Cover not available
Part of
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: 1 December 2016
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/la.234.07hin
References (39)
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. DOI logoGoogle 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. DOI logoGoogle 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. DOI logoGoogle 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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2000. Adverb Placement-Convergence of Structure and Licensing. Theoretical Linguistics 26, 95–134. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2011. Grammatische Illusionen – Lokal wohlgeformt – global deviant. Zeitschrift für Sprachwissenschaft 30, 223–257. DOI logoGoogle 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. DOI logoGoogle 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. DOI logoGoogle 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. DOI logoGoogle 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. DOI logoGoogle 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. DOI logoGoogle 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. DOI logoGoogle 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. DOI logoGoogle 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. DOI logoGoogle 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. DOI logoGoogle 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. DOI logoGoogle 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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Williams, Edwin. 1982. Another argument that passive is transformational. Linguistic Inquiry 13, 203–238.Google Scholar