TOPICALIZATION IN GERMAN: MOVEMENT TO COMP OR BASE-GENERATION IN TOP? Anna Cardinaletti üniversitä di Venezia 1. Topicalization in German is usually referred to as Vorfeldbesetzung: the topicalized constituent (not necessarily a subject) appears su­ perficially in the so-called Vorfeld, namely to the left of the fi­ nite verb . A topicalized structure in German is thus an independent sentence with the finite verb in second position (v/2) at S-structure, as shown in (l): (l) a. diesen Mann habe ich lange nicht mehr gesehen "this man have I long no more seen" b. ich habe diesen Mann lange nicht mehr gesehen Two different approaches to German Topicalization are found in the literature. Let us consider first the proposal originally made by Thiersch (1978), who formulates the rule system in (2) and the sen­ tence structure in (3): (2) R, : ...V r „. -, —> V... ' 1 (+tensej Thiersch (1978:38) 2 (-verb J (3) COMP Thiersch (1978:164) den Mann The rule R in (2) moves any X constituent to the COMP position on the left of the COMP position, to v/hich the finite verb has already been moved (from its underlying sentence-final position)2. This sug­ gestion iè based on the fact that Topicalization in German is a much more frequent and therefore less marked construction type than, for _ 20-3 _ instance, in languages like English. Furthermore, it can involve 3 almost any type of item with very few exceptions . Topicalization can therefore be accounted for in German by a general movement rule. Let us refer to this analysis as the movement analysis of Topicaliz­ ation. This analysis has, however, many important consequences which should receive more attention than is usually paid to them. The top­ icalization rule in German should be on a par with wh-movement in languages like English, for it moves something to COMP, even if it appears to move also non-wh-words as well as wh-words. This means, however, that COMP cannot be marked £+whJ in German, as appears to be the case for other languages, but it must receive different fea­ tures. Furthermore, since the trace which is left by the rule is in an A-position, is Case-marked and locally A-bound, it must be re- garded as a variable (that is, corresponding to a wh-trace in Eng­ lish, even if it is not always a wh-trace). But there is some evi­ dence in Italian, that it is not sufficient for a variable to be X- bound, as Cinque (1985) has pointed out; the notion of operator-bin- ding must be added to the definition of variable . Sentence (4) is in fact impossible: (4) * LN_ GianniJ ho visto L ej Cinque (1985:5) i i "Gianni (i) have seen" The NP Gianni in TOP, even if it A-binds the empty category J_eJ, cannot identify it as a variable, because it does not qualify as an operator. Since the empty category does not qualify as any other type of empty category either, the sentence is correctly ruled out. Since a sentence like (l) is possible in German, we must assume that in German, differently from other languages, any X (also a non-wh-word) can qualify as an operator for its own trace. Furthermore, since some parasitic gap constructions seem to be possible in German with a topicalized item , this would mean that -201 - a full NP might qualify as an operator for a parasitic gap: (5) diesem Kann, folgte ich t. ohne e. zu vertrauen "this man followed I without trusting" The other current analysis of German Topicalization is that first made by Koster (1978a,b) (cf. also Thiersch (1982)). He suggests that the topicalized item is base-generated in the sentence-initial n position in which it appears superficially, that is, m the X po- — 7 sition, sister-node of S, in the following structure : (6) Koster (1878b:201) This proposal is based on the similarity of the constructions of Left Dislocation (Linksversetzung) and Topicalization, which differ in Dutch, and in German, in the presence or absence (respectively) o£ the so-called resumptive d-word: (7) a. die man (die) ken ik Koster (1978b:200) "that man that know I" b. diesen Kann (den) kenne ich A topicalized structure is then to be derived from a left-dislocation structure through deletion of the d-pronoun by the rule of free de­ letion in COMP: the deletion leaves an empty category with feature [+whjf which binds an empty category in the S-internal A-position (cf. Koster (1978b:204)). This gives plausibility to the wh-analysis of Topicalization, first proposed by Chomsky (1977) for (English) Topicalization, also for Dutch and German. Note that the fact that Topicalization is a very freauent phenom- _ 205 _ enon in German is not an argument against this base-generation anal­ ysis. In fact, a language can use a syntactic configuration in a v/ay different from its use in another language, by involving more types of items or by using it in a greater number of situations. Last but not least, Koster's analysis has been vised extensively in the case of sentential subjects, and it seems to us that it v/ould be an interesting generalization to assume it for all types of top- icalized items. We conclude then that from a theoretical point of view the base- generation of the topicalized phrase in TOP is less costly than the movement analysis: it has the advantage of accounting for the sim­ ilarity of Topicalization and Left Dislocation in languages like German and Dutch, of preserving a generalization with other langua­ ges with regard to the sentence structure and the specification of o the COMP positions and of avoiding the parameter concerning the class of possible operators in German, which, as noted above, would be needed in an analysis like Thiersch's. 2. We v/ill now try to give some empirical evidence in favour of the base-generation analysis. We want to show that the COMP position is not open to just any type of constituents, as it is implied by the movement analysis. In order to do that, let us consider some left-dislocation struc­ tures. In the sentences (8), (9) and (lo), there is simtactic con­ nectedness (in the sense of Vat (1981)) between the phrase in TOP and the S-internal A-position: the phrase in TOP, even if in senten­ ce-initial position, behaves w.r.t. various grammatical principles as though it actually occupied the S-internal position where the d-pronoun is base-generated. For example, in (8) the dislocated phrase contains the lexical anaphor sich which is bound by the HP Franz, even if sich is outside of the governing category which con- - 206 - tains its antecedent Franz (informally, it is on the left of its antecedent). In (9) and (10), the connectedness involves a pronoun, seinen, which can be bound by a quantifier on its right, that is, a pronoun which is outside of the c-command domain of its binder. These properties guarantee that the following sentences are to be regarded as instances of Left Dislocation , that is to say, as sentence-grammar constructions, and not as some kind of discourse- grammar phenomena : (8) a. [einem Anschlag auf sich.J, I demj ist Franz, t. gestern L i j J knapp entgangenJ "an attack on himself that is F. yesterday with great difficulty escaped" b. | L einem Anschlag auf sich.J, Franz. ist t. [ demj gestern knapp entgangen! c. [einem Anschlag auf sich.J, gestern, ist Franz. LpdemJ t. knapp entgangen] (9) a. ("„seinen. Wagen], [ den] wäscht jeder, t. einmal im Monat NP 1 NF -> 1 J "his car it washes everyone once a month" b. [seinen. WagenJ, gestern hat [ den]jeder, t t. gewaschen 3 X 3 "his car yesterday has it everyone washed" (10) a. ich glaube,[= (Npseineni WagenJ, 1^ denj hat jeder, gestern t. gewaschen! J -1 "I think ..." b. ich glaube,[= [seinen. WagenJ, gestern hat [ denj jeder, t t. gewaschen] Why are sentences (8b,c), (9b), (10b) ungrammatical? Note that Thiersch's analysis would incorrectly rule them in as grammatical: in fact, the left-dislocated element would be base-generated in TOP and any other element of the sentence could have been moved to COMP 13 2 - 207. - In order to account for the ungrammatical status of the starred sentences, we could examine the possibility of setting up a condi­ tion on a left-dislocation structure to the effect that the d-pro­ noun must be obligatorily moved to COMP in order to be adjacent to the coreferential element in TOP. But this does not seem to be the right way to rule them out, since sentences like the following, 14 where the d-pronoun remains in the so-called Mittelfeld , are gram­ matical: (11) einem Anschlag auf sich., wer. ist dem gestern knapp entgangen? "who" (12) seinen. Wagen, wer. hat den gestern nicht gewaschen? "his car, who has it yesterday not washed" (13) a. den Artikel über sich., wenn Hans, den doch ironisch auf- li fassen könnte! "the article about himself, if H. it ironically understand could" b. den Artikel über sich., könnte Hans, den doch ironisch l l auffassen! In (11) and (12) a w(h)-pronoun has been moved to COMP instead of the d-pronoun; in (13), sentences with the^verb respectively in end position (V/E) and in first position (v/l), the d-pronoun cannot be moved to COMP for independent reasons. As a second hypothesis, we could appeal to the weight of the el­ ement which is moved to COMP .