16.3587, Review: Syntax/Germanic Lang: Schmid (2005)

[LINGUIST List]

LINGUIST List: Vol-16-3587. Sun Dec 18 2005. ISSN: 1068 - 4875.

Subject: 16.3587, Review: Syntax/Germanic Lang: Schmid (2005)

Moderators: Anthony Aristar, Wayne State U <aristar at linguistlist.org>
            Helen Aristar-Dry, Eastern Michigan U <hdry at linguistlist.org>
 
Reviews (reviews at linguistlist.org) 
        Sheila Dooley, U of Arizona  
        Terry Langendoen, U of Arizona  

Homepage: http://linguistlist.org/

The LINGUIST List is funded by Eastern Michigan University, Wayne
State University, and donations from subscribers and publishers.

Editor for this issue: Lindsay Butler <lindsay at linguistlist.org>
================================================================  

What follows is a review or discussion note contributed to our 
Book Discussion Forum. We expect discussions to be informal and 
interactive; and the author of the book discussed is cordially 
invited to join in. If you are interested in leading a book 
discussion, look for books announced on LINGUIST as "available 
for review." Then contact Sheila Dooley at dooley at linguistlist.org. 

===========================Directory==============================  

1)
Date: 15-Dec-2005
From: Barbara Schlücker < schlueck at zedat.fu-berlin.de >
Subject: Infinitival Syntax: Infinitivus Pro Participio as a repair strategy 

	
-------------------------Message 1 ---------------------------------- 
Date: Sun, 18 Dec 2005 05:49:52
From: Barbara Schlücker < schlueck at zedat.fu-berlin.de >
Subject: Infinitival Syntax: Infinitivus Pro Participio as a repair strategy 
 

AUTHOR: Schmid, Tanja
TITLE: Infinitival Syntax
SUBTITLE: Infinitivus Pro Participio as a repair strategy
SERIES: Linguistik Aktuell/Linguistics Today 79
PUBLISHER: John Benjamins
YEAR: 2005
Announced at http://linguistlist.org/issues/16/16-2006.html 

Barbara Schlücker, Institut für Deutsche und Niederländische 
Philologie, Freie Universität Berlin

OVERVIEW

This book is a study on the 'Infinitivus Pro Participio'-construction (IPP) 
in several West Germanic languages. IPP is a construction where an 
unexpected form (i.e. the bare infinitive) appears instead of the past 
participle which would be the expected form. The German term for the 
IPP-construction, 'Ersatzinfinitiv' ('substitute infinitive'), reflects this 
very well.

The main claim of the study is that IPP is a 'last resort' or repair 
strategy which only appears in cases where the past participle 
obviously would even 'be worse' and therefore is inadmissible. This 
claim comes along with the idea that the violation of grammatical rules 
does not inevitably cause ungrammaticality. Instead, grammatical rules 
are thought to be violable. Therefore the framework chosen for this 
study is Optimality Theory (OT) as this theory assumes violable rules 
(or constraints) and violation of constraints in OT does not lead 
automatically to ungrammaticality, contrary to other theories of 
generative grammar. In OT, the assumption of violable and 
hierarchically ordered constraints is combined with the idea of a 
competition between two or more candidates. From this competition, 
one candidate comes out as optimal and blocks the other candidates.

IPP-constructions can be found in a subset of West Germanic 
languages, including Standard German and Dutch and several 
German and Dutch varieties, and excluding English, Frisian and 
Yiddish. The study therefore is comparative in nature and it includes 
data from Standard German, Dutch, West Flemish, Afrikaans, and 
three Swiss German dialects (Bernese German, Sankt Gallen 
German, Zürich German), although the focus is on Standard German.

SYNOPSIS

After a short introductory chapter, the book starts out by presenting 
the relevant data (chapters 2 & 3). IPP-constructions are 3-verb-
clusters and they appear in the present perfect, in the past perfect as 
well as in the future perfect. In these constructions, the IPP-verb, 
marked with [2] below, appears as a bare infinitive instead of as a past 
participle. The numbers assigned to the verbs in the following 
examples mark their hierarchical, i.e. selectional, order. The highest 
verb of the hierarchy is assigned a [1], the next a [2] and the 
hierarchically lowest verb a [3].

<pre>(1) a. *dass er ihn die Medizin hat[1] trinken[3] gelassen[2] 
    b.  dass er ihn die Medizin hat[1] trinken[3] lassen[2]
        that he him the medicine has[1] drink[3]  made[2] / make[2]
       'that he has made him drink the medicine'</pre>

However, such a substitution does not take place in every 3-verb-
cluster in the present perfect as indicated by the data in (2): Here, 
substitution of the past participle with the bare infinitive leads to 
ungrammaticality. Furthermore, there are constructions where IPP is 
optional, see (3).

<pre>(2) a.  die Leute stehen[3] geblieben[2] sind[1] 
    b. *dass die Leute stehen[3] bleiben[2] sind[1] 
        that the people stand[3] remained[2] /remain [2] have[1]
       'that the people have remained standing'

(3) a. Er hat[1] sie rufen[3] hören[2].
    b. Er hat[1] sie rufen[3] gehört[2].
       He has[1] her call[3] hear[2] / heard[2]       
      'He has heard her calling'</pre>

Whether the IPP-construction in a potential IPP-language is obligatory, 
ungrammatical or optional depends among other things on the verb 
class of the IPP-verb. Schmid identifies seven verb classes which 
trigger the IPP-construction in at least one of the languages examined. 
Interestingly, this list of verb classes can be ordered hierarchically as 
in (4):

(4) causatives < modals < perception verbs < benefactives < duratives 
< inchoatives < control verbs

This means that if in a certain language IPP is obligatory with 
benefactives, IPP is also obligatory with perception verbs, modals and 
causatives. But on the other hand, this does not give any information 
about the verb classes ranked lower, i.e. from the fact that IPP is 
obligatory with benefactives it cannot be deduced whether IPP does 
also appear with duratives, inchoatives or control verbs. Thus, in a 
given language, causatives and modals are most likely to show IPP 
whereas inchoatives and control verbs are least likely to show IPP. 
The languages examined differ with regard to the verb classes for 
which they show obligatory, optional and impossible IPP. With other 
words, they seem to differ regarding the point at which they cut off the 
hierarchy in (4). 

Another important point to mention is verb order in IPP-constructions. 
The IPP-languages differ with regard to the verb order they show in 
IPP-constructions. All logically possible verb orders appear in IPP-
constructions. Verb order in IPP-constructions often differs from the 
verb order in the perfect tense with a past participle (e.g. (1b) vs. 
(2a)). Nevertheless, it is not exceptional in the sense that it does not 
appear anywhere else in the languages: there often is a coincidence 
with the verb order in the future tense. 

After introducing the relevant data, Schmid presents an overview of 
previous IPP-analyses in the literature which range from the 19th 
century (Grimm 1837) to very recent work (e.g. Wurmbrand 2004) 
both with generative and non-generative background (chapter 4). 
There are two main groups of analyses: one which assumes that the 
infinitive actually is not a true infinitive but a participle with ''IPP-
morphology'', and the other which assumes the infinitive to be what it 
looks like, namely an infinitive. Furthermore, Schmid discusses all 
analyses with regard to the languages examined and the kind of 
triggers of the IPP-construction which are assumed. As a result of 
comparing the previous analyses to her observations Schmid 
formulates the leading questions for her own analysis: How is IPP 
accounted for and what functions as a trigger for IPP? How can the 
hierarchy of potential IPP verbs (verb classes, see (4)) become 
implemented? How can optional IPP be accounted for and what about 
the alternation of obligatory, optional and impossible IPP across the 
languages? How to explain verb order?

Chapter 5 provides a short introduction to OT. The analysis of IPP in 
Standard German is presented in the chapters 6 to 8, based on the 
questions raised before. In these chapters, several constraints are 
introduced which can account for obligatory, optional and impossible 
IPP as well as for verb order. Here, I will restrict myself to presenting 
the main idea of the analysis, namely how to account for obligatory vs. 
impossible IPP (chapter 6). As said before, Schmid considers IPP 
a 'repair strategy' which only occurs if the alternative would even be 
more 'costly'. The alternative is the past participle, and 'more costly' 
means that this alternative violates more or more important constraints 
than the infinitive does. Basically, obligatory versus impossible IPP is 
the result of the interaction of two constraints. One of them excludes 
the past participle as the sister of a VP whose head is an infinitive - 
IPP (substitution of a past participle by an infinitive) is a repair strategy 
in order to avoid violation of this constraint. The other constraint 
demands the morphological selectional properties of lexical items to 
be observed. This means that if in the present perfect the auxiliary 
selects as complement a verb which is a past participle, and the past 
participle is substituted by an infinitive, the morphological selectional 
properties are not observed. Thus substitution of a past participle by 
an infinitive (=IPP) violates this constraint. 

Whether IPP comes out as obligatory or as impossible depends on the 
ranking of these two constraints: if the first one outranks the second, 
the IPP-construction comes out as optimal candidate, as it fulfills the 
higher ranked constraint and only violates the lower ranked constraint. 
If however the second one outranks the first, the past participle is the 
optimal candidate and IPP is blocked, as it violates the higher ranked 
constraint. As the question whether IPP is obligatory or impossible 
depends on the verb class, there are separate versions of the first 
constraint for each verb class, and the ranking with regard to the 
second constraint varies for each verb class.  

In chapter 7 several constraints are introduced which account for verb 
order. Chapter 8 is about optional IPP. Optionality poses a problem for 
OT because there is one optimal candidate which blocks all other 
candidates. Therefore optionality, or, in other words, the existence of 
two optimal candidates, is not expected under this approach. Schmid 
discusses several approaches which account for optionality in OT, 
from which two ('neutralization approach' and 'global tie approach') 
are shown to be able to account for her data.

The final chapter provides a comparative analysis of obligatory, 
optional and impossible IPP in the seven West Germanic languages as 
well as an explanation of the variation in word order of the IPP-
construction across these languages. It can be shown that the same 
constraints are responsible for IPP in the other Germanic languages 
as introduced before for Standard German. The differences regarding 
obligation, optionality or impossibility of IPP for each verb class across 
the languages result from different rankings of these constraints. 

EVALUATION

The comparative approach of this study is very attractive. First, 
although it has often been noted in the literature that IPP can be found 
in several languages, the studies so far are restricted to Dutch and 
German. The study at hand fills this gap. Second, a lot of data are 
given and they are presented in a very thorough and systematic way. 
Third, and what is most important, the study succeeds in giving an 
analysis which goes beyond an analysis of IPP for the individual 
languages. It is fascinating to see how much variation there is 
concerning IPP across languages which are related so close to each 
other, and, at the same time, to observe the regularities and parallels 
between these different IPP-constructions (see for example the 
ordered list of IPP-verb classes in (4)). By identifying a small number 
of constraints which are held to be responsible for IPP in all 
languages, a connection is established between IPP-constructions 
across the languages, despite the differences regarding verb classes 
triggering IPP and verb order. 

As mentioned above, the data as well as the analysis proper are 
characterized by a thorough, systematic and clearly laid out way of 
presentation. In contrast, however, the introduction to OT is very 
short. Although Schmid recommends important literature on OT for 
those interested in it, a more detailed introduction would be desirable 
as the object of investigation is and has been subject to studies with 
all kinds of theoretical backgrounds. For readers with a non-OT 
background interested in the issue a more detailed introduction would 
be helpful.

This aspect is also related to the (very difficult and basic) question 
how to motivate a certain constraint. Why does grammar have such 
rules? There are rules for which this intuitively seems clear (e.g. the 
demand of morphological properties to be obtained in the output). But 
for others this is less obvious. What for example is the motivation for 
the constraint which is responsible for the IPP-construction, namely 
that a past participle must not be the sister of a VP whose head is an 
infinitive? Is there any independent motivation except that such a 
constraint can explain the data? Of course, this is a very hard 
question to answer which probably cannot be answered at all. 
Nevertheless it would have been interesting to discuss this problem 
and thereby to got a little further into the fundamentals of OT. 

However, discussing the fundamentals of OT probably exceeds the 
limits and the intentions of this book. Taking these theoretical issues 
for granted, the study provides a thorough and inspiring analysis of 
IPP which impresses the reader by its comparative approach as well 
as by taking into consideration the aspects of verb order and verb 
classes in a systematic way like it has not been done before.

REFERENCES

Grimm, Jakob (1837): Deutsche Grammatik, volume 4. Göttingen: 
Dieterichsche Buchhandlung

Wurmbrand, Susanne (2004): Syntactic vs. post-syntactic movement. 
In S. Burelle and S. Somesfalean (eds.), Proceedings of the 2003 
Annual Meeting of the Canadian Linguistic Association (CLA), 284-295 

ABOUT THE REVIEWER

Barbara Schlücker is a Ph.D. student currently working at the 
department of Dutch linguistics at the Free University Berlin. She 
works on a Ph.D.-project about the German copular verb 'bleiben' 
('remain'). Her research interests are lexical semantics and event 
semantics, syntax as well as comparative linguistics of the Germanic 
languages.





-----------------------------------------------------------
LINGUIST List: Vol-16-3587