No title

Journal of Germanic Linguistics 19.1 (2007):1–22

Norwegian Anaphors without Visible Binders Helge Lødrup University of Oslo A standard assumption in work on binding in Norwegian is that a reflexive must have an antecedent that is “visible,” that is, either phonologically realized or PRO. The purpose of this article is to show that this restriction is not observed by many speakers. There are two cases of reflexives with invisible binders. First, an implicit argument can be a binder in a nominalization (Første fase bestod av analyse av seg selv. ‘The first phase consisted of analysis of oneself’). Second, a “semantic subject” can be a binder in an indefinite noun phrase with a propositional interpretation (Et helt hus for seg selv er et slit. ‘A whole house for oneself is hard work’). Some younger speakers also allow a reflexive form with a generic interpretation to occur with no binder (En motorsag kan skade seg selv og andre. ‘A chain saw can hurt oneself and others’).*

1. Introduction. Norwegian anaphors have been the subject of interesting research for two decades. In particular, the work of Hellan (1988) and Hestvik (1990, 1991, 1992) has been important to the development of binding theory, where an important topic has been the relation between the simple reflexive seg and the complex reflexive seg selv. However, there are still questions remaining concerning both theory and data. This article challenges a restriction on binders that has never been called into question in the literature. Hellan (1988:181–192) claims that a Norwegian reflexive must have a binder that is visible. In his terminology, which is adopted here, implicit arguments are not visible, while *

I would like to thank colleagues and students for discussion and intuitions, especially Kjell Johan Sæbø, Eirik Welo, Atle Grønn, Dag Haug, Anneliese Pitz, Gunnar Hrafn Hrafnbjargarson, Mads Haga, and Trine Egebakken. Thanks also to Thorstein Fretheim, Marit Julien, Stephen Wechsler, Annie Zaenen, and to the three anonymous reviewers. Special thanks to my daughters Julie and Therese for their intuitions.

© Society for Germanic Linguistics

2

Lødrup

phonologically realized arguments and PRO are visible. This visibility condition distinguishes the two examples in 1 (from Hellan 1988:182). (1) a. Å kritisere sine to criticize REFL-POSS

lærere er straffbart. teachers is punishable

‘To criticize one’s teachers is punishable.’ b. *Kritikk av sine criticism of REFL-POSS

lærere er straffbart. teachers is punishable

‘Criticism of one’s teachers is punishable.’ Implicit arguments, however, still play a role in Hellan’s theory. One of his examples is given in 2 (Hellan 1988:176). (2) En bok om seg selv ville gi Jon stor selvtillit. a book about REFL SELF would give Jon great self-confidence ‘A book about himself would give Jon great self-confidence.’ Hellan points out that the only interpretation of 2 is that Jon is the author of the book. His explanation is that bok ‘book’ takes an implicit author role, and this role binds the reflexive. Even so, 2 does not violate Hellan’s visibility condition. The object Jon binds the implicit argument, giving the “chain of antecedents” one visible item (Hellan 1988:183). An important point I make below is that the visibility condition is not observed by many speakers of Norwegian. Sentences such as 1b above are common. I also show that some younger speakers use reflexive forms that have no binder. This article is based upon two kinds of data, intuitions of native speakers (mostly linguists) and sentences from written texts. The text data were found by searching the World Wide Web and two text corpora (The Oslo Corpus of Tagged Norwegian Texts and the Newspaper Corpus at the University of Bergen). Unless otherwise indicated, example sentences are of this type, although some have been shortened or edited. Their sources are listed in the appendix. All example sentences are acceptable to me if not otherwise indicated. Before presenting the data, it is necessary to point out one property of Norwegian binding that is important to the discussion. Norwegian

Norwegian Anaphors

3

does not have “exempt” (or “logophoric”) anaphors. There are no Norwegian equivalents of the sentences in 3, which violate basic binding theory by having antecedents that are too far away from the anaphor, as in 3a, or not more prominent than the anaphor, as in 3b (see Hestvik and Philip 2001, and Barbiers 2000 on Dutch). (3) a. Johni was going to get even with Mary. The picture of himselfi in the paper would really annoy her, as would the other stunts he had planned. (Pollard and Sag 1994:270) b. The picture of himselfi in Newsweek made Johni’s day. (Pollard and Sag 1994:272) This property of Norwegian binding is important to the discussion, because it means that anaphors without visible binders cannot be dismissed as exempt (or “logophoric”) anaphors. 2. Reciprocals. Hellan’s visibility condition does not mention reciprocals. However, reciprocals are interesting in their own right and, at least for many speakers, important aspects of their behavior are similar to that of the reflexives. The Norwegian reciprocals are hverandre ‘each other’ and the possessive hverandres ‘each other’s’. They allow invisible binders, as in 4.1 (4) a. Respekt for hverandre er grunnleggende for vår samhandling. respect for each-other is basic for our cooperation ‘Respect for each other is basic for our cooperation.’

1

Reciprocals without visible binders can easily be found searching the World Wide Web for English, German, Danish, Swedish, and Icelandic. However, detailed information does not seem to be available for any of these languages. Examples from English and German are in i and ii. (i) Violence against each other is never acceptable. (ii) Beschuldigungen gegeneinander sollten unterbleiben. (Frey 1993:166) accusations against-each-other should not-occur ‘Accusations against each other should not occur.’

4

Lødrup

b. Avhengigheten av hverandre blir gjort veldig synlig. dependence-DEF on each-other becomes made very visible ‘The dependence on each other is made very visible.’ c. Det dreier seg om forretningsmessige avtaler agreements it concerns REFL about business som krever høy kunnskap om hverandre. that require high knowledge about each-other ‘It concerns business agreements that require much knowledge about each other.’ d. En slik innsikt i hverandres liv er avgjørende viktig. a such insight into each-other’s lives is crucially important ‘This kind of insight into each other’s lives is crucially important.’ There is no syntactically realized binder in sentences such as those in 4. There is also no need for an antecedent in the linguistic context. Reciprocals without visible antecedents can be found in all kinds of texts, including newspapers and documents from the parliament and the ministries. All my informants accept them. The use of reciprocals without visible antecedents can create syntactic ambiguity, because it will often be possible to interpret a visible argument as a binder. In practice, however, the content or context usually make them unambiguous, as in 4c above. Example 5 is ambiguous in itself, but the context makes clear that the subject is not the binder; the text is about what it means to be an “anti-psychopath.” (5) Vi kjemper for tilliten og respekten we fight for confidence-DEF and respect-DEF for hverandre i samfunnet. for each-other in society-DEF ‘We fight for confidence and respect for each other in society.’

Norwegian Anaphors

5

2.1. Implicit Roles. Williams (1985, 1987, 1994) has argued that implicit arguments, understood as unrealized thematic roles, are active in binding, giving the example in 6. (6) Respect for oneself is important. (Williams 1987:151) In the relevant Norwegian sentences, the reciprocal is often a part of a nominalization of a verb or adjective.2 The highest implicit argument (hereafter I-argument) is the binder of the reciprocal. I-arguments that antecede reciprocals usually have a generic interpretation. When the reciprocal is a part of the subject, the sentence is generic. The head of the nominalization is often indefinite, or it is definite because of the identifying effect of the modifier, as in 4b above. I-arguments do not take an antecedent outside the sentence. Even if 2

An implicit argument in a passive sentence can sometimes bind a reciprocal, as in the German example i, from Frey 1993:132. (i) Auf Parteiversammlungen wird nur gegeneinander gekämpft. at party-meetings is only against-each-other fought ‘People only fight against each other at party meetings.’ In Norwegian, similar sentences vary from almost acceptable (see ii) to less acceptable (iii). (ii) Så jeg tror nesten at det ble debattert litt forbi so I think almost that there was discussed somewhat beside hverandre her. each-other here ‘So I think that people discussed a bit beside each other here.’ (iii) [Folkeeventyrene] ble fortalt til hverandre helt til 1840 årene. were told to each-other all to-the 1840 years fairy-tales-DEF ‘People told fairy tales to each other up to the 1840s.’ The reason example ii is relatively acceptable is probably that it (like example i) does not have a referring subject that competes with the implicit argument to be a binder. It is not clear that binding by implicit arguments in passive sentences is a regular option, and it will be put aside here.

6

Lødrup

sentences that violate this generalization can be found, as in 7, they are barely acceptable, and they will be disregarded here. (7) Tydelig å høre at de trives i lag og at easy to hear that they thrive together and that savnet av hverandre er stort. missing-DEF of each-other is great ‘(It is) easy to hear that they have a good time together and that they miss each other badly.’ 2.2. P-arguments. It is not clear which nouns have an argument structure, but even if one’s assumptions are liberal, a noun like tid ‘time’ cannot reasonably be assumed to have an argument structure. It can still head a noun phrase in which a reciprocal can find an invisible binder, as in 8. (8) Tid til hverandre er et gode mange setter høyt. time to each-other is a good many value highly ‘Time for each other is a good that many value highly.’ Even if there is no I-argument in sentences such as 8, there are reasons to assume an invisible binder. The indefinite subject noun phrase in 8 has a propositional interpretation; a paraphrase would be ‘that we have time for each other’. In the Scandinavian languages, an indefinite subject with this kind of interpretation triggers neuter singular agreement on predicate adjectives, independently of the gender and number of its head (see Enger 2004 and references there). An example is 9, in which the subject is masculine, while the predicate adjective is neuter. (9) Tid til hverandre, (det) er fint. (constructed) time-MASC.SG for each-other that-NEUT.SG is good-NEUT.SG ‘Time for each other, (that) is a good.’ The analysis and representation of these sentences are not well understood. The classical Generative Semantics analysis in Faarlund 1977 assumed an underlying clausal structure, basically as in 10.

Norwegian Anaphors

7

(10) [SUBJECT VERB time for each other] is good This analysis has its problems (Hellan 1986, Enger 2004), and it is not clear what status the underlying clause should have in current grammatical theory. At the same time, assuming a clausal structure at some level of representation is necessary to give the “subject” argument needed to bind the anaphor. In the absence of a standard term, I label this argument a P-argument. An independent argument for this approach comes from a sentence such as 11, in which the PP til hverandre ‘to each other’ is not interpreted as a modifier of the head noun kopier ‘copies’, but rather as an argument in an underlying clausal structure. (11) kopier til hverandre er greit. copies-PL to each-other is acceptable-NEUT.SG ‘Giving copies to each other is acceptable.’ A reciprocal is not acceptable if the noun phrase does not have a propositional interpretation, and/or if there is regular agreement; see 12. (12) *Tiden til hverandre var fin. (constructed) time-DEF-MASC.SG for each-other was fine-MASC.SG P-arguments differ from I-arguments in not being part of the meaning of the head noun. Even so, they behave like I-arguments in important respects. Like I-arguments, they have a generic interpretation (see examples 9 and 11 above), or they are controlled by another argument within their clause, as in 13. (13) a. De hadde ingen forståelse for hverandre. (constructed) they had no understanding for each-other ‘They had no understanding for each other.’ b. De hadde ikke tid til hverandre. they had not time for each-other ‘They did not have time for each other.’

(constructed)

8

Lødrup

In some cases, as in 14, one could assume both a P-argument and an Iargument, which must corefer. (14) Respekt for hverandre, (det) er fint. (constructed) respect-MASC.SG for each-other that-NEUT.SG is good-NEUT.SG ‘Respect for each other, (that) is a good.’ Even if the nature of P-arguments is not understood, it is clear that the existence of invisible binders has consequences for binding theory. They give evidence for the classical view in Jackendoff 1972 that at least some anaphor binding has to be accounted for at the level of argument structure. (See Manning and Sag 1998 for a somewhat different approach to binding by semantic arguments.) 3. Reflexives. Norwegian has the reflexives seg and seg selv, with the possessive form sin/sitt/sine. They can be found with invisible binders, as mentioned in Faarlund et al. 1997:1166.3 A typical example is given in 15. (15) Forståelsen for andre springer ut av forståelsen understanding-DEF for others springs out of understanding-DEF av seg selv. of REFL SELF ‘The understanding for others comes from the understanding of oneself.’ The subject of 15 cannot be the antecedent of the reflexive, and there is no antecedent in the previous sentence. (Example 15 is the first sentence 3

It has been claimed that English has reflexives with invisible binders (Williams 1985, 1987, 1994; Bhatt and Izvorski 2002). A difference from the Norwegian situation is that the form used, oneself, can be either bound or free (compare One should be kind to oneself versus These actions only affect oneself). German, Danish, Swedish, and Icelandic are like Norwegian in allowing sich/sig reflexives with invisible binders. Examples can easily be found searching the World Wide Web, but the literature gives practically no information. (Teleman et al. 1999:334 gives one relevant example for Swedish, which is suspiciously similar to example 1b above, which Hellan stars.)

Norwegian Anaphors

9

of a paragraph with its own heading; the text is a plan for a kindergarten.) This example has the structure that was found in many of the examples with reciprocals; the reflexive is bound by an I-argument in a nominalization. As with reciprocals, reflexives with invisible binders can create syntactic ambiguity, because a visible argument can be interpreted as a binder. Example 16 is syntactically ambiguous, but the content makes clear that the possessive is not the binder. (16) Dette kan fore til en dyp og ubevisst avhengighet av this can lead to a deep and unconscious dependence on andres aksept av seg selv som individ. individual. others’ acceptance of REFL SELF as ‘This can lead to a deep and unconscious dependence on others’ acceptance of oneself as an individual.’ Reflexives with invisible binders also differ from the reciprocals in interesting ways. The most important difference is probably the existence of alternatives to the reflexive seg (selv). There is no obvious alternative to using the reciprocal hverandre in the sentences discussed in section 2, other than changing the wording completely. By contrast, in sentences such as 15, there are two alternatives to the reflexive, namely en (selv) ‘oneself’ and deg (selv) ‘yourself’ (second person singular used generically). Using deg (selv) ‘yourself’ is more colloquial, but it is not always appropriate, because its generic use still carries some of the second person meaning. Both alternatives have binding properties that are different than the reflexive seg (selv); they can be either bound or free. Compare 17a, in which they are bound by PRO, and 17b, in which they are free. (17) a. Å beundre deg selv / en selv er ikke bra. to admire yourself / oneself is not good ‘Admiring yourself / oneself is not good.’

(constructed)

10

Lødrup

b. Boikotten rammer bare deg selv / en selv. boycott-DEF affects only yourself / oneself

(constructed)

‘The boycott only affects yourself / oneself.’ A difficult question is if deg selv ‘yourself’ and en selv ‘oneself’ are bound or free in a sentence such as 18 (constructed, based upon 15 above). (18) Forståelsen for andre springer ut av understanding-DEF for others comes from forståelsen understanding-DEF

av of

deg selv / en selv. yourself / oneself

‘The understanding for others comes from the understanding of yourself / oneself.’ For speakers who accept invisible binders, there is no problem in assuming that deg selv ‘yourself’ and en selv ‘oneself’ are bound in 18. This is different in the case of speakers who do not accept invisible binders for the reflexive seg (selv). These speakers can still use deg selv ‘yourself’ and en selv ‘oneself’ in sentences like 18, forcing the assumption that they have unbound deg selv ‘yourself’ and en selv ‘oneself’ in this context. The fact that there are alternatives to seg (selv) also gives a different sociolinguistic status for reflexives than for reciprocals with invisible binders. Examples with seg (selv) are easily found in authentic texts from newspapers, schools, private companies, etc. Even so, some speakers, especially older ones, feel that en (selv) ‘oneself’ is the proper choice in a sentence like 15. However, this does not necessarily imply that these speakers find seg (selv) unacceptable. The diachrony and sociolinguistics of reflexives with invisible binders raise interesting questions, which must be left to future research (but see section 4.2 for some speculation). In examples such as 19, the binder is an I-argument in a nominalization or another noun phrase with argument structure. Most examples have the complex reflexive seg selv, but the simple reflexive seg is also

Norwegian Anaphors

11

used, as in 19d.4 The possessive form can also be used this way, as in 19c. (19) a. Narsissisme[er] en erotisk ladet opptatthet av og narcissism is an erotically loaded preoccupation with and kjærlighet til seg selv. love for REFL SELF ‘Narcissism is an erotically loaded preoccupation with and love for oneself.’ b. Vold mot seg selv er en legitim form for ikkevold. violence against REFL SELF is a legitimate form of non-violence ‘Violence against oneself is a legitimate form of non-violence.’ c. En slik holdning til sin egen hjembygd og a such attitude towards REFL-POSS own home-town and sin REFL-POSS

egen dialect er nokså uvanlig. own dialect is rather unusual

‘That kind of attitude towards one’s own home town and one’s own dialect is rather unusual.’ d. En liten titt rundt seg er å anbefale a little look around REFL is to recommend ‘A little look around oneself is recommended.’

4

The distribution of simple and complex reflexives seems to follow the same rules with invisible binders as with visible binders. For example, the use of the simple reflexive in the nominalization in 19d should be compared to the use of the simple reflexive in the corresponding sentence in i. (i) Han tittet rundt seg. (constructed) he looked around REFL ‘He looked around.’

12

Lødrup

Only a couple of my informants do not accept sentences in which reflexives are bound by I-arguments. (All of them accept reciprocals bound by I-arguments.) Like the reciprocals, reflexives can be bound by P-arguments in indefinite noun phrases. Compare the examples in 20. (20) a. Et helt hus for seg selv er et slit. a whole house for REFL SELF is a toil ‘A whole house for oneself is hard work.’ b. Sikkerhetsbelte til ungene og seg selv er visst utenkelig. seat-belt for kids-DEF and REFL SELF is probably unthinkable ‘Seat belts for the kids and oneself are probably unthinkable.’ c. Mye luft under seg er ett element som er positivt i halfpipe. much air below REFL is one element that is positive in halfpipe ‘Having a lot of air below oneself is one element that is positive in halfpipe.’ At least some cases of P-argument binders, like 20a, seem to be generally acceptable. The distribution of reflexives gives additional evidence for invisible argument binders, which is not available with reciprocals. The basis of the reasoning (suggested to me by Annie Zaenen) is the well-known rule that the simple reflexive seg must be bound by a subject. Examples 21a and 21b show that both I-arguments and P-arguments count as subjects in this respect. (21) a. Boken ga ham et nytt syn på book-DEF gave him a new view of rundt seg. around REFL

menneskene people-DEF (constructed)

‘The book gave him a new view of the people around him.’

Norwegian Anaphors

b. Halfpipe gir ham mye luft under seg. halfpipe gives him much air below REFL

13

(constructed)

‘Halfpipe gives him much air below him.’ In 21a,b the simple reflexive is bound by the invisible arguments of et nytt syn ‘a new view’ and mye luft ‘much air’, respectively. Both these invisible arguments are controlled by the indirect object ham ‘him’. Saying that the reflexive is bound by the indirect object would violate the rule that the simple reflexive must be bound by a subject. 4. Unbound Reflexives. Some younger speakers also have reflexives that are not bound by anything. These reflexives always have a generic interpretation. They are used where other speakers use en (selv) ‘oneself’ or generic deg (selv) ‘yourself’. The term unbound reflexives is of course a misnomer, but it will be used for convenience—examples are 22a–d, in which the reflexive is the object of a verb, or of a preposition in a complement or an adjunct.5 (22) a. En motorsag kan (…) skade seg selv og andre. a chain-saw can hurt REFL SELF and others ‘A chain saw can hurt oneself and others.’

5

Passive sentences such as i probably belong to the same group as 22a–d.

(i) Det kan i det minste ikke føles that [i.e. cheating in biathlon] can at least not feel godt for seg selv. good for REFL SELF ‘That at least can not feel good for oneself.’ The implicit argument does not seem to act as a binder, one argument being that these passives seem to have the same restricted distribution among speakers as the actives in 22a–d.

14

Lødrup

b. Dette er noe som handler om this [i.e. abortion] is something-that deals with seg

selv og det man selv føler for. and that one oneself feels for

REFL SELF

‘This is something that is about oneself and what one feels oneself.’ c. Empatien (…) blir mindre når det gjelder seg selv. becomes smaller when it concerns REFL SELF empathy-DEF ‘The empathy gets smaller when it concerns oneself.’ d. Det er hyggelig at noen tenker på seg. it is nice that somebody thinks of REFL (constructed, accepted by informants) ‘It is nice that somebody thinks of you.’ Other cases of unbound reflexives are given in 23a, in which the possessive reflexive is a part of the subject, and in 23b, which is a nominalization differing from the nominalizations in 19 above in that the reflexive is not bound by the implicit argument (as shown by its content and context; 23b is about new governmental regulations for doctors.) (23) a. Sin REFL-POSS

egen hund er alltid best. own dog is always best

‘One’s own dog is always best.’ b. Det nye blir skjerpede forpliktelser for seg selv. the new is sharpened duties for REFL SELF og sine medarbeidere and REFL-POSS co-workers ‘The news is harder duties for oneself and one’s co-workers.’ Unbound reflexives can even be found as nominal predicates, as in 24. As is well known, a nominal predicate cannot be bound, because it is not referring.

Norwegian Anaphors

15

(24) Link må være seg selv. link must be REFL SELF ‘The link must be oneself.’ Sentences 22–24 are all examples of reflexives that have no binder, visible or invisible. Even if it might be possible to postulate invisible binders, it would be difficult for all cases, and it would undermine the theory of I-arguments. Assuming invisible binders for all cases would also make it difficult to account for different intuitions—it would be necessary to assume that there are two or more types of I-arguments with different binding properties for different groups of speakers. The sociolinguistics of unbound reflexives is not known. The informants who told me that they accept this use of reflexives were all born after 1970. The phenomenon must be older, however, since it can be found in a poem by the late poet Sigmund Mjelve (1926–1995). It is also striking that it can be found in texts that are not colloquial in style, such as 22b,c and 23b. With a certain amount of idealization, one could say that there are two systems for reflexives without visible antecedents (in addition to a system that does not have them). One system—the conservative system—has reflexives with I-argument and P-argument binders, a system parallel to that of the reciprocals. The other system—the radical system—does not limit reflexives to positions where they can find realized or implicit binders. In a sense, this system has unbound reflexives. This is of course a contradiction in terms, and it would be more correct to say that it has a form seg (selv) that is not specified for the feature +/- reflexive. This underspecification is already well established in the system of Norwegian proforms. It can also be found with generic en (selv) ‘oneself’ and deg (selv) ‘yourself’ (see section 3), and with first and second person pronouns (in the sense that they do not have separate reflexive forms). 4.1. Delimitation. The discussion of unbound reflexives has been based upon reasonably clear example sentences, but their delimitation remains difficult. At the same time, it is important not only for the present discussion, but also for the more general account of binding in Norwegian. An important

16

Lødrup

problem concerns sentences such as 25, with a generic noun phrase in subject position and a reflexive in a subordinate clause. (25) Enhver har everybody has som gjelder that concerns

rett til innsyn i opplysninger right to view in information seg selv. REFL SELF

‘Everybody has a right to see information that concerns oneself.’ For speakers who accept unbound reflexives, one could say that the reflexive in 25 is unbound. It is striking, however, that 25 (which is from a parliamentary document) is reasonably acceptable to speakers who do not have unbound reflexives. This indicates that 25 could be a case of long distance binding. A possible argument against this position is that long distance binding cannot cross a finite clause boundary, and that the long distance reflexive is always the simple reflexive. However, this traditional view has to be modified (see Hellan 1988 for the traditional view, and Lødrup 2006 for an alternative). For example, the reflexive in 26 must be bound by the non-generic subject in the higher clause. Example 26 seems to be acceptable to most speakers, even if it has a complex reflexive that is bound across a finite clause boundary. (26) Hun trodde hun gjorde det som var best for seg selv. she thought she did that which was best for REFL SELF ‘She thought she did what was best for herself.’ Example 27 also has a complex reflexive in a clause below a possible binder (the PRO subject of se ‘see’). It is probably an unbound reflexive, however, because 27 is not accepted by speakers who do not have unbound reflexives.

Norwegian Anaphors

17

(27) Det er en utrolig deilig følelse å se sin it is an incredibly wonderful feeling to see REFL-POSS kjære sove trygt inntil seg selv. beloved sleep safely close-to REFL SELF ‘It is an incredibly wonderful feeling to see one’s beloved sleep safely close to oneself.’ The relevant difference between 25 and 26 on the one hand and 27 on the other is that the former have inanimate subordinate subjects. This property makes long distance binding of complex reflexives more acceptable in general (Lødrup 2006). All sentences that might be analyzed as involving long distance binding, such as 25 and 26, have been left out of consideration when researching unbound reflexives. 4.2. The Use of Generic Forms. Why do unbound reflexives always have a generic interpretation? One could point to the fact that PRO also gets a generic interpretation when it is unbound (see Hellan 1988:185). The focus here is on the relation between unbound reflexives and other generic forms. It has been shown that en (selv) ‘oneself’ and seg (selv) can alternate when the binder is an invisible generic argument, as shown in 15 and 18 above. I now show that they can also alternate when the binder is a visible generic argument. There are two words in Norwegian that could be called generic pronouns, man and en. The pronoun man can only be used as a subject, while the pronoun en can be used in all argument functions, and also has the possessive form ens. A generic pronoun, including generic PRO, usually takes the regular third person reflexive seg (selv) as an anaphor, but en (selv) is also possible. In the same way, the reflexive possessive sin has ens as an alternative. The choice of form does not seem to influence meaning. Examples with en / en selv / ens are given in 28. 6

6

Locally bound en (without selv) might be less common, but Hellan (1988:110) goes too far when he says it is not possible; see 28c. When the antecedent is man, only seg (selv) and sin seem natural to me, but sentences with en (selv) and ens can be found in texts.

18

Lødrup

(28) a. En straffer en selv for noe en har gjort. one punishes oneself for something one has done ‘One punishes oneself for something one has done.’ b. Det må være jævlig å vite at en er ansvarlig it must be terrible to know that one is responsible for ens liv. for one’s life ‘It must be terrible to know that one is responsible for one’s life.’ c. Å hindre råkjørere bak en er jo en to impede speeders behind one is you-know one av de få gleder man har. of the few joys one has ‘Impeding speeders behind oneself is one of the few joys one has, you know.’ This means that seg (selv) and en (selv) alternate both with invisible and visible generic antecedents. One could speculate that this situation is being reinterpreted as a more general option to replace en (selv) by seg (selv), allowing seg (selv) to spread and introduce unbound reflexives in the grammar of some speakers. One argument for this position concerns the relation between simple and complex reflexives. The rules for the choice between simple and complex reflexives are not active with unbound reflexives. For example, tenke på ‘think of’ can only take the complex reflexive when the reflexive is bound. However, in 22d above, it takes an unbound simple reflexive. With unbound reflexives, the choice between seg and seg selv seems to parallel the choice between unbound en and en selv. In these cases, selv ‘self’ is a focusing or intensifying particle, and its use is not grammaticalized. To explain the replacement of en (selv) with seg (selv), it might also be relevant that sentences with en (selv) as a non-subject have a noncolloquial flavor to many speakers (see note 8). The use of unbound generic reflexives makes it possible to avoid en (selv) as a non-subject. The reasons to avoid en do not end here, however. In many dialects

Norwegian Anaphors

19

(including my own), the pronoun en is even less colloquial in subject position than in non-subject position. In the dialects in question, en is not used as a subject in colloquial speech; it is probably most correct to say that it is ungrammatical.7 Instead, the generic pronoun man is used as a subject.8 One might speculate that the generic pronoun en is on its way out in these dialects, giving way to a system with man as a subject (as in Swedish and Danish), and reflexive forms as non-subjects.9 5. Conclusion. It has been shown that Norwegian has reflexives without visible binders. Unbound reflexive forms, which are used by some younger speakers, are in a group of their own. They are not anaphors, and they have no direct consequences for binding theory. More important to our understanding of binding is the fact that many speakers allow reflexives to be bound by invisible I-arguments and P-arguments. For these speakers, the visibility condition on binders of reflexives is not empirically correct.

7

One non-linguist informant said that using en as a subject sounds like a school textbook. Using en as a subject with first person meaning is a traditional feature of bureaucratic style, which has often been parodied and ridiculed. For example, the poet André Bjerke wrote about the bureaucrat herr En ‘Mr. One’. 8

Many traditional dialects differ from the dialects described here in using en as the colloquial form, while man feels literary. The use of generic pronouns in these traditional dialects is the basis of the normative grammar tradition of attacking man and promoting en; man is actually not allowed in the Nynorsk written norm. The normative work Vinje 1987:92 reflects the use of generic pronouns in traditional dialects in stating: “Man is not common in colloquial speech, and it can therefore give the style a somewhat stiff, old fashioned look” (my translation). 9

The speculations here suggest that unbound reflexives originated in dialects in which en is not colloquial. There is no implication, however, that the phenomenon is limited to these dialects, because it may have spread to other dialects. (No relevant information is available.)

20

Lødrup

APPENDIX Sources and dates for the example sentences from the World Wide Web: (4a) (4b) (4c) (4d) (5) (7) (8) (11) (15) (16) (19a) (19b) (19c) (19d) (20a) (20b) (20c) (22a) (22b) (22c)

(23a) (23b) (24) (25) (26) (27) (28a) (28b)

www.kirken.no/stavanger/nyhet.cfm?nyhetid=18208, 09/28/2005. home.online.no/~olavgran/aktiviteter.htm, 09/08/2006. www.norock.no/doc/1000/1014/1015/Festsemreft98.doc, 08/04/2005. www.stortinget.no/dok8/1999/dok8-199900-018.htm, 08/04/2005. www.antipsykopat.net/BliAntipsykopat.php, 08/04/2005. home.trollnet.no/karesim/GammelNytt.htm, 08/04/2005. odin.dep.no/odinarkiv/norsk/ dep/smk/1996/taler/099005-991631/ dok-bn.html, 08/04/2005. jankare.net/vamp/forum/posting.php?mode=quote&p=842&sid =e1161bcab2f4ad482a91fa2f0db3a964, 09/13/2006. www.stenrod-barnehage.no/aarsplan.htm, 04/09/2005. www.psykologibanken.com/artikler/FySkamDeg.html, 06/22/2005. http://www.caplex.no/web/artikkel/artdetalj.asp?art_id=9324237, 08/22/2005. www1.sv.no/oslo/org/ulydighet-1.h, 5/24/2005. www.fedrelandsvennen.no/nyheter/kristiansand/article287419.ece, 09/15/2006. www.frena.net/turtips/ornehammer/index.htm, 10/20/2005. forum.kvinneguiden.no/viewtopic.php?t=130573, 09/16/2005. www.dolcevita.no/sider/Oss/ArtOss/omit.htm, 04/09/2005. www.vg.no/pub/vgart.hbs?artid=4386610, 10/20/2005. www.hest.no/?func=debate&sub_func=show_topic&sub_id= 2809&id=274, 09/02/2005. http://www.mammanett.no/mn/archive/index.php/t-5846.html, 08/05/2005. www.drammen.kommune.no/SYMFONI/PUBLIKASJON.NSF/0/ 7D02D46BA08C9F76C1256CB8003E9315?OpenDocument, 08/05/2005. www.canis.no/innlegg.php?hele=ok&nr=18647&forum=10&spm id=NULL, 04/09/2005. www.uib.no/isf/utposten/2000nr4/utp00410.htm, 08/05/2005. www.skjeret.com/mmequipm.htm, 12/13/2005. www.stortinget.no/inno/1996/199697-070-001.html, 08/05/2005. www.dikt.no/index.php?page=vis_tekst&TekstID=152969, 08/05/2005. www.erotikknett.no/forums/ lofiversion/index.php/t73.html, 04/09/2005. www.daria.no/skole/?tekst=2834, 5/24/2005. forum.tv2.no/forum/messageview.cfm?catid=117&threadid=14877 &STARTPAGE=2&enterthread=y, 5/24/2005.

Norwegian Anaphors

21

(28c) area52.hardware.no/lofiversion/index.php/%5C%22http://amac.no/ t262715-50.html, 11/28/2005. Note 1, (i) www.crystalgardens.net/lt/05/5.html, 08/04/2005. Note 2, (ii) no.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diskusjon:Nazism, 08/04/2005. Note 2, (iii) stud.hsh.no/home/alm00lis/eventyr/s2..htm, 08/04/2005. Note 5, (i) debatt.sol.no/show.fcgi?category=3500000000000014& conference=24&posting=9433, 8/11/2005.

REFERENCES Barbiers, Sjef. 2000. On the interpretation of movement and agreement: PPs and binding. Interface strategies: Proceedings of the colloquium, Amsterdam, 24– 26 September 1999, ed. by Hans Bennis, Martin Everaert, and Eric Reuland, 21–36. Amsterdam: Koninklijke Nederlandse Akademie van Wetenschappen. Bhatt, Rajesh, and Roumyana Izvorski. 2002. Genericity, implicit arguments, and control. Available electronically at ftp://babel.ling.upenn.edu/papers/students/izvorski/PROarb.ps. Enger, Hans-Olav. 2004. Scandinavian pancake sentences as semantic agreement. Nordic Journal of Linguistics 27.5–34. Faarlund, Jan Terje. 1977. Embedded clause reduction and Scandinavian gender agreement. Journal of Linguistics 13.239–257. Faarlund, Jan Terje, Svein Lie, and Kjell Ivar Vannebo. 1997. Norsk referansegrammatikk. Oslo: Universitetsforlaget. Frey, Werner. 1993. Syntaktische Bedingungen für die semantische Interpretation: Über Bindung, implizite Argumente und Skopus. Berlin: Akademie Verlag. Hellan, Lars. 1986. The headedness of NPs in Norwegian. Features and projections, ed. by Pieter Muysken and Henk van Riemsdijk, 89–123. Dordrecht: Foris. Hellan, Lars. 1988. Anaphora in Norwegian and the theory of grammar. Dordrecht: Foris. Hestvik, Arild. 1990. LF movement of pronouns and the computation of binding domains. Doctoral dissertation, Brandeis University. Hestvik, Arild. 1991. Subjectless binding domains. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 9.455–496. Hestvik, Arild. 1992. LF movement of pronouns and antisubject orientation. Linguistic Inquiry 23.557–594. Hestvik, Arild, and William Philip. 2001. Syntactic vs. logophoric binding: Evidence from Norwegian child language. Long distance reflexives (Syntax and Semantics 33), ed. by Peter Cole, Gabriella Hermon, and James Huang, 119–139. New York: Academic Press.

22

Lødrup

Jackendoff, Ray. 1972. Semantic interpretation in Generative Grammar. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Lødrup, Helge. 2006. Animacy and long distance binding: The case of Norwegian. Available electronically at http://folk.uio.no/helgelo/index.html. Manning, Christopher, and Ivan A. Sag. 1998. Argument structure, valence, and binding. Nordic Journal of Linguistics 21.107–144. Pollard, Carl, and Ivan A. Sag. 1994. Head-driven phrase structure grammar. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Teleman, Ulf, Staffan Hellberg, and Erik Andersson. 1999. Svenska akademiens grammatik, vol. 2. Stockholm: Svenska akademien. Vinje, Finn-Erik. 1987. Moderne norsk: Råd og regler for praktisk språkbruk. Oslo: Universitetsforlaget. Williams, Edwin. 1985. PRO and subject of NP. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 3.297–315. Williams, Edwin. 1987. I-arguments, the binding theory, and control. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 5.151–180. Williams, Edwin. 1994. Thematic structure in syntax. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

University of Oslo Department of Linguistics and Scandinavian Studies Pb 1102, Blindern N-0317 Oslo Norway [[email protected]]

Journal of Germanic Linguistics 19.1 (2007):23–72

The Weight of Predicates: A Dependency Grammar Analysis of Predicate Weight in German Timothy Osborne Pennsylvania State University When predicate constituents appear in the midfield in German, they must follow their sister constituents. When a midfield cannot be clearly identified, however, as in many matrix V2 clauses, predicate constituents may precede (certain of) their nonpredicate sister constituents. The contrast in serialization possibilities is curious. This paper provides a dependency grammar analysis of the phenomenon. Presenting four principles of word order for German, the analysis concentrates on the dependency grammar understanding of WEIGHT and RISING and how predicate constituents behave with respect to these areas. The relative flatness of dependency structures provides an opportunity for a theory of weight that does not exist for the more layered structures of most constituency grammars. The term RISING refers to discontinuities. When a discontinuity is perceived, the assumption is that rising has occurred. The understanding of predicates builds on the CHAIN concept. The words corresponding to the predicate in the semantics of an utterance always qualify as a chain in the syntax of that utterance.

1. The Phenomenon. A curious aspect of word order in German obtains across clause types. Certain matrix V2 clauses allow for a flexibility of serialization that does not exist for other V2 clauses, nor does it exist for V-last clauses. The contrast is illustrated in 1 and 2. (1) a. Er war den ganzen Tag

im Bett.

b. Er war im Bett den ganzen Tag. he was in bed the whole day ‘He was in bed the whole day.’

© Society for Germanic Linguistics

24

Osborne

c. Er ist den ganzen Tag im Bett

gewesen.

d. *Er ist im Bett he is in bed

gewesen. been

den ganzen Tag the whole day

‘He was in bed the whole day.’ (2) a. Er war gestern sehr freundlich. b. Er war sehr freundlich gestern. he was very friendly yesterday ‘He was very friendly yesterday.’ c. dass er gestern sehr freundlich

war

d. *dass er sehr freundlich gestern war that he very friendly yesterday was ‘that he was very friendly yesterday’ The a- and b-sentences demonstrate the flexibility of serialization of the constituents in bold. The c- and d-sentences, however, show that this same flexibility does not always obtain. The relevant difference seems to have to do with the topological fields (prefield, midfield, postfield). In the a- and b-sentences, the relevant constituents appear in postverb position, but the sentences themselves are not divisible in such a manner that a midfield and postfield can be clearly acknowledged. The c- and dsentences, however, are divisible into clearly recognizable fields, whereby the relevant constituents appear in the midfield. The examples in 1–2 involve declarative V2 main and V-last subordinate clauses. The phenomenon is not limited to these clause types; it also appears in V1 interrogative clauses and zu-infinitive phrases:

The Weight of Predicates

(3) a. Schenkt er dir manchmal

Beachtung?

b. Schenkt er dir Beachtung manchmal? gives he you attention sometimes ‘Does he pay attention to you sometimes?’ c. Hat er

dir

manchmal

Beachtung geschenkt?

d. *Hat er dir Beachtung Has he you attention

manchmal geschenkt? sometimes given

‘Did he pay attention to you sometimes?’ (4) a. Sie fährt

nach der Party

b. Sie fährt Rad She drives bike

Rad.

nach der Party. after the party

‘She is riding her bike after the party.’ c. Sie verspricht, nach der Party Rad

zu fahren.

d. *Sie verspricht, Rad nach der Party zu fahren. she promises bike after the party to drive ‘She promises to ride her bike after the party.’ Furthermore, it also obtains when the relevant VPs are fronted: (5) a. Du hörst am Morgen

Radio.

b. Du hörst Radio am Morgen. you hear radio at-the morning ‘You listen to the radio in the morning.’

25

26

Osborne

c. Am Morgen

Radio

hören

solltest du

schon.

d. *Radio am Morgen radio at-the morning

hören hear

solltest du schon. should you indeed

‘You should indeed listen to the radio in the morning.’ These examples demonstrate that the principle of serialization responsible for the contrast is present in various structures and clause types. The fact that predicate elements appear on the right edge of the midfield is a widely acknowledged fact (Engel 1994:185, Helbig and Buscha 1996:576, Zifonun et al. 1997:1507–1509, Sitta 1998:821f., Dippmann and Watzinger-Tharp 2000:327), and the specific contrast illustrated in 1–5 has been noted by others; for example, Reis (1980) and Grewendorf (1988:26). Reis and Grewendorf take the contrast as evidence that the topological fields must be acknowledged in theories of word order for German. The problem with an explanation in terms of topological fields, however, lies with the theoretical status of the topological model in general. While the model has a very long and established tradition, it is a descriptive device that lacks a solid foundation in a theory of grammar. Furthermore, there are aspects of the phenomenon that cannot be addressed solely in terms of the topological fields. The contrasts in 6 and 7 generate additional questions. (6) a. Sie wird alles möglichst

bald nehmen.

b. Sie wird möglichst bald alles nehmen. she will as-possible soon all take ‘She will take everything as soon as possible.’ c. Sie wird alles

in Anspruch

d. *Sie wird in Anspruch she will in advantage

alles all

nehmen. nehmen. take

‘She will take advantage of everything.’

The Weight of Predicates

(7) a. Du hast sehr oft

dieses Problem

b. Du hast dieses Problem you have this problem

27

gehabt.

sehr oft gehabt. very often had

‘You had this problem very often.’ c. Du hast sehr oft

Mucken

gehabt.

d. *Du hast Mucken you have moods

sehr oft very often

gehabt. had

‘You have been moody very often.’ The relevant constituents in these cases all appear in the midfield. While the a- and b-sentences may have nuanced meaning differences according to the scope of the adjuncts, each serialization is acceptable. In this regard, the contrast between the c- and d-sentences is curious, since these sentences illustrate the familiar pattern encountered in 1–5. The expectation is that the b-sentences should also be disallowed just as the d-sentences are disallowed. What is responsible for this contrast? The answer to this question must have to do with functional status of the constituents involved. The constituents in Anspruch in 6c,d and Mucken in 7c,d are, namely, parts of the predicates, whereas möglichst bald in 6a,b and dieses Problem in 7a,b are nonpredicate constituents. An explanation of the phenomenon illustrated in 1–7 will hence acknowledge whether the constituents involved are predicate or nonpredicate. This paper presents an explanation of the contrast in 1–7 in terms of dependency grammar. Two cornerstones of the approach are its understanding of constituent weight and rising. The claim is made that predicate constituents are generally heavy and that in certain constellations they are obligatorily heavier than their nonpredicate sister constituents and must appear as far to the right as they can. The highlights of the account are expressed as four principles, which are presented here in the order that they are discussed below: RISING PRINCIPLE: The head of a risen constituent must dominate that constituent’s governor.

28

Osborne

WEIGHT PRINCIPLE: Weight influences the relative order of cosister constituents, not of sister constituents in general. PREDICATE WEIGHT PRINCIPLE i. If W(ord)1 and W2 are links in the same predicate chain, ii. W1 governs W2, and iii. W1 follows W2 , then the constituent of which W2 is the root is heavier than its cosisters. SCRAMBLING RISING PRINCIPLE: The dependent of a governor may not rise to a nonfronting position if that governor has a lighter dependent that does not also rise. The Rising Principle and Weight Principle may be language universals, although no concrete claims can be made in this regard at this time. The Predicate Weight Principle and Scrambling Principle are applied to just German here, but it is likely that they are valid in related West Germanic languages as well. There are numerous concepts in these principles that must be established in order to make them understandable, that is, RISING, COSISTER, CONSTITUENT, CHAIN, PREDICATE CHAIN, GOVERNS, and ROOT. Introducing and defining these concepts involves establishing particular aspects of the dependency-based approach in which the analysis is couched. 2. Dependency Grammar. The following three subsections introduce aspects of dependency grammar. In order to make the discussion accessible to a larger audience, section 2.1 introduces the fundamental difference between dependencybased and constituency-based grammars. This introduction is necessary since dependency grammars are less known, as constituency grammars dominate the study of syntax in Anglo-American linguistics. Section 2.2 then treats aspects of the particular dependency-based grammar used in this paper to address the phenomenon in the introduction. The specific terminology for denoting the relations between units of syntax in dependency structures is introduced. Section 2.3 then demonstrates the manner in which discontinuities are addressed in the current framework. The assumption is that rising occurs.

The Weight of Predicates

29

It should be noted that the aspects of dependency syntax presented in the following subsections are consistent in many relevant respects with an established tradition (Tesnière 1959, Hays 1964, Robinson 1970, Kunze 1975, Matthews 1981, Engel 1994, Mel'uk 1988, Schubert 1988, Starosta 1988, Lobin 1993, Pickering and Barry 1993, Covington 1994, Jung 1995, Heringer 1996, Groß 1999, Eroms 2000, Kahane 2000, Tarvainen 2000, Hudson 1984, 1990, 2000, Ágel et al. 2003, Ágel et al. 2006). 2.1. Minimal Structures. The easiest way to understand the dependency-based approach to syntax is to compare dependency with constituency. When doing so, the distinction is best captured in terms of the respective tree structures that each principle generates. Three points are discussed in this section: 1. Dependency is a one-to-one relation, whereas constituency is a oneto-more-than-one relation. 2. Dependency inherently provides significant information about syntactic structure that constituency does not. 3. Despite its paucity of structure, dependency makes a more accurate prediction with respect to the results of many constituency tests. Each of these three points is discussed in turn. Dependency is a strict mother-daughter relation, whereby a one-toone correspondence obtains between words and nodes. For each word, there is exactly one node in the structure, and vice versa. Constituency, in contrast, is a one-to-more-than-one relation, meaning that there are always more nodes in the structure—by at least one—than there are words in the string. The trees in 8 illustrate the contrast.

30

Osborne

(8)

X1 X2 X4

X3 X5

X6

X7 X8

a.

Some

X9

students enjoy diagramming sentences. X3 X2

X1 b.

Some students

X4 X5 enjoy diagramming sentences.

The constituency tree 8a shows the manner by which the constituents, starting with the individual lexical items, COMBINE to create greater constituents. For instance, diagramming X8 combines with sentences X9 to create diagramming sentences X7. The dependency tree 8b, by contrast, illustrates the manner in which the words ATTACH to each other to create greater units. For instance, sentences X5 attaches to diagramming X4 to create the constituent diagramming sentences X4 X5. The most striking difference between the two structures lies with the number of nodes and edges. Each word in the string in dependency tree 8b corresponds to exactly one node in the structure, and vice versa. In this regard, dependency is a one-to-one relation. By contrast, in 8a each word in the string corresponds to one node in the structure, but each node in the structure does not necessarily correspond to just a single node in the string. Constituency is thus a one-to-more-than-one relation, nodes outnumbering words. There are nine nodes and eight edges in 8a, but only five nodes and four edges in 8b. Dependency structures are minimal in comparison with their constituency counterparts. Despite the poverty of structure in dependency hierarchies, dependency inherently conveys significant information that constituency does not. The head-dependent relation is clearly visible in 8b. For instance, the

The Weight of Predicates

31

tree 8b shows diagramming as the head of sentences and enjoy as the head of some students and diagramming sentences. This same information is not visible in 8a. From the tree in 8a alone, it is not evident whether diagramming or sentences is the head of diagramming sentences, or whether enjoy or diagramming sentences is the head of enjoy diagramming sentences. In order for constituency to convey this information, it must be augmented with the phrase marker labels. By contrast, dependency conveys this information without the node labels. In this respect, dependency structures are again minimal in comparison with their constituency counterparts. Finally, in Osborne 2005b I show that dependency structures make a much more accurate prediction in English with respect to the results of many widely employed constituency tests, for example, topicalization, clefting, pseudoclefting, stripping, and answer fragments. I do not reproduce the data here, but rather the point is made with respect to just the initial binary division that is at the core of most constituency grammars (for example, S
NP+VP). Constituency predicts the finite VP to be a constituent, whereas dependency predicts that it is not. The finite VP corresponds to node X3 in 8a. (9) Some students enjoy diagramming sentences. Topicalization a. *Enjoy diagramming sentences, some students. Clefting b. *It is enjoy diagramming sentences that some students (do). Pseudoclefting c. *What some students do is enjoy diagramming sentences. Stripping d. Some students enJOY diagramming sentences. *not HATE diagramming them. Answer fragment e. What do some students enjoy doing? *Enjoy diagramming sentences.

32

Osborne

If the finite VP enjoy diagramming sentences were a constituent, then these tests would identify it as one. Dependency thus makes the correct prediction where constituency fails. 2.2. The Terminology. The following terminology is used to express the relations that obtain between the units of syntax in dependency structures: STRING: A word or combination of words that is continuous with respect to precedence. CHAIN: A word or combination of words that is continuous with respect to dominance.1 CONSTITUENT: A word plus all the words that that word dominates. HEAD: The one word that dominates a given chain. ROOT: The one word in a chain that is not immediately dominated by any other word in that chain. DEPENDENT: A constituent that a given word immediately dominates. DAUGHTER: A word that a given word immediately dominates. GOVERNOR: The one word that licenses the appearance of a given word or constituent. I expand on each of these definitions with the help of the abstract dependency tree in 10.

1

This definition of “chain” has been simplified from Osborne 2005b for expository purposes. Osborne (2005b) slightly alters O’Grady’s (1998) definition of the concept as follows: CHAIN: The words A ... B ... C ... (order irrelevant) form a chain iff A immediately dominates B and C, or if A immediately dominates B and B immediately dominates C.

The Weight of Predicates

(10)

33

B A

D C

A

B

C

E D

E

STRINGS vs. CHAINS: A string is a word or combination of words that is continuous with the respect to precedence (x-axis). There are fifteen possible strings in 10: A, B, C, D, E, AB, BC, CD, DE, ABC, BCD, CDE, ABCD, BCDE, and ABCDE. A chain, in contrast, is a word or combination of words that is continuous with respect to dominance (yaxis). There are 17 possible chains in 10: A, B, C, D, E, AB, BD, CD, DE, ABD, BCD, BDE, CDE, ABCD, ABDE, BCDE, and ABCDE. Notice that BC and ABC are strings but they are not chains. Similarly, notice that BD, ABD, BDE, and ABDE are chains but they are not strings. The understanding of chains used here follows O’Grady 1998 and Osborne 2005b. CONSTITUENTS: Since constituency and dependency are often viewed as opposing principles, it is not common for dependency grammars to acknowledge constituents. It may therefore seem odd that the term is used in the current dependency-based approach. In this respect, however, notice that the definition is theory-neutral. In other words, the same definition can be used in constituency-based grammars to identify constituents. Hudson (1984:92) and Siewierska (1988:142) also use the term constituent for dependency structures as done here. Excluding the entirety, the definition identifies just four constituents in 10: A, C, E, and CDE. In a constituency grammar, the definition would identify significantly more constituents, almost twice the number. Finally, one should note that all constituents qualify as chains, but not vice versa; for example, CDE is a chain and a constituent, whereas BCD is a chain but it is not a constituent. HEADS vs. ROOTS: The head of a chain is the one word that immediately dominates that chain. The root of a chain, in contrast, is the one word in that chain that is not immediately dominated by any other word in that chain. Take the chain CD as an example: B is its head and D is its root. Take the chain BDE as a second example: it has no head and

34

Osborne

B is its root. Since constituents always qualify as chains, they also have heads and roots. Take the constituent CDE as an example: B is its head and D is its root. DEPENDENTS vs. DAUGHTERS: A dependent is a constituent that is immediately dominated by a given node, whereas a daughter is a word that is immediately dominated by a given node. Take element B as an example: it has the dependents A and CDE and the daughters A and D. Take element D as a second example: its dependents C and E fully overlap with its daughters C and E. HEADS vs. GOVERNORS: Finally, a distinction must be drawn between the one word that immediately dominates a given word or constituent, that is, its head, and the one word that licenses the appearance of a given word or constituent, that is, its governor. The distinction is essential for a discussion of discontinuities. The sentence What did he see? serves as an example: (11)

X2 X1

X3 X4

What did he see? In this case, the head of what X1 is did X2 because did immediately dominates what. The governor of what, however, is see because see is the word that licenses the appearance of what. That is, see subcategorizes for an object. The concept “head” resides purely in surface syntax, whereas the concept “governor” resides in the lexicon. The distinction is necessary for a dependency grammar theory of discontinuities. The dashed dependency edge connecting what to did identifies a constituent the head of which and the governor of which are separate words. The manner in which such discontinuities are addressed is discussed in the next section. 2.3. Rising. In most cases, a given constituent’s head is also its governor. At times though, the two roles are played by different words, as illustrated in 11. In such cases, it appears as though a discontinuity is present. The

The Weight of Predicates

35

approach here actually assumes that no discontinuities ever obtain, but rather RISING has occurred, as illustrated in 12 and 13. (12)

X2

X2 X3 X4

X1

X3

X4

X1 a. What do you know? (13)

b. What do you know?

X2

X2

X1

X1 X5

X5 X3 X4

X3 X4 a. Someone called who you know.2 b. Someone called who you know. Tree 12a shows know as the head and governor of what. Similarly, tree 13a shows someone as the head and governor of who you know. This practice results in projectivity violations, though, which are evident in the crossing lines (Mel'uk 1988:35ff., Heringer 1996:243ff., Eroms 2000:311ff.). The current approach assumes rising in order to overcome such projectivity violations. In these cases, what and who you know rise and attach to do and called, respectively, as illustrated in 12b and 13b. Risen constituents are indicated by dashed dependency edges. The rising idea pursued in this paper has precedents in the literature, although the terminology varies (Hudson 2000, Bröker 2000, Duchier and Dubesmann 2001, Gerdes and Kahane 2001). It must be noted that this concept of rising does not imply that the grammar is derivational. The term rising is a convenient metaphor for a situation where a 2

The status of the relative pronoun in dependency hierarchies is controversial. I follow Kunze (1975:129f.) in assuming that the relative pronoun is a daughter of the finite verb of the relative clause, not vice versa.

36

Osborne

constituent attaches to a word that dominates its governor. It does not necessitate that that constituent be understood as having appeared as a dependent of its governor at some level of grammar below or beyond the surface. It does imply, however, that certain aspects of the grammar allow, and at times require, a constituent to take on a head that dominates its governor. An assumption in this area is that constituents may or must at times “rise,” but they can never “lower” or otherwise take on heads that do not dominate their governors.3 This claim is expressed here as the RISING PRINCIPLE, and illustrated in the abstract tree in 14. RISING PRINCIPLE: The head of a risen constituent must dominate that constituent’s governor.

3

I am aware of one peripheral phenomenon in German where one might argue that “lowering” has occurred: (i) Ein Fehler unterlaufen ist ihm noch nie. a mistake under-run is him still not ‘He hasn’t made a mistake yet.’ The V2 principle suggests that ein Fehler in this case attaches to the infinitival verb unterlaufen, not to the finite verb ist. If so, then this situation would constitute an instance of “lowering,” since subjects in dependency grammar appear as dependents of finite verbs. I think, though, that there is a more plausible analysis of such cases. If one assumes that subjects (most always) obligatorily rise to the finite verb, but other arguments have the option to rise, then example i need not be an instance of “lowering.” It is, rather, an instance where the subject has not undergone the rising that is most always obligatory for subjects.

The Weight of Predicates

(14)

37

D B A

F C

E

G I H

A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H

I

Assuming that H can rise and that I is H’s governor, the Rising Principle allows H to attach only to those nodes that dominate I. Hence H can rise and attach to G, F, or D. It cannot rise and attach to A, B, C, or E. Take E as another example: the Rising Principle allows E to rise and attach to D. It prohibits E, however, from attaching to A, B, C, G, H, or I. The Rising Principle is a necessary limitation on discontinuities, but by no means is it a sufficient one for predicting when discontinuities may occur. A dependency grammar theory of discontinuities must acknowledge numerous other factors; for example, the syntactic category of the risen constituent, the syntactic category of the governor of the risen constituent, the syntactic category of the head of the risen constituent, the syntactic categories of the words in the chain that link the head to the governor, the position of the risen constituent in relation to its head and to its governor, etc. Acknowledging and exploring these factors can lead to a dependency grammar typology of discontinuities. In this regard, the discontinuity in 12 illustrates wh-fronting, and the one in 13 extraposition. The Rising Principle may be a universal restriction on discontinuities. Dependency-based theories acknowledging rising will have the Rising Principle (or something akin to it) as a pillar of their approach to discontinuities.

38

Osborne

3. Predicate Chains. In Osborne 2005b, I demonstrate that the chain is the relevant syntactic unit behind numerous mechanisms of syntax. One of the areas I discuss is predicates, where the term predicate is understood as it is used in the grammar tradition of the German language (Heringer 1988:87ff., Homberger 1993, Lühr 1993:97ff., Helbig and Buscha 1996:536ff., Sitta 1998:625ff., Emons 1995, Zifonun et al. 1997:659ff., Hentschel and Weydt 2003:338ff., Eichinger 2006). The words constituting the central relational meaning in the semantics of a sentence always form a chain in the syntax of that sentence. This point is illustrated here using analytic verb complexes of the verb anrufen ‘to call’. The predicate chains are in bold: (15)

X2 X1

X2 X3 X4

X1

X4 X3

a.

Er ruft uns an. he calls us at ‘He is calling us.’

b. Er hat uns angerufen. he has us called ‘He called us.’

X2

X2

X1

X4

X1

X5

X3

X4 X3

c.

Er wird uns anrufen. he will us call ‘He will call us.’

d. Er wird uns angerufen haben. he will us called have ‘He will have called us.’

The Weight of Predicates

X2 X1

39

X2 X3

X1

X4 X3

e. Wir wurden angerufen. we became called

f. Wir sind angerufen worden. we are called become

‘We were called.’

‘We were called.’

X2 X1

X4 X3

g. Wir werden angerufen werden. we will called become ‘We will be called.’ X2 X1

X5 X4 X3

h. Wir werden angerufen worden sein. we will called become be ‘We will have been called.’ The words in bold qualify as chains in each case because they are topdown continuous. Notice that in 15a–d, the words in bold are not left-toright continuous since uns intervenes. Despite this fact, they are still topdown continuous, so they qualify as chains.

40

Osborne

4. The Weight Principle. The discussion now takes a step back from predicates and considers the dependency grammar understanding of “weight.” The concept of weight is often invoked to address the order of constituents in the midfield. It is associated with Behaghel’s (1932:6) first law, that is, Gesetz der wachsenden Glieder “law of growing parts,” whereby heavier (longer) constituents follow lighter (shorter) constituents. The principle is most evident with unstressed definite pronouns, which are very light. These pronouns strive leftward, often appearing immediately after the finite verb in the so-called “Wackernagel position” (Wackernagel 1892). Another widely acknowledged aspect of weight is seen in the grammatical relations, whereby subjects tend to be lighter than objects, that is, the subject tends to precede the object(s), and amongst the objects, direct and indirect objects tend to precede prepositional objects. This study does not attempt an analysis of factors influencing the weight of constituents in general, since the area is too complex and the associated literature too extensive.4 I assume, however, that various semantic, syntactic, and pragmatic factors combine to determine the weight of a given constituent.5 The discussion here concentrates on one 4

For discussions of the various factors influencing constituent weight, see Jacobs 1988, Uzkoreit 1988:24, Hawkins 1992, 1994, Wasow 1997. I assume that at least four factors influence the weight of constituents in German: 1. Quantity of linguistic material, for example, number of words, and number and length of syllables. 2. Subject vs. nonsubject. 3. Definite vs. indefinite. 4. Stressed vs. unstressed. An anonymous reviewer emphasizes that these factors should be ranked in a hierarchy. I do not dispute this possibility, although no hierarchy is intended for the order 1–4 given here. 5

Hawkins (1992, 1994) draws a distinction between the syntactic factors and the semantic/pragmatic factors influencing the order of constituents. He uses weight only to refer to the syntactic factors. He argues that apparent semantic and pragmatic factors can be reduced to purely syntactic considerations (for example, number of words). For Hawkins, constituent weight is a purely syntactic phenomenon. While I acknowledge that purely syntactic considerations play a prominent role in determining the weight of constituents, I do not think that semantic and pragmatic factors can be derived entirely from syntactic

The Weight of Predicates

41

central aspect of the dependency grammar understanding of weight. The relatively flat structures that obtain in dependency grammar provide an opportunity for addressing weight phenomena that does not exist for the more layered structures of constituency grammar. Wasow (1997:88ff.) draws an important distinction in this regard. His review of the literature motivates him to distinguish HEAVINESS from WEIGHT. The former denotes properties of a constituent in isolation, whereas the latter is a relative concept. Wasow discusses three phenomena of English in this area: heavy NP shift, particle movement, and dative alternation. An important conclusion he reaches is that these phenomena cannot be appropriately addressed in terms of constituents in isolation, but rather a comparison is always necessary. In other words, the possible shifting of constituents is determined according to the relative weight of the constituents involved. A given constituent shifts rightward only if it is deemed “heavier” than its sister constituent. This insight is congruent with the dependency grammar view of structure. The relatively flat dependency structures enable one to predict when the weight of constituents can motivate shifting. The data in 16 illustrate this point. (16)

X1

X1 X2

X4 X3

a. Sagt says

er die Wahrheit? he the truth

X3

X4

X2 b. *Sagt die Wahrheit er? says the truth he

‘Does he tell the truth?’ Notice that er and die Wahrheit are sister constituents. Since er is the subject and a definite pronoun, it is significantly lighter than its sister constituent die Wahrheit, which is an object noun phrase—subjects tend to be lighter than objects (Hawkins 1992:212, Engel 1994:187), and considerations. Furthermore, I use the term weight to denote the combination of factors (syntactic, semantic, and pragmatic) that influence the serialization of sister constituents.

42

Osborne

unstressed definite pronouns tend to be lighter than noun phrases (Sitta 1998:822, Eisenberg 1999:394). Since lighter constituents precede heavier constituents, er must precede die Wahrheit. Consider the similar example in 17. (17)

X1

X1 X3

X4

X2 a. Sagen die Kinder das? say the children that

X2

X4 X3

b. Sagen das die Kinder? say that the children

‘Do the children say that?’ The combination of a subject NP, that is, die Kinder, with an object definite pronoun, das, results in a situation where the two factors just mentioned influencing weight compete. The fact that subjects tend to appear to the left suggests that die Kinder should precede das, and the fact that unstressed definite pronouns also tend to appear to the left suggest that das should precede die Kinder. The result of this conflict is that both orders are possible. The important point to note is that the relevant constituents are sisters. Examples 16–17 above illustrate the effects of weight in interrogative V1 matrix clauses. The same result obtains when the constituents are in V-last subordinate clauses:

43

The Weight of Predicates

(18)

X1

X1 X5 X2

X5

X4

X3

X3

X4

X2

a. dass er die Wahrheit sagt that he the truth says

b. *dass die Wahrheit er sagt that the truth he says

‘that he tells the truth’ (19)

X1

X1 X5 X3

X4

X2 a. dass die Kinder das sagen that the children that say

X5 X2

X4 X3

b. dass das die Kinder sagen that that the children say

‘that the children say that’ The relevant constituents are again sisters and the same acceptability judgments occur as in 16 and 17. Hence these data support the claim that weight influences the relative order of sister constituents. A problem arises, however, when V2 clauses are included:

44

Osborne

(20)

X2

X3

X1

X4

X2

X3

X4

X1

a. Er sagt die Wahrheit. he says the truth

b. Die Wahrheit sagt er. the truth says he

‘he tells the truth’ (21)

X3 X2

X2 X4

X1 a. Die Kinder sagen das. The children say that

X1

X4 X3

b. Das sagen die Kinder. that say the children

‘the children say that’ Notice again that the relevant constituents are sisters. However, example 20b is fine, contrary to expectation. This situation illustrates that there is an additional component to weight. Apparently, weight influences the serialization only of those sister constituents that appear on the same side of their head. The term COSISTER is suitable for denoting this relation: COSISTERS: Two or more sister constituents are cosisters if they appear on the same side of their head. Acknowledging this concept, the WEIGHT PRINCIPLE in dependency grammar is expressed as follows: WEIGHT PRINCIPLE: Weight influences the relative order of cosister constituents, not of sister constituents in general. According to the Weight Principle, 16b and 18b are disallowed because the two relevant constituents are cosisters and the heavier constituent

The Weight of Predicates

45

precedes the lighter constituent. Sentence 20b, in contrast, is acceptable because the relevant constituents are no longer cosisters. The discussion now surveys the structures where the weight of the relevant constituents helps determine word order. In the examples that follow, the relevant constituents are cosisters. In each case, the lighter unstressed definite pronoun dir should precede the heavier indefinite pronoun etwas: (22) Postroot domain of V2 clauses X2 X1

X3

X4

a. Er gibt dir etwas. b. ??Er gibt etwas dir.6 he gives something you ‘He gives you something.’ (23) Postroot domain of V1 clauses X1 X2 X3

X4

a. Gibt er dir etwas? b. ??Gibt er etwas dir? gives he something you ‘Does he give you something?’ 6

The b-sentences here are marked with “??” instead of “*.” This is due to the acceptability of examples such as the following: (i) Er gibt etwas DIR, nicht MIR! he gives something to-you, not to-me ‘He gives something to you, not to me.’ When the clause final pronoun receives contrastive stress, it can follow the indefinite pronoun. This possibility indicates that stress is a factor influencing weight.

46

Osborne

(24) Postroot domain of V1 imperative clauses X1 X2

X3

a. Gib dir etwas! b. ??Gib etwas dir! give something yourself ‘Give yourself something.’ (25) Preroot domain of V-last clauses X1 X5 X2 X3

X4

a. dass er dir etwas gibt b. ??dass er etwas dir gibt that he something you gives ‘that he gives you something’ (26) Preroot domain in infinitival phrases X2 X1

X5 X3

X4

a. Er versucht, dir etwas zu geben. b. ??Er versucht, etwas dir zu geben. he tries something you to give ‘that he tries to give you something’

The Weight of Predicates

47

Weight influences the order of constituents within NPs as well. In 27, the clause dass er weiß is heavier than the PP von dir. (27) Postroot domain within NPs X2 X1

X3

X5 X4

X7 X6

a. die Behauptung von mir, dass er weiß b. *die Behauptung, dass er weiß, von mir the claim that he knows from me ‘the claim from me that he knows’ And if one assumes that purely semantic principles influence the weight of constituents, then weight can be viewed as helping determine the order of prenoun modifiers in NPs also: (28) Preroot domain within NPs X3 X1

X2

a. einige alte Häuser b. *alte einige Häuser old some houses ‘some old houses’ Like the Rising Principle, the Weight Principle may be universally valid. That is, a dependency grammar approach that acknowledges the role of weight in determining word order will have the Weight Principle

48

Osborne

(or something akin to it) at its foundation, upon which it builds a theory of weight.7 To conclude this section, a comment concerning the cosister concept is appropriate. Most modern German grammars employ a hierarchy of semantic or textually based rules to explain word order in general, and especially in the midfield (Helbig and Buscha 1997:564ff., Zifonun et al. 1997:1495ff., and Eisenberg 1999:394ff.). This practice leads to most complicated results. By acknowledging the cosister rule, the current dependency-based approach identifies a generality, and in so doing, it moves an important component of word order from the semantics/pragmatics into the syntax proper. This relocation constitutes a simplification 7

Another area that is sometimes addressed in terms of weight concerns alternations such as i and ii. (i) a. Er will

zu

lesen fortfahren.

b. Er will fortfahren zu he wants to-continue to

lesen. read

‘He wants to continue reading.’ As the constituent, the root of which is zu lesen, increases in length, the more likely the order in ib becomes. (ii) a. ??Er will ein altes, sehr dickes Buch über Syntax zu lesen he wants an old, very thick book about syntax to read fortfahren. to-continue b. Er will fortfahren, ein altes, sehr dickes Buch über Syntax he wants to-continue an old very thick book about syntax zu lesen. to read ‘He wants to continue reading an old, very thick book about syntax.’ The alternation suggests that constituent weight is also a factor determining the placement of those constituents that have no cosisters. Following Hawkins (1992, 1994), however, I believe that constituent weight is only indirectly responsible for the preference of iib over iia. The direct explanation has to do with processing constraints. Processing becomes more difficult in increasing increments for each additional word that separates a head from its daughter. Hawkins’ Early Immediate Constituents (EIC) metric quantifies the phenomenon. Unfortunately there is insufficient room here to explain the EIC.

The Weight of Predicates

49

of the overall approach to word order. A straightforward syntactic criterion is employed to determine exactly when constituent weight can influence the serialization of constituents. 5. The Predicate Weight Principle. Given the understanding of predicate chains presented in section 3 and the Weight Principle from section 4, the discussion can now proceed to the next major claim of this paper. This claim concerns the relative weight of predicate constituents, that is, constituents the roots of which are parts of predicate chains. In most cases, predicate constituents outweigh their nonpredicate cosisters. This fact is particularly true with respect to argument NPs. In each of the cases in 29–37, the predicate constituent outweighs its sister noun (phrase). The predicate chains are in bold. (29) Infinitives/participles a. Natürlich ist keiner geblieben. b. *Natürlich ist geblieben keiner. naturally is stayed no-one ‘Naturally no one stayed. (30) Subject predicate expressions a. Nach der Schule sind alle hungrig. b. *Nach der Schule sind hungrig alle. after the school are hungry all ‘After school everyone is hungry’ (31) Separable prefixes a. Du nimmst niemanden mit. b. *Du nimmst mit niemanden. you take with no-one ‘You take nobody with you.’

50

Osborne

(32) bekommen-passive a. Er bekommt etwas Gutes

geschenkt.

b. *Er bekommt geschenkt etwas Gutes. he receives as-a-present something good ‘He is receiving something good as a present.’ (33) Aci-verbs a. Sie sah jemanden gehen. b. *Sie sah gehen jemanden. she saw go someone ‘She saw someone go.’ (34) Object predicate expressions a. Das Wetter macht

die Kinder traurig.

b. *Das Wetter macht traurig that weather makes sad

die Kinder. the children

‘That weather makes the children sad.’ (35) Function verbs a. Sie bringt ihre Sachen in Ordnung. b. *Sie bringt in Ordnung ihre Sachen. she brings in order her things ‘She put her things in order.’ (36) Function nouns a. Morgen fährt keiner Rad. b. *Morgen fährt Rad tomorrow drives bike

keiner. no-one

‘Tomorrow nobody is riding their bike.’

The Weight of Predicates

51

(37) Idioms a. Dabei kratzt

niemand

die Kurve.

b. *Dabei kratzt die Kurve niemand. at.that scratches the curve no-one ‘Nobody abandons the situation.’ Each of the b-sentences is disallowed because the predicate constituent outweighs its cosister argument nominal and must hence follow it.8 In contrast to argument noun phrases, many adjuncts can outweigh their predicate sisters; compare the c-sentences below corresponding to 29–37 above:

8

Argument noun phrases can follow their predicate cosisters, on occasion, if they are heavy enough: (i) Wir haben in diesem Jahr aus Steuergeldern gebaut über fünfzig we have in this year from tax-moneys built over fifty Sozialwohnungen, zwei Kindergärten und eine Grundschule. community-apartments two kindergartens and an elementary-school. (Engel 1994:196) ‘We have built from taxes over fifty community apartments, two kindergartens and an elementary school.’ (ii) Sie haben auf ihrem Weg gesehen Oasen, Karawanen und they have on their journey seen oases caravans and Beduinen. Bedouins

(Eroms 2000:380)

‘They saw during their journey oases, caravans, and Bedouins. Weight in these cases is determined by the quantity of, and emphasis on, linguistic material. The fact that such cases can be acceptable should not be too surprising, since there are numerous factors that combine to determine the weight of a given constituent.

52

Osborne

(29) c. Keiner ist geblieben natürlich. no-one is stayed naturally ‘Naturally nobody stayed.’ (30) c. Alle sind hungrig nach der Schule. all are hungry after the school ‘Everyone is hungry after school.’ (31) c. Du nimmst niemanden mit aus Frust. you take no-one with out-of frustration ‘You take nobody with out of frustration.’ (32) c. Er bekommt etwas Gutes geschenkt von he receives something good as-a-present from den Großeltern. The grandparents ‘He is receiving something good as a present from his grandparents.’ (33) c. Sie sah jemanden gehen zweimal. she saw someone go twice ‘Twice she saw someone leave.’ (34) c. Das Wetter macht die Kinder traurig heute. the weather makes the children sad today ‘The weather is making the kids sad today.’ (35) c. Sie bringt ihre Sachen in Ordnung nur in der Not. she brings her things in order only in the need ‘She puts her things in order only out of necessity.’

The Weight of Predicates

53

(36) c. Morgen fährt keiner Rad wegen des Wetters. tomorrow drives no-one bike due-to the weather ‘Tomorrow nobody is riding their bike due to the weather.’ (37) c. Niemand krazt die Kurve dabei. no-one scratches the curve at-that ‘Nobody abandons the situation.’ The predicate chains are again in bold. Each of these c-sentences has an adjunct following its predicate cosister. While some of these sentences are perhaps stylistically poor, they are all significantly better than their bcounterparts. Some adjunct types are even required to follow their predicate cosisters, namely those with clause status. The discussion can now return to the phenomenon illustrated in the introduction. Examples 1–2 are repeated here for convenience as 38–39. The predicate chains continue to be in bold. (38) a. Er war den ganzen Tag im Bett. b. Er war im Bett den ganzen Tag. he was in bed the whole day ‘He stayed in bed the whole day.’ c. Er ist den ganzen Tag im Bett gewesen. d. *Er ist im Bett he is in bed

den ganzen Tag gewesen. the whole day stayed

‘He stayed in bed the whole day.’ (39) a. Er war gestern sehr freundlich. b. Er war sehr freundlich gestern. he was very friendly yesterday ‘He was very friendly yesterday.’

54

Osborne

c. dass er gestern sehr freundlich war d. *dass er sehr freundlich gestern war that he very friendly yesterday was ‘that he was very friendly yesterday’ When the nonpredicate constituent follows the entire predicate chain as in the b-sentences, the sentences are acceptable. When the nonpredicate constituent precedes a link in the predicate chain as in the d-sentences, however, the sentences are unacceptable. Apparently a predicate constituent must appear as far to the right as it can if it precedes its predicate governor. This insight is expressed as the Predicate Weight Principle: PREDICATE WEIGHT PRINCIPLE i. If W(ord)1 and W2 are links in the same predicate chain, ii. W1 governs W2, and iii. W1 follows W2 , then the constituent of which W2 is the root is heavier than its cosisters. The Predicate Weight Principle effectively formalizes an aspect of Bech’s (1955) seminal distinction between coherent and incoherent constructions. According to the Predicate Weight Principle, the verbs of coherent constructions must often be contiguous, the result being that they form the right-bracket in the topological model. The remaining discussion in this paper is devoted to illustrating the validity of the Predicate Weight Principle. In so doing, it will be necessary to introduce one further principle of word order in German. Examine the trees of 38d and 39d.

The Weight of Predicates

(38)

55

X2 X1

X8 X3

X7 X4 X5

X6

d'. *Er ist im Bett den ganzen Tag gewesen. he is in bed the entire day been ‘He was in bed the entire day.’ (39)

X1 X6 X2

X4

X5

X3 d'. *dass er sehr freundlich gestern war that he very friendly yesterday was ‘that he was very friendly yesterday’ In 39, war corresponds to W1 in the Predicate Weight Principle, and freundlich to W2. Since freundlich precedes war, the Predicate Weight Principle requires freundlich to be heavier than its cosister, so it must follow gestern, not precede it. The situation is similar in 38d. Examples 38d and 39d illustrate the force of the Predicate Weight Principle in the postroot domain of a V2 clause and in the preroot domain of a V-last clause. Examples 3d and 4d from section 1 are reproduced here as 40 and 41 to show the force of the Predicate Weight Principle in an interrogative V1 clause and in a zu-infinitive phrase.

56 (40)

Osborne

X1 X2

X6 X3

X4

X5

*Hat er dir Beachtung manchmal geschenkt? has he you attention sometimes given ‘Has he sometimes paid attention to you?’ (41)

X2 X1

X7 X3

X4 X6 X5

*Sie verspricht, Rad nach der Party zu fahren. she promised bike after the party to drive ‘She promised to ride her bike after the party.’ Since in each case the adjunct phrase splits the two (lower) links in the predicate chain, the Predicate Weight Principle is violated and the unacceptability thus predicted. The Predicate Weight Principle is valid for most all predicate types. This fact is illustrated here with respect to the list of predicate types produced above in 29–37. The d-sentences below are the V-last versions of 29c–37c:

The Weight of Predicates

57

(29) Perfect participle d. *dass keiner geblieben natürlich ist that no-one stayed naturally is ‘that naturally no one stayed’ (30) Predicate adjective d. *dass alle hungrig nach der Schule sind that all hungry after the school are ‘that everyone is hungry after school’ (31) Separable prefix d. *dass du niemanden mit aus Frust nimmst that you no-one with out-of frustration takes ‘that out of frustration you’re not taking anyone with you’ (32) bekommen passive d. *dass er etwas Gutes geschenkt von den Großeltern that he something good received from the grandparents bekommt gets ‘that he received something as a present from his grandparents’ (33) Aci structure d. *dass sie jemanden gehen zweimal sah that she some-one go twice saw ‘that she twice saw someone leave’

58

Osborne

(34) Object predicate d. *dass das Wetter die Kinder traurig heute macht that the weather the children sad today made ‘that the weather made the children sad today’ (35) PP of function verb d. *dass sie ihre Sachen in Ordnung nur in der Not bringt that she her things in order only in the need brings ‘that she organizes her things only when in desperation’ (36) Function noun d. *dass morgen keiner Rad wegen des Wetters fährt that tomorrow no-one bicycle due-to the weather drives ‘that no one is riding their bicycle tomorrow due to the weather’ (37) Idiomatic expression d. *dass niemand die Kurve dabei krazt that no-one the curve by-it scratches ‘that no one bails out doing that’ This section presented the Predicate Weight Principle, a principle that helps determine the distribution of predicate constituents in German. As things stand, the Predicate Weight Principle is a descriptive generalization about the behavior of predicate chains. A pertinent question addresses the motivation for the principle. Why are those predicate constituents that precede their governors obligatorily heavier than their cosisters, whereas those predicate constituents that follow their governors are not necessarily heavier than their cosisters? The answer to this question probably has to do with the periphery positions in the clause. The sentence-initial and sentence-final positions often carry emphasis. Those nonpredicate constituents that can follow a predicate cosister are in sentence-final position. In this position, they receive emphasis and can

The Weight of Predicates

59

hence outweigh their predicate cosisters. If the nonpredicate constituent does not appear in clause-final position, though, it does not receive the emphasis associated with that position, meaning that it will not outweigh its predicate cosister. 6. Scrambling Rising The possibility of rising generates problems for the Predicate Weight Principle. Consider the structures in 42 and 43. (42)

X2 X1

X5 X3

X4

a. *Niemand will nervös dich machen. no-one wants nervous you make ‘No one wants to make you nervous.’ X2 X1

X3

X5 X4

b. *Niemand will nervös dich machen. no-one wants nervous you make ‘No one wants to make you nervous.’

60 (43)

Osborne

X1 X7 X2

X6 X3

X5 X4

a. *dass sie in Anspruch alles genommen hat that she in advantage all taken has ‘that she took advantage of everything’ X1 X7

X2

X3

X6 X4

X5

b. *dass sie in Anspruch alles genommen hat that she in advantage all taken has ‘that she took advantage of everything’ The Predicate Weight Principle predicts the unacceptability of the asentences: as predicate constituents, nervös and in Anspruch are heavier than their nonpredicate cosisters dich and alles, respectively. If the predicate constituents follow their nonpredicate cosisters, the results are fine, that is, Niemand will dich nervös machen and dass sie alles in Anspruch genommen hat. Alternative analyses are shown in the b-sentences, however. There, nervös and in Anspruch have risen and attached to will and hat, respectively. The result is that the relevant constituents are no longer cosisters, meaning that the Predicate Weight Principle no longer requires

The Weight of Predicates

61

nervös to follow ihn and in Anspruch to follow alles. For some reason separate from the Predicate Weight Principle, the rising in the bexamples must be disallowed. There is a constraint on scrambling rising that predicts the unacceptability of the b-structures in 42 and 43. In Osborne 2005a, I observe that a dependent may not undergo scrambling rising if its governor has a lighter dependent that does not also rise. The data in 44 and 45, from Osborne 2005a, illustrate the phenomenon with respect to nonpredicate constituents in general. (44)

X4 X3

X5 X6

X2 X1 a.

Dem Kind geschenkt hat er es. the child given has he it ‘He gave it to the child.’ X3 X2 X1

X4

X6 X5

b. ??Es geschenkt hat er dem Kind. it given has he the child ‘He gave it to the child.’

62

Osborne

(45)

X4 X3

X5

X6

X1 X2 a.

Nach Japan geflogen hat Karsten mich. To Japan flew has Karsten me ‘Karsten flew me to Japan.’ X3 X2

X4

X1

X5 X6

b. ??Mich geflogen hat Karsten nach Japan. me flew has Karsten to Japan ‘Karsten flew me to Japan.’ The a-sentences have the lighter dependents of the fronted participles rising, that is, es and mich, to nonfronting positions, whereas the heavier dependents do not rise, that is, dem Kind and nach Japan. In the bsentences, in contrast, the situation is reversed; the heavier dependent rises and the lighter one stays put. The relevant constraint is stated here as the SCRAMBLING RISING PRINCIPLE: SCRAMBLING RISING PRINCIPLE: A dependent of a governor may not rise to a nonfronting position if that governor has a lighter dependent that does not also rise. Instances of the so-called “third construction” provide further support for the Scrambling Rising Principle (Besten and Rutten 1989, Kiss 1995:109ff., Hinrichs and Nakazawa 1998, Wöllstein-Leisten 2001:8, Rambow 2003:231, Reis and Sternefeld 2004:488ff.). The examples in 46 and 47 are again from Osborne 2005a.

The Weight of Predicates

(46)

X2 X1

X4 X3

X7 X6 X5

a. Er wird es versuchen, dem Kind zu schenken. he will it try the child to give ‘He will try to give it to the child.’ X2 X1

X5 X4 X3

X7 X6

b. *Er wird dem Kind versuchen, es zu schenken. he will the child try it to give ‘He will try to give it to the child.’

63

64

Osborne

(47)

X6 X2

X7 X8

X1

X5 X4 X3

a. Euch versuchen alle Geheimnisse mitzuteilen dürfen wir nicht. you try all secrets with-to-share may we not ‘We are not allowed to try to share all secrets with you.’ X6 X3

X7 X8

X2 X1

X5 X4

b. *Alle Geheimnisse versuchen euch mitzuteilen dürfen wir nicht. all secrets try you with-to-share may we not ‘We are not allowed to try to share all secrets with you.’ The governor of the risen constituent in each of these cases is the zuinfinitive embedded under versuchen. Each time, the lighter of the zu-infinitive’s two dependents may rise alone, as illustrated in the asentences. The b-sentences are disallowed, in contrast, because the heavier of the two has risen alone.9

9

An anonymous reviewer mentions that cases of “mehrfache Vorfeldbesetzung” (“multiple prefield occupancy”), as discussed by Müller (2005), also support the understanding of weight and scrambling presented here:

The Weight of Predicates

65

7. Anaphoric Elements. I am aware of one general type of exception to the Predicate Weight Principle. Predicate constituents functioning anaphorically can or must be lighter than their nonpredicate cosisters (Helbig and Buscha 1996:575, Sitta 1998:822). This fact is easily observable with the reflexive pronouns of obligatorily reflexive verbs, that is, sich schämen ‘be embarrased’, sich erkälten ‘catch a cold’, sich entscheiden ‘decide’, sich beeilen ‘hurry’, sich befinden ‘be located’, etc. Since the reflexive pronouns that appear in the structures containing these verbs qualify neither as arguments nor as adjuncts, they are viewed as predicate elements (Lühr 1993:29, Helbig and Buscha 1996:538, 575). The problem with viewing these reflexive pronouns as predicate elements, though, is that they do not behave as such with respect to the Predicate Weight Principle: (48) a. dass sich die

Schüler

in den Ferien erkältet

haben

b. dass die Schüler sich in den Ferien erkältet haben that the pupils themselves in the break catch-cold have ‘that the pupils caught colds over the break’ These sentences violate the Predicate Weight Principle. The predicate element sich in each case is separated from the rest of the predicate chain (i) a. Dauerhaft mehr Arbeitsplätze gebe es erst, wenn ... enduringly more jobs give it first if ‘There will be more jobs permanently if …’ b. ?*Mehr Arbeitsplätze dauerhaft gebe es erst, wenn ... (Müller 2005:307) (ii) a. weil es dauerhaft mehr Arbeitsplätze gebe, wenn … because it enduringly more jobs give if ‘because there will be more jobs permanently if …’ b. ?*weil es mehr Arbeitsplätze dauerhaft erst gebe, wenn … The assumption that both preverb constituents in ia–b are dependents of the verb—which makes them cosisters—predicts the acceptability contrast. The lighter dauerhaft must precede the heavier mehr Arbeitsplätze.

66

Osborne

by nonpredicate constituents. These reflexive pronouns must have a special status. In this regard, note that they are just that, namely pronouns. As such, they function anaphorically. There are additional cases where the position of the predicate constituent violates the Predicate Weight Principle without ungrammaticality obtaining. Observe the acceptability contrasts in 49 and 50. (49) a. *Sie sagt, dass

lustig das Schauspiel nicht gewesen ist.

b. Sie sagt, dass so lustig das Schauspiel nicht gewesen ist. she says that so funny the play not been is ‘She says that the play wasn’t so funny.’ (50) a. *Ich glaube, dass Köchin Katja geworden ist. I believe that cook Katja become is b. Ich glaube, dass genau das Katja geworden ist. I believe that exactly that Katja become is ‘I believe that Katja has become exactly that/a cook.’ The b-sentences violate the Predicate Weight Principle because they have the predicate constituents so lustig and genau das preceding their nonpredicate cosisters das Schauspiel, nicht, and Katja. The acceptability contrast between the a- and b-sentences is interesting. Again, note that so and das are anaphoric elements. Apparently, whether or not a predicate constituent functions anaphorically influences where it can appear. A widely acknowledged fact about unstressed definite pronouns is that they are relatively light, meaning they strive leftward. Furthermore, referential noun phrases in general tend to be lighter than nonreferential noun phrases. These facts suggest a solution to the challenge generated by the data in 48–50. Predicate constituents functioning anaphorically are exempt from the Predicate Weight Principle. Their status as anaphors makes them relatively light, that is, it overrides their status as predicate constituents, which are otherwise quite heavy. In other words, a conflict of weight principles occurs, whereby the one principle trumps the other. The principle that anaphoric constituents are relatively light overrides the principle that predicate constituents are quite heavy.

The Weight of Predicates

67

8. Conclusion. This paper explored some traits of predicates in German. A dependency grammar approach has been employed. The dependency-based approach allows for an understanding of predicates in terms of predicate chains. The words that correspond to the semantic predicate of an utterance always qualify as a chain in the syntax of that utterance. Exploring the behavior of such chains, it is possible to acknowledge descriptive generalizations about the distribution of the links in the chains. An important aspect of the dependency grammar analysis lies with its understanding of weight. The flatness of dependency structures creates a possibility that does not exist for the more layered constituency structures. Weight can be understood as determining the relative order of cosister constituents. The definition of cosister and the Weight Principle are reproduced here from section 4. COSISTERS: Two or more sister constituents are cosisters if they appear on the same side of their head. WEIGHT PRINCIPLE: Weight influences the relative order of cosister constituents, not of sister constituents in general. The impressive aspect of the Weight Principle is that it determines the relative order of cosister constituents regardless of where they appear, be they in the postroot domain of V1 or V2 clauses, or in the preroot domain of V-last clauses or zu-infinitive phrases. Adopting the Weight Principle and examining the behavior of predicate constituents, it is easy to observe that predicate constituents tend to be relatively heavy; they are most always heavier than their argument NPs. Many adjuncts, however, can at times outweigh their predicate cosisters. At other times though, they cannot outweigh their predicate cosisters. The Predicate Weight Principle (repeated here from section 5) predicts the serialization of these constituents:

68

Osborne

PREDICATE WEIGHT PRINCIPLE i. If W(ord)1 and W2 are links in the same predicate chain, ii. W1 governs W2, and iii. W1 follows W2 , then the constituent of which W2 is the root is heavier than its cosisters. This principle identifies those predicate constituents that precede their predicate governors as obligatorily heavier than their nonpredicate cosisters. It predicts the contrast in the data from the introduction. Two additional areas were addressed. The first concerned difficulties associated with rising. The possibility of rising challenges the Predicate Weight Principle. The answer to this challenge comes from an independent observation. The dependent of a governor may not rise if that governor has a heavier dependent that does not also rise. The relevant constraint, that is, the Scrambling Rising Principle, is repeated here from section 6. In addition, the Rising Principle from section 2.3 is included: RISING PRINCIPLE: The head of a risen constituent must dominate that constituent’s governor. SCRAMBLING RISING PRINCIPLE: The dependent of a governor may not rise to a nonfronting position if that governor has a lighter dependent that does not also rise. Since predicate constituents that precede their predicate governors are heavier than their nonpredicate cosisters, they may not rise if they have a cosister that does not also rise. The second type of data that challenges the Predicate Weight Principle concerns anaphoric elements. The reflexive pronouns of obligatorily reflexive verbs, for example, sich ‘himself/herself/ itself/themselves/yourself’, are widely viewed as predicate elements, yet they are positioned in such a manner that often violates the Predicate Weight Principle. Related difficulties occur with those predicate constituents that contain anaphoric elements, for example, so lustig ‘so funny’ and genau das ‘exactly that’. To address these exceptions to the Predicate Weight Principle, one must assume that anaphoric elements are by nature light, meaning they strive leftward. When a predicate

The Weight of Predicates

69

constituent is an anaphor or contains an anaphoric element, the two principles conflict. In such cases, the principle pushing anaphoric constituents leftward trumps the Predicate Weight Principle. Finally, it should be emphasized that the Weight Principle and the Rising Principle may be universal principles of language, although no claims to this effect are possible at this time. I think it is likely, however, that the Predicate Weight Principle is not valid beyond German and other related West Germanic languages.

REFERENCES Ágel, Vilmos, Ludwig Eichinger, Hans-Werner Eroms, Peter Hellwig, Hans Jürgen Heringer, and Henning Lobin (eds.). 2003. Dependency and valency: An international handbook of contemporary research, vol. 1. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter. Ágel, Vilmos, Ludwig Eichinger, Hans-Werner Eroms, Peter Hellwig, Hans Jürgen Heringer, and Henning Lobin (eds.). 2006. Dependency and valency: An international handbook of contemporary research, vol. 2. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter. Behaghel, Otto. 1932. Deutsche Syntax, vol. 4. Wortstellung, Periodenbau. Heidelberg: Winter. Bech, Gunnar. 1955. Studien über das deutsche Verbum infinitum. Det Kongelige Danske Videnskabernes Selskab, Historisk-filologiske Meddelelser 35, 2. Copenhagen. Besten, Hans den, and Jean Rutten. 1989. On verb raising, extraposition, and free word order in Dutch. Sentential complementation and the lexicon: Studies in honor of Wim de Geest, ed. by Dany Jaspers, Yvan Putseys, Wim Klooster, and Pieter Seuren, 41–56. Dordrecht: Foris. Bröker, Norbert. 2000. Unordered and nonprojective dependency grammars. Les grammaires de dépendance (Dependency Grammars), Traitement automatique des langues 41, ed. by Sylvain Kahane, 79–111. Paris: Hermes Sciences Publications. Covington, Michael A. 1994. An empirically motivated reinterpretation of Dependency Grammar. Research report AI-1994-01. Athens, GA: University of Georgia. Dippmann, Gerda, and Johanna Watzinger-Tharp. 2000. A practical review of German grammar. 3rd edition. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall. Duchier, Dennis, and Rolf Debusmann. 2001. Topology dependency trees: A constraint based account of linear precedence. Proceedings of the annual

70

Osborne

meeting of the association for computational linguistics, 180–187. San Francisco: Morgan Kaufmann Publishers. Eichinger, Ludwig. 2006. Abhängigkeiten in der Verbalgruppe. Dependency and valency: An international handbook of contemporary research, ed. by Vilmos Ágel, Ludwig Eichinger, Hans-Werner Eroms, Peter Hellwig, Hans Jürgen Heringer, and Henning Lobin, 851–861. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter. Eisenberg, Peter. 1999. Grundriß der deutschen Grammatik, vol. 2. Der Satz. Stuttgart: Metzler. Emons, Rudolf. 1995. Prädikate im Englischen und im Deutschen. Dependenz und Valenz, ed. by Ludwig Eichinger and Hans-Werner Eroms, 275–285. Hamburg: Buske. Engel, Ulrich. 1994. Syntax der deutchen Gegenwartssprache. 3rd rev. ed. Berlin: Erich Schmidt. Eroms, Hans-Werner. 2000. Syntax der deutschen Sprache. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter. Fanselow, Gisbert. 1989. Coherent infinitives in German: Restructuring vs. IP complementation. Syntactic phrase structure phenomena in noun phrases and sentences, ed. by Christa Bhatt, Elizabeth Löbel, and Claudia Schmidt, 1–16. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Gerdes, Kim, and Sylvain Kahane. 2001. Word order in German: a formal dependency grammar using a topology model. Proceedings of the annual meeting of the association for computational linguistics, 220–227. San Francisco: Morgan Kaufmann Publishers. Grewendorf, Günther. 1988. Aspekte der deutschen Syntax: Eine RektionsBindungs-Analyse. Tübingen: Narr. Groß, Thomas. 1999. Theoretical foundations of dependency syntax. Munich: Iudicium. Hays, David. 1964. Dependency theory: A formalism and some observations. Language 40.511–525. Hawkins, John. 1992. Syntactic weight versus information structure in word order variation. Informationstruktur und Grammatik (Linguistische Berichte: Sonderheft 4), 196–219. Opladen: Westdeutscher Verlag. Hawkins, John. 1994. A performance theory of order and constituency. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Helbig, Gerhard, and Joachim Buscha. 1996. Deutsche Grammatik: Ein Handbuch für den Ausländerunterricht, 17th ed. Leipzig: Langenscheidts Verlag Enzyklopädie. Hentschel, Enke, and Harald Weydt. 2003. Handbuch der deutschen Grammatik. 3rd rev. ed. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter. Heringer, Hans Jürgen. 1988. Lesen lehren lernen: Eine rezeptive Grammatik des Deutschen. Tübingen: Niemeyer.

The Weight of Predicates

71

Heringer, Hans Jürgen. 1996. Deutsche Syntax Dependentiell. Tübingen: Staufenberg. Hinrichs, Erhard, and Tsuneko Nakazawa. 1998. Third construction and VP extraposition in German: an HPSG analysis. Complex predicates in nonderivational syntax (Syntax and semantics 30), ed. by Erhard Hinrich, Andreas Kathol, and Tsuneko Nakazawa, 115–157. London: Academic Press. Homberger, Dietrich. 1993. Das Prädikat im Deutschen: Linguistische Terminologie in Sprachwissenschaft und Sprachdidaktik. Opladen: Westdeutscher Verlag. Hudson, Richard. 1984. Word grammar. New York: Basil Blackwell. Hudson, Richard. 1990. An English word grammar. Oxford: Basil Blackwell. Hudson, Richard. 2000. Discontinuity. Les grammaires de dépendance (Dependency grammars). Traitement automatique des langues 41, ed. by Sylvain Kahane, 15–56. Paris: Hermes Science Publications. Jacobs, Joachim. 1988. Probleme der freien Wortstellung im Deutschen. Sprache und Pragmatik. Arbeitsberichte 5.8–37. Jung, Wha-Young. 1995. Syntaktische Relationen im Rahmen der Dependenzgrammatik. Hamburg: Buske. Kahane, Sylvain (ed.). 2000. Les grammaires de dépendance (Dependency grammars). Traitement automatique des langues 41. Paris: Hermes. Kiss, Tibor. 1995. Infinitive Komplementation: Neue Studien zum deutschen Verbum infinitum. Tübingen: Niemeyer. Kunze, Jürgen. 1975. Abhängigkeitsgrammatik. Studia Grammatica 12. Berlin: Akademie Verlag. Lobin, Henning. 1993. Koordinationssyntax als prozedurales Phänomen. Studien zur deutschen Grammatik 46. Tübingen: Narr. Lühr, Rosemarie. 1993. Neuhochdeutsch: Eine Einführung in die Sprachwissenschaft. 4th (unrev.) ed. München: Fink. Mathews, Peter. 1981. Syntax. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Mel'uk, Igor. 1988. Dependency syntax: Theory and practice. Albany: State University of New York Press. Müller, Stefan. 2005. Zur Analyse der scheinbar mehrfachen Vorfeldbesetzung. Linguistische Berichte 203.297–330. O’Grady, William. 1998. The syntax of idioms. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 16.279–312. Osborne, Timothy. 2005a. Coherence: A dependency grammar analysis. SKY Journal of Linguistics 18.223–286. Osborne, Timothy. 2005b. Beyond the constituent: A dependency grammar analysis of chains. Folia Linguistica 39.251–297. Pickering, Martin, and Guy Barry. 1993. Dependency categorial grammar and coordination. Linguistics 31.855–902.

72

Osborne

Rambow, Owen. 2003. Coherent constructions in German: Lexicon or syntax. Verb constructions in German and Dutch, ed. by Pieter Seuren and Gerard Kempen, 223–242. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Reis, Marga. 1980. On justifying topological frames: “Positional field” and the order of nonverbal constituents in German. Revue de Linguistique 22/23.59– 85. Reis, Marga, and Wolfgang Sternefeld. 2004. Review article. Infinitives, restructuring, and clause structure by Suzi Wurmbrand. Linguistics 42.469– 508. Robinson, Jane. 1970. Dependency structures and transformational rules. Language 46.259–285. Schubert, Klaus. 1988. Metataxis: Contrastive dependency syntax for machine translation. Dordrecht: Foris. Sitta, Horst. 1998. Der Satz. Duden: Grammatik der deutschen Gegenwart, 609– 878. Mannheim: Dudenverlag Siewierska, Anna. 1988. Word order rules. London: Croom Helm. Starosta, Stanley. 1988. The case for Lexicase: An outline of Lexicase grammatical theory. New York: Pinter Publishers. Tarvainen, Kalevi. 2000. Einführung in die Dependenzgrammatik. Tübingen: Niemeyer. Tesnière, Lucien. 1959. Éléments de syntaxe structurale. Paris: Klincksieck. Uzkoreit, Hans. 1988. Word order and constituent structure in German. Stanford: CSLI. Wackernagel, Jacob. 1892. Über ein Gesetz der indogermanischen Wortstellung. Indogermanische Forschungen 1.333–436. Wasow, Thomas. 1997. Remarks on grammatical weight. Language Variation and Change 9.81–105. Wöllstein-Leisten, Angelika. 2001. Die Syntax der dritten Konstruktion: Eine repräsentationelle Analyse zur Monosententialität von ‘zu’-Infinitiven im Deutschen. Tübingen: Stauffenberg. Zifonun, Gisela, Ludger Hoffmann, Bruno Strecker, et al. 1997. Grammatik der deutschen Sprache, vol. 2. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.

Department of Germanic and Slavic Languages and Literatures Pennsylvania State University 311 Burrowes Building University Park, PA 16802 USA [[email protected]]

Journal of Germanic Linguistics 19.1 (2007):73–83

REVIEWS

Runic Amulets and Magic Objects. By Mindy MacLeod and Bernard Mees. Woodbridge: The Boydell Press, 2006. Pp. x, 278, with 16 figures. Hardcover. U.S. $65.00. Reviewed by MICHAEL SCHULTE, Volda University College 1. Introduction. The epigraphic sources surveyed in this monograph are usually termed amulets by runological scholars. The inscription carriers include pendants or plates of copper, iron, lead, or bronze, pieces of jewelry, worked pieces of bone and sticks or crosses of wood (p. 2). The title of the book makes it clear that its focus rests on “magic” runic inscriptions. “Magic” is regarded as a common denominator of various objects with runic legends including stone monuments (see section 2). Apart from the introduction, conclusion, and an index, the volume contains nine chapters: 1. Gods and Heroes (pp. 15–39), 2. Love, Fidelity, and Desire (40–70), 3. Protecting and Enabling Charms (71– 101), 4. Fertility Charms (102–115), 5. Healing Charms and Leechcraft (116–162), 6. Pagan Ritual Items (163–183), 7. Christian Amulets (184– 210), 8. Rune-stones, Death, and Curses (211–232), and 9. Runic Lore and Other Magic (233–253). Thirteen of a total sixteen illustrations of inscription carriers have been drawn by Mees himself (fig. 1–5, 7–12, and 15–16). On a related point, it remains unclear which part of the book is written by MacLeod or Mees. 2. Typological Approach. The typological comparison between different epigraphic traditions forms the groundwork of this study. Taking their departure from GraecoRoman amulets, the authors (p. 2) stress that new insights are gained by a broad comparative methodology: We have been open to comparing runic amulet texts with those appearing on Greek and Roman amulets in light of the progress © Society for Germanic Linguistics

74

Reviews

made in the last few decades in the understanding of GraecoRoman magical practice. We have also been influenced by some of the methods developed in Etruscan studies, where given the difficult nature of the language, a stress on isolating and comparing formulaic elements is considered essential. The impressive recent developments in the understanding of Celtic and other areas of early European epigraphy have also proved significant to our assessments. In essence, this interdisciplinary approach leads to a typology with five basic amulet text-forming elements (p. 82): 1. LETTER SEQUENCES, either fu
ark rows or apparently coded assortments of runes. 2. NAMING EXPRESSIONS, often just a single name, but sometimes a more complex construction, typically in the first person: “I am called NN.” 3. The terms often called formula or CHARM WORD , including alu and laukaz. 4. SYMBOLS, such as tree-like shapes, tamgas, swastikas, and triskelia. 5. ITEM DESCRIPTIONS, such as ‘brooch’, ‘pendant’, ‘horn’, or the like. These formal items are used as a key to the runological analysis. For example, the Thames scramasax (pp. 71–72, 82) is interpreted as a LETTER SEQUENCE + NAMING EXPRESSION. Similarly, the Lindholmen amulet (pp. 72–73, 92–93) is analyzed as a NAMING EXPRESSION + LETTER SEQUENCE + CHARM WORD, and the Nydam shaft text (pp. 81– 82, 92) is considered a LETTER SEQUENCE + SYMBOL. In my view, this general typology is the strongest part of the book, which otherwise arouses a number of methodological questions when it comes to the presentation of individual inscriptions (see section 5). Besides, the authors do not mention Thompson 1975, which also provides a component analysis. Noting the uniformity of Upplandic memorial inscriptions,

Journal of Germanic Linguistics 19.1 (2007)

75

Thompson (1975:11–21) established a four-part analysis: 1. Memorial formula, 2. Prayer, 3. Addition, and 4. Signature. 3. Runes and Magic. MacLeod and Mees state critically: “runic studies today evince a tendency to seek to deny any magical element whatsoever in runic inscriptions, an extreme and unnecessary reactive approach to the failings of earlier investigators” (p. 12). However, there are also reserved scholars today allowing for the notion of magic. Nedoma (1998), for example, confines the realm of “magic” to curse formulas and functionally related inscriptions, and Düwel and Heizmann (2006), in an article on fu
ark inscriptions, likewise acknowledge the magic element. In essence, the fu
ark in its entire representation with 24 (or later 16) runes symbolizes completeness as well as order, and by means of the inscription carrier—the “magic” object—this notion was passed on to the human (also dead) or non-human addressee to take a positive or negative effect (see Schulte 2006b:50, with references). Despite this consensus, however, it is not clear why inscriptions such as the Kragehul lanceshaft (pp. 77–78), the work-song on the whetstone from Strøm (p. 77), or the memorial stone from Istaby (p. 115) are included in a work on runic amulets. Invoking their five-part typology, the authors argue that “the similarity of the type of inscription found on amulets of a portable nature to those which appear on some early runestones once again underlines the religious aspect of the early Germanic amulet tradition” (p. 115). Evidently, this approach runs the risk of circular reasoning. As regards the relation between magic and writing, the work would have gained by a reference to Frankfurter 1994, which assesses “magic” texts in a functional perspective (see Schulte 2006a). 4. Roman Impact on Runic Writing? It is a salient trait of the work that it emphasizes the differences between runic and classic epigraphic traditions (for example, pp. 12, 231). Following the authors, “the assumption that there is a pronounced Roman influence in early runic epigraphy is not credible at least in terms of magico-religious texts” (p. 254). My assessment of Latin-Old Runic linguistic contacts independently supports this view (see Schulte 2005b). Indeed, the lack of runic curses that are directly comparable to classic defixiones or binding spells makes high-scale influence unlikely. But the

76

Reviews

authors go even further suggesting: “this finding speaks against a Roman origin for the runes themselves, but also the various attempts to show that Imperial Roman (or even provincial) influences are to be recognized in Germanic religion and myth” (pp. 254–255). In my view, this argumentation is strained. Devising a writing system is an intentional act of a small elitist group, possibly only one individual, and a Roman prototype of the Germanic fu
ark may well be considered on runographic grounds (for example, Düwel 2004:137–138). For a competing—Phoenician— approach to the origin of the runes, see Vennemann 2006. 5. Scrutiny of Individual Runic Texts. The authors blame Nordicists for their etymological bias and linguistic onesidedness as they “still tend to rely on A. Noreen 1923,” which is an Old Norse reference grammar (p. 2, note 3). They highlight Antonsen’s (1975) structural grammar, but do not list his monograph from 2002. Neither is Krause 1971 included, although this work functions as a provisional reference grammar in much runological research. The authors’ broad approach is coupled with a transliteration method and individual analyses of runic inscriptions that few modern runologists—in Scandinavia and elsewhere—will welcome. They are obviously not classing themselves as “sceptical runologists.” In a now famous discussion, Page (1999:12–15) made a distinction between skeptical and imaginative runologists. In the book under review, the imaginative part is conspicuous, and it is not indicated which readings and interpretations are (in)secure. In fact, many presentations and textual analyses in this volume are in need of comment. Let us turn to the Danish Ribe cranium first (pp. 25–27). The authors state that “[t]he Ribe text is a ‘transitional’ inscription which predates the Viking period” (p. 25). This is certainly incorrect. Linguistically, the Ribe cranium inscription, around 725 C.E., has undergone significant sound changes of the transitional period, and its graphemic system witnesses the parsimony of the younger, reduced fu
ark with only 15/16 runes (Schulte 2006b:48). The authors’ confusion is partly based on their equation of the two a-runes, A and a in standard transliteration (see below). To illustrate the authors’ working method, their rendering of the Kragehul lanceshaft is compared to Krause 1971 and Antonsen 2002:

Journal of Germanic Linguistics 19.1 (2007)

77

(1) Kragehul lanceshaft (Denmark, ca 300 C.E.) a. MacLeod and Mees (pp. 77–78) Ek Erilaz Ansugsalas Mha haite. Gagaga gnu gahellija, Hagala wju bi g[aize]. ‘I am called Earl Muha, Ansugisal’s (son). I cry a roar resoundingly, I invoke hail in the spear.’ b. Krause 1971:152–153 (see also Krause 1966:no.27)1 ek erila R asugisalas muha haite. gagaga ginu-ga. he /// lija /// hagala wiju bi g /// ‘Ich, der Runenmeister, heiße Asgisls Gefolgsmann (oder: Asgisls Sohn Muha). gagaga, magisch wirkendes ga! Helmvernichtendes(?) Verderben weihe ich an den Ger.’2 c. Antonsen 2002:231 (see also Antonsen 1975:no.15) ek erilaz asugisalas emuha haite ag ag ag ginu-ag he … lija … hagala wijubig … ‘I am (the) erilaz of Ansugsalaz [æsir-hostage]. ha [high-one] (I) am called. ag ag ag mighty-ag (?) (?) ‘hail’ (?)’ Example 1a is largely based on outdated works such as Jóhannesson (1923:94–95) and Noreen (1923:381). Note that the macron is missing in several instances, for example, haite for hait (< Gmc. +-ai) ‘I am named-MEDIO-PASSIVE’, or gaize for gaiz (< Gmc. +-ai) ‘spearDAT.SING’. While the first line seems least controversial, the second and 1

Bind runes are not marked in the following transliterations. ‘I, the rune-master, am called Asgisl’s follower (or Asgisl’s son Muha). gagaga, magic ga, helmet-destroying hail I consecrate to the spear.’ 2

78

Reviews

third lines are conjecture at best. According to the authors, the term gagaga ‘roar’ is etymologically related to the sequence gaois ‘howler’ on the Gotlandic inscription from Mos, which in turn is said to be similar to imitative English words like cackle and gargle (p. 78). Thus, gagaga is put on a par with hagala ‘hail’, since “both have their reflection in other amuletic inscriptions as charm words” (p. 78). Other such runic charm words identified by MacLeod and Mees are alu, ehwaz, laukaz, l na, la u, maga, tuwa, and w ju (see index, p. 271). One basic problem, however, is that we do not know what gagaga (the triple bind-rune ga) actually means: interpretations range from an ideographic abbreviation (Antonsen 1975:no.15) to a prefix formation ga-ga(n)ga ‘follower’ with retained ga- (Grønvik 1996:51–55). Both Krause (1971:152–153) and Makaev (1996:38) stress that any linguistic interpretation of the triple bind ga is likely to be doubtful. The sequence gahellija (recte: gahelija) is compared to OHG gahelli ‘resounding loudly’. This is improbable since there is a lacuna between gahe and lija as indicated in 1b and 1c above. Here, as in several other instances, conjecture is presented as plain fact. For details, see Schulte 2005a:243–244. The lack of critical analysis is also seen in the Blekinge legends (pp. 111–115, 222). MacLeod and Mees (pp. 112–113) render the Stentoften inscription as follows: (2) Stentoften inscription (Sweden, 600–650 C.E.) NiuhabrumR, niuhagestumR Ha uwolafaR gaf j. HariwolfaR magiusnu (?) hl . H(æ)ideR rn (ru)no felheka hedera, ginnornR. Hermals (ti) æR ærgiu; w ladds s at briuti . ‘To the new farmers, to the new guests, Hathuwolf gave j. Hariwolf protection to (your) descendants (?) A run of bright runes I commit here: mighty runes. Protectionless (because of their) perversion; an insidious death to he [sic] who breaks this.’ The transcription in 2 is a modified one with epenthetic vowels dropped, for example, briuti for bAriuti ‘breaks’ (ON br tr). This procedure is questionable for a number of reasons. The standardization presupposes

Journal of Germanic Linguistics 19.1 (2007)

79

that epenthetic vowels are correctly identified; in the third line, see the problematic form hideR, stemming either from Germanic +haidiz ‘brightness of the sky’ (Krause 1971:119) or from +haidra ‘clear, bright’ (Antonsen 2002:305–306). Most importantly, vowel epenthesis in Transitional Runic has little to do with parasite vowels such that this normalization seems unfounded (Schulte 2006a:122–125). There were two different a-runes in Transitional Runic: a(nsuz) ‘god’ and (ra) from jra ‘year’ reflecting the loss of initial /j/. But these two a-runes (usually transliterated a, A) are not distinguished under 2. Compare niuhA versus niuha (both written niuha) in the first line of the Stentoften text. In their linguistic analysis the authors reject Santesson 1989, arguing that her approach “is problematic grammatically” (p. 113, note 20). However, they do not provide reasons for their claim, nor do they mention that one of the fortes of Santesson’s interpretation is that it explains the two different a-runes in the introductory line: nasal /ã/ in hã(n)gestumR < Gmc. +hangistumz ‘stallions-DAT.PL.’, but non-nasal /a/ in haborumR < Gmc. +haßrumz ‘he-goats-DAT.PL.’ with -o- as an epenthetic vowel (cf. Antonsen 2002:303–304). In my view, Santesson (1989) is favorable to the traditional interpretations, including the one forwarded by MacLeod and Mees (for linguistic details, see Schulte 2006c:402– 403, 410–411). Following Antonsen (1975:86), the authors favor the segmentation herma-ls instead of herma-lsaR ‘protectionless’ (< Gmc. +-lausaz). This presupposes that both a-syncope and assimilation +-saR > -sR > -ss must have occurred. But the assimilation of final -sR > -ss is not evidenced in -lausR on the roughly contemporaneous Björketorp stone under 3 below. Also, the name form HariwolfaR in the second line of the Stentoften text supports the standard reading her(a)malsaR (or rather her(a)maløsaR). These instances show that the treatment of single runic inscriptions in this book appears somewhat superficial. In the case of the syntax, the final sentence in 2 is ungrammatical (saR cannot be interpreted as a dative object), and there are other inconsistencies in this translation, which will not be discussed here. These problems concern the parallel Björketorp text as well (pp. 113–114):

80

Reviews

(3) Björketorp inscription (Sweden, 600–650 C.E., or later) arba sp . HæidR r n runo [sic] falheka hedra, ginnar naR. Ærgiu hermalausR ti æR; w ladaue s R at brtR. ‘Baleful prophecy: A run of bright runes I commit here: mighty runes. Protectionless because of (their) perversion; an insidious death to he who breaks this.’ As far as the textual relations between 2 and 3 are concerned, the view is expressed that “the [Stentoften] text is deficient in some aspects […]: haplography has reduced the alliterating expression r n runo [recte ronu] ‘a run of runes’ to r nno, and the expected preposition ti ‘out, from, because of’ has been left out” (p. 113). Linguistically, this analysis is imprecise because ti ‘outside’ (< Gmc. + tai) is an adverb, and “deficiency” is far from what characterizes the relation between Stentoften and Björketorp. In Schulte 2006a, I argue that the textual style of the Stentoften text is condensed and elliptical in relation to the modernized, monumental Björketorp version. Thus viewed, the two versions show different styles due to different functional pragmatics. The authors go on to state that “there are […] several spelling differences that separate the Björketorp from the Stentoften rune-stone, either indicating different spelling traditions, incompetence, or more probably developing or different dialects” (p. 113). But here a desideratum would be a systematic crosslinguistic analysis of curse formulas (see Fraenkel 1939). In my view, the reason for this variation lies in the text-type of the curse itself. Among its salient features, crosslinguistically, are ellipses, haplologies, and condensed sentence structure, including assimilations and sandhi phenomena (see Schulte 2006a). 6. Metrical Analysis. The book presents a number of charms with alliteration and other metrical traits. A general reliance on the sourcebook of McKinnell and Simek 2004 with its literature seems obvious. References to metrical studies such as Kabell 1978 and Naumann 1998 are missing. Among these metrical inscriptions are a copper plate from South Kvinneby on the Swedish island of Öland (pp. 27–28), a rune-stick from Schleswig

Journal of Germanic Linguistics 19.1 (2007)

81

(pp. 32–33), several rune-sticks from Bergen (pp. 57–60), a stick from Tønsberg (p. 147), as well as the older runic inscription from Noleby (p. 181), the Strøm whetstone (p. 77), and the Gallehus horn (p. 175–176). A case in point is the Strøm whetstone, which is adequately described as a work-song (p. 77). In addition, Krause (1971:166) notes: “Der ganze Text hat die Gestalt eines rhythmisch gleichsilbigen, alliterierenden Arbeitsgesanges.” [The whole text conveys the structure of a rhythmic, unisyllabic, and alliterative work-song.] Moreover, the structure of the Strøm inscription is strictly trochaic. It is worth mentioning that there are stylized pieces of larger work-songs in Old Norse literature, such as the Eddic lay of Grottasngr or the weaving song of Darraarljó, which are not included in the discussion. 7. Conclusion. This ambitious project with its broad “magic” focus has both its marked strengths and weaknesses. It is a strength that, despite their similarities, the fundamental differences between Germanic curses and other ancient traditions of defixiones are acknowledged: “Yet nothing quite like the ancient tradition of curse-tablets has been found in Germanic tradition” (p. 231, with references). While the interdisciplinary focus on GermanicMediterranean epigraphy may be regarded as a clear plus, it entails a major weakness: a cursory and uncritical reading of several runic inscriptions with arbitrary linguistic analyses. As their starting point, MacLeod and Mees address the “first law of runodynamics” that “for every inscription there shall be as many interpretations as there are runologists studying it” (p. 1). They further state that “a lot of what passes for expert runic interpretation has too readily strayed into the fantastic in the past, and never more so than in considerations of runic legends that appear on amulets and other similar items” (p. 1). While it seems easy to launch such general criticism, it is obviously hard to do better. In fact, even if the broad “magic” approach is accepted, the linguistic part of the work does not stand close scrutiny. Nowhere is it indicated which interpretations the individual analyses are based on. When scrutinizing the authors’ working methods, the impression arises that McKinnell and Simek 2004—a fairly uncritical compilation of “magic” runic inscriptions written by non-runologists—is their basic source. What is worse, readings and interpretations of single inscriptions bear witness

82

Reviews

to the lack of methodological rigor and reservedness (see 1 above on the Kragehul lanceshaft). Finally, the assessment of “magic” runic inscriptions, historically and linguistically, calls for further inquiries.

REFERENCES Antonsen, Elmer H. 1975. A concise grammar of the older runic inscriptions. Tübingen: Max Niemeyer. Antonsen, Elmer H. 2002. Runes and Germanic linguistics. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Düwel, Klaus. 2004. Runic. Early Germanic literature and culture, ed. by Brian Murdoch and Malcolm Read, 121–147. Rochester: Camden House. Düwel, Klaus, and Wilhelm Heizmann. 2006. Das ältere Fu
ark—Überlieferung und Wirkungsmöglichkeiten der Runenreihe. Das Fu
ark und seine einzelsprachlichen Weiterentwicklungen, ed. by Alfred Bammesberger and Gaby Waxenberger, 3–60. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter. Fraenkel, Ernst. 1939. Etymologisches und Syntaktisches. [Part 1.] Zur Verkürzung von Fluchausdrücken, Begrüßungsformeln, Verwandtschaftsbezeichnungen und zusammengesetzten Zahlwörtern im Baltischen. Revue des Études indo-européennes 2.34–46. Frankfurter, David. 1994. The magic of writing and the writing of magic. The power of the word in Egyptian and Greek traditions. Helios 21.189–211. Grønvik, Ottar. 1996. Fra Vimose til Ødemotland. Nye studier over runeinnskrifter fra førkristen tid i Norden. Oslo: Universitetsforlaget. Jóhannesson, Alexander. 1923. Grammatik der urnordischen Runeninschriften. Heidelberg: Carl Winter. Kabell, Aage. 1978. Metrische Studien I. Der Alliterationsvers. Munich: Fink. Krause, Wolfgang, and Herbert Jankuhn. 1966. Die Runeninschriften im älteren Futhark. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck and Ruprecht. Krause, Wolfgang. 1971. Die Sprache der urnordischen Runeninschriften. Heidelberg: Carl Winter. McKinnell, John, Rudolf Simek, and Klaus Düwel. 2004. Runes, magic, and religion. A sourcebook. Vienna: Fassbänder. Naumann, Hans Peter. 1998. Runeninschriften als Quelle der Versgeschichte. Runeninschriften als Quellen interdisziplinärer Forschung, ed. by Klaus Düwel, 694–714. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter. Nedoma, Robert. 1998. Zur Problematik der Deutung älterer Runeninschrifen— kultisch, magisch oder profan. Runeninschriften als Quellen interdisziplinärer Forschung, ed. by Klaus Düwel, 24–54. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.

Journal of Germanic Linguistics 19.1 (2007)

83

Noreen, Adolf. 1923. Altnordische Grammatik I. Altisländische und altnorwegische Grammatik, 4th ed. Halle/Saale: Max Niemeyer. Page, Raymond Ian. 1999. An introduction to English runes. 2nd ed. Woodbridge: Boydell. Santesson, Lillemor. 1989. En blekingsk blotinskrift. Fornvännen 84.221–229. Schulte, Michael. 2005a. Nordic prefix loss and metrical stress theory. With particular reference to *ga- and *bi-. Historical linguistics 2003. Selected papers from the sixteenth international conference on historical linguistics, Copenhagen, 11–15 August 2003, ed. by Michael Fortescue, Eva Skafte Jensen, Jens Erik Mogensen, and Lene Schøsler, 241–255. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Schulte, Michael. 2005b. Die lateinisch-altrunische Kontakthypothese im Lichte der sprachhistorischen Evidenz. Beiträge zur Geschichte der deutschen Sprache und Literatur 127.161–182. Schulte, Michael. 2006a. Oral traces in runic epigraphy: Evidence from older and younger inscriptions. Journal of Germanic Linguistics 18.117–151. Schulte, Michael. 2006b. The transformation of the older fu
ark: Number magic, runographic, or linguistic principles? Arkiv för Nordisk Filologi 121.41–74. Schulte, Michael. 2006c. Ein kritischer Kommentar zum Erkenntnisstand der Blekinger Inschriften. Zeitschrift für deutsches Altertum 135.399–412. Thompson, Claiborne W. 1975. Studies in Upplandic runography. Austin: University of Texas Press. Vennemann, Theo. 2006. Germanische Runen und phönizisches Alphabet. Sprachwissenschaft 31.367–429.

Volda University College Nordic Section P.O. 5001 N–6101 Volda Norway [[email protected]]