Satztyp, Satzmodus und Illokution. 3. Satzstruktur und Satztyp

On the Form and Interpretation of German Wh-Infinitives

“…In line with the conclusion given in 27, the structure above VP is different from that of V-final clauses in some relevant respect. A reasonable conjecture is that FP ≠ CP, with FP representing ForceP in the sense of Rizzi 1997, and CP a pure subordination projection (as suggested, for example, in Brandt et al 1992). On this basis, the absence of wh-zu-RIs in German could be accounted for by crediting German zu-infinitivals with the following properties: 1. zu overtly signals dependency, hence is (or triggers an empty) C-element heading the subordination projection CP; 2. zu is -wh (or triggers an empty -wh complementizer).…”

“…By contrast, a "derivational" approach claims that the use potential of a sentence can be derived from the interpretively relevant properties of its parts and its structure, and this by employing independently justified grammatical and pragmatic means only. A first comprehensive derivational attempt is Brandt et al 1992, which grew out of the German-Swedish research program "Sprache und Pragmatik" (1987-, directed by Inger Rosengren in Lund). For an overview of the basic ideas as well as the numerous sentence-type studies carried out in this framework, see Reis 1999.…”

Asymmetry in Emphatic Topicalization

“…Let me continue to concentrate on the former and postpone discussion of the latter to section 6. Lutz follows Brandt et al (1992), who claim that the displaced element cannot be in SpecCP because SpecCP may be occupied by a wh-phrase, and that therefore the only possibility is adjunction to CP. On the basis of this, in my view unmotivated, suggestion he proposes the structure in (13):…”