Article published in:
Theoretical Approaches to Linguistic Variation
Edited by Ermenegildo Bidese, Federica Cognola and Manuela Caterina Moroni
[Linguistik Aktuell/Linguistics Today 234] 2016
► pp. 177–202

On the variable nature of head final effects in German and English

An interface account

| University Ca' Foscari of Venice
The paper investigates head final effects (HF-effects) in German and English and argues that the syntactic configuration that underlies them gives rise to three different types of violations in the interfaces. It is shown that HF-effects are either morphological or prosodic in nature. A diagnostics – morphological versus syntactic displacement – is established that allows to connect HF-effects to their relevant interface conditions. The prosodic conditions on word order are then argued to be twofold: they involve a condition on heavy constituents, on the one hand, and a condition on the mapping of syntactic constituents onto prosodic constituents respecting the Strict Layer Hypothesis, on the other hand. Finally, I argue that a pure syntactic condition, like the Final-over-Final Constraint proposed by Biberauer, Holmberg and Roberts (2007 and 2014) is inedaquate to account for the variable nature of HF-effects.
Published online: 01 December 2016
https://doi.org/10.1075/la.234.07hin
References

References

Biberauer, Theresa, Holmberg, Anders and Roberts, Ian
2007 Structure and linearization in disharmonic word orders. In Proceedings of the 26th West Coast Conference of Formal Linguistics , University of California. Berkeley: Cascadilla Proceedings Project.
2014 A syntactic universal and its consequences. Linguistic Inquiry 45(2), 169–225. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Cinque, Guglielmo
1999 Adverbs and functional heads. A crosslinguistic Perspective. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
Chao, Yuen Ren
1968 A Grammar of Spoken Chinese. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam and Halle, Morris
1968 The sound pattern of English. New York: Harper & Row.Google Scholar
Djamouri, Redouane, Paul, Waltraud and Withman, John
2013 Postpositions vs Prepositions in Mandarin Chinese: The Articulation of Disharmony. In Theoretical Approaches to Disharmonic Word Orders, Theresa Biberauer and Michelle Sheehan (eds.), 74–105. Oxford: OUP. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Emonds, Joseph
1976 A Transformational Approach to English Syntax. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Escribano, Juan
2009 Head-Final Effects and the Nature of Modification. Ph.D. dissertation, Universidad de Oviedo.Google Scholar
Gussenhoven, Carlos
1984 On the Grammar and Semantics of Sentence Accents. Dordrecht: Foris. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Haider, Hubert
1997 Typological implications of a directionality constraint. In Studies on Universal Grammar and Typological Variation, Artemis Alexiadou and Tracy Hall (eds.), 17–33. New York, Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2000 Adverb Placement-Convergence of Structure and Licensing. Theoretical Linguistics 26, 95–134. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2011 Grammatische Illusionen – Lokal wohlgeformt – global deviant. Zeitschrift für Sprachwissenschaft 30, 223–257. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2013 Symmetry breaking in syntax. Cambridge: CUP.Google Scholar
2015 Head directionality – in syntax and morphology. In Handbook of Parameters, Antonio Fàbregas, Jaume Mateu and Mike Putnam (eds.), 73–97. London: Bloomsbury Press.Google Scholar
Halle, Morris. and Vergnaud, Jean Roger
1987 An Essay on Stress. Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Halle, Morris and Marantz, Alex
1993 Distributed Morphology and the Pieces of Inflection. In The View from Building 20, Kenneth Hale & Jay Keyser (eds), 111–176. Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Hinterhölzl, Roland
2006a Scrambling, Remnant Movement and Restructuring in West Germanic. Oxford: Oxford University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2006b The Phase Condition and cyclic Spell out: Evidence from VP-topicalization. In Phases of Interpretation, Mara Frascarelli (ed.), 237–259. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2009a The IPP-effect, phrasal affixes and repair strategies in the syntax-morphology interface. Linguistische Berichte 218, 191–215.Google Scholar
2009b A phase-based comparative approach to modification and word order in Germanic. Syntax 12: 3. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Hinterholzl, Roland
2013 (Dis)Harmonic word order and phase-based restrictions on phrasing and spell-out. In Theoretical Approaches to Disharmonic Word orders, Theresa Biberauer and Michelle Sheehan (eds.), 162–189. Oxford: OUP. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
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 Occation of His 60th Birthday, Patrick Brandt and Eric Fuß (eds.), 417–477. Berlin: Akademie-Verlag. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Kayne, Richard
1994 The Antisymmetry of Syntax. Linguistic Inquiry Monograph 25. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Krifka, Manfred
1984 Fokus, Topik, syntaktische Strukur und semantische Interpretation. Universität Tübingen.Google Scholar
Ladd, Robert D.
1986 Intonational phrasing: The case for recursive prosodic structure. Phonology 3, 311–340. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Nespor, Marina and Vogel, Irene
1986 Prosodic Phonology. Dordrecht: Foris Publications.Google Scholar
Nespor, Marina, et al.
2008 Different Phrasal Prominence Relations in VO and OV Languages. Lingue e Linguaggio VII.2, 1–29.Google Scholar
Paul, Waltraud
2014 Why particles are not particular: Sentence-final particles on Chinese as heads of a split CP. Studia Linguistica 68 (1), 77–115. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Peperkamp, Sharon
1997 Prosodic Words. Ph.D. dissertation, Universiteit van Amsterdam. HIL Dissertation 34. The Hague: Holland Academic Graphics.Google Scholar
Salzmann, Martin
2013a A new Argument for V-Cluster formation and a right-branching VP. Linguistic Variation 13.1, 81–132. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2013b Rule ordering in V-cluster formation. In Rule Interaction in Grammar (Linguistische Arbeitsberichte 90), Anke Assmann & Fabian Heck (eds.), 65–121. University of Leipzig.Google Scholar
Selkirk, Elizabeth
1984 Phonology and syntax: The Relation between Sound and Structure. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
1995 The prosodic structure of function words. In University of Massachusetts occasional papers 18: Papers in Optimality Theory, J.N. Beckman, L. Walsh Dickey and S. Urbanczyk (eds.), 439–469. Amherst: GLSA.Google Scholar
Truckenbrodt, Hubert
1999 On the Relation between Syntactic Phrases and Phonological Phrases. Linguistic Inquiry 30: 219–255. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Uhmann, Susanne
1991 Fokusphonologie. Tübingen: Niemeyer.Google Scholar
van Riemsdijk, Henk
1998 Head Movement and Adjacency. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 16, 633–678. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Wagner, Michael
2005 Asymmetries in prosodic domain formation. In Perspectives on Phases, Norvin Richards and Martha Mcginnis (eds.), MITWPL 49, 329–367. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Wiklund, Anna-Lena
2001 Dressing Up For Vocabulary Insertion: The Parasitic Supine. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 19, 199–228. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Williams, Edwin
1982 Another argument that passive is transformational. Linguistic Inquiry 13, 203–238.Google Scholar