Part 1: The Lexicon #
We define the lexical items for the German sentence from @cite{harizanov-gribanova-2019}.
Diesen Film haben die Kinder gesehen.
this film have the children seen
The COMPLEX finite verb "haben" (have): both V and C features @cite{harizanov-gribanova-2019}
Following Harizanov (Section 5.2), V2 verbs are categorially complex:
- V-component projects in base position
- C-component projects in derived position
Equations
- One or more equations did not get rendered due to their size.
Instances For
Tense head: category T, selects V
Equations
Instances For
Complementizer "dass" (that): category C, selects T
Equations
Instances For
Determiner "die/diesen": category D, selects N
Equations
Instances For
"Kinder" (children): category N
Equations
Instances For
"Film" (film): category N
Equations
Instances For
Part 2: Structure #
CP
/ \
haben TP
/ \
die Kinder T'
/ \
T VP
/ \
haben diesen Film
DP "diesen Film" (this film) = {D, N}
Equations
- One or more equations did not get rendered due to their size.
Instances For
DP "die Kinder" (the children) = {D, N}
Equations
- One or more equations did not get rendered due to their size.
Instances For
CP after V2 = {V, TP} — verb reprojects its C-features
Equations
Instances For
Part 3: Movement Structure #
Equations
- One or more equations did not get rendered due to their size.
Instances For
Part 4: Head-to-Head Properties #
The verb stays MINIMAL (a head) at C. It reprojects its C-features. This is the defining property of head-to-head movement.
Part 5: The Key Claim — T Intervenes #
This is the existence proof: we show T is between V and C, so V2 violates the HMC.
T is a head in the result structure
T ≠ V (they have different LI tokens)
T ≠ TP (T is a leaf, TP is a node)
Part 6: Main Results #
MAIN THEOREM: T intervenes between V and C in V2
This establishes the structural condition for HMC violation. V moves to C, but T is between V's base position and C.
From Harizanov (p.35-36): "verb raises directly to its final landing site, moving across any and all intervening functional heads"
V2 is head-to-head movement (mover stays minimal)
Unlike head-to-specifier where the mover becomes maximal, in head-to-head the mover reprojects and stays a head.
Appendix: Summary of Harizanov's Typology #
Head-to-specifier (e.g., Bulgarian LHM):
- Mover becomes +maximal in derived position
- Target projects (mover is a specifier)
- NECESSARILY violates HMC (by maximality argument)
- Can be unbounded (like phrasal A-bar movement)
Head-to-head (e.g., Germanic V2):
- Mover stays +minimal in derived position
- Mover reprojects (has complex LI)
- CAN violate HMC (when skipping heads, as V2 does)
- Phase-bounded (cannot apply successive-cyclically)
Amalgamation (e.g., French V-to-T):
- Post-syntactic (PF) operation
- MUST respect HMC
- Results in morphological fusion