Free Constituent Order: A Minimalist Interface Account *

Transcription

1 Free Constituent Order: A Minimalist Interface Account * Gisbert Fanselow University of Potsdam Abstract 0 Introduction It has been claimed that the functional architecture of German clauses involves heads such as [Topic] that are defined by their information structure value, and that movement to the specifier position of such heads is (partially) responsible for free word order in German. This paper argues that this view is misguided. (i) There is no evidence for a syntactically defined topic position in the middle field of German clauses. (ii) The distinction between marked and unmarked serialization must also be made for structures that do not involve movement. (iii) Movement in the interest of information structure is often altruistic. The present paper will not offer a new model for free constituent order in German, and could not do so, since, as Haider and Rosengren have observed in their overview of the scrambling literature, all available theoretical approaches within generative grammar have [already] found their advocates (Haider & Rosengren 1998:4). Rather, I will refine and extend the model proposed in Fanselow (2001): The arguments of a predicate P can be merged with a projection of P in any order. A language has fixed constituent order when these arguments have to move to specifier positions of functional heads in overt syntax. Constituent order is free if such movement is not necessary. I will show that this approach accounts for the correlation between normal word order and normal intonation if combined with the minimalist idea that the arguments of a lexical verb are not necessarily selected by a single head. Furthermore, I will argue that the correlation between constituent order and pragmatic functions should not be expressed in terms of additional functional heads like Topic or Focus in German (in contrast to the view held by Meinunger 1995, Frey 2000, Pili 2001, but in line with Abraham 1995, 1997, 2003, and Molnárfi 2003). The paper is organized as follows. Section 1 introduces basic properties of minimalist theories of constituent order. Section 2 investigates how grammar expresses the connection between word order and information structure, with a particular emphasis on normal order. It will be shown that argument structure does not uniquely determine normal order. Rather, normal * Parts of this paper have been presented in my lectures at the seminar Language, Cognition, and the Brain (Linguistics Department of Delhi University, February 2002), and at the 30 th linguistics seminar of the Japanese Society of German Studies (Kyoto, August 2002). I would like to thank the audiences for stimulating discussions. Particular thanks go to Rama Kant Agnihotri, K.V. Subbarao, Shin Tanaka and Mitsunobo Yoshida, and also to Werner Abraham for the opportunity to publish the paper in this speciial issue of Folia Linguistica. In the past years, I had the opportunity to discuss free word order with Joanna Błaszczak, Damir Cavar, Eva Engels, Caroline Féry, Werner Frey, Susann Fischer, Hubert Haider, Gereon Müller, Stefan Müller, Alla Paslawska, Diana Pili, Matthias Schlesewsky, Arthur Stepanov, Ralf Vogel, und Mitsunobu Yoshida, and I would like to express my gratitude for these discussions. The research reported here has been partially supported by grants of the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft to the Innovationskolleg 12 and to the Forschergruppe 375, both at the University of Potsdam.

2 order is constrained by implications of the decomposition of verbal predicates. This decomposition of the predicate also helps to understand the correlation between normal order and normal intonation. Section 3 is concerned with altruistic movement and with the placement of adverbials. It argues that order variation in the German IP cannot generally be the result of a movement targeting the specifier position of functional heads which encode information structure. Section 4 discusses and rejects the idea proposed by Frey (2000) that a topic position can be found in German IPs that is the target of a subset of the reordering operations. Concluding remarks related to the issue of a transformational analysis of free word order can be found in section 5. 1 Free Constituent Order in a Minimalist Framework Much of the current literature on scrambling is based on the assumption that fixed constituent order is something one gets for free, while free constituent order requires extra efforts, viz. reordering transformations. The purpose of this section is to show that this conviction is wrong, and it will sketch three descriptions of free word order that are compatible with minimalism. The choice between these approaches will then be the topic of the rest of the paper. When Ross (1967) introduced scrambling as a descriptive device, the assumption was very plausible that free constituent order incurs extra costs. The Aspects model (Chomsky 1965), encodes deep structure word order by explicit phrase structure rules of the type exemplified in (1). For each arrangement of the constituents which is already present in the base, one needs a separate phrase structure rule. Having the phrase structure component generate one order only, and deriving others orders by a general scrambling operation, seemed to be more parsimonious than postulating a multitude of phrase structure rules. (1) VP -> PP NP NP V CP The introduction of X-bar-Theory (Chomsky 1981, Stowell 1981, Speas 1990) made such a reasoning much less compelling, if it did not render it implausible. If (2) is the only means of building constituent structure, fixed constituent order does not come for free - it is a property that has to be coded in the grammar by additional means, such as the adjacency requirement for Case assignment of Chomsky (1981). (2) X i ->... X j..., with i j The later elimination of phrasal levels, and the replacement of (2) by Merge (Chomsky 1995), has certainly not lead to a grammatical theory that differs from GB-theory in this respect. A further aspect of the minimalist program has far-reaching consequences for the plausibility of a transformational derivation of free constituent order. In the minimalist program, movement is not cost-free, but a last resort operation 1. Phrases P move only if they have to. They have to move when they are attracted by a head H with an uninterpretable feature that must be checked by P, and can be checked only if P becomes the specifier of HP 2 (see, e.g., Chomsky 1995). In other words, movement is either obligatory, or cannot take place at all. Scrambling, however, seems optional (if it exists at all), at least from a syntactic point of view: Its 1 See also Molnárfi (2003) for a discussion of the implications that derivational economy has for the analysis of free constituent order. 2 Or if it is adjoined to the head of HP. We can ignore this possibility here.

3 application is very rarely (if ever) necessary for making a structure grammatical. (3a) and (3b) are wellformed. (3) a. dass der Polizist den Spion identifizierte that the.nom policeman the.acc spy identified b. dass den Spion der Polizist identifizierte that the policeman identified the spy The fact that scrambling is optional makes it difficult to maintain a transformational analysis of word order freedom in minimalist grammar (if scrambling is construed as a reordering transformation). Consequently, one should analyse free constituent order in terms of scrambling only if there are compelling reasons for doing so, but -quite surprisingly- the arguments for scrambling turn out to not be convincing under closer scrutiny (see Fanselow 2001). In contrast, there are no constraints of core syntax which necessarily restrict the order in which phrases are merged. From a conceptual point of view, an analysis of free constituent order in terms of base generation thus seems preferable. In spite of this, movement analyses of free constituent order still prevail. They come in, basically, three or four versions. Consider, first, the classical adjunction analysis of scrambling (the first generation of scrambling theories, see e.g., Fanselow 1988, 1990), which was recently revived by Haider & Rosengren (1998). In their account, scrambling optionally displaces arguments by adjoining them to projections of the predicate that selects them. Scrambling is thus constructed as an operation that cannot possibly fall within the limits of minimalism. One may consider these limits to be too narrow (as Haider and Rosengren do), or take scrambling to be a post-syntactic or phonological operation (Ross 1967, Chomsky 1995). Both positions reduce the empirical scope of core syntax, and such steps should be taken only if inevitable. We concur with Haider & Rosengren (1998) and Chomsky (1995) in the view that scrambling should not be expressed in terms of feature checking, but we take base generation to be a more conservative solution to the free word order problem than untriggered movement operations. Technically, the optionality problem that scrambling faces can be circumvented easily if one assumes a special feature (e.g., the [+scr]-feature of G. Müller 1998) that triggers scrambling. Scrambling has to apply if and only if this feature is part of the numeration of a sentence, or if it is added to the set of features of a syntactic object when the latter is selected for merger. Scrambling is then optional in a non-technical sense only (irrelevant for minimalism): there is no grammatical law that governs the presence or absence of such a feature in a numeration. But as long as one cannot give substantive content to such a feature (and neither G. Müller 1998 nor Grewendorf & Sabel 1994 try to do so), the solution is not in the spirit of minimalism: with the help of diacritic features, all processes can be expressed in terms of feature checking. Two types of models go beyond the use of diacritic features and appear to be very promising. In one of these, scrambling is the result of an attraction by functional heads that are responsible for identifying the grammatical function of arguments, such as Case. This is the characteristic feature of what may be called second generation scrambling theories, which go back to ideas originally formulated by Deprez (1989) and Mahajan (1990). If Case assignment has a link to interpretation (see, e.g., de Hoop 1992), one may also be able to capture some of the pragmatic (side-) effects of scrambling.

4 Second generation scrambling theories have much in common with the base generation model and the adjunction theory developed by Haider & Rosengren (1998): they share the insight that scrambled phrases occupy positions in which they are licensed as arguments 3, and they essentially restrict scrambling to arguments. Second generation theories run a certain risk of not having enough expressive power, however. Consider (4) in this respect. (4) a. dass der Mann dem Kind den Apfel (gestern) gab that the.nom man the.dat child the.acc apple yesterday gave b. dass [dem Kind [DAT [ den Apfel [ACC [ der Mann gestern gab]]]]] c. dass [den Apfel [ACC [dem Kind [DAT [ der Mann gestern gab]]]]] d. dass [der Mann NOM [dem Kind [DAT den Apfel [ACC (gestern) gab]]]]] e. dass [der Mann NOM [den Apfel [ACC dem Kind [DAT(gestern) gab]]]]] If phrases reach their pre-subject position by being attracted to the specifier positions of the heads checking their Case, (4b) presupposes that the dative checking head DAT c-commands the accusative checking head ACC in German. The opposite hierarchical arrangement is, however, required in (4c). Furthermore, if objects can appear in front of adverbs only if they have been scrambled, (4a) implies that the head checking nominative Case must be able to appear above the heads checking object Case, while the opposite must be true in (4b,c), see (4d,e). See Fanselow (2001) for a more detailed discussion. In other words, all hierarchical permutations of the Case checking heads would have to be licensed in grammar if scrambling is an operation of grammar. Such a variability cannot, however, be observed with well-motivated instances of functional heads, and would lead to serious descriptive problems if Case checking is not done by heads like ACC or DAT (which are not independently motivated), but by heads like Tense, Aspect or v the (constant) position of which in the tree is determined on grounds independent from the checking of Case. That such problems arise has rarely been noted in the literature, because the analyses one finds rarely go beyond the simple interaction of subjects and direct objects. These problems, can, however, be circumvented if the heads that check Case incorporate into each other. Let Σ be the head into which the Case assigning heads have incorporated. The Case assigning heads are sublabels of Σ, and specifiers of Σ can check features of these sublabels, too, in the model proposed by Chomsky (1995). If Σ tolerates multiple specifiers, and if the heads that check Case are linked to a strong EPP-feature (so that they trigger overt movement), ΣPs such as (5) will arise 4. (5) [ ΣP α [ ΣP β [ ΣP γ [Σ...]]]] The order of the arguments as multiple specifier of ΣP is free under at least two circumstances. First, the Minimal Link Condition (MLC) might be formulated in such a way 5 that the 3 See Fanselow (1988, 1990) for arguments that scrambled phrases occupy A-positions. Apparent A-bar properties of scrambled phrases (see Bayer & Kornfilt 1994) can be explained away, see Fanselow (2001). 4 Chomsky (1995) derives strict cyclicity in overt syntax from the assumption that Y must not contain strong features in [ X Y X]. In other words, Y can be a specifier or complement of X only if all strong features of the head of Y have been checked. This condition is incompatible with (5). In order to trigger overt movement, the sublabel H of Σ must possess a strong feature. H, however, must itself have been moved to Σ out of the complement C of Σ, i.e., C must have contained an unchecked strong feature when it was merged with Σ. Therefore, a transformational analysis of free constituent order of the sort sketched above presupposes a relaxation of the conditions governing the occurrence of strong features. 5 Compared to the formulation chosen in Chomsky (1995), this implies a considerable relaxation.

5 argument positions of heads incorporated into Σ are equidistant from any of the specifiers of ΣP. Then, each argument can target any of α, β and γ. In such a model, the order of multiple specifiers is always free. Second, the MLC might be relativized in the sense of Fanselow (2001): when the feature F of some head H attracts an XP, only those intervening YPs matter in terms of the MLC which have the feature F themselves. If overt movement is not only triggered by categorical features (as it is in Chomsky 1995, Fanselow 2001), then the MLC will tolerate the overt movement of, e.g., an accusative DP across a nominative DP, if the attracting feature is accusative Case. In such a model, the order of multiple specifiers is not always free 6. In such a model, scrambling turns out to be an obligatory movement of arguments to positions where Case (or other L-related features) are checked. This solution of the optionality problem comes at a certain cost, however: the status of a given linear order in the dimension normal vs. marked cannot be read off the syntactic representation. The third generation of scrambling theories tries to achieve the goal just mentioned: the heads that attract XPs are characterized by operator features related to distinctions of information structure, such as topic or focus (for German, see Meinunger 1995, Pili 2001, among others). In such a model, scrambling is assimilated to the movement to designated discourse functional positions as one finds them at the left periphery of Hungarian (Brody 1990) and Italian (Rizzi 1997) clauses. There is evidence that a focus position can be identified at the left periphery of German clauses as well, where it can be the target of movement ( T-scrambling, see, e.g., Haider & Rosengren 1998), so that extending the operator movement analysis to all types of reordering does not seem implausible. We will show that third generation scrambling theories fail (see also Abraham 1995, 1997, 2003), because reordering in the interest of information structure is often altruistic: a phrase does not move in order to realize its own pragmatic function - rather, it is displaced in order to allow a different phrase to take over some pragmatic function (typically: focus). Furthermore, one can observe distinctions of normal and pragmatically marked order with phrases that do not undergo movement within IP at all. The pragmatic contour of a clause therefore cannot be successfully captured by postulating a layer of positions which one can reach by movement only. We will deal with these issues in sections 2-4. Second generation scrambling theories are much harder to assess, but we will briefly show in section 5 that the available evidence does not really support the idea that the positions in which arguments are licensed in German are reached by movement. This suggests, then, that free word order is a base generated phenomenon. Before we proceed, we should give a sketch of the base generation account that will be refined below. Recall that merge is an operation that applies (more or less) freely. Lexical items are collected in a numeration. Each element in the numeration is a syntactic object, and further syntactic objects are created in a derivation by freely combining syntactic objects with each other. Due to the unrestricted nature of merge, some derivations may crash, but there are no a priori reasons for assuming that merge could not in principle yield a multitude of different word orders for the same numeration. The only factor that could prevent this would be thematic 6 Thus, the MLC would still predict the superiority effect which one seems to find with multiply fronted whphrases in Bulgarian, because they are all attracted by the same features, viz. [wh].

6 theory, provided that it requires that arguments be merged in a certain order. We will deal with this issue in section 2. If one gets free constituent order for free, fixed constituent order is the property that must be explained, and in minimalism, it should be explained in terms of movement. The idea that fixed constituent order is related to movement can be expressed easily. Suppose that arguments are merged freely in the projection of the predicate, and that they undergo overt or covert movement (in the sense of Chomsky 1995) for reasons of Case checking. Let Tense check the Case of the subject, and let some functional head F below Tense check the Case of the object. At LF, the (formal features of) the subject and the object must appear in the specifier positions of Tense and F, respectively. If the relevant features of the attracting heads are strong -if they trigger overt movement- then the subject must appear in the position α in overt syntax already, and the object must occupy the position β. The relative order of subject and object is thus fixed whenever the attracting heads trigger overt movement (see Fanselow 2001). (6) [ TP α [Tense [ FP β F [ PredicatePhrase... (NP 1 )... [NP 2... (NP 1 )... ]]]]] In languages in which the Case related movement is covert, the subject NP 1 need not appear in α before LF. If covert Case movement to α may cross NP 2, the order in which subject NP 1 and object NP 2 appear is free. See Fanselow (2001) and below for further details. 2 Normal Order and Its Implications 2.1 Introduction In minimalism, scrambling can only be formulated as an attraction process, and the heads attracting the scrambled phrase must have content that can be motivated independently. That functional heads encoding information structure such as [Focus] or [Topic] may be responsible for triggering scrambling is not implausible because word order variation is related to distinctions of information structure in German. When he discusses the question of why languages have the movement property at all, Chomsky even expresses his suspicion [...] that part of the reason has to do with phenomena that have been described in terms of surface structure interpretation; many of these are familiar from traditional grammar: topiccomment, specificity, new and old information (Chomsky 2000a:13). However, such reflections relate to the function of word order variation, and not necessarily to the apparatus by which the computational system generates different linearizations, as Chomsky (2000b, 2001) points out himself. Whether narrow syntax explicitly involves information structure distinctions or not depends on the details of the mechanism by which syntax and pragmatics interact, to which we will turn now. German IPs have a normal word order (Lenerz 1977), and deviations from this normal order serve the expression of a marked topic-focus structure. When α appears to the left of its normal position in a given sentence, α is in general more thematic or more topical than it is in a sentence with normal word order. Therefore, a scrambled phrase might land in the specifier position of a functional head bearing a feature such as [+topic] or [+theme]. If is does, its movement can expressed in minimalist terms: an object XP with the feature +[topic] can be attracted by a functional head F with the same specification that resides, e.g., above the position of the subject. A first set of difficulties for a transformational approach to scrambling arises when one tries to identify normal word order in domains other than the interaction of subjects and objects in

7 prototypical agentive transitive clauses. There are two types of difficulties (interactions between adverbs and objects, and between arguments) that we will discuss in turn. While problems in the domain of adverb-object interactions can be explained away (2.2), those related to pair of arguments require a revision of the standard view of the relation between argument structure and merger. 2.2 Adverb-Object Order In the thematic theory of Chomsky (1981), adverbs are merged in higher positions than direct objects. The latter are always the first sisters of the predicate. For German, this predicts that [Adv [O V]] is the underlying order. Lenerz (1977) has observed, however, that certain adverbs follow the object in normal word order, see also Suchsland (1993), Frey & Pittner (1998), G. Müller (1999a) (from which we borrow (7)), Molnárfi (2002) (from which we borrow (8)) 7, among many others. (7) a. dass der Fritz die Maria in der Kneipe getroffen hat that the.nom Fritz the.unm Mary in the pub met has b.?dass der Fritz in den Kneipe die Maria getroffen hat that Fritz met Maria in the pub (8) a. Ich habe das Mädchen [ F gestern geküsst] und sie danach [ F nach Hause I have the girl yesterday kissed and her then to home begleitet]. accompanied b. *Ich habe [ F gestern das Mädchen geküsst] und sie danach [ F nach Hause begleitet]. I kissed the girl yesterday and then escorted her home If basic word order is indeed [Adv [ O [ V]]], normal word order would have to be derived transformationally, as G. Müller (1999a) points out. This is incompatible with third generation scrambling theories. Clauses with normal order are pragmatically unmarked. Consequently, the direct object does not bear a topic feature in (7a) and (8a), and could not be attracted by a functional head with such a specification. (7a) and (8a) would thus constitute a considerable problem for the idea that scrambling is a movement operation that implies the checking of a pragmatic feature - if thematic theory forces the very early merger of objects Locative Adverbs Locative adverbs require a treatment different from the one necessary for other adverbs. They may intervene between the verb and a stressed direct object without blocking focus projection/wide focus: both (9a) and (9a ) allow wide focus. If a wide focus interpretation is possible only when the stressed XP resides in its normal position (Höhle 1992), (9a,a ) corroborate the view that the order direct object > locative is unmarked 8. Note that other adverb types are different in this respect: (9b,c) do not allow focus projection - wide focus is possible only when the object follows the adverb, as it does in (9b,c ). (9) a. man konnte BLITZE am Himmel sehen (wide focus ok) one could lightnings in-the sky see a. man konnte am Himmel BLITZE sehen (wide focus ok) 7 The judgements are those of the authors. 8 The PP would then have to be preposed in front of the direct object in (9a ), or there would have to be two normal orders available for locative PPs. See below.

8 b. man konnte BLITZE stundenlang sehen (wide focus not ok) one could lightnings for hours see b. man konnte stundenlang BLITZE sehen (wide focus ok) c. man konnte BLITZE abends sehen (wide focus not ok) one could lightnings in the evening see c. man konnte abends BLITZE sehen (wide focus ok) Finally, unstressed indefinite pronouns rarely undergo reordering by scrambling in German. The full grammaticality of (10a) thus constitutes strong evidence for the claim that objects precede locative adverbials in normal order sentences. (10) a. er hat wohl wieder wen wo aufgegabelt he has probably again someone someplace picked up b.?er hat wohl wieder wo wen aufgegabelt he probably has again picked up someone someplace Nevertheless, G. Müller (1999a) offers five arguments for the assumption that locative adverb c-command the direct object at the point of merger. Three of these arguments are based on generalizations that turn out to be too strong in the light of further empirical data. First, the claim that anaphors embedded in locative PPs cannot be bound by objects 9 is not in line with (11). If binding facts can tell us anything about base positions 10, (11) rather suggests that certain locative adverbs are merged below direct objects. Second, the claim that direct objects are movement islands in pre-adverb position while they are transparent for movement when they follow the local adverb does not take into account data such (12). However, little can be concluded from the grammaticality of (12), since German does not even show freezing effects for objects placed in front of the subject 11. (11) a. er fand/ortete/entdeckte die Kinder bei/nebeneinander he found/located/discovered the children with each other b. er versteckte die Zettel nebeneinander / untereinander he hid the sheets near/ under each other c. er hat die Angeklagten voreinander der Lüge bezichtigt he has the defendants in front of each other of the lie accused he has accused the defendant of lying one in front of the other 9 The claim that anaphors embedded in locative PPs cannot be bound by accusative and dative objects that Müller refers to goes back to Grewendorf (1988). In addition to the data presented above, the claim also fails to take into account the full grammaticality of examples such as (i) and (ii). At best, it is the highest argument (rather than the subject ) that anaphors in locative PPs prefer to be bound by. (i) ihm i ist der Fehler erst bei sich i zu Hause aufgefallen him.dat is the mistake only at refl at home struck he noted the mistake only when at home (ii) ihm ist der große Fels neben sich nicht aufgefallen him.dat is the big rock near refl not struck he did not notice the big rock rear him 10 Recall that scrambling extends options for anaphoric binding in some languages, e.g., Hindi (Mahajan 1990). 11 See Fanselow (2001). German does not respect the subject condition either (see Haider 1986, de Kuthy 2000). The general absence of structurally determined island effects could be due to the fact that the separation of a PP from NP does not involve movement at all (in German), as de Kuthy (2000) argues. An alternative explanation can be sought in terms of focus theory (see Erteschik-Shir 1997). If XPs cannot be extracted out of phrases that are in a position reserved for topical elements, the transparency of subjects and scrambled XPs can be related to the fact that these categories need not always be topical.

9 (12) darüber kannst du wieder mal [keinen Artikel t] im Südkurier finden about this can you once more no article in the Südkurier find "Once again, one cannot find any article about this in the Südkurier" Likewise, Müller s claims related to the placement of indefinites (indefinite objects should follow locative PPs) is not line with (10) 12. The fourth argument Müller (1999) brings forward involves data such as (13), for which Bennis & Hoekstra (1984) and Felix (1985) proposed a parasitic gap analysis. His argument makes crucial use of this particular analysis, which was, however, was shown to be untenable by Fanselow (1993, 2001) and Haider & Rosengren (1998). (13) dass er die Millionärin ohne zu lieben geheiratet hat that he the millionairess without to love married has that he married the millionairess without loving her One is thus left with the contrast between (14a) and (14b) (= (9a,b) in Müller 1999a), involving the left dislocation of part of a VP. (14) a. [Das Buch über die Liebe gelesen], das hat er gestern abend the book about the love read, that has he yesterday evening in der Kneipe in the pub b. *?[In der Kneipe gelesen ], das hat er gestern abend [das Buch über die Liebe] At least when the local adverb modifies the subject, the empirical contrast is clear. However, if Fanselow (2002a) is correct, the relevant generalization concerning the left dislocation of verbal projections is that the lowest argument of the verb must appear in the left dislocated phrase, irrespective of its category and Case. In the light of this, (14) merely shows that locative adverbs are not arguments of the verb. If so, there are no arguments left for the view that [O [Adv V ]] does not already arise by merger. Maienborn (1996) shows that the unmarked position of local adverbs depends on their interpretation. Locatives modifying an object follow it, those modifying a subject can precede the object in normal order. This generalization is supported by the results of an informal corpus study (Fanselow 1999). Judgements are often subtle. Perhaps, one gets the clearest results in contexts such as (15), where (15a) but not (15b) allows an interpretation in which the locative modifies the object. 12 Our argument presupposes that the unstressable indefinite pronouns constitute the best evidence for base order. Distributional facts for other indefinites are much less clear. To my ears, both (i) and (ii) allow a wide focus interpretation. G. Müller (1999) rates (iii) as a questionable sentence. By the criteria developed by Lenerz (1977), this would mean that the object follows the PP in normal order, in contrast to the general perspective Müller takes. Müller fails to compare (iii) with (iv), which should be perfect if (iii) does not reflect normal order. In fact, (iv) is worse than (iii). (Furthermore, to my ears is, (iii) is unobjectionable if the locative is prosodically integrated with the verb, while (iv) is out unless die Frau bears narrow focus)). (i) dass er in 'ner Kneipe 'ne Frau aufgegabelt hat that he in a pub a woman picked up has (ii) dass er 'ne Frau in 'ner Kneipe aufgegabelt hat that he has picked up a woman in some pub (iii)?dass er eine Frau in der Kneipe getroffen hat that he a woman in the pub met has (iv)??dass er in ner Kneipe die Frau getroffen hat that he in a pub the woman met has

10 (15) Wo kann ich meine Frau anrufen? "where can I call my wife?" a. Sie können ihre Frau im Hinterzimmer anrufen you can your wife in the back-room call b. Sie können im Hinterzimmer ihre Frau anrufen Exact details need not concern us here, however: we conclude that adverbs can be merged below the lowest argument. In addition to local adverbs, this appears to be true for manner adverbs as well (see Frey & Pittner 1998). Consequently, thematic theory governs the merge position of arguments only (see section 2.2.2). The merge position of adverbs is determined by independent principles, such as the one that a locative should be c-commanded by the argument it modifies Other adverbs G. Müller (1999a) argued that the grammatically perfect arrangement of the elements in a clause may be one that involves scrambling. While facts concerning locatives PPs do not show this, there are other domains that bear Müller s prediction out. Thus, as Abraham (1995, 1997) and Molnárfi (2002) observe, a definite noun phrase such as das Mädchen the girl is an unlikely bearer of the structural accent of a clause, and is therefore preferentially placed in front of, e.g., temporal adverbs, as the contrast between (8a) and (8b) suggests. Indefinite noun phrase should, however, follow temporal adverbs, cf. (8c,d) (8) a. Ich habe das Mädchen [ F gestern geküsst] und sie danach [ F nach Hause I have the girl yesterday kissed and her then to home begleitet]. accompanied b. *Ich habe [ F gestern das Mädchen geküsst] und sie danach [ F nach Hause begleitet]. I kissed the girl yesterday and then escorted her home c.?ich habe ein Mädchen [ F gestern geküsst] und sie danach [ F nach Hause I have the girl yesterday kissed and her then to home begleitet]. accompanied d. Ich habe [ F gestern ein Mädchen geküsst] und sie danach [ F nach Hause begleitet]. I kissed a girl yesterday and then escorted her home The normal order of a particular sentence may thus be one that involves scrambling! This is hardly surprising, however: if the lexical material of a clause is incompatible with a neutral context, the normal serialization of this material should not be one which one finds for words that allow a neutral context. Therefore, the normal location of unstressed pronouns is the left edge of the clause, because the use of unstressed pronouns presupposes that their referents are highly topical. Definite noun phrases with little descriptive content like the girl behave much like pronouns in this respect. Definite noun phrases that have more descriptive content prefer to follow temporal and similar adverbs, however, as (16) shows: (16a,b,c) allow focus projection, while (16a.b.c ) involve narrow focus on the adverb. (16) a. er hat gestern die Frau seiner Träume geküsst he has yesterday the woman of his dreams kissed a er hat die Frau seiner Träume gestern geküsst b. er hat gestern die neue Professorin geküsst he has yesterday the new professor(fem) kissed b. er hat die neue Professorin gestern geküsst

11 c. er hat gestern die Fledermausforscherin geküsst he has yesterday the bat researcher (fem) kissed c. er hat die Fledermausforscherin gestern geküsst 2.3 Arguments While the findings of section 2.2. are fairly neutral with respect to the overall theory of free constituent order, the picture that emerges from a closer consideration of arguments is not: there are predicates for which normal order cannot be read off intrinsic properties of the syntactic representation. Rather, one needs additional principles (such as animate DPs precede inanimate ones ) that decide whether a given clause is marked or not (see also G. Müller 1999a). If correct, this implies that a standard argument against the base generation of free constituent order (or against movement theories yielding structures like (5)) loses much force: attempts to characterize the distinction between normal and marked order exclusively in terms of the derivational history of a clause will always fail. Furthermore, if base-generated order can be marked in pragmatic terms, the pragmatic makeup of a clause is not always expressed in terms of the filling of specifier positions of topic or focus phrases. According to Lenerz (1977), nom > dat > acc is, in general, the normal constituent order in German. Among the exceptions that he notes are passive clauses and clauses involving what is nowadays called an unaccusative predicate. (17) a. Wurde wem was gestohlen? was someone.dat something.nom stolen? Has anything been stolen from anyone? b. ist wem was misslungen? is someone.dat something.nom failed? has anyone been unsuccessful with anything? In a conservative analysis of (17), underlying objects need not move to Spec, IP in German passive and unaccusative clauses. If they can stay in the position in which they are merged as direct objects, the fact that indirect object precede and c-command them in the surface representation is hardly surprising. Whether all instances of dative > nominative normal order can be treated in this way is not obvious (see, e.g., chapter 9 of Abraham 1995 for a critical view), but we need not enter such a discussion, since clearer deviations from the standard normal order pattern exist that defy an analysis in terms of simple structural distinctions. Hoberg (1981) is the most detailed empirical study of German normal order. In the model she proposes, normal order is not only determined by grammatical functions. Rather, animacy plays a significant role, too: animate DPs precede inanimate ones in normal order. This is exemplified in (18) for objects, and in (17b) and (19) for subjects. (18) and (19a) allow a wide focus interpretation, which shows that they involve normal order. (18) a. dass er wenigen Studenten die Prüfungen ankündigte that he few.dat students the.acc tests announced that he announced the tests to few students b. dass er wenige Studenten den Prüfungen unterzog that he few.acc students the.dat tests subjected that he subjected few students to the test (19) a. hat denn wen was interessiert? has ptc. someone.acc something.nom interested has anyone got interested in anything?

12 b.?hat denn was wen interessiert Haider (1993), Haider & Rosengren (1998) and Fanselow (2000b) take the different normal orders of objects exemplified in (18) to be verb dependent in a special sense. They claim that (at least) two classes of ditransitive verbs exist: in the argument structure of verbs like ankündigen annouce, the dative occupies a higher position than the accusative, while it is just the other way round with verbs like unterziehen submit. The assumption that merge must respect the hierarchical relations in argument structure 13 then suffices to account for the two types of normal order we find in (18). G. Müller (1999a) argues against an account of (18)-(19) in terms of subdividing verb classes, and explains the normal word order patterns in terms of an animacy principle interacting with order constraints related to grammatical functions. Let us concentrate on interactions of objects and subjects like those in (19) before we deal with different normal order patterns among objects. As (19) shows, some German verbs are constructed with an accusative > nominative normal order. Treating these verbs on par with (17b) would imply that some unaccusative verbs assign structural accusative Case 14. Furthermore, there is evidence that the nominative argument occupies the higher position in the thematic grid of these verbs. For example, Sternefeld (1985) and Grewendorf (1989) observe that the PRO argument of an infinitive may be left uncontrolled only if the infinitive fills the structurally highest argument position. An arbitrary interpretation of a PRO-subject of an infinitive is possible with nearly all accusative-nominative verbs, as (20) shows. (20) a. PRO arb sich zurückzuziehen würde die Polizisten irritieren to refl withdraw would the policemen.acc irritate "it would irritate the police if one retreated now" b. PRO arb sich auf sie zuzubewegen würde die Polizisten ärgern refl towards them to move would the policemen annoy "it would annoy the police if one moved towards them" The grammaticality of (20) implies that the nominative argument corresponds to the higher of the two arguments in the argument structure of psychological predicates that are constructed with accusative experiencers. We can conclude that either argument structure does not fully determine the hierarchical relations generated by merge (so that acc > nom can be a basegenerated), or that movement does not always target positions that are defined in terms of information structure (because the leftward movement of the accusative would apply in pragmatically unmarked clauses). Every theory of normal word order must capture the principled contrast between (21) and (22). Clauses in which an accusative indefinite pronoun precedes a nominative phrase are perfect with psychological predicates such as ärgern annoy. The order nominative before 13 The pertinent principle is that an argument α cannot merge with the projection Y of a predicate P unless all arguments δ of P that are lower than α in argument structure have already been merged in Y. 14 Haider & Rosengren (1998) postulate that the accusative argument is higher than the nominative argument in the argument structure of (19), but they do not substantiate this claim with empirical data other than normal order facts.

13 accusative is only slightly deviant for these verbs 15, while this arrangement is mandatory for prototypical action verbs, as (22) shows. (21) a. sollte gestern wen was geärgert haben, dann... should yesterday anyone.acc anything.nom annoyed have, then b. (?)sollte gestern was wen geärgert haben, dann... if anything annoyed anyone yesterday, then... (22) a. sollte gestern wer was gesagt haben, dann should yesterday anyone anything said have then b. *sollte gestern was wer gesagt haben, dann... if anyone said anything yesterday This contrast can be captured in terms of structural differences. Recall that the standard minimalist view of (verbal) predicates is a decompositional one: at least certain verbs such as kill or say correspond to a complex underlying representation consisting of (at least) a light verb v and a lexical predicate V, as illustrated in (23a). KILL raises to v in overt or covert syntax, and the interpretation of [KILL + v] as kill may, e.g., proceed as assumed in Distributed Morphology. The external argument α and the internal argument β of such a predicate are, therefore, introduced by different heads into syntactic representations. (23) a. [ v α v [ V [ V KILL] β ]] b. [ v (v) [ V α [ V ANNOY] β ]] Suppose that the two arguments of a predicate such as annoy are introduced by a single head, however - either because these predicates do not come with a light verb v, or because the light verb does not select an argument. This is represented in (23b). If a distinction of the kind sketched in (23) is made, the difference between (21) and (22) can be derived from (24). (24) An argument A can be merged with a projection P only if the head of P selects A as an argument. (24) is liberalized version of the common view that the hierarchy created by merge is uniquely determined by argument structure (the argument hierarchy view). For agentive predicates like say and kill, the model implied by (24) and the argument hierarchy view do not differ at all. Agents c-command themes in argument structure. The argument hierarchy view thus predicts that themes are merged in lower positions than agents. Likewise, if (24) characterizes the interface between lexical argument structure and syntax, the theme argument must be merged in the projection of V, while the agent must be merged as a sister of a projection of v. Consequently, the agent must be merged in a higher position than the theme. For prototypical transitive verbs, i.e., the pattern we observe in (22), the liberalization that comes with (24) has no consequences at all, as required. The situation is different for two arguments that are selected by a single head, as seems to be the case for annoy and similar verbs. For such pairs of arguments, (24) imposes no restrictions 15 Other types of indefinite noun phrases show roughly the same behavior, as (i) illustrates. Wide focus is possible in (ia) when the nominative NP bears stress, which shows that we are confronted with normal order. (ib) may be worse than (ia), but the difference is slight, and need not be perceived by everyone. (i) a. wenn einen Mann ein Stein ärgert if a.acc man a stone annoys b. wenn ein Stein einen Mann ärgert

14 at all on the order of merger: either of the two arguments may be merged first. This comes close to what we observe in (21): both orders may be considered normal, at least up to a certain extent. The argument hierarchy view, however, always implies that only one order can be established by merge 16. It can capture the facts in (21) only by assuming that certain predicates come with two different argument structures (as suggested by Haider & Rosengren 1998, Fanselow 2000b). Such approaches are plausible only to the extent that the duplication of argument structures is the exception rather than the rule. The pattern in (21) is, however, characteristic of nearly all psychological predicates that link the experiencer role with accusative Case. (24) therefore seems to be the superior analysis. The (slight) difference in acceptability between (21a,b) can be made follow from a surface serialization principle that penalizes structures in which inanimate DPs precede animate ones (Hoberg 1981, G. Müller 1999a). The replacement of the argument hierarchy view by (24) has important consequences for the theory of word order in German. When arguments are selected by a single syntactic head (i.e., outside the domain of prototypical transitive verbs), they may be merged in any order. Structures generated by merge may nevertheless be marked to a certain extent, because they fail to fulfil surface constraints on word order, such as the animacy constraint. Thus, we concur with G. Müller (1999a) in the view that clauses can have a marked information structure without scrambling, in particular, they can be marked without there being any phrases in specifier positions of topic or focus phrases. This observation reduces the potential explanatory power that scrambling theories of the third generation might have in the domain of the pragmatics-syntax interface. An account similar to the one offered for (21) can be constructed for the interaction of the objects of ditransitive verbs: if the two objects are selected by a single head (as in (23c)), they can be merged in any order if (24) is true. This is compatible with the view of Haider (1993) and Meinunger (1995) that most common verbs of German in fact come with two normal orders (which is unexpected in their model, which must stipulate two argument structures whenever a verb is flexible in terms of normal argument order). The structures licensed by the general word order freedom for canonical pairs of objects must, however, pass the filter of surface order principles such as the animacy constraint, see G. Müller (1999a). (23) c. [ v α v [ V γ [[ V GIVE] β]]] For verbs that allow only a single normal order of their objects, at least two 17 analyses come to mind. First, if exceptional predicates such as unterziehen subject to correspond to three rather than two heads in the basic syntactic representation, (24) determines object order in a unique way (provided there is a one-to-one correspondence between the arguments and the heads that selecting them). 16 Of course, this prediction is made only if argument structure always establishes hierarchical relations between arguments (as assumed in Wunderlich 1997, and Fanselow 1991), and not just in case the arguments are selected by different (semantic) heads. Whether one could confine argument hierarchies to a partial ordering is an issue that goes beyond the scope of the present paper. 17 Meinunger (1995) makes a further interesting proposal. He observes that only particle verbs prescribe a single normal order, and derives the double object construction of such verbs from an underlying DP + PP construction by the incorporation of the preposition/particle into the verb. The normal word order restriction of unterziehen and related verbs then derives from the fact that prepositional objects must always follow nominal objects.

15 Second, there is a general constraint on German word order that may help to understand why at least certain verbs come with one normal order only. Prepositional objects always follow direct objects in normal order, and so do genetive objects. The common factor is that prepositional and genetive objects are exceptional expressions of thematic roles. Apparently, such exceptional expressions of thematic roles are confined to the rightmost position in normal order, i.e., to the position immediately preceding the main verb in embedded clauses. Fanselow (2000b) presents arguments that imply that the dative is a lexical Case when assigned by verbs with a single acc > dative normal order, while it is a structural 18 Case when assigned by the other ditransitive predicates. The verbs with a single acc > dat order then fall in line with the generalization that exceptionally marked arguments must appear in normal order as much to the right as possible Normal Order and Prosody Different normal orders for the arguments of different verbs are a consequence of differences in the lexical decomposition of the predicate. (24) implies that arguments must be merged with a projection of the syntactic head that selects them. When co-arguments of a verb are selected by different syntactic heads (by v and V, respectively - this represents the prototypical case of a transitive verb), this narrows down ordering possibilities to one. When they are selected by a single syntactic head, their order is free. Deviations from the orders predicted in this way by (24) appear to have to be derived in terms of movement. Does that motivate a scrambling transformation? Closer inspection reveals that (24) allows an interpretation by which the need for deriving certain serializations transformationally disappears, while the distinction between normal and marked order can still be drawn in a principled way. Thus, the principal argument against base generation theories of free word order (see, e.g., Haider & Rosengren 1998: 30-31) turns out to be inconclusive. Scrambling theories and a model that generates all orders without movement both need a locality theory for the merge operation. (24) is such a locality theory 20 : an argument A can be merged with a projection P only if the head of that projection selects A as an argument. Up to now, we have interpreted this constraint in the context of two tacit assumptions, which imply that a single order only can be derived by merge for prototypical transitive predicates. These tacit assumptions are given in (25). Presumably, they amount up to the same thing. (25) a. The thematic roles selected by a head H must be assigned to arguments by merge before HP merges with a higher head Y. b. An argument merged to HP cannot receive a thematic role that is selected by a sublabel of H (= a head Y incorporated into H) 18 That dative can be a structural Case in German has first been argued by Wegener (1985). See Blume (1998, 2000) for a discussion of the relation between structural and lexical dative Case. 19 This may be due to an independent serialization constraint. Fanselow (2000b) derives it from the MLC, but in a way not fully compatible with the system used here. In the interest of space, I refrain from entering a detailed discussion. 20 In Fanselow (2001), the locality of merge follows from the locality of feature checking, because thematic roles are assigned when a predicate checks l-related features of a predicate. In effect, conditions for merge are thus reminiscent of HPSG mechanisms, see S. Müller (2001, 2002) for a discussion.

16 Consider a predicate like kill, that decomposes into [v KILL]. If (25a) holds, the bearer of the theme role must be merged with a projection of V = KILL before VP merges with v. Consequently, the theme role must be merged in VP. Likewise, if (25b) holds, a phrase merged in vp can only bear a thematic role selected by v, and not by V incorporated into v. Therefore, the specifier of vp cannot be anything but the agent in (26). (26) represents the only constellation that merge can generate if it is constrained by (25). (26) [ v agent v [ V [ V KILL] theme ]] In a certain sense, (25a) treats the assignment of thematic roles on par with the checking of strong features in Chomsky (1995): both processes may not be delayed for too long, they must, more or less, apply as soon as they are possible. There is no intrinsic need, however, for treating thematic roles like strong features. Suppose that (25) is incorrect, that is, that the linking potential for arguments is not eliminated after incorporation, which may be made explicit as in (27). Then free constituent order can be base-generated. (27) An argument A can be merged with a projection P only if the head of P (or a sublabel of the head) selects A as an argument. By replacing (25) with (27), one identifies an upper and a lower bound for the location of an arguments when it is merged. The lower bound is identical with the one that characterizes standard theories working with (25): no argument can be merged below the projection of the head that selects it. Therefore, the theme only can be merged in the complement position of VP in (28a). The agent cannot appear before vp is constructed. The new approach has a higher upper bound for merge positions of arguments, however. An argument can appear as high in the structure as the head selecting it 21. If A is an argument of H, and if H is incorporated into Y, then A can merge with YP. After the incorporation of KILL into v, the theme argument can also be merged as a specifier of vp. There are no restrictions on the order by which the agent and the theme merge with vp. By (27), the structures characterized in (28) can be generated in a merge process. (28) a. [ v agent v [ V [ V KILL] theme ]] b. [ v agent [ v theme [ v [ v v+kill]... ]]] c. [ v theme [ v agent [ v [ v v+kill]... ]]] For prototypical pairs of subjects and objects, (27) fulfils the requirements for an acceptable theory of free word order. Both linear arrangements of the agent and the theme are generated by merge, but a configurational distinction is made between normal order (that can, but need not, correspond to (28a)) and marked order (that only takes the shape of (28c)). The distinction between (28a) and (28c) is adequate because it combines easily with pragmatic theories that derive the distinction between normal and marked word order in simple transitive clauses from prosodic properties (Abraham 1993, Cinque 1993). Word order is normal/unmarked if it allows wide focus/focus projection. Wide focus can be projected from a phrase P bearing stress if stress has been assigned to it on the basis of the structural rule determining accentuation, i.e., if stress has been placed by something like the Nuclear Stress Rule. The Nuclear Stress Rule assigns stress to the most deeply embedded phrase in a clause. Objects can be merged in VP or in vp. If the former is the case, the object will be the most 21 In section 3.2., we will present independent evidence for the idea that arguments of P may merge with any projection into the head of which P as been incorporated. See also Fanselow (2001).

17 deeply embedded category. It receives stress by the Nuclear Stress Rule. Focus projection is possible, and word order is normal (=29a). According to (27), constellations such as (29b-d) can be generated by merge as well. The arguments can no longer receive stress by the Nuclear Stress Rule when they are merged in vp (because they are not the most deeply embedded categories). If they bear stress, focus projection is impossible, and word order is marked. (29) a. [ vp subject [ VP OBJECT verb]] b. [ vp subject OBJECT v [ VP V]] c. [ vp object SUBJECT v [ VP V]] d. [ vp OBJECT subject v [ VP V]] For prototypical transitive predicates, (27) implies that only subject before object order is unmarked (whenever it is structured as in (29a)), because it is the only one that allows focus projection/wide focus. Object before subject order is always marked - no argument appears in the lowest position of the clause in (29c,d), which excludes wide focus. The claim that basegeneration theories could not account for markedness differences between different sentence types as well as a scrambling approach thus proves to be incorrect 22. It is certainly an attractive property of a base generation theory working with (27) as its locality principle for merge that it can reconstruct the pragmatic difference between subjectobject- and object-subject-order. Nevertheless, one should not read too much into this result (and the corresponding consequence of scrambling theories). Theories that derive pragmatic markedness from the laws governing stress assignment in the preverbal position do not have too much to say about the distinction of marked and unmarked order for pairs of phrases other than those involving the direct object (or any other category that receives stress by the Nuclear Stress rule). The pragmatic difference we find in ditransitive sentences between [subject [indirect object [direct object verb]]] and [indirect object [ subject [direct object verb]]], or the pragmatic difference we find in transitive clauses between [subject [PP [ direct object verb]]] and [PP [subject[ direct object verb]]], cannot be explained in terms of the Nuclear Stress Rule along the lines sketched above. The derivational history of a clause cannot be made responsible for its pragmatic markedness either (see G. Müller 1999a, and above). Consequently, one needs surface based serialization principles such as Subject First! or Animate XPs First! that can be violated only if that is in the interest of respecting pragmatic ordering principles ( Place the focus in the rightmost position, see below, and see also Müller 1999b, Uszkoreit 1987). For the purposes of this paper, we need not worry too much about these amendments, however, since base generation and scrambling models do not differ in this respect: except for the presence of a trace, the two models assign the same representations to sentences. 22 The possibility that V receives stress by the Nuclear Stress rule in (29b-d) has to be excluded as well. If V could receive sentence stress by the Nuclear Stress Rule, focus projection should be possible- an incorrect prediction since stress on the verb does not render OS order pragmatically unmarked. Notice, however, that the incorporation of V into v is a necessary precondition for the wellformedness of (29). Therefore, the category that stress is assigned to is in fact the trace of V. Traces cannot realize stress, however, so that the PF output of such a derivation is illformed.

18 3 Altruistic Movement and Order Variation among Adverbs 3.1 Altruistic Movement (30) illustrates the notorious fact (see Lenerz 1977 for a first detailed description) that one can deviate from normal word order if the phrase that is placed to the left of its normal position is more topical or thematic than the phrase that it crosses (relative to normal order). Therefore, object was anything can rarely undergo reordering, because it is an unlikely topic, while object das that can easily be placed in front of a subject. (30) a. ob wer was gewusst hat whether anyone anything known has whether anyone knew anything" b. *ob was wer gewusst hat c. ob wer das gewusst hat whether anyone that known has whether anyone knew that d. ob das wer gewusst hat e. ob die was gewusst hat whether sie anything known has whether she knew anything f. *ob was die gewusst hat g. ob die das gewusst hat whether she that known has h. ob das die gewusst hat As mentioned above, it may be tempting to formally describe such facts by assuming that the scrambled phrase moves to the specifier position of a head with which it shares a [+topic] or [+theme] feature. There are at least two reasons for why one should resist this temptation, and one of them is that (absolute) topicality or thematicity is a sufficient, but by no means a necessary, condition for the availability of scrambling (see also Haider & Rosengren 1998). When one tries to identify the function of scrambling in German, one inevitably arrives at a negative formulation. A direct object is scrambled whenever the information structure linked with the clause either requires that a different expression is in focus, or that the object is not part of the focus. Recall from above that the direct object occupies the sister position of V in (31), so that it will be assigned the structural accent (focus accent) of the sentence by the Nuclear Stress rule (see, e.g., Abraham 1993, Cinque 1993, Samek-Lodovici 2002, among others). If it is not placed into a higher position (by movement or by merge), it cannot but be part of the focus of the sentence. (31) [ v α v [ V [ V V] β ]] Rosengren (1993) observes in her corpus analysis that objects often fail to occupy the preverbal position just in order to allow a different phrase to be in focus. That objects may be displaced in order to allow a further phrase to be in focus was also argued for by Krifka (1998) in the context of scope facts. A detailed model of the syntax-phonology interface which has the consequence that scrambling may be altruistic was proposed by Zubizaretta (1998): by moving to the left, the object allows the verb (or the adverb) to be in focus in examples such as (32). A similar model within OT was developed by Samek-Lodovici (2002).

19 (32) a. dass die Polizei gestern Linguisten verhaftete that the police yesterday linguists arrested "that the police arrested linguists yesterday" b. dass die Polizei Linguisten gestern verhaftete "that the police ARRESTED linguists yesterday" "that the police arrested linguists YESTERDAY" Negatively quantified NPs cannot be topical because they are not referential. Therefore, the data in (33) also suggest that there are at least some instances of deviations from normal order in which the displacement cannot be explained in terms of the information structure properties of the displaced phrase. Rather, it seems to go to the left to allow an other phrases to be in focus in (33) as well (33) a. Klar ist, dass man niemanden nach MITTERNACHT anrufen sollte Clear is that one noone after midmight call should "It is clear one shouldn't call anyone after midnight" b. Klar ist, dass niemandem das Medikament GEHOLFEN hat clear is that nobody the medicine helped has "it is clear that the medicine helped nobody" c. Klar ist, dass niemanden der BÜRGERMEISTER abholt Clear is that nobody the mayor picks up "It is clear that the MAYOR does not pick up anybody" Such an analysis of German word order is in line with results concerning word order properties of Romance languages. Catalan, e.g., has a focus system in which prosodic prominence is only possible at the right periphery of the clause. Whatever remains in the clausal projection IP at surface structure is included in focus projection. Thus, if a phrase is not to be included in the wide focus of the sentence, it must be removed from the clause. Likewise, the assignment of narrow focus to a phrase is possible only by removing all other phrases from of the domain of focus projection (see Vallduví 1992 for information structure in Catalan). "Altruistic" scrambling cannot be caused by an attraction of a head that bears information structure features - unless one is willing to assume that negative specifications can serve this purpose as well. The existence of such a position (defined by a head that may agree with everything but a focused phrase) would come as a surprise, however: there appear to be no languages with a [-wh] position (to which all phrases must move that are not positively specified for [+wh]) or a [-relative] position. 3.2 Adverb Order The examples in 3.1. show that scrambling cannot account for all permutations of arguments in German if it is conceived as an attraction of a phrase to an operator position. In at least some cases, the scrambled phrase does not have a pragmatic function of its own. There might be a further reason for rejecting the view that movement to operator positions explains the relative markedness of word order in German. Some adverb data discussed below allow an interpretation in which they lend support to the view that word order variation that can positively be described in terms of topic and focus cannot be explained transformationally. Unfortunately, empirical facts are not (yet) clear enough to allow firm conclusions.

20 Adverbs and adverbial PPs are no exception to the rule that word order is free in (simple) German clauses, and they also show normal order effects (see, e.g., Frey & Pittner 1998). (34a) is the pragmatically neutral way of conveying the information that Fritz slept under the bridge on Tuesday, while (34b) implies narrow focus on either the verb or the temporal PP. (34) a. dass Fritz am Dienstag unter der Brücke geschlafen hat that Fritz on Tuesday under the bridge slept has that Fritz slept under the bridge on Tuesday b. dass Fritz unter Brücke am Dienstag geschlafen hat that Fritz SLEPT under the bridge on Tuesday that Fritz slept under the bridge on TUESDAY The implications of this observation depend on a theoretical and an empirical issue. In syntactic theories of adverbial modification (Alexiadou 1997, Cinque 1999), adverbs are specifiers of functional heads. As such, they possess features to be checked, and do not differ from arguments in this respect. Consequently, one does not expect any difference between arguments and adjuncts with respect to normal order and reordering. In semantic approaches to adverb placement (Ernst 2001, see also Engels 2002), adverbs can merge with any projection they combine with semantically. There are no purely syntactic restrictions on their distribution, hence, adverbs do not enter feature checking relations of the l-related domain. Therefore, adverb scrambling cannot be formulated at all in second generation scrambling theories: there is no L-related position an adverb could be attracted to. Third generation theories do not exclude adverb scrambling - most adverbs are compatible with a specification in terms of topic and focus and could be attracted to corresponding specifier positions. Base generation and adjunction theories are neutral in this respect. Of course, there is no agreement in the literature as to whether adverbs undergo scrambling or not, but two empirical domains might settle the issue: island facts and quantifier scope data. In simple clauses, it is hard to find a difference between the word order properties of arguments and adjuncts (as long as the latter are not predicative). In clause union constructions (the coherent infinitive construction ), however, the scope of word order variation seems more restricted for adjuncts than for arguments. (35) illustrates that an object of a complement clause may appear in front of the matrix subject in clause union constructions, which involve an (LF-) incorporation of the lower verb into the matrix predicate. (35) a. dass [ TP niemand [ CP PRO den Peter zu fragen] versprach] that nobody the.acc Peter to ask promised that nobody promised to ask Peter b. dass [[den Peter i ][ TP niemand [[ CP PRO (t i ) zu fragen] versprach]]] Recall that an argument of a predicate P (fragen) can be merged with the projection of a different head Y (=versprach) if P incorporates into Y. Since clause union implies verb incorporation or complex predicate formation in nearly everyone s account, we can relate the word order in (35b) to (27). Therefore, (35b) can be base-generated. See Grewendorf & Sabel (1994) for a transformational derivation of (35b) that involves incorporation, too 23. Interestingly, this extended reordering option one finds in coherent infinitival constructions seems confined to arguments. 23 But see Cook (2001) for some evidence that suggests that information structure is crucial for the range of scrambling in coherent infinitival constructions.