(Mis)matches in clause linkage

Organisator(en) Laura Downing, Werner Frey, André Meinunger, Kerstin Schwabe, Barbara Stiebels, Hubert Truckenbrodt & Tonjes Veenstra
Veranstaltungsbeginn 13.04.2012, 09.00 Uhr
Veranstaltungsende 14.04.2012, 18.00 Uhr

Invited speakers:

Catherine Fabricius Hansen (Oslo)
Shin Ishihara (Frankfurt)
Maria Polinsky (Harvard)
Marga Reis (Tübingen)

Meeting description

Several kinds of mismatches in clause linkage have been observed in the literature:

  1. clauses with the shape of selected clauses that seem to be adjuncts of the host clause, e.g. free dass-clauses like Hans muss verrückt sein, dass er so viel bezahlt ‘Hans must be crazy that he is paying so much’ – see Reis (1997);
  2. clauses with the shape of adjuncts that fill a thematic slot in the host clause, e.g. selected when/if-clauses like John hates it if Mary talks about money(Fabricius-Hansen 1980) in a range of Indo-European languages; 
  3. formally coordinated structures interpreted as subordinated like Drink one more beer and I'll leave. (Culicover & Jackendoff 1997); 
  4. clauses with atypical uses of clause linkers, e.g. English how in clauses like Kenneth admitted how there are times when he struggles to keep control of his anger (Legate 2010); 
  5. other mismatches between syntactic form and semantic interpretation, for example semantically equivalent non-restrictive relatives with different syntactic forms in Italian and other Romance languages (Cinque 2008);
  6. mismatches between syntactic domains and prosodic integration of embedded clauses, e.g. lack of prosodic separation in cases of strong syntactic separation, for example in English parentheticals (Dehé 2009). 

Behind the question of mismatches is a question of matches: Which sentence form canonically comes with which degree of integration (±peripheral in the sense of Haegeman 2006, ±dependent/±integrated in the sense of Reis 1997, mono- or biclausal in the sense of Cinque 2004)?  What degree of integration canonically corresponds to what syntactic (Reis 1997), prosodic (Selkirk 2005), or semantic configuration (Portner 2007)?

If matches are economical, why do language systems develop mismatches? What do the mismatch cases show about the proper formulation of mapping regularities? What role do lexical restrictions play in the licensing of mismatches?

We invite submissions to a workshop on mismatches in clause linkage that take up such questions from both a language-specific and a cross-linguistic point of view, and we look forward to contributions from typologically diverse languages.


Cinque, G. 2004. Restructuring and functional structure. In A. Belletti (ed.), Structure and beyond, 132-191. Oxford University Press.

Cinque, G. 2008. Two types of nonrestrictive relatives. In O. Bonami & P. Cabredo Hofherr (eds.), Empirical issues in Syntax and Semantics 7. 99-137.

Culicover, P.W. & Ray Jackendoff. 1997. Semantic subordination despite syntactic coordination. Linguistic Inquiry 28. 195-217.

Dehé, N. 2009. Clausal parentheticals, intonational phrasing, and prosodic theory. Journal of Linguistics 45. 569-615.

Fabricius-Hansen, C. 1980. Sogenannte ergänzende wenn-Sätze. Ein Beispiel syntaktisch-semantischer Argumentation. In M. Dyher et al. (eds.), Festschrift für Gunnar BechKopenhagener Beiträge zur germanistischen Linguistik, Sonderband 1, 61-83.

Haegeman, L. 2006. Argument Fronting in English, Romance CLLD and the Left Periphery. In R. Zanuttini, H. Campos, E. Herburger, & P. Portner (eds.), Negation, tense and clausal architecture: Cross-linguistic investigations. Georgetown University Press, 27-52.

Legate, J.A. 2010. On how is used instead of thatNatural Language and Linguistic Theory 28. 121-134.

Portner, P. 2007. Instructions for interpretation as separate performatives. In K. Schwabe & S. Winkler (eds.), On Information Structure, Meaning and Form, 407-426. Amsterdam: Benjamins.

Reis, M. 1997. Zum syntaktischen Status unselbständiger Verbzweit-Sätze. In C. Dürscheid & K.-J. Ramers (eds.), Sprache im Fokus, 121-144. Tübingen: Niemeyer.

Selkirk, E. 2005. Comments on intonational phrasing in English. In S. Frota, M. Vigário & M.J. Freitas (eds.), Prosodies, 11-58. Berlin: Mouton.


Thursday, April 12th
Warming up: Quchnia, Markgrafenstraße 35 

Venue: Room 403, ZAS, Schützenstr. 18, 10117 Berlin

Friday, April 13th

09.45 – 10.00

10.00 – 11.00
Marga Reis (U Tübingen)
Adverbial V2-clauses? On some over- and underdiscussed V2 phenomena in German 

11.00 – 11.20 Coffee break

11.20 – 12.00
Susanne Wurmbrand (U of Connecticut)
The timing of Merge: Deriving certain clause-linking mismatches 

12.00 – 12.40
Liliane Haegeman & Rachel Nye (U Gent)
Declarative how: factivity, referentiality and D-linking

12.40 – 14.00 Lunch              

14.00 – 14.40
Kerstin Schwabe, Łukasz Jędrzejowski & Elisa Kellner (ZAS)
A cross-linguistic perspective on complement-like 'if'-clauses

14.40 – 15.20
Marlies Kluck (U Groningen)
Amalgams as anchored parentheticals

15.20 – 16.00
Ulrike Demske (U Potsdam)
On the rise of mismatches in clause linkage patterns of German

16.00 – 16.30 Coffee break   

16.30 – 17.10
André Meinunger (ZAS)
Some speculations on the presuppositions of desiderative predicates

17.10 – 18.10
Cathrine Fabricius Hansen (U Oslo)
Absolute integration? Mismatches with absolutes, depictives, and related constructions 

19.30 Conference dinner: "Trattoria Peretti", Friedrichstr. 113

Saturday, April 14th

10.00 – 11.00
Shinichiro Ishihara (U Frankfurt)
On the clause-mate condition in Japanese: Implicit prosody and argument structure parsing

11.00 – 11.20 Coffee break

11.20 – 12.00
Laura Downing, Marleen van de Vate & Tonjes Veenstra (ZAS)
Embedded questions in Tumbuka

12.00 – 12.40
Guliz Gunes (U Groningen)
Information structure, prosodic domains and parenthesis: A case study in Turkish

12.40 – 14.00 Lunch               

14.00 – 14.40
Dennis Pauly (U Potsdam)
Prospective um-clauses as syntactically unintegrated clauses

14.40 – 15.20
Peter Herbeck (U Wuppertal)
Are infinitival complements uniformly Cdef? Evidence from Spanish

15.20 – 16.00
Werner Frey & Hubert Truckenbrodt (ZAS)
Inside vs. outside of the clause: matches between syntax and prosody

16.00 – 16.30 Coffee break  

16.30 – 17.10
Anie Thomson (UC Santa Cruz)
Referring to adverbials: Adverbial extraposition without movement

Note: Maria Polinsky had to cancel her talk.