Preposition+determiner contractions in French and German.

Preposition-determiner amalgams in German and French at the syntax-morphology interface

Patricia Cabredo HofherrCNRS UMR 7023 Université Paris 8

The present paper examines preposition+determiner amalgams in French and German. I show that French and German P+D amalgams differ with respect to coordination: while German amalgams are transparent for coordination, French amalgams block certain coordinations. I propose that this is due to ta syntactic difference: German P+D amalgams correspond to two positions in the syntax, while French P+D amalgams occupy only one position. Adopting a model where morphology is split applying before and after the syntax, I argue that this syntactic difference of P+D amalgams corresponds to a morphological difference: German amalgams are post-syntactic contractions while French amalgams are inflected prepositions that enter the syntax as a single unit.

1. Introduction

In recent work the syntax-morphology interface has received particular attention (Ackema & Neeleman 2004, 2007; Embick & Noyer 2007; Stewart & Stump 2007; Williams 2007).

However, the relationship between lexical items and the syntactic structures that they are part of is still far from well-understood. In particular, different types of derivational theories make different assumptions about where lexical items enter the derivation. In early insertion models such as Government-and-Binding lexical items are present at the outset of the derivation [Chomsky 1981], while in late insertion models only the grammatically relevant features are present in the syntax and phonological and encyclopaedic information is not inserted until after the syntactic computation (see e.g. Distributed Morphology Halle & Marantz 1993, or the work of Ackema & Neeleman 2003).

For the study the interactions between syntax and morphology structures that display a mismatch between syntactic and morphological structure are par-ticularly interesting. The interface between syntax and morphology gives rise to at least two types of mismatches: (i) periphrasis where two words are paired with one

1 Patricia Cabredo Hofherr

syntactic terminal (see e.g. Stewart & Stump [2007]) and (ii) amalgamation, where what seem two syntactic terminals are paired with one lexical item.

The present paper takes mismatches of the second type as a starting point to gain a better insight into the workings of the syntax-morphology interface. I examine two cases of amalgamation, namely preposition + determiner amalgams in French and German. In German and French certain preposition + determiner sequences surface as words that amalgamate a P and a D (see 1/2a), while for other values of number, gender and case a preposition and a definite determiner appear in the syntax (see 1/2b):

(1) a. la maison du père (French) det.fs house de+det.ms father ‘the house of the father’ b. la maison de la mère det.fs house de det.fs mother ‘the house of the mother’ (2) a. die Reise zum Mond (German) det.fs journey to+det.ms.dat moon ‘the journey to the moon’ b. die Reise zu den Seychellen det.fs journey to det.pl.dat Seychelles ‘the journey to the Seychelles’

This contrast between amalgamated forms and sequences of two lexical items raises interesting questions with respect to the syntax-morphology interface. The first question concerns the level of the grammar at which the amalgamation of P+D takes place. Related to this is a second question: is the amalgamation a purely phonological phenomenon or does the amalgamation of P and D affect the syntac-tic terminals corresponding to P and D?

In what follows, I argue that the P+D amalgams in German and French do not behave uniformly with respect to the syntax-morphology interface. While German P+D amalgams are transparent for the syntax, French amalgams are not. The paper is structured as follows: I first present the properties of French amal-gams in detail and contrast them with their German counterparts. I pay particu-lar attention to coordination data of pps containing amalgams and I show that German P+D amalgams are transparent with respect to coordination, contrasting with French P+D amalgams which block certain coordinations. Section 3 devel-ops the analysis. Based on the behaviour of the amalgams with respect to coordi-nation I conclude that French and German P+D amalgams should be given two different analyses. I propose that French P+D amalgams occupy a single syntactic terminal that amalgamates P and D, while German P+D amalgams occupy two

Preposition-determiner amalgams in German and French 11

syntactic terminals. Adopting a model of morphology where morphology applies before and after the synax (as e.g. in the Split Morphology Hypothesis, Anderson 1986), I propose that French amalgams are inflected prepositions contracted in the lexicon while German amalgams are contracted in a post-syntactic morphological component.

Following Abeillé et al. [2003, 2004], I analyse French P+D amalgams as inflected prepositions that take a complement consisting of a nounphrase without the D-layer (Nmax in what follows).

German amalgams, in contrast, behave like a combination of a host plus a simple clitic in that the P+D amalgam leaves P and D transparent for coordina-tion in the syntax. Amalgamation of the P+D sequence in German is not purely determined by adjacency however – the syntactic relationship between P and D also plays a role: amalgamation can only take place if the determiner is the head of the complement of the preposition (see Riemsdijk 1998).

Finally, I argue that while the syntax of P+D amalgams in German is transpar-ent, the form of German P+D amalgams should not be analysed as a transparent host+clitic complex since the forms are suppletive and need to be stored in the post-syntactic morphological component.

Section 4 concludes the paper.

2. The data

2.1 The amalgams

The present study focuses on the following P+D amalgams. For French, I consider the amalgamated P+D forms for the prepositions à, ‘to’, and de, ‘of/from’.1

1. French has three weak prepositions à ‘to’, de ‘of ’, en ‘in’. The preposition en also appears in alternation contexts that involve a preposition and a definite determiner: where locative à would be followed by a determiner in a proper name, the form en appears.

(i) Il ira *à la France/en France he will-go A det France/EN France ‘He will go to France.’

I do not treat en with the other two prepositions since the facts involving en are clearly different (cf. Miller et al. 1997: 84). First, the change of a+ definite article to en only takes place for locative PPs (see (i)); other PPs introduced by a are not affected (see (ii)):

(ii) Il pense à la France/*en France he thinks A det France/EN France He is thinking of France.’


(3) a. à ‘to’: contracted forms au [o]/aux [o(z)] b. de ‘of ’: contracted forms du [dy]/des [de(z)]

For German, I will take into account the P+D amalgams found in standard German (see Hartmann 1980)

(4) The contracted forms in Standard German, (following Hartmann 1980)

Gender/Case an auf bei in um vor zuMasc Dat dem(= Neutr Dat)

am x beim im x vorm zum

Masc Akk den x x – x x x –Neutr Dat dem(= Masc Dat)

am x beim im x vorm zum

Neutr Akk das ans aufs – ins ums x –Fem Dat der x x x x x x zurFem Akk die x x – x x x –PI Dat den x x x x x x xPI Akk die x x – x x x –

x = case compatible with the preposition but no P+D amalgam– = case incompatible with the preposition

As the table illustrates, contracted forms vary idiosyncratically with each preposi-tion, depending on gender and case. Furthermore, there are no contracted forms for the plural.

2.2 Interactions with the complement

The first contrast between French and German P+D amalgams parallels a contrast between French and German definite articles. In French, the form of the P+D

Secondly, for the general amalgamated forms of à, de with the definite article, elision of the vowel in le blocks the amalgamated P+D form (see iiia), while for en we have the inverse: in cases where elision would take place en appears (iiib):

(iii) a. Je pense à l’homme vs. Je pense *au homme I think A det-man I think A+det man I’m thinking about the man.’

b. Je vais *à l’Iran vs. Je vais en Iran. I go A det-Iran I go EN Iran ‘I’m going to Iran.’ (Miller et al. 1997: 84))


amalgam and of the definite article depends on the phonological shape of the element immediately following the determiner (5): before V-initial noun-phrases the masculine singular article le changes to l’ (élision). In German, on the other hand, both P+D amalgams and definite articles are independent of the phonologi-cal form of their complements.

(5) a. J’ ai parlé à l’homme [ɔm] /au capitaine[kapitɛn]. I have spoken A det-man.m /a+det captain.m ‘I spoke to the man/to thecaptain.’ (P+D) b. J’ ai vu l’ [l] homme/ le [lǝ] capitaine. I have seen the man/ the captain.m ‘I saw the man/the captain.’ (D+N)

(6) a. J’ ai parlé à l’autre [otʁǝ] capitaine. I have spoken A det-other.m captain.m I spoke to the other captain.’ (P+D) b. J’ ai vu l’autre [otʁǝ] capitaine. I have seen det-other.m captain(D+N) I saw the other captain.’

Notice that the shape of the P+D amalgam does not depend on the shape of the noun as such: if a prenominal adjective intervenes between the determiner and the noun, the shape of the adjective will condition elision of the vowel(see 6b).

The following table gives the form of the P+D combination in all relevant cases:

(7) Interaction between amalgamation and élision

Complement à deMasc C-initial garçon, boy au garçon [a la] du garçon [du]Masc V-initial homme, man à l’homme [a l] de l’homme [dә l]Fem C-initial femme, woman à la femme [a la] de la femme [dә la]Fem V-initial aurore, dawn à l’aurore [a 1] de l’aurore [dә 1]Pl femmes aux femmes [o] des femmes [de]

aurores aux aurores [oz] des aurores [dez]hommes aux hommes [oz] des hommes [dez]garçons aux garçons [o] des garçons [de]

2. Obligatory amalgamation vs semantic differentiation

A second difference between French and German P+D amalgams is the status of the non-amalgamated sequence: in French, the P+D sequences that correspond to


the amalgams are ungrammatical – when the amalgamated form is possible, it is obligatory:2

(8) a. le père du garçon/ *le père de le garçon the father de+det boy/ the father de det boy ‘the father of the boy.’ b. il parle au garçon/ *il parle à le garçon he speaks À+det boy/ he speaks À det boy ‘he speaks/is speaking to the boy.’

In this respect German differs from French: when a contracted form exists, the non-contracted form is still available:

(9) a. Peter ist im Haus. P is in+ det.dat.ntr house ‘Peter is in the house. b. Peter ist in dem Haus mit den grünen Fensterläden. P is in det.dat.ntr house with the green shutters ‘Peter is in the house with the green shutters.’

(10) a. Peter ist ins Kino gegangen. P is in+ det.acc.ntr cinema gone ‘Peter went to the cinema. b. Peter ist in das Kino gegangen. P is in+ det.acc.ntr cinema gone ‘Peter has entered the cinema.’

2. With certain place-names both options are possible:

(1) Nous irons au Mans/ à LeMans. we will-go A+det Mans/ A LeMans ‘We will go to Le Mans.’

Since in the non-amalgamated case the sequence à le is observed that is categorically excluded for D-P sequences elsewhere, I consider that the two options are due to a hesitation in the analysis of definite determiner contained the proper name: speakers hesitate between a transparent analysis as a definite determiner (as in (ii)) or as part of the name (as in (iii)), which both exist independently.

(ii) Je pense au Soudan/ *à Le Soudan. I think A+ det Sudan/ A det Sudan ‘I am thinking of the Sudan.’

(iii) Nous avons pensé à Lemercier/*au Mercier. we have thought A Lemercier/*A+det Mercier ‘We were thinking of Lemercier (= a person called Lemercier a family name).’


When a P+D amalgam is available, the non-contracted sequence and the P+D amalgam differ in meaning (pace Wescoat 2007): the non-contracted sequences have anaphoric and deictic function, while the amalgams take over non-anaphoric and non-deictic definite uses Hartmann (1980: 179–80) (cf. Delisle 1988). The non-anaphoric and non-deictic definite uses involve semantic entities that are unique (Unika) either due to world knowledge or within the context:

(11) a. Uniqueness (world knowledge) the sun, the moon, the pope, the king b. Uniqueness in context: within a flat: the kitchen, the bathroom, within the social setting: the father, the mother, the priest, the doctor

on a ship: the rudder, the stern, the engine room.

As Schiering [2002, 2005] points out, the semantic distinction between anaphoric/deictic and non-anaphoric/non-deictic corresponds to the distinction between pragmatic and semantic definiteness [see Löbner 1985]. This distinction is gram-maticalised as a distinction between two types of definite determiners in a number of Germanic dialects and other languages (see Ebert 1970 for North Frisian, Krifka et al. 1995 for Bavarian, Hartmann 1982 for the dialect of Mönchengladbach, and Breu 2004 for Upper Sorbian).

Since amalgams and non-contracted sequences contrast in meaning, not all contexts allow both forms (Hartmann 1980):3, 4

(12) Obligatory amalgam: a. with proper names: am Main, zum Bodensee, zur Zugspitze on+det Main, to+det Lake-Constance, to+det Zugspitze

. Proper names qualify as Unika since they refer to a particular individual, nominalised infinitives are kind-referring and kind-referring nouns are unique since there is only one kind.

. As pointed out to me by Matthew Baerman, the use of amalgams also holds for the definite determiner that may appear with first names. First names are also used without determiners and therefore differ from the examples in (12a) here where the determiner is obligatory part of the name *(der) Main, *(der) Bodensee, *(die) Zugspitze:

(i) Ich war bei Max/beim Max/*bei dem Max I was at Max/at+det Max/at det Max


b. with infinitives i. P+infinitive ans Heimkehren denken to+det going-home think ‘to think of going home’ ii. with the prepositional progressive constructions: Er ist am/ beim Tanzen. he is at+m.dat/ near+m.dat/ danser ‘He is dancing.’

According to Hartmann (1980: 1972) and Nubling (2005: 112), if the noun is modified by a restrictive relative, the P+D amalgam is excluded (13a) and a full sequence of preposition and determiner has to be used (13b):5

(13) Obligatory P+D sequence: a. *Im/ In dem Haus, das verkauft wird, in+det.ntr.dat/ in det house which sold will.be wohnt Fritz. lives f

b. Sie geht zu dem Zahnarzt, der ihr empfohlen wurde. she goes to det dentist that to-her recommended was She goes to the dentist that was recommended to her.’

As is well-known, unique head-nouns such as proper names do not allow restric-tive relative clauses. It therefore seems logical that the semantically weak deter-miner that gives rise to an amalgamated form with the preposition is not felicitous in the examples in (13) since it signals uniqueness of the head noun, contrary to the context that implies a choice out of a number of houses or a number of dentists.

This reasoning cannot be correct, however, since there are cases where restric-tive relative clauses are compatible with a weak determiner on the head noun. In the following examples, relatives introduced by a P+relative pronoun are possible with a P+D amalgam (see (14a)). Again the distribution of P+D amalgams par-allels the distribution of weak definite articles in dialects that have two definite articles: in the Vorarlberg-dialect, for example, the weak article is preferred with

. Appositive relatives are compatible with a P+D amalgam:

(1) Fritz wohnt am Schloss, das übrigens renoviert wird. F lives at+ntr.dat castle, that by-the-way renovated is ‘Fritz lives near the castle, that by the way is just being renovated.’


a relative introduced by a P+relative pronoun (see (14b)) or equally possible (see (14c)) depending on the context.6

(14) a. Im Institut in dem ich vorher arbeitete war das in+ntr.dat/ institute in that I before worked was that kein Problem. no problem ‘In the institute that I worked in before this was no problem.’ b. s/ *des inschtitut wo i frühr gschaffat ho det.wk/ det.str institute where I before worked have isch bessr organisiert gsi. is better organised been ‘The institute where I worked before was better organised.’ c. mir hot s/ des inschtitut wo i frühr gschaffat ho me has det.wk/ det.str institute where I before worked have bessr gfalla. better pleased ‘I liked the institute where I worked before better.’

Notice that the example (14a) involves a noun that favours a functional interpre-tation and therefore a weak definite reading in extracted position in the relative:

(15) a. Ich habe im Institut gearbeitet. I have in+det institute worked ‘I worked at the institute (contextually unique institute).’

I interpret this possibility of having a relative clause with a semantically definite head noun as a result of the functional relationship between the speaker and the institute (= the speaker’s unique workspace at the time). In these examples we have a layered definiteness structure: for each time there is a unique institute (the speaker’s workplace at that time, semantic uniqueness), while the relative clause contrasts different unique institutes (workplaces) that the speaker may have been working at over time (pragmatic uniqueness picking out one instance out of a choice of instances, each instance being unique to a point in time but not unique atemporally). The analysis of the interaction of semantic and pragmatic definiteness with restrictive relative clauses is beyond the scope of the present article and I will leave the exact characterisation of layered definiteness as an open problem.

. I thank Gerhard Schaden for providing and discussing the examples (14c) with me.


In the examples that follow I will avoid relative clauses to exclude these cases of cross-classifying semantic and pragmatic uniqueness.

The preceding discussion of the semantic differences between amalgam-ated and non-amalgamated in German forms is crucial for the coordination data discussed in the following section. In French amalgamation is obligatory for P+D contexts corresponding to *de+le/*à+le and *de+les/à+les. Consequently, the question whether a determiner that is not adjacent to a preposition would have given rise to an amalgamated form if adjacent has a unequivocal answer. In German, however, amalgamated forms co-exist with the sequence of preposition and determiner. It is only the semantic difference between semantic and prag-matic definiteness that differentiates them. In the discussion of coordination I will therefore give the examples with sufficient context to make sure that the DP under discussion is interpreted as semantically definite and therefore would have given rise to an amalgamated form had it been the adjacent complement of the preposition.

2. P+D amalgams and coordination

In what follows I will examine the interaction of P+D amalgams with coordination.I will assume that the conjunctions used (Fr. et and Ge. und) are heads taking

the first conjunct as specifier and the second conjunct as complement (following Munn 1987; Larson 1990; Johannessen 1998; see Zhang2010: 20–33).

As pointed out by Borsley [2005], the conjuncts cannot be uniformly assumed to be phrasal since this would imply a deletion analysis for examples like (16a). However, a deletion analysis would predict (16a) to be synonymous with (16b), which is not the case since (16a) only involves 16 tunes while (16b) involves up to 32 tunes (as pointed out by Abbott 1976).

(16) a. Hobbs whistled and hummed a total of 16 tunes. b. Hobbs whistled a total of 16 tunes and hummed a total of 16 tunes.

Following Zhang (2010: 37), I will assume that specifier and complement have to be maximal projections in the sense advocated in Bare Phrase Structure (Chomsky 1994) i.e. a maximal projection is a projection that does not project further. Given this assumption coordinations of non-projecting verbs as in [whistled and hummed] are coordinations of maximal projections (none of the verbs projects, and the V-feature is percolated to the coordination since the coordinated verbs project).

Now let us consider the French data. As pointed out by Miller [1992], the appearance of P+D amalgam forms in French is not uniquely conditioned by


linear adjacency of the relevant forms, and thus cannot be taken to be a simple surface phenomenon (cf.discussion in Abeillé et al. 2003: 142–3). The same facts hold for de:7, 8

(17) J’ai parlé I-have spoken a. à la mère et la fille A det mother and det girl b. *au père et la mère A+det.m father and det mother c. *à le père et la mère A det.m father and det mother d. *à la fille et le garçon A det.f girl and det.m boy e. à la fille et l’autre garçon A det.f girl and det.m+other boy (Miller 1992)

Examples (17a/e) show that for non-contracting P+D sequences, coordination is possible independently of the grammatical gender of the second conjunct. Examples (17b) provides evidence that a contracted P+D form does not allow conjunction with a DP while (17d) shows that the phenomenon is not only operative under adjacency: conjunction is also blocked if the preposition would form a amalgam with the definite article of the second conjunct if they were adjacent. Finally, example (17c) shows that the sequence à+le is not a possible repair for the coordination structure since amalgamation of P+D is obligatory where possible.

In German the P+D amalgams also interact with coordination. The pre-scriptive grammar Dosdrowski et al. (1984: 222) recommends that the P+D amalgams should not combine with two nouns with different determiner forms;

. The grammaticality judgements here are relative: certain speakers do not accept omission of the preposition in the second conjunct with the weak prepositions à, de, en. The speakers that permit the omission, only permit it in cases without P+D amalgams as reported in (17).

. The coordination of two masculine nouns is also unacceptable:

(i) a. *au père et le fils A+det.m father and det son

b. *a le père et le fils A det.m father and det son


according to the Duden-Grammar the preposition has to be repeated in these contexts:

(18) a. Wir erkannten sie am Gang und ?der we recognised her at+det.dat.m gait and det.dat.f Haltung/ an der Haltung. demeanour/ at det demeanour b. Er berichtete über die Arbeit der Abgeordneten He reported on the work det.gen members of parliament im Plenum und ?den Kommissionen/ in in+det.dat.ntr assembly and det committees/ in den Kommissionen. det committees. (Dosdrowski et al. 1984: 222)

The examples from the Cosmas II corpus of the Institut für Deutsche Sprache9 show that the interaction is more complex, however. In fact, both coordination under a P+D amalgam and repetition of the preposition occur:

(19) a. In zwölf Komitees wurden Themen diskutiert und Resolutionen in 12 committees were themes discussed and resolutions verabschiedet, die ans Europaparlament und an die passed that to+det European-parliament and to det entsprechenden europäischen Institutionen weitergeleitet werden. corresponding European institutions passed-on were b. In zwölf Komitees wurden Themen diskutiert und Resolutionen in 12 committees were themes discussed and resolutions verabschiedet, die ans Europaparlament und die passed that to+det European-parliament and det entsprechenden europdischen Institutionen weitergeleitet werden. corresponding European institutions passed-on were (= institutions within the European parliament)

The semantic effect of repetition vs non-repetition of the preposition can be char-acterised as follows:

(20) Repetition of the preposition indicates that the two members of the coordination are independent of each other, while coordination under a single preposition favours an interpretation that the coordinated dps are parts of a larger whole.

. In what follows the examples are taken from https:/cosmas2.ids-mannheim.de/cosmas2-web/menu.home.do unless indicated otherwise. For a description of the corpus see http:/www.ids-mannheim.de/cosmas2/referenz/korpora.html.


This difference is illustrated by the following coordinations of infinitives:10

(21) With infinitives: a. Am Mittwochmorgen ging’s ans Packen und Putzen. on Wednesday-morning went-it at+det pack and clean ‘On Wednesday morning they started packing and cleaning.’ (=one

complex activity) b. Seit der Eröffnung am 2. Oktober kommen Berliner und since the opening on 2 October come Berliners and Besucher der Hauptstadt zum Bummeln und Bewundern visitors det.gen capital to+det stroll and admire. ‘Since the opening on October 2nd locals and visitors of the capital

come to stroll along while admiring.’ (=one complex activity) c. Die Ukrainerin denkt nicht ans Heimkehren und the Ukrainian thinks not to+D return-home and ans Feiern. to+D celebrating ‘The Ukrainian does not think about returning home and about

celebrating.’ (= two separate activities)

The activities in (21a/b) are potentially parallel or alternating over a period of time, supporting the interpretation as a single whole. Contrasting with this, the activities in (21c) – returning home and celebrating – are temporally ordered one after the other.

A clear example of a coordination meant as a larger whole is provided by coor-dinations of a DP with a second DP introduced by a possessive that is co-referen-tial with the first DP:

(22) a. Schöne Erinnerungen ans Christkind und seine Gaben beautiful memories to+det Christkind and his gifts ‘beautiful memories of the Christkind and its gifts’ (Christkind = German equivalent of Father Christmas)

1. To form a larger whole the two conjuncts apparently have to be of the same syntactic type: when one of the activities is expressed as an infinitive and the other as a noun, the prepo-sition is repeated:

(i) Am nächsten Tag ging es ans Packen und an den on+det next day went it at+det pack and at det

grossen «Heimputz». big hostel-cleaning

A98/JAN.06215 St. Galler Tagblatt, 31.01.1998;


b. Organisationschef Herbert Gunz bedankte sich beim Organiser H G thanked refl at+det Direktor und seiner von Markus Dietrich geleiteten director and his by M D managed Spielcasino-Crew für das Engagement rund um Casino-crew for det active-help around die Miβwahl (...) det beauty-pageant (...) ‘The main organiser Herbert Gunz thanked the director and his

casino-crew which is managed by Markus Dietrich for their active help with the beauty-pageant [...]’

Note that this particular configuration also allows coordinations under French P+D amalgams:11

(23) a. Depuis plusieurs letters ouvertes envoyées au President et after several letters open sent to-the president and son premier ministre, le PCC a fait fermer son cabinet his prime minister the PCC has made close his cabinet d’avocat pour un an. of-lawyer for a year ‘ After several open letters that were sent to the President and his prime

minister, the PCC had his law-firm closed for a year.’

11. The examples given are attested at: http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Politique religieuse de la RPC http://rhonealpes-volley.fr/modules/newbbex/viewtopic.php?topic_id=385&forum=. My informants also confirmed that there is no acceptability difference between the pairs in (i) and (ii): in the a.-examples we have P+D amalgam with a masculine singular definite determiner, while in the b.-examples we have a P+D sequence with a feminine singular defi-nite determiner:

(i) a. Il s’adresse au presidént et son cabinet. he speaks A-det president and his cabinet

b. Il s’adresse à la ministre et ses conseilleres. he speaks A det minister.(fem) and her advisors

(2) a. Il renvoie le problemè au parlement europeen et he hands-over det problem A-the european parliament and

ses institutions. its institutions

b. Il renvoie le problème à la cour de cassation et he hands-over det problem At he court of appeal and

ses juges. its judges


b. avec du retard, j’adresse un grand merci au président with delay I-address a big thank you to-the president et son équipe d’avoir répondu rapidement et and his team for-having responded quickly and efficacement à cette attente. effectively to this expectation ‘With some delay I thank the president and his team for having

responded to this expectation quickly and effectively.’

In the analysis below I propose that the difference between (23) and (17) has to be attributed to a syntactic difference between coordination of a DP with a comitative phrase in (23), while the examples in (17) are coordinations of inde-pendent DPs.

There is further data from the Cosmas II Corpus showing that the potential P+D amalgams for the first preposition does not block coordination of two prepo-sitions in German.12

Coordination of prepositions is possible even if the first P would appear in the contracted form if placed next to the determiner as shown by the examples (24/25b):13

12. An anonymous reviewer points out that Right Node Raising allows the same type of mismatches between amalgamated forms and full sequences

(i) Hans fotografiert die Fische im, und Lisa zeichnet die Vögel auf H photographs the fishes in+det and Lisa draws the birds on

dem Wasser the water

‘Hans takes photos of the fish in and Lisa draws pictures of the birds on the water.’

(ii) Der Verein hat schon viele Projekte auf dem und der Stadtrat The club has alrady many projects on the and the city-council

plant weitere Massnahmen im Schlossberg plans other measures in+det castle-mount

‘The club already has many projects on and the city council plans other measures in the castle-mount.’

As the analysis of Right Node Raising is controversial in its own right, I will leave the analysis of this open here.

1. Notice that French à and de cannot be coordinated (see Miller 1992: 153). This cannot be due entirely to the fact that both are weak prepositions since the weak preposition de can be coordinated with other prepositions as in un film de etavec Woody Allen ‘a film by and with Woody Allen’. Part of the reason that the coordination of à and de is not felicitous should be attributed to the fact that à and de are not of the same semantic type: while à is a stative loca-tive preposition which can only specify a path introduced by the main predicate, while de is a dynamic preposition denoting a path by itself [Bonami 1999].


(24) a. (Vor nunmehr knapp zwei Jahren haben sich Regisseur Georg Riha und sein Teamzu dieser naturwissenschaftlichen St.- Stephans-Expedition aufgemacht, um der Frage nachzugehen: “Ist der Steffi ein Biotop?”)

Dabei stieβen sie im Laufe der Zeit auf eine during.this found they in course of.det time prt a wundersame Tier- und Pflanzenwelt in und auf bizarre animal- and plant-world in and on dem Dom: the cathedral: (Raubtiere wie Falken und Marder, exotische Schmetterlinge, wie

der chinesische Riesenfalter, mikroskopisch kleine Vertreter der “Weih-wasserfauna”, und sogar Baume).

‘(Two years ago director G.R. and his team went on this scientific exploration of the St-Stephen (cathedral) in order to answer the question: is the Steffi a habitat?) In the course of this exploration they found a bizarre animal- and plant-world in and on the cathedral: (predators like falcons and ferrets, exotic butterflies, like the Chinese Giant butterfly and microscopic representatives of the Holy-water-fauna, and even trees.)’ (Cosmas II)

b. (...) eine wundersame Tier- und Pflanzenwelt im Dom. (...) a bizarre animal- and plant-world in-the cathedral

(25) a. In dieser Ferienwoche tauchen Teilnehmer - höchstens in this holiday-week dip participants at most bis zu den Knien – in den Neckar ein und erforschen das to their knees in the Neckar in and explore the Leben in und auf dem Fluss. (Cosmas II) life in and on the river ‘In this week of the holidays the participants dip into the Neckar – at

most to their knees – and explore the life in and on the river.’ b. (...) und erforschen das Leben im Fluss. (...) and explore the life in+det river

These examples show that the coordination of two prepositions taking a seman-tically definite complement is not hampered by the fact that the determiner and P1 would have contracted under adjacency:

(26) in und auf dem Dom [CoordP P1 [Coord’ und P2]] [DP D cathedral] in and on det cathedral

As the following examples show, a P+D amalgam can also be coordinated with another P+D amalgam (27a) or with a P–D sequence (27b/c).


(27) a. Two P+D amalgams: (...), drängt es die ganze Bevölkerung ins Freie (...) pushes expl the whole population into-the open-air, Ins Grüne, ans und aufs Wasser. into-the green-space at+det.acc and on+det.acc water b. P+D amalgam plus P–D sequence: Dann standen für die Männer einige Übungen then stood for the men a-few exercises im und auf dem Wasser an in+det.dat and on det.dat water on ‘then the men had to do some exercises in and on the water (...)’ c. P–D sequence plus P+D amalgam: Verschiedene Vorhaben des Dillenburger Museumsvereins auf different projects det.gen Dillenburgish museum-club on dem und im Schlossberg möchten die Handwerk +det.dat and in-+det.dat castle-mount want the craft- smeister und die anderen Projektgruppenteilnehmer umsetzen masters and the other project-group-participants put-into-

practice. ‘The craft-masters and other participants of the projectgroup want

to put several projects ot the Dillenburg Museum-club into practice.’ (www.grafenlager.de/presse/zeitung-03.pdf)

The distribution of P+D amalgams is parallel to the distribution of sequences of P and D as example (28) shows.

(28) P–D sequence plus P–D sequence Solartechnologie an dem und auf dem eigenen Haus solar-technology at det and on det own house ‘solar-technology at and on your own house.’

This suggests that the syntactic structure associated with a P+D amalgam is the same as that for a sequence of P and D. Since the parallel coordinations with a DP introduced by a numeral have a reading corresponding to two separate DPs (29), the structure involving ellipsis of the missing constituent under identity (indicated here by strikethrough of the elided constituent) is the most plausible one in this case (30):14

1. Notice that in the example above involving coordination of two Ps the interpretation of a numeral suggests that a single DP is involved:

(i) an und auf zwei Kirchen at and on two churches = maximum of 2 churches


(29) an zwei und auf drei Häusern at two and auf three houses = maximum of 5 houses possible

(30) Coordination of two PPs + ellipsis a. an dem [eigenen Haus] und auf dem [CoordP [PP P [DP D [eigenen Haus] [Coord’ und [PP P [DP D [NP at det and on det eigenen Haus own house] own house = (28) b. ans Wasser und aufs Wasser [CoordP [PP P [DP =D Wasser]] [Coord’ und [PP P [DP =D Wasser]]]] at-det and on-det water = (27a) c. im Wasser und auf dem [CoordP [PP P [DP =D Wasser]] [Coord’ und [PP P [DP D in-det and on det Wasser Wasser]]]] water = (27b) d. auf dem Schlossberg und im [CoordP [PP P [DP D ]] [Coord’ und [PP P [DP = D on det and in-det Schlossberg Schlossberg]]]] palace-mount = (27c)

The determiner in the P+D amalgam is also transparent for coordination of prepo-sitions, as (31a) shows. The determiner contained in the P+D amalgam im has to be independent of the P1+P2-coordination, since the preposition an followed by a count singular without a determiner does not yield a grammatical PP (31b). The example (31c) shows that the same is true for a preposition that does not have an amalgam-form for this P+D combination:

(31) a. P can be coordinated with a P+D amalgam: Er wurde bereits überregional bekannt mit geheimnisvollen, he became already widely known with mysterious farbigen Architektur-Beleuchtungen wie der pfälzischen colourful architecture-lighting as the palatine “Burgenröte” 1998, der Lichtinstallation an Reddening-of-the-castles 1998 the lighting at


und im Historischen Museum Speyer and in+det Historical museum Speyer (...) (und jungst auch mit dem magischen Leuchten, in das er das Rathaus

Bielefeld tauchte.) (Cosmas II) (and recently also with the magical lighting that he steeped the

Town-hall Bielefeld in.) b. (...) mit (...) [der] Lichtinstallation *an/ am (... with. ) the lighting at/ at+det Historischen Museum (...). Historical museum (...) c. (...) mit (...) [der] Lichtinstallation *auf/ auf dem (...with...) the lighting on/ on det Historischen Museum (...). Historical museum (...)

The examples above show that the determiner P+D amalgams is transparent for coordination of two PS. The structure of (31a) has to be parallel to the structure of a non-contracting P+D sequence where the D takes scope over a coordina-tion of two Ps (32a) even though the D-element is fused with the last P (32b) and therefore word-boundaries do not align with phrase-boundaries in this case:

(32) a. an und in der Stadtkirche [[CoordP p1 [Coord’ und P2]] [D town-church]] b. an und im Historischen Museum [[CoordP p1 [Coord’ und P2]]=D Historical Museum]

Finally, as already illustrated in the examples (21a/b) two nouns can be coor-dinated under a P+D amalgam. This configuration is possible for nouns that allow a parallel interpretation – this is easier with nominalisations (33a/b), but also possible with abstract nouns (33c). Notice that in all three exemples the coordination of two Ns has a common complement (a PP in (33a/b), a genitive NP in (33c)):

(33) a. wem es nichts ausmacht die wunderbaren Werke im whom it nothing matters the wonderful works in+det Geschrei und Gewühl von Mensch en massen zu sehen screaming and heaving of masses of people to see ‘Whoever doesn’t mind to see the wonderful works among the

screaming and heaving of masses of people’ reisen.ciao.de/Musee-du-Louvre-Paris-Test-2422285, 23 February 2010


b. Sir Peter Ustinov Institut zur Bekämpfung und Erforschung Sir Peter Ustinov institute to+det fighting and research von Vorurteilen of prejudice ‘the Sir Peter Ustinov institute for fighting and studying prejudice’

www.ustinov.at/content1. htm c. Der Artikel “Klatsch und Verrat” widmet sich dem the article gossip and treason dedicates refl det moralischen Dilemma, dem folgend der Journalismus sich moral dilemma det following det journalism refl am Unglück und Elend anderer mästet. at+det misfortune and unhappiness others feeds ‘The article “Gossip and treason” examines the moral dilemma, at

the root of the fact that journalism feeds on the misfortune and un-happiness of others.’ www.taz.de/nc/1/archiv/

The structure of the examples in (33) is as given in (34a). The example in (34b) shows that the two Ns can also be coordinated under a single D:

(34) a. im Geschrei und Gewiihl von Menschen [P+D [N’ [CoordP N1 [Coord’ und N2]] of people]] b. Das Geschrei und Gewühl der Menschenmassen im det screaming and heaving det.gen masses-of-people in-det Louvre kann nerven. Louvre can annoy. ‘The screaming and heaving of the masses of people in the Louvre can

be annoying.

The data discussed in this section can be summarised as follows:

(35) a. A P+D amalgam can introduce two coordinated DPs (Example 19). ans Europaparlament und die entsprechenden to+det European-parliament and the corresponding europäischen Institutionen European institutions b. Two P+D amalgams can be coordinated (Example 27a). ans und aufs Wasser at+det.acc and on+det.acc water c. A P+D amalgam can be coordinated with a P+D sequence in either order (Example 27b/c). im und auf dem Wasser in+det.dat and on thedet.dat water


auf dem und im Schlossberg on det.dat and in-+det.dat castle-mount d. Two Ps can be coordinated over a DP whose D would amalgamate with the first P if adjacent (Example 24a). in und auf dem Dom vs im Dom in and on the cathedral in+det.dat cathedral e. Two Ps can be coordinated over a DP where the D amalgamates with

the second P (Example 31). an und im Historischen Museum Speyer at and in+det Historical museum Speyer f. 2Ns can be coordinated under a P+D amalgam (Example 33). Sir Peter Ustinov Institut zur Bekämpfung und Erforschung Sir Peter Ustinov institute to+det fighting and research von Vorurteilen of prejudice ‘the Sir Peter Ustinov institute for fighting and studying prejudice’

Along with the examples containing P+D amalgams we have seen that P+D amal-gams can appear in all contexts where P–D sequences can appear. It emerges fur-thermore that in German the preposition and the semantically weak determiner corresponding to an amalgam form are realised as an independent preposition and determiner respectively if they are not adjacent due to coordination (35d). Finally, the determiner in a P+D amalgam is transparent for the syntax (35a/c/e).

. The analysis

An analysis of P+D amalgams has to answer two questions: (i) What is the syntac-tic structure underlying the amalgam? and (ii) In which component of the gram-mar does the amalgamation of P and D take place?

For both French and German it is clear that an analysis in terms of phonological contraction is not appropriate (see Hinrichs 1986 for German). In homophonous environments that do not contain a definite article no amalgam appears (see (36) for German, and (37) for French).

(36) no amalgam with relative pronouns15

Das Haus, in dem/ *im Fritz wohnt, wird verkauft. the house in which/ in+ntr.dat Fritz lives will-be sold ‘the house that Fritz lives in will be sold’ (German)

1. Relative pronouns are homophonous with definite articles for part of their paradigm, for discussion and analysis see Wiltschko [1998].


(37) a. P+clitic pronoun vs P+definite article Jean a peur de le mettre/ *du mettre. Jean is afraid de cl.ms wearV/ de+le-amalgam wearV ‘Jean is afraid to put it on.’ b. Jean a peur du maître/* de le maître. Jean is afraid de+det.ms masterN/ de det.ms masterN ‘Jean is afraid of the master.’ (French)

I will propose a morphological analysis of P+D amalgams, placing the amalgama-tion in the morphological component. In the literature, two types of analyses for P+D amalgams have been proposed: (i) inflected prepositions and (ii) portman-teau morphemes.

Inflected prepositions are single words that combine features of P, definite-ness and gender/number/case (see 38a), they occupy a single syntactic posi-tion and select a DP without D as complement (Nmax in what follows) (see 38b). Analyses in terms of inflected prepositions have been proposed by Hinrichs [1986] for German, Napoli & Nevis [1987] for Italian, Abeille et al. [2003] for du/des/au/aux in French and Schiering [2005] for a dialect of German, Ruhrdeutsch.16

(38) a. Inflected prepositions: Pfl: au= à [+def,+m,+sg] b. Syntactic structure: PP = Pfl + Nmax (one syntactic terminal terminal

for P+D) (where Nmax = nounphrase without the D)

PP

Pf l Nmax

Zwicky (1987: 215) proposed an analysis of French en (corresponding to à la/à l’ in locative expressions with proper names) as a portmanteau, defined as a marked mapping of syntax and morphology where two syntactic terminals are matched with a single morphological object.

(39) a. Portmanteaux Zwicky (1987: 215): i. (simple morphological object) au = à [+D,+m,+sg]

1. Notice that inflected prepositions in the sense understood here are different from inflected prepositions in Semitic or Celtic languages in two respects. First, Semitic and Celtic prepositions inflect for person and number and second, these inflections have a complete paradigm for the different person/number combinations of the language (see e.g. Stump 1989; McCloskey & Hale 1984).


P

P

à [+D, +M, +SG]

ii. complex morphological object au= [à + ART[+D,+M,+SG]]P

P

P

à

ART [+D, +M, +SG]

b. Syntactic structure: PP = P + [ART [+D] + N’] (two syntactic terminals)

PP

P DP

D NP

The analysis proposed here takes a position on two questions: (i) do the amal-gams occupy one or two positions in the syntax? and (ii) how does the matching between morphology and syntax take place for portmanteaux?

Essentially, I assume a model of morphology as split into a pre-syntactic and a post-syntactic component (as proposed e.g. the Split morphology hypothesis [Anderson 1986], or a modified version of Distributed Morphology [Embick 2007b]): amalgamated forms can then be inserted before or after the syntax. I pro-pose an analysis according to which the lexical material associated with French amalgams is inserted pre-syntactically, while the lexical material of German amal-gams is inserted post-syntactically.

In Sections 3.1 and 3.2 I discuss the German and French cases in turn.

.1 German P+D amalgams

The data discussed above provide evidence that German P+D amalgams have to be analysed as two positions in the syntax. Three observations support this conclusion.

(40) a. the distribution of P+D amalgams is the same as that of P+D sequences in coordinations (see (28), (32) above),

b. possibility of an amalgamated form under adjacency does not block coordination of two prepositions (see (24a)/(25a) above)

c. the P-component and the D-component of the P+D amalgam are transparent for coordination of two DPs (see (19b) above).


I therefore conclude that German P+D amalgams correspond to two positions in the syntax that are matched with are single lexical item.

Notice that the contracted forms do not generally correspond to forms that would be obtained by a phonological rule of German: there is no rule of German phonology that would contract an+ ’m to give am, normal phonological realisa-tion would require insertion of a shwa resulting in [anǝm]. The form of the P+D amalgam is therefore suppletive and has to be listed.17 Since realization of the P+D as an amalgam depends on the syntax, the suppletive form can only be inserted after the syntax. If these two premises are correct, a post-syntactic morphological component has to be assumed.

The post-syntactic interaction between syntax and morphology can be anal-ysed in terms of lexical sharing as proposed by Wescoat (2002): the contracted form is inserted over two (or more) terminals in the syntax, which have to be adjacent. However, in the case of German P+D amalgams linear adjacency is not enough: P and D also need to belong to the same constituent (Riemsdijk 1998: 651–667). German has reduced relatives between the D and the N (41a);18 since German also has bare plurals, a nounphrase can begin with a determiner that is not the deter-miner of the head noun (41b) – in these cases the P+D amalgam is impossible, as Riemsdijk points out:

(41) a. die [dem König treu ergebenen] Diener det det.dat.m king faithfully devoted servants ‘the servants that were devoted to the king’ b. [dem König treu ergebene] Diener det.dat.m king faithfully devoted servants ‘servants that were devoted to the king’ c. von [dem König treu ergebenen] Dienern of det.dat.m king faithfully devoted servants ‘of servants that were devoted to the king’ d. *vom König treu ergebenen Dienern of-det.dat.m king faithfully devoted servants (examples (41c/d) taken from Riemsdijk 1998: 655)

Riemsdijk (1998: 659) notes a potential counter example (42b) involving the prenominal dative construction (42a):

1. That the form is similar to the full P+D sequence is then due to the historical origin of the form but no longer synchronically motivated byan active amalgamation process.

1. For a discussion ofthese structures see Fanselow [1986].


(42) a. [dem Hans seine Mutter] ihr Geld det h. his mother her money ‘the money of Hans’s mother’ b. vom Hans seine Mutter ihrem Geld of+det h. his mother her.dat money ‘of the money of Hans’s mother’

The amalgam of the preposition with the definite determiner of the dative pos-sessor is not generally possible, however: if the preposition governs an accusative, whether in a locative PP (43a) or in a prepositional complement of a verb (43b), the P+D amalgam is not allowed:

(43) a. Ich habe es *im /? in dem Lehrer seine I have it to-det.dat/ in det.dat teacher his Ablage gelegt. tray.acc put ‘I put it in the teacher’s tray.’ (Riemsdijk 1998: 659, Footnote 36) b. Wir denken *am Hans seine Mutter (ihr Geld). we think at-det Hans his mother (her money) ‘We are thinking of Hans’s mother (’s money).’

Here, I will follow Riemsdijk [1998] and consider that articles in specifiers are syntactically transparent for independent reasons.19

.2 French P+D amalgams

In contrast with German P+D amalgams, French P+D amalgams interact with coordination (cf. Miller’s 1992 example (17) repeated here as (44)).

(44) J’ai parlé I-have spoken a. à la mère et la fill A det mother and det girl b. *au père et la mère A+det.m father and det mother c. *à le père et la mère A det.m father and det mother

1. Riemsdijk (1998: 660) suggests two possible ways of formulating this, one in terms of government one in terms of checking domain. I leave this question open here.


d. *à la fille et le garçon A det.f girl and det.m boy e. à la fille et l’autre garçon A det.f girl and det.m+other boy

Example (44b) shows that French P+D amalgams are not transparent for coordi-nation. I propose to capture the difference between German and French by ana-lysing French P+D amalgams as occupying one position in the syntax. Following Abeillé et al. [2003], I propose to analyse French P+D amalgams as inflected prepositions.

As pointed out by Abeillé et al. [2003], an analysis of French P+D amalgams as inflected prepositions excludes (44b) since it is a coordination of a PP au père with an NP la mère.20 This conclusion requires that coordinations of the type le présidenti et soni épouse are given a different analysis from coordinations of two definite DPs such as la mère et la fille, since the former type allows coordination under a P+D amalgam (see 23). The fact that DPs of the type [[le N1]i et son/sai N2] allow coordination under a P+D amalgam suggests that N1 is the head noun: one possibility is to assume that this is a comitative construction, where the coordina-tion and the second DP are adjoined to the first DP. Notice however, that a lexical preposition avec behaves differently in this context: while a DP of the type [[le N1]i et son/sai N2] is plural, the DP [[le N1]i avec son/sai N2] is singular:

(45) le président et son premier ministre ont dit … the president and his prime minister have said

(46) le président avec son premier ministre a/? ont dit … the president and his prime minister has/? have said

However, so far I do not have independent supporting evidence for this differen-tial analysis of conjunction of two DPs and conjunction of the type [[leN1]i et son/sai N2].

In order to explain why (44d) is bad, we need an additional hypothesis. Abeille et al. [2003] introduce a feature [+LE] on the determiners le/les that is percolated

2. An example in Miller (1992: 162) shows that the coordination is also excluded if the second conjunct is masculine singular:

(i) *Je me souviens du frère et le cousin. I refl remember (of)-the brother and the cousin. (example (78b) in Miller1992: 162)


to conjoined nps; this feature blocks combination with the prepositions à/de.21 The feature [+LE] has to be a left edge feature, since only definite determiners that appear at the left edge of the NP disallow à/de; in the following example à and les are separated by to us and amalgamation of P and D is not possible:

(47) à tous les enfants/de tous les enfants A all det.m.pl children/DE all det.m.pl children ‘to all the children/of all the children’

In order to avoid the postulation of a feature [+le], one possibility would be to assume that the apparent coordination of two disjoint NPs under de or à is in fact a coordination of two full PPs with phonological omission of the second P under identity: (48a/e). If there is a P+D amalgam, phonological omission under identity is impossible (48b/dii); since the sequence a le is independently excluded, the underlying structures in (48c/di) that could give rise to (44c/d) are ill-formed.

21. Notice that the non-local interaction this is intended to capture is not a general feature of French coordination but specific to DPs introduced by the definite article. There is no general ban in French on coordination if the form realising P+D had been different under adjacency with the second conjunct; this is shown by the following example of conjunction of DPs refer-ring to a single entity under de and à.

(1) a. Les journalistes ont posé de nombreuses questions à l’[ancien champion the journalists asked many questions A the-old champion

olympique] et [nouveau premier ministre]. olympic and new prime minister.

b. Les journalistes ont posé de nombreuses questions au nouveau the journalists asked many questions A-the new

premier ministre. prime minister.

c. les réponses de l’[ancien champion olympique] et [nouveau the answers of the-old champion olympic and new

premier ministre] prime minister

d. les réponses du nouveau premier ministre the answers of-det new prime minister

In these examples (21), the P+D sequence is not compatible with the second conjunct nouveau premier ministre if they were linearly adjacent, and nevertheless the examples are perfectly grammatical. If there had been a general “distant” effect of amalgamation with coordination based on what form would have been used if the coordination had not taken place, (21a/c) would have been expected to be bad.


(48) a. à la mère et à la fille → à la mere et A la fille b. au père et à la mère →P cannot be elided under identity (no à in PP1) → * au père et A la mère c. *à le père et a la mère → *à le père et A la mère à le is independently excluded d. i. *à la fille et à le garçon → *à la fille et A le garçon ii. à la fille et au gargon → P cannot be elided (no à in PP2) → * à la fille et AU- garçon e. à la fille et à l’autre garçon → à la fille et A l’autre garçon

Under this analysis the underlying form that would yield (44d), namely (48di) is ill-formed.

While the [+le] feature in Abeille et al. [2003] excludes (44c) as well, under the phonological omission-analysis proposed here, it has to be to stipulated that the non-contracted sequences corresponding to aul aux, dul des are independently excluded by a type of blocking that allows blocking of phrases by words (called Poser-blocking by Hankamer & Mikkelsen 2005). In the original formulation by Aronoff (1976: 41) Blocking was defined as “the nonoccurrence of one form due to the simple existence of another.” In the examples below, the regular forms are blocked since there is a lexically listed exception.

(49) a. went vs. *goed b. children vs. *childs

Aronoff proposed blocking for words and competition between potential forms for words. Since then it has been proposed that this kind of blocking is also opera-tive between words and phrases (Poser 1992; Borjars et al. 1997; Bresnan 2001; Hankamer & Mikkelsen 2005 et Stewart & Stump 2007).

To summarise, both analyses of French P+D amalgams considered here rely on notions that seem problematic: Abeille et al. [2003] appeal to a left edge feature [+le] that is motivated solely by P+D amalgams, while the alternative analysis sketched here has to assume that the non-contracted forms à le, à les are blocked by extended blocking of phrases by words.

More evidence is needed to choose between the two possibilities.22 Notice that under Abeille et al.’s analysis coordination under à/de is purely syntactic while under the alternative analysis omission of à/de in the second conjunct is post- syntactic. Under the first analysis P+D amalgams must be pre-syntactic, while

22. For a proposal in terms of post-syntactic lowering of the prepositions see Embick (2007b: 328ff).


under the second analysis P+D amalgams can be post-syntactic as long as inser-tion of the P+D amalgam precedes the stipulated phonological omission of à/de.

. Conclusion

In recent work the syntax-morphology interface has received particular attention (Ackema & Neeleman 2004, 2007; Embick & Noyer 2007; Stewart & Stump 2007, Williams 2007). P+D amalgams are interesting for the study of the syntax- morphology interface since they exemplify a mismatch with more terminals in the syntax than elements in the morphology. These types of mismatches have been analysed in (at least) three ways illustrated here with am ‘at+det’:

(50) a. Null categories: the amalgam combines with an empty category (either P or D), so the mapping is one-to-one.

PPa.

P

ØP

DP

D NP

am[+D]

PPb.

P

ØD

DP

D NPam[+P]

b. Head-movement Riemsdijk [1998]:

PP

PDP

D NP

am[+P,+D]

c. Post-syntactic fusion: i. alternative realisation in the sense of Emonds [1985]: a feature is

lexically realised on a sister of the projection bearing a feature23

ii. insertion of one morphological object over 2 terminals (see Zwicky 1987, lexical sharing as proposed by Wescoat 2002), or

2. Emonds gives the following definition:

(i) Merger/Alternative Realization. A syntactic feature F canonically interpretable on b can be realized in a closed class item under γ0 provided projections of b and γ are sisters.


iii. modification of the syntactic structure by post-syntactic movement or fusion in Distributed Morphology (see Embick & Noyer 2001; Embick 2007a and Halle & Marantz 1993, 1994 respectively.)

iv. PP

PDP

D NP

am[+P,+D]

The present analysis is framed in terms of (50cii).The coordination facts suggest that the German P+D amalgams behave like

two words that can take syntactic scope separately (against 50a): if the P+D amal-gam combined with an empty preposition, each contracting preposition would have to have a null counterpart; if the P+D amalgam combined with a null deter-miner, this would be a null definite determiner that appears with singular count nouns which does not seem to be available elsewhere in German.

A syntactic analysis (50b) seems problematic since it is unclear what the trigger for movement would be: (i) the determiner cannot be marked as con-tracting since a given determiner only contracts with a subset of the preposi-tions, and (ii) the preposition cannot be marked as contracting since it contracts with a subset of values of the case/number/gender features of the determiner. Furthermore, on the one hand, prepositions can combine with an NP without a determiner an Land ‘on land’, so it cannot be a deficiency in the preposition that triggers raising of the determiner, and, on the other hand, dps do not need to appear under a preposition, so it cannot be a deficiency in the determiner that triggers raising of D.

The head-movement operation that would have to be postulated does not have a visible effect unless an amalgamated form is lexically available. The pres-ent analysis takes the lexicon rather than the syntax as the source of the peculiar behaviour of P+D amalgams. The present analysis takes the fact that the contrac-tions happen to exist in the lexicon to have an effect on lexical insertion, rather than an effect on head-movement.

The present analysis treats P+D amalgamation in French and German as a morphological phenomenon. German P+D amalgams further have syntactic conditions on their distribution. French P+D amalgams are analysed as inflected prepositions while German P+D amalgams are analysed as post-syntactic con-tractions of two terminals that are consequently syntactically transparent.


The analysis proposed here is in keeping with the observation that in language acquisition French-speaking children may double P+D amalgams by determiners giving rise to sequences of the type du+le (that are ungrammatical in the adult grammar), while sequences of this type such as *zum +dem are not observed in the acquisition data of German speaking children.24

Acknowledgements

I wish to thank Olivier Bonami and Gilles Boyé for many discussions on morphophonology and its relation to syntax and phonology, Sabrina Bendjaballah, Gilles Boyé, Olivier Bonami and Danièle Godard for their judgements on the French data, Gerhard Schaden for his judge-ments on the Vorarlberg-dialect and Walter Breu for comments on the German data. Anne Abeillé, Matthew Baerman, Dun-stan Brown, Greville Corbett, Gerald Gazdar, Jesse Tseng and three anonymous reviewers gave helpful comments on a previous version. I would like to thank the audiences at the Surrrey Morphology Meeting in September 2008 and at the 23rd Comparative Germanic Syntax Workshop and in particular Harald Clahsen, Greville Corbett, Volker Struckmeier and Susanne Wurmbrand for their comments and suggestions. All remain-ing errors and misinterpretations are mine.

References

Abbott, Barbara. 1976. Right node raising as a test for constituenthood. Linguistic Inquiry 7: 639–642.

Abeillé, Anne, Bonami, Olivier, Godard, Danièle & Tseng, Jesse. 2003. The syntax of French à and de: An HPSG analysis. In Proceedings of the ACL-SIGSEM Workshop on the Linguistic Dimensions of Prepositions, 133–144. Toulouse: IRIT.

Abeillé, Anne, Bonami, Olivier, Godard, Danièle & Tseng, Jesse. 2004. The syntax of French de-N′ phrases. In Proceedings of the 11th International Conference on Head-Driven Phrase Structure Grammar, Stefan Müller (ed.), 6–26. Stanford CA: CSLI.

Ackema, Peter & Neeleman, Ad. 2003. Context-sensitive spell-out. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 21: 681–735.

Ackema, Peter & Neeleman, Ad. 2004. Beyondmorphology: Interface Conditions on Word Formation. Oxford: OUP.

Ackema, Peter & Neeleman, Ad. 2007. Morphology 6 = syntax. In The Oxford Handbook of Linguistic Interfaces, Gillian Ramchand & Charles Reiss (eds), 325–352. Oxford: OUP.

Anderson, Stephen R. 1986. Disjunctive ordering in inflectional morphology. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 4: 1–31.

Aronoff, Mark. 1976. Word Formation in Generative Grammar. Cambridge MA: The MIT Press.Bonami, Oliver. 1999. Les constructions du verbe: Le cas des groupes prépositionnels argumentaux.

Ph.D. thesis, Université Paris 7.

2. Thanks to Harald Clahsen for pointing this out to me.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1023/A:1025502221221

http://dx.doi.org/10.1023/A:1025502221221

http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/BF00136262

http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/BF00136262


Börjars, Kersti, Vincent, Nigel & Chapman, Carol. 1997. Paradigms, periphrases and pronomi-nal inflection: A feature-based account. In Yearbook of Morphology 1996, Geert Booij & Jaap van Marle (eds), 155–180. Dordrecht: Kluwer.

Borsley, Robert D. 2005. Against conjP. Lingua 115: 461–482.Bresnan, Joan. 2001. Explaining morphosyntactic competition. In Handbook of Contemporary

Syntactic Theory, Mark Baltin & Chris Collins (eds), 1–44. Oxford: Blackwell.Breu, Walter. 2004. Der definite Artikel in der obersorbischen Umgangssprache. In Slavistische

Linguistik 2003, Christian Sappok (ed.), 9–57. München: Otto Sagner.Chomsky, Noam. 1981. Lectures on Government and Binding. Dordrecht: Foris.Chomsky, Noam. 1994. Bare phrase structure [MIT Occasional Papers in Linguistics 5].

Cambridge MA: MIT.Delisle, Helga H. 1988. Communicative function of contracted prepositional forms in German.

The Modern Language Journal 72: 277–282.Dosdrowski, Günter et al. (eds). 1984. Duden Grammatik der deutschen Gegenwartssprache.

Mannheim: Dudenverlag.Ebert, Karen H. 1970. Zwei Formen des bestimmten Artikels. In Probleme und Fortschritte der

Transformationsgrammatik, Dieter Wunderlich (ed.), 159–173. Tübingen: Max Hueber.Embick, David. 2007a. Blocking effects and analytic/synthetic alternations. Natural Language

and Linguistic Theory 25: 1–37.Embick, David. 2007b. Linearization and local dislocation: Derivational mechanisms and inter-

actions. Linguistic Analysis 33: 303–336.Embick, David & Noyer, Rolf. 2001. Movement operations after syntax. Linguistic Inquiry

32: 555–595.Embick, David & Noyer, Rolf. 2007. The syntax/morphology interface. In The Oxford Handbook

of Linguistic Interfaces, Gillian Ramchand & Charles Reiss (eds), 289–324. Oxford: OUP.Emonds, Joseph. 1985. A Unified Theory of Syntactic Categories. Dordrecht: Foris.Fanselow, Gisbert. 1986. On the sentential nature of prenominal adjectives in German. Folia

Linguistica 20: 341–380.Halle, Morris & Marantz, Alec. 1993. Distributed morphology and the pieces of inflection. In

The View from Building 20: Essays in Linguistics in Honor of Sylvain Bromberger, Samuel Jay Keyser (ed.), 111–176. Cambridge MA: The MIT Press.

Halle, Morris & Marantz, Alec. 1994. Some key features of distributed morphology. In Papers on Phonology and Morphology, Heidi Harley (ed.), 275–288. Cambridge MA: MITWPL.

Hankamer, Jorge & Mikkelsen, Line. 2005. When movement must be blocked: A reply to Embick and Noyer. Linguistic Inquiry 36: 85–125.

Hartmann, Dietrich. 1980. Über Verschmelzungen von Präposition und bestimmtem Artikel. Zeitschrift für Dialektologie und Linguistik 47: 160–183.

Hartmann, Dietrich, 1982. Deixis and anaphora in German dialects: The semantics and prag-matics of two definite articles in dialectical varieties. In Here and There: Cross-linguistics Studies in Deixis and Demonstration [Pragmatics & Beyond III: 2–3), Jürgen Weissenborn & Wolfgang Klein (eds), 187–207. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

Hinrichs, Erhard W. 1986. Verschmelzungsformen in German: A GPSG analysis. Linguistics 24: 939–955.

Johannessen, Janne Bondi. 1998. Coordination. Oxford: OUP.Krifka, Manfred, Pelletier, Francis J., ter Meulen, Alice, Link, Godehard & Chierchia, Gennaro.

1995. Genericity: An introduction. In The Generic Book, Gregory Carlson & Francis J. Pelletier (eds), 1–124. Chicago IL: University of Chicago Press.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.lingua.2003.09.011

http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/9780470756416.ch1

http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/9780470756416.ch1

http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-4781.1988.tb04188.x

http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-4781.1988.tb04188.x

http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11049-006-9002-9

http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11049-006-9002-9

http://dx.doi.org/10.1162/002438901753373005

http://dx.doi.org/10.1162/002438901753373005

http://dx.doi.org/10.1162/0024389052993664

http://dx.doi.org/10.1162/0024389052993664


Larson, Richard K. 1990. Double objects revisited. Linguistic Inquiry 21: 589–632.Löbner, Sebastian. 1985. Definites. Journal of Semantics 4: 279–326.McCloskey, James & Hale, Kenneth. 1984. On the syntax of person-number inflection in

Modern Irish. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 1: 487–533.Miller, Philip. 1992. Clitics and Constituents in Phrase Structure Grammar. New York NY:

Garland.Miller, Philip, Pullum, Geoffrey K. & Zwicky, Arnold. 1997. The principle of phonology free

syntax: four apparent counterexamples in French. Journal of Linguistics 33: 67–90.Munn, Alan. 1987. Coordinate structure and X-bar theory. McGill Working Papers in Linguistics

4(1): 121–140.Napoli, Donna Jo & Nevis, Joel. 1987. Inflected prepositions in Italian. Phonology Yearbook

4: 195–209.Nübling, Damaris. 2005. Von in die über in’n und ins bis im: Die Klitisierung von Präposi-

tionen und Artikel als Grammatikbaustelle. In Grammatikalisierung im Deutschen, Torsten Leuschner, Tanja Mortelmans & Sarah de Groodt (eds),103–131. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.

Poser, William. 1992. Blocking of phrasal constructions by lexical items. In Lexical matters, Ivan A. Sag & Anna Szabolsci (eds), 111–130. Stanford CA: CSLI.

van Riemsdijk, Henk. 1998. Head-movement and adjacency. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 16: 633–678.

Schiering, René. 2002. Klitisierung von Pronomina und Artikelformen. Eine empirische Untersu-chung am Beispiel des Ruhrdeutschen. Köln: Institut für Sprachwissenschaft, Universität zu Köln.

Schiering, René. 2005. Flektierte Präpositionen im Deutschen? Neue Evidenz aus dem Ruhrgebiet. Zeitschrift für Dialektologie und Linguistik 72: 52–79.

Stewart, Thomas & Stump, Gregory. 2007. Paradigm function morphology and the morphol-ogy/syntax Interface. In The OxfordHandbook of Linguistic Interfaces, Gillian Ramchand & Charles Reiss (eds), 383–422. Oxford: OUP.

Stump, Gregory T. 1989. A note on Breton pluralization and the Elsewhere condition. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 7: 261–273.

Wescoat, Michael. 2002. On Lexical Sharing. Ph.D. dissertation, Stanford University.Wescoat, Michael. 2007. Preposition-determiner contractions: An analysis in optimality-

theoretic lexical-functional grammar with lexical sharing. In Proceedings of LFG07, Miriam Butt & Tracy Holloway King (eds), 439–459. Stanford CA: CSLI.

Williams, Edwin. 2007. Dumping lexicalism. In Oxford Handbook of Linguistic Interfaces, Gillian Ramchand & Charles Reiss (eds), 353–382. Oxford: OUP.

Wiltschko, Martina, 1998. On the syntax and semantics of (relative) pronouns and determiners. Journal of Comparative Germanic Linguistics 2: 143–181.

Zhang, Niina Ning. 2010. Coordination in Syntax. Cambridge: CUP.Zwicky, Arnold. 1987. French prepositions: No peeking. Phonology Yearbook 4: 211–227.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/jos/4.4.279

http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S0022226796006305

http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S0022226796006305

http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S0952675700000828

http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S0952675700000828

http://dx.doi.org/10.1023/A:1006075919357

http://dx.doi.org/10.1023/A:1006075919357

http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/BF00138078

http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/BF00138078

http://dx.doi.org/10.1023/A:1009719229992

http://dx.doi.org/10.1023/A:1009719229992

http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S095267570000083X

Preposition+determiner contractions in French and German.

Documents

Transcript of Preposition+determiner contractions in French and German.