The case of German (Problems 3 and 5 last week):
- V -> T
||Sprechen|| Sie|| Deutsch?
|Speak|| you || German?
||Ist || er|| nach || Haus || gegangen?
|Is || he|| to || house || gone?
|| Er || sitzt || nicht || auf || diesem || Tisch?
| He || sits || not || on || this || table
|| Er || soll || nicht || auf || diesem || Tisch || sitzen.
| He || should|| not || on || this || table || sit
Note: our analysis of German is that it is underlyingly
VP -> XP V
This is strongly supported by the fact that the
verb occurs in VP final position
when the aux is present (examples [b] and [d]).
As we'll see below, verb-final VPs also
surface in embedded clauses.
When nothing fills T, the main verb hops from its underlying
position into T (V -> T)
and thence into C (T-> C):
When an Aux fills T, the main verb stays where
it is and the Aux hops into C (T-> C):
Given the trees we've
drawn so far, the data above presents a problem!
If inversion were optional, we would
expect the following word order to
be possible in main clauses:
* Er nicht auf diesem Tisch sitzt. (no T-> C)
It's not. Then, if inversion were obligatory,
we should get:
* Sitzt er nicht auf diesem Tisch. (T -> C)
This is hopeless. Instead we get.
Er sitzt nicht auf diesem Tisch. [=3c, p. 214, Carnie]
This is why you may have assumed, when you
did this problem, that German T' were not head final.
On this assumption, Carnie (3c) is not problematic:
Pattern B exactly captures the data (3a)-(3d)
with uninverted main clauses posing no problem.
Univerted verbs and auxes go into T (which
is 2nd position).
Only inverted verbs and auxes go into C,
which is first position.
(3a) [C Sprechen[MV]] Sie Deutsch?
(3b) [C Ist[Aux] ] er nach Hause gegangen?
(3c) Er [T sitzt[MV] ] nicht[Neg] auf diesem Tisch.
(3d) Sie [T soll[Modal]] nicht auf diesem Tisch sitzen[MV].
Nevertheless, Pattern A is empirically correct, and the
problem with main clauses goes away, as some
further data shows. This
goes flashing briefly by in problem 5.
- Verb Second (Problem 5):
The analysis you are asked to assume:
- A movement rule puts a constituent (of a wide variety of types) into Spec of CP
(first position of sentence)
- An obligatory T -> C movement puts the resident of T
in C position (which is now 2nd position overall):
[CP [XP Preposed Topic ] [C' [C V_j ] [TP [NP Subject] [T' [VP [V' [NP Object ] [V_j e] ]][T_j e]]]]]
| Diesen || Film || haben || die || Kinder || gesehen
| This || film || have || the || children || seen
| Die || Kinder || haben || diesen || Film || gesehen
| The || children || have || this || film || seen
So what does this analysis say about example (3c),
p. 214, which was giving us problems above?
These work out fine now. Like (a) and (b)[the inverted examples], these examples involve
T->C movement.. In fact T->C movement is obligatory in German in
main clauses. The difference between inverted clauses and uninverted
clauses is that in UNinverted clauses, one MORE
movement has happened! [Preposing of XP to topic position].
[CP [NP_i Er] [C' [C [V_j sitzt] ] [TP [NP_i t] [T' [NegP [Neg' [Neg nicht ] [VP [V' [PP auf diesem Tisch ] [V_j e] ]][T_j e]]]]]]]
So the apparently English-like SVO word order of German main clauses
without auxiliaries arises by 3 movements:
V->T, T->C, and preposing of topical subjects.
[CP [NP_i Er] [C' [C [T_j soll] ] [TP [NP_i t] [T' [NegP [Neg' [Neg nicht ] [VP [V' [PP auf diesem Tisch ] [V_k sitzen] ]]][T_j e]]]]]]
Of course an important part of the motivation for this analysis
is the freedom of German word order. It doesnt have to
be the subject that winds up in topic
[CP [PP_l auf diesem Tisch ] [C' [C [V_j sitzt] ] [TP [NP_i er] [T' [NegP [Neg' [Neg nicht ] [VP [V' [PP_l t ] [V_j e] ]]][T_j e]]]]]]
[CP [PP_l auf diesem Tisch] [C' [C [T_j soll] ] [TP [NP_i er] [T' [NegP [Neg' [Neg nicht ] [VP [V' [PP_l t ] [V_k sitzen] ]]][T_j e]]]]]]
The key differences between English and German:
- V->T movement (predicting negation and adverb placement
and invertability of main verbs ["Sprechen Sie Deutsch?"])
- Obligatory T->C movement. C must always be filled.
- Obligatory Topicalization in non-questions. Something must always fill
None of these facts YET motivate having T' be T-final, because
so far we havent seen anything SURFACE in T position. Everything
that moves to T just as quickly has to move out.
But there are some cases where something gets to stay in T, and then we
see what it's true position is, as the main facts of the problem
Turning now to the main facts of the problem.
movement into C position is blocked in embedded clauses.
This might be explained by saying movement is blocked
when C position is already filled (here, by the complementizer
dass[=that]). In such cases we ought to see German
V's and German T's in their underlying position.
So here finally is some direct support for the idea
that German T' is head final (= 5i, p. 217, Carnie):
| * || Er || sagt||[ dass || die || Kinder || haben || den
||Film || gesehen]
|   || he || said|| [that || the
||children || have || the || film || seen ]
|   || Er || sagt||[ dass || die
|| Kinder|| den || Film || gesehen || haben]
|   || he || said|| [that || the
|| children|| the || film || seen || have ]
In this example, then, there is no movement (except possibly the movement
of a VP-internal subject to spec of TP position) and the underlying word
order surfaces. It turns out to be a key
claim of this analysis then that German is
underlyingly am SOV language!
[CP [C' [C dass ] [TP [NP_i die Kinder] [T' [VP [V' [NP den Film] [V_k gesehen] ]][T_j haben ]]]]]
Back to the mechanics of the problem:
Our hypothesis is that (j)
* Er sagt dass die Kinder den Film gesehen haben.
is ungrammatical because
movement of haben to C position is
blocked because C position is filled, and that correlates
with blocking movement of anything to topic position
It appears to be a robust generalization that when
Comp is filled with a complementizer, nothing moves
to Spec of CP. The following is definitely out:
* Er sagt die Kinder dass t den Film gesehen haben.
The assumption we have to make is that
When something other than when something fills the spec of C position,
we get verb movement, as the examples above and example (k) from, Part II
[CP [AP Gestern] [C' [C [V_k sahen] ] [TP [NP_i die Kinder] [T' [VP [V' [NP den Film] [V_k e] ]][T_k e]]]]]