Ressources numériques en sciences humaines et sociales OpenEdition Nos plateformes OpenEdition Books OpenEdition Journals Hypothèses Calenda Bibliothèques OpenEdition Freemium Suivez-nous

Workpackages

Work Package 1: Multidimensional Cross-linguistic survey

In WP1 we are going to develop a database containing a survey about the complementation strategies of various languages. This will include a systematic and theoretically informed description of the relevant factors in syntax and semantics, such as:

History and morphology of the complementizers

    • Lexical source
    • Internal complexity (several components? in which order?)
    • Position within the clause (initial/final)

Compatibility with different verb classes (e.g. utterance, attitude, manipulative, etc.)

Relation to relative clauses (with different types of head nouns; distinction between restrictive/non-restrictive/free relative)

Relation to adverbial clauses of different kinds

Type of anchor within the matrix (empty, correlative pronoun, light noun, content noun)

    Work Package 2: Morpho-syntax and semantics of complementizers from a comparative and diachronic perspective

    In this Work Package we are going to investigate the morpho-syntax of different complementizer types and their semantic contribution both from a synchronic comparative and a diachronic perspective. Special focus will be put on internally complex complementizers, on complementizers that are as yet under-researched such as equative-based ones, and on the relation to the matrix clause via different types of anchors. In particular, we expect to answer the following questions:

          • What are the semantic contributions of the complementizers and of their subparts, when analysable?
          • What do complex complementizers reveal about the nature of the functional heads and their ordering in the embedded left periphery (C-domain)?
          • What can we learn from cross-linguistic, diachronic and dialectal variation? Or conversely: What makes it possible for some languages/varieties to use only one type?
          • What different types of anchor structures are there and what correlations are there between anchor types and complementizer types?
          • Two pilot studies will focus on equative-based complementizers and correlatives.

    Work Package 3: Verbal de-composition of clause-embedding verbs

          • Question 1: Is there a non-trivial correlation between (diachronic) derivation and selectional restrictions? The hypothesis to be tested empirically, is: Are those verbs that take an embedded clause with a nominal anchor (= direct object/accusative) originally attested with the -ên-suffix ‘sagen’? Do those verbs that do not provide such a syntactically licensed direct-object position and have to use a prepositional correlate (or genitive/dative pronominal in earlier stages) instead go back to the class with the -ôn-suffix ‘reden’? Verbs with a -jan (causative) suffix should again be able to license a direct object since causatives always introduce an ‘affectee’ into the structure (besides the initiator/causer).
          • Task 1: Work out and systematize the morphology of these verbs by a detailed diachronic investigation and compare it to contemporary derivations, also taking into account the expected variation.
          • Question 2: What exactly is the impact of these derivations on the argument structure? Can we distinguish between different types of anchors on a solid morpho-syntactic basis and why they sometimes show up as (complex) prepositions or as simple accusative pronouns (or as zero) and how can we account for the interpretative effects these alternations may have (presuppositional and/or discourse-anaphoric, cf. Axel-Tober, Holler & Krause 2016, Sudhoff 2016 and further contributions in Frey et al. 2016, den Dikken 2017)?
          • Task 2: Work out and systematize the alternating syntactic surroundings in which these derived verbs occur; check against the use of varying complementizers (in connection with WP1 and WP2); study the semantic effect of the different types of anchors.
          • Question 3: Do the parametric differences between the languages under investigation have an impact on the construal of the tripartite structure?
            German is a SOV language and has the complex prepositions illustrated above in its lexical inventory, i.e. the anchor is situated clearly in the matrix, whereas French and Greek as SVO languages have structures where the anchor immediately precedes the clause, giving the possibility of reanalysis (rebracketing as in Weiß 2019) such that the anchor can be analyzed as part of the embedded clause, (cf. WP2, pilot study 2).
          • Task 3: Comparative perspective throughout the investigations

    Work Package 4: Towards a generalized theory of clausal embedding

    In WP4, we aim to cross-examine the results of the previous WPs and explore to which extent the tripartite-structure theory can be generalized to the various types of adverbial clauses and, in a further step, to interrogative and infinitival complements. In parallel, we will explore to which extent asymmetries in extraction provide an obstacle to our proposed unified theory.