Verb-Second and Backformations and Scalar Prefix Verbs in German

Verb-Second and Backformations and Scalar Prefix Verbs in German:
The Interaction between Morphology, Syntax and Phonology
Andrew McIntyre ([email protected]; www.uni-leipzig.de/~angling/mcintyre)
1. Introduction
This study1 discusses the theoretical consequences of the following phenomena:
Defective backformations: some backformed verbs in German resist verb-second (judgements vary from ? to *)2:
(1)
a. sie möchte BAUCHTANZEN 'she wants to bellydance'
b. *sie BAUCHTANZT oft/*sie TANTZT oft BAUCH 'she bellydances often'
c. Source: Bauchtänzerin 'bellydancer' or das Bauchtanzen 'bellydancing'
(2)
a. er kann nicht BRUCHRECHNEN 'he can not long-divide'
b. *er RECHNET nicht BRUCH/*er BRUCHRECHNET nicht 'he doesn't long-divide'
c. Source: das Bruchrechnen 'long division'
These should be contrasted with conversions based on compounds, which in no wise resist V2:
(3)
a. ich frühstücke 'I breakfast' (<Frühstück "early-piece", 'breakfast')
b. er schulmeistert 'he behaves in a schoolmasterly way' (<Schulmeister 'schoolmaster')
Scalar prefixation: Distinguish meanings of the prefix and the particle über (similar data are found with unter
'under'):
(4)
über as a prefix (various meanings, including the following reading, called the scalar reading, Risch 1995):
sie ÜBERluden den Wagen 'they overloaded the car' sie ÜBERarbeitet sich 'she overworks (herself)'
sie ÜBERschätzt sich 'she overestimates (herself)'
sie ÜBERfordert sich 'she overchallenges (herself)'
(5)
über as a particle (no scalar readings; cf. the appendix on apparent counterexamples), various other
meanings including:
a. overflowing: die Milch KOCHTE schnell ÜBER 'the milk soon boiled over'
b. transfer: er WECHSELTE zu einer anderen Partei ÜBER 'he changed over to another party'
♦ The prefix variant is unstressed and inseparable. Exception: if über is followed by an unstressed syllable, it
receives stress, cf. (6). In some, but not all, cases, the stressless syllable is a second prefix.
(6)
überdestillieren, überdosieren, überstrapazieren; überbeanspruchen, überbelasten, überbelegen,
überbelichten, überbeschäftigen, überemotionalisieren, überentwickeln, überernähren, , überversichern
♦ In such cases, there is indecision on what to do in V2 contexts. There is either separation or non-separation of
the prefix; often both options sound bad (Kiparsky 1966:96 fn. 8, cf. 72; ime kov< 1984; Zeller 1999:44f).
The following judgements are Zeller’s. They are trustworthy because Zeller was arguing against a hypothesis in
McIntyre (2001) based on similar judgements. Zeller also notes that many speakers refuse to form finite forms
of these verbs):
(7)
a. Peter bewertet die Auseinandersetzung über
'Peter overestimates the argument'
b. ?Peter überbewertet die Auseinandersetzung
♦ These are the only instances of scalar preverbs which can separate (cf. Kühnhold 1973:242).
General comments
♦ These data seem to be trying to tell us something about various important issues, including the nature of the
interfaces between morphology, syntax and phonology, and the verb-second phenomenon.
♦ I consider the evidence for a morphological generation of particle verbs to be inconclusive, but if the solutions
to the above problems are correct, then it is possible to generate separable verbs in the morphology with a clear
conscience.
2. Inadequate explanations for defectivity
♦
Hypothesis 1: Defectivity occurs when something prevents the prevents the verb’s being inflected (e.g.
incomplete verb-hood in backformations). This fails to capture the fact that most of the complex verbs we
discuss are unobjectionable in subordinate clauses where V2 isn't triggered. Furthermore, in a non-V2 language
such as English, finite and non-finite forms of backformations are equally acceptable:
(8)
a. The verb head-moves to a higher position vs. It is common for verbs to head-move [<head movement]
b. He bench-pressed 100 kilos vs. It's hard to bench-press 100 kilos [<bench pressing, a gym exercise]
c. They head-banged vs. The right of rock fans to head-bang [<head banging, a type of dance]
1
I thank Jochen Zeller for much useful discussion. His 2002 article, particularly its use of Anderson’s theory
described in (9)(a) below, decisively helped me towards harmonising the facts described herein.
2
The term ‘defective’ normally means ‘not in possession of a full inflectional paradigm’, applicable e.g. to dive in
some English dialects (*we dived/dove). We will shortly see that most backformations are not defective in this sense.
In this essay, ‘defective’ will be used in the sense ‘resisting use in verb-second contexts’.
1
♦
d. Other backformations to test this claim on (see Marchand 1969:100ff for more examples; irregularly
inflected are capitalised): SPEED-READ, TRIAL-RUN, MIND-READ, DRY-RUN, SIGHTREAD, SPOONFEED, BABYSIT,
GHOSTWRITE, TYPESET, JOYRIDE, HAMSTRING, slam-dance, fundraise, pied-pipe, sandblast, typeraise, longdivide, vacuum–clean, playact, codeswitch, g-drop, gaybash, backform, copy-edit
Hypothesis 2: Various studies have pointed out phonological restrictions on C° (Harley & Carnie 2000,
Fansalow & Cavar 2002, Légendre 2001, Pesetsky 1998), so one might propose that C° is sensitive to the
phonological properties of the items occupying it, so that initial accentuation in complex verbs (or something
connected with this) competes with factors acting against separation. This predicts that neither separation nor
non-separation is acceptable in V2 contexts. Variants of this are that C° rejects initially accented verbs
(McIntyre 2001:53-60) or multiple phonological words (Fansalow & Cavar 2002). Problem: this approach
cannot easily explain why there is no separation of (or defectivity in) initially accented conversions like (3).
3. The proposal
The proposal which I will defend can be summarised as follows:
(9)
a. VERB SECOND: In main clauses, express the inflectional information of the clause in C° (cf. Anderson
1993:88, Zeller 2002:243).
b. Inflectional exponents cannot strand, so (a) is unfulfillable without something to support them. Options
for supporting inflectional exponents are:
(i)
Moving the verb to C.
(ii)
Marginal do support constructions er tut Bücher schreiben/Bücher schreiben tut er
'writing books is what he does' (Here tun is used to carry inflection because V stays behind in
focus domain (VP) or is topicalised).
(iii)
(??)Complementiser agreement in some dialects. (These dialects lack the restriction in (a)
to main clauses).
c. INFLECTIONAL LOCUS: In headed morphological structures, it is the head which hosts inflection, not the
whole word.
d. Clarification of (b i): If VP is headed by a morphologically complex verb, ‘the verb’ in (b i) is to be
understood as that part of the V° structure upon which inflectional processes act. Call this the stem. Two
examples of stems:
(i)
If the complex verb is headed, the stem is the head, as (c) suggests.
(ii)
If the complex verb it is exocentric, the stem is the whole structure.
e. Corollary to (d): If no other factors intervened, every headed morphologically complex verb would strand
its nonhead when V2 occurs.
f. When nonhead material moves with the stem under V2, it does so for independent reasons not including a
ban on syntactic access to the internal structure of words (Lexical Integrity). For instance, unstressed
prefixes move with the verb because they are not legitimate phonological words. Section 5.2.1 gives a
number of factors acting against the separation of backformations.
g. Cases where an accented scalar prefix separates occur because the prefix becomes a well-formed
phonological word due to the postlexical stress it receives.
The theory of V2 of Anderson (1993), summarised in (9)(a), will be assumed. See that source for arguments in its
favour. If the approach espoused here proves satisfactory, the theory will receive further support. (9)(b) is
uncontroversial given (a). (9)(c) and (d) are taken up in section 4. (9)(e-g) will be defended in the rest of this essay.
4. Headedness
I reject the assumption that non-default inflection class features percolate from the head to the node dominating the
whole word. Rather, I assume that irregular inflection inheritance (flowerchildren, misunderstood) is an instance of
what I call 'direct head inflection'. By saying that an inflectional rule directly head-inflects, I mean that it performs
an operation on the head of a word exactly as if the word had no nonhead3, and that if the head determines the
inflection class of the whole, the inflection will not be realised on nonhead elements. Here 'direct head inflection' is
meant as a cover term for a number of related but distinct theoretical notions, including (a) ‘head operations’ (e.g.
Hoeksema 1985:e.g. 50, Rainer 1993) and (b) Stump's (1994) notion of ‘head-marking’ (which sees direct head
inflection as a property of rules of derivation/compounding rather than as a property of the inflectional rules, as with
head operations) and (c) Zwicky's (1985) proposal of the 'morphosyntactic locus' of a word as a potential criterion
for headship, cf. the terminology in (9)(c).
My preference for direct head inflection over percolation is motivated by facts which I will illustrate with the
German data in (10). (Stump (1994:250-51) gives further evidence for the same point.) The argument comes from
3
The effects of this generalisation can be obfuscated by phonological constraints such as the incompatibility of the
German past participle marker ge- with unstressed syllables: verstehen>vergestanden, cf. stehen>gestanden. See
Wiese (1996:89ff) and Geilfuß-Wolfgang (1998) on the phonological conditions under which ge- is not pronounced.
2
the forms of the past participles of the complex verbs in (10)(a). These verbs clearly derive from the compound
nouns in (b), but, since the nouns lack overt affixation, it is unclear whether the verbs are backformed or converted
from the nouns. This means that there is variety between speakers (and uncertainty in speakers) on how to inflect the
verbs. If analysed as conversions, the verbs are headless, and thus can only receive regular inflection (e.g. a past
participle ending in –t). To treat them as backformations is to see them as headed by the verbs in (c). Accordingly,
they are irregularly inflected, and their past participles will correspond to the bracketed forms in (c). In (d)-(g), we
see the various logically possible past participle forms for the complex verbs, with statistics on their acceptance by
Holmberg's (1976) 120 informants. When informants accept the participles, we find that the participle marker ge
only appears word-internally (i.e. adjacent to the head) when the irregular participle corresponding to the simplex
verb is used, while it appears word-externally only when default inflection applies. Thus, if the verb has a head, it
will inflect on the head, as implied by a direct head inflection theory. The assumption that inflectional irregularities
percolate to the whole complex word fails to predict the non-occurrence of (g).45
(10)
a. Complex verb
wettstreiten 'compete'
haushalten 'keep house'
b. Source noun:
Weitstreit 'contest'
Haushalt 'housekeeping'
c. Related simplex verb
streiten (gestritten)
halten (gehalten)
d. Irregular+ internal ge
wettgestritten 13%
hausgehalten 63%
e. Regular+ external ge
gewettstreitet 7%
gehaushaltet 24%
f. Regular+ internal ge
*wettgestreitet 0%
*hausgehaltet 0%
g. Irregular+ external ge
*gewettstritten 0%
*gehaushalten 0%
Thus, percolation seems less satisfactory than direct head inflection. Therefore, I will assume (9)(c) to be correct.
I now comment on some issues attending (9)(d), which says that V2 targets nothing more than the head of a
complex verb. I wish to suggest that this hypothesis can be derived from other reasonable assumptions and is thus a
conceptually reasonable point of departure. VERB SECOND in (9)(a) says that V2 attracts not a verb, but the
morphological exponents of inflection, which, however cannot appear unsupported, as (9)(b) notes. It is therefore
natural that the element to which the inflection applies (termed the 'stem' in (9)(d)) should appear with the inflection
in the position where the latter is pronounced.6 If INFLECTIONAL LOCUS in (9)(c) (based on the thesis of direct head
inflection just defended) is right, then it is strictly speaking only the head of a verb which is visible to inflectional
operations; the stem of a headed complex word is its head. Thus, if a rule like (9)(a) is satisfied by the lexical verb,
this rule will -if nothing else is said- require that nothing more and nothing less than the head of a morphologically
complex verb should appear in C°.
If the reasoning so far is correct, then (9)(d) and (e) would appear to be reasonable expectations given the nature of
VERB SECOND. However, if the reader finds any flaws in the reasoning which render it implausible to consider the
nature of VERB SECOND a sufficient condition for the expectation that only the heads of complex verbs should move
to C°, we might suppliment the account with the following constraint:
(11) ECONOMY: Move as little material as possible.
This has various applications in syntax (consider e.g. Law's 1998 claim that preposition stranding is in principle
possible, but is ruled out by D-to-P incorporation in languages like German and French; in normal spoken English,
we might hold ECONOMY responsible for the preference for moving DP rather than PP). One could imagine an (e.g.
Optimality Theoretic) account which uses tension between ECONOMY and conflicting constraints to derive the data
discussed below. I will not pursue this possibility; I merely note it as a possible alternative.
Since we will often refer back to the general position argued for thus far, stated in (9)(a)-(e), (with or without
ECONOMY), (12) gives a convenient summary of and name for this position:
(12) MINIMAL V2: V2 attracts only the head of a complex verb.
We may now begin inquiring into the factors which sometimes cause nonhead material to move to C°, contrary to
what (12) predicts.
4
Stump notes that there are headed structures which inflect both on their head and externally. An English dialectal
example might be hangers-ons. Stump argues that the question whether to inflect a headed structure on the head or
externally is to be answered by considering the type of word formation rule, not the inflection rules of the language.
This is not a problem for us since German endocentric structures always show direct head inflection.
5
Future versions: children have trouble inflecting pv’s even if they have acquired inflection for simple verbs
(footnote 8 in Koopman 1995; articles on particle verb acquisition); cf. tendency for children to say things like
*chessmans even when they know men.
6
In a model which sees inflectional exponents as processes rather than entities (e.g. Anderson 1992, Stump 1998),
the question of what should appear with inflectional exponents becomes even simpler, since the exponent of
inflection is the stem (or rather, a particular form of it).
3
5. Backformations
5.1. The theoretical status of backformations
The synchronic relevance of backformation is sometimes questioned (see e.g. Aronoff 1976:27, Becker 1993).
Marchand (1969:391) notes for instance that there is no synchronic evidence that peddle originally came from
peddler, meaning that a synchronic analysis of that verb should treat peddle as basic. However, other structures
which linguists know to have been formed by backformation show various peculiarities which confirm the
synchronic relevance of their diachronic origin. Thus, even non-linguists have an intuition that typewrite comes from
typewriter or typewritten. However, positing 'backformation' as an operation with theoretical status in internal
grammar seems unnecessary. The following are plausible alternatives:
1. Backformation is in some cases simple folk etymology. Speakers parse the structure of a word in a way which
does not coincide with its historical source. Thus, with peddle<peddler, people presumably assumed that the
string /χr/ was the agentive suffix attached to a verb peddle, and began to use the latter.
2. It is likely that there is such a thing as a ‘tentative folk etymology’. To illustrate, assume that typewrite is an
example (although it may instantiate the phenomenon seen in the next paragraph). Forming the verb involves a
folk-etymological parse of typewriter as having come from a hypothetical verb typewrite. The parse is tentative
to the extent that typewrite sounds odd to speakers who nevertheless use it,7 putting faith in their assumption
(probably supported by analogies with pairs like mixer<mix) that it must be part of the English vocabulary
despite its oddness (which linguists know to be due to the unproductivity of N+V compounding in English).
3. Backformation may be 'word formation by violence'. Thus, speakers deliberately misanalyse an affix as an
immediate constituent because they need a name for a verb corresponding to the source noun. Thus, pied-pipe is
used (despite its odd-sounding flavour) because it is less cumbersome than undergo pied piping.
In the case of 1 and 2, there is no appeal to a new type of grammatical operation; we merely have trivial assumptions
about the derivational history of the source word. 3 is a conscious manipulation of language, and thus does not fall
under core grammar.
5.2. Principles affecting the behaviour of German backformed verbs
Backforming a complex verb from a compound adjective or noun creates an endocentric structure (typewriter >
typewrite > I typewrote), while converting a verb from any source creates an exocentric (or perhaps zero-headed)
one, so that the inflection applies to the word as a whole (grandstandN > grandstandV > he grandstanded). MINIMAL
V2 in (12) therefore correctly predicts that German conversions like (3) do not separate under V2, since these have
no head which is seen by the inflectional processes. MINIMAL V2 also implies that backformations should separate
under V2, since these have a head. Many examples heard in real conversations or attestable by internet search fit
into this picture:8
(13) a. Sie ARBEITET SCHICHT 'she shift-works'
b. Sie RAUCHT KETTE 'she chainsmokes'
c. Ich DRÜCKE BANK "I press bench", 'I'm benchpressing' (heard in gym)
d. Ich SPIELE sehr schlecht BLATT 'I sightread very badly' (said by pianist)
e. Sie SCHWIMMT BRUST 'she breaststrokes'
f. Wir LIEFERN HAUS 'we home-deliver' (on broshure from restaurant)
g. Wir SEHEN FERN
h. Wir ESSEN ABEND/MITTAG
If we do not proceed from an assumption similar to MINIMAL V2, it is not easy to say why these structures end up
being separable, especially if the principles predicting the non-separation of backformations seen in the ensuing
sections are valid. MINIMAL V2, or specifically its irrelevance to English, can also explains why English lacks the
tendency of German to form backformations with an apparently syntactic structure. Thus, headbanging gives
headbangV rather than bang head. This is not explained by form-interpretability considerations: English does have
the wherewithal to recognise lexical relatedness despite word-order inversions of the type headbanging/bang head.
We often find the postverbal argument in VP idioms surfacing at the left of synthetic compounds without the loss of
the idiomatic reading:
(14) spit the dummy 'throw a tantrum'/his dummy-spit 'tantrum'; make merry/merrymaking; keep
house/housekeeping; break my heart/heartbreaking
However, (13) is not the only type of German backformation. We must deal with cases where neither separation nor
non-separation is good, or where an unseparated structure undergoes V2. These cases force us to look for principles
7
Note that typewrite, like several backformations, is sometimes placed in inverted commas in texts, suggesting that
speakers feel uncomfortable about it.
The examples with underlining can be found in the internet by typing the underlined strings under
www.google.com in double inverted commas.
4
8
militating against MINIMAL V2. Given the heterogeneous nature of backformations, it behooves us to study as many
different cases as possible. I include most of the verbs I have found to allow native speakers to check my claims.
The verbs come from Holmberg (1976), Fleischer/Barz (1992:295–9), Stiebels & Wunderlich (1994), ime kov<
(1984), Wunderlich (1987), Wurzel (1998), and my hand-collected corpus.
5.2.1. What favours the non-separation of backformations?
Various factors, some of them trivially correct, speak against the separation of constituents of a backformed verbs.
Some are not relevant to every backformation. I attempt a complete list here, but I have probably overlooked other
factors.
5.2.1.1. Backformation integrity
(15)
BACKFORMATION INTEGRITY: Since a backformation B often arises by tentative parses or deliberate
misanalyses of the structure of a non-verb source S (cf. section 5.1), B is not perceived as directly generated
by a rule of verbal compounding. Thus, B is felt to be dependent on S for its interpretation. Therefore,
avoid uses of backformations which distort the phonological similarity between S and B.
The italicised part of this statement was suggested by Stiebels & Wunderlich (1994:945?), later integrated into the
accounts of McIntyre (2001:54-60) and Zeller 1999:51-53. Since V2 with its concomitant inversion of head and
nonhead ordering distorts the phonological similarity between S and B to a much greater extent than inflection in
non-separated contexts like subordinate clauses, we predict that separation under V2 is the last hurdle that any
backformation will overcome on the path to being used in all contexts where other verbs appear; this agrees with all
extant classifications of backformations according to their defectivity, e.g. Holmberg (1976), McIntyre (2001)
Stiebels & Wunderlich (1994) and Wurzel (1998). The effects of BACKFORMATION INTEGRITY go beyond blocking
V2, For instance, Wurzel (1998) holds that certain backformations used in subordinate clauses are more acceptable
in the first and third person plural than in other forms. This is presumably because these parts of the verbal paradigm
are morphologically identical to the infinitive form, which is in turn formally identical to the infinitive
nominalisation which is the source of the backformations in question.
5.2.1.2. Morphological integrity
(16)
Do not strand elements morphologically specified as bound forms, e.g.:
a. nonheads exhibiting linking morphs inherited from nominal compounds
b. bare verb stems used as nonheads in nominal compounds
This (trivial) constraint seems to be the only clearly inviolable constraint affecting backformations. Examples:
♦ Backformations from compounds whose nonhead has a linking morph or is a bare root which never surfaces
uninflected. Here one can exclude separation under V2 with close to 100% certainty:
(17) a. krankenversichern (<Krankenversicherung)
b. zwangsräumen
c. endchecken (<Endcheck 'final check'). The root End- (<Ende 'end') never surfaces without
shwa/inflection. (This rare verb is from Wurzel 1998:341.)
d. die Gegend verkehrsberuhigen
e. sonnenbaden
In the following the linking morph is removed, so that the nonhead is no longer a bound form, and the
backformation is separated. This is probably a more advanced step, which occurs once the backformation
becomes more common, therefore there is less need to observe BACKFORMATION INTEGRITY:9
(18) a. sie schwimmt Seite
(<seitenschwimmen 'sideswiming')
b. wir sparen Prämie
(<prämiensparen '?')
c. sie raucht Kette
(<kettenrauchen 'chainsmoking')
[Another type: Maschineschreiben: linking morph not even when contiguous, but: maschinenschriftlich]
♦ Backformations derived from a compound with the structure [[V][N/A]]. Compounds with verbal nonheads are
productive in German. English shows only isolated relics of this (scrubwoman); most of the German
compounds gloss with V+ing: Wohnzimmer 'living room', Parklücke 'parking space', Lesebuch 'reading book'.)
Bare verb roots would rather die than be stranded in backformations; this seems to be because bare verb roots
are not well-formed morphological words, perhaps due to the rich verbal inflection of German. Note that some
9
MORPHOLOGICAL INTEGRITY:
Linking morphs in backformations have to my knowledge never been mentioned before. They pose interesting
problems. Note for instance that compound nonheads of all types can strand if there is deletion under identity,
probably a PF deletion (Booij 1984, Wurmbrand 1998):
(i)
a. wenn er seiten- oder brustschwimmt
b. wenn wir prämien- oder bausparen
Arguably, this is additional evidence that V2 separation is not purely phonological in nature, but obviously we need
to work out more details here.
5
of the following following examples may be directly generated verbal 'copulative compounds' rather than
backformations; this is nonetheless irrelevant to their defectivity and the absolute ungrammaticality of their
separation under V2:
(19) schleppstarten, mähdreschen, presspolieren, rührbraten; grinskeuchen, fluchbeten, nutznießen, spülbohren,
gleit–, trenn–, schwing–, ziehschleifen (give source: Flesicher/Barz??, Wunderlich 1987)
The example liegestützen ‘do pushups’, known only to some speakers, is more complicated. The source noun is
Liegestütz, ‘pushup’ which glosses as [N[V[Vlie][linking morph]][V>Nsupport]]. The defectivity of the verb
suggests that it is backformed rather than converted. Stranding the nonhead is impossible, because it would be
either a form with a linking morph (*ich stütze liege) or, if the linking morph is omitted, a bare verb stem (*ich
stütze lieg).
♦ In (20), rück is bad when separated because rück 'back' is a bound form (something like neoclassical
morphemes in English: neo-, post-, -ology). We find it in rückwärts 'backwards', zurück 'back' and as nonhead
of nominal compounds Rückfrage 'further question', Rückkopplung 'feedback' and in backformed or converted
verbs (rückfragen 'ask another question', rückantworten 'reply', rückbestätigen 'reconfirm', rückübersetzen
‘translate back’, rückblenden ‘flash back’, rückdatieren ‘backdate’, rückvergüten, rückversichern.
(20) a. ...wenn man Verben RÜCKBILDET 'when one backforms verbs'
b. *man BILDET Verben RÜCK/*man RÜCKBILDET Verben 'one backforms verbs'
c. Source: die Rückbildung 'backformation'
5.2.1.3. Avoid ambiguity
(21)
AVOID AMBIGUITY :
Do not separate a backformation if the stranded material can be parsed as an argument
or modifier of the verb in a compositional interpretation which does not correspond to that of the
backformation.
This is again trivial, but it is worth drawing attention to it, especially because of cases where it is overridden.
Because backformations are derived from compounds, where the nonhead has no functional material, most cases of
ambiguity arise when the nonhead can be interpreted as a bare NP.
(22) a. ich sauge Staub (a) 'I vacuum' (b) 'I suck dust' (cf. Staubsauger 'vacuum cleaner', lit. 'dust sucker'
b. wir beheizen Gas (a) 'we gas-heat' (b) '??we heat gas' (cf. gasbeheizt 'gas-heated')
(a) is interesting because staubsaugen is for many speakers acceptable under V2. Speakers vary on whether it is used
separably or not. The default interpretation is as a backformation, but it lays one open to jokes based on reading (b).
[Stiebels & Wunderlich (1994:945), Wunderlich 1987 also ambiguity avoidance]
5.2.1.4. Constituency and preverb doubling
(23)
CONSTITUENCY INTEGRITY: In a stucture of the form ABC, do not strand AB unless it is a semantic
constituent.
If this constraint has psychological reality (a question admittedly difficult to substantiate beyond general plausibility
considerations), then it is presumably needed to assist the interpretability of backformations. In this sense, it forms a
natural class with BACKFORMATION INTEGRITY and AVOID AMBIGUITY. CONSTITUENCY INTEGRITY is presumably a
factor (perhaps among others) explaining the following descriptive generalisation:
(24) PREVERB DOUBLING: Never strand a string which contains what originally was a verb particle.
This captures the behaviour of the following verbs, which all strongly resist separation:
(25) voranmelden, durchabfertigen, voreinstellen, probeaufgeführt, zwangsaufräumen, zwangsumsiedeln,
uraufführen, überanstrengen (the last two are in common use unseparated in V2 contexts)
The only exception I have found is that uraufführen can be separated by some speakers, cf. internet examples like
(26). Note, however, that most speakers vehemently reject such examples.
(26) Studiobühne führte Mateo Lettunichs "Candide"-Version urauf
[Koopman: Dutch her- verbs; Stiebels & Wunderlich: particles are [+max]; summarise criticisms from old
manuscript]
5.2.2. Indecision
It seems useful to be as explicit as possible on why defectivity exists. The following is my attempt at this:
(27) INDECISION: Avoid contexts where principles of grammar/pragmatics are in competition.
(28) INDECISION COROLLARY: Do not use backformations in auxiliariless main clauses, unless
a. the concept named by the verb seems too useful for the verb naming it to be defective, or
b. the backformed verb has become common usage.
The applicability of INDECISION in other areas of grammar is easy to demonstrate. For instance, we saw above
examples of verbs ambiguous between being backformations and conversions. English examples are grandstand and
moonlight 'do a second job contra regulations'. For some speakers, neither a strong nor a weak past tense
(grandstood/grandstanded, moonlit/moonlighted) is acceptable, since there is uncertainty on whether the verbs are
6
backformed or converted from the nouns grandstand and moonlight, making it unclear whether the whole word or
the second morpheme is the inflectional stem.10 [more examples from Plank 1981]
The exception in (28)(a) exists for the same reason as 'word formation by violence' of section 5.1; here speakers
deliberately flout the grammar because it stands in the way of communicative efficiency. This could be one
diachronic source of the forms in (b). Another possible reason for the existence of these forms might be that the
verbs were coined in older periods when the synchronically active principles did not hold (see Wurzel 1998 for a
historical survey of German backformations).
Notice as a side point that (28)(b) overcomes the effects of BACKFORMATION INTEGRITY and AVOID AMBIGUITY.
The more frequent and familiar a backformation is, the less need there is for maintaining the formal similarity to its
diachronic source and the more prominent the backformation becomes as a possible interpretation of an ambiguous
structure.
5.3. Lexical entries for usualised backformations and compound verbs
We have noted that some backformations are not defective, especially if they are common usage. They tend to
become fixed in either the separable or inseparable use. (13) gave examples of backformations which have become
established as separable. (29) gives examples of non-defective inseparable backformations and other inseparable
complex verbs not derivable from conversion from a non-verb. (It will be remembered that the inseparability of
conversions follows trivially in my theory.)
(29) a. notlandeten, notschlachten
b. gewährleisten, nasführen, liebäugeln, wetterleuchten,
c. staubsaugen (in some varieties)
d. (??willfahren, radebrechen: check whether really used insep and weak conj)
e. need more examples with strong conjugation which are einwandfrei when unseparated.
It seems necessary to assume that the backformations which become established in either separable or inseparable
use have their own lexical entries.11 This is needed to account for their familiarity. Also, the constraints in section
5.2 lead not to a clear decision on separability, but to indecision, so the membership of the classes in (13) and (29) is
not fully predictable and must therefore arise from lexical stipulation.
The first way of capturing the two classes which comes to mind is to assume that the separable class is listed as a
syntactic idiom and the inseparable as a morphological object, and appeal to the Lexical Integriry Hypothesis to
guarantee the non-separation of the morphological structure. (30) is an attempt at making this concrete; various
details can be changed whilst retaining the overall approach. One detail worthy of comment is the problem of how to
capture the behaviour of the linking morph in kettenrauchen, which disappears when the nonhead is stranded (sie
raucht oft Kette), but not under ‘infixation’ of participial and infinitival markers (kettenzurauchen, kettengeraucht),
cf. section xx. I omit the linking morph from the structural part of (30)(b), hoping that some general principle
predicts its insertion when the nonhead is contiguous with the verb stem. However, normally linking morphs only
appear within compounds, so if kettenrauchen is generated as a V’, then we must either incorporate the nonhead,
thereby forming a compound, or assume that linking morphs are licensed under pure string adjacency. These
problems are interesting, but it is not clear that the linking morph data speaks against a syntactic generation of verbs
like kettenrauchen, cf. Anderson's (1992:296f) remarks on these elements in nominal compounds.
(30) a. Partial lexical entry for notlanden (inseparable; backformed from Notlandung)
Semantics:
‘make an emergency landing’
Structure:
[[nót]N [land-]V°]V°
b. Partial lexical entry for kettenrauchen (separable; backformed from Kettenrauchen ‘chainsmoking’)
Semantics:
‘chainsmoke’
Structure:
[[kétte-]N [rauch-]V°]V’
In the present theory, this is not enough to guarantee that the morphological object will be inseparable, since
MINIMAL V2 in (12) moves verb stems to Comp, even if they are part of morphological objects. In section 6, we will
see evidence that the approach in (30) should be rejected. For now, let us ask whether such data can be captured
without appealing to Lexical Integrity. Within my theory, the most natural strategy would be to assume that the
inseparable structures contain some stipulation banning them from separation, while the separable structures are
unmarked. Blocking the separation of combinations like (30)(a) could be achieved by stipulating that the non-head is
a clitic despite its being a full phonological word, or (in an arguably equivalent formulation) is a morphologically
bound form like rück in (20). Since Not is capable of being used as an independent noun in other contexts, we want
the stipulation to apply only in the context of notlanden; it must thus be part of the lexical entry of that complex
10
An internet search attests the existence of grandstanded but not grandstood. This does not alter the fact that for
some speakers, both variants sound degraded.
Perhaps these are connected to lexical entries of other lexemes (e.g. the compounds which were the original
source of the backformations, or perhaps of the constituents), but I will not try to capture this here.
7
11
verb.12 Thus, the structural parts of the entries in (30) are replaced by (31). It will be noted that the information in
(30) about whether the structures are V° or V’ is replaced by V?. This is to emphasise that this information is
irrelevant for the purposes of V2. As there are other cases where this information is relevant, we will return to this
issue in section xx.
(31) a. Structure of notlanden:
[[nót]N, +clitic [land-]V°]V?
b. Structure of kettenrauchen:
[[kétte-]N [rauch-]V°]V?
[Other points for later versions: Jackendoff 1997 on lexical entries; Toivonen on clitic typology; Niches: wettlaufen,
–rennen, –turnen: analogical modelling based on the behaviour of the conversion wetteifern?]
6. Accented scalar prefixes
We mentioned in the introduction that über– and unter– in the ‘scalar’ meanings ‘too much/ too little’ receive stress
when followed by a weak syllable, i.e. in cases like überbewerten, unterbelichten, überdosieren, untertrainieren.
These are not instances of the formally similar particles über and unter, since the particles do not have a scalar
meaning (see the section 8 on apparent exceptions). Rather, these verbs are underlyingly formed with the same
prefixes as those in the inseparable überfüttern and unterschätzen. The problem we discuss is why accented scalar
prefixes yield either separability, inseparability or defectivity, depending on the speaker.
Accented scalar prefixations have a low text frequency. Despite being aware of the phenomenon for several years,
I have encounted examples of these verbs only every few months, and uses of these prefixes in V2 contexts are
event less frequent.13 It is thus unlikely that speakers using these verbs follow an established pattern specific to these
verbs. They must deduce their behaviour from the (ambiguous) information their grammars provide. I begin my
explanation for the behaviour of these verbs with the following hypotheses.
(32) a. The lexical entries of the inseparable prefixes of German characterise them as destressed. This forces
them to cliticise onto the verb.
b. When postlexical stress falls on a scalar prefix, it becomes a legitimate phonological word, rendering (a)
irrelevant. Thus, by MINIMAL V2 in (12), the scalar prefix should be stranded.
Note the theoretical implications here. Lexicalist morphologists normally attribute the inseparability of prefix verbs
to the Lexical Integrity Hypothesis, which renders the internal structure of words invisible to syntax (see e.g. Booij
1990 for a list of related proposals). (32)(a) resembles accounts which generate prefix verbs in the syntax and rely
on the clitic status of the prefix to guarantee inseparability (e.g. den Dikken 1995, Hoekstra 1992). However, (32)(a)
does not exclude the possibility that prefix verbs are generated by the concatenation of prefix and verb in the
morphological component. Where it differs from most lexicalist accounts is its failure to attribute inseparability to
Lexical Integrity. I consider the necessity for Lexical Integrity to be open question, even if we note that, apart from
certain complex verbs, German does not seem to have constructions where anyone would be tempted to argue that a
morphological object is separated in the syntax.14 It does not seem a priori unjustifiable to argue that the most basic
Lexical Integrity effect, viz. the (usual) inseparability of complex words, is in reality due to various independent
factors, for instance the clitic status of many affixes and the fact that, apart from verb movement, German lacks clear
cases of overt, non-string-vacuous head movement. In this scheme of things, the inseparability of nominal
compounds does not follow from their being morphological objects, but from the lack of noun movement (e.g. N-toD movement) in German, especially a type of noun movement which directly targets inflectional morphology, as in
my characterisation of V2.15
Lexical Integrity generates only unseparated uses of prefixes. It cannot explain varieties of German where
accented scalar prefix verbs separate or are defective. It must avoid the problem by assuming that particle verbs are
syntactically generated and that accented scalar prefixes are particles. The latter assumption was refuted in the
introduction. On the other hand, MINIMAL V2 in (12) gives us the separable use of stressed scalar prefixes for free.
The only challenge is to find the factors which compete with (32)(b), yielding defectivity and unseparated use in
some varieties.
12
Perhaps there is some generalisation which covers the fact that other backformations with not as nonhead
(nottaufen, notschlachten) are also inseparable.
13
Even a detailed prescriptive handbook like Duden (1972) fails to discuss these verbs.
14
Stuff about apparent lexInteg violations being mainly with verbs: den Dikken: bit about Old French re interrupted
by clitics; keyser/roeper; s/w: no reason why determiners shouldn't separate compounds except with verbs; perhaps
preposition stranding in German: da war nichts drauf.
15
It is a common mistake to argue for Lexical Integrity on the basis of independently ill-formed extractions out of
words. Thus, loosely following the discussion in Di Sciullo & Williams (1987:80) of their example (2c), a Lexical
Integrity proponent might adduce (i) as evidence that German compounds are subject to Lexical Integrity, but this
proves nothing because German A-movement targets maximal projections, not N°s.
(i)
*Physiki wurden [N° ti Bücher] gelesen
physics were
books read
(Intended sense: ('It was PHYSICS books that were read')
8
One may be tempted appeal to the principles acting against the separation of backformations seen in section 5.2.1,
since some über/unter-verbs are at least a priori analysable as backformations (überbelichten < Überbelichtung).
This analysis may be correct in some cases, but I do not rely on it because there are cases where it is dubious
(übertrainieren, überemotionalisieren).
Instead, I intend to approach the question by inquiring into the factors which force the non-separation of most
prefixes. The following statement encapsulates my position:
(33) a. Since most German prefixes are deaccented, they are by their very nature clitics. It follows that they will
automatically form an indivisible phonological unity with the verb.
b. Therefore there is no evidence whether the lexical entries of unstressed prefixes stipulate that they are
bound elements in addition to stipulating that they are deaccented.
This applies to the normal stressless uses of über and unter. However, when they receive postlexical stress, the state
of affairs described in (33) and the low text frequency of verb-second uses of accented scalar prefixes leave speakers
ignorant as to how to use the prefixes. Some guess that the prefixes are stipulated to be clitics, parallel to the
nonheads of backformations like (31)(a). Others assume that assume that the absence of evidence for such a
stipulation referred to in (33) means that there is no such stipulation, and follow the logic of (32). Still others prefer
not to commit themselves on the issue, and thus refuse to use the verbs in V2 contexts.
I conclude by discussing the prefix miß in (34), which behaves somewhat similarly to über/unter. Like the scalar
prefixes, miß receives postlexical stress when immediately followed by an unstressed syllable. (One speaker from
Leipzig utterred (e), where the prefix does not receive postlexical stress, but I have found no informants who accept
this.) The problem for my theory is that, most speakers consider the separation of miß in (d) far worse than the
separation of accented scalar prefixes.16 It appears that the lexical entry for miß must stipulate that it is a clitic, akin
to the procedure for backformations like (31)(a). This may be because mißverstehen is more frequent than accented
scalar prefix verbs, so that a convention governing its use has had a chance to develop.
(34) a. sie mißdéuten das
b. sie míßinterpretieren das
c. sie míßverstehen das
d. ??sie verstehen das miß
e. (??)er mißverstéht den Sinn der Sache
7. General remarks on defective complex verbs: Morphology or syntax?
The above treatment of backformations and accented scalar prefixes assumed without comment that the complex
verbs are morphological structures and hence that they are at variance with the Lexical Integrity Hypothesis. This
will probably leave many readers asking whether there is not a way of capturing the data without abandoning
Lexical Integrity. I see no alternative with scalar prefixations, unless we resort to vague statements like ‘stress on
scalar prefixes tempts speakers to treat them like the likewise accented homonymous particles’. While the
correlation ‘if a prepositional element is stressed, separate it’ has its place in language teaching contexts (where
problems like defectivity in scalar prefixations will not arise anyway), it begs non-trivial questions about how
phonology, syntax and morphology interact once one tries to bring some clarity into the issue. If separable structures
are always syntactic, the morphological generation of scalar prefixations required by the lexical entry of über must
be able to be re-parsed as a syntactic structure in response to phonological considerations. I do not know if this
should be excluded in principle, but suspect that the mechanisms needed to implement it would not be less radical
than my proposal.
Turning to backformations, readers will probably ask why I do not pursue the following approach:
(35) Separable backformations are syntactic (e.g. V’) phrases. Inseparable backformations are morphological
(V°) structures. Defectivity results from uncertainty in choosing whether the complex verb is a V° or a V’.
I see no reasonable theoretical objection to the idea that backformation can yield a syntactic structure, especially if
backformation is not a primitive operation (section 5.1). Given that German can nominalise various types of
indubitably syntactic structures (in Anspruch nehmen > Inanspruchnahme), there is no reason why a speaker could
not reverse the process by assuming that what began life as a nominal compound was actually a nominalisation of a
syntactic structure.
The controversial nature of the claim that particle verbs are morphological objects suggests that it will not be easy
to prove that separable backformations are created in the morphological component. Since nominalisations can take
phrases as input, the felicity of cases like Kettenraucherei tells us nothing. Noncompositional semantics is of course
no diagnostic for morphological structure, witness the idiomatic interpretations of the capitalised parts of she COULD
have obviously DONE WITH a holiday or THE CHICKENS seem to have COME HOME TO ROOST and hundreds of other
idiomatic pieces of syntax.
However, if one assumes a morphological component, Lexical Integrity is perhaps the only argument against a
morphological generation for separable complex verbs. (Note that Büring & Hartmann (1991:10) see particle verbs
as evidence against Lexical Integrity.)
Some evidence bearing on the morphological status of separable backformations emerges when we consider
certain argument-structural facts. Consider contrasts where a separable backformation in German fails to inherit a
direct object from the simplex verb, while an inseparable backformation does allow object inheritance:
(36) a. *Ich sauge den Teppich Staub.
a'. (?)Ich staubsauge den Teppich.17
b. etwas gewährleisten/gewähr *(für) etwas leisten [conversion, not backformation]
English backformations do not separate and are head-final in contrast to the syntactic ordering in the VP, so it is not
controversial to claim that they are morphological objects. However, similar data can be constructed in English if we
compare backformations with verb+bare noun structures:
(37) a. Kennet head-kicked another journalist (<verbal head-kicking; heard on Australian TV)
b. Kennet kicked head (*another journalist)
The nonhead part of the verbal constructions in (36) and (37) is in complementary distribution with direct objects
precisely when it is not part of a structure unilaterally recognised as a V°. There are at least two explanations for this
contrast. Firstly, we could argue that the nonhead parts of the complex verbs are treated by the grammar as objects
of the verb; it is impossible to link both objects because they cannot both receive Case and/or because they compete
for the same base position. Secondly, one could construct an account where the nonheads of both separable and nonseparable structures originate in the syntax. The morphological structure is derived by incorporation (possessor
raising). Being word-internal, the nominal needs no Case. Neither explanation is compatible with the idea that
separable backformations like (36)(a) are morphological objects.
However, (38) shows that there are other separable backformations which allow argument inheritance, just like
their English counterparts.
(38) a. Ich LAS den Artikel KORREKTUR
I proofread/copyedited the article
b. Sie SPIELTE/SANG das Lied BLATT
She sightread/sightsang the song
c. Er RAUCHTE (?eine ganze Schachtel) KETTE
He chainsmoked (?a whole packet of cigarettes)
They test-drove the car
d. Sie FUHREN das Auto PROBE
e. Sie TURNTE die Übung PROBE (Stiebels & Wunderlich 1994:946)
f. Wir LIEFERN Ihre Pizzen HAUS
We home-deliver your pizzas.
g. ?Sie FÜHRTEN das Stück URAUF (cf. the internet examples in (26))
It is clear that the stranded elements are not interpretable as objects of the verbs here. Even though (a-f) are nominal,
they flout the verbs' object selection requirements. It is very likely that this has something to do with the legitimacy
of the structures compared to the ones in (36) and (37). However, if the stranded nominals in (38)(a-f) are initially
merged with the verb in a syntactic configuration rather than a morphological one, various tricky questions arise.
Firstly, does the nominal need Case? If not, why not? If it does, why is Case available to a direct object as well?
Secondly, if separable backformations emerge through the assumption that a nominal compound is derived from a
V' projection, why are the stranded stems in (13), (36) or (38) not provided with the functional material seen in
normal phrases? Why do they surface as the type of bare stem normally found only in morphological objects?
The third difficulty for the syntactic generation of the structures comes from problems attending argument
structure theories which assume that a verb can project multiple internal arguments. Zeller (2001) notes that internal
arguments of verbs are in complementary distrubution with particles unless the former can plausibly be seen as
licensed by the particle's semantic representation. McIntyre (2002) extends the observations to cover other cases
where arguments distribute complementarily. Examples of this are given in (39). For Zeller, this suggests that a verb
has a single internal argument position, and what one would pretheoretically call the internal objects of particle
verbs are syntactic arguments of the particle. McIntyre (2002) captures the same data by assuming that the heads in
VP shells impose conditions on the interpretations of their arguments, notably that the specifier and complement of a
verbal head must be in a predication relationship one to another. The argumentation of these studies cannot be
reproduced here, but if their conclusions are correct, then the assumption that the direct object and the non-head part
of the backformation in structures like (38) are both be syntactic arguments of the verb is problematic. A
morphological generation of structures like (38) circumvents this problem.
(39) a. She saw a man vs. She saw into the window vs. *She saw a man into the window
b. She played her guitar vs. She played on vs. *She played her guitar on
Other things to talk about in later versions:
Zeller 2002: Verb ‚umparsen’ als V° or V’; Spencer: compounds and bare phrase structure
*er hat sich zu Tode kettengeraucht
*er rührbrät das Essen zu Kohle
*weil er fern hätte sehen müssen
16
I have twice encountered separable uses of mißverstehen in the form versteh mich nicht miß, but cannot exclude
that this is jocular usage.
9
17
Cf. Holmberg (1976:78), who notes the interesting fact that the object is far better in non-V2-contexts.
10
*weil er das nicht über hätte bewerten müssen
kein Scrambling: *weil er Staub gestern saugte
8. Appendix: ich esse mir Schokolade über
A potential exception to the claim that German über/unter are not underlyingly particles is that some speakers say
the following, cf. Risch 1995:49; Duden (1972:650f):
(40) a. ich esse mir Schokolade über
b. ich kucke mir Videos über
c. ich hörte mir diese Platte über
The particle variant seems to be rare, and we do not find parallel structures with unter. In the Internet I found only
the prefix variant of überessen (although admittedly only infinite forms could be searched). This does not excuse me
from accounting for varieties where the pv does occur. My suggestion is that er ißt sich die Bananen über is a
resultative construction related to etwas über haben, überbekommen in the sense ‘to be sick of sth’. Thus, (40)(a)
means 'I eat, thereby causing the state of afairs where I am sick of chocolate'. (Cf. etwas satt haben and sich satt
essen). Thus, these uses of über are not the same as the scalar prefixations.
Wunderlich, D., 1987. Schriftstellern ist mutmaßen, ist hochstapeln, ist Regeln mißachten. In: Asbach–Schmitker, B. & Roggenhofer, J. (eds.), Neuere Forschungen
zur Wortbildung. Tübingen: Narr.
Wurmbrand, S, (1998) Heads or Phrases? Particles in Particular. In: Phonology and Morphology of the Germanic Languages, ed. Richard Wiese and Wolfgang
Kehrein, 267-296. Tübingen: Max Niemeyer Verlag.
Wurzel, W., 1998. On the Development of Incorporating Structures in German. In: Hogg, R. & van Bergen, L. (eds.) Historical Linguistics 1995, Vol. 2. Amsterdam:
Benjamins.
Zeller, J. (1999): Particle verbs, local domains, and a theory of lexical licensing. Dissertation, Frankfurt. (reworked as Particle Verbs and Local Domains. Amsterdam:
John Benjamins 2001)
Zeller, Jochen. 2001. How syntax restricts the lexicon: particle verbs and internal arguments. Linguistische Berichte 188, 461-494.
Zeller, J., 2002. Particle verbs are heads and phrases. Nicole Dehé, Ray Jackendoff, Andrew McIntyre and Silke Urban (eds.) Verb particle explorations. Berlin:
Mouton de Gruyter.
Zwicky, A., 1985. Heads. Journal of Linguistics 21: 1-29.
9. Other things to be discussed in later versions
•
•
•
•
inconsistency between V2 (in)separability and position of zu and ge; e.g. speakers who say wir
notlanden/maßregeln but notzulanden/notgelandet, maßzuregeln and numerous other anomalies in Homberg
1976. How much is zu/ge determined by prosodic realignment, à la Geilfuß-Wolfgang?
Dutch backformations(?) with default conjugation (staubsaugen); cases like mähdreschen. van Marle; other
Dutch morphologists like Booij 'complex verbs and level ordering (YOM);
Stefan Müller on Bracketing Paradoxes
Other verbs to commune with: dauerregnen; lügenstrafen, mähdreschen, fehlinvestieren, -schlagen; stoßlüften
hellsehen, bauchreden, bruch–, kopfrechnen, seiltanzen, malnehmen, ehebrechen, heimwerken,
zwangsumsiedeln, zweckentfremden, säbelfechten; rufmorden; beauftragen, veranschlagen,
10. References
Anderson, S., 1992. A-Morphous Morphology. Cambridge University Press.
Anderson, S. (1993) Wackernagel's revenge: Clitics, morphology, and the syntax of second position. Language 69:68-98.
Aronoff, M., 1976. Word Formation in Generative Grammar. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Becker, T., 1993b. Back-formation, cross-formation, and ‘bracketing paradoxes’ in paradigmatic morphology. Yearbook of Morphology 6.
Booij, G., 1984. Coordination Reduction in Complex Words. In H. van der Hulst & N. Smith Advances in Nonlinear Phonology. Dordrecht: Foris. 143-160.
Booij, G., 1990. The boundary between morphology and syntax: separable complex verbs in Dutch. Yearbook of Morphology 3, 45–63.
Büring, D. & Hartmann, C., 1991. Regelhaft und Regellos - zum Verhältnis von Syntax und Lexikon. Theorie des Lexikons. Arbeiten des Sonderforschungsbereichs
282. Nr 10.
den Dikken, M., 1995. Particles. On the Syntax off Verb-Particle, Triadic, and Causative Constructions. N.Y./Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Di Sciullo, A. & Williams, E., 1987. On the Definition of Word. Cambridge (Mass.): MIT Press.
Duden, 1972. Die Zweifelsfälle der deutschen Sprache. Mannheim: Duden
Fansalow, G & Cavar, D. 2002. Remarks on the Economy of Pronunciation. Ms. Potsdam.
Fleischer, W & Barz, I., 1995. Wortbildung der deutschen Gegenwartssprache. (2nd. ed.) Tübingen: Niemeyer.
Geilfuß-Wolfgang, J., 1998. Über die optimale Position von ge-. Linguistische Berichte 176: 581-588.
Harley, H. and Andrew Carnie (2000), "VSO Order as Raising to Comp", in A. Carnie and E. Guilfoyle, eds., The Syntax of Verb-Initial Languages, pp, 39-60 Oxford
University Press
Hoeksema, J., 1985. Categorial Morphology. New York: Garland.
Hoekstra, T. (1992) “Aspect and theta-theory”. In I. M. Roca (ed.) Thematic Structure: Its Role in Grammar, Foris, Dordrecht.
Holmberg, Märta Åsdahl, 1976. Studien zu den verbalen Pseudokomposita im Deutschen. Göteborg: Göteborger Germanistische Forschungen (Acta Universitatis
Gothoburgensis). (NB: some bibliographies and catalogues list the author under Åsdahl.)
Kiparsky, P., 1966. Über den deutschen Akzent. Studia Grammatica 7, 69–98.
Koopman, Hilda (1995). On Verbs That Fail to Undergo V-Second. Linguistic Inquiry 26, 139-163.
Kühnhold, Ingeburg (1973): Präfixverben. In: I. Kühnhold/H. Wellmann (Hrsg.), Deutsche Wortbildung. Typen und Tendenzen in der Gegenwartssprache. Erster
Hauptteil: Das Verb (=Sprache der Gegenwart 23). Düsseldorf: Schwann, 141-375.
Law, Paul. 1998. A unified analysis of P-stranding in Romance and Germanic. NELS 28: 219-234.
Légendre, G., 2001. Masked second-position effects and the linearization of functional features. In: Legendre, Géraldine, Jane Grimshaw, and Sten Vikner, ed. (2001)
Optimality-Theoretic Syntax. MIT Press.
Marchand, H., 1969. The Categories and Types of Present-Day English Word Formation. 2nd ed. Munich: Beck.
Marle, Jaap van (2002) Dutch separable compound verbs. Nicole Dehé, Ray Jackendoff, Andrew McIntyre and Silke Urban (eds.) Verb particle explorations. Berlin:
Mouton de Gruyter.
McIntyre, A., (2001) German Double Particles as Preverbs. Tübingen: Stauffenburg.
Mcintyre, A. (2002) Event paths, conflation, argument structure and VP shells. Ms. Leipzig. (www.uni-leipzig.de/~angling/mcintyre)
Miller, D. Gary, 1993. Complex Verb Formation. Amsterdam/ Philadelphia: Benjamins.
Pesetsky, D. 1998. Principles of Sentence Pronunciation. In P. Barbosa, D. Fox, P. Hagstrom, M. McGinnis and D. Pesetsky (eds.) Is the Best Good Enough?
Cambridge (MA): MIT Press
Plank, F., 1981. Morphologische (Ir-)regularitäten. Tübingen: Narr.
Rainer, F., 1993. Head Operations in Spanish Morphology, Yearbook of Morphology. 113-128.
Risch, G., 1995. Verbpräfigierung des Deutschen. Dissertation, Stuttgart.
Roberts, Ian. 1997. Restructuring, head movement, and locality. Linguistic Inquiry 28:423-460.
ime kov<, A., 1984. Komplexe Verben im Deutschen. Beiträge zur Erforschung der deutschen Sprache 4, 132–84.
Stiebels, B. & Wunderlich, D., 1994. Morphology feeds syntax: the case of particle verbs. Linguistics 32, 913–968.
Stump, G., 1994. The Uniformity of Head Marking in Inflectional Morphology. Yearbook of Morphology 7.
Stump, G., 1998. Inflection. In Zwicky, A. & Spencer, A., 1998. The Handbook of Morphology. Oxford: Blackwell.
Stump, G. 2001. Inflectional Morphology: A Theory of Paradigm Structure. Cambridge University Press.
Wiese, R. 1996. The Phonology of German. Oxford University Press, Oxford.
Wunderlich, D., 1986. Probleme der Wortstruktur. Zeitschrift für Sprachwissenschaft 5, 209-252.
11
12

Download Report