Evidentiality and German Attitude Verbs

Volume 15 ssue 1 Proceedings of the 32nd Annual Penn Lingutics Colloquium University of Pennsylvania Working Papers in Lingutics 3-23-2009 Evidentiality and German Attitude Verbs Tatjana Scheffler DFK GmbH Projektbüro Berlin Article 21 Th paper posted at ScholarlyCommons. http://reposiry.upenn.edu/pwpl/vol15/s1/21 For more information, please contact reposiry@pobox.upenn.edu.

Evidentiality and German Attitude Verbs Abstract German attitude verbs usually embed that-clause complements. n addition, only certain verbs can also license clauses with matrix verb-second (V2) word order as their complements. These same verbs can also appear in slifting constructions. The main question addressed in th paper why only some attitude verbs allow these additional constructions. argue that in slifting, the attitude verb functions as an evidential parenthetical, elaborating on (Re, 1997) and a suggestion in (Potts, 2007), but contra (Wagner, 2004). The lexical meaning of the slifting verb (e.g., the preference information for 'hope') contributed as a conventional implicature. For V2-embedding, show that the attitude verb syntactically and semantically embeds its complement. Still, the evidential semantics the same as in slifting. What differs between the two cases the dtribution of the semantic pieces on the semantic dimensions of assertion and conventional implicature. n both constructions, only verbs that contribute an upwards eptemic component without factivity are compatible with the evidential semantics. Th working paper available in University of Pennsylvania Working Papers in Lingutics: http://reposiry.upenn.edu/pwpl/ vol15/s1/21

Evidentiality and German Attitude Verbs Tatjana Scheffler 1 ntroduction German attitude verbs usually embed that-clause complements (1). n addition, only certain verbs can also license clauses with matrix-like verb-second (V2) word order as their complements (2). These same verbs can also appear in slifting constructions (3) (Ross, 1973). (1) Regular that -complements: a. ch b. ch glaube, believe dass that Hause believe that has gone. möchte, dass want that want that goes. (2) V2 Embedding: a. ch b. * ch glaube, believe, t Hause Hause believe that has gone. möchte, geht want goes want that goes. (3) Slifting: a.,, glaube believe, t, believe, has gone. b. *,, möchte want, geht goes, want, goes. Hause. Hause Hause. gegangen gone geht. goes gegangen. gone gegangen. gone The main question addressed in th paper why only some, but not all, attitude verbs in German allow the additional constructions of V2 embedding and slifting. Given that there good evidence that th a semantic question, not purely a matter of syntactic argument selection, a related goal for th paper characterize the semantics of slifting and V2 embedding. Th particularly interesting in light of the fact that the sentences in (1 3) mean essentially the same. n th paper, argue that in slifting, the attitude verb functions as an evidential parenthetical, elaborating on Re (1997) and a suggestion in Potts (2007), but contra Wagner (2004). For V2- embedding, show that the attitude verb syntactically and semantically embeds its complement. Still, the evidential semantics the same as in slifting. What differs between the two cases, as dcuss below, the dtribution of the semantic pieces on the semantic dimensions of assertion and conventional implicature. n both constructions, only verbs that contribute an upwards eptemic component without factivity are compatible with the evidential semantics. 1.1 Structure of the Paper First, identify the class of verbs involved in V2 embedding and slifting. Then, given that the same class of verbs allowed in both phenomena, address the question of whether they are actually different constructions, or one and the same construction. n the next two sections, analyze the would like thank Maribel Romero, the anonymous reviewers, as well as different audiences at Penn for comments and dcussion of th work. All errors are my own. t. U. Penn Working Papers in Lingutics, Volume 15.1, 2009

184 TATJANA SCHEFFLER semantics of slifting and V2 embedding, respectively. argue that slifting a parenthetical construction with evidential semantics. V2 embedding involves, as show, the same evidential meaning as slifting, but contributes it differently on the semantic dimensions. 2 Slifting and V2 Embedding: Data n German, (essentially) the same class of verbs can be used in slifting as well as V2 embedding. V2 embedding and slifting are possible with verbs of saying, belief, imagination, and preference verbs like hope and fear. (4) a. b.,, (5) a. behauptet, claims, t schwanger. pregnant claims that pregnant. behauptet, t claims,, claims, pregnant. glaubt, t believes, schwanger. pregnant schwanger. pregnant believes that pregnant. b.,, glaubt believes,, t schwanger. pregnant (6) a., believes, pregnant. hofft, hopes, b.,, heute hopes that will come. hofft, heute hopes,, hopes, will come... On the other hand, factive verbs, downward eptemic verbs, some preference verbs (like wh and want ), as well as most negated and modalized verbs do not allow V2 embedding or slifting. See Table 1 for an overview of the verb classes involved. (7) a. * b. * (8) * Anna Anna bereut, regrets, sie she t Berlin Berlin regrets that she moved Berlin. weiß, heute knows, knows that will come. bezweifelt, doubts, Anna doubts that. (9) * { { wünscht sich whes / / will wants }, }, (10) a. * Anna Anna gezogen. moved. whes/wants that. glaubt nicht, believes not, b. * Anna Anna Anna doesn t believe that will come. will glauben, wants believe, Anna wants believe that will come. heute.

EVDENTALTY AND GERMAN ATTTUDE VERBS 185 + V2 embedding/slifting V2 embedding/slifting verbs of saying factive verbs verbs of belief downward eptemic verbs ( doubt, deny ) verbs of imagination hope / fear pure preference verbs wh, want it better 1 it possible Table 1: Compatibility of attitude verbs with V2 embedding and slifting. 2.1 Eptemicity So what the generalization holding among the verbs that allow V2 complements and slifting? A study by Truckenbrodt (2006) attempts explain, within a larger theory of the meaning of syntactic clause types, why certain verbs allow V2 complements, while others dallow th option (he does not dcuss slifting). He identifies an eptemic component of meaning associated with V2 clauses. A stereotypical example of a verb that has an eptemic component believe, but th also meant include verbs of saying. Truckenbrodt (2006) does not dcuss the exact nature of the eptemic component in great detail. Truckenbrodt (2006) centrally addresses different verbs of preference, because they do not uniformly license V2 complements. He notes the following contrast (h (56) and (57)): (11) Es t besser/es t ihr lieber/ hofft, sie t in diesem Fall in Berlin. t better/she prefers/ hopes she in Berlin in that case. (12) *will/*wünscht s sie t in diesem Fall in Berlin. *wants/*whes, she in Berlin in that case. Th shows that it better and hope allow V2-complements, whereas want and wh prohibit them. So what it that dtinguhes these two sets of preference verbs from each other? We can show here that these predicates differ with respect whether they allow a counterfactual use, i.e., whether they are compatible with our knowledge of the negated embedded proposition. Both want and wh are compatible with counterfactual situations. 2 On the other hand, it better and hope cannot be used if the embedded proposition not considered possible by the speaker. Thus, the possibility of their embedded proposition an important part of their meaning. (13) [Scenario: Uwe has teach two days per week every semester. He asking h wife for her preferences about when he should teach next semester. She says:] a. ch will, daß du überhaupt nicht arbeiten mußt. b. ch wünsche mir, daß du überhaupt nicht arbeiten mußt. c. # ch hoffe, daß du überhaupt nicht arbeiten mußt. d. # Es t besser, daß du überhaupt nicht arbeiten mußt. want / wh / * hope / * t better that you don t have work at all. Further evidence for th eptemic part of the meaning of hope from an example due Truckenbrodt: (14) A: Kommt heute? s coming? B: ch hoffe, dass er heute. / # ch will, dass er heute. hope he s coming. / # want him come. 2 Since both predicates are normally used talk about the future, we can only test counterfactuality in as far as it applies the future. Of course, in some sense, we can never exactly know about future events. But in practice, we can sometimes be pretty sure, for example what concerns our own plans.

186 TATJANA SCHEFFLER Questions about facts of the world (whether coming or not) can be answered using the verb hope. Th makes sense if hope indeed has a component that guarantees that the speaker holds its complement possible. Although B s answer not complete, it at least a partial answer A s question: think it s possible that he will come..e., t not the case that think that he will not come. On the other hand, want cannot be so used because what B wants at best irrelevant the question. Therefore, want him come sounds odd in th situation. To summarize, verbs that allow V2 complements and slifting are characterized by the fact that they do not allow a counterfactual use. That, they require possibility of their complement; whereas verbs that could be counterfactual do not allow V2 complements, or slifting. V2 embedding and slifting verbs include an eptemic component that claims a certain eptemic probability (not zero) for the complement. 2.2 Upwards-directed (15) A: Kommt heute? s coming? B: ch bezweifle es. doubt it. The attitude verbs that express an eptemic component can be sorted with regard an eptemic scale. Th scale ranges from zero belief of a proposition p (or belief of p) complete (100%) belief of a proposition p. Such scales are well known from the semantic analys of evidentials in languages that employ these devices, and have been used for the analys of modals (Potts, 2007). The eptemic component of a given verb expresses not only where on the scale one located, but it also gives a direction (similar mononicity): believe p expresses that the likelihood of p somewhere in between 0 and 100%, but also that the eptemicity upward. Th in contrast doubt p, which also ascribes a certain likelihood (between 0 and 100%) p, but further expresses the fact that if anything th likelihood going go down according the speaker. These observations are depicted graphically in Figure 1. Only upwards-eptemic verbs (like believe ) can license V2 embedding and slifting, but not downwards-eptemic verbs like doubt. 100% know believe doubt Figure 1: Eptemicity of know, believe, and doubt. Note that in determining the upward or downward properties of a verb relevant here, only the eptemic component of meaning important. For th reason, fear can license V2 complements just as hope can. Although the two verbs are opposed in direction on the preference side (if fear p, do not prefer p, whereas if hope p, do prefer p), they are both upwards directed in the eptemic component. n both cases, it implied that the agent considers p eptemically possible. (16) hofft, hopes, heute hopes that will come. Hause.

EVDENTALTY AND GERMAN ATTTUDE VERBS 187 (17) fürchtet, fears, heute fears that will come. Hause. 2.3 Without Factivity A final refinement the generalization drawn here needed. Since factive verbs are excluded, we observe that the eptemic component provided by the verb s semantics must not lead the p (100%) of the eptemic scale. 2.4 t s Better Re (1996:64) notes that in addition downward entailing verbs and negated or modalized verbs, preference verbs like it better are not possible in slifting (18). Th in fact not true for all preference verbs (since hope fine in slifting). Still, it a notable difference that it better allows V2 complements but not slifting. For now, why th the case has remain an open question. 3 (18) *,, t es it besser, better, t better that. We can therefore agree with Re (1996) that the classes of verbs that allow slifting and V2 embedding are the same; with the notable exception of it better : verbs that provide an upwarddirected eptemic component, without factivity, can license both V2 complements and slifting. 3 Slifting vs. V2 Embedding: One or Two Constructions? Slifting as well as V2 embedding are licensed for verbs with an upwards-eptemic component (excluding factivity). t has sometimes been proposed that slifting a subcase of V2 embedding, where an item has been extracted from the embedded V2 clause (Wagner, 2004). n th view, it said that just as extraction from some embedded that -clauses possible (19), extraction from embedded V2 clauses leads slifting (20). (19) Was i What glaubt believes,, dass that liest reads What does believe that reads? (20) Was i What glaubt believes e i e liest reads? What does believe that reads? However, despite the fact that the same class of verbs participates in both constructions, there are at least three reasons that speak against a unified analys of V2 embedding and slifting. First, it can be shown that the slifted phrase a parenthetical, interpolated in the clause which expresses its semantic complement. n contrast, the attitude verb heads the main clause in V2 embedding: V2 complements are in fact syntactically and semantically embedded under the attitude verb. Th can be shown by testing how slifting and the V2 embedding construction can be formed in a question. The German particle denn must be licensed locally by a question operar, that, it only possible in questions. We can therefore test which of the two clauses in slifting and V2 embedding the matrix clause by checking which clause allows the particle denn. 4 As a baseline 3 n fact, the reason for th mmatch equally likely be syntactic or semantic: on the one hand, the phrase it better differs from the usual attitude verbs in its syntactic makeup. On the other hand, it worth noting that it better factive when used with a that -complement. t loses th factivity in V2 embedding (since V2 embedding not allowed for factive verbs). 4 Re (1996) uses denn argue for a parenthetical analys of slifting, with slightly different examples. e i? e

188 TATJANA SCHEFFLER we can also test regular embedded that-clauses, for which it obvious which clause the matrix one (that can be questioned). (21) Glaubst Believe du you denn, PART, daß that er he (* denn) (* PART) Do you think that he has left? (22) Glaubst du denn, er t (* denn) Believe you PART, he (* PART) Do you think that he has left? (23) st er denn, glaubst du (* denn), s he PART, believe you (* PART), Do you think that he has left? gefahren driven gefahren? driven gefahren? driven (21) demonstrates that the question particle denn can only appear in the matrix clause of questions. The use of denn in (22) shows that you believe a proper main clause here. The V2 clause syntactically and semantically embedded, just like the that-clause in (21). n contrast, you believe not the main clause in the question in (23). The particle denn impossible in the slifted phrase, but fine in the clause that constitutes the semantic argument of the attitude verb. Second, slifted phrases are not semantically embeddable under other operars like because, whereas V2 embeddings are embeddable under these operars, just like sentences with regular that -complements. t? (24) nicht, not, weil because ich denke, think, daß that es it regnen rain wird. will won t come. The reason that think that it will rain. (25) nicht, not, weil because ich denke, think, es it wird will regnen. rain won t come. The reason that think that it will rain. (26) nicht, not, weil because es, it, denke think, regnen will wird. rain won t come. think the reason that it will rain. (25) means the same as (24), namely that s absence due my opinion that it will rain morrow. But (26) has a different meaning: here, the reason for s absence the actual rain, and not just my thinking that it will rain. Third, there no extraction from V2 clauses in German (Re, 1996). Recall that there one verb which allows V2 embedding, but not slifting: it better. Th would be inexplicable if slifting was merely a subcase of V2 embedding. Furthermore, the cases that most seem like extraction from V2, that are parallel the extraction from that -clause examples (19), cannot be extraction cases either, since it better does not allow them (27). Th example must be slifting, since it better would allow V2 embedding but does not allow slifting. (27) * Was What t es it besser better liest reads? What it better that reads? conclude that in their compositional semantic behavior, V2 embeddings act the same as embedded that -clauses, whereas slifting a different case. V2 embedding a case of proper syntactic and semantic embedding. n contrast, slifting cannot be a case of embedding: the behavior of a sentence remains unchanged whether or not a slifted phrase present. A parenthetical analys therefore appropriate, as defended by Re (1996). 4 Slifting as Evidentials n slifting (Ross, 1973), an attitude verb appears interpolated in the clause that constitutes its semantic complement (3). ts proper syntactic analys has been the subject of some dcussion for

EVDENTALTY AND GERMAN ATTTUDE VERBS 189 several decades. The reason for th that although the slifted clause has many of the properties of parentheticals (modifiers), the matrix clause nevertheless identifies its semantic argument, which leads mixed syntactic properties of the construction as a whole (see, e.g., (Simons, 2007:1039ff) for a summary of the dcussion). Consider (28). (28),, hoffe hope,, hope, will come. There are two major contenders for the structure of (28): The phrase hoffe ich ( hope ) could be analyzed as a parenthetical, or the sentence could be an example of extraction: extracted from the pic position of the embedded clause in the pic position of the matrix clause hoffe ich. The syntactic and semantic behavior of slifting (see section 3) expected if slifted phrases in German are analyzed as parentheticals, as proposed by Re (1996). Given th syntactic structure, the compositional semantics of slifting remains be determined. Th semantics should also explain why only some verbs are capable of appearing slifted, as well as their unembeddability. Th the pic of th section. Potts (2007) suggests that slifted phrases such as think function as evidentials. According h proposal, evidentials affect the eptemic threshold which associated with a conversation. Th threshold a context variable that determines whether the speaker sufficiently sure of a certain sentence utter it. Typical slifted phrases are hear, think, says. Slifting a way of expressing evidentiality in a productive way in languages like Englh or German that do not have morphological evidentials. For example, think would lower the threshold somewhat so that mere beliefs are assertable. hear lowers the threshold considerably, so that even hearsay evidence sufficient for the speaker make her utterance. The characterization of slifting verbs as evidentials takes care of their unembeddability, and nicely captures their functional similarity morphological evidentials in other languages. But the meaning of slifting verbs not exhausted by their evidentiality. Slifting a very productive way of expressing evidentiality in languages like Englh and German: many verbs with subtle meaning dtinctions can be used in the slifting construction. The eptemic component (lowering of the eptemic threshold) only one part of the meaning of these verbs. For example, consider the slifting verb hope : On the one hand, hope expresses a certain degree of eptemic possibility, similar (although maybe lower than) believe. On the other hand, hope has very clear lexical content expressing a preference for the positive outcome. Th component constitutes the difference between hope and fear as in (29 30). (29), hope, will come. think maybe will come ; and prefer him come. (30), fear, will come. think maybe will come ; and prefer him not come. Based on these considerations, am now in a position propose a compositional semantics for slifting. The meaning propose for a sentence p with slifting verb V two-dimensional: The main assertion of the utterance p, after the eptemic threshold of the conversation has been lowered (the function of evidentials). The actual content of the slifting verb V contributed as a side comment in the conventional implicature dimension (31). Th side comment dtinguhes hear from hope. (31) Assertion: T (p) C: V(p) (32),, hoffe hope,, hope, will come. (33) Assertion: T ( will come ) C: hope(, will come )

190 TATJANA SCHEFFLER Why, though, are only certain verbs able participate in slifting? Th, argue, a direct consequence of the verb s semantic properties. To show th, will dcuss the three broad types of verbs that are ruled out from slifting in turn: verbs without an eptemic component ( wh ), downward-eptemic verbs ( doubt ), and factive verbs ( know ). For the first case, consider the following example with the pure preference verb wh : (34) *,, wünsche wh,, wh, will come. Since verbs like wh do not have an eptemic component in their meaning, they cannot be used in an evidential function, modify the eptemic threshold provided by the context. The eptemic component of the attitude verb meaning necessary so that the eptemic threshold T can be changed. Second, downward eptemic verbs such as doubt are ruled out: (35) *,, bezweifle doubt,, doubt, will come. f example (35) was possible, it would contribute the following two parts: first, the speaker claims that will come (relativized a lowered eptemic threshold), and second, the speaker conveys h or her doubt that will come. These two contributions are contradicry. Th explains why (35) sounds funny and ruled out by the grammar. 5 Finally, the third class of verbs that do not allow slifting in German are factive verbs. (36) *,, weiß know,, know, will come. Factive verbs presuppose their complement. Thus the sentence (36) makes algether three contributions: the presupposition that will come, the assertion that will come (according the eptemic threshold), and the conventional implicature that the speaker knows that will come. The presupposition and assertion are clearly redundant, making the utterance very odd. n addition, the factive verb does not actually manipulate the eptemic threshold, since the conditions under which one can utter will come are not changed by adding know. Therefore, factive verbs cannot be used as evidentials in the slifting construction. To summarize th section, have proposed a two-dimensional meaning for slifting, with the lowering of an eptemic context variable (the eptemic threshold affected by evidentials) as the main contribution, and the attitude content of the slifting verb contributed as a side comment in the conventional implicature dimension. Th two-dimensional semantics predicts why only upwardseptemic (but not factive) verbs can be used in the slifting construction: (i) Only verbs with an eptemic component can affect the eptemic threshold (th rules out wh ); (ii) the asserted content (matrix clause) and non-asserted content (slifted phrase) must not clash (th guarantees upwards eptemicity and rules out doubt ); (iii) the point of the evidential manipulate the eptemic threshold: a factive verb does not lower the threshold and thus the construction does not feel like slifting. 5 There are some cases of downward-eptemic slifting verbs whose ungrammaticality not so easily explained (thanks Kai von Fintel for bringing th my attention). Consider for example: (i) *, Mary doubts, will come. n (i), the fact that m uttering will come and that Mary doubts th do not actually contradict each other. n fact, Mary and could habitually dagree, which would make Mary s doubt good evidence for me uttering a certain sentence. Still, slifting impossible. t seems that downward eptemic verbs are generally unable bind the eptemic threshold index needed for slifting. Why th the case in examples such as (i) must remain for further work at th point.

EVDENTALTY AND GERMAN ATTTUDE VERBS 191 5 Embedding of V2 Complements: Slifting in Reverse n th section, address V2 complements of attitude verbs. Based on the similarities and differences of the slifting construction and V2 embedding, and given the analys of slifting as two-dimensional evidentials as proposed in the previous section, put forward a new analys of V2 embeddings. argue that they as well contribute a two-dimensional semantics. But the meaning parts, although the same as in the case of slifting, are dtributed differently across the semantic dimensions for V2 embeddings, as can be shown by the compositional semantic behavior of both constructions. have shown above (section 3) that V2 embeddings are true syntactic and semantic embeddings. t follows that in the assertion dimension, V2 embeddings have the same meaning as regular that - complements. Th also expected because overall, V2 embeddings and sentences with regular that -complements are very close in meaning. However, unlike in that -clauses, the complement expressed as a V2 clause. would like argue that th V2 syntax contributes a second meaning, namely that the proposition p from the complement clause assertable given an eptemic threshold T. The indexical T affected by the attitude contributed by the matrix verb, parallel what happens in the evidentials (slifting). Thus, propose the following compositional semantics for a sentence with matrix verb V and V2 complement p: (37) Assertion: V(p) C: T (p) (38) ch hoffe, hope, hope that will come. (39) Assertion: hope(, will come ) C: T ( will come ) Th meaning for V2 embeddings completely parallel the meaning for slifting above, but the semantic pieces are dtributed differently over the semantic dimensions of assertion and conventional implicature, as shown in Table 2. slifting V2 embedding Assertion: T (p) V(p) C: V(p) T (p) Table 2: Semantics of slifting vs. V2 embedding. The closeness in meaning between slifting and V2 embeddings explains why the same class of verbs in German participates in both kinds of constructions. The three main problematic cases are ruled out for essentially the same reasons as were brought forward above for slifting. First, an eptemic component the verb s meaning clearly needed bind the eptemic indexical T. Th also argued (in different form) by Truckenbrodt (2006). A verb like want which expresses pure preference without any eptemic contribution cannot bind th indexical, and the C contribution of assertability given a certain eptemic index therefore fails. Second, if the attitude verb contributes a downwards directed eptemicity (such as doubt ), the two components of meaning in the assertion and conventional implicature will again clash. (40) * ch bezweifle, doubt, doubt that will come. (41) Assertion: doubt(, will come ) C: T will come The assertion states that s coming in doubt, and the C states that will come (which at least as likely as some index T). Th clash in opposing contributions leads the sentence fail. Third, since factive verbs already presuppose their complement p, it very odd add another side comment (C) stating the assertability of p.

192 TATJANA SCHEFFLER (42) * ch weiß, know, know that will come. (43) Assertion: know(, will come ) Presupposition: will come C: T will come An overt example attempting a similar effect also decidedly strange: (44) Sue knows that pregnant, # which by the way true. Thus, only matrix verbs that have an upwards-directed eptemic component (but are not factive) are possible in V2 embedding. n effect, the meaning of sentences with V2 embedding very similar the meaning of slifting sentences. n both cases, the same semantic parts are expressed, but they are dtributed differently over the semantic dimensions of assertion and conventional implicature. Th leads the different compositional behavior of the two constructions in German. 6 Conclusion The main question guiding th paper was find the exact semantics of V2 embedding and slifting in German, and determine why only some attitude verbs can be used in these constructions. The classes of attitude verbs that allow slifting and V2 embedding are essentially the same (except for it better ) in German, as show in section 2. argue that verbs with the given properties, namely upwards eptemicity without factivity, have some additional freedom when combining with their complement. n particular, these verbs can be used (1) parenthetically as slifting verbs, with an evidential-like semantics, or (2) as embedders of V2 complements that have their own assertability contribution. Th has the effect that slifting and V2 embedding contribute the same semantic content, but they dtribute it differently across dimensions. Th difference in the dtribution of meaning parts on semantic dimensions leads slifting and V2 embedding behave quite differently syntactically and semantically, as have shown contra Wagner (2004) in th paper. References Potts, Chrpher. 2007. Pragmatic dimensions: Quality and expressivity. Talk at the Penn Lingutics Speaker Series, University of Pennsylvania; slides available at: http://tinyurl.com/3y5n28. Re, Marga. 1996. Extractions from verb-second clauses in German? n On Extraction and Extraposition in German, ed. U. Lutz and J. Pafel, 45 88. John Benjamins. Re, Marga. 1997. Zum syntaktchen Status unselbständiger Verbzweit-Sätze. n Sprache im Fokus. Festschrift für Heinz Vater zum 65. Geburtstag, ed. C. Dürscheid and K.-J. Ramers, 121 144. Tübingen: Niemeyer. Ross, John Robert. 1973. Slifting. n The Formal Analys of Natural Language, ed. M. Gross, M. Halle, and M. P. Schützenberger, 133 169. Moun. Simons, Mandy. 2007. Observations on embedding verbs, evidentiality, and presupposition. Lingua 117:1034 1056. Truckenbrodt, Hubert. 2006. On the semantic motivation of syntactic verb movement C in German. Theoretical Lingutics 32:257 306. Wagner, Michael. 2004. Asymmetries in the syntax and prosody of verb-intial interpolated clauses in German. n Proceedings of Console X. University of Patras, Greece. DFK GmbH Projektbüro Berlin Alt-Moabit 91c 10559 Berlin Germany tatjana.scheffler@dfki.de