Case and Passive in Head-Driven Phrase Structure Grammar Stefan M - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

Case and Passive in Head-Driven Phrase Structure Grammar

Case and Passive in Head-Driven Phrase Structure Grammar

Stefan M¨ uller

Theoretische Linguistik/Computerlinguistik Fachbereich 10 Universit¨ at Bremen Institut f¨ ur Linguistik Universit¨ at Potsdam Stefan.Mueller@cl.uni-bremen.de

December 2, 2005

Case and Passive in Head-Driven Phrase Structure Grammar

Outline

• Case
• The Phenomenon
• The Analysis
• Passive

Case and Passive in Head-Driven Phrase Structure Grammar Case Case and Case Principles

Case and Case Principles

• What kind of cases are there?

c Stefan M¨ uller 2005, CL, FB 10, Universit¨ at Bremen & CL, Uni Potsdam 1/65

Case and Passive in Head-Driven Phrase Structure Grammar Case Case and Case Principles

Case and Case Principles

• What kind of cases are there?
• How does case depend on the syntactic environment?

c Stefan M¨ uller 2005, CL, FB 10, Universit¨ at Bremen & CL, Uni Potsdam 1/65

Case and Passive in Head-Driven Phrase Structure Grammar Case Case and Case Principles

Case and Case Principles

• What kind of cases are there?
• How does case depend on the syntactic environment?
• Until now case was maximally specified in valency lists,

if we now the principles of case assignment, this is unnecessary. We capture generalizations and reduce the number of lexical entries for verbs like lesen (‘read’) in (1): (1)

• a. Er

he-nom m¨

• chte

wants das the Buch book lesen. read ‘He wants to read the book.’

• b. Ich

I sah saw ihn him-acc das the Buch book lesen. read ‘I saw him read the book.’ The case of the subject (and the object) is assigned by a principle.

c Stefan M¨ uller 2005, CL, FB 10, Universit¨ at Bremen & CL, Uni Potsdam 1/65

Case Structural vs. Lexical Case Structural Case

Structural and Lexical Case

• If the case of an argument depends on the syntactic environment, the

case is called structural case. Otherwise the argument has lexical case.

c Stefan M¨ uller 2005, CL, FB 10, Universit¨ at Bremen & CL, Uni Potsdam 2/65

Case Structural vs. Lexical Case Structural Case

Structural and Lexical Case

• If the case of an argument depends on the syntactic environment, the

case is called structural case. Otherwise the argument has lexical case.

• Examples for structural case are:

(2)

• a. Der

the Installateur plumber-nom kommt. comes

c Stefan M¨ uller 2005, CL, FB 10, Universit¨ at Bremen & CL, Uni Potsdam 2/65

Case Structural vs. Lexical Case Structural Case

Structural and Lexical Case

• If the case of an argument depends on the syntactic environment, the

case is called structural case. Otherwise the argument has lexical case.

• Examples for structural case are:

(2)

• a. Der

the Installateur plumber-nom kommt. comes

• b. Der

the Mann man-nom l¨ aßt lets den the Installateur plumber-acc kommen. come

c Stefan M¨ uller 2005, CL, FB 10, Universit¨ at Bremen & CL, Uni Potsdam 2/65

Case Structural vs. Lexical Case Structural Case

Structural and Lexical Case

• If the case of an argument depends on the syntactic environment, the

case is called structural case. Otherwise the argument has lexical case.

• Examples for structural case are:

(2)

• a. Der

the Installateur plumber-nom kommt. comes

• b. Der

the Mann man-nom l¨ aßt lets den the Installateur plumber-acc kommen. come

• c. das

the Kommen coming des

• f.the

Installateurs plumber-gen

c Stefan M¨ uller 2005, CL, FB 10, Universit¨ at Bremen & CL, Uni Potsdam 2/65

Case Structural vs. Lexical Case Structural Case

Structural and Lexical Case

• If the case of an argument depends on the syntactic environment, the

case is called structural case. Otherwise the argument has lexical case.

• Examples for structural case are:

(2)

• a. Der

the Installateur plumber-nom kommt. comes

• b. Der

the Mann man-nom l¨ aßt lets den the Installateur plumber-acc kommen. come

• c. das

the Kommen coming des

• f.the

Installateurs plumber-gen

• In (2) we have a subject that changes case, in (3) it is the object:

(3)

• a. Karl

Karl schl¨ agt beats den the Hund. dog-acc

• b. Der

the Hund dog wird is geschlagen. beaten

c Stefan M¨ uller 2005, CL, FB 10, Universit¨ at Bremen & CL, Uni Potsdam 2/65

Structural vs. Lexical Case Lexical Case Genitive

Lexical Case

• Genitive that depends on a verb is a lexical case:

The case of the genetive object does not change in passives. (4) a. Wir we-nom gedenken remember der the Opfer. victims-gen b. Der the Opfer victims-gen wird is gedacht. remembered

• c. * Die

the Opfer victims-nom wird/werden is/are gedacht. remembered

c Stefan M¨ uller 2005, CL, FB 10, Universit¨ at Bremen & CL, Uni Potsdam 3/65

Structural vs. Lexical Case Lexical Case Genitive

Lexical Case

• Genitive that depends on a verb is a lexical case:

The case of the genetive object does not change in passives. (4) a. Wir we-nom gedenken remember der the Opfer. victims-gen b. Der the Opfer victims-gen wird is gedacht. remembered

• c. * Die

the Opfer victims-nom wird/werden is/are gedacht. remembered (4b) = impersonal passiv, there is no subject

c Stefan M¨ uller 2005, CL, FB 10, Universit¨ at Bremen & CL, Uni Potsdam 3/65

Structural vs. Lexical Case Lexical Case Dative

Is the Dative a Lexical Case?

• No change with dative objects:

(5)

• a. Der

the Mann man hat has ihm him-dat geholfen. helped

• b. Ihm

him-dat wird was geholfen. helped

c Stefan M¨ uller 2005, CL, FB 10, Universit¨ at Bremen & CL, Uni Potsdam 4/65

Structural vs. Lexical Case Lexical Case Dative

Is the Dative a Lexical Case?

• No change with dative objects:

(5)

• a. Der

the Mann man hat has ihm him-dat geholfen. helped

• b. Ihm

him-dat wird was geholfen. helped

• But what about (6)?

(6)

• a. Der

the Mann man-nom hat has den the Ball ball-acc dem the Jungen boy-dat geschenkt. given ‘The man gave the ball to the boy as a present.’

• b. Der

the Junge boy-nom bekam became den the Ball ball-acc geschenkt. given

c Stefan M¨ uller 2005, CL, FB 10, Universit¨ at Bremen & CL, Uni Potsdam 4/65

Structural vs. Lexical Case Lexical Case Dative

Is the Dative a Lexical Case?

• The status of the dative is still a controversial issue.

Three possibilities for dative arguments:

• 1. All datives are lexical.

c Stefan M¨ uller 2005, CL, FB 10, Universit¨ at Bremen & CL, Uni Potsdam 5/65

Structural vs. Lexical Case Lexical Case Dative

Is the Dative a Lexical Case?

• The status of the dative is still a controversial issue.

Three possibilities for dative arguments:

• 1. All datives are lexical.
• 2. Some are lexical others structural.

c Stefan M¨ uller 2005, CL, FB 10, Universit¨ at Bremen & CL, Uni Potsdam 5/65

Structural vs. Lexical Case Lexical Case Dative

Is the Dative a Lexical Case?

• The status of the dative is still a controversial issue.

Three possibilities for dative arguments:

• 1. All datives are lexical.
• 2. Some are lexical others structural.
• 3. All datives are structural.

c Stefan M¨ uller 2005, CL, FB 10, Universit¨ at Bremen & CL, Uni Potsdam 5/65

Structural vs. Lexical Case Lexical Case Dative

Dative as a Lexical Case

• If we treat dative as a lexical case, we have to assume that lexical case

can be changed into structural case in the dative passive.

c Stefan M¨ uller 2005, CL, FB 10, Universit¨ at Bremen & CL, Uni Potsdam 6/65

Structural vs. Lexical Case Lexical Case Dative

Dative as a Lexical Case

• If we treat dative as a lexical case, we have to assume that lexical case

can be changed into structural case in the dative passive.

• With lexical dative Haider’s examples in (7) and (8) are explained

(Haider, 1986, p. 20): (7) a. Er he-nom streichelt strokes den the Hund. dog-acc b. Der the Hund dog-nom wurde was gestreichelt. stroked c. sein his Streicheln stroking des

• f.the

Hundes dog-gen (8) a. Er he-nom hilft helps den the Kindern. children-dat b. Den the Kindern children-dat wurde was geholfen. helped ‘The children were helped.’ c. das the Helfen helping der

• f.the

Kinder children-gen

• d. * sein

his Helfen helping der

• f.the

Kinder children-gen

c Stefan M¨ uller 2005, CL, FB 10, Universit¨ at Bremen & CL, Uni Potsdam 6/65

Structural vs. Lexical Case Lexical Case Dative

Structural Case and Bivalent Verbs

• If the only difference between helfen and unterst¨

utzen is the case,

• ne of the cases has to be lexical.

(9)

• a. Er

he-nom hilft helps ihm. him-dat

• b. Er

he-nom unterst¨ utzt supports ihn. him-acc Von Stechow and Sternefeld (1988) and von Stechow (1990) and authors who see the structural/lexical case issue from a semantic point

• f view (Kaufmann, 1995; Stiebels, 1996; Olsen, 1997; Rapp, 1997)

therefore assume that the dative of bivalent verbs is a lexical dative.

c Stefan M¨ uller 2005, CL, FB 10, Universit¨ at Bremen & CL, Uni Potsdam 7/65

Structural vs. Lexical Case Lexical Case Dative

Dative Passive with Bivalent Verbs

• The case of ditransitive verbs can be derived by principles, but this is

impossible with bivalent verbs (unless one has complex semantic strories). → Dative with helfen is said to be lexical. Prediction: dative passive is impossible with such verbs.

c Stefan M¨ uller 2005, CL, FB 10, Universit¨ at Bremen & CL, Uni Potsdam 8/65

Structural vs. Lexical Case Lexical Case Dative

Dative Passive with Bivalent Verbs

• The case of ditransitive verbs can be derived by principles, but this is

impossible with bivalent verbs (unless one has complex semantic strories). → Dative with helfen is said to be lexical. Prediction: dative passive is impossible with such verbs.

• Wegener (1985; 1990) provides the examples in (10):

(10)

• a. Er

he kriegte got von by vielen many geholfen helped / gratuliert congratulated / applaudiert. applauded ‘Many helped / congratulated / applauded him.’

• b. Man
• ne

kriegt gets t¨ aglich daily gedankt. thanked ‘One is thanked on a daily basis.’

c Stefan M¨ uller 2005, CL, FB 10, Universit¨ at Bremen & CL, Uni Potsdam 8/65

Structural vs. Lexical Case Lexical Case Dative

Dative Passive with Bivalent Verbs (Corpus Examples)

(11) a. ”Da

there

kriege

get

ich

I

geholfen.“1

helped

‘Somebody helps me there.’

• b. ”Kl¨

arle“

Kl¨ arle

h¨ atte

had

es

it

wirklich

really

mehr

more

als

than

verdient,

deserved

auch

also

mal

• nce

zu

to

einem

a

”unrunden“

insignificant

Geburtstag

birthday

gratuliert

congratulated

zu

to

bekommen.2

get

‘Kl¨ arle would have more than deserved to be wished a happy birthday, even an insignificant birthday.’

• c. Mit

with

dem

the

alten

• ld

Titel

song

von

by

Elvis

Elvis

Presley

Presley

[. . . ] bekam

got

Kassier

cashier

Markus

Markus

Reiß

Riss

zum

to.the

Geburtstag

birthday

gratuliert,

congratulated

[. . . ]3 ‘The cashier Markus Riss was wished a happy birthday with the old Elvis Presley song [. . . ].’

1Frankfurter Rundschau, 26.06.1998, p. 7. 2Mannheimer Morgen, 28.07.1999, Lokales;

Kl¨ arle“ feiert heute Geburtstag.

c Stefan M¨ uller 2005, CL, FB 10, Universit¨ at Bremen & CL, Uni Potsdam 9/65

Structural vs. Lexical Case Lexical Case Accusative

Accusative

We already saw structural accusatives, but there is also lexical accusative: (12)

• a. Ihn

him-acc d¨ urstet. is.thirsty

• b. Die

the Mutter mother lehrte taught ihre her Tochter daughter-acc ein a neues new Lied. song-acc

c Stefan M¨ uller 2005, CL, FB 10, Universit¨ at Bremen & CL, Uni Potsdam 10/65

Case and Passive in Head-Driven Phrase Structure Grammar Case Adjectival Environments

Lexical Case in Adjectival Environments (I)

The case of objects that depend n adjectives does not change. Adjectives may assign genitive and dative: (13)

• a. Ich

I war was mir me-dat dessen that-gen sicher. sure ‘I was sure of this.’

• b. Sie

she ist is ihm him-dat treu. faithful ‘She is faithful to him.’

c Stefan M¨ uller 2005, CL, FB 10, Universit¨ at Bremen & CL, Uni Potsdam 11/65

Case and Passive in Head-Driven Phrase Structure Grammar Case Adjectival Environments

Lexical Case in Adjectival Environments (II)

Accusative is also possible, but not so frequent (Haider, 1985): (14)

• a. Das

this ist is diesen this Preis price nicht not wert. worth ‘This is not worth this price.’

• b. Der

the Student student ist is das the Leben live im in.the Wohnheim dormitory nicht not gewohnt.4 used ‘The student is not used to the live in the dormitory.’

• c. Du

you bist are mir me eine an Erkl¨ arung explanation schuldig.5

• we

‘You owe me an explanation.’

4(Helbig and Buscha, 1972) 5(Heidolph et al., 1981) c Stefan M¨ uller 2005, CL, FB 10, Universit¨ at Bremen & CL, Uni Potsdam 12/65

Case and Passive in Head-Driven Phrase Structure Grammar Case Adjectival Environments

Structural Case in Adjectival Environments

The case of the subject of an adjective depneds on the syntactic environment (Wunderlich, 1984): (15)

• a. Der

the Mond moon-nom wurde got kleiner. smaller

• b. Er

he sah saw den the Mond moon-acc kleiner smaller werden. get ‘He saw how the moon got smaller.’

c Stefan M¨ uller 2005, CL, FB 10, Universit¨ at Bremen & CL, Uni Potsdam 13/65

Case and Passive in Head-Driven Phrase Structure Grammar Case The Case of Unrealized Subjects

The Case of Unrealized Subjects (I)

H¨

• hle (1983, Chapter 6):

The case of elements that do not surface can be determined. ein- nach d- ander- (‘one after the other’) may refere to constituents with plural reference. Case and gender has to agree with the antecedent phrase.

c Stefan M¨ uller 2005, CL, FB 10, Universit¨ at Bremen & CL, Uni Potsdam 14/65

Case and Passive in Head-Driven Phrase Structure Grammar Case The Case of Unrealized Subjects

The Case of Unrealized Subjects (II)

We have reference to subjects and objects in (16): (16) a. [Die the T¨ uren]i doors-nom-pl-fem sind are [eine

• ne-nom-fem

nach after der the-dat-fem anderen]i

• ther

kaputt broke gegangen. went ‘The doors broke one after another.’

• b. [Einer
• ne-nom-mas

nach after dem the-dat-mas anderen]i

• ther

haben have wiri we-nom die the Burschen lads-acc runtergeputzt. down.cleaned ‘We took turns in bringing the lads down a peg or two.’

• c. [Einen
• ne-acc-mas

nach after dem the-dat-mas anderen]i

• ther

haben have wir we-nom [die the Burschen]i lads-acc-pl-mas runtergeputzt. down.cleaned ‘One after the other, we brought the lads down a peg or two.’

• d. Ich

I ließ let [die the Burschen]i lads-acc-pl-mas [einen

• ne-acc-mas

nach after dem the-dat-mas anderen]i

• ther

einsteigen. enter ‘I let the lads get in (get started) one after the other.’

• e. [Uns]i

us-dat wurde was [einer

• ne-dat-fem

nach after der the-dat-fem anderen]i

• ther

der the Stuhl chair vor before die the T¨ ur door gesetzt. set ‘We were given the sack one after the other.’

c Stefan M¨ uller 2005, CL, FB 10, Universit¨ at Bremen & CL, Uni Potsdam 15/65

Case and Passive in Head-Driven Phrase Structure Grammar Case The Case of Unrealized Subjects

The Case of Unrealized Subjects (III)

In (17) we have reference to dative or accusative objects of embedded infinitives: (17) a. Er he hat has uns us gedroht, threatened [die the Burschen]i lads-acc-pl-mas demn¨ achst soon [einen

• ne-acc-mas

nach after dem the-dat-mas anderen]i

• ther

wegzuschicken. away.to.send ‘He threatened us that soon he would send the lads away one after the other.’

• b. Er

he hat has angek¨ undigt, announced [uns]i us-dat dann then [einer

• ne-dat-fem

nach after der the-dat-fem anderen]i

• ther

den the Stuhl chair vor before die the T¨ ur door zu to setzen. set ‘He announced that he would then sack us one after the other.’

• c. Es

it ist is n¨

• tig,

necessary [die the Fenster]i, windows-acc-pl-neu sobald as.soon es it geht, goes [eins

• ne-acc-neu

nach after dem the-dat-neu anderen]i

• ther

auszutauschen. to.exchange ‘It is necessary to exchange the windows one after the other, as soon as possible.’

c Stefan M¨ uller 2005, CL, FB 10, Universit¨ at Bremen & CL, Uni Potsdam 16/65

Case and Passive in Head-Driven Phrase Structure Grammar Case The Case of Unrealized Subjects

The Case of Unrealized Subjects (IV)

Reference to the subject of the infinitival VP: (18) a. Ich I habe have [den the Burschen]i lads-dat-pl-mas geraten, advised im in.the Abstand distance von

• f

wenigen few Tagen days [einer

• ne-nom-mas

nach after dem the-dat-mas anderen]i

• ther

zu to k¨ undigen. hand.in.their.notice ‘I advised the lads to hand in their notice one after the other, at intervals of a few days.’

• b. [Die

the T¨ uren]i doors-nom-pl-fem sind are viel much zu too wertvoll, precious um compl [eine

• ne-nom-fem

nach after der the-dat-fem anderen]i

• ther

verheizt burnt zu to werden. be ‘The doors are much too precious to be burnt one after the other.’

• c. [Wir]i

we-nom-pl sind are es itextra leid, tired [eine

• ne-nom-fem

nach after der the-dat-fem anderen]i

• ther

den the Stuhl chair vor before die the T¨ ur door gesetzt set zu to kriegen. get ‘We are tired of being given the sack one after the other.’ ein- nach d- ander- is nominative → Subjects are nominative as well.

c Stefan M¨ uller 2005, CL, FB 10, Universit¨ at Bremen & CL, Uni Potsdam 17/65

Case and Passive in Head-Driven Phrase Structure Grammar Case The Case of Unrealized Subjects

The Case of Unrealized Subjects (V)

We have to make sure that non-realized subjects get case. If the case of the subject would be left unspecified, sentences like (19) would get a wrong reading: (19) # Ich I habe have den the Burschen lads-dat-mas geraten, advised im in.the Abstand distance von

• f

wenigen few Tagen days einen

• ne-acc-mas

nach after dem the-dat-mas anderen

• ther

zu to k¨ undigen. fire ‘I advised the lads to fire (them) one after the other, at intervals of a few days.’ einen nach dem anderen is the object of k¨ undigen and cannot refer to the subject of the infinitive, which is coreferential with den Burschen.

c Stefan M¨ uller 2005, CL, FB 10, Universit¨ at Bremen & CL, Uni Potsdam 18/65

Case and Passive in Head-Driven Phrase Structure Grammar Case The Case of Unrealized Subjects

Outline

• Case
• The Phenomenon
• The Analysis
• Passive

Case The Analysis The Case Principle

The Case Principle (I)

• Dative is treated as a lexical case.

c Stefan M¨ uller 2005, CL, FB 10, Universit¨ at Bremen & CL, Uni Potsdam 19/65

Case The Analysis The Case Principle

The Case Principle (I)

• Dative is treated as a lexical case.
• ditransitive verbs like geben (‘give’) have the following subcat value:

(20) NP[str], NP[str], NP[ldat] str = structural case, ldat = lexical dative.

c Stefan M¨ uller 2005, CL, FB 10, Universit¨ at Bremen & CL, Uni Potsdam 19/65

Case The Analysis The Case Principle

The Case Principle (I)

• Dative is treated as a lexical case.
• ditransitive verbs like geben (‘give’) have the following subcat value:

(20) NP[str], NP[str], NP[ldat] str = structural case, ldat = lexical dative.

• The assignment of structural case is done via the following principle

(Przepi´

• rkowski, 1999b; Meurers, 1999):

Case Principle:

• In a list that contains both the subject and the complements of a verbal head, the least
• blique element with structural case gets nominative, unless it is raised by a higher head.
• All other elements that have structural case and are not raised get accusative.
• In nominal environments, elements with structural case get genitive.

c Stefan M¨ uller 2005, CL, FB 10, Universit¨ at Bremen & CL, Uni Potsdam 19/65

Case The Analysis The Case Principle

The Case Principle (II)

• This principle is similar to the one by Yip, Maling and Jackendoff (1987)

and therefore can explain the case facts of the languages that were discussed by these authors, in particular the complicated case system of Icelandic.

c Stefan M¨ uller 2005, CL, FB 10, Universit¨ at Bremen & CL, Uni Potsdam 20/65

Case The Analysis The Case Principle

The Case Principle (II)

• This principle is similar to the one by Yip, Maling and Jackendoff (1987)

and therefore can explain the case facts of the languages that were discussed by these authors, in particular the complicated case system of Icelandic.

• An important difference is that the principle above is monotonic,

i.e. case that was assigned cannot be changed by a higher predicate.

c Stefan M¨ uller 2005, CL, FB 10, Universit¨ at Bremen & CL, Uni Potsdam 20/65

Case The Analysis Active

Active

prototypical valency lists: (21)

• a. schl¨

aft (‘sleeps’): subcat NP[str]j

• b. unterst¨

utzt (‘supports’): subcat NP[str]j, NP[str]k

• c. hilft (‘helps’):

subcat NP[str]j, NP[ldat]k

• d. schenkt (‘gives as . . . ’): subcat NP[str]j, NP[str]k, NP[ldat]l

c Stefan M¨ uller 2005, CL, FB 10, Universit¨ at Bremen & CL, Uni Potsdam 21/65

Case The Analysis Active

Active

prototypical valency lists: (21)

• a. schl¨

aft (‘sleeps’): subcat NP[str]j

• b. unterst¨

utzt (‘supports’): subcat NP[str]j, NP[str]k

• c. hilft (‘helps’):

subcat NP[str]j, NP[ldat]k

• d. schenkt (‘gives as . . . ’): subcat NP[str]j, NP[str]k, NP[ldat]l

The first element in the subcat-Liste gets nominative. All other elements with structural case get accusative.

c Stefan M¨ uller 2005, CL, FB 10, Universit¨ at Bremen & CL, Uni Potsdam 21/65

The Analysis Passive Agentive Passive

Passive

(22)

• a. schl¨

aft (‘sleeps’): subcat NP[str]j

• b. unterst¨

utzt (‘supports’): subcat NP[str]j, NP[str]k

• c. hilft (‘helps’):

subcat NP[str]j, NP[ldat]k

• d. schenkt (‘gives as . . . ’): subcat NP[str]j, NP[str]k, NP[ldat]l

When these verbs get passivized, we get the following subcat lists: (23)

• a. geschlafen wird: subcat
• b. unterst¨

utzt wird: subcat NP[str]k

• c. geholfen wird:

subcat NP[ldat]k

• d. geschenkt wird:

subcat NP[str]k, NP[ldat]l The first position is occupied by a different NP in (23). If this NP has structural case, it gets nominative, if it has not (as in (23c)) the case remains the way it is, namely lexically specified.

c Stefan M¨ uller 2005, CL, FB 10, Universit¨ at Bremen & CL, Uni Potsdam 22/65

The Analysis Passive Dative Passive

Dative Passive

(24)

• c. hilft (‘helps’):

subcat NP[str]j, NP[ldat]k

• d. schenkt (‘gives as . . . ’): subcat NP[str]j, NP[str]k, NP[ldat]l

The dative argument becomes the first argument and the lexical dative of the embedded verb is turned into a structural case: (25)

• a. geholfen bekommt:

subcat NP[str]k

• b. geschenkt bekommt: subcat NP[str]l, NP[str]k

The former dative argument is now in first position. Since it has structural case, it gets assigned nominative. In (25b), the second element (the direct object) gets accusative. This change of lexical case into structural case is not nice, but there seems to be no better way.

c Stefan M¨ uller 2005, CL, FB 10, Universit¨ at Bremen & CL, Uni Potsdam 23/65

The Analysis Passive The AcI Construction

The AcI Construction (I)

(26) a. schl¨ aft (‘sleeps’): subcat NP[str]j

• b. unterst¨

utzt (‘supports’): subcat NP[str]j, NP[str]k

• c. hilft (‘helps’):

subcat NP[str]j, NP[ldat]k

• d. schenkt (‘gives as . . . ’): subcat NP[str]j, NP[str]k, NP[ldat]l

The AcI Construction is analyzed as argument composition: the arguments of the embedded verb become arguments of the AcI verb: (27) a. schlafen l¨ aßt: subcat NP[str]i, NP[str]j

• b. unterst¨

utzen l¨ aßt: subcat NP[str]i, NP[str]j, NP[str]k

• c. helfen l¨

aßt: subcat NP[str]i, NP[str]j, NP[ldat]k

• d. schenken l¨

aßt: subcat NP[str]i, NP[str]j, NP[str]k, NP[ldat]l NP[str]i stands for the subject of the AcI verb. NP[str]j, NP[str]k and NP[ldat]l are the arguments of the embedded verbs.

c Stefan M¨ uller 2005, CL, FB 10, Universit¨ at Bremen & CL, Uni Potsdam 24/65

The Analysis Passive The AcI Construction

The AcI Construction (II)

(28) a. schlafen l¨ aßt: subcat NP[str]i, NP[str]j

• b. unterst¨

utzen l¨ aßt: subcat NP[str]i, NP[str]j, NP[str]k

• c. helfen l¨

aßt: subcat NP[str]i, NP[str]j, NP[ldat]k

• d. schenken l¨

aßt: subcat NP[str]i, NP[str]j, NP[str]k, NP[ldat]l Only the valency lists in (28) are relevant for case assignment. The elements in the valnecy representations of the base verbs are irrelevant, since the case principle does not assign case to elements that are raised. The first element in the lists in (28) gets nominative, the remaining elements with structural case get accusative. Hence, the logical subjects of the embedded Vs get realized in accusative.

c Stefan M¨ uller 2005, CL, FB 10, Universit¨ at Bremen & CL, Uni Potsdam 25/65

The Analysis Passive Subjects of Adjectives

Subjects of Adjectives

The case assignment to the subject of adjectives work analoguosly. The copula is combined with the adjective and we get a valency list that contains the arguments of the adjective (29a). If such a complex is embedded under an AcI verb we get (29b): (29)

• a. kleiner werden:

subcat NP[str]j ‘smaller become’

• b. kleiner werden sah:

subcat NP[str]i, NP[str]j ‘smaller become saw’ The first NP gets nominative, the second one accusative.

c Stefan M¨ uller 2005, CL, FB 10, Universit¨ at Bremen & CL, Uni Potsdam 26/65

Case and Passive in Head-Driven Phrase Structure Grammar Case Summary

Intermediate Summary

• Case is assigned on a valence representation

(here subcat, in other HPSG publications arg-st).

c Stefan M¨ uller 2005, CL, FB 10, Universit¨ at Bremen & CL, Uni Potsdam 27/65

Case and Passive in Head-Driven Phrase Structure Grammar Case Summary

Intermediate Summary

• Case is assigned on a valence representation

(here subcat, in other HPSG publications arg-st).

• There is no zero case for non-realized subjects,

these elements get case according to the normal principles.

c Stefan M¨ uller 2005, CL, FB 10, Universit¨ at Bremen & CL, Uni Potsdam 27/65

Case and Passive in Head-Driven Phrase Structure Grammar Case Summary

Outline

• Case
• Passive
• The Phenomenon
• The Analysis
• Preliminaries (the Verbal Complex)
• Unaccusativity
• The Actual Analysis

Passive The Phenomenon Agentive Passive

Agentive Passive

“personal” passive: (30)

• a. weil

because Karl Karl-nom den the Schrank cupboard-acc ¨

• ffnet
• pens
• b. weil

because der the Schrank cupboard-nom ge¨

• ffnet
• pened

wird. is ‘because the cupboard is opened.’

c Stefan M¨ uller 2005, CL, FB 10, Universit¨ at Bremen & CL, Uni Potsdam 28/65

Passive The Phenomenon Agentive Passive

Agentive Passive

“personal” passive: (30)

• a. weil

because Karl Karl-nom den the Schrank cupboard-acc ¨

• ffnet
• pens
• b. weil

because der the Schrank cupboard-nom ge¨

• ffnet
• pened

wird. is ‘because the cupboard is opened.’ “impersonal” passive: (31)

• a. weil

because Karl Karl-nom arbeitet works

• b. weil

because gearbeitet worked wird. is ‘because it is worked.’

c Stefan M¨ uller 2005, CL, FB 10, Universit¨ at Bremen & CL, Uni Potsdam 28/65

Passive The Phenomenon Dative Passive

Dative Passive

(32)

• a. weil

because Peter Peter-nom dem the Jungen boy-dat den the Ball ball-acc wegnimmt away.take ‘Peter takes away the ball from the boy.’

• b. weil

because der the Junge boy-nom den the Ball ball-acc weggenommen away.taken bekommt gets ‘The ball is taken away from the boy.’

c Stefan M¨ uller 2005, CL, FB 10, Universit¨ at Bremen & CL, Uni Potsdam 29/65

Passive The Phenomenon lassen Passive

lassen Passive

(33) a. weil because er he-nom einen an Fachmann expert-acc den the Wagen car-acc reparieren repair l¨ aßt lets ‘because he has an expert repair the car.’

• b. weil

because er he-nom den the Wagen car-acc (von by einem an Fachmann) expert reparieren repair l¨ aßt lets ‘because he has an expert repair the car.’

c Stefan M¨ uller 2005, CL, FB 10, Universit¨ at Bremen & CL, Uni Potsdam 30/65

Passive The Phenomenon Modal Infinitives

Modal Infinitives

(34)

• a. weil

because ihr you-nom den the Aufsatz paper-acc zu to schreiben write habt have ‘because you have to write the paper.’

• b. weil

because der the Aufsatz paper-nom (von by euch) you zu to schreiben write ist is ‘because the paper is to be written by you.’

c Stefan M¨ uller 2005, CL, FB 10, Universit¨ at Bremen & CL, Uni Potsdam 31/65

Passive The Phenomenon Morphological Identity of Forms (Participle)

Morphological Identity of Forms (Participle)

The form of the participle is the same in the perfect, the agentive passive, the dative passive: )

• a. Der

the Mann man-nom hat has den the Ball ball-acc dem the Jungen boy-dat geschenkt. given ‘The man gave the ball to the boy.’

• b. Der

the Ball ball-nom wurde was dem the Jungen boy-dat geschenkt. given ‘The ball was given to the boy.’

• c. Der

the Junge boy-nom bekam got den the Ball ball-acc geschenkt. given ‘The boy got the ball as a present.’

c Stefan M¨ uller 2005, CL, FB 10, Universit¨ at Bremen & CL, Uni Potsdam 32/65

Passive The Phenomenon Morphological Identity of Forms (Bare Infinitive)

Morphological Identity of Forms (Bare Infinitive)

The form of the bare infinitive is the same in the future, AcI, lassen passive, and middle constructions: (36)

• a. weil

because ein a Mechaniker mechanic-nom den the Wagen car-acc reparieren repair wird. will ‘because the mechanic will repair the car.’

• b. weil

because Karl Karl-nom einen a Mechaniker mechanic-acc den the Wagen car-acc reparieren repair l¨ aßt. lets ‘because Karl has the mechanic repair the car.’

• c. weil

because Karl Karl-nom den the Wagen car-acc (von by einem a Mechaniker) mechanic reparieren repair l¨ aßt. lets ‘because Karl has somebody / the mechanic repair the car.’

• d. weil

because sich self der the Wagen car-nom nicht not reparieren repair l¨ aßt. lets ‘because it is impossible to repair the car.’

c Stefan M¨ uller 2005, CL, FB 10, Universit¨ at Bremen & CL, Uni Potsdam 33/65

Passive The Phenomenon Morphological Identity of Forms (Bare Infinitive)

Morphological Identity of Forms (Bare Infinitive)

The form of the bare infinitive is the same in the future, AcI, lassen passive, and middle constructions: (36)

• a. weil

because ein a Mechaniker mechanic-nom den the Wagen car-acc reparieren repair wird. will ‘because the mechanic will repair the car.’

• b. weil

because Karl Karl-nom einen a Mechaniker mechanic-acc den the Wagen car-acc reparieren repair l¨ aßt. lets ‘because Karl has the mechanic repair the car.’

• c. weil

because Karl Karl-nom den the Wagen car-acc (von by einem a Mechaniker) mechanic reparieren repair l¨ aßt. lets ‘because Karl has somebody / the mechanic repair the car.’

• d. weil

because sich self der the Wagen car-nom nicht not reparieren repair l¨ aßt. lets ‘because it is impossible to repair the car.’ For zu infinitives, we also have two modal infinitive constructions with different argument realizations.

c Stefan M¨ uller 2005, CL, FB 10, Universit¨ at Bremen & CL, Uni Potsdam 33/65

The Phenomenon Unaccusativity Passivizability

Unaccusativity: Passivizability

Although certain intransitive verbs allow passivization, there are others that do not allow the passive. (37) a. daß that der the Zug train ankam arrived

• b. * Dort

there wurde was angekommen. arrived c. daß the der the Mann man ihr her auffiel noticed ‘She noticed the man.’

• d. * Ihr

her-dat wurde was aufgefallen. noticed

c Stefan M¨ uller 2005, CL, FB 10, Universit¨ at Bremen & CL, Uni Potsdam 34/65

The Phenomenon Unaccusativity Passivizability

Unaccusativity: Passivizability

Although certain intransitive verbs allow passivization, there are others that do not allow the passive. (37) a. daß that der the Zug train ankam arrived

• b. * Dort

there wurde was angekommen. arrived c. daß the der the Mann man ihr her auffiel noticed ‘She noticed the man.’

• d. * Ihr

her-dat wurde was aufgefallen. noticed Caution: Not all verbs that cannot be passivized belong to the same class!

c Stefan M¨ uller 2005, CL, FB 10, Universit¨ at Bremen & CL, Uni Potsdam 34/65

The Phenomenon Unaccusativity Adjectival Participles (I)

Adjectival Participles

Such verbs can be used as prenominal adjectival participles: (38)

• a. der

the angekommene arrived Zug train

• b. dem

the Regime regime-dat aufgefallene part.fell ”Vaterlandsverr¨ ater“6 traitors.to.their.country ‘the “traitors to their country” noticed by the regime’ The subject role of the particple is filled be the modified noun.

6Die Zeit, 26.04.1985, p. 3. c Stefan M¨ uller 2005, CL, FB 10, Universit¨ at Bremen & CL, Uni Potsdam 35/65

The Phenomenon Unaccusativity Adjectival Participles (I)

Adjectival Participles (II)

Transitive verbs are different: The object role of the participle is filled by the modified noun: (39)

• a. die

the geliebte loved Frau woman

• b. der

the geschlagene beaten Hund dog

c Stefan M¨ uller 2005, CL, FB 10, Universit¨ at Bremen & CL, Uni Potsdam 36/65

The Phenomenon Unaccusativity Adjectival Participles (I)

Adjectival Participles (II)

Transitive verbs are different: The object role of the participle is filled by the modified noun: (39)

• a. die

the geliebte loved Frau woman

• b. der

the geschlagene beaten Hund dog Verbs that do not have an accusative object usually do not allow for adjectival particples: (40)

• a. * der

the getanzte danced Mann man

• b. * der

the (ihm) geholfene him Mann helped man

c Stefan M¨ uller 2005, CL, FB 10, Universit¨ at Bremen & CL, Uni Potsdam 36/65

The Phenomenon Unaccusativity Nominatives with Object Properties

Nominatives with Object Properties (I)

• Arguments of certain verbs that are nominative in active sentences have
• bject properties.

c Stefan M¨ uller 2005, CL, FB 10, Universit¨ at Bremen & CL, Uni Potsdam 37/65

The Phenomenon Unaccusativity Nominatives with Object Properties

Nominatives with Object Properties (I)

• Arguments of certain verbs that are nominative in active sentences have
• bject properties.
• Such verbs are called unaccusative (Perlmutter, 1978) or ergative (see

for instance Grewendorf, 1989).

c Stefan M¨ uller 2005, CL, FB 10, Universit¨ at Bremen & CL, Uni Potsdam 37/65

The Phenomenon Unaccusativity Nominatives with Object Properties

Nominatives with Object Properties (I)

• Arguments of certain verbs that are nominative in active sentences have
• bject properties.
• Such verbs are called unaccusative (Perlmutter, 1978) or ergative (see

for instance Grewendorf, 1989).

• Grewendorf (1989): fourteen tests to differenciate between unaccusative

and unergative/transitive verbs.

c Stefan M¨ uller 2005, CL, FB 10, Universit¨ at Bremen & CL, Uni Potsdam 37/65

The Phenomenon Unaccusativity Nominatives with Object Properties

Nominatives with Object Properties (I)

• Arguments of certain verbs that are nominative in active sentences have
• bject properties.
• Such verbs are called unaccusative (Perlmutter, 1978) or ergative (see

for instance Grewendorf, 1989).

• Grewendorf (1989): fourteen tests to differenciate between unaccusative

and unergative/transitive verbs.

• Fanselow (1992) six additional tests

c Stefan M¨ uller 2005, CL, FB 10, Universit¨ at Bremen & CL, Uni Potsdam 37/65

The Phenomenon Unaccusativity Nominatives with Object Properties

Nominatives with Object Properties (I)

• Arguments of certain verbs that are nominative in active sentences have
• bject properties.
• Such verbs are called unaccusative (Perlmutter, 1978) or ergative (see

for instance Grewendorf, 1989).

• Grewendorf (1989): fourteen tests to differenciate between unaccusative

and unergative/transitive verbs.

• Fanselow (1992) six additional tests
• Despite this big number of test researchers do not agree which verbs

should be treated as unaccusative.

c Stefan M¨ uller 2005, CL, FB 10, Universit¨ at Bremen & CL, Uni Potsdam 37/65

The Phenomenon Unaccusativity Nominatives with Object Properties

Nominatives with Object Properties (I)

• Arguments of certain verbs that are nominative in active sentences have
• bject properties.
• Such verbs are called unaccusative (Perlmutter, 1978) or ergative (see

for instance Grewendorf, 1989).

• Grewendorf (1989): fourteen tests to differenciate between unaccusative

and unergative/transitive verbs.

• Fanselow (1992) six additional tests
• Despite this big number of test researchers do not agree which verbs

should be treated as unaccusative.

• Some tests produce contradicting results (M¨

uller, 2002, In Preparation).

c Stefan M¨ uller 2005, CL, FB 10, Universit¨ at Bremen & CL, Uni Potsdam 37/65

The Phenomenon Unaccusativity Nominatives with Object Properties

Nominatives with Object Properties (I)

• Arguments of certain verbs that are nominative in active sentences have
• bject properties.
• Such verbs are called unaccusative (Perlmutter, 1978) or ergative (see

for instance Grewendorf, 1989).

• Grewendorf (1989): fourteen tests to differenciate between unaccusative

and unergative/transitive verbs.

• Fanselow (1992) six additional tests
• Despite this big number of test researchers do not agree which verbs

should be treated as unaccusative.

• Some tests produce contradicting results (M¨

uller, 2002, In Preparation).

• Kaufmann (1995): Many differences btween unacc and trans/unerg

verbs can be explained differently.

c Stefan M¨ uller 2005, CL, FB 10, Universit¨ at Bremen & CL, Uni Potsdam 37/65

The Phenomenon Unaccusativity Nominatives with Object Properties

Nominatives with Object Properties (II)

• Data is explained if one assumes, that the subject of unaccusative verbs

is an underlying object: Passive = Suppression of the subject. No subject present → passivization of ankommen and auffallen impossible

7Die Zeit, 26.04.1985, p. 3. c Stefan M¨ uller 2005, CL, FB 10, Universit¨ at Bremen & CL, Uni Potsdam 38/65

The Phenomenon Unaccusativity Nominatives with Object Properties

Nominatives with Object Properties (II)

• Data is explained if one assumes, that the subject of unaccusative verbs

is an underlying object: Passive = Suppression of the subject. No subject present → passivization of ankommen and auffallen impossible

• The formation of adjectival participles is possible,

if there is an element with accusative object properties.

7Die Zeit, 26.04.1985, p. 3. c Stefan M¨ uller 2005, CL, FB 10, Universit¨ at Bremen & CL, Uni Potsdam 38/65

The Phenomenon Unaccusativity Nominatives with Object Properties

Nominatives with Object Properties (II)

• Data is explained if one assumes, that the subject of unaccusative verbs

is an underlying object: Passive = Suppression of the subject. No subject present → passivization of ankommen and auffallen impossible

• The formation of adjectival participles is possible,

if there is an element with accusative object properties.

• Since the subjects of ankommen a. auffallen are underlying objects,

the well-formedness of the phrases in (41) is explained. (41)

• a. der

the angekommene arrived Zug train

• b. dem

the Regime regime-dat aufgefallene part.fell ”Vaterlandsverr¨ ater“7 traitors.to.their.country ‘the “traitors to their country” noticed by the regime’

7Die Zeit, 26.04.1985, p. 3. c Stefan M¨ uller 2005, CL, FB 10, Universit¨ at Bremen & CL, Uni Potsdam 38/65

The Phenomenon Unaccusativity Resultative Constructions

Resultative Constructions

Resultative Constructions: Verb + Accusative + Predicate (Wunderlich, 1997; M¨ uller, 2002, Chapter 5): (42) weil because niemand nobody-nom den the Teich pond-acc leer empty fischt fishes ‘because nobody fishes the pond empty’ If the verbs are unergative, the resultative predicate predicates over the accusative.

c Stefan M¨ uller 2005, CL, FB 10, Universit¨ at Bremen & CL, Uni Potsdam 39/65

The Phenomenon Unaccusativity Resultative Constructions

Resultative Constructions with Unaccusative Verbs

Resultative predicate predicates over the subject of the verb: (43) a. [. . . ] und and im in.the Winter winter fror froze sein its Wasser water zu to Eis.8 ice ‘and in the winter its water froze to ice.’

• b. den

the Tonb¨ andern tapes im in.the Archiv, archive die which in in der the tropischen tropical Hitze heat zu to einer a schwarzen black Masse mass schmolzen.9 melted Data are explained, if the result predicate predicates over the element with object properties. Subjects in (43) are not normal subjects but underlying objects.

8Frankfurter Rundschau, 16.09.1999, p. 3. 9Frankfurter Rundschau, 05.08.1997, p. 3. c Stefan M¨ uller 2005, CL, FB 10, Universit¨ at Bremen & CL, Uni Potsdam 40/65

Case and Passive in Head-Driven Phrase Structure Grammar Passive The Analysis

Outline

• Case
• Passive
• The Phenomenon
• Various Types of the Passive
• Morphological Identity of Forms
• Unaccusativity
• The Analysis
• Preliminaries (the Verbal Complex)
• Unaccusativity
• The Actual Analysis

Case and Passive in Head-Driven Phrase Structure Grammar Passive The Analysis

Two Strategies

• In principle, there are two strategies for tackling the passive problem:
• 1. One (or more) lexical entries for the perfect participle and the passive

participle(s). (Bresnan, 1978, 1982; Pollard and Sag, 1987, p. 214–218; Bierwisch, 1990, p. 189; Kunze, 1996, p. 656; Manning and Sag, 1998; Michaelis and Ruppenhofer, 2001, Chapter 4; Vierhuff, Hildebrandt and Eikmeyer, 2003, p. 231)

c Stefan M¨ uller 2005, CL, FB 10, Universit¨ at Bremen & CL, Uni Potsdam 41/65

Case and Passive in Head-Driven Phrase Structure Grammar Passive The Analysis

Two Strategies

• In principle, there are two strategies for tackling the passive problem:
• 1. One (or more) lexical entries for the perfect participle and the passive

participle(s). (Bresnan, 1978, 1982; Pollard and Sag, 1987, p. 214–218; Bierwisch, 1990, p. 189; Kunze, 1996, p. 656; Manning and Sag, 1998; Michaelis and Ruppenhofer, 2001, Chapter 4; Vierhuff, Hildebrandt and Eikmeyer, 2003, p. 231)

• 2. One lexical entry for the participle that can be used in different
• environments. (Bech, 1955, p. 37; H¨
• hle, 1978; Haider, 1986; Toman, 1986;

Fanselow, 1987, p. 165; Hoekstra, 1987, p. 283; von Stechow, 1990, p. 171)

c Stefan M¨ uller 2005, CL, FB 10, Universit¨ at Bremen & CL, Uni Potsdam 41/65

Case and Passive in Head-Driven Phrase Structure Grammar Passive The Analysis

Two Strategies

• In principle, there are two strategies for tackling the passive problem:
• 1. One (or more) lexical entries for the perfect participle and the passive

participle(s). (Bresnan, 1978, 1982; Pollard and Sag, 1987, p. 214–218; Bierwisch, 1990, p. 189; Kunze, 1996, p. 656; Manning and Sag, 1998; Michaelis and Ruppenhofer, 2001, Chapter 4; Vierhuff, Hildebrandt and Eikmeyer, 2003, p. 231)

• 2. One lexical entry for the participle that can be used in different
• environments. (Bech, 1955, p. 37; H¨
• hle, 1978; Haider, 1986; Toman, 1986;

Fanselow, 1987, p. 165; Hoekstra, 1987, p. 283; von Stechow, 1990, p. 171)

• Solution 1: Lexical rules that map active to passive forms or stems to

various participles.

c Stefan M¨ uller 2005, CL, FB 10, Universit¨ at Bremen & CL, Uni Potsdam 41/65

Case and Passive in Head-Driven Phrase Structure Grammar Passive The Analysis

Two Strategies

• In principle, there are two strategies for tackling the passive problem:
• 1. One (or more) lexical entries for the perfect participle and the passive

participle(s). (Bresnan, 1978, 1982; Pollard and Sag, 1987, p. 214–218; Bierwisch, 1990, p. 189; Kunze, 1996, p. 656; Manning and Sag, 1998; Michaelis and Ruppenhofer, 2001, Chapter 4; Vierhuff, Hildebrandt and Eikmeyer, 2003, p. 231)

• 2. One lexical entry for the participle that can be used in different
• environments. (Bech, 1955, p. 37; H¨
• hle, 1978; Haider, 1986; Toman, 1986;

Fanselow, 1987, p. 165; Hoekstra, 1987, p. 283; von Stechow, 1990, p. 171)

• Solution 1: Lexical rules that map active to passive forms or stems to

various participles.

• Solution 2: Argument Attraction: The auxiliary determines which

arguments of the embedded verb are realized and determines the form.

c Stefan M¨ uller 2005, CL, FB 10, Universit¨ at Bremen & CL, Uni Potsdam 41/65

Case and Passive in Head-Driven Phrase Structure Grammar Passive The Analysis

Two Strategies

• In principle, there are two strategies for tackling the passive problem:
• 1. One (or more) lexical entries for the perfect participle and the passive

participle(s). (Bresnan, 1978, 1982; Pollard and Sag, 1987, p. 214–218; Bierwisch, 1990, p. 189; Kunze, 1996, p. 656; Manning and Sag, 1998; Michaelis and Ruppenhofer, 2001, Chapter 4; Vierhuff, Hildebrandt and Eikmeyer, 2003, p. 231)

• 2. One lexical entry for the participle that can be used in different
• environments. (Bech, 1955, p. 37; H¨
• hle, 1978; Haider, 1986; Toman, 1986;

Fanselow, 1987, p. 165; Hoekstra, 1987, p. 283; von Stechow, 1990, p. 171)

• Solution 1: Lexical rules that map active to passive forms or stems to

various participles.

• Solution 2: Argument Attraction: The auxiliary determines which

arguments of the embedded verb are realized and determines the form.

• Argument for 2: No variation in morphological form.

c Stefan M¨ uller 2005, CL, FB 10, Universit¨ at Bremen & CL, Uni Potsdam 41/65

The Analysis Preliminaries The Subject of Non-Finite Verbs

The Subject of Non-Finite Verbs

• Subject of non-finite verbs is not represented in the subcat-Liste,

but under subj (Borsley, 1989; Pollard, 1996; Kiss, 1992, 1995)

• VPs are maximal projections (uniform treatment of extraposition): A

neccessary condition for extraposition is maximality.

• The lexicon contains stems that have all their arguments on subcat.

The stem is mapped onto inflected forms and the subject of infinitives with and without zu is not represented in the subcat of the output, but under subj.

c Stefan M¨ uller 2005, CL, FB 10, Universit¨ at Bremen & CL, Uni Potsdam 42/65

The Analysis Preliminaries The Subject of Non-Finite Verbs

The Verbal Complex

• I assume that auxiliaries and embedded verb form a complex.
• The embedding verb takes over all arguments from the embedded verb.
• More motivation tomorrow.

c Stefan M¨ uller 2005, CL, FB 10, Universit¨ at Bremen & CL, Uni Potsdam 43/65

The Analysis Preliminaries Lexical Entry for the Future Auxiliary

Lexical Entry for the Future Auxiliary

• werden selects a verb in bse form, that is an infinitive without zu.

(44) wird (Futur Auxiliary):    head verb subcat

1 ⊕ 2 ⊕ V[bse, subj 1 , subcat 2 ]

cat   

c Stefan M¨ uller 2005, CL, FB 10, Universit¨ at Bremen & CL, Uni Potsdam 44/65

The Analysis Preliminaries Lexical Entry for the Future Auxiliary

Lexical Entry for the Future Auxiliary

• werden selects a verb in bse form, that is an infinitive without zu.

(44) wird (Futur Auxiliary):    head verb subcat

1 ⊕ 2 ⊕ V[bse, subj 1 , subcat 2 ]

cat   

• wird takes over the description of the arguments of helfen (Karl, mir):

(45) daß that Karl Karl mir me helfen help wird will ‘that Karl will help me’ The subcat-Liste of helfen wird has the same form as the one of hilft.

c Stefan M¨ uller 2005, CL, FB 10, Universit¨ at Bremen & CL, Uni Potsdam 44/65

The Analysis Preliminaries Lexical Entry for the Future Auxiliary

Lexical Entry for the Future Auxiliary

• werden selects a verb in bse form, that is an infinitive without zu.

(44) wird (Futur Auxiliary):    head verb subcat

1 ⊕ 2 ⊕ V[bse, subj 1 , subcat 2 ]

cat   

• wird takes over the description of the arguments of helfen (Karl, mir):

(45) daß that Karl Karl mir me helfen help wird will ‘that Karl will help me’ The subcat-Liste of helfen wird has the same form as the one of hilft.

• The auxiliary attracts the arguments of the embedded verb.

(argument attraction, argument composition).

c Stefan M¨ uller 2005, CL, FB 10, Universit¨ at Bremen & CL, Uni Potsdam 44/65

The Analysis Preliminaries Lexical Entry for the Future Auxiliary

Analysis of helfen wird (‘help will’)

• head

1

subcat

2 ⊕ 3

• CL

H

4

       loc       head    subj

2 NP[nom]

vform bse verb    subcat 3 NP[dat]                   head

1

   subj vform fin verb    subcat

2 ⊕ 3 ⊕ 4

     helfen wird

c Stefan M¨ uller 2005, CL, FB 10, Universit¨ at Bremen & CL, Uni Potsdam 45/65

Case and Passive in Head-Driven Phrase Structure Grammar Passive The Analysis

Outline

• Case
• Passive
• The Phenomenon
• Various Types of the Passive
• Morphological Identity of Forms
• Unaccusativity
• The Analysis
• Preliminaries (the Verbal Complex)
• Unaccusativity
• The Actual Analysis

Passive The Analysis The Representation of Unaccusativity

Unaccusative, Unergative, and Transitive Verbs

• Haider (1986): Argument with subject properties (the designated argument) is marked in

the argument structure of the verb.

c Stefan M¨ uller 2005, CL, FB 10, Universit¨ at Bremen & CL, Uni Potsdam 46/65

Passive The Analysis The Representation of Unaccusativity

Unaccusative, Unergative, and Transitive Verbs

• Haider (1986): Argument with subject properties (the designated argument) is marked in

the argument structure of the verb.

• The subject of unergative and transitive verbs is the designated argument.

Unaccusative verbs do not have a designated argument.

c Stefan M¨ uller 2005, CL, FB 10, Universit¨ at Bremen & CL, Uni Potsdam 46/65

Passive The Analysis The Representation of Unaccusativity

Unaccusative, Unergative, and Transitive Verbs

• Haider (1986): Argument with subject properties (the designated argument) is marked in

the argument structure of the verb.

• The subject of unergative and transitive verbs is the designated argument.

Unaccusative verbs do not have a designated argument.

• Heinz and Matiasek (1994) and Lebeth (1994) use a list-valued feature da for the

representation of the designated argument. If there is a designated argument, it is a member of both the da and the subcat-Liste: da subcat ankommen (unaccusative):

• NP[str]

tanzen (unergative): 1 NP[str] 1 auffallen (unaccusative):

• NP[str], NP[ldat]

lieben (transitive): 1 NP[str] 1, NP[str] schenken (ditransitive): 1 NP[str] 1, NP[str], NP[ldat] helfen (unergative): 1 NP[str] 1, NP[ldat]

c Stefan M¨ uller 2005, CL, FB 10, Universit¨ at Bremen & CL, Uni Potsdam 46/65

Passive The Analysis Agentive Passive

Agentive Passive

• Haider: The designated argument of the participle is blocked.

c Stefan M¨ uller 2005, CL, FB 10, Universit¨ at Bremen & CL, Uni Potsdam 47/65

Passive The Analysis Agentive Passive

Agentive Passive

• Haider: The designated argument of the participle is blocked.
• If the participle is used in the passive, the designated argument remains
• blocked. If the participle is used in the perfect, the perfect auxiliary

deblocks the blocked element. subj subcat angekommen (unaccusative):

• NP[str]

getanzt (unergative): NP[str]

• aufgefallen (unaccusative):
• NP[str], NP[ldat]

geliebt (transitive): NP[str] NP[str] geschenkt (ditransitive): NP[str] NP[str], NP[ldat] geholfen (unergative): NP[str] NP[ldat]

c Stefan M¨ uller 2005, CL, FB 10, Universit¨ at Bremen & CL, Uni Potsdam 47/65

Passive The Analysis Agentive Passive

Argument Blocking Lexical Rule for Participles

• Argument blocking lexical rule for participles:

      . . .    head

• da

1

verb

• subcat

1 ⊕ 2

   stem       →         . . .      head    vform ppp subj

1

verb    subcat

2

     word        

• The LR brackes the subcat-Liste of the input into two parts:

The part that corresponds to the da list and a rest.

c Stefan M¨ uller 2005, CL, FB 10, Universit¨ at Bremen & CL, Uni Potsdam 48/65

Passive The Analysis Agentive Passive

Argument Blocking Lexical Rule for Participles

• Argument blocking lexical rule for participles:

      . . .    head

• da

1

verb

• subcat

1 ⊕ 2

   stem       →         . . .      head    vform ppp subj

1

verb    subcat

2

     word        

• The LR brackes the subcat-Liste of the input into two parts:

The part that corresponds to the da list and a rest.

• Only the rest is represented as the subcat value of the output.

The da list is identified with the subj-Liste of the output verb.

c Stefan M¨ uller 2005, CL, FB 10, Universit¨ at Bremen & CL, Uni Potsdam 48/65

Passive The Analysis Agentive Passive

The Passive Auxiliary (I)

• werden (Passive Auxiliary):
• da
• subcat

1 ⊕ V[ppp,

subcat 1 ]

• The passive auxilary selects a particple and attracts its arguments.

(The logical subject of the participle is blocked)

c Stefan M¨ uller 2005, CL, FB 10, Universit¨ at Bremen & CL, Uni Potsdam 49/65

Passive The Analysis Agentive Passive

The Passive Auxiliary (I)

• werden (Passive Auxiliary):
• da
• subcat

1 ⊕ V[ppp, da NP , subcat 1 ]

• The passive auxilary selects a particple and attracts its arguments.

(The logical subject of the participle is blocked)

• Auxiliary requires the particple to have a designated argument

(an element in the da-Liste). This excludes passivization of unaccusative verbs, since these do not have anything in da.

c Stefan M¨ uller 2005, CL, FB 10, Universit¨ at Bremen & CL, Uni Potsdam 49/65

Passive The Analysis Agentive Passive

The Passive Auxiliary (II)

• The entry explains both the personal and the impersonal passive:
• da
• subcat

1 ⊕ V[ppp, da NP , subcat 1 ]

• The following subcat lists result after verb complex formation:

geschlafen wird: subcat unterst¨ utzt wird: subcat NP[str]k geholfen wird: subcat NP[ldat]k geschenkt wird: subcat NP[str]k, NP[ldat]l

c Stefan M¨ uller 2005, CL, FB 10, Universit¨ at Bremen & CL, Uni Potsdam 50/65

Passive The Analysis Agentive Passive

The Passive Auxiliary (II)

• The entry explains both the personal and the impersonal passive:
• da
• subcat

1 ⊕ V[ppp, da NP , subcat 1 ]

• The following subcat lists result after verb complex formation:

geschlafen wird: subcat unterst¨ utzt wird: subcat NP[str]k geholfen wird: subcat NP[ldat]k geschenkt wird: subcat NP[str]k, NP[ldat]l

• The case principle takes care of the correct case assignment.

Case Principle c Stefan M¨ uller 2005, CL, FB 10, Universit¨ at Bremen & CL, Uni Potsdam 50/65

Passive The Analysis Agentive Passive

Exclusion of Double Passives

Without restrictions one could form a passive from (46b), which would be the impersonal passive in (46c). (46) a. weil because sie she den the Mann movie liebt loves b. weil because der the Mann man geliebt loved wurde was

• c. * weil

because geliebt loved worden been wurde was

c Stefan M¨ uller 2005, CL, FB 10, Universit¨ at Bremen & CL, Uni Potsdam 51/65

Passive The Analysis Agentive Passive

Exclusion of Double Passives

Without restrictions one could form a passive from (46b), which would be the impersonal passive in (46c). (46) a. weil because sie she den the Mann movie liebt loves b. weil because der the Mann man geliebt loved wurde was

• c. * weil

because geliebt loved worden been wurde was The da value of the passive auxiliary is the empty list. Therefore the combination of the auxiliary and the participle is parallel to unaccusative simplex verbs. Since the passive auxiliary does not allow for the embedding of unaccusatives, geliebt worden cannot be embedded under wurde in (46c).

c Stefan M¨ uller 2005, CL, FB 10, Universit¨ at Bremen & CL, Uni Potsdam 51/65

Passive The Analysis Perfect

Perfect

• The perfect auxiliary deblocks the designated argument.

haben (Perfect Auxiliary):

• subcat

1 ⊕ 2 ⊕ V[ppp, subj 1, subcat 2 ]

• c

Stefan M¨ uller 2005, CL, FB 10, Universit¨ at Bremen & CL, Uni Potsdam 52/65

Passive The Analysis Perfect

Perfect

• The perfect auxiliary deblocks the designated argument.

haben (Perfect Auxiliary):

• subcat

1 ⊕ 2 ⊕ V[ppp, subj 1, subcat 2 ]

• It attracts the concatenation of the subj value and the subcat-Liste of

the embedded verb.

c Stefan M¨ uller 2005, CL, FB 10, Universit¨ at Bremen & CL, Uni Potsdam 52/65

Passive The Analysis Perfect

Perfect

• The perfect auxiliary deblocks the designated argument.

haben (Perfect Auxiliary):

• subcat

1 ⊕ 2 ⊕ V[ppp, subj 1, subcat 2 ]

• It attracts the concatenation of the subj value and the subcat-Liste of

the embedded verb.

• The blocked designated argument is reintroduced into the subcat-Liste

by the auxiliary.

c Stefan M¨ uller 2005, CL, FB 10, Universit¨ at Bremen & CL, Uni Potsdam 52/65

Passive The Analysis Perfect

The Perfect Auxiliary sein

• Similar to haben, but does not deblock the designated argument of the

embedded participle: (47) sein (Perfect Auxiliary):

• subcat

1 ⊕ V[ppp, subcat 1]

• Since nothing was blocked during the formation of particples of verbs

like angekommen and aufgefallen, nothing has to be deblocked for the perfect.

c Stefan M¨ uller 2005, CL, FB 10, Universit¨ at Bremen & CL, Uni Potsdam 53/65

Passive The Analysis The Dative Passive

The Dative Passive

bekommen (Dative Passive Auxiliary):

     da subcat

• 1 NP[str] 2
• ⊕ 3 ⊕ 4 ⊕

V[ppp, da NP , subcat 3 ⊕

• NP[ldat] 2
• ⊕ 4 ]
• 

   

• The embedded verb has to have an element in da.

c Stefan M¨ uller 2005, CL, FB 10, Universit¨ at Bremen & CL, Uni Potsdam 54/65

Passive The Analysis The Dative Passive

The Dative Passive

bekommen (Dative Passive Auxiliary):

     da subcat

• 1 NP[str] 2
• ⊕ 3 ⊕ 4 ⊕

V[ppp, da NP , subcat 3 ⊕

• NP[ldat] 2
• ⊕ 4 ]
• 

   

• The embedded verb has to have an element in da.
• All non-blocked arguments except the dative are directly raised.

c Stefan M¨ uller 2005, CL, FB 10, Universit¨ at Bremen & CL, Uni Potsdam 54/65

Passive The Analysis The Dative Passive

The Dative Passive

bekommen (Dative Passive Auxiliary):

     da subcat

• 1 NP[str] 2
• ⊕ 3 ⊕ 4 ⊕

V[ppp, da NP , subcat 3 ⊕

• NP[ldat] 2
• ⊕ 4 ]
• 

   

• The embedded verb has to have an element in da.
• All non-blocked arguments except the dative are directly raised.
• The dative element is coindexed with an NP with structural case.

c Stefan M¨ uller 2005, CL, FB 10, Universit¨ at Bremen & CL, Uni Potsdam 54/65

Passive The Analysis Modal Infinitives

Modal Infinitives

I follow Haider in assuming that infinitives differ from participles in that the logical subject rather then the designated argument is blocked. da subcat subj

• a. anzukommen (unaccusative):
• NP[str]
• b. zu tanzen (unergative):

1 NP[str] 1

• c. aufzufallen (unaccusative):
• NP[ldat]

NP[str]

• d. zu lieben (transitive):

1 NP[str] NP[str] 1

• e. zu schenken (ditransitive):

1 NP[str] NP[str], NP[ldat] 1

• f. zu helfen (unergative):

1 NP[str] NP[ldat] 1

c Stefan M¨ uller 2005, CL, FB 10, Universit¨ at Bremen & CL, Uni Potsdam 55/65

Passive The Analysis Modal Infinitives

The Argument Blocking Lexical Rule

(48) Argument blocking lexical rule for infinitives with and without zu:    . . .

• head

verb subcat

1

• stem

   →         . . .      head    vform inf-or-bse subj

2

verb    subcat

3

     word         ∧ first-np-str( 1 , 2 , 3 ) The subject is not directly marked in the lexicon by a feature. The element that is represented under subj is the first NP in the subcat-Liste that has structural case.

c Stefan M¨ uller 2005, CL, FB 10, Universit¨ at Bremen & CL, Uni Potsdam 56/65

Passive The Analysis Modal Infinitives

The Auxiliaries

The auxiliaries are parallel to what we saw for the perfect: haben deblocks the element in subj, sein leaves blocked elements untouched. (49)

• a. weil

because ihr you-nom den the Aufsatz paper-acc zu to schreiben write habt have ‘because you have to write the paper.’

• b. weil

because der the Aufsatz paper-nom (von by euch) you zu to schreiben write ist is ‘because the paper is to be written by you.’

c Stefan M¨ uller 2005, CL, FB 10, Universit¨ at Bremen & CL, Uni Potsdam 57/65

Passive The Analysis The lassen Passive

The lassen Passive

lass- (Passive Version):   head|da 1 subcat 1 NP[str] ⊕ 2 ⊕

• V[bse, da NP , subcat 2 ]
• 



• lassen requires the embedded verb to have a da.

c Stefan M¨ uller 2005, CL, FB 10, Universit¨ at Bremen & CL, Uni Potsdam 58/65

Passive The Analysis The lassen Passive

The lassen Passive

lass- (Passive Version):   head|da 1 subcat 1 NP[str] ⊕ 2 ⊕

• V[bse, da NP , subcat 2 ]
• 



• lassen requires the embedded verb to have a da.
• It raises all arguments that are not blocked.

c Stefan M¨ uller 2005, CL, FB 10, Universit¨ at Bremen & CL, Uni Potsdam 58/65

Passive The Analysis The lassen Passive

The lassen Passive

lass- (Passive Version):   head|da 1 subcat 1 NP[str] ⊕ 2 ⊕

• V[bse, da NP , subcat 2 ]
• 



• lassen requires the embedded verb to have a da.
• It raises all arguments that are not blocked.
• It introduces its own argument.

c Stefan M¨ uller 2005, CL, FB 10, Universit¨ at Bremen & CL, Uni Potsdam 58/65

Passive The Analysis The lassen Passive

The lassen Passive

lass- (Passive Version):   head|da 1 subcat 1 NP[str] ⊕ 2 ⊕

• V[bse, da NP , subcat 2 ]
• 



• lassen requires the embedded verb to have a da.
• It raises all arguments that are not blocked.
• It introduces its own argument.
• The case principle does the rest.

c Stefan M¨ uller 2005, CL, FB 10, Universit¨ at Bremen & CL, Uni Potsdam 58/65

Passive The Analysis Adjectival Participles

Adjectival Participles

Adjective Derivation Rule for Participles:       . . .    head

• vform ppp

verb

• subcat 1 NP[str] ⊕ 2

   word       →       . . .    head

• subj 1

adj

• subcat

2

   stem      

• The lexical rule maps a participle onto an adjective stem.
• The designated argument of the participle is blocked, if there is any.
• Therefore the element at the first position of the subcat-Liste is the

element with object properties (the direct object of transitive verbs and the subject of unaccusative verbs).

c Stefan M¨ uller 2005, CL, FB 10, Universit¨ at Bremen & CL, Uni Potsdam 59/65

Passive The Analysis Adjectival Participles

Adjectival Participles: The Data

Analysis makes correct predictions for our examples: (50)

• a. der

the angekommene arrived Zug train

• b. dem

the Regime regime-dat aufgefallene part.fell ”Vaterlandsverr¨ ater“ traitors.to.their.country ‘the “traitors to their country” noticed by the regime’ (51)

• a. die

the geliebte loved Frau woman

• b. der

the geschlagene beaten Hund dog (52)

• a. * der

the getanzte danced Mann man

• b. * der

the (ihm) geholfene him Mann helped man

c Stefan M¨ uller 2005, CL, FB 10, Universit¨ at Bremen & CL, Uni Potsdam 60/65

Case and Passive in Head-Driven Phrase Structure Grammar Conclusion

Further Constraints on the Modal Passive

subjectless verbs like grauen (‘to dread’) do neither have a syntactic subject nor a designated argument: subj da subcat

• a. gegraut (unerg):
• NP[ldat], PP[ldat]
• b. zu grauen (unacc):
• NP[ldat], PP[ldat]
• They have to be excluded in passive or passive-like constructions:

(53)

• a. * Dem

the Student student-dat wird gets (vom by.the Professor) professor vor before der the Pr¨ ufung exam gegraut. dreaded Intended: ‘(The professor is threatening so that) the student dreads the exam.’

• b. * Dem Student ist vor

der Pr¨ ufung zu grauen.

c Stefan M¨ uller 2005, CL, FB 10, Universit¨ at Bremen & CL, Uni Potsdam 61/65

Case and Passive in Head-Driven Phrase Structure Grammar Conclusion

Adjectival Participles

The participle is mapped to an adjectival stem. After inflection this can be used in syntax:     head

• vform ppp

verb

• subcat
• 1 NP[str]
• ⊕ 2

    →     head

• subj
• 1
• adj
• subcat

2

   

c Stefan M¨ uller 2005, CL, FB 10, Universit¨ at Bremen & CL, Uni Potsdam 62/65

Case and Passive in Head-Driven Phrase Structure Grammar Conclusion

Kathol (1994, Chapter 7.3.3)

ext subj subcat

• a. angekommen (arrived, unacc):
• 1 NP[nom]

1

• b. geschlafen (slept, unerg):
• NP[nom]
• c. geliebt (loved, unerg):
• NP[nom]
• NP[acc]
• haben (Perfect Auxiliary)

subj

3

comps

2 ⊕ 1 ⊕

• V[subj 2 , ext 3 , subcat 1 ]
• ∧ 2 = 3

sein (Perfect Auxiliary)

subj

2

comps

1 ⊕

• V[subj 2 , ext 2 , subcat 1 ]
• werden (Passive Auxiliary)

 comps

1 ⊕

• V[subj
• NP[acc] 2
• , subcat 1 ]
• subj
• NP[nom] 2
• 



c Stefan M¨ uller 2005, CL, FB 10, Universit¨ at Bremen & CL, Uni Potsdam 63/65

Case and Passive in Head-Driven Phrase Structure Grammar Conclusion

Problems

Both subj and ext are deblocked by the auxiliary. (54) Seine his Frau wife geliebt loved hat has er he nie. never ‘He never loved his wife.’ The phrase seine Frau has to be analyzed as an argument of the auxiliary. This does not explain why the NP can be fronted together with the participle.

c Stefan M¨ uller 2005, CL, FB 10, Universit¨ at Bremen & CL, Uni Potsdam 64/65

Case and Passive in Head-Driven Phrase Structure Grammar Conclusion

Problems

Both subj and ext are deblocked by the auxiliary. (54) Seine his Frau wife geliebt loved hat has er he nie. never ‘He never loved his wife.’ The phrase seine Frau has to be analyzed as an argument of the auxiliary. This does not explain why the NP can be fronted together with the participle. Subjectless verbs are not compatible with the perfect auxiliaries, since they take haben. (55)

• a. Dem

the Student student-dat hat has vor before der the Pr¨ ufung exam gegraut. dreaded ‘The student dreaded the exam.’

• b. gegraut (unerg):

ext subj subcat

• c

Stefan M¨ uller 2005, CL, FB 10, Universit¨ at Bremen & CL, Uni Potsdam 64/65

Case and Passive in Head-Driven Phrase Structure Grammar Conclusion

Problems

Both subj and ext are deblocked by the auxiliary. (54) Seine his Frau wife geliebt loved hat has er he nie. never ‘He never loved his wife.’ The phrase seine Frau has to be analyzed as an argument of the auxiliary. This does not explain why the NP can be fronted together with the participle. Subjectless verbs are not compatible with the perfect auxiliaries, since they take haben. (55)

• a. Dem

the Student student-dat hat has vor before der the Pr¨ ufung exam gegraut. dreaded ‘The student dreaded the exam.’

• b. gegraut (unerg):

ext subj subcat

• c

Stefan M¨ uller 2005, CL, FB 10, Universit¨ at Bremen & CL, Uni Potsdam 64/65

Case and Passive in Head-Driven Phrase Structure Grammar Summary and Comparison

Summary and Comparison

• Case is assigned on the valence list (subcat or arg-st).

c Stefan M¨ uller 2005, CL, FB 10, Universit¨ at Bremen & CL, Uni Potsdam 65/65

Case and Passive in Head-Driven Phrase Structure Grammar Summary and Comparison

Summary and Comparison

• Case is assigned on the valence list (subcat or arg-st).
• Passive is not movement.

c Stefan M¨ uller 2005, CL, FB 10, Universit¨ at Bremen & CL, Uni Potsdam 65/65

Case and Passive in Head-Driven Phrase Structure Grammar Summary and Comparison

Summary and Comparison

• Case is assigned on the valence list (subcat or arg-st).
• Passive is not movement.
• Passive is just suppression of the least oblique NP with structural case

(designated argument).

c Stefan M¨ uller 2005, CL, FB 10, Universit¨ at Bremen & CL, Uni Potsdam 65/65

Case and Passive in Head-Driven Phrase Structure Grammar Summary and Comparison

Summary and Comparison

• Case is assigned on the valence list (subcat or arg-st).
• Passive is not movement.
• Passive is just suppression of the least oblique NP with structural case

(designated argument).

• Lexical rule-based analyses either had up to four lexical items per

non-finite form or could not account for the similarity of passive/perfect and modal infinitives.

c Stefan M¨ uller 2005, CL, FB 10, Universit¨ at Bremen & CL, Uni Potsdam 65/65

Case and Passive in Head-Driven Phrase Structure Grammar Summary and Comparison

Summary and Comparison

• Case is assigned on the valence list (subcat or arg-st).
• Passive is not movement.
• Passive is just suppression of the least oblique NP with structural case

(designated argument).

• Lexical rule-based analyses either had up to four lexical items per

non-finite form or could not account for the similarity of passive/perfect and modal infinitives.

• Analysis is consistent with the so-called remote passive and the

passivization of consider-type predicates, resultative constructions, and particle verbs, which we will look at tomorrow.

c Stefan M¨ uller 2005, CL, FB 10, Universit¨ at Bremen & CL, Uni Potsdam 65/65

Case and Passive in Head-Driven Phrase Structure Grammar Summary and Comparison

Summary and Comparison

• Case is assigned on the valence list (subcat or arg-st).
• Passive is not movement.
• Passive is just suppression of the least oblique NP with structural case

(designated argument).

• Lexical rule-based analyses either had up to four lexical items per

non-finite form or could not account for the similarity of passive/perfect and modal infinitives.

• Analysis is consistent with the so-called remote passive and the

passivization of consider-type predicates, resultative constructions, and particle verbs, which we will look at tomorrow.

c Stefan M¨ uller 2005, CL, FB 10, Universit¨ at Bremen & CL, Uni Potsdam 65/65

Case and Passive in Head-Driven Phrase Structure Grammar Summary and Comparison

Summary and Comparison

• Case is assigned on the valence list (subcat or arg-st).
• Passive is not movement.
• Passive is just suppression of the least oblique NP with structural case

(designated argument).

• Lexical rule-based analyses either had up to four lexical items per

non-finite form or could not account for the similarity of passive/perfect and modal infinitives.

• Analysis is consistent with the so-called remote passive and the

passivization of consider-type predicates, resultative constructions, and particle verbs, which we will look at tomorrow.

c Stefan M¨ uller 2005, CL, FB 10, Universit¨ at Bremen & CL, Uni Potsdam 65/65

Case and Passive in Head-Driven Phrase Structure Grammar Summary and Comparison

Summary and Comparison

• Case is assigned on the valence list (subcat or arg-st).
• Passive is not movement.
• Passive is just suppression of the least oblique NP with structural case

(designated argument).

• Lexical rule-based analyses either had up to four lexical items per

non-finite form or could not account for the similarity of passive/perfect and modal infinitives.

• Analysis is consistent with the so-called remote passive and the

passivization of consider-type predicates, resultative constructions, and particle verbs, which we will look at tomorrow.

c Stefan M¨ uller 2005, CL, FB 10, Universit¨ at Bremen & CL, Uni Potsdam 65/65

Case and Passive in Head-Driven Phrase Structure Grammar References Bech, Gunnar. 1955. Studien ¨ uber das deutsche Verbum

• infinitum. Linguistische Arbeiten, No. 139, T¨

ubingen: Max Niemeyer Verlag, 2nd unchanged edition 1983. Bierwisch, Manfred. 1990. Verb Cluster Formation as a Morphological Process. In Geert E. Booij and Jaap van Marle (eds.), Yearbook of Morphology, volume 3, pages 173–199, Dordrecht: Holland, Providence: U.S.A.: Foris Publications. Borsley, Robert D. 1989. An HPSG Approach to Welsh. Journal of Linguistics 25, 333–354. Bresnan, Joan. 1978. A Realistic Transformational Grammar. In M. Halle, J. Bresnan and G. A. Miller (eds.), Linguistic Theory and Psychological Reality, pages 1–59, Cambridge: Massachusetts: MIT Press. Bresnan, Joan. 1982. The Passive in Lexical Theory. In Joan Bresnan (ed.), The Mental Representation of Grammatical Relations, MIT Press Series on Cognitive Theory and Mental Representation, pages 3–86, Cambridge: Massachusetts, London: England: The MIT Press. Engdahl, Elisabet. 2000. Scandinavian Passives in HPSG. NORDSEM report 14, G¨

• teborg University.

Fanselow, Gisbert. 1987. Konfigurationalit¨

• at. Studien zur

deutschen Grammatik, No. 29, T¨ ubingen: Gunter Narr Verlag. Fanselow, Gisbert. 1992. ”Ergative“ Verben und die Struktur des deutschen Mittelfelds. In Ludger Hoffmann (ed.), Deutsche Syntax – Ansichten und Aussichten, Institut f¨ ur deutsche Sprache, Jahrbuch 1991, pages 276–303, Berlin, New York: de Gruyter. Grewendorf, G¨

• unther. 1989. Ergativity in German. Studies in

Generative Grammar, No. 35, Dordrecht: Holland, Providence: U.S.A.: Foris Publications. Haider, Hubert. 1985. The Case of German. In Jindˇ rich Toman (ed.), Studies in German Grammar, Studies in Generative Grammar, No. 21, pages 23–64, Dordrecht: Holland, Cinnaminson: U.S.A.: Foris Publications. Haider, Hubert. 1986. Fehlende Argumente: vom Passiv zu koh¨ arenten Infinitiven. Linguistische Berichte 101, 3–33. Heidolph, Karl Erich, Fl¨ aming, Walter and Motsch, Walter (eds.). 1981. Grundz¨ uge einer deutschen Grammatik. Berlin – Hauptstadt der DDR: Akademie Verlag. Heinz, Wolfgang and Matiasek, Johannes. 1994. Argument Structure and Case Assignment in German. In Nerbonne et al. (1994), pages 199–236. Helbig, Gerhard and Buscha, Joachim. 1972. Deutsche

• Grammatik. Ein Handbuch f¨

ur den Ausl¨ anderunterricht. Leipzig: VEB Verlag Enzyklop¨ adie. Hoekstra, Teun. 1987. Transitivity. Grammatical Relations in Government-Binding Theory. Dordrecht: Holland, Cinnaminson: U.S.A.: Foris Publications. H¨

• hle, Tilman N. 1978. Lexikalische Syntax: Die

Aktiv-Passiv-Relation und andere Infinitkonstruktionen im

• Deutschen. Linguistische Arbeiten, No. 67, T¨

ubingen: Max Niemeyer Verlag. H¨

• hle, Tilman N. 1983. Topologische Felder, K¨
• ln, ms.

Case and Passive in Head-Driven Phrase Structure Grammar References Kathol, Andreas. 1994. Passives without Lexical Rules. In Nerbonne et al. (1994), pages 237–272. Kaufmann, Ingrid. 1995. Konzeptuelle Grundlagen semantischer Dekompositionsstrukturen. Die Kombinatorik lokaler Verben und pr¨ adikativer Elemente. Linguistische Arbeiten, No. 335, T¨ ubingen: Max Niemeyer Verlag. Kiss, Tibor. 1992. Variable Subkategorisierung. Eine Theorie unpers¨

• nlicher Einbettungen im Deutschen. Linguistische

Berichte 140, 256–293. Kiss, Tibor. 1995. Infinite Komplementation. Neue Studien zum deutschen Verbum infinitum. Linguistische Arbeiten,

• No. 333, T¨

ubingen: Max Niemeyer Verlag. Kunze, J¨

• urgen. 1996. Plain Middles and lassen Middles in

German: Reflexive Constructions and Sentence

• Perspective. Linguistics 34(3), 645–695.

Lebeth, Kai. 1994. Morphosyntaktischer Strukturaufbau – Die Generierung komplexer Verben im HPSG-Lexikon eines

• Sprachproduktionssystems. Hamburger Arbeitspapiere zur

Sprachproduktion – IV Arbeitspapier No. 16, Universit¨ at Hamburg, Fachbereich Informatik. Manning, Christopher D. and Sag, Ivan A. 1998. Argument Structure, Valance, and Binding. Nordic Journal of Linguistics 21(2), 107–144. Meurers, Walt Detmar. 1999. Raising Spirits (and Assigning Them Case). Groninger Arbeiten zur Germanistischen Linguistik (GAGL) 43, 173–226, http://ling.osu.edu/˜dm/papers/gagl99.html. 18.04.2000. Meurers, Walt Detmar and De Kuthy, Kordula. 2001. Case Assignment in Partially Fronted Constituents. In Christian Rohrer, Antje Roßdeutscher and Hans Kamp (eds.), Linguistic Form and its Computation, CSLI Studies in Computational Linguistics, No. 1, pages 29–63, Stanford: CSLI Publications. Michaelis, Laura A. and Ruppenhofer, Josef. 2001. Beyond Alternations: A Constructional Model of the German Applicative Pattern. Stanford Monographs in Linguistics, Stanford: CSLI Publications. M¨ uller, Stefan. 2002. Complex Predicates: Verbal Complexes, Resultative Constructions, and Particle Verbs in German. Studies in Constraint-Based Lexicalism, No. 13, Stanford: CSLI Publications, http://www.cl.uni-bremen.de/˜stefan/Pub/complex.html. 02.12.2005. M¨ uller, Stefan. In Preparation. Head-Driven Phrase Structure Grammar: Eine Einf¨ uhrung. http://www.cl.uni-bremen.de/˜stefan/Pub/hpsg-lehrbuch.htm 02.12.2005. Nerbonne, John, Netter, Klaus and Pollard, Carl J. (eds.).

• 1994. German in Head-Driven Phrase Structure Grammar.

CSLI Lecture Notes, No. 46, Stanford: CSLI Publications. Olsen, Susan. 1997. Der Dativ bei Partikelverben. In Christa D¨ urscheid, Karl Heinz Ramers and Monika Schwarz (eds.), Sprache im Fokus. Festschrift f¨ ur Heinz Vater zum

• 65. Geburtstag, pages 307–328, T¨

ubingen: Max Niemeyer Verlag.

Case and Passive in Head-Driven Phrase Structure Grammar References Perlmutter, David M. 1978. Impersonal Passives and the Unaccusative Hypothesis. In Proceedings of the 4th Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society, pages 157–189. Pollard, Carl J. 1994. Toward a Unified Account of Passive in

• German. In Nerbonne et al. (1994), pages 273–296.

Pollard, Carl J. 1996. On Head Non-Movement. In Harry Bunt and Arthur van Horck (eds.), Discontinuous Constituency, Natural Language Processing, No. 6, pages 279–305, Berlin, New York: Mouton de Gruyter, ver¨

• ffentlichte

Version eines Ms. von 1990. Pollard, Carl J. and Sag, Ivan A. 1987. Information-Based Syntax and Semantics. CSLI Lecture Notes, No. 13, Stanford: CSLI Publications. Przepi´

• rkowski, Adam. 1999a. Case Assignment and the

Complement-Adjunct Dichotomy: A Non-Configurational Constraint-Based Approach. Ph. D.thesis, Eberhard-Karls-Universit¨ at T¨ ubingen, Germany, http://w210.ub.uni-tuebingen.de/dbt/volltexte/1999/72/. 19.11.2005. Przepi´

• rkowski, Adam. 1999b. On Case Assignment and

“Adjuncts as Complements”. In Gert Webelhuth, Jean-Pierre Koenig and Andreas Kathol (eds.), Lexical and Constructional Aspects of Linguistic Explanation, Studies in Constraint-Based Lexicalism, No. 1, pages 231–245, Stanford: CSLI Publications. Pullum, Geoffrey K. 1988. Citation Etiquette Beyond

• Thunderdome. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory

6, 579–588. Rapp, Irene. 1997. Partizipien und semantische Struktur: Zu passivischen Konstruktionen mit dem 3. Status. Studien zur deutschen Grammatik, No. 54, T¨ ubingen: Stauffenburg Verlag. Reis, Marga. 1982. Zum Subjektbegriff im Deutschen. In Werner Abraham (ed.), Satzglieder im Deutschen – Vorschl¨ age zur syntaktischen, semantischen und pragmatischen Fundierung, Studien zur deutschen Grammatik, No. 15, pages 171–211, T¨ ubingen: Gunter Narr Verlag. Stiebels, Barbara. 1996. Lexikalische Argumente und Adjunkte: Zum semantischen Beitrag verbaler Pr¨ afixe und

• Partikeln. studia grammatica XXXIX, Berlin: Akademie

Verlag. Toman, Jindˇ

• rich. 1986. A (Word-)Syntax for Participles.

Linguistische Berichte 105, 367–408. Vierhuff, Tilman, Hildebrandt, Bernd and Eikmeyer, Hans-J¨

• urgen. 2003. Effiziente Verarbeitung deutscher

Konstituentenstellung mit der Combinatorial Categorial

• Grammar. Linguistische Berichte 194, 213–237.

von Stechow, Arnim. 1990. Status Government and Coherence in German. In G¨ unther Grewendorf and Wolfgang Sternefeld (eds.), Scrambling and Barriers, Linguistik Aktuell / Linguistics Today, No. 5, pages 143–198, Amsterdam, Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company. von Stechow, Arnim and Sternefeld, Wolfgang. 1988.

Case and Passive in Head-Driven Phrase Structure Grammar References Bausteine syntaktischen Wissens. Ein Lehrbuch der Generativen Grammatik. Opladen/Wiesbaden: Westdeutscher Verlag. Wegener, Heide. 1985. ”Er bekommt widersprochen“ – Argumente f¨ ur die Existenz eines Dativpassivs im

• Deutschen. Linguistische Berichte 96, 127–139.

Wegener, Heide. 1990. Der Dativ – ein struktureller Kasus? In Gisbert Fanselow and Sascha W. Felix (eds.), Strukturen und Merkmale syntaktischer Kategorien, Studien zur deutschen Grammatik, No. 39, pages 70–103, T¨ ubingen: Gunter Narr Verlag. Wunderlich, Dieter. 1984. Zur Syntax der Pr¨ apositionalphrase im Deutschen. Zeitschrift f¨ ur Sprachwissenschaft 3(1), 65–99. Wunderlich, Dieter. 1997. Argument Extension by Lexical

• Adjunction. Journal of Semantics 14(2), 95–142.

Yip, Moira, Maling, Joan and Jackendoff, Ray S. 1987. Case in Tiers. Language 63(2), 217–250.