Folien - SFB 632

DGfS 2013, Potsdam, 13.3.2013
Rule ordering in verb cluster formation
§
Martin Salzmann, University of Leipzig
[email protected]
§
–
–
2 types of rule ordering
rules apply in different components: syntax vs. PF
2 PF rules apply at different points of the derivation
§
–
empirical domain
extraposition paradox: extraposition can target a VP that is part of a series of verbs only if
the VP is topicalized but not clause-finally: ordering of extraposition, cluster formation
and topicalization
the placement of the infinitival marker te/zu: lowering/cliticization vs. VP-inversion
–
§
–
–
–
theoretical implications
zu-placement provides arguments for a left-branching base
3rd construction involves extraposition in Standard G à derived differently than VPR
placement of the infinitival particle in German/Dutch at different points of the derivation
provides evidence for the articulation of the PF-component (with later operations being
more sensitive to linear properties)
1
The extraposition paradox
1.1
The problem
§
(1)
dass man darüber [reden3 können2
‘that one about.it talk.INF can.INF
§
–
sollte1]
should.3SG
evidence that the verbal elements form a cluster = complex head:
extraposition cannot target the embedded VP2 or VP3, the extraposee has to attach to
VP1, cf. van Riemsdijk (1998: 640ff.), Haider (2003: 92ff.), Bayer et al. (2005: 91)):
à explained if the Vs form a complex head: extraposition cannot target segements of V
–
(3)
The challenge: under VP-topicalization, extraposition CAN target VP3
[VP3 [VP3 __1
reden] darüber1]3
talk.INF about.it
§
1.2
sollte2
man schon __3 können __2
should.3SG one indeed
can.INF
(Standard G)
§
–
–
2 possibilities
cluster formation is optional
excorporation (undesirable)
–
optionality is insufficient: cluster-formation is obligatory clause-finally, cf. (2)
1
For solution based on prosody-sensitive extraposition, cf. Wurmbrand (2007):
The solution: timing
§
§
§
extraposition, V-to-C-movement and topicalization take place in syntax
verb cluster formation takes place at PF under adjacency, cf. Local Dislocation in Embick
and Noyer (2001) (for evidence: Salzmann (to appear), Wurmbrand (2004))
assumption: cluster formation is obligatory once the verbal elements are adjacent at PF
(at least when in descending order)
interactions
the cluster property in (2): extraposition of darüber ‘about.it’ can in principle target either
VP1, VP2 or VP3:
dass man[VP1 [VP1 [vp2 [VP2 [VP3 [VP3 __1 reden ] darüber1] können] darüber1] sollte] darüber1]
that one
talk.INF about.it can.INF about.it
should about.it
‘that one should be able to talk about it’
(Standard German)
(4)
321 Standard German
dass man[VP1[VP1 [vp2 [VP2 [VP3 [VP3 __1 reden ] * darüber1] können] *darüber1] sollte] √darüber1]
that one
talk.INF about.it can.INF about.it
should about.it
‘that one should be able to talk about it’
(Standard German)
(2)
à it is unclear how this can be derived both in approaches that have base-generated
clusters (e.g. Haider (2003), Bader and Schmid (2009)) and in approaches where clusters
are syntactically derived complex heads (Evers (1975) and following) à Haider (2003)
assumes that V2 and V-final-structures are not transformationally related
§
–
verb cluster: verbal elements line up at the end of the clause:
the paradox: cluster-formation must be obligatory to rule out (2), but that would make (3)
impossible
à excorporation of V1 would be necessary, but that would still not be sufficient because
of V2 können, which was also part of the cluster: Excorporation of V2 können seems
implausible because there is no evidence that V2 moves – Vs in German remain in their
base-position clause-finally
à neither excorporation nor optionality of cluster formation are sufficient
–
cluster formation is blocked unless extraposition targets VP1 à extraposition bleeds
cluster formation (in which case the derivation crashes)
–
in the topicalization structure in (3), extraposition targets VP3; this is licit since cluster
formation does not take place at the point where VP3 is in its base-position; rather:
topicalization destroys the context for cluster formation (only 1 verbal element in the
prefield) à topicalization bleeds cluster formation
–
§
Additional advantage: explains why V2-movement never involves a complex head:
(5) a. * Man [reden3 können2 sollte1] darüber schon.
one talk.INF can.INF should about.it indeed
‘One should be able to talk about it.’
b.
Man sollte1
one should
darüber schon [reden3
about.it indeed talk.INF
können2].
can.INF
2
DGfS 2013, Potsdam, 13.3.2013
Martin Salzmann: rule ordering in verb cluster formation
2
The placement of the infinitival particle te/zu
2.1
(Standard) Dutch vs. (Standard) German
§
–
–
(6) a.
§
–
Er bedauert, es nicht [verhindert3 haben1 zu können2].
He regrets
it not
prevent.PRT have.INF to can.INF
‘He regrets not having been able to prevent it.’
(9)
the infinitival particle surfaces in different positions
German: at the end of the verb cluster
Dutch: at the beginning of the verb cluster
Er dachte, das Buch [lesen3 können2 zu müssen1]
he thought the book read.INF can.INF to must.INF
‘He thought he had to be able to read the book.’
321: descending
Hij dacht
het boek [te moeten1 kunnen2 lezen3]
he thought the book to must.INF can.INF
read.INF
123: ascending
(Standard Dutch)
(Standard German)
§
–
–
–
(7) a.
2.2.2
b.
dat hij
that he
beloofde1 [te proberen2 [het boek te lezen3]]
promised to try.INF
the book to read.INF
Against prefix status: misplaced zu in Standard German
2.2.1
The phenomenon
–
–
(8) a.
321
123
2.2
§
–
provisional analysis:
te/zu is a prefix in both languages that attaches to V1 à it is not an independent
syntactic element (cf. e.g. Haider (1993))
the surface difference results from differences in verb cluster formation (e.g. adjunction
to the left in German, adjunction to the right in Dutch)
Further evidence: once there are several verbs that select a zu-/te-infinitive, the particle
appears twice (‘promise’ and ‘try’ require a zu-/te-complement)
dass er [[das Buch zu lesen3] zu versuchen2] versprach1
that he the book to read.INF to try.INF
promised
‘that he promised to try to read the book’
Bech (1983): in ascending, i.e. 132 clusters, zu does not occur attached to the verb that
should be marked with zu (i.e. bears so-called 2nd status):
conjunction ohne ‘without’ selects a zu-infinitive à V1 should bear zu
only grammatical option: V2 bears zu – even though it should be a bare infinitive
ohne
dass er es mich [hat1 prüfen3 lassen2]
without that he it me has verify.INF let.INF
lit.: ‘without that he let me verify it’
132, V1 = finite
b. * ohne
es mich [zu haben1
prüfen3 lassen2]
without it me to have.INF verify.INF let.INF
‘without having let me verify it’
132, V1 = non-finite
c. ? ohne
es mich [haben1 prüfen3 zu lassen2]
without it me have.INF verify.INF to let.INF
132, V1 = non-finite
(Haider (2011: 227))
312
à treating zu as a prefix does not work
§
b.
Vogel (2009: 308): ‘scandal construction’
non-finite 312 orders where zu again appears on V2 [and V3 bears irregular participial
morphology] (matrix verb ‘regret’ selects a complement with a zu-infinitive):
Explanations for misplaced zu:
von Stechow (1990: 159): lowering/incorporation: zu is in INFL and is incorporated into
the verbal complex AFTER reanalysis, but before PF/LF:
problem: this seems to be a case of lowering/affix hopping, but if this is syntactic, it is
unclear why it does not target the head of the cluster … seems sensitive to adjacency
§
–
Sternefeld (1990: 251): rightmost V moves to INFL à after verb cluster formation
unclear why the wrong verb would move to INFL; excorporation problem
§
Sternefeld (2006: 659ff.): lexically conditioned feature migration
§
Hinterhölzl (2009): zu fuses with adjacent infinitive at Morphological Form
§
Bader (1995), Vogel (2009): realizational approaches: zu = phrasal affix/edge inflection:
zu is not a syntactic head but just a feature, realized as an affix according to some edge
condition: always before the last V of the VC (for an exception, cf. Schallert (2012: 252))
§
–
–
major drawback:
unclear to what extent the rule can be generalized to all instances of zu in German
approaches have nothing to say about the cross-linguistic variation
§
–
–
Two opposing views
a construction that follows the rules of grammar: Vogel (2009)
a grammatical illusion (= an ungrammatical, quirky repair): Haider (2011)
§
More on displaced morphology: Höhle (2006), Den Dikken and Hoekstra (1997)
Misplaced z in Alemannic varieties of German
2.3
§
–
–
–
(10) a.
b.
The empirical situation is different:
ascending clusters are much more frequent, also with 2-V-clusters
misplaced z appears with different cluster types, not just with Aux-Mod-Inf clusters
constructions with misplaced z are readily acceptable: z always appears before the last
element of the verb cluster:
Er schiint 1 nüüt
[wele2
z wüsse3] dervoo
1 … 23
He seems
nothing want.INF to know.INF about.it
‘He does not seem to be interested in it.’
Zurich German: Weber (1987: 244, fn. 1)
Ich liebe d
freiheit, selber de tag [chöne1 z bestimme2]
12
I
love the freedom self
the day can.INF to determine.INF
‘I love the froom to determine my schedule.’ http://badoo.com/de-ch/0279246484/
11.3.2013
3
4
DGfS 2013, Potsdam, 13.3.2013
Martin Salzmann: rule ordering in verb cluster formation
c.
ohni
s
Buech bis am
Mëëntig [müse1
gläse3
z ha2]
without the book till on.the Monday must.INF read.PRT to have.INF
‘without having to have read the book until Monday’
132
(14) a.
[VP1 [VP2 [VP3 es prüfen] lassen] haben] zu à es [VP1 haben [VP2 [VP3 prüfen] lassen]] zu
b.
[VP1 [VP2 de Taag bestimme] chöne]
à de Taag [VP1 chöne [VP2
z
bestimme]]
z
§
See also Hodler (1969: 560), Bader (1995: 22) and Cooper (1995: 188f.)
c.
[VP1 [VP2 mi uf d Bullesiite stelle2] wele1] z à mi [VP1 wele [VP2 uf d Bullesiite stelle]] z
§
Importantly, misplaced z is not limited to verb clusters, it also occurs with VPR:
–
schematically
ohni
mi [welle1 [uf d
bullesite z stelle2]], im
gegeteil, aber …
without me want.INF on the cops.side to put.INF on.the contrary but
‘without wanting to side with the cops, on the contrary, but …’
(11)
http://www.fcbforum.ch/forum/showthread.php?4328-usschritige-nachem-spiel-!/page4;
11.3.2013
2.4
Proposal
§
–
–
2.4.1
§
–
goals
derive the cross-linguistic variation (Dutch vs. German) in a principled way
provide a coherent account of zu-placement in German and its varieties
(12) a.
–
(13) a.
b.
c.
–
–
[VP1 [VP2 DP V2] V1] z
à
DP [VP1 V1 [VP2 V2]] z
c.
[VP1 [VP2 DP PP V2] V1] z
à
DP [VP1 V1 [VP2 PP V2]] z
–
since zu/z does not target the head of the VP, but the rightmost element, it must be an
operation sensitive to linear order and adjacency, i.e. a late PF-operation:
lowering of zu/z = cliticization + inversion = local dislocation (Embick and Noyer (2001))
DP [VP1 V1 [VP2 [VP3 V3] V2]] zu
à
DP [VP1 V1 [VP2 [VP3 V3] zu+V2]] __
b.
DP [VP1 V1 [VP2 V2]] z
à
DP [VP1 V1 [VP2 z+V2]] __
c.
DP [VP1 V1 [VP2 PP V2]] z
à
DP [VP1 V1 [VP2 PP z+V2]] __
2.4.1.2 Dutch
(17)
starting point is a left-branching structure
zu occupies a functional head above the VP
a simple descending structure, i.e. without inversion (i.e. (6a)):
Er dachte, das Buch [lesen3 können2
he thought the book read.INF can.INF
[lesen3 können2
read.INF can.INF
b.
§
müssen1] zu
must.INF to
zu müssen1] __
to must.INF
Standard German: (8c)
[VP1 [VP2 [VP3 het boek lezen]
kunnen] moeten] te
the book read.INF can.INF
must.INF to
(19)
[VP1 [VP2 [VP3 het boek lezen]
kunnen]
the book read.INF can.INF
ohni
[VP1 [VP2 de Taag
without
the day
Swiss German: (10b)
bestimme2]
chöne1] z
determine.INF can.INF to
ohni
[VP1 [VP2 mi uf d
Bullesiite stelle2] wele1]
z
without
me on the cops.side put.INF want.INF to
(20) a.
te+moeten]
to+must.INF
à te-lowering
__
te-placement PRECEDES VP-inversion:
[VP1 [VP2 [VP3 het boek lezen]
the book read.INF
kunnen]
can.INF
te+moeten]
to+must.INF
à PF-inversion
b.
het boek [VP1 te+moeten [VP2 kunnen [VP3 lezen] ]]
the book
to+must.INF
can.INF
read.INF
§
–
How is te-lowering different from zu-cliticization?
te-lowering applies at a stage where hierarchical structure is still visible à an early PFoperation, cf. Lowering in Embick and Noyer (2001)
zu-cliticization is sensitive to adjacency and linear order à a late PF-operation
Swiss German: (11)
ascending structures come about by means of VP-inversion at PF (e.g. Haegeman and
van Riemsdijk (1986), Williams (2004)), i.e. V1 with VP2
Verb Raising (VR)-cases are derived by means of VP-inversion + scrambling of non-verbal
material, cf. Broekhuis (1993):
5
–
123: ascending
(Standard Dutch)
same starting point:
a left-branching structure
zu occupies a functional head above the VP
(18)
ascending structures:
ohne
[VP1 [VP2 [VP3 es prüfen3] lassen2] haben1] zu
without
it verify
let.INF
have.INF to
target sentence:
Hij dacht
het boek [te moeten1 kunnen2 lezen3]
he thought the book to must.INF can.INF
read.INF
§
–
–
321
(Standard German)
à zu is lowered/inverted with müssen/V1 – when?
b.
DP [VP1 V1 [VP2 [VP3 V3] V2]] zu
(16) a.
2.4.1.1 German
–
–
–
à
–
Dutch vs. German
proposal: the placement of the infinitival particle is a similar operation in both languages:
it lowers te/zu onto the verb
[VP1 [VP2 [VP3 DP V3] V2] V1] zu
(15) a.
–
123: ascending
à The cross-linguistic variation results from the fact that the two operations apply at
different points in the PF-component
6
DGfS 2013, Potsdam, 13.3.2013
Martin Salzmann: rule ordering in verb cluster formation
2.4.2
German: other configurations
2.4.2.1 The ordering of cluster formation
§
–
–
When does cluster formation (= complex head formation) take place?
recall: in descending clusters, the verbal elements obligatorily form a complex head (to
account for the impossibility of extraposition to VP3/VP2)
what does this imply for the relative ordering of zu-cliticization and cluster formation?
dass er [[das Buch zu lesen3] zu versuchen2] versprach1
that he the book to read.INF to try.INF
promised
‘that he promised to try to read the book’
(21)
–
(22)
Buch lesen]
zu] versuchen] zu]
book read.INF to try.INF
to
321
Since verb cluster formation is based on adjacency, zu-cliticization has to take place
BEFORE cluster formation:
(23) a.
dass er das
that he the
Buch [VP1 [VP2 [VP3 zu+lesen]
zu+versuchen] versprach]
book
to+read.INF to+try.INF
promised
zu-cliticization
b.
dass er das
that he the
Buch
book
cluster format.
§
problem: the scandal construction (recall ex. (9)):
[V [zu+lesen]+ [zu+versuchen]+ [versprach]]
to+read.INF to+try.INF
promised
Er bedauert, es nicht [verhindert3 haben1 zu können2].
He regrets
it not
prevent.PRT have.INF to can.INF
‘He regrets not having been able to prevent it.’
(24)
–
312
–
–
–
ascending orders with zu-complements in (Standard) German
zu-complements that are CPs (non-coherent)
zu-complements that are smaller in size, e.g. VPs = 3rd construction (= coherent)
–
both XPs are marked with zu
problem: reordering of V1 and V2 cannot be an instance of VP-inversion (V1 and V2 are
not sisters) à reordering must be the result of cluster formation
cluster formation would then take place at PF, where it applies to a linear structure
cluster formation has to take place BEFORE zu-cliticization since zu ends up on V2:
(26) a.
… nicht es [[verhindert3 ] haben1+können2]] zu
not
it prevent.PRT
have.INF+can.INF
to
reordering/cluster formation
b.
… nicht es [[verhindert3 ] haben1+zu+können2]]
not
it prevent.PRT
have.INF+to+can.INF
zu-cliticization
–
problem: in (23) above, zu-cliticization must take place BEFORE cluster formation …
a possible solution: cluster formation that involves inversion is ordered differently than
cluster formation that is string-vacuous:
–
cluster formation+inversion >> zu-cliticization >> string-vacuous cluster formation
versuchen1 [CP mich zu
try.INF
me
to
verstehen2]]
understand.INF
ohne mich [[VP zu versuchen1 [VP zu verstehen2]]
§
–
–
How are the ascending orders obtained?
extraposition = movement to the right in syntax or
PF-inversion
–
base-structure: descending order
(28) a.
ohne
[ZUP [VP [ZUP [CP mich verstehen2]
zu]
without
me understand.INF to
= CP-complement
= VP/3rd construction
versuchen1] zu] = CP-complement
try.INF
to
b.
ohne
[ZUP [VP1 [ZUP [VP2 mich verstehen2]
zu] versuchen1] zu] = VP/3rd construction
without
me understand.INF to try.INF
to
–
Suppose ascending structures are derived by means of PF-inversion of V1 and CP2/VP2
(29) a.
ohne
[ZUP [VP versuchen1 [[CP mich verstehen2]
zu]]
without
try.INF
me understand.INF to
zu]
to
= CP-complement
b.
ohne
mich [ZUP [VP1 versuchen1 [[VP2 verstehen2 ]
zu]] zu]
without me
try.INF
understand.INF to to
§
problem: if zu is cliticized onto the right-most verb, we get the wrong order:
(30) a. * ohne
without
versuchen1 mich [zu+zu+verstehen2]
try.INF
me to+to+understand.INF
b. * ohne
mich versuchen1 [zu+zu verstehen2]
without me try.INF
to+to+understand.INF
= VP/3rd construction
= CP-complement
= VP/3rd construction
à ascending structures must be derived by means of movement to the right (= extraposition):
(31) a.
ohne
[ZUP [VP __i versuchen1] zu] [ZUP [CP mich verstehen2]
zu]i
without
try.INF
to
me understand.INF to
= CP-compl .
b.
ohne
mich [ZUP [VP1 __i versuchen1] zu] [ZUP [VP2 verstehen2]
zu]i
without me
try.INF
to
understand.INF to
= VP/3rd const.
–
Then, zu cliticizes on the rightmost verb of each VP/XP
(32) a.
§
ohne
[[XP zu
without
to
b.
base-structure: descending 321
… nicht [VP1 [VP2 [VP3 es verhindert3 ] können2 ] haben1 ] zu
not
it prevent.PRT have.INF can.INF to
(25)
§
–
–
(27) a.
versprach]
promised
cluster formation can be understood as an instance of local dislocation that may involve
inversion or be
string-vacuous (= rebracketing)
2.4.2.2 zu-placement in the third construction/extraposition
base-structure:
dass er [VP1 [[VP2 [[VP3 das
that he
the
–
321
§
–
–
b.
ohne
[ZUP [VP __i zu+versuchen1] __ ] [ZUP [CP mich zu+verstehen2] __]i
without
to+try.INF
me to+understand.INF
= CP-compl .
ohne
mich [ZUP [VP1 __i zu+versuchen1] __] [ZUP [VP2 zu+verstehen2] __ ]i = VP/3rd const.
without me
to+try.INF
to+understand.INF
à zu-placement provides evidence that the 3rd construction involves (remnant) extraposition
7
8
DGfS 2013, Potsdam, 13.3.2013
Martin Salzmann: rule ordering in verb cluster formation
2.5
Ordering of operations: synopsis
2.6
extraposition (RC, CP/VP)
>>
te-lowering
VP-inversion
cluster formation (+ inversion)
zu-cliticization
cluster formation (string-vacuous)
>>
>>
>>
>>
§
–
syntax
(35) a.
PF
b.
A problem: missing z in Swiss German
§
–
(33) a.
b.
§
(34) a.
Bader (1995: 22), Cooper (1995: 187ff.): in clusters where V2 and V3 should be marked
with z (2nd status), only one z appears, namely on V3 (empirical situation very delicate!)
only holds under VR (33b), 2 zs are obligatory under VPR (33a):
de Hans schiint1
the John seems
*(z) probiere2 [siine Fründe] z hälffe3 VPR: 2 z
to try.INF
his.DAT friends to help.INF
de Hans schiint1 [siine Fründe] (z) probiere2
the John seems
his.DAT friends
to try.INF
‘John seems to try to help his friends.’
z hälffe3 VR: 1 z
to help.INF
assumption: ascending structures with zu-infinitives in CH-German can also come about
via PF-inversion of V1 with VP2 and V2 with VP3:
[VP1 [VP2 [VP3 siine
Fründe hälffe3
his.DAT friends help.INF
z] probiere2 z] schiint1]
to try.INF
to seems
à PF-inversion
b.
siine
Fründe [VP1 schiint1 [VP2 probiere2 [VP3 hälffe3 z]
his.DAT friends
seems
try.INF
help.INF to
–
both z are adjacent à one is deleted as a consequence of haplology , then zu-cliticization:
c.
siine
his.DAT
–
cases with multiple zs (33b) can be assumed to involve extraposition (as in 2.4.2.2)
§
Problem: haplology is limited to VR cases à proposal overgenerates
3
z]]
to
Fründe [VP1 schiint1 [VP2 probiere2 [VP3 z+hälffe3 __]]
friends
seems
try.INF
to+help.INF
Summary
§
an account of 2 puzzles in the domain of VC formation in terms of rule ordering:
§
–
–
the extraposition paradox: extraposition >> topicalization >> VC-formation
extraposition bleeds VC-formation
topicalization bleeds VC-formation
§
–
zu-/te-placement
cross-linguistic variation between Dutch German can be accounted for if the lowering
operation that places zu/te on the V takes place at different points in the PF-component:
–
–
te-lowering: sensitive to hierarchical structure à Lowering (early)
zu-cliticization: sensitive to linear structure/adjacency à local dislocation (late)
9
Why not simply treat Dutch te as a prefix?
There are varieties of Dutch where te is not lowered onto the V; cf. also Afrikaans
mee Valere te [[willen2 [dienen boek kuopen3]] een1]
231
with Valere to want.INF that
book buy.INF
have.INF
‘with Valere having wanted to buy that book’
West Flemish, cf. Haegeman (1998: 635)
Die banke moes oop gewees het, om dit gister
te [[kan
betaal] het].
the bank should open been
have to it yesterday to can.INF buy.INF have.INF
‘The bank should have been open to have been able to buy it yesterday.’
Afrikaans, cf. Donaldson (1993)
à the cross-linguistic variation can be captured more naturally if te is an independent syntactic
element that undergoes lowering in some (St. Dutch) but not all varieties (e.g. West-Flemish)
§
–
–
Theoretical implications
zu-placement provides evidence for a left-branching structure (unclear how the correct
positioning of zu can be achieved under a right-branching structure [unless realizational])
zu-placement suggests that the 3rd construction in Standard German really involves
remnant extraposition
References
Bader, Markus, and Schmid, Tanja. 2009. Verb clusters in colloquial German. The Journal of Comparative Germanic
Linguistics 12:175-228.
Bader, Thomas. 1995. Missing and misplaced z' in Bernese Swiss German. In Topics in Swiss German syntax, ed. Zvi
Penner, 19-28. Bern: Peter Lang.
Bayer, Josef, Schmid, Tanja, and Bader, Markus. 2005. Clause union and clausal position. In The function of function
words and functional categories, eds. Marcel den Dikken and Christina M. Tortora, 79-113. Amsterdam: John
Benjamins.
Bech, Gunnar. 1983. Studien über das deutsche Verbum infinitum. Tübingen: Niemeyer.
Broekhuis, Hans. 1993. Verb Projection Raising. Spektator 22:28–47.
Cooper, Kathrin E. 1995. Topics in Zurich German syntax. Groningen: Germanistisch Instituut.
Den Dikken, Marcel, and Hoekstra, Eric. 1997. Parasitic participles. Linguistics 35:1057-1090.
Donaldson, Bruce C. 1993. A grammar of Afrikaans. Berlin ; New York, NY: Mouton de Gruyter.
Embick, David, and Noyer, Rolf. 2001. Movement Operations after Syntax. Linguistic Inquiry 32:555-595.
Evers, Arnold. 1975. The transformational cycle of Dutch and German. Doctoral Dissertation, University of Utrecht.
Haegeman, Liliane, and van Riemsdijk, Henk. 1986. Verb Projection Raising, Scope, and the Typology of Rules Affecting
Verbs. Linguistic Inquiry 17:417-466.
Haegeman, Liliane. 1998. Verb Movement in Embedded Clauses in West Flemish. Linguistic Inquiry 29:631-656.
Haider, Hubert. 1993. Deutsche Syntax - generativ: Vorstudien zur Theorie einer projektiven Grammatik. Tübingen: Narr.
Haider, Hubert. 2003. V-clustering and clause union: Causes and effects. In Verb constructions in German and Dutch, eds.
Pieter Seuren and Gerard Kempen, 91-126. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Haider, Hubert. 2011. Grammatische Illusionen – Lokal wohlgeformt – global deviant. Zeitschrift für Sprachwissenschaft
30:223-257.
Hinterhölzl, Roland. 2009. The IPP-Effect, Phrasal Affixes and Repair Strategies in the Syntax-Morphology Interface.
Linguistische Berichte 2009:191-215.
Hodler, Werner. 1969. Berndeutsche Syntax. Bern: Francke Verlag.
Höhle, Tilman N. 2006. Observing non-finite verbs: some 3v phenomena in German-Dutch. In Form, Structure, and
Grammar. A Festschrift Presented to Günther Grewendorf on Occasion of His 60th Birthday, eds. Patrick Brandt and Eric
Fuß, 55-77. Berlin: Akademie Verlag.
Salzmann, Martin. to appear. New evidence for postsyntactic verb cluster formation and a right-branching base order.
Proceedings of NELS 42.
Schallert, Oliver. 2012. Untersuchungen zu Ersatzinfinitivkonstruktionen in den Vorarlberger und Liechtensteiner
Dialekten. Doctoral Dissertation, University of Marburg.
Sternefeld, Wolfgang. 1990. Scrambling and minimality. In Scrambling and barriers, eds. Günther Grewendorf and
Wolfgang Sternefeld, 239-257. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Sternefeld, Wolfgang. 2006. Syntax: eine morphologisch motivierte generative Beschreibung des Deutschen. Tübingen:
Stauffenburg Verlag.
van Riemsdijk, Henk. 1998. Head Movement and Adjacency. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 16:633-679.
Vogel, Ralf. 2009. Skandal im Verbkomplex. Betrachtungen zur scheinbar inkorrekten Morphologie in infiniten
Verbkomplexen des Deutschen. Zeitschrift für Sprachwissenschaft 28:307-346.
von Stechow, Arnim. 1990. Status government and coherence in German. In Scrambling and barriers, eds. Günther
Grewendorf and Wolfgang Sternefeld, 143-198. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Weber, Albert. 1987. Zürichdeutsche Grammatik: ein Wegweiser zur guten Mundart. Zürich: Schweizer Spiegel Verlag.
Williams, Edwin. 2004. The structure of clusters. In Verb clusters: A study of Hungarian, German, and Dutch, eds. Katalin
É Kiss and Henk van Riemsdijk, 173-201. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Wurmbrand, Susanne. 2004. Syntactic vs. post-syntactic movement. Proceedings of the 2003 annual conference of the
Canadian Linguistic Association.284-295.
Wurmbrand, Susanne. 2007. How Complex Are Complex Predicates? Syntax 10:243-288.
10