beyond case marking in the interpretation of german prepositional phrases

Upload: achaight

Post on 23-Feb-2018

218 views

Category:

Documents


0 download

TRANSCRIPT

  • 7/24/2019 Beyond Case Marking in the Interpretation of German Prepositional Phrases

    1/65

    Beyond Case Marking in the Interpretation of

    German Prepositional Phrases

    Amanda C. Haight

    LIN 679H

    Special Honors in the Department of Linguistics

    The University of Texas at Austin

    December 4, 2015

    __________________________________________

    John T. Beavers, Ph.D.

    Department of Linguistics

    Supervising Professor

    __________________________________________

    Hans C. Boas, Ph.D.

    Department of Germanic Studies

    Second Reader

  • 7/24/2019 Beyond Case Marking in the Interpretation of German Prepositional Phrases

    2/65

    i

    1. ABSTRACT

    Author: Amanda Haight

    Title: Beyond Case Marking in the Interpretation of German Prepositional Phrases

    Supervisor: John Beavers

    Languages employ a variety of methods for distinguishing directed motion from locational

    motion. Regardless of encoding method, many languages exhibit a pragmatic reinterpretation

    process where the locational construction is coerced by a variety of factors, including verb class,

    landmark, syntactic particle, and other contextual material to mean the goal of directed motion.

    Given the diverse nature of the languages employing this pragmatic tool, it was hypothesizedthat pragmatic directional reinterpretation of locations was a universal feature of languages

    (Beavers et al. 2010, Tham et al. 2012).

    After examining an online corpus and consulting on constructed, controlled examples with

    a native speaker of German, this thesis concludes that this pragmatic reinterpretation is not

    available in Standard German. Instead of German locations being reinterpreted as goals of

    motion in contexts necessitating a directional reading, explicit directional encoding becomes

    obligatory and locational encoding becomes unacceptable instead of reinterpreted. This finding

    calls into question the universal nature of the hypothesis set forth by Beavers et al. (2010) and

    Tham et al. (2012), suggesting parametric variation of pragmatic directional reinterpretation of

    locations across languages.

  • 7/24/2019 Beyond Case Marking in the Interpretation of German Prepositional Phrases

    3/65

    ii

    TABLE OF CONTENTS

    !" #$%&'#(& """""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""" *

    +" ,-&'./0(&,.- """"""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""" !1" 2,&3'#&0'3 '34,35 """""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""" 6

    "#$ %&'()*+ %),-'-.) ###################################################################################################################################################### /

    "#0 122345+ -2 6&78(&9: &78 ;9-9 """"""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""" 6+

  • 7/24/2019 Beyond Case Marking in the Interpretation of German Prepositional Phrases

    4/65

    1

    2. INTRODUCTION

    German is a case marking language, which means the role of a noun phrase in a clause is

    indicated through morphological marking within the noun phrase itself.1Prepositional phrases

    (PPs) are a special circumstance when it comes to case marking because they can determine

    much more about the noun than simply whether the noun phrase is a direct or indirect object,

    which the accusative and dative case mark in simpler German sentences. Instead, PPs can

    determine the semantic role a constituent plays in the sentence, such as whether it is the route,

    source, instrument, or what I will be focusing on: goal and location.2

    German prepositions are divided into four classes by the case the constituent noun phrase

    (NP) is assigned: dative, accusative, genitive, and alternating.3The constituent NPs of this latter

    set of alternating prepositions can be marked by either the dative or the accusative depending on

    the semantic intentions of the speaker. The traditional grammar-school rule goes something like

    move-ative accusative, state-ive dative; that is to say the accusative indicates that the NP is the

    goal of motion in a description of directed motion, and the dative marks the location where

    motion is occurring (Haider 2010: 241). A simple actualization of this rule is seen in (1).

    1Special acknowledgement goes to Santiago Sanchez who helped build the script that searchedthe German corpus for examples relevant to this study, and to Katrin Fuchs who generously2This study is concerned strictly with Standard German. In non-standard German, such as

    regional dialects, case assignment following prepositions functions significantly differently. All

    assumptions and data henceforth are in reference to acceptability in Standard German.3Dative- aus, out of, auer besides, beiby or at, mitwith, nachafter,seitsince, von

    from,zuto; accusative- bisuntil, umaround,frfor, durchthrough, ohnewithout,gegen against, contrary to; genitive - anstatt instead of, innerhalb inside, auerhalboutside, trotz in spite of, whrend during, wegen because of; alternating- anon (verticalsurface), auf on (horizontal surface), hinter behind, vor before, in front of, ber over,unterunder, in in, nebennext to,zwischenbetween

  • 7/24/2019 Beyond Case Marking in the Interpretation of German Prepositional Phrases

    5/65

    2

    (1) a. Das Kind luft in das Haus.The child runs in the.ACC house.

    The child runs into the house.

    b. Das Kind luft in dem Haus.The child runs in the.DAT house.

    The child runs inLthe house.4

    This type of alternation, where a preposition can have either a locative or goal interpretation

    determined by a variety of factors, is seen across languages. Example (2) illustrates this

    alternation in Russian and (3) illustrates a similar alternation in English. In Russian, the

    accusative case is typically used to mark the goal of movement and either the locative or

    instrumental case is used to mark the location of movements. In English, intomarks the goal of

    movement and inhas a prototypically stative reading. A similar pairing is seen with onand onto,

    though most English prepositions can have either a consequent goal or location reading

    depending on the context, as with underin (3c,d).5

    (2) a. Sobaka sidit v dome.Dog sits in house.LOC.The dog is sitting in the house.

    b.

    Sobaka be!it v dom.Dog runs in house.ACCThe dog is running into the house. (Russian Nikitina 2007)

    (3) a. John walks in the room.b. John walks into the room.

    c. The child sat underLthe covers.d. The child put the book underGthe covers.

    4Whereas German has explicit case marking to determine the goal or location implications of

    prepositions, English, excluding intoand onto, marks this alternation through context instead ofmarkings. To explicitly mark the location reading of in, on and other prepositions in Englishtranslations, I will use inL, onL,etc.which can conventionally be read as around in, around on.Wholly ambiguous prepositions will be marked with Lfor readings of location and Gfor readingsof goal.5Notably excluding to, which has a strictly dynamic goal reading.

  • 7/24/2019 Beyond Case Marking in the Interpretation of German Prepositional Phrases

    6/65

    3

    In English, intois strictly dynamic. However, inis not strictly stative, meaning there are contexts

    in which the location variant inis acceptable with an explicitly dynamic reading. For example,

    the use of inGin (4) can be replaced with into, but the use of the nominally stative preposition is

    still acceptable on this reading.

    (4) From the car, John ran inG/*inLthe house.

    Similarly, there are noted examples in Russian where the locative marker is acceptable in

    describing an endpoint of motion, as seen in (5).

    (5) Postav vazu na stol/ na stole.

    Put vase on table.ACC/ on table.LOC.Put the vase on the table. (Russian Nikitina 2007:3)

    Beyond English and Russian, there has been similar variation noted in Polish (Cienki 1989:141-

    7), Czech (Belichova-Krzhizhkova 1974; Ungermanov 2005), and Ukrainian (Nedashkivska

    2001). In (6)-(8), the French preposition dansis a typically locative preposition, but there are

    certain contexts and elements that contribute to a goal reading.

    (6)

    Ilcourt dans le jardin.He runs in the garden

    He runs into the garden. (French Beavers et al 2010 : 349)

    (7) Allez, courons dans la maison!Go.2PL, run.IPL in the houseCome on, lets run inGthe house! (French Pourcel & Kopecka 2006 : 35)

    (8) ?#Allez, entrons dans la maison en courant!Go.2PL enter.IPL in the house in running

    Come on, lets enter the house running! (French Stringer 2003 : 46, ex. (7))

    Drawing from typologically distinct satellite-framed and verb-framed languages (satellite- and

    verb-framed languages to be discussed further in section 3.1) Beavers et al (2010) suggest

    directional interpretations of locative adpositions should be available with the appropriate

    pragmatic support even in the absence of morphosyntactic devices for directly expressing

  • 7/24/2019 Beyond Case Marking in the Interpretation of German Prepositional Phrases

    7/65

    4

    direction in a PP, (Beavers et al 2010 : 362). This hypothesis is further elaborated in Tham et al

    (2012): The process that derives directional readings is available across languages, even in

    language types that differ from English (Tham et al 2012). These researchers consistently

    propose that locative PPs are reinterpretable as directional PPs in specific pragmatic contexts

    across language typologies. These pragmatic contexts vary across languages, but include factors

    such as the type of ground or landmark, the verb class (durative v. punctual, change of state v.

    change of position, etc.), permanence of the resulting new location, syntactic arrangement, and

    the presence of directional particles.

    If the conclusion from Tham et al (2012) Beavers et al (2010) is correct, then it is an

    attested cross-linguistically available option to encode directed motion using a locational PP in

    combination with specific pragmatic contexts, and furthermore this option seems to exist in a

    typologically diverse set of languages. From this we might infer that it is a universally available

    process. In this thesis I examine the case study of German, a language with an alternation

    between explicitly locational and directional encoding, as in Russian. The null hypothesis is that

    there should be some contexts where the location (marked by the dative case) can be

    pragmatically reinterpreted as the goal of motion (typically marked by the accusative case) in the

    same or similar contexts in which this is attested in other languages, contrary to the standard

    grammar school rules.

    I discuss evidence from corpus data and native speaker intuitions controlling for the

    contexts and relevant factors noted for other languages, and show that a divergence from this

    alternation was not attested in German. In other words, this study strongly suggests that locations

    categorically cannotbe reinterpreted as goals in German, and that the universality of pragmatic

    reinterpretation as asserted by Tham et al (2012) and Beavers et al (2010) is not valid.

  • 7/24/2019 Beyond Case Marking in the Interpretation of German Prepositional Phrases

    8/65

    5

    This suggests that the presence of this strategy in a language is itself subject to

    independent parametric variation, much like the various factors Beavers et al (2010) suggest

    cross-cut other languages, albeit here having to do with a pragmatically conditioned interpretive

    process rather than mophosyntactic processes.

    To reach this conclusion, I will first review in section 3 the relevant literature attesting to

    divergence in the alternation of goal and location marking in languages other than German,

    noting specifically the effects of the landmark, the verb, directional particles, and syntactic

    arrangement. Section 4 begins the search for divergence from the standard German

    generalization by extracting and examining literal uses of unterin the sDeWaC corpus.6

    Section

    5 details the results found after consulting a native speaker about case acceptability and

    subsequent semantic interpretation of novel examples constructed with guidance from

    divergence found in other languages. While the factors tested in section 5 clearly affected case

    acceptability and semantic interpretation, there was no evidence for reinterpretation of locations

    as goals in German. Section 6 discusses the theoretical importance these findings implicate and

    suggests further investigation as to why certain languages allow this type of pragmatic

    reinterpretation and others do not.

    6 Corpus can be found at: http://wacky.sslmit.unibo.it/doku.php?id=corpora (see Baroni et al.

    2009).

  • 7/24/2019 Beyond Case Marking in the Interpretation of German Prepositional Phrases

    9/65

    6

    3. LITERATURE REVIEW

    Before discussing German data, I briefly recap relevant background information on the

    expression of directed motion across languages, starting with Leonard Talmys typology of

    motion expressions, moving to a discussion of contexts outside of German where overtly marked

    locations are pragmatically reinterpreted to be the goals of motion.

    3.1 Talmys Typology

    Languages collectively employ a variety of strategies to describe motion events. In any

    discussion of motion in spatial relationships of a language, it is important to begin with an

    understanding of Leonard Talmys (Talmy 2000, see also Talmy 1985) verb typology of verb-

    framed and satellite-framed languages. Verb-framed languages (sometimes referred to as path

    languages)such as French and Spanish encode the direction of motion in the verb and manner as

    a satellite, defined as certain immediate constituents of a verb root other than inflections,

    auxiliaries, or nominal arguments. They relate to the verb root as periphery (or modifiers) to a

    head, (Talmy 1985). Satellites can include English particles, Russian verb prefixes, Chinese

    coverbs, Atsugewi non-inflectional affixes, Germanic (in)separable prefixes, prepositions (and

    subsequent case), and postpositional deictic elements. Alternatively, satellite-framed languages

    (sometimes referred to as manner languages) such as English, Dutch, and German, encode

    manner in the verb and direction in a satellite element. According to this typology, directed

    motion expression in a verb-framed language must employ a directional encoding verb, and a

    directed motion expression in a satellite-framed language must employ a directional encoding

    satellite, otherwise it is to be interpreted as non-directed motion within a location.

  • 7/24/2019 Beyond Case Marking in the Interpretation of German Prepositional Phrases

    10/65

    7

    The examples of Spanish (9a) and English (9b) are prototypical examples of verb-framed

    and satellite-framed languages respectively, though it is important to note that this typology is

    best interpreted as a tendency rather than a necessity, e.g. satellite-framed languages often have

    directionally encoded verbs like the English enter(Beavers et al 2010).

    (9) a. Entr corriendo/volando/nadando a la cueva.enter.pst.3sg running/flying/swimming a the cave

    He entered the cave running/flying/swimming. (Spanish Talmy 1985:111)

    b. He ran/flew/swam into the cave. (English Talmy 1985:111)

    It is this typology and understanding of German as a satellite-framed language that forms the

    foundation to explore the directionality of motion events described by German prepositional

    phrases. In German, directionality can be determined in a number of ways, but most often

    through a satellite PP and the case on its complement NP.

    3.2 Effects of Landmark and Ground

    I now turn to the pragmatic effects of landmarks of motion addressed by Israeli (2004),

    Estigarribia and Levin (2007), and Nikitina (2008) for interpreting locative expressions as

    encoding goals. In a basic motion event, the landmark (sometimes referred to as ground) refers

    to the area where the motion takes place or the goal of directed motion (Talmy 1985, Langacker

    1987). The aforementioned authors have argued that, in their languages of study, certain qualities

    of the motions landmark have an effect on the pragmatic reinterpretation of overtly marked

    locations as goals.

    3.2.1 Areas v. Container

    Nikitina divides landmarks into areas and containers and asserts that inGis more likely to

    occur with landmarks that have the qualities of a container. Nikitina distinguishes these

    landmarks by the presence (containers) or absence (areas) of well-defined boundaries. In her

  • 7/24/2019 Beyond Case Marking in the Interpretation of German Prepositional Phrases

    11/65

    8

    corpus, Nikitina found that inGwas used with 9% of area landmarks and 17% of container

    landmarks. While intowas always the preferred method for conveying directed movement, there

    was a statistically significant difference in the use of directional inGbetween containers and

    areas. She accounts for this difference in frequency by noting that areas are more likely to be

    associated with motion with prominent paths, thus using inis more likely to be interpreted as a

    locational PP and intois used to explicate the directionality of movement. Thus, because the

    landmarks lack distinct boundaries, Nikitina argues that examples like (10b) are more likely to

    be interpreted as locational than directional and thus are more likely to employ intoto explicate

    directed movement, unlike (10a).

    (10)a. He walked in the room/backyard/store. (locational or directional)b. He walked in the city/field/mountains. (locational / ??directional)

    (Nikitina 2008 : 187 (19))

    For our study, I will test the effect of areas and containers on acceptable case marking to

    determine if the dative can ever be reinterpreted as marking a goal of directed motion. From

    Nikitinas study, I would expect to find a comparable directional interpretation of a dative

    marked PP constituent meaning inGwhen the motion involves a container landmark.

    3.2.2 True Covers v. Cover Proxy

    Where containers and areas discussed by Nikitina (2008) pertain specifically to the preposition

    in, Estigarribia and Levin (2007) discuss similar constraints on landmarks of under, notably

    distinguishing true cover and cover proxies. A true cover seen in (11) is a structure with a clear

    enclosed space underneath. It is analogous to a container and more readily receives a directional

    reading of under. A cover proxy seen in (12) is a larger entity without ground support. It is

    analogous to areas and more readily receive a locational reading of under.

  • 7/24/2019 Beyond Case Marking in the Interpretation of German Prepositional Phrases

    12/65

    9

    (11)We strolled underGthe awning.

    (12)We strolled underLthe stars.

    While the examined preposition has varying types of landmarks due to the spatial information

    encoded in the preposition, each preposition exhibiting a directionality alternation has constraints

    on the directionality interpretations allowed based on the spatial reality of the landmark.

    3.2.3 Tightness of Landmark

    This section discusses a noted variation in Russian where an implied boundary crossing is

    marked by a locational marker. Israeli (2004) claims there are certain contexts that allow

    speakers of Russian to emphasize the motion within a landmark through the use of a locational

    marker rather than emphasize the motion across a boundary through the use of a directional

    marker. These constraints center around the size of the figure in comparison to the size of the

    landmark and how snuggly the figure fits within the landmark and any other occupants of that

    space.

    In Russian placement verbs the accusative case, like in German, is used to mark the goal of

    motion, and either the locative or instrumental case can be used in a stationary event. This

    standard generalization for Russian is illustrated by (13a,b).

    (13)a. Mal"ik sel na divanA.boy.NOM.SG sat.PF.M on couch.ACC.SGThe boy sat on the couch.

    b. Mal"ik sidel na divaneL.boy.NOM.SG sat.IPS.M on couch.LOC.SG

    The boy was sitting on the couch. (Israeli 2004)

    In concurrence with the standard pragmatic reinterpretation hypothesis and other literature on

    directed motion in Russian, Israeli asserts that there is evidence of objects with locational

    marking begin reinterpreted as goals of motion given appropriate context or intention of the

  • 7/24/2019 Beyond Case Marking in the Interpretation of German Prepositional Phrases

    13/65

    10

    speaker. An example of this variation in Russian is seen in (14) where word order and emphasis

    affect the speakers choice of accusative or locative to mark the landmark, but semantics is the

    same.

    (14)a. Poves kartinu na stenuA.Hang.IMP.SG painting.ACC.SG on wall.ACC.SG

    Hang the picture on the wall.

    b. A na steneLmy povesim kartinu.And on wall.LOC.SG we.NOM hang.1P.FUT.PL painting.ACC.SG

    And on the wall we will hang a picture. (Russian Zaitseva 1994: 112)

    Israeli uses the schemas in Figure 1 to illustrate case choice in these placement verbs. The source

    of variation comes particularly from the speakers choice between figures 1.3 and 1.4.

    Figure 1 Image Schemas, Israeli (2004:9)

    1.1 LOC/INST: No motion

    1.2 LOC/INST: Path of motion does not cross boundary1.3 ACC: Path of motion crosses boundary

    1.4 LOC/INST: Path of motion crosses boundary, emphasis on motion inside container

    Israeli differentiates figure 1.4 from 1.3 by claiming that though the crossing of a boundary is

    implied by the description, it is the motion inside the container that is emphasized and triggers

    the otherwise stationary case. Israeli cites Russian examples that clearly imply the crossing of a

    boundary, yet are marked by the locative case, as in (15). In this case, the container must be large

    enough to contain multiple of the moving objects in question, yet said object when coming to

    rest inside the container not snuggly fit (see figure 2.4 below). While (17) and (18) seem

    contradictory, Israeli attributes the conflict to a matter of emphasis of motion.

    1 42 3

  • 7/24/2019 Beyond Case Marking in the Interpretation of German Prepositional Phrases

    14/65

    11

    (15) Onpostavil(stood.PF.TR.M) ma#inu v gara!eL(in garage.LOC.SG), vy#el"erez pustuju proxodnuju

    He parked the car in the garage, went out through an empty checkpoint

    7,8

    (16) Mirona polo!ili v bolnicuA.

    Miron.ACC laid.PF.TR.PL in hospital.ACC.SGMiron was hospitalized (placed in a hospital). (Israeli 2004)

    Israeli claims that the use of the locative in (15) emphasizes the motion within the container,

    rather than the inherent crossing of the container boundary. In (16) the boundary crossing is

    emphasized by the use of the accusative, though the ground is also a large container.

    Nonetheless, the data show that the locative case can be used to encode a goal.

    That said, only certain contexts are subject to a choice of emphasizing the boundary

    crossing or the motion within the container, affected primarily by the size of the figure compared

    to the size of the landmark. If the figure fits snuggly in the landmark, the accusative must mark

    the goal. Only when the figure fits loosely in the landmark is the locative or instrumental case

    an option. This fitting model is illustrated by figure 2.

    Figure 2 Israelis container illustrations

    2.1 ACC: object fits snuggly in container

    2.2 LOC/INST: object is much smaller than container, movement inside container isemphasized

    2.3 ACC: object is much smaller than container, but container contains other small objects2.4 ACC: object is much smaller than container, movement of the boundary crossing is

    emphasized

    7Israeli notes here that the context of this example is a large garage, accommodating more than

    one car, that is relatively empty. A car parked in a single car garage would fit the structure of 2.1and be marked by the accusative.8Glossing conventions here borrowed from the source.

    1 2 3 4

  • 7/24/2019 Beyond Case Marking in the Interpretation of German Prepositional Phrases

    15/65

    12

    Israeli notes that objects that fit singularly or snuggly inside a container (a body in a coffin,

    a person in a chair, a letter in a pocket, etc., Israeli 2004:16) are regularly are marked by the

    accusative case in concomitance with Figure 1.3. The car in the garage in (15) fits loosely, and is

    therefore subject to emphasis of the movement within the landmark. Example (17) illustrates the

    new case acceptability if the garage discussed in (15) was filled with multiple cars, and the

    ground would be marked by the accusative and fit with figure 2.3.

    (17) On postavil(stood.PF.TR.M) ma!iny v gara!A(in garage.ACC.SG), vy!el"erez pustuju proxodnuju

    He parked the cars in the garage,went out through an empty checkpoint(Israeli 2004)

    Through Figures 1 and 2, Israeli illustrates the relation between the figure and the ground as

    pivotal in case choice in Russian placement verbs. In particular, there are certain constraints that

    allow a subset of boundary crossings to be described by locational marking. If the figure fits

    loosely within the landmark, allowing for emphasizeable movement within the landmark, the

    speaker can choose to emphasize this interior movement rather than the boundary crossing

    through the choice of locational marking.

    Israeli touches on, but does not attempt to address, a second set of variations from

    Russians standard generalization. Whereas the above mentioned examples allow for both the

    accusative or locative/instrumental markings depending on contextual constraints and speaker

    emphasis, there is a second category of variation where not only is locational marking used to

    mark a goal, but the accusative is entirely unacceptable. One such example is seen in (18).

    (18)a. *On povesil ruba#ku vo dvorA.he.NOM hung.PF.TR.M shirt.ACC.SG in courtyard.ACC.SGHe hung his shirt in the yard.

  • 7/24/2019 Beyond Case Marking in the Interpretation of German Prepositional Phrases

    16/65

    13

    b. On povesil ruba#ku vo dvoreL.he.NOM hung.PF.TR.M shirt.ACC.SG in courtyard.LOC.SG

    He hung his shirt in the yard.

    Israeli does not account for this variation, but it will be discussed in German contexts in section

    5.5.2.

    3.3

    Effects of the Verb

    Verb class is a second factor to have noted effects on directed motion variation across languages

    with the discussed encoding alternation. Specifically, there are categories of verbs that can

    describe either directional or locational movement depending on satellite markings, others that

    necessitate one type of motion and marking, and more interestingly a set that requires a singular

    interpretation, but allows either marking. I also touch on duration and the lexical aspect of verbs

    with noted marking tendencies in English, but which will not likely be a factor in German.

    3.3.1 Verb Classes

    Nikitina breaks down Russian motion verbs into the following classes by their reading and

    marking acceptability:

    General motion entailment verbs: can combine with either a location-marking or goal-marking satellite to describe location or goal of motion respectively

    Inherently undirected motion verbs: disallow goal marking satellites

    Inherently directed motion verbs: disallow location marking satellites

    Encoding variation verbs: both location and goal satellites mark the endpoint of motion

    It is this last category that is of most interest to this study. The verbs that make up this last class

    are change of position (sa!at seat (caus.), klast lay/put/place down, stavit put/place/set,

    ve#at hang (caus.)and their intransitive counterparts), change of state verbs (prjatathide,

    zato"atincarcerate,zaryvatbury, etc.), and less importantly metaphorical motion verbs

    (zapisyvatto write down) where both locational and directional PPs can express the goal of

  • 7/24/2019 Beyond Case Marking in the Interpretation of German Prepositional Phrases

    17/65

    14

    motion. The alternation with what Nikitina calls change of position verbs is exemplified in

    English through (19).

    (19)a. John put the box into his pocket.

    b.

    John put the box in his pocket

    Comparing (19) with (20) specifies that this alternation is based in the verb and not the relation

    of the figure to the landmark as discussed in section 3.2.3. Essentially,putin English requires a

    directional reading, but does not require a directional marking.

    (20)a. John put the ping-pong ball into the large empty box.

    b. John put the ping-pong ball inG/*inLthe large empty box.

    A similar variation occurs in Russian, as seen in (21), as well as Polish, Czech, and Ukrainian.

    Both the locational and directional markings are acceptable. A similar alternation is illustrated in

    (22) with change of state verbs.

    (21) Change of position

    Postav vazu na stol/stole.Put vase on table.ACC/table.LOC.

    Put the vase on the table.(22) Change of State

    Pirat sprjatal zoloto v sunduk / v sunduke.Pirate hid gold in chest.ACC / in chest.LOC

    The pirate hid the gold in a chest. (Russian Nikitina 2007 : 6)

    Examples (19)-(22) arguably involve change in location since there is no explicit contextual

    source, but it could be implied which would contribute to the directional reading. But the explicit

    lack of change in location in (23) explicates that there is no inherent change of location

    necessarily entailed by change of position and change of state verbs.

    (23)a. Ja uvidel, "to butylka upala, I snova e postavil.I saw that bottle fell and again it.ACC put.up.

    I saw that the bottle fell and put it back into standing position.

  • 7/24/2019 Beyond Case Marking in the Interpretation of German Prepositional Phrases

    18/65

    15

    b. Oni sprijatali korobku, nakryv e gazetoj.They hid box cover.PRT.PST it.ACC newspaper.INSTR.

    They hid the box by covering it with a newspaper.(Russian Nikitina 2007 : 7)

    Both change of position and change of state verbs in Russian allow for a variation of locational

    and directional marking. But since there is no inherent change in location in these contexts,

    Nikitina accounts for this marking as indicating a result argument rather than a goal argument

    and directional reading. Essentially, the NPs marked by accusative in change of position or

    change of state verbs do not mark a goal of motion, rather they mark a result state of the verb

    action that usually coincides with the endpoint of motion, thus accounting for the alternation.

    In relation to German, the first set of change of position verbs is ruled out. The transitive

    verbsstellen to put, setzen to sit, and legen to lay,require goal PPs and necessitate use of

    the accusative as in (24), and their intransitive counterpartsstehen to put/stand, sitzen to sit,

    and liegen to lierequire location PPs and necessitate use of the dative. Thus the German

    corresponding change of position verbs do not fall into the same category of verbs, and

    consequently neither do their constituent PPs. While upon further investigation it may reveal that

    the constituent PPs may indeed be result arguments, they do not exhibit the same alternation, and

    thus I set them aside.

    (24) Stell die Vase auf den/*dem Tisch.Put the vase on the.ACC/*the.DAT table.Put the vase onto the table.

    Though the acceptability alternation is not attested by change of position verbs in German,

    Nikitinas suggestion that the use of the accusative actually indicates a result argument rather

    than a goal argument is significant in the interpretation of the uniquely acceptable case in

    German. While German does not exhibit the same acceptability alternation, a similar semantic

    implication may be possible.

  • 7/24/2019 Beyond Case Marking in the Interpretation of German Prepositional Phrases

    19/65

    16

    3.3.2 Duration and Punctuality

    Duration and punctuality of a verb is noted by Nikitina (2008) to influence the choice of a

    locational or directional marker in English. Specifically, transition events (punctual verbs) are

    more likely than process events (durative verbs) to allow a directional in. While intois always

    preferred in English when describing a directional event, Nikitina attests that inis sufficient in

    transition events as a directional reading and is more likely to depict a directional motion than

    with process events. When describing directionality, process events are more likely to occur with

    intoto explicate directionality as incan be more easily interpreted in this class of events as

    locational than directional.

    Nikitina concludes that verbs that tend to describe transitions (such asget, bring, put, dip)

    occur more frequently with directional inthan verbs that describe inherently unbounded

    processes (such as climb, drive, pull, carry) (Nikitina 2008:181). That is to say, with verbs that

    describe transitions, the ambiguous inis often read as the goal of the transition, and with verbs

    that describe processes, the ambiguous inis often read as the location of the process.

    This assertion is backed up by Nikitinas data, which found that a directional interpretation

    of in (inG) was used in 19% of cases with transition verbs and 12% with process verbs, a

    statistically significant difference. In either case, intois preferred to inGwhen talking about

    directed motion, and the difference between the 19% and 12% is only 3 clauses of the dataset (37

    instances of inGwith process verbs compared to 40 instances of inGwith transition verbs).

    This study highlights the relationship between a quality of the verb and the acceptability of

    reinterpreting a location as a goal. In English, both durative and punctual verbs allow such a

    reinterpretation, however it is more likely to occur during transition events with punctual verbs.

  • 7/24/2019 Beyond Case Marking in the Interpretation of German Prepositional Phrases

    20/65

    17

    3.4 Directional Particles

    A third factor affecting pragmatic reinterpretation of locations as goals is directional particles

    (Nikitina 2008). These directional particles encode directional information outside of the verb

    and satellite ordinarily used to construct directed motion events in both V-framed and S-framed

    languages. They serve to specify a directional context, thus mitigating the necessity for

    traditional directional constructions, and therefore allowing for reinterpretation of locative

    constructions as directional.

    Nikitina (2008) uses (25) from her corpus to illustrate how the addition of a directional

    particle (in this instance up) emphasizes the directional reading.

    (25)She climbed up intoone of those orange streetcars, rode away in it, and never

    came back. (English Nikitina 2008 : 181)

    Nikitina defines toclimbas an unbounded verb, a verb type that most easily lends itself to a

    locational reading of in, and that it is the directional particle upthat overrides the locational

    reading and reinterpretation as directional.

    However, this specific example has a few complications, as it does not actually use the

    ambiguous inin question, the relevant example is instead reconstructed in (26a). However, there

    is a conflict between the movement and the landmark, illustrated in (26b), which suggests

    something more along the lines of Israelis container theory (as discussed in section 3.2.3) might

    be the source of the directional reading.

    (26)

    a. She climbed up inone of those orange streetcars, rode away in it.b. She climbed inone of those orange streetcars, rode away in it

    Even without a directional particle, (26b) maintains a directional reading, indicating that

    directionality in this particular example comes from something other than the directional particle.

    While this particular example cited by Nikitina is problematic, a simple reconstruction of the

  • 7/24/2019 Beyond Case Marking in the Interpretation of German Prepositional Phrases

    21/65

    18

    example shows the assertion that directional particles contribute to the directional reading of a

    locative marking is valid. The examples in (27) were constructed with the same unbounded verb,

    but with a non-conflicting landmark (the trees). In contrast to thestreetcar, the trees is a

    landmark that can be climbed in an unbounded manner, laTarzan. Example (27a) maintains a

    primarily locational reading, compared to (26b) which has a directional reading. Examples

    (27b,c) illustrate that a directional reading can be induced through the use of a directional

    satellite or a directional particle.

    (27)a. She climbed inthe trees. (location, ??direction)b. She climbed intothe trees. (direction, *location)

    c.

    She climbed up inthe trees. (location, direction)d. She climbed up intothe trees. (direction, *location)

    Though the examples provided by Nikitina did not strongly support the assertion as they

    were compounded by other directional influences, a reconstruction controlling for other

    directional influences reveals that the addition of directional particles specifies the directional

    contexts, rendering the directional satellite unnecessary to attain a directional reading. Through

    the use of a directional particle in English, a location can be reinterpreted as the goal of

    movement.

    3.5 Effects of Syntactic Arrangement

    A fourth factor noted to affect the reinterpretation of locations as goals is the order of constituent

    phrases in a sentence. Specifically, a locational reading is preferred if the PP is topicalized, or

    comes before the contextual information necessary for a directional reinterpretation. This pattern

    is noted in English (Nikitina 2008, Thomas 2001, 2005) and in Russian (Nikitina 2008).

    Illustrated in English, (28a) is less likely to receive a directional reading where the PP precedes

    the context, as compared to (28b) which easily is read as directional.

  • 7/24/2019 Beyond Case Marking in the Interpretation of German Prepositional Phrases

    22/65

    19

    (28)a. ?? In this pool John fell.

    b. John fell in this pool. (Nikitina 2008 : 182)

    Russian allows for a fairly free rearrangement of constituent elements, as case aids in

    interpreting argument roles. While the traditional syntactic arrangement illustrated by (29b)

    allows for an alternation in interpretation, the preposing of the PP in (29a) disprefers the

    accusative marking.

    (29)a. V kuxne na ?9stenu / na stene ja povesil "asy.In kitchen.LOC on ?wall.ACC/on wall.LOC I hang clock.In the kitchen on the wall I hang a clock.

    b. Jam povesil "asy v kuxne na stenu / na stene.I hang clock in kitchen.LOC on wall.ACC/on wall.LOC.

    I hang the clock in the kitchen on the wall. (Russian Blazhev (1988:64-5))

    The comparison of (29a) to (29b) indicates that topicalizing the location in (29a) prefers the use

    of locational PPs. In other words, (29a) emphasizes the place where the clock is being hung and

    (29b) emphasizes the change of location of the clock, while both imply motion and change of

    location of the clock.

    The conclusions from these studies indicate that syntactic arrangement, particularly

    preposing the alternating argument in question, can make an ordinarily alternating PP show

    preference for a particular marking or reading. In practice, this means this study will need to

    control for syntactic arrangement lest the variation is missed.

    3.6

    Proximity of Figure to Landmark

    In English, the proximity of the figure, or the moving object, to the landmark affects the

    availability of the directional reinterpretation of in(Thomas 2005, Tham et al 2012). A

    9 Here and below, a single question mark identifies another possible marking that retains the

    same semantic interpretation, but indicates the dispreference for this form compared to the

    alternative.

  • 7/24/2019 Beyond Case Marking in the Interpretation of German Prepositional Phrases

    23/65

    20

    directional reading is more available for inthe closer the figure is to the landmark. The locational

    inin (30a) receives a directional reading more easily than in (30b) because the figure is closer to

    the landmark.

    (30)a. Pat walked inGthe study from the kitchen.b. #Pat walked inGthe study from a mile away.

    When considering border-crossing events, it will be pertinent to examine the scalable proximity

    of the figure to the landmark and its effect on case acceptability or preference in German.

    3.7 Evidence of Reinterpretation Across Typologically Distinct Languages

    The previously discussed literature pertains primarily to satellite-framed languages in preparation

    for a comparison to German, another satellite-framed language. But this directional

    reinterpretation hypothesis is supported by evidence from across typologically distinct languages

    given similar contextual constraints on the verb, aspect, and landmark, which suggests it is a

    natural phenomenon of language not contingent on language type.

    In particular, in verb-framed languages, systematically distinct from satellite-framed

    languages, traditionally locative prepositions can be interpreted as directional events given a verb

    that implies displacement (running and flying verbs), punctual aspect, and specific types of

    landmarks (Tham et al. 2012). In other words, the same factors that contribute to directional

    readings of locative PPs in satellite-framed languages affect reinterpretation in verb-framed

    languages like Italian in (31), Spanish in (32), and French (6)-(7), despite the lack of an

    alternative explicit goal-marking satellite.

    (31) La rodine volataalnido.The swallow is fly.PSTPRT at.the nest

    The swallow flew to the nest. (Italian Tham et al 2012 : 6 (15))

  • 7/24/2019 Beyond Case Marking in the Interpretation of German Prepositional Phrases

    24/65

    21

    (32) Michel corre alMolino y destruye el cementerio.Michel run to.the mill and destroy the cemetery

    Michel runs to the mill and destroys the cemetery.(Spanish Fbregas 2007: 168, (3b))

    Even languages outside of the standard verb-framed and satellite-framed languages show

    evidence for directional reinterpretation of locative markings. Mandarin, an equipollently-framed

    language, uses coverbs, lexical units exhibiting properties of both verbs and prepositions (Li and

    Thompson 1981), to express location and directionality.10

    The coverbziin isolation is read

    exclusively as locative, in contrast with the directional coverbs do arrive/to andjn enter.

    However, given similar contexts that govern reinterpretation in S- and V-framed languages,zi

    can receive a directional reading, as seen in (33)-(34).

    (33) Diozishu$-liDrop be.at water-withindrop into the water

    (34) Wuya yu jio-le y sheng fei zi qing-shangCrow again call-ASP one sound fly be.at wall-upon

    The crow cawed once more, and flew onto the wall.(Mandarin Tham et al. 2009)

    While the variation is not identical across languages (the exact verbs contributing to a directional

    reading in one language do not always correspond exactly in another language), there are

    consistent patterns suggesting that certain types of verbs, like displacement, transition, and

    arriving verbs, and types of landmarks contribute to the directional reinterpretation of nominally

    locative markings along with other contextual patterns. Guided by the principal that there are

    cross-linguistic patterns contributing to directional reinterpretations, the reinterpretation

    hypothesis suggests that German should allow this reinterpretation given similar contexts.

    10 In equipollently-framed languages, both manner and path are both encoded as main verbs

    (Beavers et al. 2010).

  • 7/24/2019 Beyond Case Marking in the Interpretation of German Prepositional Phrases

    25/65

    22

    4. CORPUS STUDY

    4.1 Goals of Study

    In quick review, the traditional understanding of the use of either accusative or dative case in

    German to mark the complement NP of a motion prepositional phrase is that accusative marks

    the NP as the goal of the motion and dative marks the NP as simply the location of the motion.

    As evidenced by the previously discussed literature, in languages that exhibit a similar

    goal/location dynamic, there are certain situations where this is complicated or there are

    exceptions to this rule. Specifically, I am looking to either corroborate or refute the interpretation

    of Beavers et al (2010) and Tham et al (2012) that languages universally can reinterpret locations

    to be goals under certain pragmatic conditions. In the context of German, I am looking for data

    where the dative is used to mark a NP that is understood to be the goal of motion.11

    4.2 Optimality Theory Guided Case Choice

    This study primarily concerns itself with the set of alternating prepositions, searching for a

    divergence from the standard generalization and a reinterpretation of an overtly marked location

    PP as a goal PP. I note at the outset that this strategy leaves out the majority of prepositions,

    notablyzu to, which is an overtly directional preposition, yet it is a strictly dative preposition:

    11The languages exhibiting reinterpretation behavior universally reinterpreted locations as goals,

    never reinterpreting goals as locations. Though not attested in other languages, this study wasconducted to look for any abnormality or divergence from the standard generalization. Thus

    additional consideration was given to examine if ever the accusative was used to mark a NP thatwas understood to be the location of movement (or semantic role other than goal). No evidence

    of this was found either, and I do not discuss it further here.

  • 7/24/2019 Beyond Case Marking in the Interpretation of German Prepositional Phrases

    26/65

    23

    its complement must always take the dative case. This demonstrates that dative case can be

    associated with a goal reading if it is lexically fixed or the only possible complement case for a

    given preposition. Zwarts (2006) discusses a hierarchy of constraints in Optimality Theory that

    accounts for case choice with non-alternating prepositions, placing lexicalized case above

    contextually determined case. The question I address here is not whether dative can in general

    ever encode a goal, but rather whether it does when it alternates with accusative.

    While this study was primarily concerned with alternating prepositions, one tested example

    explored the possibility of combining directional selecting verbs (stellen, legen, andsetzen) and a

    strictly dative preposition, bei by, at. For this quick study,setzento sit was left out as it

    required an object with an anatomical seat. The examples in (35b) and (36b) exhibit the

    standard generalization when an accusative preposition is used. A native speaker was unsure as

    to which case was acceptable in (35a), suggesting that an unacceptability lay in an improper

    combination of verb and preposition. But it is the result of (36a) which was quite unexpected.

    While there was a preference to use an alternative preposition to communicate this event, the

    native speakers intuition was that the accusative, not the dative case was acceptable, and she

    suggested that (36a) might be a colloquialism, or something a rural grandmother might say.

    (35)Legen to lay sth.a. Ich lege das Buch bei *den/*dem Baum.

    I lay the book by the.ACC/the.DAT tree.I lay the book by the tree.

    b. Ich lege das Buch neben den/*dem Baum.I lay the book next to the.ACC/*the.DAT tree.

    I lay the book next to the tree.

    (36)Stellento put sth.

    a. Ich stelle das Buch bei den/*dem Baum.I put the book by the.ACC/*the.DAT tree.

    I put the book by the tree.

  • 7/24/2019 Beyond Case Marking in the Interpretation of German Prepositional Phrases

    27/65

    24

    b. Ich stelle das Buch neben den/*dem Baum.I put the book next to the.ACC/*the.DAT tree.

    I put the book next to the tree.

    The preference for the accusative NP with a nominally dative (non-alternating) preposition in

    (36a) evidences dialectic divergence from standard categorization of German prepositions. While

    this finding does not exhibit the directional reinterpretation of a locational PP, it suggests that the

    categorical groupings of German prepositions deserve revisiting. The exceptional acceptability in

    (36a) suggests that, at least in dialects of German, standard rules guiding prepositions are

    squishy and a divergence from the standard generalization about alternating prepositions might

    be possible given proper contexts.

    4.3

    Methodology of Corpus Study

    Following in the example of studies like Nikitina (2008) and Estigarribia and Levin (2007), I

    consulted the Stuttgart DeWaC corpus (Baroni et al 2009), built from downloaded web text, to

    pull relevant examples for consultation with a native speaker as to the nuance and possible non-

    standard readings of the examples event structures as defined by case marking of the dual

    prepositions constituent noun phrase. The aforementioned studies looked at contexts

    surrounding in/intoand underL/underGin a corpus and were able to describe a set of contexts

    delineating each variation as acceptable, unacceptable, or alternate.

    In efforts to pull a manageable set of data, I used a coded script to pull sentences with the

    co-occurrences of unterand a variety of strategically chosen verbs of displacement, punctuality,

    intention, and manner.12Of the dual case prepositions, unterwas chosen as it is less likely to be

    12The following are the strategically chosen verbs: laufen to walk,fahren to drive,steigen to

    climb,werfen to throw,fliegen to fly, rollen to roll, wandern to wander, gleiten to glide,schwimmen to swim, tanzen to dance, krabbeln to crawl, rennen to run, hpfen tojump/bound, schlngeln to wiggle, streifen to roam, wackeln to totter, radeln to bike,

  • 7/24/2019 Beyond Case Marking in the Interpretation of German Prepositional Phrases

    28/65

    25

    an element of a separable prefix or particle verb, it is likely to be used in describing literal, not

    metaphorical, motion, and it is predicted that it will be easy to determine the source, route, and

    goal of the given syntactic event.

    From this set of data I manually reviewed the sentences and further extracted only

    examples where unterwas a dependent of the verb in question. Further complicated by Germans

    widespread use of particle verbs, which often use prepositions as a non-literal complement to

    invoke a semantic meaning distinct from that of the main verb, these examples were further

    narrowed to keep only the examples where unterwas used in a literal sense of referring to an

    event happening under some physical object, not say, under the supervision/gaze/cheers of the

    overseer/neighbors/crowd.

    4.4 Results of Corpus Study

    Of the 1,017,199 sentences from the corpus with unter, 16342 occurred concurrently with our

    chosen verbs. Of these, 1293 fit our constraints of being constituents of the verb and literal

    usage. Of these examples, I manually selected examples likely to coerce a pragmatic

    reinterpretation based on the contexts discussed above for a final set of 48 examples.

    Specifically, I was looking for examples of non-standard usage of accusative and dative marking.

    A native speaker confirmed that all of these examples nonetheless fit the standard generalization

    of accusative marking goals and dative marking locations of motion. A comparable study of

    English (Nikitina 2008) found 15% of 518 clauses from a narrowed corpus had a non-standard

    usage of into mark direction. While underdoes not have a comparable directional variant

    (*underto), Estagarribia and Levin (2007) found an alternation of 81% directional readings and

    bummeln to stroll, joggen to job, hinken to limp, traben to trot, humpeln to hobble,hoppeln to scuttle, hopsen to hop, rudern to row, trieben to float.

  • 7/24/2019 Beyond Case Marking in the Interpretation of German Prepositional Phrases

    29/65

    26

    19% locational readings of under. Having tested similar constraints on the German corpus, it is

    extremely surprising to have found absolutely no alternation or divergence in German case

    marking.

    While the absence of divergence is striking given the breadth of the corpus study, it could

    be attributed to a number of assumptions and constraints aimed at limiting the data. It could be

    that an alternation is not available for unterbut is for in, or there is another context outside of

    verb class that allows for the directional interpretation of locational marking. The constraints

    imposed to make the data manageable theoretically could have eliminated the sought after

    exceptions. Thus a second methodology of constructing examples was used to further examine

    the expanded contexts in which a deviation from the standard generalization might occur in a

    more systematic and controlled manner.

  • 7/24/2019 Beyond Case Marking in the Interpretation of German Prepositional Phrases

    30/65

    27

    5. NATIVE SPEAKER CONSULTATION

    5.1 Methodology of Native Speaker Consultation

    Given the cross-linguistic patterns attested across language type contributing to directional

    reinterpretation of locations, a second methodology involved constructing novel examples

    guided by the attested patterns to determine if similar interpretations exist in German. These

    novel examples were constructed to test effects of manner of motion, duration and aspect of

    motion, types of landmarks, syntactic arrangement, and directional particles on the interpretation

    of events with locative markings. These examples were then discussed with a native speaker to

    determine if they could be given directional interpretations.

    While the type of context given was a large factor in determining acceptability of either

    case, the choice of presentation of the context had no affect on acceptability. When explicit

    context was necessary to elicit an unacceptable use of a case, examples like (37) were used to

    ensure that the presence or adjacency of explicit context (like route or source) did not affect the

    resulting interpretation and acceptability of case use. Some examples were given the context as

    an English statement while others had the context explicit in the German example itself. In either

    situation, it was the sheer fact that there was context, not the way it was presented to the speaker,

    which determined the acceptability of a given case.13

    13Examples in the following section may employ one or both of these context presentation

    strategies as the data permit, but the strategy of context presentation proved to have no affect on

    acceptability and should not be considered a testable factor.

  • 7/24/2019 Beyond Case Marking in the Interpretation of German Prepositional Phrases

    31/65

    28

    (37) a. Sie luft in die/der Bar. (No context)She walks in the.ACC/the.DAT bar.

    She walks into/inLthe bar.

    b. CONTEXT: The woman is standing outside the entrance

    Sie luft in die/*der Bar.She walks in the.ACC/*the.DAT bar.She walks into the bar.

    c. Von gerade auerhalb des Eingangs, luft sie in die/*der Bar.From right outside the.GEN entrance, walks she in the.ACC/*the.DAT bar.

    From right outside the entrance, she walks into the bar.

    Universally, when the context required a directional reading, the use of dative (locative) marking

    was determined to be ungrammatical, and reinterpretation as a directional PP was not possible.

    With ambiguous contexts, either marking was acceptable, albeit with the interpretation guided by

    the standard generalization. The data found by both the corpus study and constructed example

    methodologies strongly suggests that the directional reinterpretation hypothesis is not available

    in German.

    5.2 Irrelevant Factors

    In creating examples to test with a native speaker, I created examples to test for a variety of

    factors mentioned in the literature which contributed to either ambiguity or interpretation

    preference in languages exhibiting the discussed alternation other than German. The following

    are factor that were deemed to have no relevant effect on the acceptability of either case.

    Manner Verbs

    Evidence presented by Beavers et al (2010) (see section 2, examples (6)-(7)) suggests that certain

    contexts allow for reinterpretation of PPs in combination with manner verbs (generally given a

    locational reading in verb-framed languages) to allow a goal reading. Further evidence in

    satellite-framed languages suggested that the locational inLwas used more often (compared to

  • 7/24/2019 Beyond Case Marking in the Interpretation of German Prepositional Phrases

    32/65

    29

    inGor into) with verbs encoding distinct manner of motion (Nikitina 2008). The sentences shown

    in (38) were constructed to test the effect of manner-heavy and manner-neutral verbs on

    acceptability of directional or locational readings.

    (38)a. Der Mann luft/fhrt/spaziert/springt in das/dem Zimmer.The man walks/drives/wanders/jumps in the.ACC/the.DAT room.

    The man walks/drives/wanders/jumps into/inLthe room.

    b. Der Mann luft/fhrt/spaziert/springt in den/dem Wald.The man walks/drives/wanders/jumps in the.ACC/the.DAT forest.The man walks/drives/wanders/jumps into/inL the forest.

    While it was found that certain qualities of a verb do contribute to case acceptability (to be

    discussed in section 5.5), manner was not one of them. The manner encoded in verbs did not

    contribute to a divergence from the standard generalization, nor did it necessitate the use of a

    particular case. Both cases were acceptable depending on the interpretation.

    Syntactic Arrangement

    As discussed in section 3.5, English and Russian showed a preference for locational readings

    when the PP was topicalized and thus presented before the context. But German has a high

    tolerance for topicalization while retaining meaning, and thus case preference is not affected by

    syntactic arrangement. The comparison of (a-b) in examples (39)-(41) reveals that PP

    topicalization does not change the acceptability of a given case nor the interpretation, and is thus

    not a relevant factor when considering acceptability of cases in description of motion events.

    (39)a. Der Mann spaziert in den/dem Wald.The man wanders in the.ACC/the.DAT forest.

    The man wanders into/inLthe forest.

    b. In den/dem Wald spaziert der Mann.In the.ACC/the.DAT forest wanders the man.Into/inLthe forest wanders the man.

  • 7/24/2019 Beyond Case Marking in the Interpretation of German Prepositional Phrases

    33/65

    30

    (40)a. Der Mann geht in das/*dem Zimmer.14The man goes in the.ACC/*the.DAT room.

    The man goes into the room.

    b. In das/*dem Zimmer geht der Mann.In the.ACC/*the.DAT room goes the man.

    Into the room goes the man.

    (41)a. Der Mann luft in das/dem Zimmer.The man walks in the.ACC/the.DAT room.

    The man walks into/inLroom.

    b. In das/dem Zimmer luft der Mann.In the.ACC/the.DAT room walks the man.The man walks into/inLthe room.

    While manner-verbs and syntactic arrangement were noted to have an effect on alternation

    acceptability or preference in languages other than German, they exhibited no tendencies in our

    constructed examples of German to prefer one case marking to the other. These factors can be

    ruled out when considering factors affecting case acceptability or preference in German.

    5.3 Motion-Landmark Conflicts

    In the absence of specific context the standard generalization states that both accusative and

    dative markings are acceptable, albeit with different interpretations. Given a certain set of

    constraints on the verb and the landmark, this generalization holds. However, when the context is

    such that one reading or the other is ruled out due to the nature of the landmark, one marking

    becomes acceptable and the other unacceptable. The unacceptable marking cannot be

    reinterpreted as a location or goal. This strongly suggests that reinterpretation is not possible.

    The following sections discuss the variation in acceptable cases when a motion does not conflict

    14Given enough context focusing the motion within the room, the dative can be acceptable with

    the interpretation of going back and forth inside the room, but the accusative use and intention

    is consistently more likely in practice.

  • 7/24/2019 Beyond Case Marking in the Interpretation of German Prepositional Phrases

    34/65

    31

    with a landmark, conflicts with a landmark, or conflicts with the source of motion and no

    exterior context is presented.

    5.3.1 Motion Does Not Conflict With Landmark

    When a motion can logically be accomplished within the bounds of the landmark, the use of the

    dative is available to mark location and accusative is available for a directional interpretation.

    This alternation of acceptable cases and subsequent interpretations is illustrated in (42). The

    movements described by the verbs in (42) can reasonably be accomplished within the given

    landmark, thus both case markings are available depending on semantic intention.

    (42)a. Der Mann luft in das/dem Zimmer.The man walks in the.ACC/the.DAT room.

    The man walks into/inL the room.

    b. Er fhrt in die/der Stadt.He drives in the.fem.ACC/the.fem.DAT city.He drives into/inLthe city.

    c. Er fhrt in die Berge/den BergenHe drives in the.pl.ACC/the.pl.DAT mountains

    He drives into/inLthe mountains.

    Walking can be accomplished in a room or can be a method of displacement into the room, thus

    either case marking is acceptable for (42a) depending on the intention of the speaker. The

    examples in (43) further illustrate possible case and interpretations when a movement does not

    conflict with the given landmark.

    (43)a. Der Mann luft in das/dem Haus.The man walks in the.ACC/the.DAT house.The man walks into/inL the house.

  • 7/24/2019 Beyond Case Marking in the Interpretation of German Prepositional Phrases

    35/65

    32

    b. Der Mann luft/spaziert/wandert/bummelt15in den/dem Wald.The man walks/strolls/wanders/ambles in the.ACC/the.DAT forest.

    The man walks/strolls/wanders/ambles into/inL the forest.

    c. Er fhrt auf die/der Rennstrecke.

    He drives on the.masc.ACC/the.masc.DAT racetrack.He drives onto/onLthe racetrack.

    d. Er fhrt in die/der Garage.He drives in the.fem.ACC/the.fem.DAT Garage.

    He drives into/inLthe Garage.

    e. Sie luft/spaziert/wandert/bummelt in die/der Bar.She walks/strolls/wanders/ambles in the.ACC/the.DAT bar

    She walks/strolls/wanders/ambles into/inLthe bar.

    f. Er tanzt mit seiner Frau in das/dem Zimmer.He dances with his wife in the.ACC/the.DAT room.

    He dances into/inLthe room with his wife.

    g. Er hinkt/joggt/tanzt in das/dem Zimmer.He limps/jogs/dances in the.ACC/the.DAT room.

    He limps/jogs/dances into/inL the room.

    h. Er hinkt/joggt in das/dem Feld.He limps/jogs in the.ACC/the.DAT field.He limps/jogs into/inL the field.

    These data are of course unsurprising given the standard generalization. When a particular

    motion does not conflict with the landmark, either case (and corresponding interpretation) is

    acceptable.

    15Verbs with high unintentionality like stroll, wander, oramble are unlikely to be used in the

    context of crossing a boundary and thus use of the accusative would be rare and unusual, but

    conceptually it is possible.

  • 7/24/2019 Beyond Case Marking in the Interpretation of German Prepositional Phrases

    36/65

    33

    5.3.2 Motion Conflicts with Landmark

    When motion conflicts with the landmark such that the specific motion within the landmark is

    not possible, there is a preference for the accusative case because a locative interpretation is

    either impossible or highly unlikely. This conflict of motion and landmark is best illustrated by

    Israelis container illustration (see figure 2.1) where a movement is not logically possible given

    the spatial configuration of the landmark. In section 3.4 I discussed the conflict between climb

    andstreetcaras the likely source of a directional interpretation in English. Climbin an

    unbounded, continuous sense as demanded by a locational interpretation is logically improbable,

    if not impossible, in the confines of a streetcar.

    Example (44a) recreates this situation in German. Whereas English can reinterpret the

    locative inas directional, German instead disallows the dative case and permits only the

    accusative. This contrasts with (44b) in which the movement of walking does not inherently

    conflict with the spatial configuration of the streetcar landmark. In comparing (44a) and (44b) it

    is evident that it is not the presence of a directional particle (as was claimed by Nikitina 2008),

    the unbounded nature of the verb (bothsteigenand laufencan be unbounded), or the size of the

    figure that contributes to the locational marking acceptability. Rather it is the spatial requirement

    of locational motion that conflicts with the spatial reality of the given landmark which allows

    only a directional marking of (44a).

    (44)a. Sie steigt in die/*der Straenbahn.She climbs in the.F.ACC/*the.F.DAT streetcar.

    She climbs into the/*inLthe streetcar.b. Sie luft in die/der Straenbahn.

    She walks in the.F.ACC/the.F.DAT streetcar.She walks into/ inLthe streetcar.

    A typically unbounded verb (likesteigen to climb) is used to describe a bounded, transition

    event in combination with a container-type landmark. However, laufen, also a typically

  • 7/24/2019 Beyond Case Marking in the Interpretation of German Prepositional Phrases

    37/65

    34

    unbounded verb, is unaffected in case preference by the nature of the landmark. There is a

    fundamental spatial requirement necessitated by a locative interpretation ofsteigenthat is not

    met by Straenbahn (i.e.steigenin the unbounded sense is physically not possible in the

    confines of a streetcar). This suggests that there are spatial requirements for normally non-

    directed motion events that, when not met by the landmark necessarily yield a directional

    reading, and in the case of German, require an explicit directional marking.

    While this conflict of spatial requirements on motion and landmark spatial reality yields a

    reinterpretation of locations as goals in languages other than German, this reinterpretation is not

    available in this context in German and the conflicting marking is simply unacceptable rather

    than reinterpreted.

    5.3.3 Motion Conflicts with Source

    In testing a set of contexts where the motion described conflicted with a source of motion, a new

    subset of case marking constraints unattested by previous literature was discovered. Whereas a

    conflict between motion and landmark yielded the accusative as the only acceptable marking,

    (45) and (46) suggest that a conflict between the motion and the source yields the dative as the

    only acceptable marking through similar logic.

    (45) CONTEXT: He jumps into the pool, then starts swimmingEr schwimmt in *die/der Schwimmbahn.He swims in *the.ACC/the.DAT swimming lane.He swims inLthe swimming lane.

    (46) Er rudert in *den/dem See.16

    He rows in *the.ACC/the.DAT lake.He rows inLthe lake.

    16 The accusative variant is acceptable only when context specifies motion from one body of

    water to another, as in rowing into the lake from a connecting river.

  • 7/24/2019 Beyond Case Marking in the Interpretation of German Prepositional Phrases

    38/65

    35

    In (45), technically the swimmer is not swimming until they are actually in the water. Before the

    jumping motion, they are standing, not swimming. In fact, it would not be possible to be on land

    and have the moment of transition from cement to water to occur through swimming. A sense

    of prototypical context accounts for the lack of explicit context for (46). Accusative would only

    be acceptable if the rower was somehow in the boat on land, and through rowing actions, scooted

    into the water and continued to row. In both examples, the type of motion described by the verb

    conflicts with the source to elicit only a description of the post-transition motion and thus the

    exclusive use of the dative case.

    In comparison to the conflict discussed in section 5.3.2, this conflict derives from the

    spatial requirements of the motion conflicting with the spatial realities of the source. Though

    further data is needed to strengthen this hypothesis, (45) and (46) suggest that a conflict between

    motion and source necessitates the dative as a description of only the post-transition event.

    Though this conflict does not yield a reinterpretation diverging from the standard generalization,

    it contributes to the understanding of case marking acceptability in German motion events.

    5.4

    Effects of Landmark

    Section 3.2 discussed the effects of the landmark on possible directional reinterpretations of

    locations. This section explores the effects of the type of landmark in German.

    5.4.1 Areas v. Containers

    As was discussed in English (Nikitina 2008, Tham et al 2012) and Russian (Israeli 2004) in

    section 3.2, the quality of the landmark affects the preference for a locative or directed

    interpretation. As evidenced by the alternation with container landmarks in (47) and area

    landmarks in (48), German shows no preference for locational or directional case marking.

  • 7/24/2019 Beyond Case Marking in the Interpretation of German Prepositional Phrases

    39/65

    36

    (47) Die Frau luft in die/der Bar // das/dem Zimmer.The woman walks in the.ACC/the.DAT bar // room.

    The woman walks into/inLthe bar // room.

    (48) Die Frau luft in den/dem Wald // das/dem Feld.The woman walks in the.ACC/the.DAT forest // field.

    The woman walks into/inLthe forest // field.

    In contrast to the increased English preference for directional inwith containers (Nikitina 2008)

    because of the defined boundary, German makes no distinction between the borders of areas or

    containers. Rather the determination of a border-crossing event is determined by the choice of

    case. Given no source context, the type of landmark, whether a container or area, was found to

    have no preference for a locative or dynamic marking.

    However, when context gave the source of motion indicating the presence or absence of a

    border crossing, only the case marking corresponding to the directional (border crossing:

    accusative) or locational (no border crossing: dative) event was acceptable. The examples in (49)

    illustrate case choice in German where contextual evidence implicates the source of movement

    as either on the inside of a border, the outside of a border, or on the border regardless of border

    type.

    (49)a. Non-Border Crossing

    Sie steht in der Kche und dann luft sie in *das/dem Haus.17She stands in the kitchen and then walks she in *the.ACC/the.DAT house.

    She stands in the kitchen and then walks inLthe house.

    b. Border Crossing

    Von dem Auto, luft sie in die/*der Bar.From the.DAT car, walks she in the.ACC/*the.DAT bar.

    From the car, she walks into the bar.

    c.

    Source on the BorderVom Waldrand, luft sie in den/??dem WaldFrom the.DAT forest.border, walks in the.ACC/??the.DAT forest.

    From the edge of the forest, she walks into/??inLthe forest.

    17 In context of traditional kitchen located inside the main building of house, not in separate

    extension.

  • 7/24/2019 Beyond Case Marking in the Interpretation of German Prepositional Phrases

    40/65

    37

    When the contextual source is inside the border of the landmark as in (49a), there is explicitly no

    directionality and only the dative is acceptable. When the contextual source is outside the border

    of the landmark as in (49b) there is explicit directionality and only the accusative is acceptable.

    When the source of movement is explicitly on the border of the landmark, regardless of the type

    of landmark, the accusative is always preferred. However, in this third context the dative could

    be used to emphasize the movement within the landmark, though this expression would be rare

    and somewhat unnatural. The use of the dative in this context is acceptable, but not preferred.

    Examples (50) and (51) provide further evidence of exclusive dative acceptability in non-

    border crossing events and accusative preference in on the border events.

    (50) Non-BorderCrossingEvents

    a. Er hinkt/joggt/tanzt in *das/dem Zimmer von innerhalb des Zimmers.He limps/jogs/dances in *the.ACC/the.DAT room from inside the.GEN room.

    He limps/jogs/dances inL the room from inside the room.

    b. CONTEXT: Man is in the roomEr hinkt/joggt/tanzt in *das/dem Zimmer.He limps/jogs/dances in *the.ACC/the.DAT room.He limps/jogs/dances inLthe room.

    c. CONTEXT: Standing in the pool, jumping

    Er hpft/springt in *das/dem PoolHe hops/jumps in *the.ACC/the.DAT pool.

    He hops/jumps inLthe pool.

    d. CONTEXT: Man starts from standstill in the lake, then starts rowingEr rudert in *den/dem See.He rows in *the.ACC/the.DAT lake.

    He rows inL the lake.

    e. CONTEXT: Swimming in one swimming lane

    Er schwimmt in *die/der schwimmbahn.He swims in *the.ACC/the.DAT swimming lane.

    He swims inLthe swimming lane.

  • 7/24/2019 Beyond Case Marking in the Interpretation of German Prepositional Phrases

    41/65

    38

    (51) On the BorderEventsa. CONTEXT: Man is standing in the doorway to the room.

    Er hinkt/joggt/tanzt in das/??dem Zimmer.He limps/jogs/dances in the.ACC/??the.DAT room.

    He limps/jogs/dances into/??inL the room.

    b.

    CONTEXT

    : Woman is standing in entrance way and then enters bar.Sie luft/spaziert/wandert/bummelt in die/??der Bar.She walks/strolls/wanders/ambles in the.ACC/??the.DAT bar.

    She walks/strolls/wanders/ambles into/??inL the bar.

    c. CONTEXT: Man is standing on the edge of the forest.

    Er hinkt/joggt/tanzt in das/??dem Feld.He limps/jogs/dances in the.ACC/??the.DAT field.

    He limps jogs/dances into/??inL the field.

    d. CONTEXT: Man starts from delta, between the river and lake.

    Er rudert in die/??dem See.

    He rows in the.ACC/??the.DAT lake.He rows into/??inLthe lake.

    e. CONTEXT: Man is sticking head out of the water, body is in the water, and

    then he ducks under the water.Der Mann schwimmt unter das/??dem Wasser.The man swims under the.ACC/??the.DAT water.The man swims underG/??underLthe water.

    In contrast to within the landmark and on the border motion, a border-crossing event involves

    a scalable distance in terms of how close the figure is to the landmark. This proximity of the

    figure to the landmark contributes to the allowance of a directional reinterpretation of inin

    English the closer the figure is to the landmark (Thomas 2004, Tham et al 2012) as discussed in

    section 3.6. Effect of proximity in the border-crossing event is tested in (52).

    (52)a. CONTEXT: The woman is standing outside the entrance

    Sie luft in die/*der Bar.She walks in the.ACC/*the.DAT bar.

    She walks into the bar.b. Von gerade auerhalb des Eingangs, luft sie in die/*der Bar.

    From right outside the.GEN entrance, walks she in the.ACC/*the.DAT bar.From right outside the entrance, she walks into the bar.

  • 7/24/2019 Beyond Case Marking in the Interpretation of German Prepositional Phrases

    42/65

    39

    c. CONTEXT: The woman is standing by her car in the parking lot, then entersbar

    Sie luft in die/*der Bar.She walks in the.ACC/*the.DAT bar.

    She walks into the bar.

    Whether the woman in question (52) is close to or far from the border she crosses, the acceptable

    case and reading is the same, indicating that in German, border-crossing events are also binary. If

    there is a border-crossing event, no matter how far the figure is from the landmark, only the

    accusative is acceptable. In German, proximity does not allow for the directional reinterpretation

    of a location. Examples (53)-(59) are further evidence that proximity does not affect case-

    marking choice in border-crossing events.

    (53)a. Er luft/hinkt/joggt/tanzt in das/*dem Zimmer von auerhalb des HausesHe walks/limps/jogs/dances in the.ACC/*the.DAT room from outside

    the.GEN house.He walks/limps/jogs/dances into the room from outside the house.

    b. CONTEXT: Man is standing outside of the house

    Er luft/hinkt/joggt/tanzt in das/*dem Zimmer.He walks/limps/jogs/dances in the.ACC/*the.DAT room from outside

    the.GEN house.He walks/limps/jogs/dances into the room from outside the house.

    (54)a. CONTEXT: Man is standing outside of the room.Er luft/hinkt/joggt/tanzt in das/*dem ZimmerHe walks/limps/jogs/dances in the.ACC/*the.DAT room.He walks/limps/jogs/dances into the room.

    b. Er luft/hinkt/joggt/tanzt von der Kche in das/*dem Wohnzimmer.He walks/limps/jogs/dances from the.DAT kitchen in the.ACC/*the.DAT

    living room.He walks/limps/jogs/dances from the kitchen into the living room.

    c.

    Er luft/hinkt/joggt/tanzt in das/*dem Zimmer von einem anderen Zimmer.He walks/limps/jogs/dances in the.ACC/*the.DAT room from a.DAT differentroom.He walks/limps/jogs/dances into the room from a different room.

  • 7/24/2019 Beyond Case Marking in the Interpretation of German Prepositional Phrases

    43/65

    40

    d. Er luft/hinkt/joggt/tanzt durch den Gang des Hauses in das/*demWohnzimmer.He walks/limps/jogs/dances through the entrance the.GEN house inthe.ACC/*the.DAT living room.

    He walks/limps/jogs/dances through the entrance of the house into the living

    room.(55) a. Er schwimmt in die/*der Schwimmbahn von der benachbarten Schwimmbahn.

    He swims in the.ACC/*the.DAT swimming lane from the neighboring

    swimming lane.He swims into the swimming land from the neighboring lane.

    b. CONTEXT: from two lanes over, enters the laneEr schwimmt in die/*der Schwimmbahn.He swims in the.ACC/*the.DAT swimming lane.He swims into the swimming lane.

    (56) Er rudert in den/*dem See von dem Fluss.

    He rows in the.ACC/*the.DAT lake from the.DAT river.He rows into the lake from the river

    (57)a. CONTEXT: From the edge of the pool

    Er hpft/springt in den/*dem Pool.He hops/jumps in the.ACC/*the.DAT pool.

    He hops/jumps into the pool.

    b. Er steht neben dem Pool und dann hpft/springt er in das/*dem Pool.He stands next the.DAT pool and then hops/jumps he in the.ACC/*the.DATpool.

    He stands next to the pool and then he hops/jumps into the pool.

    c.

    Er luft von dem Haus und hpft/springt in den/*dem Pool.He runs from the house and hops/jumps in the.ACC/*the.DAT pool.He runs from the house and hops/jumps into the pool.

    (58)a. CONTEXT: Man is standing inside the forest.Er luft in das/*dem Feld.He walks in the.ACC/*the.DAT field.He walks into the field.

    (59)a. CONTEXT: Woman is standing just outside the forest (not on the border)Sie luft in den/*dem Wald.She walks in the.ACC/*the.DAT forest.

    She walks into the forest.

    b. Von auerhalb des Walds, luft sie in den/*dem Wald.From outside the.GEN forest, walks she in the.ACC/*the.DAT forest.

    From outside the forest, she walks into the forest.

  • 7/24/2019 Beyond Case Marking in the Interpretation of German Prepositional Phrases

    44/65

    41

    c. CONTEXT: Woman is standing half a mile from the forest.Sie luft in den/*dem Wald.She walks in the.ACC/*the.DAT forest.She walks into the forest.

    Summarizing these examples, there are three possible scema with corresponding acceptability of

    accusative or dative illustrated by Figure 3.

    Figure 3 Border Crossing Schema

    3.1 ACC only

    3.2 ACC highly preferred, DAT highly dispreferred3.3 DAT only

    Otherwise stated, the German standard generalization can be illustrated as the following:

    Figure 4 German Standard Generalization

    SOURCE "GOAL ACC

    SOURCE = GOAL DAT

    If the source and goal were explicitly different, the accusative is the only acceptable case. If the

    source and goal were explicitly identical, the dative is the only acceptable case. Some variation

    occurs when the mover is on the border of a container. Accusative is preferred, but dative is

    acceptable and seems to emphasize the movement inside the container (similar to Israelis

    schema for Russian). While this might suggest a kind of reinterpretation of dative as marking a

    goal, given the context it is just as likely to reflect some degree of speaker indeterminacy

    1 2 3

  • 7/24/2019 Beyond Case Marking in the Interpretation of German Prepositional Phrases

    45/65

    42

    regarding whether being on the border is considered being inside or outside the landmark, and

    thus there is no reason to reject the standard generalization based solely on this data.

    5.4.2 Nested Landmarks

    I now consider an unusual case where the figure in motion is located within a nested landmark

    and motion occurs crossing the boundary of the innermost landmark, but not the outermost

    landmark. The specific context of nested landmarks, as seen in (60), at first glance seems to

    exhibit alternating features similar to the divergence attested in languages other than German

    where both the accusative and dative are acceptable markings to describe the same event.

    Though they describe the same event physically happening, (60a) emphasizes the border of the

    forest (thus no border crossing) and (60b) emphasizes the border of the car (thus a border

    crossing).

    (60)a. CONTEXT: Car is on a road in forest.Vom Auto, luft/spaziert/wandert/bummelt sie im Wald.From the car, walks/strolls/wanders/ambles she in the.masc.DAT forest.From the car she walks/strolls/wanders/ambles inLthe forest.

    b. CONTEXT: Car is on a road in forest.

    Vom Auto, luft/spaziert/wandert/bummelt sie in den Wald.From the car, walks/strolls/wanders/ambles she in the.masc.ACC forest.

    From the car she walks/strolls/wanders/ambles into the forest.

    When examining the semantic consequences for the alternate case use, it is clear that the choice

    of accusative and dative reveal conflicting interpretations. The use of the dative in (60a) is not

    referring to the forest as the goal of a motion, rather it is emphasizing that the movement of

    exiting the car is located within the forest, compared to the emphasis of exiting the car in (60b).

    Thus nested landmark events are not evidence of directional reinterpretations of goals.

  • 7/24/2019 Beyond Case Marking in the Interpretation of German Prepositional Phrases

    46/65

    43

    5.5 Effects of Verb Classifications

    As discussed in section 3.3, certain classes of verbs are attested to allow a directional

    reinterpretation of locations. This section explores the effect of verb class on case marking

    acceptability and the possibility of allowing the reinterpretation of a dative marker to mean the

    goal of motion.

    5.5.1 Directed Motion Verbs

    Zwarts categorizesparkenas a verb of directed motion (Zwarts 2006 : 5), but in comparison

    with other verbs that encode directionality, it does not function similarly (in section 5.5.2 I argue

    that it is in fact not a verb of directed motion). Verbs of directed motion, such as werfen to

    throw orfallento fall, entail a trajectory, but their interpretation as either directed or locative

    can vary with proximity and spatial configuration, as is suggested in (61).

    (61)

    Fallento fallCONTEXT: Man standing on the table, then falls onto the table

    a. Der Mann fllt auf *den/dem Tisch.The man falls on *the.ACC/the.DAT table.

    The man falls onLthe table.CONTEXT: Man falls from a second floor balcony.

    b. Der Mann fllt auf den/*dem Tisch.The man falls on the.ACC/*the.DAT table.The man falls onto the table.

    While (61a) prefers a locative interpretation, it is truly a locative reading and not reinterpreted to

    mean the goal of motion. When the source of directed motion is exclusively distinct from the

    goal of motion, the sentence follows the standard generalization and only the accusative is

    acceptable.18

    18There are four, well-documented directional-PP selecting verbs that can be considered a subset

    of directed motion verbs: stellen, legen,setzen, and hngen. Not only are they verbs of directed

  • 7/24/2019 Beyond Case Marking in the Interpretation of German Prepositional Phrases

    47/65

    44

    Zwarts claims thatparkenis also a directed motion verb, and therefore that it does not

    require the use of accusative goal marking. He claims, in fact, that this marking is redundant,

    which is why the goal constituents ofparken use the dative marking. Butparkendoes not behave

    in the same way other verbs of directed motion (like fallenor werfen) behave above. Unaffected

    by context,parkenuniformly selects a location (dative) PP, as evidenced in (62).

    (62)a. Er parkt das Auto vor *das/dem Haus.He parks the car before *the.ACC/the.DAT house.

    He parks the car in front ofLthe house.

    b. Er stellt das Auto vor das/*dem Haus.He puts the car before the.ACC/*the.DAT house.He parks the car in front ofGthe house. (German Zwarts 2006 : 6 (9b))

    This