A. Clitic Climbing (CC)

2 The Data

Restructuring Effects in German

Jaklin Kornfilt

Department of Forcigll

Languages and Literatures

Syracllse l"lli\(,l'sity

Josef Bayer

\1 ax -PIan k-rIls tit II t e

for PsychoJingllist ics

;\ ijll1egen

1 Introduction

In this paper we would like to argue in favour of a syntactic analysis of German whicl! can

account for at least three construction types that seem to be an obstacle to most existin!!,

proposals in recent generative grammar. In order to do so, we first want to pres('111 a spt

of relevant data. Then we will show that nl>ither reanalysis nor a mOH'lnent 'l/1aJ.vsis can

account for these data. Fina.!ly we will sketch our own proposal.

(1) a. dal) \I nS2 del' Halls\ Yngess011 hat [PRO I P2 spinell \\'agen zu zcigc'n jthat us tIt(:' H. forgotten has his car 10 sltow'that Hans has forgotten to show us his car'

b. *daf.\ IIIIS2 del' Hallsl bc'dauert hat [PRO] e2 s"in :\11tO zeigPll Zll lIllis,~I'll]

that 11S the H. regret tpc] has his car SllOW to hayp

'that Hans has rpgrc't!0d to han' to show us his car

\Ve will deal here with three types of constructiolls in German, which we will rd('r to

with descriptive labels that should !lot be confused with the a!lal~'sis we ,HI' goin!!, to

present ourselves: Clitic Climbing, Long Passives, and Preposed Verb Clusters. Each of

these phenomena appears only wit l! a certain class of verbs, a class \\'hiclt Illay broadly

be characterised as "Restructuring \'erbs", In (1) we prescnt (,xilmples of possiblp and

impossible Clitic Climbing:

III tiLc'seexanlples it appears <is if the (clitic) lIT1S has lIloH,d frolll the cOlllpk-Inent clallsPinto the lIlatrix clausc'. :\ ,similar drecl app('MS ill (2) where it Se('IIIS th;l1 ~P-IIIO\'('llIeIl1

has crossed the lower clause b011Ildary s11cli that the object ~P of the 10\\'1'1' clMI:,e 1)I'C0111('S

the subject ~p of the high"r clausc':

:! I

B. "Long" Passives

C. Preposed Verb Clusters

hatha",

vergessen

forgot ten

repal'leren zu III iissen]

repall' to have

daB del' lIansr [PRO l IIns selnen Wagen ZIl zeigen]

that the 11. liS his car to show'that Hans has forgotten to show Ih his car'

b. *daB [del' \Vagen]1 bedrtuert wurdl' [( rHO) el

that the car regretted \v'a5'that it was regretted to haxe to repair the car'

Thl' second prob11'1I1 whic!J is also prolllilll'ut in lIilPl-?,"man and \'all !til'lllsdijk\ work is

t 11;1t it is unclear \\'hat to do Willl PHO. Tlic aut!Jors ~ug,gl'sl that PHO disappears wheu

H(·an;dysis rtpplie~. Tlli., \\0111<1 I", plall"ihll' if ollh' ca~l's of subjcct cOlltro! \\ere involved.

A similar aSYIllmetry between the verbs l·UljfS.'i(n and bedauern can he o!>ser\'ed with

resjlect to the examples in (3).

One analysis that conIes to mind immediately is reanalysis. It is conceptually attractive,

but it faces problems of significant weight. Let liS assume a [Haegeman <'\: van Riemsdijk 8G]

kind of reanal.vsis. They state the following rule:

[lIaegeman & van Rielw;dijk ,'(G]

3 Reanalysis

(2) a. daB [del' \Vai!,en]1 verl-?,essen wurde [( PltO) el ZIl reparieren]

that t he car forgotten wa.s to repair·that it was forgotten to reprtir 111(' (<IT''

(") Reanalysis:

If the representation of a sentence contains the line XVqV r Y. rtnd if V r

is a V(P)R verb. then add the line XVIY to that representation.

( I) a'

The first problem in appl:-"ing a strictly local rule like this arises from the fact that \',

I~ not always strictly adjacent to Vq. For example whcn (4) applies to ... ei,nll IVuljfll zu

::rilJfll and the raising verb verlje .......e'TI in the strllcture underlying (la) (shown as (la')), it

is unclear how subsequent extrapositiou or iuversioll withiu the \'-cluster could ignore t!J1'

duxiliary hat:

:Z'2

In (:3) it appears that the (non-finite) matrix verb and the zu-verb of the complement

clause have formed a new syntactic category which then has been moved to the IHe-verbal

Spec-of-ep position. Again. this is only possible with Restructuring verbs. Let liS now

seek a possible account for these data.

( :;) a. [zu reparieren vergessen] hat der Hans den Wagen n ich t

to repair forgotten has the H. the car not'to forget to repair the car is not what Hans has done'

b. *[zu reparieren bedauert] hat del' Hans den Wagen nicht

'to regret to repair the car is not what Hans has done'

4 Clitic Climbing (CC)

This is. howe\"('r, not so clear when objpet cant ral is involved. In this case. we iL~SUllle, PROhas to be present for proper indexini!, with the object controller. The following data showthat there are indeed object control \'prbs in German which allow for the rl'structuringeffects under consideration:

These considerations suggest that it is unlikely that the cases under scrutiny are really

instances of Verb Raising: they rather seem to be true cases of Extraposition. If this i"indeed so. then we might look at more recent approaches which acknowledge this property.

i.e., approaches which assume a full-fledged clausal structure at all levels of representation.

:2:3

del' Hans niemalst!le H. never

auszukosten]to enjoy

zu verkaufen]

to sell

daB er, mir) gestattet wurde [PRO) eithat it to-me allowed was·that it was allowed to me to sell it'

[PROj zu verkaufen erlaubt] hatte ihn mn)to sell allowed had it to- me

'Hans would !lave never allowed me to sell it'

daB ihn, ihr) del' Hans erlaubte [PRO) eithat it to-her t!le H. permitted·that Hans permitted !ler 10 enjoy it'

c.

b.

Restructuring fjJrrts ill (;r 1"1/1011

(.)) a.

[Kayne 89] has proposed a theory according to which in Italian and other Romance lan­

guages a clitic can escape from its minimal clause by head-ta-head movement. The proposalis that a strong enough I(NFL) can L-mark a VP so that a clitic can move out of this VPand attach to INFL. From INFL (and together with it) the cIitic can move to C(Oi\lP).

because the complement clause is taken to be a CP. From C, the Clitic+INFL complex canthen move to the INFL of the matrix clause. Three things are crucial for this theory: I;\FLmust be strong. Otherwise VP remains a barrier. This suggests that languages in whic!lCC occurs will be pro-drop languages. Second, clitics must be heads. Otherwise the~' could

not undergo head-ta-head movement. Third. I-C-I movement of the Clitic+I~FL complex

must coindex the lower I( );FL) with the higher I. Then. due to Specifier-Head Agreement.

only subject-controlled PltO could be involved in CC-contexts.The problems with h:ayn~~'s approach for German are numerous: As we have' shown ear,

'lier with example (5a), CC is possihle in German not only with subject control. but also inobject control structures. as seems to be the case in Spanish (see [Aissen (\:. Per!Jllut!l.'r iGl,

[Bordelois 88]. and [Llljan 80]).1 Second. in German Itot only clitics C111 lilO\"(' bu t also full

NPs. This is shown in (G):

(6) daB Hans

that H.'that Hans

unsi selneH !Vagenj vergessen hatte [PRO ei e) Zll zeigen]us his car forgotten has to show!lad forgotten to show us his car'

I [Bordelois 88] cites [}..[orin A.: St. Amour 77] for Old French facts. III Old French, Clitic Climbing (CC)was apparently permitted In structures with Nominative and Dative controllers (cL vOlllol)' 'want'. ]JCI"lIlettn.

'permit'), while not allowing CC with aCCllsative controllers (as with for'ct')' ·force').

As for Spanish. there are different Dative Control verbs reported bv different scholars: thus. [l3ordelois 1:<1)]

states that nwndu)' 'command' and t"n,nIU,. 'teach' allow for CC, while onlcn(J1" 'order', ,//fPT/I ·.sussest'.

flCOnSt:j(l)' ·a.rhisc· "will ,vield Olltpub varving in acceptability iteross differellt dialech" [Gordclois 1:'."., p. 14].

[Aissen A.:. Perlmlltter 'Ii]. 011 the other hand. li,t both onlcnu)' and ])allull)' 'to permit' ;unollS thcH .. t[lbserverbs" for CC. bill ."''f,r-n· itmong the "lIoll-trigger \'('rbs" . .\[undu,· and UI8C'lU)' Me not IllclltioJl(,d.

5 Scrambling

2.-\t least with respect to referential pI''', C;crman is not "pro-Drop", since referential pro is not licensed.\\'c ~hall not consider expleti\(' IJI'" !I,'!'t'. ~inc(' it i~ not relevant to our concern",

('I) rep [IP ... NP j V [IP PRO ej ] ]]

\.~------~)

.!o.w! HaYfr r: }aklin I\ornfilt

(S) a. Wat probeerde hij rep Cl [C, om [rp PRO el aan Marie te geven] ] ]what tried he 'in-order to Mary to gIve'What did he try to give to :\Iary'?'

b. *dat hij [ dat boek]j probeerde [ep ej [c' om [rp PRO e, te lezen] ] ]that he the book tried in-order to read'that he tried to read the book'

:21

Assume that \\'II-elements can extract from a complement to the right of the matrixverb only through a Spec-of-eP position. If so. the Scrambling theory cannot allow both

LDS and \VH-movement, but the two movement processes jointly result in perfectly gram­

matical structures. Second, according to [Webelhuth 88]. Scrambling is only allowed to tIte

Idt of a constituent (e.g. VP) which is headed b~' a Idt-governing head. Den Besten d al.

assume that the \'erb in ('I) is a right-g()\'('J'ning head. Therefore. Scrambling should rIOt be

Crucially, Scrambling IS not possible from a CP, because movement from a CP hasto pass through Spec-of-CP: yet scrambling seems somehow unable to use that position.

Thus, it is predicted that LDS and \VH-movement exclude each other. This seems, at first

sight. to be correct, as the Dutch examples in (8) show:

Third, given that I:'\FL is usuall,\' takl'n to be clause final in German, it is not clear

how the proper landing sites of CC could be determined under h:ayne's approach, sinceGerman "clitics" are found elsewhere (as seen in examples (la) and (6)), Fourth, Germancannot have a strong I~FL, because it is not a pro-drop language 2 , Finall~', this theorywould leave the phenomena of Loni!; Passi\'(' and preposed verb clusters unexplained. Thus,any theory which can account for tl1('se pll('nomena as well would have to be favoured 0\'('1'

t he approach in [h:ayne 89],Let us turn next to a Scrambling analysis,

(9) a. [Aan wieL hebben zij [ dat boekL geprobeerd [ PRO E', e) te geven]to \V 110 have they t he book tried to gl vc

'To whom haw they tried to give the book'?'

b. [WemL haben siI.' [clas DuchL versucht [PRO e, eJ zu geben]

\\'e find two serious problems with this account: First, there are cases which clearly

falsif~' the prediction that LDS and WII-movement exclude each other. Consider the Dutch

and German examples in (9):

In a detailed study of Dutch, [den Desten El al. 88] show convincingly that what they call"Long Distance Scrambling" (LDS) has to 1)(' distinguished from Verb Raising (VR). Del)

Besten et al. propose that due to the nature of the matrix verb involved in LDS. the.

complement cannot be a CP, but rather has to be all IP. From IP. they claim. a scramblingoperation can move a definite :,\P into the matrix clause:

6 An Alternative

6.1 On Projecting the Inflected Verb

(10) [ep [IP ... [vp :'iPi [vp ... V hp PRO [vp e, V] ] ] ] ] ]\ - ) ~

)( ~

25Restruclll1'ing EjJects lI! German

In the following sections, we shall outlille a treatment of the "Restructuring effects" pre­

sented in the introduction; we shall argue that our approach avoids the shortcomillgs of

the alternatives just discussed -- at least as far as German is concerned.

Thus, the Scrambling theory appears to have a number of serious problems ill derivillg

LDS or CC in Dutch alld German. For reasons we cannot go into in this paper, dell Besten

et al. predict Long Passives in Dutch to be ungrarnmatical, as indeed they are. The way it

is formulated. the putative explanation for the ungrammaticality of Dutch Long Passives

would carry over to German, where Long Passive~ are possible. however. So all in all, theScrambling theory faces difficulties in dealing with the facts presented in (1) through (3).

Let us now sketch an alternativeto the three approaches criticised earlier.

possible. The rpason for the constraint 011 Scrambling that Webelhuth proposes is likely to

rest on the more gpneraJ theory of domaill extension developed in [I":oster 87]. Accordingto Koster, a minimal maximal domain XI' can only be extended to a higher dOlllain 'l'"Pwhen both ILeads X and Y govern in tile same direction. If this is correct. the lllatrix VI'in (7) is likely to become a bounding nodI' over which extraction is impossible:

(11) a. *We will believe rei] from now on [Ip our best friends to have been killed]'

b. We [want ei] very much [ *(for) Bill to leave]i

One way of overcoming this second problem could be to scramble NP out of the lower

IP while this IP is to the left of the matrix verb, and then extrapose the rest of the IP.

There is, however, some evidence that only CPs can extrapose. For example. in English

infinitival clauses with ECM cannot extrapose:

A persistent finding in research on German syntax has been that there is little or no reason

to assume that a subject NP (with Nominative Case) can only be licensed outside the VI'.

For example, in a passive construction it is not obvious that the Nominative N P has left its

D-Structure position ill order to pick lip Case. The reason for this is that INFL in German

can be viewed as a morphological category that attaches to V, rather than as a terminal

syntactic category which takes a VP a.s its complement. In the sense of [Ahney :-;'1]. Olle

can then say that V is the semantic head. while I is the formal head of the clause. III this

way one could capture the insight that underlies the proposal of [Jackendoff 11] that V isthe head of S, and that S is actually of the category VfI/.

Following more closely recent developments of X'-theory. wc will propose, however, that

a "morphological" account of I can be formulated which is very close ill spirit to the plLrase

structure standardly assumed no\\'. namely

This is basically <11so what [nellland ,\,: I--:osllleijer KS] propose. "'hat (l:J ' ) does not

('XjHeSS is. howc\"(>r. IIlal [\'.1] is syntactically COIJlPiPx. i.e .. that I will lIltilllatel.\· be tlteformal (functional) ju'ad uf Ihc clalJ~(' (IPl in lill' ~piril of [Cboll1sh KG]. a~ indicated ill

t]w ]"('prE'sentalions ill (1:\). (1:\') can. hl)\\('\I'!". j)(' Illade \'ery' similar la (]:2a) and (12b)

ender a morphological account. the difference is that 1 is the sister of Vat morphologicalstructure (with 1 as the head of the resulting entity), not the sister of VP at syntactic

slructure (with VP as the syntactic complement of 1). Let us assume that I combines illthe morphological system, presumably in the lexicon. with a V stelll. The result may lw a

complex category of the following kind:

(for Dutch. Gcrman. ete.)

(for English. Frend!. Cle.)

I

/~V

IP

~~p I'

~VP

IP

~~P I'

~VP

b

( I:!) a

:! (j

( l:J)

(B')

( 13) is an instance of the application of the Right-Hand-Head Rule of [Williams 8]].

The entire structure now is 1. But I his is clearly not a desirable result. because we kllow

intuilively that the inflecled V is more Ihan an 1. Furtbermore. if the contribution of V10 the syntax and semantics of [V+1] would be lost at the mother node. how could tlti~

category be used at all'? (1:3) would have to be represented as "double-beaded" in the sellse

of [diSciullo & Williams 87] according to whose approach this structure is right-beaded for

the I-feature, and ~- as there is no branching on tbe lexical category V -- trivially right­

headed for V. \Yhat this means is simply" that V and I are jointly visible at the mother

Ilode. Then (13) will have to be

6.1.1 The AUX-System

This difference makes important empirical predictions which wt' call onl.v nlenlion \'erv

briefly here.

An inflected V in German is then a syntactic primitive which is both [V] and [I']. Both

Y and I govern Case to the left, and license their arguments in the same fashion as ullder

the current assumptiolls for English phrase structure. The difference betwf'en English alld

Germ an in volves the COli tra.')t shown in (14):3

2,

IU

[~U]

A\'U

I

b. German

[~~]~

\.

I'

A1° )\

y a

( 14) a. English

Restructuring £jffCt8 in (;(1'/110/1

when we aSSUllle that 011((' the inflectional affix lakes an argulllcllt. il \,'ill projc(1 loll 'I'll('

only difference with (12a) alld (12b) is thC'lIthat wc do not assume IllaltllC' cOlllplellll'nlof I is YP, but that the complf'nlf'llt of I is .. due to the morphological lIature of Illl' rule

application - the zero-level category of a V-stem. This step changes (13') to

(13")

English has a class of designated verbs which are known as "auxiliarics·'. They illclude

have, be, do, modals ete. Since the beginnings of generative gralllmar. descriptions of

English have recognised a separate terminal node for these, namely A L'X (cf. [Liglltfoot 79]

(esp. Chapter 2), [Steele et al. 81]). German does not give any evidellce in fa\'our of

\ such a node separate from the YP (cf. [Ross 69]). Earlier descriptiolls which tried to

extend directly the system developed for English to German were not successful. This

difference between English and German is captured by acknowledgillg that the former

language represents I (Al'X) as a sYlltactic head with a termillal node that takes a vr·complement, while the latter language - as mallY others -- represellts I as a prilllarily

morphologi(al head takillg V as it:'; complement.

6.1.2 VP-internal Nominatives

Germall allows for VP-illtel'llalllomillati\'es. a fact that is especially relPvalll ill cOlllll'clioll

with ergative \·erbs. Ergati\'l' verbs which require' a daliH' expericncer <ll'gulllt'lll Iypically

exhibit as the unmarked collslillll'lll ordf'r D.\TI\'E\O\Ir:\\c\TI\'E·\·I~I~Il.as ill

1The most obviolls demonstration of thi,; I~ ,;een ill the ';I'erial I'ropnlie,; of the FII;.;li,;lt itllxili"n'\'~(('11I

In compa.rison with the \'-~y~t(,1ll (e,g. [Li;.;htfoot 7~], c,;pecially chapter!). 111(;(,[111"11,011 the othn ",tilt!,it is known ~illce the work of [Ho,;,; (i: l] thilt thl're i,; 110 c';';I'lItiitl differl'lIce l"'t\l('\'1I .\IIX "lid \'

6.1.3 Scrambling Effects

In the system proposed. the structure of a clause with the ohject :;P scrambled over

the subject NI' wil1 be as in (17):

(IG) daB den Postboten(ACC) del' IluIld(NO~I) gebissen halthat the mailman the dog bitten has'that the dog has bitten the l11aill11au'

a IISi-;ei!,ang,Pll i~1

raIl Ollt IS

[~r~]~

NPlAcc1 [I,P]VU

~NP[Nol11] [I' ]

VU

~VU IU

daB dpll1 Tauchpr(IHT) die Lull(.\O\I)

that the diver the ,Ill'

'that the diver ran out of air'

( J7 )

In order to make this account work. SOIllP assulllptions are necessary, First. Ca,.;\,assig;nment doesn't take place only under strict string;-adjacency as in Englisll. Otherwis\',\' \\'ould be ablP to assign Arrusati\'e ('asp only to its sister ~P, In this systelll. ho\\"('\'('r,the governing force of \' must bp retained in tllP projection of \', Second, tll\, .\ominativ('.\1' in (17) is governed b~' \', This cannot meall, 110we\'('r, that it is also liccn.~cd hy \',e,g. as an argulIlcnt of V, If this werc tlle case. the marked Scrambling order would h('indistinguishable froIlI the unmarked Ergali\'\' order sho\\n in (1.")) ..\ccordini!, to standar<1assumptions, all ullergatiH' V f<IIlIlOl take a ,subject .\P as all arg,u!llI'lIl, '1'11(' subj('ct .\1'is rather _ ill t.he active S('II1.(']lC('· licPllspd b,Y I for Cas(' alld b\' \'P for its Thet(j·rolc.l.ic('lIsing an ul1ergatin.' subjecl in ,he \']' <le. in (1'1) c<l111101 IllPall Ihat it j~ licPllspd hy\'. An activc agcl1ti\'C \. will \)(' cOlllp]ete!,\' unaffected In' the allaclllllelll of a llo11lillati\'('

Whpn V takes arguments in English, it can only take those which can be licenspd hy \',i,e,. first and primarily the selected objecls, In German, however, there appears to alsoexist an option for an unergative V to license a subject, This is, howen'r, ollly apparenllyso, The true reason is that V is at the same time I', Thus it is in principII' possible t,o

hase-generate a scrambled clause:

The problem with a phrasp structure such as (12a) is that it is unclear how nominativecasp could be assigned into VP, (For suggestions sce [den Besten 8.1]), In a phrase struclure

such as (14b) this problem does llot arise,

6.1.4 NP-Movement

4This accounts for the following contrast which is due to [Thiersch 8::!]:

'that a car was sold to the student"

c. *daii ein Wagen( NO;'!) dem Stuclenten verkauft wurde

2~)

Wagen(ACC) verkauft

car "ellsdaB IIans(NOM) dem Studenten(DAT) einen

that H. the student a'that Hans sells a car to the student'

b. daB dem Studenten ein Wagen(NOi\!) verkauft wurdesold \\'as

(18) a.

(i) [Die LlIft(NOM) ausgegangen] ist dem Tallcher(Dat) erst einlll<tlthe aIr run out IS the diver only once

(ii) *[ Der Hund(NOM) gebissen] hat den Postboten(ACC) erst einlll,,1the dog bitten has the postman anI v once

Only in (i) is the nominative NI' licensed by V. It is a genuine argument of the crgiltil'e \'. lu (id. \. does

not license :\I' at all. Thus it canuot form <t constituent with it. TJlis effect shuws up OIlC(' \1'+\' M('

moved to the first position of a V2-clause.

One alternative to NP-movement can be sketched as follo\\'s: Let us aSSlllne thal passive

morphology suppresses the Accusative assignment by the verb and the external theta-role.as usual in GB-theory. Since I is already "active" in the verb's projection (e.g. by' assigningNominative to a VP-internal subject position), passive can apply without the invol\'C'l1lentof NP-movement. In order to simplify the representation. let us assuItH' tllat tIle passiH'

auxiliary wad- is I:

Evi dence for passi ve and raisi ng as :\ P-Movement in German ha.s al ways been spa rst'. Tht,most elementary observation is that while the object NP undergoes Case change. i1 doesnot visibly move out of VP. This is shown in (18b). As (18c) shows. then' are cases in

which moving the underlying object NP out of VP would even violate other principles (as.in this case. the principle that indefinite NPs have to follow definite ones) that hold in

German:

Restructuring EjJuts in G( "/1/0/1

NP. This call 1)(' ('xpressed by adjllnc1ion. Thus. wc adjoin :-;P to \·-zero. but this adjoinedposition - as it bears Case and a Theta-role -- must Iw licellsee!. I1 ('([1/ be licellsed.however not by V. but as tilE' specificI' of 1. As such. (17) is nothing more than an ordinaryIP with a VP that remains unsaturated until Spec-of-IP is licensed.'(

6.1.5 Consequences

____C_:_a~_~~t_~-_A_"_,,, werd-

This should suffice as a rough sketch of Scrambling and NP-\!ovement/Passi\(> in (;er­

IllalL.

"!\, categorial ~\'~(C'm, are usuallv iUIC'uded (0 prc)\'ide (he eutire formal [or ti,e cOlllh,Uitlort;d ,"l", o[

tile grammar, it i" not po"ihle to Il~e thl' [ormit! for oulv a dC'Iguat('d cia" o[ (1)('rallo,I' I'n'('I",lv ,'It'h it

cou,lraint on the U"f' of fuuctlOn compo,ilioll ,,'cm, to he u(,c(';,,,tr~\', howe\('r. I[ 011'" <1,"',"'1 \\<tlll to <tllo\\'

for all unrestricted (aud lIupriucipled\ nllllhiuitlori;d po\\('r,

\\'e !lave seen above that by a seemingly minor change in the assumptions about the

projection of the inflected verb major empirical predictions can be deri\"(·d which are \"('rific'd

iJy some of the core facts of German syILtax, One could argue. hO\veH'r. that this lllO"e

leads to a system that is equivalent to a non-configurational struct ure for the GerIILe\l1

·'\littelfeld'·. as proposed by Hullert Haider in earlier work. A closer look re\"('eds. hr)\\e\'er.

t hat this is only apparently so. \Vhile in a truly non-col1figurational syste111 t Ile('(' is no

essential difference between internal an.d external argument(s). our proposed does not ha\'('

this consequence at all for a language like GerIllall. The reason is that till' licensiILg of

arguments is exactly as in the extended Xltheory of [Chomsky 86]. The \'-s~'stelll and

t he I-system do not interact, but with one exception: V and I are joined together in thl'

morphology and as such co-represent the V system and the I systelll in a sillgle syntactic

\\·ord. namely the inflected verb. This by nu means makes the system non-configllratiullal.

Another impression might be that the system is equi\'alent to a eategorial fraIllt'Work

with function composition. Suppose that category X has valenc~' nand catl'gory Y has

valency m, and that the combination of X with Y \vill lead to a new fUllctor Z which \\'ill

]Ia\"(' the valency n+I11. In this sense [V+I], with V a simple transitiw \"('rb. \\ould turn

out to be a functor which "seeks" t\\'O arguments. As long a.s such a tlwon' J"('S!H'ets the

illdependence of syntactic projection t hat was the focus of the abo\'(' ITIIlarks. OIIJ" propo,~al

could be seen as a categorial framework. There is one important difference. hO\\~('\·('r. to

which we will turn shortly. This difference arises frOIII the fact that uJlIIplex categories ;ne

allowed in our system oIlI~' as long as there is a "raising" head elenH'nt \\'hiell perlnits tile

\'isualization of the non-head at the I110ther nodf'. In most of the categorieil fraIlJ('worh~

~llch an assumption is not made. s

Before we start to exprrss this ill more fOrIllal tt'rnls. Jet us I11i1Ke t [lis c!I'<I!' \\it 11 rl'sp('ct

( 1~) )

:w

6.2 Restructuring and Clausal Complements

d. IP (and CP) can be base-generated either to the left or to t he rigid o!' t hc'

Inatrix V:

e. Perhaps IP cannot be affected by move-aJpha (clue to ib ~tatus a~ <l defecti\'('

categor~').

(20) Assumptions:a. Restructuring \'erbs take IP complements;

b. IP is a defective category;

c. A matrix V can govern (through IP) the projection of another V (IS 10llg as

V is not maximal:

:n

Let us now turu to inflnitival clause·s with ::u and propose. following other lillguists" \\ork

(e.g. [Kratzer 84]). that tltey are IPs with :::u as their head, Fllrtltennore we a~sull\e.

now following [den Besten et al. 88]' that restructuring verbs liket'f:T','pT'fchell. (,(:l'(}t""ell.

erla11ben. gestalten and a number of otlter verbs. take - at least optioll(lll,v IP COIIl­

plements. Furthermore. we assunl(' tltat clausal complements like CP and IP C(lll 1)(' hase­

generated at the left as well as at the right of their goveruing verb. and tltat 110 special

rule of Ext ra position is necessary for ~etting the com pie men t tot he ri ~h t of \. +1. Thesc'

assum pt ions are listed in (20):

Restr11ct11ring Eff(>cts in G( I'II)({ /I

to tlte inflectiOllal element 1: It was said <t])o\-e tltat I is it head \dliclt allO\\s t hi' \' ~te!ll to \w

visible at the motlt('r node Ite<tdcd \)\' it, This is clearl~' tlte proper intllitioll tll<lt IIlldl'rlie~

approaches which take V-to-I IIlm'pment as <tn illstanc(' of head-to-hedd II IO\"l'11l I'll 1 (Sl'l'

[Travis 84] and [Baker 85. 8,,\]). Thll~. the formation of a complex 1Illllti-headcd call'gory

could be constrained by a morpho]o~ical/kxical factor that detennilles whethl'r a head

allows for the visibilit~· of tll(' non-head at the mother node. I is. of course. a cdtegory

which is determined by suc h a factor. In t he next section we will COllie to knO\\' ot IH'r

categories with similar properties.

\Vhat we haW' said about the function of the finite' I in GerIllan in cullnl·ctio!l \I'itlt (j,lh)

and (17) holds in full generality for -::u-infinitives. as well. Thus. PHO can be licl'nspd (by

211) next to the verb instead of next to a VP. II' is a defectin' categor,\' into \\hidl till'

matrix V can gO\'E'j']] , and WE' lIIay therpfore assume t!Iat \. is able to gon'rn the specifier

of its complementY \' cannot gon'l'Il into the VP, because VP is a maxinlal category

which presumably does not ha\T a specifier position. When we collsider the possi bility

now that cases of CC like (la) and (Sa) or of Scrambling like' (G) arl' base-gl'I1C'ratcc!. it is

clear that the IP complement does not contain a VP. but a suh-VI' category. Till' matrix

V can govern into this "defective" \T. and since the matrix V is a restructuring vprh. tlw

govcrned verbaJ complex can pass ib features through IP as well as t ]]],(Hlgll t hI' !llalrix

VP. To express feature percolation. we call again make use of conlpkx cat('g,oric's \\'hic]!

were already introduced in cOIlnectioll with 1. Ignoring the precis(' positioning or ('Iilics at

the moment. (la) can then 1)(' represented as follows:

6This creates the problem that PHO will be gO\'<'fned. \\'e will 1<'<1\(' this problelll unaccounted for. as

it appears again and again ill modern gencrilli\'(' descriptions_

The effect of "Restructuring" is capturpd here 1).\' the governIllPll1 link indicated ill ('21 )

by t II(' dot ted line, Instead of movi ng an argumen t of t he lower cl a use ill to t he ilia t rix cLl 11 ~(',

Wt' have expressed the relation with complex ciltpgories, The question is now whl'ther t Iti"

isn't just a notationill \'ilriant of SOIlle of the other ilccollnts, The answer i" no, The reaSOl1

is that our account makes different predictions. and that it a\'oid" problems which 100111

large in the movement accounts.

The present theory is not t rollhlt'd with 1he main problE'IllS of reanal~'si", i,e,. llltN'

listed at the beginning of tbe paper: First of all, 0111' approach does not n'quire strict

(Ill == Illa1 ri\)

lm

hat J>IlO selll Auto zu

I'm

[IP]VP

Vrn

vergessell

NP

IP III

~NP

daf3 Hans uns

(L I)

.,djacellcy betwecll the two [actors to 1)(' rcanalyscd. Our thcor~' also avoids 1he malll

:Iroblem conccming PHO. i.e .. the Ilccc,sit~· to delcte I'HO: rltO call alwa.\·s 1)(' prcscnt.

rhus, there will be no problellls with propcr imkxing. The present theor.v is also [rc(' or thc

problems which were m('ntioned in connection with Kaync's proposal for CC. beCallS(' it

does not have to distinguish betwcen clitics and non-clitics; it also allo\\'s for CC in object

control contexts, and it is not committ('d to the assumption that "ltestructuring" \erbs

lake ep complements: furthermore. it does not require I as et landing .site.

As we shall see later on. our theory call naturally account for long pa".siH's and pn'posed

H'rb clusters as well.The prcsent theory also avoids the empirical and conceptual problclns pointcd out in

connection with Scrambling. Firsl of all. I\oster's theory of domain extension call he kept

In full generality. As one can see in (21), the verb ::eigen governs, Case-nlarks. and theta­

marks its indirect object :-';P canonicall~·. The fact that the rightwards ori('nted gOH'mor

('crgessen comes into play is completely irrelevant, because the goveming pro[ll'rty of :figcn

is copied onto the nodes dominated by (and dominating) UCI'fj(SSCII. Second. t II(' p;Hadox

pointed out in connection with UJa) and (9b) vanishes iIllmediatp!y,I)('c;lIIS(' the \\'11 phra.se

does not have to be extracted from the lower IP. It can be present in the Illatrix 11' a.S early

as at D-Structure. This is shown in (2'2).

N, ,lr11('/u riny FJjrcts ill (,'c ,.,//(1// :3:{

.\P

"j PIU) 1.11

Im

IlmVPrn

Ilm

[10]

~.... .. .

............... . .

[11.

m] [II~]

~In ,

/A A[~~]

A ,.I

[II.'>]VI

"Ill

(' ,

Il m

NP

CP

~Spec C'

AC IPm

~

IPm

In (23). the restructuring effect. caused b,v the filct that 1'(/'(/( SSI /I call go\"('rll t hi' lower

verb, enables the ~p der \l"ayen to 1w rerdised a.s a :\ominiltin' ill tll!' matrix cl(-lll~(',

Note now that this :\P (i.e .. der \l"fl(/UI) could also ha\'e relllaillr>d ill the lower IP.

thus completing the lower VP. III this case, l'u:(jeSSf:lI wOllld fail to gm'I'rll the lower H'rl>.

and the passi\'e morphology wUllld lo,.;e its dfect 011 the obj('cl of 11 /)///'/' f'( /I. Tile fa('\~ aJ'('exactly as our theOl',\' predich:

:F)

re pa rJ(' J'(' 11ill

NPIm

wurde PRO

[

I'm

Vf~r

~..

......... . .

// [IP][VI;,:,,] AA [~]

n··../ ~>

I

[~!~)]

Vpass

:-;-p

del' \ \'agen verge,.;selldaf3

Restructuring EjJtc!s in (,'U/I/(//I

In (22). no escape hatch for the \\'H-element has to be postulated ill the 10\\"('1' IP.

because \VII can be g;enerated at D-Structure in the matrix IP ill t!le ,.;anle wa:-' <I"; the

[-\VII]-NP das IJuch. FrOlll t!le matrix lP this \nI-element can undergo \\'Il-lllun'ment

as usual. Of course, this analysis is only consistent when the trace of Icon is not in a

derived position. Dut this is just what this proposal is arguing for.

Let us now turn to Long Passives. \Ve have said earlier that the nlalrix V can gon'rn

into a defective category. A non-maximal V-projection is defecti\·e. Thus in a case like

(2a), vergessen will govern the verb refJarieren: reJXlrieren will pass ih feature,.; onto the

VP node dominated by VtTgessen. As the two verbs are co-present at one syntactic lIode.

they can be jointly affected by passive morphology. This is shown ill (:2:3).

(23)

(27) [vP [IP I'HO zu reparierell] vergpssen], hat) [del' HailS [den \\'agen] nicllt e , p)]

(2(;) cler Hans [den Wagen] niclIt [Vf) hp PI/O zu reparieren] verges'('II] hat

'Two speakers disallowed Long Passi\'cs iu gcncr;t1 For thcm. our scntcnCl's \\'('[(' either Illlgr'llllllliLlICill

Ilnder any Case assignment or thl'\' dlo,c thc ,\C('II',iltl\'1" throughout.

wurde hier sclloll oftrr versucht

was here often tried

rep ei [IP PRO ei zu waschen ]]

to wash

b. *[ Den Turm]i wurde n<lch dem I"': rieg vergessen

the tower( ACC) was a ft er the war fargotten

(2,1 ) a. *da13 ver?,esse 11 wurde [PHO (kr \ "a?,('n zu reparier('n]

that forgot tell was t!le car(\O:-I) 10 re pall'

b. daB vergessell wurde [PRO den \\'agcn zu repa rierell]that forgotten was t he' cart .\CC) to repal I'

(25) a. *[ Den \Vagen],

the car(ACC)

[ep et [IP PRO et abzureil3en]]

to tear dow n

At this point. it is an open question whether in this case the comp]eIllelll is still ,lll

fp. If the restructuring verbs in questioll can optionall~' take a CP comp1cm('IIt. t h"1I t!le\'('

would be an additional reason not to have P<lssin' affect the complemellt. In lllis case. thl'

\P governed by the lower verb should extract via Spec-of-CP and move to thl' PH'\'('rbal

Sp('c-of-CP of the matrix clause. The result of this 1l10\'ement from CP is gi\'l'n ill t[l('

examples in (2,"'):

In an informal experiment we asked 16 educated native speakers of German to supply

the Case-marked article which is underlined in (2,)). 12 out of these 16 subjects clearl.v IHC'­frrred the Nominative in this position. at least with Subject-Control Restructuring verbs. 7

This result suggests that the Subjett-Control Restructuring verhs ha\'(' a strong tendenc~'

to obligatorily take an II' complement. In this case. the H'ason for the grall)]llaticalit~, of

(24b) would not be the presence of a CP. hut the fact that the matrix verb call not goverIlinto the YP. More empirical research has to be dOliE'. however. to strengt hen this finding.

Let us finally show how our thear.v can deal with the preposed V-cluster ill examples

like (3a) and (-"lC). We have said in (20d) tlIat IP can be freel~' gPlleraled eitlH'r to the righ 1

or to the left of V. If II' is generated to t he left of V. the' D-St ruct lire or (:~a) look.s as in( L(;):

The YP headed by i'eryessul is a maximal projection which has <I "hole" ill it. bccall.sP

li1(' inller [VPJP] is 1I0t built yet. Gi\'en the rule th<ll any (maximal) cOllstituent can 1)(,

lIlon~d to Spec-of-CP in root sentences. 1l10H'-alpha can str<lightforwardly deri\'C' (:3a). ,],11<'

S-Structure of (3a) is given ill (27):

8Note that thl' clitic~ III acceptahle ca.ses like I·Sa) call he placl'd III ('llll('r order.

(30) Dat ive Cant rol:a, clafi ihn(ACC) mir(DAT) del' Hans erlaubte allzuscltaucn

that him (to) me the 11, allowed to look at"that Hans permitted me to look at him'

b, *dafi ihn( ACC) sie( ACC) del' HailS iiherredete ZlI sllcllCJIconvillced

'that Hans convinced him to look for her'

In both sets of examples there is an ambiguity which cannot be resolved,S In (:W)

and (31) the Cases cannot he confusecl dlle to unambiguous marking: but as (:3J) SllUws,

examples with Accusative Control remain firmly ungrammatical:

:\"1

zu helfen

to help

zwallg; III Ilelrell

forced to help

b, dafi ihn(ACC) mir(DAT) del' Hans verbot anzuschauen

forbade'that Hans didn't allow nl(' to look at him'

Accusative Control:a. *dafi sift ACC) ihlll( DAT) del' Hans

that her him the JI,'that Hans forced her to help him'

b. *dafi sif(ACC) illll/(D.\T) del' lIalls iilJerred('\(' III ])1'[[('11

call vi II \'('d

'that lIalls convillced hc'r to help him'

(31)

Dative Control:a, *dafi ihm( DAT) ihr( DAT) del' Hans erlau bte

that him her the H, permitted"that Hans permitted him to help her'

b, *dafi ihm(DAT) ihr(DAT) del' Hans verbot zu helfell

forbade'that Hans didll't allow him to help' her'

(29) Accusative Control:a, *dafi ihn(ACC) sie(ACC) del' Ham zwang zu suchen

that him her the lI, forced to look for

"that Hans forced him to look for her'

(28)

Restructuring EjJuts in (;( rnllln

\Ve have mentioned in thi~ paper that !\a:-'nc's theory ([I\:ayne Kg]) of CC in J{olllallce Ilas

problems in accounting for Object Control contexts in wllicIt CC is allowed agaillst his

predictions, In our research all German \ve have found a number of Object Control verbs

which allow for Restructuring effects, Such examples tend to be stylistically awh\'ard hilt

are far from being ungrammatical. Interestingl,v, the Object Control H'rhs whiclt permit

Restructuring are always verbs with a Dative controller. As far as we know, :\ccllsative

controllers are strictly impossible,One major problem Jl\ay have to cia with confusion in the parsing proces.s. If. for

instance, a non-Nominative r\P serves as the object controller and tlte're is allotllc'r :\P

in the infinitival IP which has the same Ca.se as the controller, the parseI' will ill i!,l'ncral

reject the sentence because it may lead to a complete hreakdowll of the mapping, fro1!l Casc

structure into a Theta-grid, Examplcs are given in (28) and (29):

7 A Speculation

.lOSt! IJIl!J( I' t' Jllkli/l /\'ol'u!il/

(I) daB Ihn; uns der Hil.J1s geratcn hil.t le, il.llz\lschauen]

that him us the 11, achised ltil.S to look at

"The verb ra/en behaves as a Restructuring ""rb with respect to CC (cL (i)). le" so ror tllC prcp'l'ingof a \' cluster (cf. (ii)). and almost not at all for Long Passives (cf, (iii))'

b. Dative Controllerelllpfehlpn +befehlen +Ilabelegen +verbieten +llntersagpn +bedeuten '! +besUitigen

iibelnehmen

freistellen '! +zutrauen -: +nachsehell

gebieten '!+gestalten +raten (daw)9

abraten (davon)

der lIMI" den \\'agen nicht

thc 11, the <:M lIot

ltil.t IIns

hil.S 11'

?[ Anzuschil.uen geril.ten]

to look ,d advised

(ii)

That this distribution cannot be just accidental is supported by' Engh'::; study' of \'01'­

wegian "Complex Passives" ([Engh 84]). Engh finds the unusually high nUlnber of 84 verb~

\\,hiclI can trigger the Complex Passive. All the semantically plausible verbs which do not

allow for the Complex Passive, however, appear with an obligatory preposition,

\Vhatever the proper account for the ~orwegian Complex Passive may be,lU the fact

tbat all the (;erman verbs with an Accusative controller can take a prepositional ad\"i'rh

could lead us to a solution. Following an idea of [Bennis 86]' one call aSSUIlle that tll('

prepositional adverb is ill an A-position licensed by the verb. Then the CP ill the extra­

Jlosed position cannot also be ill all A-position. If it were, tbe Theta C'rit('rion wOllld be

(iii) *daB IIns ricr' WagCll, geraten wllrde [c, anzlIschil.lIcn]

that 11" tire Cil.f(\O:-'!j advi"ed \I' it' to look at

\\'e don't have il.n eXplil.llil.tioJ1 for thi, asvll\ll\clr\.lOSce [Hellan 81]. [Til.ril.ld,en ~q] il.lld [1\0(1/ Chri,(('n'Cll H'j]

.-\~ far as we call s('e. the Illli.!,ralllllla1ic;tlity per~i~h ill all verb~ witll .-\ccusati\'i' COll­

t rolkrs, while there is a fair number of J)ati\(' Control \'erbs which permit n('~trllctllrilli.!"

\\'(' think there is a reason which clistinguislws 1h('se two cla,sses of Object Cont rol \erh~:

all verbs with Accusative cOlltrollers call be construed with prepositiollal ad \erIJs. whilt>

with one exception -- verbs with Dative controllers cannot. \\'e give a list in (:12) in which

\\(' mark possi ble Restruct uring verbs wit h +.

(:32) a. Accusative Controllerzwingen (dazu)

dra,ngen (clazu)

ii berreden (daw)

auffordern (daw)

anhalten (clazu)

einladen (dazu)

bestimmen (dazu)

ermahnen (dazu)verleiten (dazll)

anregen (daw)

bitten (daTum)

anfleben (darum)

bestiirmen (darum)ersuchen (clarum)

anbettelll (darum)

beneiden (darum)

warnen (davor)

ii berzeugen (davon)

ansprechen (darauf)erinnern (daran)

Restruciur'ing EffEcts in (,'rT'l//{/1I :~!1

(i) weil er z1m(ACC) m,,'(DXI") empfahl/zlItrallte/verbotj.because he It(l\CC) (to) IIldIL\TI recolllllH'nded/cred,ted/forbad"

IICf. Dative verbs which can either take a clansal or an :\P complement. If they LIke another :\1'. thi~

NP has to bear structural Case. nalllely Accusative:

~, )( )

PRO

PNP,

VP

ANP[Acc] v'

App V

A

VP

In the presence of the PP, V assigns a theta role to it. and the CP can only 1)(' licensedby coindexation with the [NP,PP]. This is likel)' to be the proper road to explaining the

islandhood of such linked CPs.Let us now turn to the Restructuring effects again. \\'e have shown that in Restruc­

turing contexts the complement of the governing verb cannot be a CP, but ratller hasto be an IP. Control verbs with an Accusative controller assign a structural Case to tbe

(Accusative) NP, wbile verbs with a Dative controller assign a lexical Case to the (Dativt')NP. In the latter class, one could argue, a structural Case will be assigned to tht, clausalcomplement. l1 Let us now say that IP as a complement can only be licensed when struc­

tural Case is assigned to it. The reason for this is that Infl has nominal features and can a"such be assigned abstract Case. This will automatically license lP-complements of verbs

with Dative con trollers.

What about verbs with Accusative controllers, then? As we han> said earlier. their

structural Case must be assigned to the controller NP. The only Case tbat may !Je leftis a lexical Case. Let us now say that lexical Case must be assigned by tbese verl)s and

that this lexical Case cannot be assigned to lP, sin ce it is assigned tot be prcposi t ion a Iadverbs in A-position and cannot be transmitted by those adverbs to IP. wbich «In admit

of abstract, hence struct ural. Ca.se only. 13 u t then IP cannot be Case-I icensed. In fact. I Pgets the same status as the adjoined CP in (:3:3): it becomes an island. In conncction with

(33) above, we would say that structural Case is assigned to NP. and lexical Ca"e to PP.\Vhat will happen \,,,'hen the PP is missing'? The PP will dominate an empty elelllelJt. !Jutwill still receive the lexical Case, and will still license the co-indexed CP. lIoWCH'L in this

same configuration. an IP co-indexed with an empty PP can't be licensed duc to its

\·iolated. Note that \\'H-extr<lction can newr take place in the presence of a preposition<ll<ldverb. The PP-adverb turns the CP linked to it into an absolute island. Tltis can 1)('captured in <l representation like (:rn. where the CP appears in an adjoined position:

(33)

References

Acknowledgements

[<ll'n Besten (( 0/. 88] dell ileslell, 11.,.1. HuttclI, T. Vepnstra,./. \'Pld (l~k':-<) '\'crh Haising.Extrapositie ell de DercIe COllstru,tie· . .\Is .. ~l'ni\'('rsiteit van .-\1ll."terd'lnl.

}o,"fJ UII.7J( r r .flll;/III /\'I)I'lIfi!/III

The joint research presented here was made possible b:-: a research fellowship (l\\'arded to

.Jaklin Kornfilt by the Max-Plank-Institute for Psycholinguistics. Nijmegen. in the SUIl1l1l('r

of 1989. Various aspects of this paper were presented in the Fall of 1989 am! \Vi Iller of

1990: at the \Vorkshop on the Comparative Syntax of Germanic and Romance, held at the

l'niversity of Edinburgh. at the "Generative Grarnmatik im Sijdell" meeting ill Stuttgart.

at the Linguistics Department of Tilburg rniversity, and at the Center for the Study of

Language and Information, Stanford Fniversity. The authors wish to thank the audiC'llces

at those presentations for their questions alld comments. Richard Cooper deservcs a grl'at

deal of gratitude for his insightful help ill refol'lllatting the original manuscript.

defective nature, it need~ an OH'l't elellH'n\ to liceusc it (wl1(>re it is llot dircctly !iu'llscd

by Case); furthermore, as just mentioued. ,ill IP ,anllol bear a lexical Case, alld the ('asetransmitted to IP by co-indexation with a pp (irrespective of whether the pp is OH'rt or

Clllpty) that bears a lexical Case ,an unly be that sanle lexi,al Case and not a stru,tur,d

Case.

These ideas could ultimately lead to all explanation for thC' fan that a llllllll)('r of 1)'1­

ti\'e ,ontrol verbs allow for Rest ru,1 tiring, while Accllsati\'e Control H'rbs neH'r duo If

tll('se ideas call be worked out in more d('laiL one could probabl~' isolatc' an <tdditional

(aud hitherto unknown) factor that guides HC'strll('\llring processes and thus succe('d ill

l'xplaining why Restructuring is fOllnd with Dative Control, but not with Acctlsati\(, Cun­

I rul. ,\t the moment it is, however. somewhat unckar why IP should ollly adopt strucllJr,d('ase, while CP can also adopt lexi,al Case - i,C',. wh,v the defecti\'e nature of IP In,lf,;eS

it illlpossible for lexical Case to be assigned 10 lP. A variety of lines of reasoning ha\'e \u

1Jl' followed and more empirical investigation has to be condu('\ed before one cau e\'aJu,aH'

tllese speculations properly.

[dcn Desten 8,\] dell Destcn, n. (198·\) 'Thf' Ergative Hypothesis and Frf'e \\'or<l Order illDutch and German', in .1. Toman (ed.) Studjes jll German GraJ1JIIJar. Dordrccltt: Fori"Publications. 23-G'1.

[:\ hlley 87] Abney. S. P. (1987) Thp Engli.'h .\'OUII PhTYi-'( in its 5'tn/cn/ia! :I'pld, Ph I) di,,­sertation, :r..IlT, Cambridge. ?'--1.-\.

[:\issen & Perlmutter 76] Aissen. J. 6.: D. Perlmutter (1976) 'Clause Reduclioll ill Spanish'.ilLS 2, 1-30.

[Baker 85] Baker, M. (1985) IncOT'jioTYi/ion: :1 Thfory of Gramma/ica! Fundloll C!lolIgillU,PhD dissertation. MlT, Cambridge, t\1A.

[Baker 88] Baker, ~L (1988) Incorpomti(m: .4 ThwI'Y of Gramnw/lco! F7Iwlion C}ulluJIII.'J.Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.

[lIennis 86] Bennis, H. (1986) Gap:,; and Dummies. Dordrecht: Foris Puhli,atiolls.

[Rordelois <~8] UordC'lois. I. (I ~J~~) "From Lpxicon to Syntax', .\oluml ],OTlgllrJ(/( 1111I1 Lin­911i.<.,tic ThuJ1'Ij, 6, ;)i~J:3.

[Ross 69] Ross,.1. R. (1969) 'Auxiliaries ilS I\lain Verbs', Studies in Philosophical Lill~uis­

tics. Series I. Evanston, IL: Great Expectatiolls Press. il-IOL'.

[Taraldsen 81] Taraldsen, 1\. T. (llJ~·l) 'Helllarks on COlllplex Passi\«, Hi('jlIIIOC;ILI. b­says in HOllour of l\llllt BergslaJld. B. Br('!JdeIlHwIl ,\. 1:. II00dll<lIIi2,{'!J ('ds.). Oslo.~orwa~': ~O\'lIS forlag, FJ:I-lli·l.

11ReslruclurillY EfJuls in (,'r 1'1I11/11

[Chomsky 86] Chornsky, ~. (198li) IJarrius, Cambridge ~lA: \llT Press.

[Engh 84] Engh, J. (1984) 'On the Development of the Complex Passivc', Working ]Japersin Scanrlinarian Syntox. 10(1), 1-23.

[IIaegeman c\- van Riemsdijk 86] IIaegeman, L. "" If. van Riemsdijk ( 198G) 'Verb Projec­tion Raising, Scope and the Typology of Rules Affecting Verbs', Lill(jlllsIIr' [nqulry, 17,417-466.

[IIellan 84] lIellan. L. (1984) 'A GB- Type Analysis of Complex PassiH's and Helated COIlstructions', Working PI/PUS in ScandinaV1(l7t Syntax, 10(2), ITi.

[Jackendoff 77] Jackendoff, R. (197i) X' Synlal': A Study oJ Phmse .';Iruelurc. ('amhridge,MA: MIT Press.

[Kayne 89] Kayne, R. (1989) 'Null Subjects and CEtic Climbing', in ApfJl'oucllC."j 10 IltrNull Subject Parameter, O. Jaeggli and 1\. Safir (eds.), Dordrecht: Reiclel. n~)-2(j1.

[Koch Christensen 85] I\och Christensen. 1\. (1985) 'Complex Passin' and Conditions 011

Reanalysis', Working Papers in Scanrlinw;il/ n Syntax. 19, 1-·EI.

[Kornfilt 89] Kornfilt,.J. (HJ89) 'KP-!\lovement and ·'Restructuring"', \L .. \llTjSyr,ICllseGni versi t.v.

[Koster 87] hosIer, J. (1987) Domains anrl Dljllosties- The Harlicol A utOWJlIl!J oJ SYIl Ir/J: ,Dordrecht: Foris Publications.

[Kratzer 84] Kratzer, A. (1984) 'On DerivinfS Syntactic Differences Between Gerlllan andEnglish', Ms., Technical Cniversit.v Berlin.

[Lightfoot 79] Lightfoot, D. \V. (1979) 'Principles of Diachronic Syntax', Calilhridgl' St ud­ies in Linguistics. 23, Cambridge, England: Cambridge C niver:-.ity Press.

[Reuland &. I\osmeijer 88] Reuland, E. Se W. I\osmeijer (1988) 'ProjectillC', InflectedVerbs', Granil1ger Arbeittn ::ur Gcrnwnistischcn Linguistik, 29, \\'. Ahrdlialll (('d.),U ni versi ty of Groni ngen.

[Lujan 80] Lujan, !v!. (1980) 'CEtic Promotion and ~lood in Spanish \'(']"];al COlllplplllellts',Linguistics, 18, :381-484.

[Morin .v. SI. Amour 17] :vlorilL Y. C . .\: i\1. St. Amour (j 9il) 'Description llisloriqll('des Constructions Infinitives du FralH.;ais', Montreal ~rorkillY POWl'S In [,iW/ilI.,IIc·." 9,113-152.

[diSciullo &. Williallls 81] diSciullo, A. ~1. ,\.: L WiJliilllls (I~)~i) '011 tlie Ddinitioll ofWord'. Cambridge, \1:\: !\lIT Press.

[Steele et rd. 81] Steele, S .. :\. Akmajian, R. Delllers. E . .Jelinek, C. 1\itag;ma, H. Oelir!e,T. Wasow (1981) 'An Encyclopedia of ACX: A Study ill Cro:-.s-Lillgllislic l:qlli\'<Ile!J('(",Cambridge, ~lA: ~IIT Press.

[Thiersch 82] Thiersch, C. L. (19~2) '.\ \ote OJl 'Scrambling' and tltc LxislCJl('C of \,p',Wiener Linguistzsdlf Go::cffr. 27-28. ,~:~. 9.-),

[Tra\'is 84] Tra\'is,1. (198·l) P01'(lIlUtus and EjJU'ts of Word Ord(/' hIriot/ulI. PItD dis­sertation, ~lIT. Cambridge, :,[.\.

[\Vebelhuth 88] WebelhutlI. G. (1988) 'A l'lIiversal Theory of ScrambliJlg'. iJl Hos(>Jl. \'.(ed.), Papers from thE 10th S'NlIIdinol'ioll ConferFnce of LinlJuistics. DcpartmeJlt ofLinguistics and Phonetics, t nivprsity of Bergen.

[Williams 81] \Villiarns. E. (19,'11) 'On the Notions "Lexically Relat('c1" alld "Head of aWord" " Linguistic Inquiry, 12.245-27<1.

,12 J08(f /J([!J( l' C .I([klin I\'orll1ilt