Refine
Document Type
- Doctoral Thesis (4)
Has Fulltext
- yes (4)
Is part of the Bibliography
- no (4)
Keywords
- D(iscourse)-Linking (1)
- Determination (1)
- Pronouns (1)
- Syntax (1)
- Wh (1)
Institute
This dissertation investigated the development of the complementiser that from the demonstrative pronoun in the Germanic languages; each chapter dealt with a different aspect. In the introduction, the terms ‘reanalysis’ and ‘analogy’ and their relevance for grammaticalisation were explained, and the issues of the chapters were presented. The second chapter introduced some information about the Germanic language family and the languages which were relevant for this investigation, namely Gothic, Old English, Old Icelandic, Old Saxon and Old High German. Previous assumptions about the diachrony of that were presented and discussed. One of these proposals which mainly draws on evidence from West Germanic involves the idea that the source construction contained two independent main clauses with a demonstrative pronoun (that) at the end of the first clause (cf. e.g. Paul 1962, § 248). In contrast to this, the Gothic evidence showed that the source construction of the reanalysis of ϸatei was not a proper paratactic construction (at least in Gothic) but already a complex construction which contained a complementiser (ei) in the appositional subordinate clause (cf. also e.g. Longobardi 1994 for the diachrony of ϸatei). This contradiction raised the question whether the analysis of the Gothic that-complementiser also applies to the diachrony of that in West Germanic. This issue was taken up in the third chapter which presented an overview of subordination and complementisers in Northwest Germanic. The aim was to show that the Northwest Germanic languages also show a subordinating particle, which functions like the Gothic ei, namely ϸe (OE), er/es (OI), the (OHG, OS). As a result, the subordinating particle could be observed in relative and adverbial clauses in all Northwest Germanic languages. In complement clauses, which are most crucial for the argumentation, the subordinating particle is found in Old English and Old Icelandic but not in Old Saxon. In Old High German, there are only combinations of the with a following pronoun, theih and theiz, in ‘Otfrids Evangelienbuch’ (see Wunder 1965). Consequently, the presence of a subordinating particle is confirmed in North and West Germanic. The fact that the patterns of subordination are quite similar in all Germanic languages suggested a unitary analysis of the development of that in Germanic was appropriate. In chapter four, the similarities and differences between the Germanic languages with respect to the development of that were explained. It was argued that the preconditions of the reanalysis were the same, whereas the consequences of the reanalysis are realised differently in each language. The most important precondition was that the appositional source construction (explained in more detail below) was generally available in Germanic. Since the demonstrative pronoun at the end of the matrix clause and the subordinating particle of the subordinate clause were adjacent, phonological combination might have been crucial for the subsequent reanalysis to take place. After reanalysis, however, different changes can be observed in the different languages. For instance, it appears that during the Old English period the final syllable of the form ϸætte was deleted (see chapter 4 for references), whereas the final –ei is still present in the Gothic ϸatei, and completely absent in Old High German and Old Saxon. The source structure of the reanalysis was discussed in detail in a separate subsection. The appositional source construction, which was already assumed for the reanalysis of Gothic ϸatei, was compared with analyses of clitic left dislocation which propose that two constituents with the same theta-role derive from a Big DP (see e.g. Grewendorf 2009, Belletti 2005). Based on the Big DP analysis of Grewendorf (2009), it was claimed that the appositional clause, introduced by the subordinating particle, is generated in the Spec of a DP, and adjoined to this DP on the surface. It was argued that this whole complement DP-node occurred in an extraposed position in OV-languages so that the verb, when it stays in-situ, does not appear between the demonstrative pronoun and the subordinating particle. The structure in (1) illustrates the syntactic source structure which is assumed to apply to the development of the complementiser that in Germanic. ...
Diese Untersuchung beschäftigt sich mit der Morphosyntax pronominaler Partitivanaphern im kontinentalwestgermanischen Dialektkontinuum im Allgemeinen und im deutschen (insbesondere hessischen) Sprachraum im Speziellen. Schwerpunkte sind dabei die sprachgeografische Verteilung, die morphosyntaktische Variation und die strukturelle Analyse pronominaler Ausdrucksmittel der unbestimmten Teilmenge. Es werden traditionell dialektologische Erkenntnisinteressen (Raumstruktur syntaktischer Variablen und Verlauf syntaktischer Isoglossen) mit Fragestellungen der (theoretisch orientierten) Syntaxforschung verbunden. Außerdem erfolgt erstmals eine wirklich sprachübergreifende Behandlung der verschiedenen Systeme pronominaler Partitivität, zum einen innerhalb der (West-)Germania, zum anderen durch den Einbezug (zentral-)romanischer Sprachen, um Unterschiede und Gemeinsamkeiten auf der Mikro- und Mesoebene herauszuarbeiten. Die gewählte Methode ist nicht nur kontrastiv, sondern auch geolinguistisch fundiert, insofern als morphologische Formen und syntaktische Variation im Raum abgebildet werden, wodurch nicht zuletzt auch interessante Korrelationen und Anti-Korrelationen in den Daten bestätigt bzw. entdeckt werden konnten.
Nach einer Gegenstandsbestimmung der morphosyntaktischen Variable und ihrer Varianten (Inventarisierung und Typisierung) sowie des Variationsrahmens (areal-horizontal, vertikal, morphosyntaktisch, historisch, idiolektal etc.) wird zunächst das DFG-Projekt „Syntax hessischer Dialekte“ (SyHD) vorgestellt, das die empirische Basis zur Untersuchung lieferte. Dabei werden generelle und spezifische Fragen der Datengewinnung (multivariate Methode mit indirekten und direkten Elementen) sowie der Datenanalyse und -interpretation (Instrument der Kartierung) diskutiert. Den Hauptteil der Arbeit bildet die diatopische, diachrone und distributionell-syntaktische Variation der Systeme pronominaler Partitivität. Als die vier Hauptstrategien zum Ausdruck partitiv-anaphorischer Referenz innerhalb des deutschsprachigen Gebiets finden sich das konservative System versteinerter Pronominalgenitive wie „(d)(e)r(e)“, „s(e)n“ und „es“ (vor allem in einem mitteldeutschen Streifen und randdialektal) - Relikte eines ehemals umfassenderen genitivbasierten Systems der Partitivität -, das sprachgeschichtlich junge und typologisch auffällige indefinit-partitive Pronomen „welch-“/„we(l)k-“ (im Nieder-/Norddeutschen und in der Standardsprache) sowie schließlich die innovativen Systeme der Null-Anapher (im Alemannischen bzw. Südwesten) und des generalisierten Indefinitpronomens „ein-“ (im Bairischen bzw. Südosten). Wenngleich sich diese areale Distribution im zentral gelegenen und daher unter dem Einfluss nahezu aller Strategien stehenden Hessen als Kleinraum bestätigt - mit Ausnahme der weitgehenden Abwesenheit des „ein“-Systems -, so zeigen sich doch einige überraschende Ergebnisse wie beispielsweise ein kategorialer Unterschied nach Numerus und zum Teil Genus bei der Vitalität der Genitivpartikeln. Sprachhistorisch können zwei Arten von Wandel beim Genitiv-System identifiziert werden: systeminterne Veränderungen (durch Merkmals- oder Formverlust) und systemexterne Verdrängungsprozesse (durch Ausbreitung der innovativen Ausdrucksformen, was in einem Dialekt bzw. intraindividuell zu konkurrierenden oder Mischsystemen führen kann). Darüber hinaus sind mit Blick auf die Art und Weise der Veränderungen für Sprachwandelprozesse allgemein typische zyklische Abfolgen von Abschwächung und Verstärkung erkennbar. In Bezug auf die syntaktische Distribution werden insbesondere die Genitivanaphern auf ihre Kompatibilität mit nominalen Modifikatoren wie Numeralien/(schwachen) Quantoren, „flektierten“ Zahlwörtern (Schwa), Adjektiven, verschiedenen Arten von Präpositionalphrasen sowie Relativ- vs. Komplementsätzen hin untersucht und - funktional wie formal - mit ihrem niederländischen partitiven/quantitativen Äquivalent „er“ sowie den romanischen, in ein partitives System integrierten Pronomina fr. „en“/it. „ne“ verglichen. Für die deutschen Partitivanaphern ergibt sich daraus Evidenz für zwei unterschiedliche Pronominalisierungsebenen. Abschließend wird das Phänomen in die allgemeine Diskussion um nominale Ellipsen eingebettet (Elision und Pronominalisierung). Aufgrund der Evaluation der in der Literatur diskutierten Lizenzierungsansätze anhand neuer dialektaler und typologischer Daten wird hier ein flexions-/kongruenzbasierter Ansatz favorisiert (Rolle von Adjektivmorphologie bzw. generell von unterschiedlichen Flexionssystemen, etwa im Deutschen vs. Englischen).
Variation in enclitic possessive constructions in Southern Italian dialects: a syntactic analysis
(2019)
This thesis investigates enclitic possessive constructions (EPCs) that are a widespread and frequently used construction among Southern Italian dialects (SIDs). In general, EPCs display the structure N-EP where the N is a (singular) kinship noun and the EP the enclitic possessive directly attached to the kinship noun. However, there is a huge variation among SIDs as well as within the system of a specific dialect. The aim of the present work is twofold. The empirical part contributes new data to this topic as well as a detailed and organized overview of (micro-) variational observations from data of different sources including for example the linguistic maps of the AIS (Atlante Italo-Svizzero). The main aspects of variation are (a) the presence or absence of an obligatory article (D – N-EP vs. N-EP), (b) the possibility of plural kinship noun-EPCs and (c) the compatibility of a specific person-EP with a specific kinship noun within a dialect. Based on the empirical findings, the syntactic part proposes a syntactic analysis for EPCs focusing on the following research questions: 1) In some dialects, singular kinship noun-EPCs display an obligatory article with the 3SG.EP. What is the reason for this article-based person split (1st and 2nd vs. 3rd)? And further, how are both structures, with and without an article, represented in the syntax, i.e. in DP and PossP? 2) In some dialects, plural kinship nouns are allowed to occur in EPCs, and in others, they are disallowed. With respect to this dichotomy, what is the role of NumP? 3) Kinship nouns are relational and express inalienability. How can this property be captured in the syntax? I argue that the article-based person split is due to the deictic properties of the possessor-persons, meaning that 1SG.EPs and 2SG.EPs need to be bound by the speaker’s coordinates in the left periphery of the clause, whereas 3SG.EPs do not. As a consequence, 1SG and 2SG EPCs move to the highest position, i.e. to D°, and 3SG EPCs can stay lower in the structure, i.e. in Poss°. Based on this dichotomy, I argue that both D° and Poss° can host EPCs. In order to capture the (im)possibility of plural kinship nouns-EPCs, I argue that NumP, as a parametrised position, can block or allow further movement of the kinship noun to Poss° (and to D°). With respect to the relational nature of kinship nouns I propose that they are base-generated within the complement position of a relator phrase (RP), and EPs in Poss°. In order to derive EPCs, the kinship nouns must move out of their position. The kinship noun lands in NumP, the position where further movement is probably blocked. If further movement is allowed, the kinship noun merges to the left of the EP, resulting in a complete EPC in Poss°. The last leg of the movement to D° depends on the presence of absence of an obligatory article. The phenomenon of EPCs displays a huge variation among SIDs and needs to be investigated from different perspectives and different linguistic areas. The present work contributes to the puzzle of EPCs new data and a syntactic analysis.
This work deals with so-called wh-determination. The notion of D-linking (Discourse-linking) is used to uncover and explain properties of constructions involving wh-determiners. The central claim is that there are two types of wh-determination: Token-whs and Kind-whs. These two forms of wh-determination trigger different syntactic effects. Three structural triggers for the syntactic effects exhibited by D-linked wh-phrases (DWH) are discussed. DWH are argued to be instances of Token-whs since triggers for the syntactic effects of D-linking are identical to the once for the token-reading of a wh-phrase.
In chapter 2, which-phrases are shown to be canonical DWH with a special syntax labelled DL-S(yntax). The five most prominent and frequent DL-S effects are the absence of superiority-effects with DWH, the ability of DWH to be extracted out of weak islands, the fact that DWH licence resumptive elements, the obviation of WCO effects by DWH, and the possibility for DWH to stay in-situ. The syntax of Token-whs and Kind-whs are compared. It is demonstrated that regardless of the actual form of the wh-determiner, there are only these two types of wh-determination. These data support the idea that the DL-S effects observable with DWH are triggered by structural properties of the wh-determiners heading DWH.
In chapter 3, it is demonstrated that although presuppositions projected by the Nominal Restrictor are important for triggering DL-I(nterpretation), they do not directly influence DL-S. The ambiguity of Amount-whs is also examined and the conclusion reached is that there are two #P projections: A NumP and a CardP. The dissertation proceeds with the structurally represented notions of definiteness and specificity and examines how these can help capturing the wh-determiner typology proposed. The idea that D-linking can be explained by recourse to topicality is discussed in detail. Empirical evidence is provided for the existence of wh-topics in general and for the claim that many DWH can be construed as wh-topics.
In chapter 4, the general pattern on which wh-pronouns are built are examined, and it is argued that the results bear directly on the topic of this thesis since wh-determiners are universally derived from pronouns. Wh-pronouns are diachronically built out of an element indicating the function of the proform (wh-morpheme), and an element denoting the range of the proform (Range Restrictor). Among other things, it is argued that the wh-morpheme does not mark interrogativity, leading to the adoption of a version of Q-theory. It is also briefly discussed whether the results are compatible with the hypothesis that wh-determiner phrases are Small Clauses. One claim is that all wh-pronouns are fossilized interrogative sentences, lending further support to the parallelism between sentential and nominal structures. It is then argued that Morphological Restrictors can be subdivided into Formal Features and Functional Nouns (and that elements which can become Functional Nouns are taken from the pool of Basic Ontological Categories). The question answered is how these elements synchronically contribute to the meaning of the wh-determiners. After examining the role of the Nominal Restrictor to the syntax of wh-determiners, the thesis continues investigating how Nominal Restrictor are related to Functional Nouns. Finally, the discussion expands to the structural correlates for DL-S effects. It is demonstrated how the results can formally be applied to wh-split constructions in order to explain differences between empty categories. Then, the results of the section on partitivity support the idea that the occurrences of most of the DL-S effects seem to strongly depend on the presence of a second nominal constituent in the structure of wh-phrases. This second nominal can be either a Functional Noun inside the wh-item used as wh-pronoun or an overt second noun as in wh-partitive phrases.
The contribution of this thesis to linguistic theorizing is not a full-fledged technical analysis of every single DL-S effect, but rather the systemisation proposed. Although a lot of terminology is introduced, the outcome of this proliferation of terms is a sharper picture of the intricate relations between the constituents of the wh-items used as wh-determiners and the Nominal Restrictor. Another main conclusion is that the concept of D-linking is not a basic notion. It is comprised of four components (of which DL-Syntax and Morphological-DL have been scrutinized in this thesis). This assumption explains why DWH do not constitute a homogeneous class. The gradual character of D-linking (i.e. the fact that certain wh-determiner constructions show only a subset of DL-S effects even if they are headed by what could faithfully be classified as a/the Token-wh determiner of the respective language) is argued to be related to the fact that the Token-reading itself can have several triggers.