Abstract
AbstractIn this article, it is proposed that different types of apparent “non-V2” arrangements in Present-Day German matrix clauses which are generally treated independently are similar in nature and derivable by means of a limited number of syntactic operations that do not challenge or put into question the classical account of German as astructuralV2 language. The analysis reveals that an adequate formalization of all possible left-peripheral word orders must rest upon three basic assumptions: (i) V2 in Modern German main clauses can be neither movement to the head position whose specifier hosts a moved or base-generated XP nor (necessarily) movement to Force°, but can be generalized to raising of the Vfin to Fin°; (ii) German has a Split CP which is fundamentally similar,mutatis mutandis, to that of Romance languages; (iii) this language is subject to the bottleneck effect, which states that all movement into the CP passes through [Spec,FinP]. The theoretical approach pursued here attempts to account for left dislocation and other (frame-setting and non-frame-setting) topicalization phenomena by assuming that in German (differently from other Split-CP languages), XPs base-generated in the middle field move to their surface position by cyclical movement within the left periphery. This allows us to avoidad hocexplanations, as well as violations of the bottleneck effect.
Highlights
Present-Day German (PDG) has traditionally been regarded as a strict Verb-Second (V2) language in light of the assumption that its prefield (German Vorfeld), namely the left-peripheral area of the clause preceding the finite verb situated in C°, can only be occupied by one XP in matrix clauses
From what is implied in Volodina and Weiß’ (2010) proposal, in this derivation, the particle and the topic do not form a complex constituent assembled in some TP/VP position, but the relative linear order of XP and particle applies at PF, so that the visible syntax of the corresponding clauses does instantiate a “violation” of the V2 constraint. This idea follows from a number of arguments taken to show that a base-generation analysis for topic particles is more advantageous than a movement-based one, i.e., the fact that elements like aber cannot be reconstructed in a lower position with the same function; the interaction between topic particles and complex DPs, which generates a limited number of possible structures occurring in the left periphery of the clause, shows that a PF derivation is more plausible
The gist of the analysis proposed here is that non-familiar and frame-setting topics move cyclically to their canonical surface position, namely a high left-peripheral TopP/FrameP projection, via the specifier of FinP and an intermediate specifier which I proposed is a lower TopP/FrameP in compliance with the information-structural nature of the projections assumed to be present in the Split CP
Summary
Present-Day German (PDG) has traditionally been regarded as a strict Verb-Second (V2) language in light of the assumption that its prefield (German Vorfeld), namely the left-peripheral area of the clause preceding the finite verb situated in C°, can only be occupied by one XP in matrix clauses According to this principle, only one constituent can (and must) move to [Spec,CP] to satisfy an EPP-like feature carried by C that requires that the pre-C° position not be empty. That the V2-Verb-Final system exemplified in (1) constitutes the unmarked syntactic skeleton of PDG can certainly not be put into question This pattern has been continuously attested since Old High German This asymmetry does not seem to be in any way subject to change in PDG.
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Free) 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a call
