論文

German verb phrase and noun phrase movement inZone Theory

Thomas Michael Gross

要

旨

本文では， 「言語 と 文化」 ですで に紹介 し た ゾー ン 説を ま た取 り 上げ る 。
ド イ ツ語の語順 を ど う や っ て記述で き る か を論 じ る 。 特に， 中心に し たと こ ろ は， ド イ ツ語の動詞句 と 名詞句の組み立てで， 動詞句 と 名詞句から ど の部分 を 移動 さ せ る こ と がで き る こ と で あ っ た。

In my introductory paper on Zone Theory, I have explained the technical foundations for adependency based description of word order. In a next step I want to show how thisapparatus can be used in conjunction with some ideas borrowed from Optimality Theory inorder to make some relevant predictions on word order. I shall repeat necessary definitions
that have also been included in the above mentioned paper.

1.

Principles of derivation

1.1.

Source position(D-1)

Localizations of primary constituents or a commanding head in a base-structure
are source positions.

1.2.

Goal position― 39 ―

愛知大学 言語 と 文化 No. 6(D-2)

Every localization of a primary constituent or a commanding head which is not asource position is a goal position.

1.3.

Movement(D-3)

If a constituent C in a phrase P is in source position, but if C in a phrase Q, which
consists of the same constituents, is in goal position, then C is considered ashaving moved from its source position in P to a goal position in Q.

1.4.

Derivation(D-4)

If a constituent C has moved from its source position in a phrase P to a goal
position in a phrase Q then Q is considered as having derived from P.

Please refer to the above mentioned paper for the definitions of the terms base-structure,command, constituent, head, localization, phrase, and primary constituent.
2.1.

Description of movement based on concepts of Optimality Theory

Optimality Theory is a rather new framework that exhausts the idea that the notions
grammatical and ungrammatical are not contrary terms, but that they rather constitute theopposite poles of a continuum dubbed grammaticality. For a long-term connoisseur of
linguistic theories it provides the benefit of regarding grammaticality as a gradualphenomenon rather than a fixed category. In that way, structures are viewed as more orless grammatical, rather than grammatical or not. Furthermore, linguistic evolutionary
theory has fostered the notion that languages adhere to economy principles. For instance,
discontinuous structuring poses a wide range of problems in particular for syntax, as it is
not easily described in terms of standard sentence structuring. However, discontinuous
structures are used and — above all — are understood. Discontinuous structures are
economic gambles against syntactic ordering principles governing the syntactic structure ofverbal and written communication. It shows that sometimes continuous structures —although they are grammatical and in accordance to syntactic rules — are less wellunderstood than their semantically equivalent discontinuous pendants. Therefore,
discontinuous structures forfeit grammaticality in favor of comprehensibility. In linguistic
terms, discontinuous structures are grammatically less optimal than their continuous
pendants, but they are not ungrammatical. Standard syntactic theories have difficulties― 40 ―

German verb phrase and noun phrase movement in Zone Theory

grasping this crucial difference.
2.1.1.

Principle of Optimality

The base-structure of a phrase P is the optimal localization of all constituents in P. Everyderived phrase R is less optimal. Therefore, every derivation is a violation of localization
principles of the base-structure. Violations can be expressed in terms of parameters andhierarchies.
2.1.2.

Parameters

For derivations from a simple German base-structure with a verb, a subject, an object and atemporal adverb, the following parameters are necessary:
K!

Parameter “K!” is a fusion of the parameters “K1” and “Kn”. “K1”means that the head is localized before or after the first constituent.
“Kn” means the head is localized after the last constituent.

“Anti!”

means that the goal position of a phrase P of the close zone may not be
localized after the head and in front of the first locus L1 of the remotezone, if a constituent C is in source position in L1.
Specific parameters that pertain to pronominalisation can recoverviolations against “Anti!”. Example:*Hat einem Manni [das Mädchen®] [[i IO] [ein BuchDO] ©] gegeben?
Hat miri [das Mädchen®] [[i IO] [ein BuchDO] ©] gegeben?
“Stay!”

means that a constituent C stays in source position.

Every parameter must be violable.
2.1.3.

Hierarchy

In German, “K!” ranks higher than “Anti!” and “Stay!”. I.e. a violation against “K!” results
in an unacceptable utterance. Since “K!” consists of “K1” and “Kn”, and since bothparameters cover practically every possible localization, violations against “K!” are always
fatal. However it is possible to get an acceptable utterance even if it violates either “K1” or― 41 ―

愛知大学 言語 と 文化 No. 6“Kn”, but not both.
“Anti!” ranks higher than “Stay!”. A violation against “Anti!” results in an unacceptableutterance if no other parameters recover the violation.
“Stay!” can occur freely.
K!

Anti!

Stay!
Figure 1: Parameter hierarchy for simple German base-structures

3.

Example of a German base-structure

For a simple German base-structure such as (1) the structures (2–9) can be mechanicallypermutated, but not all of them are grammatical.
(1)…ich gestern meine Miete zahlte(that)… I payed my rent yesterday(2)zahlte ich gestern meine Miete?

(3)

ich zahlte gestern meine Miete.

(4)gestern zahlte ich meine Miete.

(5)meine Miete zahlte ich gestern.

(6)ich zahlte meine Miete gestern.

(7) *ich gestern zahlte meine Miete.

(8) *gestern meine Miete zahlte ich.

(9) *zahlte meine Miete ich gestern?

Base-structure (1) serves as the base of derivation. First, the question (2) is derived from
(1) by moving the verb from the right to the left periphery. (2) serves as a further
derivational base for the sentences (3–5). In sentence (3), the subject is moved from source
to goal position in front of the verb. In sentence (4), the adverb is moved from source togoal position in front of the verb. And in sentence (5), the object is moved from source to― 42 ―

German verb phrase and noun phrase movement in Zone Theory

goal position in front of the verb.
Sentence (3) is the base for sentence (6). In sentence (6) the object is moved from source togoal position in front of the remote zone.
The sentences (7–9) are ungrammatical. Sentences (7) and (8) violate “K1”. Sentence (9)violates “Anti!” without recovery by a different parameter.
Please refer to the table below for structuring and violations:No

Sentence

K!

Anti!

Stay!

(1)

… ich gestern meine Miete zahlte(2)zahltei ich gestern meine Miete i?

(3)

ich j zahltei [j gestern ®] meine Miete i.

*(4)gestern j zahltei [ich j®] meine Miete i.

*(5)

Meine Mietej zahltei ich gestern [j©] i.

*(6)

ich j zahltei meine Mietek [j gestern ®] [k©] i.

**

(7)

* ich gestern j zahltei [j®] meine Miete i.

*!

**

(8)

* gesternk meine Mietej zahltei [ich k®] [j©] i.

*!

**

(9)

* zahltei meine Mietej ich gestern [j©] i?

*!

*

Table 1: Structuring and violations in the sentences (1–9)

4.

“Partial verb phrase fronting” in German

German like English and other Germanic languages uses periphrastic tenses and modi.
Therefore, sentences with very complex verb phrases are quite common. These complex
verb phrases can consist of multiple verbs of which some are able to command otherphrases such as noun phrases etc. Some but not all elements of these complex verb phrases
can be fronted, i.e. moved to initial position in the sentence. Which elements and how
many of them can be moved at the same time is the problem addressed in this section.
As a starter I will choose a sentence with the head in initial position, i.e. a question:(10)habe ich ihn Reis essen lassen?
Did I let him eat rice?

― 43 ―

愛知大学 言語 と 文化 No. 6

Besides the remote zone ich, the head habe also commands the very complex close zone ihn
Reis essen lassen. This complex consists of the head lassen which commands a close zone
with two loci: ihn and Reis essen. The second locus consists again of a head essen and aclose zone Reis.
Partial verb phrase fronting is a phenomenon where verbal heads of the main close zone are
moved into initial position, sometimes together with zones they command. Since the mainclose zone consists of multiple embedded heads, there is the possibility to move one head,multiple heads and/or whole zones or loci. Single or sequential head movement is inprinciple possible and unproblematic.
Two parameters are necessary:P!

If two or more constituents are moved beyond the head of the matrix
phrase, then the source positions of these constituents may not both beperipheral in the close zone that is commanded by the head of thematrix phrase.

Z!

Two or more constituents of zones or loci that are not themselves heads
may not be moved beyond the head of the matrix phrase without theirheads.

The permutations of sentence (10) are shown below:(11)

Lassen habe ich ihn Reis essen.

(12)Essen habe ich ihn Reis lassen.

(13)

Essen lassen habe ich ihn Reis.

(14)

Ihn Reis essen lassen habe ich.

(15)

Reis essen habe ich ihn lassen.

(16)

Reis essen lassen habe ich ihn.

(17) *

Ihn Reis lassen habe ich essen.

(18) *

Ihn essen lassen habe ich Reis.

(19) *

Ihn lassen habe ich Reis essen.

(20) *

Ihn Reis habe ich essen lassen.

In sentence (11) lassen is fronted, and in sentence (12) essen. Since both are heads, their― 44 ―

German verb phrase and noun phrase movement in Zone Theory

movement is unproblematic. In sentence (13), both lassen and essen are moved as acomplex of heads. This movement is considered problematic in various frameworks, but inZone Theory is does not violate any criteria. The movement of the matrix close zone insentence (14) is again unproblematic. In sentence (15), essen is moved together with its
close zone Reis. In sentence (16), lassen is moved together with one locus of its close zone,
namely Reis essen.
Sentences (17–20) are fatally violated. In sentence (17), the close zone Reis is moved
without its head, and ihn and lassen have peripheral source positions in the base-structure.
In sentence (18) and (19), the peripheral source positions of ihn and lassen violate
parameter “P!”. In sentence (20), close zone elements that are not heads are moved without
their heads, which constitutes a violation against parameter “Z!”.
Please refer to the table below for structuring and violations:No

SentencesP!

Z!

(17) * Ihn Reis lassen habe ich essen*!

*(18) * Ihn essen lassen habe ich Reis*!

(19) * Ihn lassen habe ich Reis essen*!

(11) Lassen i habe ich [[ihn L1 ] [[Reis] essen L2] i ©](12) Essen i habe ich [[ihn L1 ] [[Reis] i L2] lassen ©](13) Essen j lassen i habe ich [[ihn L1] [[Reis] j L2] i ©](14) Ihn Reis essen lassen i habe ich [i©](15) Reis essen i habe ich [[ihn L1 ] [i L2] lassen ©](16) Reis essen j lassen i habe ich [[ihn L1] [j L2] i©](20) * Ihn Reis habe ich essen lassen*!

Table 2: Structuring and violations in the sentences (11–20)

5.

“Head fronting” in German

With respect to complex verb phrases such as the ones analyzed above, a particular case has
to be considered. If a modal verb occurs in the complex verb phrase, then the head of thematrix phrase must be localized in a goal position that violates parameter “K!”. Violations
against parameter “K!” are recovered by two further parameters:― 45 ―

愛知大学 言語 と 文化 No. 6

I!

If there is a series of infinite heads X1…Xn, and X1 is a direct
successor of X2, X2 a direct successor of X3 asf., and Xn is the head ofa primary constituent and a direct successor of a finite head K, then K
may be moved directly in front of X1.

M!

If there is a series of infinite heads X1…Xn, and X1 is a direct
successor of X2, X2 a direct successor of X3 asf., and Xn is the head ofa primary constituent, a modal verb, and a direct successor of a finite
head K, then K must be moved directly in front of X1.

The following parameter priority exists: “M!” ranks higher than “I!”, “I!” ranks higher than“K!”.
The starting sentence is(21)

dass ich ihn Reis essen lassen habethat I have let him eat rice.

Permutations of sentence (21) are shown below:(22)

dass ich ihn Reis habe essen lassen(23) *

dass ich ihn Reis essen habe lassen(24) *

dass ich ihn habe Reis essen lassen(25) *

dass ich habe ihn Reis essen lassen(26) *

dass ich den Brief schreiben müssen habe(27)

dass ich den Brief habe schreiben müssen

(28) *

dass ich den Brief schreiben habe müssen

(29) *

dass ich habe den Brief schreiben müssen

Sentence (21) is the starter. In sentence (22), the head habe is moved in front of the heads
essen and lassen, which is permissible according to parameter “I!” since it recovers theviolation of “K!”. In the sentences (23–25), the goal position of habe violates both “K!” and“I!”; therefore they are fatal. Sentence (26) should correct, but it is not because müssen is amodal verb, and therefore parameter “M!” must hold. However, it is violated resulting in a
fatality. In sentence (27), the head habe has been moved in front of the other verbal heads― 46 ―

German verb phrase and noun phrase movement in Zone Theory

as “M!” demands. In the sentences (28) and (29), “M!” is again violated.
Refer to the table below for structuring and violations:No

Sentences

M!

I!

K!

(22) dass ich [[ihn L1 ] [[Reis] habei essen L2] lassen ©] i+*(23) * dass ich [[ihn L1 ] [[Reis] essen L2] habei lassen ©] i*!

*(24) * dass ich [[ihn L1 ] habei [[Reis] essen L2] lassen ©] i*!

*(25) * dass ich habei [[ihn L1 ] [[Reis] essen L2] lassen ©] i*!

*(21) dass ich [[ihn L1 ] [[Reis] essen L2] lassen ©] habe(26) * dass ich [[[den Brief©] schreiben ©] müssen ©] habe*!

(27) dass ich [[[den Brief©] habei schreiben ©] müssen ©] i

+

+

*

(28) * dass ich [[[den Brief©] schreiben ©] habei müssen ©] i

*!

*

*

(29) * dass ich habei [[[den Brief©] schreiben ©] müssen ©] i

*!

*

*

Table 3: Structuring and violations in the sentences (21–29)

6.

Movements out of noun phrases

Elements can not only be moved out of verb phrases, but also out of noun phrases. The
parameter “P!” accounts for some of the movements. But movements out of noun phrases
are other than movements out of verb phrases, movements out of cycles. Furthermore,
there is the particular case that a locus of the nominal close zone is moved together with thenominal head, and a further locus remains in source position. Therefore parameter “Z!”must be reformulated for movements out of noun phrases:Zn!

A nominal head may only be moved beyond the head of the matrix
phrase by itself or with a constituent which in source position is either
directly governed by or directly dependent on the nominal head. In any
other case, the nominal head must be moved with all its commandedzones and loci.

As a starter I will choose the following sentence:(30)

habe ich die grünen Schlangen gesehen?

― 47 ―

愛知大学 言語 と 文化 No. 6

Did I see the green snakes?
The relevant permutations are shown below:
(31)
(32)
(33) *(34) *(35)(36) *(37)(38) *

die grünen Schlangen habe ich gesehen.
Schlangen habe ich die grünen gesehen.
die grünen habe ich Schlangen gesehen.
die Schlangen habe ich grünen gesehen.
grüne Schlangen habe ich die gesehen.
grünen Schlangen habe ich die gesehen.
giftige Schlangen habe ich die grünen gesehen.
giftigen Schlangen habe ich die grünen gesehen.

The question (30) is the base from which the sentences (31–38) have been derived. In
sentence (31), the whole noun phrase has been moved. In sentence (32), only the nominal
head has been moved. In sentence (33), the zones have been moved without their head
which is a violation of parameter “Zn!”. In sentence (34), elements have been moved thathave peripheral source positions which is a violation of parameter “P!”. In sentence (35)the moved head governs its moved zone directly, therefore there is no violation of “Zn!”.
However, in sentence (36), direct government does not exist, resulting in a fatal structure.
In the sentences (37) and (38), a further adjective has been included, and (37) is correct
because it corresponds to sentence (35), and (38) is incorrect because it corresponds to (36).
Refer to the table below for structuring and violations:No

SentencesP!

Zn!

(31) die grünen Schlangen i habe ich [i©] gesehen(32) Schlangen i habe ich [[die grünen] i©] gesehen(33) * die grünen i habe ich [[i] Schlangen ©] gesehen(34) * die Schlangen i habe ich [[grünen] i©] gesehen*!
*!

(35) grüne Schlangen i habe ich [[die] i©] gesehen(36) * grünen Schlangen i habe ich [[die] i©] gesehen*!

(37) giftige Schlangen i habe ich [[die grünen] i©] gesehen(38) * giftigen Schlangen i habe ich [[die grünen] i©] gesehen
Table 4: Structuring and violations in the sentences (31–38)― 48 ―*!

German verb phrase and noun phrase movement in Zone Theory

7.

Implications

The application of some core concepts of Optimality Theory invites some deliberation on
the concept of syntactic grammaticality as was raised in the section on Optimality Theory.
The analyses in sections 3–6 were mostly concerned with establishing the poles of thegrammaticality continuum. However, there is more that can be said.
Reconsider the sentences (1–6), given below as (39–40). These sentence were all very
close to the pole grammatical of the continuum, but they are not equally close.
(39)…ich gestern meine Miete zahlte(40)

zahlte ich gestern meine Miete?

(41)

ich zahlte gestern meine Miete.

(42)

gestern zahlte ich meine Miete.

(43)

meine Miete zahlte ich gestern.

(44)

ich zahlte meine Miete gestern.

Since the basic idea of Optimality Theory is the assumption that the more nonfatal
violations are exhibited by a certain structure, it is possible to simply count the instances ofviolations. Refer to the table below:

No

Sentences

Stay!

(39) …ich gestern meine Miete zahlte(40) zahltei ich gestern meine Miete i?

*(41) ich j zahltei [j gestern ®] meine Miete i.

**(42) gestern j zahltei [ich j ®] meine Miete i.

**(43) Meine Mietej zahltei ich gestern [j©] i.

**(44) ich j zahltei meine Mietek [j gestern ®] [k©] i.

***

Table 5: Structuring and violations in the sentences (39–44)

Because (39) is the base-structure, and because the base-structure is by pure definition
optimal, no violations have occurred in (39). However, in order to derive a simple question
from (39), as was done in sentence (40), the verb had to be moved from its final source― 49 ―

愛知大学 言語 と 文化 No. 6

position to an initial goal position. This movement constitutes a violation of the parameter“Stay!”, but this kind of violation is not fatal. But it also means that — by definition —sentence (40) is less optimal than sentence (39). Although, sentence (40) is better adapted
to being a question than sentence (39), it is less optimally organized in terms of syntax.
Very much like a discontinuous structure, sentence (40) gambles a communicative functionthat cannot be properly expressed syntactically by sentence (39) against syntactical integrity.
In terms of syntactic construction, sentence (40) is therefore slightly less grammatical thansentence (39), although it serves its implicated communicative function much better thansentence (39).
The analogue is true for the sentences (41–43). All these sentences share the feature that
two constituents have violated the parameter “Stay!” twice. The sentences (41–43) are
therefore slightly less grammatical than sentence (40), and they are to a larger increment
less grammatical than sentence (39). But again, there is a communicative gamble.
Although the sentences (41–43) are much less grammatical than sentences (39) and (40),they are much better adapted at being main-clauses than (39) and (40). However, they are
not equally well adapted to the same context. Since there are three constituents besides theverb, three wh-questions are possible:(45)

Was zahltest du gestern?
What did you pay yesterday?

(46)

Wer zahlte gestern seine Miete?
Who paid the rent yesterday?

(47)

Wann zahltest du deine Miete?
When did you pay your rent yesterday?

Wh-questions open foci in their answers. Since the questions (45–47) ask about different
constituents, they open different foci in their possible answers. Disregarding prominence— because it is not a syntactic mechanism — the concept pair topic—focus is much as thenotion of grammaticality not a categorical notion but a continuum. Topic positions are
initial positions in a structure because it makes sense to bring old or known information
before new information is brought up. Conversely, focus positions cluster around the endof a structure.
Question (45) asks about the object. The sentences (41) and (42) are well equipped as― 50 ―

German verb phrase and noun phrase movement in Zone Theory

answers because they both have the object in a focus position. It seems that sentence (41) isslightly better equipped than sentence (42) because it displays a less different word orderthan (42). However, in sentence (43), the object is in a topic position, and thus (43) is lesswell equipped as an answer to question (45).
Question (46) asks about the subject. The sentences (42) and (43) are well equipped as
answers because their subjects have not moved to a topic position. Again it seems that
sentence (42) is slightly better equipped than sentence (43) because it displays a lessdifferent word order than (43). However, in sentence (41), the subject is in topic position,and thus (41) is not the best answer to question (46).
Question (47) asks about the time when the rent was paid. Sentence (43) is the best answer,
because the object has moved to the topic position, thus opening a focus position for the
temporal adverb. Sentence (41) is the next best answer because the adverb has not moved.
The least best answer of the sentences (41–43) is sentence (42) because the adverb is in
topic position.
These deliberations allow the formulation of two new parameters:
Foc!

means the constituent asked about is in focus position

Q=A!

means the word order of the answer is equal to the word order of thequestion

Refer to the table below for adaptedness concerning the questions (45–47):

No

Questions

Answers

Foc!

Q=A!

(41)
(45) was zahltest du gestern?

(42)
(43)

*
*

*

(42)
(46) wer zahlte gestern seine Miete?

(43)
(41)

*
*

(43)
(47) wann zahltest du gestern deine Miete?

*
*

(41)

*

(42)

*

*

Table 6: Adaptedness of the sentences (41–43) to the questions (45–47)― 51 ―

愛知大学 言語 と 文化 No. 6

Finally, sentence (44) seems to be the least optimal structure because it displays moreviolations against “Stay!” than any other structure. This assumption is corroborated by thefact that the adverb gestern needs to have at least some stress.
As similar train of thought should hold for the correct sentences (11–16), given below as(48–53).
(48)

Lassen habe ich ihn Reis essen.

(49)

Essen habe ich ihn Reis lassen.

(50)

Essen lassen habe ich ihn Reis.

(51)

Ihn Reis essen lassen habe ich.

(52)

Reis essen habe ich ihn lassen.

(53)

Reis essen lassen habe ich ihn.

Refer to the table below for violations of the parameter “Stay!”:No

Sentences

Stay!

(48) Lassen i habe ich [[ihn L1 ] [[Reis] essen L2] i©]*(49) Essen i habe ich [[ihn L1 ] [[Reis] i L2] lassen ©]*(50) Essen j lassen i habe ich [[ihn L1 ] [[Reis] j L2] i©]**(51) Ihn Reis essen lasseni habe ich [i©]*(52) Reis essen i habe ich [[ihn L1 ] [i L2 ] lassen ©]*(53) Reis essen j lassen i habe ich [[ihn L1 ] [j L2] i©]**Table 7: “Stay!” violations in the sentences (48–53)

As can be seen in table 7, the sentences (50) and (53) violate the parameter “Stay!” twice,while the other sentences only violate it once. That means that (50) and (53) are slightly
less optimal than the sentences (48), (49), (51), and (52).

However, thesesentences—although they all violate “Stay!” only once—are not equally optimal. Clearly,
sentence (51) is best because a constituent has been moved without stranding parts of it.
This is not the case in the sentences (48), (49) and (52) because there elements are stranded
in source position. Of these, sentence (48) is possibly best because the head of the close― 52 ―

German verb phrase and noun phrase movement in Zone Theory

zone has been moved which is also in a peripheral source position in the close zone. Next
should be sentence (49), because a head has been moved, but not on in peripheral source
position. Last should be sentence (52) because it leaves elements in peripheral source
position.
Two new parameters can be introduced that capture the differences:PSP!

means that the moved constituent has a peripheral source position.

Strand!

means that the moved constituent leaves elements commanded by anelement of the moved constituent stranded in source position.

Refer to the table below for “Stay!”, “PSP!” and “Strand!” violations:No

Sentences

Stay!

PSP!

Strand!

(51) Ihn Reis essen lasseni habe ich [i ©]*(48) Lassen i habe ich [[ihn L1] [[Reis] essen L2 ] i©]*(52) Reis essen i habe ich [[ihn L1] [i L2] lassen ©]**(49) Essen i habe ich [[ihn L1] [[Reis] i L2 ] lassen ©]

*

*

*

(53) Reis essen j lassen i habe ich [[ihn L1] [j L2 ] i©]

**

*

*

(50) Essen j lassen i habe ich [[ihn L1] [[Reis] j L2 ] i©]

**

**

**

*

Table 8: Violations in the sentences (48–53)

The sequence of the sentences (48–53) in table 8 has been adjusted in accordance with theiroptimality. It shows that sentence (51) is best because it displays only a “Stay!” violation.
Sentence (48) is slightly less optimal because it leaves elements stranded. Sentence (52)does leave elements stranded in source position, but these elements are not commanded byit. However, the moved constituent does not have a peripheral source position itself, thus
violating “PSP!”. Sentence (49) is least best of those sentences with a single “Stay!”violation because it violates “PSP!” and “Strand!”.
Of those sentences with double “Stay!” violations, sentence (53) is better than (50) because
it only violates “PSP!” and “Strand!” once. Sentence (53) is the compound of the violations
in sentence (48) and (52). With two double violations of “PSP!” and “Strand!”, sentence― 53 ―

愛知大学 言語 と 文化 No. 6(50) is the least best option.
The parameter “Strand!” also accounts for different optimalities of the sentences (31), (32),and (35), given below again as (54–56):(54)

die grünen Schlangen habe ich gesehen.

(55)

Schlangen habe ich die grünen gesehen.

(56)

grüne Schlangen habe ich die gesehen.

In sentence (54), the whole noun phrase has been moved. In sentence (55), only the headhas been moved, leaving two zones stranded. In sentence (56), only the remote zone isstranded but the adjective from the close zone now in initial position becomes susceptible toa violation of parameter “Zn!”. In sentence (55), the parameter “Zn!” is not applicablebecause the adjective has not moved. Therefore, (56) is slightly less optimal than (55)because it invites a further possibility for violating a parameter.
Refer to the table below for “Strand!” violations:No

Sentences

Strand!

(54) die grünen Schlangen i habe ich [i©] gesehen(55) Schlangen i habe ich [[die grünen] i©] gesehen*(56) grüne Schlangen i habe ich [[die] i©] gesehen*

Table 9: Structuring and violations in the sentences (54–56)

8.

Conclusions

In this paper I have described the workings of an applied idea proposed by Optimality
Theory. Grammaticality is not a clear-cut concept, but rather a continuum, where structures
can cluster around one end of the continuum and still being gradually different in terms ofgrammaticality. I have shown this by giving examples of a simple German base-structure,and of complex verb phrases and noun phrases.
In discussing implications I have shown that the proposed idea offers valuable insights
concerning the problem of word order and movement addressed in this paper.

― 54 ―

German verb phrase and noun phrase movement in Zone Theory

Literature:
Archangeli, Diana & Langendoen, D. Terence (eds.): Optimality Theory: An Overview. Malden,
Mass. & Oxford: Blackwell Publishers Inc. 1997.
Gross, Thomas Michael (1999a): Theoretical Foundations of Dependency Syntax. Iudicium Verlag:
München.
Gross, Thomas Michael (1999b): Zonentheorie: Dependentielle Wortstellungstheorie. Aichi
University: Faculty of Letters: Bungaku Ronsô 120. p170–159.

― 55 ―