Inger Rosengren

Scrambling: Nontriggered Chain Formation in OV Languages

In this paper we argue for the following properties of clause-bound scrambling, as they are manifested in German. First, scrambling presupposes head-final projections. Only selected constituents, notably arguments, scramble, the reason being that phrases selected by a head have a unique base order. Second, scrambling involves antecedent-gap dependencies with A-chain properties. Third, scrambling is overt and non-string-vacuous. Fourth, scrambling is syntactically optional, clause-bound, category neutral, and may apply to more than one phrase per clause. Fifth, scrambled elements remain transparent for extraction; they are licit binders and take scope. Furthermore, we evaluate our conclusion that scrambling is contingent on the “OV” property by examining Yiddish, an uncontroversial scrambling Germanic language with controversial VO vs. OV status. We argue that Yiddish is a variant of an OV language—thus allowing scrambling—and that it is the only Germanic language with alternative V-positions in a VP-shell structure, like Hindi, and, arguably, like Slavic languages. *

On the subject of imperatives: A minimalist account of the imperative clause

This paper presents a structural account of imperative clauses where the theoretical cornerstones are the Minimalist Program of Chomsky (1995) and the analysis of the C-domain in Rizzi (1995). According to Rizzi, the C-domain has at least two parts, the outward facing ForceP, a sentence type projection where information of the type of the clause is represented, and an inward facing part, FinP, related to tense and mood. We argue in this paper that the main difference between imperative clauses and other sentence types is the lack of FinP and hence finiteness in imperative clauses; having no FinP, imperative clauses also lack MoodP and TP. The imperative clause is thus less articulated compared with the declarative and interrogative clauses.From the lack of FinP follow the three most salient properties of imperative clauses: the morphologically meagre form of the verb, the impossibility of embedding imperative clauses, and the lack of a prototypical subject. The last mentioned fact has the consequence that an imperative clause can never be used to refer to the addressee in the same way as a declarative and interrogative clause can: imperative clauses can only be used to talk to the addressee, not about him or her. We support our theoretical approach by empirical evidence drawn mainly from German, English, and Mainland Scandinavian.

What do Wh-imperatives tell us about Wh-movement?

This paper is concerned with two variants of Wh-movement, +Wh-question-movement and topicalization. Drawing on German material, we argue that they crucially differ as to the features of the landing sites: Wh-question movement is movement of +Wh-phrases into A-bar positions marked by +Wh, which assigns clausal scope to the +Wh-phrases; topicalization is movement of XP-phrases into A-bar positions unmarked by +Wh.Since +Wh-phrases are also XP-phrases, our account predicts that +Wh-phrases may undergo not only +Wh-question movement, but also topicalization, i.e., that they can be Wh-moved without the scope effects typical of +Wh-interrogatives. This prediction is borne out by the existence of Wh-imperatives in German, i.e., long distance extractions of ±Wh-phrases into imperative clauses, which we discuss in detail. It is shown that +Wh-imperatives presuppose complements with an initial +Wh-phrase, which is topicalized into the matrix clause, thus showing conclusively that scope assignment is independent of Wh-movement.

Die performativen Äußerungen – eine empirische Studie

A sentence like Ich bitte dich, ihn morgen zu besuchen may be used as an assertion about the act of asking. As a rule, however, it is used just to perform the act of asking, i.e. as a performative utterance. I t is the aim of this paper to list and discuss relevant empirical data about performative utterances that may help to decide between the following hypotheses: A performative utterance is (a) semantically ambiguous and pragmatically bifunctional, (b) semantically unambiguous and pragmatically monofunctional or (c) semantically unambiguous and pragmatically bifunctional. In the first section of the paper the formal properties of performative utterances are described. In the following sections it is discussed if and when modal particles, modal verbs, sentential adverbs, stress and negation block the performative use of a sentence like (1). I t is further discussed whether it is possible to embed a performative utterance and whether there are performative utterances which do not have the status of a sentence.