1887
Current trends in analyzing syntactic variation
  • ISSN 0774-5141
  • E-ISSN: 1569-9676
GBP
Buy:£15.00 + Taxes

Abstract

This paper investigates the conditions that govern the choice between the German neuter singular relative pronouns ‘that’ and ‘what’. We show that requires a lexical head noun, while in all other cases is usually the preferred option; therefore, the distribution of and is most successfully captured by an approach that does not treat as an exception but analyzes it as the elsewhere case that applies when the relativizer fails to pick up a lexical gender feature from the head noun. We furthermore show how the non-uniform behavior of different types of nominalized adjectives (positives allow both options, while superlatives trigger ) can be attributed to semantic differences rooted in syntactic structure. In particular, we argue that superlatives select due to the presence of a silent counterpart of the quantifier ‘all’ that is part of the superlative structure.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1075/bjl.00008.bra
2018-04-23
2018-12-16
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. Alexiadou, Artemis
    2011 “Adjectival nominalizations: qualities and properties”. Paper presented at the Workshop on Nounhood and Adjectivehood , Barcelona, March 23–24th 2011.
    [Google Scholar]
  2. 2015 “Encoding properties: The case of English ‘nominalized’ adjectives”. Paper presented at Roots IV , NYU, June 29, 2015.
    [Google Scholar]
  3. Bayer, Josef and Eleonore Brandner
    2008 “On wh-head-movement and the doubly-filled-comp filter”. InProceedings of the 26th West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics, ed. by Charles B. Chang , and Hannah J. Haynie , 87–95. Somerville: Cascadilla Proceedings Project.
    [Google Scholar]
  4. Behaghel, Otto
    1928Deutsche Syntax. Eine geschichtliche Darstellung. Band 3: Die Satzgebilde. Heidelberg: C. Winter.
    [Google Scholar]
  5. Benveniste, Emile
    1950 “La phrase nominale”. Bulletin de la Societé Linguistique de Paris46: 19–36.
    [Google Scholar]
  6. 1966Problèmes de linguistique générale. Paris: Editions Gallimard.
    [Google Scholar]
  7. Bierwisch, Manfred
    1967 “Syntactic features in morphology: general problems of so-called pronominal inflection in German”. InTo Honor Roman Jakobson: Essays on the Occasion of His Seventieth Birthday, 239–270. The Hague: Mouton.
    [Google Scholar]
  8. Blevins, James P.
    1995 “Syncretism and Paradigmatic Opposition”. Linguistics and Philosophy18: 113–152. doi: 10.1007/BF00985214
    https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00985214 [Google Scholar]
  9. Bobaljik, Jonathan
    2012Universals in Comparative Morphology. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  10. Boef, Eefje
    2012Doubling in Relative Clauses. Aspects of Morphosyntactic Microvariation in Dutch. Utrecht: LOT.
    [Google Scholar]
  11. Brandt, Patrick , and Eric Fuß
    2014 “Most questionable pronouns: Variation between das- vs. was-relatives in German”. Linguistische Berichte239, 297–329.
    [Google Scholar]
  12. 2016  Relativpronomenselektion und grammatische Variation: was vs das . in attributiven Relativsätzen. Ms., IDS Mannheim.
    [Google Scholar]
  13. Broekhuis, Hans , and Evelien Keizer
    2012Syntax of Dutch. Nouns and Noun Phrases. Volume 1. Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  14. Citko, Barbara
    2004 “On headed, headless, and light-headed relatives”. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory22: 95–126. doi: 10.1023/B:NALA.0000005564.33961.e0
    https://doi.org/10.1023/B:NALA.0000005564.33961.e0 [Google Scholar]
  15. Curme, George O.
    1922A Grammar of the German Language. Second revised edition. [Ninth printing 1964]. New York: Ungar.
    [Google Scholar]
  16. Cutting, Starr Willard
    1902 “Concerning the Modern German relatives, „das“ and „was“, in clauses dependent upon substantivized adjectives.” The Decennial Publications of the University of Chicago, Vol.VII, 113–131. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  17. Duden
    Duden 2016Die Grammatik. 9th edition. Edited by Angelika Wöllstein , and the Duden editorial staff. Mannheim/Leipzig/Wien/ Zürich: Dudenverlag.
    [Google Scholar]
  18. Fuß, Eric
    2017 „Relativierungsverhalten und syntaktische Kategorie substantivierter Adjektive“. InProbleme der syntaktischen Kategorisierung: Einzelgänger, Außenseiter und mehr, ed. by S. Döring , and J. Geilfuß-Wolfgang . Tübingen: Stauffenburg.
    [Google Scholar]
  19. Grewendorf, Günther
    2012 “Wh-movement as topic movement”. InFunctional Heads: The Cartography of Syntactic Structures, vol. 7, ed. by Laura Brugé , Anna Cardinaletti , Giuliana Giusti , Nicola Munaro , and Cecilia Poletto , 55–68. Oxford: Oxford University Press. doi: 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199746736.003.0004
    https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199746736.003.0004 [Google Scholar]
  20. Halle, Morris , and Alec Marantz
    1993 “Distributed Morphology and the pieces of inflection”. InThe View from Building 20, ed. by Kenneth Hale , and Samuel J. Keyser , 111–176. Cambridge: The MIT Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  21. Halle, Morris
    1997 “Distributed Morphology: Impoverishment and Fission”. InMIT Working Papers in Linguistics 30: PF: Papers At the Interface, ed. by B. Bruening , Y. Kang , and M. McGinnis , 425–450. Cambridge, Mass.: Department of Linguistics and Philosophy, MIT.
    [Google Scholar]
  22. Harley, Heidi , and Elizabeth Ritter
    2002 “Structuring the bundle: A universal morphosyntactic feature geometry.” InPronouns – grammar and representation, ed. by Horst J. Simon , and Heike Wiese , 23–39. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/la.52.05har
    https://doi.org/10.1075/la.52.05har [Google Scholar]
  23. Heck, Fabian , and Juan Cuartero
    2011 “Long distance agreement in relative clauses.” InLocal Modelling of Non-Local Dependencies in Syntax, ed. by A. Alexiadou , T. Kiss , and G. Müller , 49–83. Berlin: de Gruyter.
    [Google Scholar]
  24. Holler, Anke
    2005Weiterführende Relativsätze. Empirische und theoretische Aspekte. Berlin: Akademie Verlag.
    [Google Scholar]
  25. Horn, Laurence R.
    2000 “From IF to IFF: Conditional perfection as pragmatic strenghtening.” Journal of Pragmatics32: 289–326 doi: 10.1016/S0378‑2166(99)00053‑3
    https://doi.org/10.1016/S0378-2166(99)00053-3 [Google Scholar]
  26. Kester, Ellen-Petra
    1996aThe nature of adjectival Inflection. PhD dissertation, Utrecht University.
    [Google Scholar]
  27. 1996b “Adjectival inflection and the licensing of empty categories in DP.” Journal of Linguistics32 (1): 57–78. doi: 10.1017/S0022226700000761
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S0022226700000761 [Google Scholar]
  28. Kiparsky, Paul
    1973 “‘Elsewhere’ in phonology”. InA Festschrift for Morris Halle, ed. by S. Anderson , and P. Kiparsky , 93–106. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.
    [Google Scholar]
  29. 1982 “Word-formation and the lexicon”. InProceedings of the 1982 Mid-America Linguistics Conference, ed. by F. Ingemann . University of Kansas.
    [Google Scholar]
  30. Murelli, Adriano
    2012 “ Das Geheimnis, das oder was du mir verraten hast? – Das oder was als Relativpronomen”. InGrammatische Stolpersteine digital. Festschrift für Bruno Strecker zum 65. Geburtstag, ed. by M. Konopka , and R. Schneider , 145–152. Mannheim: Institut für Deutsche Sprache.
    [Google Scholar]
  31. Sanders, Daniel
    1879Deutsche Sprachbriefe. Berlin: Langenscheidt.
    [Google Scholar]
  32. Sleeman, Petra
    2013 “Deadjectival human nouns: conversion, nominal ellipsis, or mixed category?” Linguística: revista de estudos linguísticos da Universidade do Porto8: 159–180.
    [Google Scholar]
  33. Wiese, Bernd
    1999 “Unterspezifizierte Paradigmen. Form und Funktion in der pronominalen Deklination“. Linguistik Online4 (www.linguistik-online.de/3_99)
    [Google Scholar]
  34. 2013Relativpronomina: Flexion und Wortfelder. Ms., IDS Mannheim.
    [Google Scholar]
  35. Zeijlstra, Hedde
    2012 “There is only one way to agree”. The Linguistic Review29: 491–539. doi: 10.1515/tlr‑2012‑0017
    https://doi.org/10.1515/tlr-2012-0017 [Google Scholar]
  36. 2013Upward Agree is superior. Ms., Unversity of Amsterdam.
    [Google Scholar]
http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/journals/10.1075/bjl.00008.bra
Loading
/content/journals/10.1075/bjl.00008.bra
Loading

Data & Media loading...

This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was successful
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error