On properties differentiating constructions with inner-sentential pro-forms for clauses

The paper discusses various syntactic properties of different constructions featuring a dependent clause associated with a pro-form. The paper adopts the thesis of Pütz (1986²) and Sudhoff (2003) that the pro-form construction with verbs of the class to which bedauern (‘to regret’) belongs and the pro-form construction with verbs of the class which contains behaupten (‘to claim’) have to be differentiated. With regard to the former it is argued that contrary to standard assumptions, the presence of the pro-form makes a syntactic and a semantic difference. Regarding the construction in which the pro-form has the function of a prepositional object the argumentation is different in that the very same syntax is present independent of whether the pro-form is lexically realised or not, whether the pro-form is unstressed or stressed, or whether it is reduced or not. However, a special interpretation – narrow focus on the dependent clause – arises when the prepositional part of the pro-form is stressed. For the construction with a dependent adverbial clause the presence or absence of a lexically realised pro-form is again crucial. Finally and most importantly, it is demonstrated that a further construction has to be distinguished. It features a psych-verb with an experiencer-object, es and a clausal argument. In this construction, es is not a pro-form for the clausal argument as such but an independent argument which is co-referential with the clause and encodes the causer of the emotion.