt und es ermögt, diese Leidenschaft gleichermaßen an andere weiterzugeben. Ihr habt durch eure Begeisterung und eure Kompetenz mein Interesse an der Grammatiktheorie entfacht und unabhängig daon, was das (Berufs-)Leben nach der Promotion für mich bereithalten wird, werde ich immer gerne an diese Zeit zurückdenken. Für hilfreiche Kommentare und Anmerkungen zu früheren Versionen dieser Arbeit danke ich insbesondere Gereon Müller, Martin Salzmann, Philipp Weisser, Fabian Heck, Anke Himmelreich, Andrew Murphy und allen, die mir durch rege Diskussion nach Vorträgen oder im persönlichen Gespräch wertollen Input und Feedback gegeben haben. Andrew Murphy danke ich darüber hinaus für die Hilfe bei der Übersetzung on so manchem abenteuerlichen deutschen Sprachbeispiel ins Englische. Desweiteren danke ich Doreen Georgi, einer ausgezeichneten Lehrerin, on der ich om Anfang meines Masterstudiums in Leipzig bis zum Ende meiner Zeit als Doktorandin sehr iel gelernt habe. Von Anfang an wart ihr damalige DoktorandInnen, Doreen Georgi, Philipp Weisser, Anke Himmelreich und Ea Zimmermann alle immer große Vorbilder für mich. Insbesondere on eurer Gabe, komplizierte Sacherhalte sehr klar und erständlich darzustellen, habe ich in gemeinsam besuchten Seminaren oft profitiert und mir hoffentlich auch einiges abschauen können. Doreen Georgi, Barbara Stiebels und Peter Staroero danke ich zudem ganz herzlich für die erfolgreiche Zusammenarbeit und herorragende Betreuung meiner Arbeit zu deutschen A-N-N-Komposita, meinem ersten Projekt in IGRA. Auch möchte ich mich bei allen weiteren (ehemaligen) MitarbeiterInnen des Instituts für Linguistik in Leipzig bedanken sowie bei allen derzeitigen und ehemaligen IGRA-Mitgliedern, die sowohl fachlich als auch menschlich dazu beigetragen haben, dass ich mich in der Leipziger Linguistik weiterentwickelt

7 und or allem immer sehr wohl gefühlt habe. Dasselbe gilt für meine Studienzeit in Stuttgart, woichzurlinguistikgekommenbin. AuchdorthatteicheinetolleZeitunddankeorallem Daniel Hole für die Förderung und den Zuspruch, dabei zu bleiben. Ein überaus wichtiger Teil meiner Zeit als Doktorandin in IGRA waren meine MitkollegiatInnen! Ich finde, wir waren eine großartige Truppe und unsere gemeinsame Zeit wird mir wirklich fehlen! Tausend Dank für die ielen schönen und lustigen Momente sowohl im Unikontext als auch darüber hinaus sowie für die Unterstützung und den Zusammenhalt an trübsinnigen Tagen und in schwierigen Phasen- danke für die tollen und wertollen drei Jahre, Laura Becker, Imke Driemel, Siri Gjersøe, Matías Guzmán Naranjo, Johannes Hein, Sampson Korsah, Yuriy Kushnir, Andrew Murphy, Gurujegan Murugesan, Feyza Nalbant, Jude Nformi, Ludger Paschen, Marie-Luise Popp, Zorica Puškar, Matthias Richter, Jelena Stojkoić und Joanna Zaleska. Insbesondere meinen unmittelbaren Bürokollegen Matías und Jude danke ich für die stets angenehme (Arbeits-)Atmosphäre. Dem Büro nebenan, Andy und Johannes, spreche ich meinen Dank aus für unergesslich unterhaltende und erheiternde Momente sowie für die stete Hilfsbereitschaft bezüglich sämtlicher Linguistik- und LaTeX- Schwierigkeiten. Nicht zuletzt möchte ich mich bei all meinen FreundInnen und Familienmitgliedern bedanken, die alle auf ihre Art und Weise zum Gelingen dieser Arbeit beigetragen haben. Danke für all den Zuspruch und all die aufbauenden und kraftspendenden Worte, für ausgiebige Telefonate und Kaffeetreffen, für erheiternde Besuche, für erholsame(kurz-)urlaube, Saunatage und Wellness-Wochenenden, für entspannte Koch- und Spieleabende, für ausgelassene Feiern, für den Genuss on gemeinsamen Hobbys, fürs Bekochtwerden und für iele wohltuende Momente in der Heimat. Ganz besonderer Dank geht an meine Mama, die mir finanziell mein Studium ermöglicht hat und mir und meinem Tun dabei immer oll und ganz ertraute. Ich dankedirfüralldieunterstützungundalldieliebe,nichtnurwährendmeinerzeitalsdoktorandin. Dasselbe gilt für meinen Papa und meine Großeltern, die ihrerseits immer für mich dawarenunddiesichauchjetztmitmirmitgefreuthätten.

8 List of Abbreiations Ad Ag AN AP ATB Conj Coord CSC def DM DP ECM ext e e 1 e FinP FP indef IN IP IPI LEE LF LFG LI MLC Neg NP Aderbial Phrase Agent Animate Adjectial Phrase Across the Board Conjunct Coordination Complementiser Phrase Coordinate Structure Constraint Definite Distributed Morphology Determiner Phrase Exceptional Case Marking External Empty Element Eentone Eenttwo Finite Phrase Functional Phrase Indefinite Inanimate Inflectional Phrase Intra-arboreal precedes inter-arboreal Left Edge Ellipsis Logical Form Lexical Functional Grammar Lexical Item Minimal Link Condition Negation Nominal Phrase

9 CONTENTS Num OccP Op PIC PP Pr(ed)P Quant RP SC SCC SGF SLF Spec Subj t Th TP Vfin R V V1 WS Numeration Occasion Phrase Operator Phase Impenetrability Condition Prepositional Phrase Predicate Phrase Quantifier Relator Phrase Small Clause Strict Cycle Condition Subject gaps in finite sentences Subjektlücken in finiten Sätzen Specifier Subject Trace Theme Tense Phrase Verb Final Voice Phrase Verb Phrase Verb Projection Raising Verb Second Verb First Workspace Glosses 1 First person Second person 3 Third person acc Accusatie aux Auxiliary dat Datie DS Different Subject

10 fem fut gen inf masc neut nom perf pl poss pres ps ptcp sg SS Feminine Future Genitie Infinitie Masculine Neuter Nominatie Perfect Plural Possessie Present Person Participle Singular Same Subject Symbols * Ungrammatical sentence/string? Questionable sentence/string # Semantically wrong sentence/string [ X ] [ X ] [ X ] ////// Θ Subject/Object Gap Remoed item Structure building feature Structure remoal feature Discharged feature Permitted operation Forbidden operation Existential Quantification Theta-/Thematical role

11 LIST OF TABLES List of Tables 4 ResultsObjectGaps(cf. Horch014) ResultsObjectGaps(cf. Bonitz013) OeriewWordOrderRestrictions ReminderOeriewWordOrder ResultsSLF-s. FullCoordination(cf. Horch014) ConditionsSLF-s. FullCoordination(cf. Bonitz013:100) ResultsSLF-s. FullCoordination(cf. Bonitz013:113) ResultsSubjectGapss. SubjectPronouns(cf. Bonitz013) OeriewFullCoordination OeriewSubjectGapCoordination ResultsGaps. Pronoun(Inerted WordOrder),cf. Bonitz(013) ResultsGaps. Pronoun(SymmetricWordOrder),cf. Bonitz(013) OeriewComparisonCoordinationTypes ClassificationCoordinationTypes(cf. Reich009:39) ClassificationCoordinationTypes(cf. Bonitz013:188) FinalClassificationCoordinationTypes

12

13 1 1 Introduction and Outline In this thesis I inestigate coordinated structures in German, especially one coordination type called SLF-coordination. This term goes back to Höhle (1983, 1990, 1991) and means Subjektlücken in finiten Sätzen subject gaps in finite clauses. The name already indicates the most prominent property of this coordination type: both conjuncts are finite clauses, but the second conjunct lacks an oert subject. Instead, the subject of the first conjunct is also understood as the subjectof the second conjunct. The second mainproperty is the inerted word order withinthefirstconjunct. Thesubjectneer appearsintheprefield. Itisratherlocated inthe middle field, whereas the prefield typically is occupied by prepositional phrases(1-a), aderbs (1-b) or objects(1-c). Since word order in the conjuncts is not parallel, SLF-coordinations are also called asymmetric coordinations. (1) a. In denwald ging derjäger undfing einenhasen. into the forest went the hunter and caught a rabbit Thehunter wentintothewoodsandcaughtarabbit. Kathol(1999:305) b. Wie immersteht Hans im Flur undschwatzt mit denkollegen. howalways standshans in.thecorridorand chats withthe colleagues As always is Hans standing in the corridor chatting with his colleagues. cf. Höhle(1983:4) c. IhrealteGitarre erkaufte Maria gestern im Internet undbestellte her old guitar sold Maria yesterday in.theinternet and ordered sich gleich eineneue. herselfimmediately a new Yesterday, Maria sold her old guitar on the internet and ordered a new one immediately. Due to numerous surprising behaiours, SLF-coordination has been a recalcitrant phenomenon forthelast30years. Apartfromthemysteriousnatureofthesubjectgap,oneofthechallenging puzzles is the obseration that elements, which are deeply embedded in the first conjunct canhaescopeoerthesecondconjunctsandthattheyalsocanbinpronounsinthesecond conjunct. Furthermore, SLF-coordinations are also interesting from a semantic perspectie. The eents, denoted by the conjuncts are always interpreted as subeents of one and the same eent. Altogether, it seems like as if there is syntactically as well as semantically a ery close relation between the two conjuncts, which is not obligatorily the case for other types of coordinations. The goal of this thesisis to shed light on thosemysteriousrelations and interactions between, on the first sight, two independent conjuncts and to offer explanations for all surprising properties. The central claim is that the unexpected close relation of the conjuncts in SLF-coordinations is due to their common origin as a monoclausal structure and that this monoclausal structure is deried into a biclausal structure by reorganising particular syntactic

14 1 INTRODUCTION AND OUTLINE building blocks. More precisely, in the course of a discontinuous or non-monotonic deriation, syntactic material is merged, remoed and remerged. In a nutshell, opaque properties of the coordinated biclausal structure on the surface become clear and transparent if we consider its eolutionary history. The thesis is structured as follows: In chapter, I will present all challenging properties of SLF-coordination which hae been reported in the literature so far. I grouped them into 15 generalisations which include the grammaticality of subject gaps, the ungrammaticality of objects gaps, erbal agreement of the single subject, restrictions on moement and on combinations of different word orders, the scope and binding effects, obserations on passie oice, the single-eent interpretation and finally SLF-coordinations with more than two conjuncts. In chapter 3, I gie an oeriew on preious analyses discussing their adantages and problems. Chapter 4 proides basic theoretic assumptions and introduces the concepts of structure remoal and non-monotonic deriations which both will play a crucial role for my analysis, which is presented in chapter 5. I will illustrate step by step how an underlying monoclausal structure can be deried into a biclausal coordinated structure with a subject gap respecting well-established syntactic principles. In addition, I will present a deriation for semantically similar participle structures which I claim to hae the same structural origin as SLFcoordinations. Finally, particular steps and assumption I make are discussed in detail. Inchapter 6,Iwill showthatonthebasisofthepresentanalysisallgeneralisationslisted inchaptercanbederied. Tomakethepredictionsandimplicationsoftheanalysisastransparent as possible, eery single generalisation is discussed in a single subsection. In chapter 7, I compare SLF-coordinations with coordinations which do not exhibit a subject gap. In those coordinations which I call full coordinations eery conjunct has its own subject. I will discuss differences but also communalities between the two types of coordinationsandishowthatallofthemfollowfromthepresented analysis. In chapter 8, differences and communalities of other related coordinate structures are discussed. I start with symmetric subject gap coordinations, which are coordinations that also hae a subject gap, but which do not exhibit inerted word order in the first conjunct. Furthermore I show how the presented analysis can also account for so-called odd coordinations which are quite similar to SLF-coordinations with the difference that the second conjunct is a non-finite erb phrase. Finally, I discuss why the emergence of unaccusaties in SLFcoordinations is an especially challenging property. Chapter 9 concludes with a critical discussion of the term asymmetric coordination and an oerall summary of the results. Across the whole thesis, I consistently present and discuss recent empirical studies that hae been conducted concerning SLF-coordinations and related coordination types.

15 3 Challenges of SLF-Coordination In this chapter, I will summarise what has been reported about SLF-coordination in the literature so far. I grouped those sometimes a little bit mixed-up different obserations into 15 generalisations, pointing out why they might be challenging for a theory of SLF-coordination. The oeriew is structured as follows: First, I will introduce some characteristics of the second conjunct. Then, I present generalisations that concern both conjuncts. Those are obserations on moement, on binding and scope effects, on oice and on semantic interpretation of SLFcoordination. Finally, I mention generalisations about SLF-coordinations which exhibit more than two conjuncts..1 Special Characteristics of the Second Conjunct.1.1 Generalisation 1: The Subject Gap The subject gap is the characteristic property of this coordination type that led to its name: Subjektlücke in finiten Sätzen(SLF) subject gap in finite clauses. The second conjunct in SLFcoordination constantly lacks an oert subject. Instead, the subject of the first conjunct is also understood as the subject of the second conjunct. One might wonder, why a subject gap in a coordinated structure is something special at all. Indeed, it is not the subject gap itself that makes SLF-coordination special. It is rather the simultaneous presence of the subject gap in the second conjunct with the inerted word order in the first conjunct. In (), we see SLFcoordinations. The subject neer occupies the prefield(spec) of the first conjunct. Rather, inthispositionwefindapp(-a),anaderb(-b)oranobject(-c). Thesubjecthoweer is alwayslocated inthemiddlefield. 1 () a. In denwald ging derjäger und fing einenhasen. into the forest went the hunter and caught a rabbit Thehunter wentintothewoodsandcaughtarabbit. Kathol(1999:305) b. Wie immersteht Hans im Flur und schwatzt mit denkollegen. howalways standshans in.thecorridorand chats withthe colleagues As always is Hans standing in the corridor chatting with his colleagues. cf. Höhle(1983:4) c. IhrealteGitarre erkaufte Maria gestern im Internet und bestellte her old guitar sold Maria yesterday in.theinternet and ordered sich gleich eineneue. herselfimmediately a new Yesterday, Maria sold her old guitar on the internet and ordered a new one immediately. 1 Inordertohighlightthegapinthesecond conjunct inatheory-neutral manner, Ioftenaddedthesymbol toexamples(tomyownonesandtothosetaken fromtheliterature).

16 4 CHALLENGES OF SLF-COORDINATION Why SLF-coordination has been a challenging phenomenon for the last 30 years becomes clearer when comparing it to other types of coordinations which also exhibit subject gaps. Compare the examples in (3). These sentences are almost the ones in () with the only difference that the word order of the first conjunct is not inerted. The subjects are not deeply embedded within the first conjunct, but rather occupy its prefield. (3) a. DerJäger ging in denwald und fing einenhasen. the hunter went into the woodand caught a hare Thehunter wentintothewoodsandcaughtahare. b. Hans steht wie immerim Flur und schwatzt mit denkollegen. Hans standshow always in.thecorridorand chats withthe colleagues As always, Hans is standing in the corridor chatting with his colleagues. c. Maria erkaufte ihrealte Gitarre gestern im Internet und bestellte Maria sold her old guitar yesterday in.theinternet and ordered sich gleich eineneue. herselfimmediately a new Yesterday, Maria sold her old guitar on the internet and ordered a new one immediately. One traditional analysis of the coordinations in(3) is that the subject ATB-moed out of both conjuncts (see (4), for a more detailed introduction and discussion of ATB-moement see section..1). Alternatiely,onecouldassumecoordinationoftwoC -projectionswithabasegenerated joint subject. (4) a. DerJäger 1 [t 1 ging in denwald] und[t 1 fing einenhasen]. the hunter went into the wood and caught a hare Thehunter wentintothewoodsandcaughtahare. b. Hans 1 [t 1 steht wie immerim Flur] und[t 1 schwatzt mit den Hans standshow always in.thecorridorand chats withthe Kollegen]. colleagues As always, Hans is standing in the corridor chatting with his colleagues. c. Maria 1 [t 1 erkaufte ihrealte Gitarre gestern im Internet] und[t 1 Maria sold her old guitar yesterday in.theinternet and bestellte sich gleich eineneue]. ordered herselfimmediately a new Yesterday, Maria sold her old guitar on the internet and ordered a new one immediately. Going back to our SLF-coordination examples in() with the inerted word order, it is obious that the subject did not ATB-moe. In the first conjunct, it is still deeply embedded in the clause whereas the potential clause-initial joint landing position is occupied by other syntactic material.

17 .1 SPECIAL CHARACTERISTICS OF THE SECOND CONJUNCT 5 So, if SLF-coordination does not inole ATB-moement as in the similarly looking examples in(3), the question arises where and when the joint subject of SLF-coordinations is generated: is the gap neertheless the result of moement? Did some ellipsis process take place? Or is there a coert subject or some empty element present in the second conjunct? Moreoer, what needs to be mentioned is that German is not a pro-drop language. Hence, in regular (non-coordinated)v-clausessubjectgapsarenotpossible. 3 (5) a. * fing einenhasen. caught a hare b. * schwatzt chats mit denkollegen. withthe colleagues c. * bestellte sicheinegitarre. ordered self a guitar Thus, one major challenge for an analysis of SLF-coordination is to shed light on the nature of the subject gap and its grammaticality in this specific enironment..1. Generalisation : Agreement In SLF-coordinations, the oert subject of the first conjunct semantically is always understood as the subject of the second conjunct. Syntactically, the erb of the second conjunct always agreeswiththeoertsubjectinthefirstconjunctinpersonandnumber. Notethatinexample (6-c) also the reflexie pronoun(uns ourseles ) agrees with the subject in the first conjunct. (6) a. In denwald in the wood gingen went diejäger und fingen/*fing einen thehunter.3ps.pl and caught.3ps.pl/3ps.sg a Hasen. hare Thehunters wentintothewoodsandcaughtahare. b. Wie immerstehe ich im Flur und schwatze/*schwatzt mit howalways standi.1ps.sgin.thecorridorand chat.1ps.sg/3ps.sg with denkollegen. the colleagues As always, I m standing in the corridor chatting with my colleagues. c. Unsere alten Gitarren erkauften wir gestern im Internet und our old guitars sold we.1ps.pl yesterday in.theinternet and bestellten/*bestellte uns/*sich gleich zweineue. ordered.1ps.pl/3ps.sg self.1ps.pl/3ps.sgimmediately two new Yesterday, we sold our old guitars on the internet and ordered two new ones immediately. Foradetailedoeriewonallproposalsthathaealreadybeenmadeintheliteratureandtheirimplications see chapter 3. 3 Note that subjects can be omitted in German in cases of topic drop. Neertheless, the examples in (5) do not represent cases of topic drop.

18 6 CHALLENGES OF SLF-COORDINATION Thequestionthatautomaticallyarisesishowasubject,thatisnotpartofthesecondconjunct, can neertheless agree with the erb in the second conjunct. A theory of SLF-coordination should proide an answer to this question..1.3 Generalisation 3: Ban against Topicalisation A further well-known and robust obseration concerns the prefield of the second conjunct. The Prefield(Spec) of the second conjunct must not be occupied(7-a). Neither arguments (7-b) nor adjuncts(7-c) can be moed there. (7) a. InItalien schätzt in Italy appreciates manrotwein und[ importiertdeshalb one redwine and imports therefore Frankreich]. France In Italy one appreciates red wine and therefore grapes are imported. b. *In Italien schätzt in Italy appreciates aus Frankreich]. fromfrance man one Trauben aus grapes from Rotwein und[trauben 1 importiert deshalb t 1 redwine and grapes imports therefore c. *In Italien schätzt manrotwein und[aus Frankreich 1 importiert in Italy appreciates one redwine and fromfrance imports deshalb Trauben t 1 ]. therefore grapes Büring and Hartmann(1998:4) Ideally, an analysis of SLF-coordination can explain this ban against topicalisation in the second conjunct..1.4 Generalisation 4: No Object Gaps Controersial Data Intheliterature,thequestionwasdebatedifitisonlythesubjectthatcangomissinginSLFcoordinations. As far as I can see, the oerall intuition is that gaps in SLF-coordination are restricted to subjects and that object gaps are ungrammatical, regardless if their antecedents inthefirstconjunctareplacedintheprefield(8-a)orinthemiddlefield(8-b). (8) a. *DenHund hat keiner gefüttert undhat er geschlagen. the dog hasno.one fed and hashe hit intended: Noonehasfedthedogandhehas(it)hit. Johnson(00:107) b. *Im Wald fing derjäger einenhasenund erkaufte derförster in.thewoodcaught the hunter a hare and sold the ranger intended: The hunter caught a rabbit and the ranger sold it..

19 .1 SPECIAL CHARACTERISTICS OF THE SECOND CONJUNCT 7 Neertheless, I will briefly discuss those object-gap-examples circulating in the literature which hae been considered grammatical. (9) Judgments according to Fortmann(005) a. Den Mitgliedern der Forsterwaltung widerfahren immer wieder neue Abenteuer the members of the forestry administration always hae new adentures : So entkam demförster jüngst inderschonung einhase thusescaped the ranger recently inthe young.forest.plantations a hare undbegegnete einfuchs. and encountered a fox Thus, the(forest) ranger came across a hare in the plantation. b. Gestern beleidigteuns derstaatsanwalt undbeschimpfte derschöffe. yesterday insulted us the prosecutor and reiled the lay.judge Yesterday, the prosecutor insulted us and the lay judge reiled us. c. Im Angesicht des Entsetzlichen entfuhr dergräfin nocheinleiser at.the face of.thehorror escaped the countess yet a quiet Schrei und entschwand sodanndie Seele. screamand anished then thesoul Faced with this horror, the countess let out a quiet scream and her soul anished. d. Es ist immer wieder derselbe Ärger it s always the same trouble : Von denangebotenen Hemdengefallen demherrn die karierten, die ihm of the offered shirts like the sir theplaid thathim nicht passen, und passendie gestreiften, die ihmnicht gefallen. not fit and fit thestriped thathim not like Oftheshirtsonoffer,thegentlemanlikesthechequeredonesthatdidn tfithim, anddislikedthestripedonesthatdidfithim. Fortmann(005:454) Concerning examples (9-a,b), Reich (009), as well as Bonitz (013) for (9-a), and myself sharetheintuitionthatthemissingobjectinthesecondconjunctisnotgrammatical. 4 Bonitz (013)remarksthattheexamplein(9-c)isnotaquitefelicitousone. Theerbentschwinden to anish in the second conjunct is intransitie and, in contrast to the erb in the first conjunct, its object die Gräfin the countness is either only a facultatie object of entschwinden or een only an attribute of die Seele the soul (cf. Bonitz 013:51). Concerning example(9-d), Bonitz(013) critisises the oerall complex and nested structure. One the one hand, the subject exhibits an elided noun, die karierten, whose antecedent isembeddedinthetopicalisedppondenangebotenenhemden.ontheotherhand,themissing datie subject in the second conjunct is present in the relatie clauses die ihm nicht passen 4 Concerning (9-a): In[...] fehlteindeutigdasobjektimzweitenkonjunkt. DieAkzeptabilität diesessatzes ist ermutlich nicht sehr hoch, sodass die Markierung mit einem Sternchen oder zumindest mit einem Fragezeichen angebracht wäre, Bonitz(013:51). Concerning (9-a,b,c): Meines Erachtens sind jedoch die Daten in[...] stark abweichend, wenn nicht ungrammatisch, Reich(009:49).

20 8 CHALLENGES OF SLF-COORDINATION und die ihm nicht gefallen(cf. Bonitz 013:51). Thus, Bonitz(013) reduces the complexity and discusses the following corresponding examples instead. (10) a.?wahrscheinlich gefällt dem Kunden das Sortiment und probably likes the.dat customer.dat the.nomassortment.nom and passtdie Hose. fits the.nom trousers.nom intended: The customer will probably like the product line and the trousers will fithim. b. *Wahrscheinlich gefällt dem Kunden die Verkäuferin und probably likes the.dat customer.dat the.nomsaleswoman.nom and passtdie Hose. fits the.nom trousers.nom intended: The customer will probably like the saleswoman and the trousers will fithim. Bonitz(013:51) Bonitz (013) suspects that the gap in (10-a) is actually not associated with the object, but rather with a Vorfeld-es, like in(11). (11) Wahrscheinlich gefällt dem Kunden das Sortiment undes probably likes the.dat customer.dat the.nom assortment.nom and it passtdie Hose. fits the.nomtrousers.nom The customer will probably like the product line and the trousers will fit him. Bonitz(013:51) Thus, according to her, the acceptability of (10-a) is only a pseudo-one and relies on a repair effect. Bonitz (013) further notes that if the second argument in the first conjunct is animate (10-b), the grammaticality decreases (for further discussion see Bonitz 013:5 and Reich 009:49ff). Howeer, judgments circulating in the literature are not only based on introspection. The controersial debate on the grammaticality of object gaps yielded two empirical studies. Both studies confirm the predominant intuitions in the literature that object gaps in SLFcoordinations are ungrammatical. I will briefly summarise those studies in the following subsections Empirical Study: Horch(014) Horch (014) conducted a study with 55 German natie speakers who rated sentences with object gaps. She compared sentences with object gaps to their counterparts with a full object pronoun(v- and erb final order). All sentences were constructed with psych erbs which hae the possibility or een the preference for the order object-subject. This is important

21 .1 SPECIAL CHARACTERISTICS OF THE SECOND CONJUNCT 9 because Fortmann(005) argues that the antecedent of the gap does not hae to be obligatorily the subject, but that it rather is the highest thematic argument(for a more detailed oeriew on his analysis see section 3.1.4). The abstract structure of the releant items is gien in(1). For full examples see(13). (1) Abstract Structure of Items V: Ad V fin NP acc NP nom &(NP acc ) V fin NP nom Vfin: C NP acc NP nom V fin &(NP acc ) V fin NP nom (13) Example Items(Horch 014:146) a. V + Object Pronoun Komischerweise interessierte den Jungen die Puppe und strangely.enough concerned the.acc boy.acc the.nom doll.nomand ihn langweilte der Bagger. him.acc bored the.nomdigger.nom Strangelyenough,theboywasinterestedinthedollandwasboredofthedigger. b. V+ObjectGap Komischerweise interessierte den Jungen die Puppe und strangely.enough concerned the.acc boy.acc the.nom doll.nomand langweilte der Bagger bored the.nomdigger.nom Strangelyenough,theboywasinterestedinthedollandwasboredofthedigger. c. Vfin + Object Pronoun Wenn den Jungen die Puppe interessierte undihn if the.acc boy.acc the.nom doll.nom concerned and him.acc langweilte der Bagger, dannhatte er ungewöhnliche Interessen. bored the.nomdigger.nom then had heunusual interests If the boy was interested in the doll and bored by the digger, then he had unusual interests. d. Vfin+ObjectGap Wenn den Jungen die Puppe interessierte undlangweilte if the.acc boy.acc the.nom doll.nom concerned and bored der Bagger, dannhatte er ungewöhnliche Interessen. the.nom digger.nom then had heunusual interests If the boy was interested in the doll and bored by the digger, then he had unusual interests. Horch(014) used the method Thermometer Judgements(Featherston 007), a ariant of Magnitude Estimation. 5 The results are ery clear: All items with object gaps were rated signifi- 5 Magnitude Estimation is based on the idea that linguistic acceptability is a continuum. The central characteristic of the method isthat subjects rate all items in proportiontoeach other, on the basis of an indiidual

22 10 CHALLENGES OF SLF-COORDINATION cantly worse than their counterparts with pronouns. Especially in the V-condition, the difference was enormous. The items of the Vfin-condition in total were rated worse than the ones in the V-condition. But also in the Vfin-condition, items with object gaps were rated the worst and the difference compared to the full object pronoun counterparts was still significant(p < 0.005). Word order Antecedent Gap/Pronoun Aerage Rating V Subject Gap 67.6 V Subject Pronoun 65.8 V Object Pronoun 65.0 V Object Gap 41.8 Vfin Subject Pronoun 4.1 Vfin Object Pronoun 41.4 Vfin Subject Gap 37,5 Vfin Object Gap 3.8 Table 4: Results Object Gaps(cf. Horch 014) The same conditions were tested with subject gaps/pronouns. For the analogous conditions with subject gaps, the result was the other way around: in the V-condition, items with subject gapseenwereminimallyratedbetterthantheircounterparts withpronouns Empirical Study: Bonitz(013) The second study concerning object gaps, I will briefly summarise is the one of Bonitz(013). The design was a little bit different than Horch s(014). Bonitz(013) tested if the resolution of the gap can be ambiguousas it is the case for pronouns. Ambiguouspronoun resolution isbrieflyillustrated in(14). Thesentence isambiguousinsuchawaythatitcaneitherbethe boy that greeted the man, which is the moreaccessiblereading, or that the man greeted the boy. (14) Der Junge sah den Mann under grüßte ihn. the.nomboy.nom sawthe.acc man.acc and hegreated him. In Bonitz s(013) items, the prefield of the first conjunct is always occupied by an accusatie object. The nominatie subject is in the middlefield. In the second conjunct, there was either scale. Intheend,itcanbesaid,howmuchbetterisstructureAcomparedtostructureB(cf. Bardetal.1996). 6 Idiscusstheresultsforsubjectgapsinmoredetail inaseparatesection, seesection7.1.

23 .1 SPECIAL CHARACTERISTICS OF THE SECOND CONJUNCT 11 agaporapersonalpronoun.thecontextwaschoseninsuchaway,thattheantecedentofthe gap/pronounwaseitherfaoured to betheobjectorthesubjectinthefirstconjunct(e.g. by thechoiceoftheerb). Afurtherariablethatwasmanipulatedwastheanimacyoftheobject antecedent. The abstract structure of items is gien in(15). For full examples see(16). (15) Abstract Structure NP acc V fin NP nom &(NP nom )V fin NP acc (16) Example Items(Bonitz 013:144) a. Object Antecedent(animate) + Pronoun Den Detekti grüßte der Kellner under bestellte the.acc detectie.acc greeted the.nom waiter.nom and he.nom ordered ein Bier. a.acc beer.acc Thewaitersaidhellotothedetectie andheorderedabeer. b. Object antecedent(animate) + Gap Den Detekti grüßte der Kellner undbestellte ein the.acc detectie.acc greeted the.nom waiter.nom and ordered a.acc Bier. beer.acc Thedetectie wasgreeted bythewaiterandorderedabeer. c. Object antecedent(inanimate) + Pronoun Den Abfluss reinigte der Klempner under funktionierte the.acc drain.acc cleaned the.nomplumber.nom and he.nomfunctioned wieder. again The plumber cleaned the drain and finally it worked again. d. Object antecedent(inanimate) + Gap Den Abfluss reinigte der Klempner undfunktionierte wieder. the.acc drain.acc cleaned the.nomplumber.nom and functioned again The drain was cleaned by the plumber and finally worked again. Bonitz(013) did an online surey with 54 German natie speakers from Germany, Austria and Switzerland. She also used Magnitude Estimation. The results are also ery clear: the items with a gap and an object antecedent were significantly rated worse than those with a full pronoun referring to the object antecedent (T (53) = 13.7; p<0.001). Items with an inanimate object antecedent were rated especially worse (T (53) = 10.19; p < 0.001). This might be due to the fact that in those cases, the object reference was especially unambigous (compare the example item in(17)).

24 1 CHALLENGES OF SLF-COORDINATION (17) DenSammelbandbestellte derbibliothekar underschien jährlich. the miscellany ordered the librarian and appeared anually intended: The librarian ordered the miscellany and it appeared anually. Bonitz(013:148) As in Horch s (014) study, Bonitz (013) also tested conditions with gaps and pronouns referring to a subject antecedent. In Bonitz s (013) study, both conditions were rated much better than the object conditions. Concerning subject antecedents, there was no significant differencebetweenthegapandthepronouncondition. 7 TheaerageratingsaregieninTable 5. 8 Animacy Antecedent Gap/Pronoun Aerage Rating AN Subject Pronoun AN Subject Gap AN Object Pronoun 9.3 AN Object Gap 5.93 IN Subject Pronoun IN Subject Gap IN Object Pronoun 37.6 IN Object Gap 16.9 Table 5: Results Object Gaps(cf. Bonitz 013) To conclude, it can be stated that two different empirical studies confirm the predominant intuitions in the literature that object gaps in SLF-coordinations are ungrammatical. Thus, a theory about SLF-coordination ideally should explain why subject gaps are licit, but object gaps are not..1.5 Generalisation 5: No Verb-Final Order Afurthermaincharacteristicisthewordorderofthesecondconjunct. Ithasalwaystobein (oert) erb first order, as shown in(18-a). Verb final order is impossible(18-b). 7 Foramoredetailed discussionoftheresultsconcerning subjectgapsseesection Note that an oerall comparison of the aerage ratings of Horch s (014) and Bonitz s (013) study is not possible since their ealuation is based on different scales. What can be compared is the study-internal rating of the conditions, where in both studies object gaps are equally rated worse.

25 .1 SPECIAL CHARACTERISTICS OF THE SECOND CONJUNCT 13 (18) a. In Italien schätzt manrotwein und hasstdie Franzosen. in Italy appreciates one redwine and hates thefrench In Italy one appreciates redwine and one hates the French. b. *In Italien schätzt manrotwein und die Franzosen hasst. in Italy appreciates one redwine and thefrench hates Büring and Hartmann(1998:7) In Table 6, I gie a complete oeriew on all possible word order combinations. 9 As can be seen, the combinations which lead to ungrammaticality are V+Vfin (A3) and V1+Vfin (B3). Note that Vfin+Vfin(C3) is grammatical in turn. Hence, the challenge for an analysis of SLF-coordination is to shed light on the impossible combination of a erb-final clause with a V1/V-clause. Moreoer, it is especially interesting and challenging that the reerse word order combinations Vfin+V(C) and Vfin+V1(C1) are perfectly fine. Conj1 Conj Example (A1) V V1 EinneuesAutokauftdieMutterundfährt denganzentag damit herum. (A) V V EinneuesAutokauftdieMutterund fährtdenganzentag damit herum. (A3) V Vfin *Ein neues Auto kauft die Mutter und den ganzen Tag damit herumfährt,(hängt der Haussegen schief). (B1) V1 V1 KauftdieMuttereinneuesAutoundfährt denganzentag damit herum,(hängt der Haussegen schief). (B) V1 V KauftdieMuttereinneuesAutound fährtdenganzentag damit herum,(hängt der Haussegen schief). (B3) V1 Vfin *Kauft die Mutter ein neues Auto und den ganzen Tag damit herumfährt,(hängt der Haussegen schief). (C1) Vfin V1 Wenn die Mutter ein neues Auto kauft und fährt den ganzen Tag damit herum,(hängt der Haussegen schief). (C) Vfin V Wenn die Mutter ein neues Auto kauft und fährt den ganzen Tag damit herum,(hängt der Haussegen schief). (C3) Vfin Vfin Wenn die Mutter ein neues Auto kauft und den ganzen Tag damit herumfährt,(hängt der Haussegen schief). Table 6: Oeriew Word Order Restrictions 9 ExamplesA1,B1andC1aremarkedwithgreysincetheyleadtothesamesurfacestringasA,BandC. In section 6.1.5, I will argue that second conjuncts with V1-order actually do not exist. Rather, all second conjuncts are V-clauses.

26 14 CHALLENGES OF SLF-COORDINATION Furthermore, the second conjunct can neer be a erb-final clause introduced by any complementiserlikewenn if,when, weil because(19)ordass that (0). Itdoesnotmatterifthefirst conjunct is a V-clause(19-a)(0-a), a V1-clause(19-b)(0-b) or if it is also a complementiserclause with parallel erb-final order(19-c)(0-c). (19) No wenn/weil-clauses a. V+Vfin *EinneuesAuto kauft die Mutter undwenn/weil denganzen Tag damit a new car buys themotherand if/because the whole day with.it herumfährt, (hängt derhaussegen schief). dries.around hangs the house.mercyaskew intended: The mother buys a new car and if/because she dries around with it all day long,(there is trouble in paradise). b. V1+Vfin *Kauft die Mutter einneues Auto undwenn/weil denganzen Tag damit buys themothera new car and if/because the whole day with.it herumfährt, (hängt derhaussegen schief). dries.around hangs the house.mercyaskew intended: Ifthemotherbuysanewcarandif/becauseshedriesaroundwith it all day long,(there is trouble in paradise). c. Vfin+Vfin (0) No dass-clauses *Wenn/Weil die Mutter einneues Auto kauft undwenn/weil if/because themothera new car buys and if/because Tag damit herumfährt, (hängt derhaussegen schief). day with.itdries.around hangs the house.mercy askew den the ganzen whole intended: Ifthemotherbuysanewcarandif/becauseshedriesaroundwith it all day long,(there is trouble in paradise). a. V+Vfin *EinneuesAuto kauft die Mutter unddass denganzentag damit a new car buys themotherand that the whole day with.it herumfährt, (warklar). dries.around wasclear intended: Themotherbuysanewcaranditwasobiousthatshedries aroundwithitalldaylong. b. V1+Vfin *Kauft die Mutter einneues Auto unddass denganzen Tag damit buys themothera new car and that the whole day with.it herumfährt, (warklar). dries.around wasclear intended: Ifthemotherbuysanewcar,itisobiousthatshedriesaround

27 . OBSERVATIONS ON MOVEMENT 15 withitalldaylong. c. Vfin+Vfin *Dassdie Mutter einneues Auto kauft unddass denganzen Tag damit that themothera new car buys and that the whole day with.it herumfährt, (warklar). dries.around wasclear intended: Thatthemotherbuysanewcarandthatshedriesaroundwithit all day long, was obious. Note that the example in(19-c) and(0-c) are different from the coordination gien in(1-a). This coordination type can be analysed as -coordination with a joint subject (1-b) or as ATB-moementofthesubjectoutofbothconjuncts(1-c). 10 (1) a. Dassdie Mutter einneues that themothera new herumfährt, (warklar). dries.around wasclear Auto car b. Dassdie Mutter [ &P [ einneues that themother a new damit herumfährt]]]], (warklar). with.itdries.around wasclear kauft buys Auto car unddenganzen Tag damit and the whole day with.it kauft] buys [ & [und[ denganzen Tag and the whole day c. Dassdie Mutter 1 [t 1 einneues Auto kauft] und[t 1 denganzentag damit that themother a new car buys and the whole day with.it herumfährt, (warklar)]. dries.around wasclear That the mother buys a new car and dries around with it all day long, was obious.. Obserations on Moement..1 Generalisation 6: No ATB-Moement It is known since Ross(1967) that extraction from a single conjunct of a coordinate structure isillicit,nomatterwhethertheextractiontakesplacefromthefirst(-b)orfromthesecond conjunct(-c). () a. [Hans möchte einstudium beginnen] und[peter eine Hans wants a academic.studiesstart and Peter a Ausbildung machen]. ocational.education do Hans wants to start academic studies and Peter wants to do ocational education. 10 Foradetailed discussionofproposalsthatapply-coordinationtoslf-coordination seesection3..

28 16 CHALLENGES OF SLF-COORDINATION b. *Welches Studium 1 [möchte Hans t 1 beginnen] und[peter eine which academic.studies wants Hans start and Peter a Ausbildung machen]? ocational.education do c. *Welche Ausbildung 1 which ocational.education und[peter t 1 machen?] and Peter do [möchte wants Hans einstudium Hans a beginnen] academic.studiesstart The ban on extraction out of single conjuncts is also known as the Coordinate Structure Constraint (CSC, Ross 1967). Howeer, Ross (1967) obsered that extraction is in fact licit if it takesplacefromallconjunctsoracrosstheboard,whichledtothenameatb-moement. 11 (3) Welches Studium 1 [will Hans t 1 anfangen] und[peter t 1 abbrechen?] which academic.studies wants Hans start and Peter cancel WhichcourseofstudiesdoesHanswanttobeginandPeterwanttocancel? At first glance, one might think that the topicalised element in SLF-coordinations has ATBmoed out of both conjuncts. Howeer, example (4) shows that extraction of obligatory elements like objects out of both conjuncts is impossible. (4) a. *EinenWagen 1 kaufte Hans t 1 undmeldete t 1 sofort an. a car boughthans and registered immediately on intended: Hans bought a car and registered it immediately. Büring and Hartmann(1998:7) b. *DieGasleitung prüfte derklempner t 1 zuerstundreparierte t 1 dann. the gas.pipe checked the plumber first and repaired then intended: The plumber first checked the gas pipe and then he repaired it. The examples in(5) show that the topicalised object in the first conjunct only moed within this first conjunct since the object was neer part of the second conjunct. This becomes eident from the fact that the second conjunct can hae its own object. In (5-a), the topicalised elementeinenwagen acar istheobjectoftheerbkaufen to buy inthefirstconjunct. The erb of the second conjunct, bauen here: to cause has its own object einen Unfall an accident. Thesamecanbeseenin(5-b),whereinthefirstconjunctthetopicalisedobjectdieGasleitung thegaspipe istheobjectofprüfen tocheck,whereasinthesecondconjunctdieheizung the heating is the object the erb reparieren to repair. 11 ForapproachesofATB-moementintermsofparasiticgapsseeMunn(1993,001);Franks(1995);Boškoić and Franks (000), for a sideward moement approach see Nunes (004), for a sharing/multidimensional approach see Goodall(1987); Moltmann(199); Citko(005) and for an approach based on asymmetric extraction + ellipsis see Salzmann (01a,b, 013).

29 .3 SCOPE/BINDING EFFECTS 17 (5) a. EinenWagen 1 kaufte Hans t 1 undbaute sofort einenunfall. a car boughthans and built immediately an accident Hans bought a car and caused an accident immediately. Büring and Hartmann(1998:4) b. DieGasleitung 1 prüfte derklempner t 1 zuerstundreparierte danndie the gas.pipe checked the plumber first and repaired then the Heizung. heating The plumber first checked the gas pipe and afterwards he repaired the heating... Generalisation 7: No Joint Topicalisation Fortmann(005:44) In contrast to ordinary coordination of two s (6), the conjuncts of SLF-coordinations cannot be topicalised together(7). (6) a. Ordinary -Coordination Peter isterst nach1[nach Hause gekommen undins Bettgegangen]. Peter is only after 1 to home came and in.thebed went b. Joint Topicalisation [Nach To Hause home gekommen came Petergothomeandwenttobednotbefore1. (7) a. SLF-Coordination Endlich Finally b. *Joint Topicalisation *[Nach to undins Bettgegangen] istpeter erst nach1. and in.thebed went is Peter only after 1 darf Peter nachhause gehenund maypeter to home go and Hause home gehen go Büring and Hartmann(1998:13) istmächtig froh darüber. is almighty happy about.it undistmächtig froh darüber] darf Peter endlich. and is almighty happy about.it maypeter finally Finally, Peter can go home and he is extraordinarily happy about it. Büring and Hartmann(1998:13) An analysis of German SLF-coordination should ideally proide an explanation for this contrast..3 Scope/Binding Effects.3.1 Generalisation 8: Quantifiers If the oert subject in the first conjunct is a quantified subject, it has scope oer the whole second conjunct. This is illustrated in (8). The sentence does not mean that there are no ictims who know their persecutor and that there are no ictims that remain silent. In fact,