Chapter published in:
Approaches to Hungarian: Volume 16: Papers from the 2017 Budapest Conference
Edited by Veronika Hegedűs and Irene Vogel
[Approaches to Hungarian 16] 2020
► pp. 6–23

Non-degree equatives and reanalysis

A case study of doubling patterns in German and Hungarian

| University of Konstanz
The article examines reanalysis processes underlying doubling patterns in non-degree equatives in German and Hungarian. In German, the combination als wie (lit. ‘as how’) is attested historically and in certain present-day dialects. Traditionally, it is assumed to be a mixed pattern involving the earlier canonical equative complementiser als and the later canonical equative complementiser wie; however, more recent proposals suggest that als was in fact reanalysed from the matrix clause. While matrix equative markers and equative complementisers are surface-similar in German historically, these elements are distinct in Hungarian throughout its history. Based on the results of a corpus study on Old Hungarian, the paper argues that reanalysis from the matrix clause is indeed possible and starts in non-degree equatives.
Keywords: comparatives, complementiser, degree, doubling, equatives, German, grammaticalisation, matrix equative marker, reanalysis, similatives
Available under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives (CC BY-NC-ND) 4.0 license.

For any use beyond this license, please contact the publisher at rights@benjamins.nl.

Published online: 08 April 2020
https://doi.org/10.1075/atoh.16.01bac
References

References

Bacskai-Atkari, Julia
2014a Cyclical change in Hungarian comparatives. Diachronica 31(6). 465–505. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2014b The syntax of comparative constructions: Operators, ellipsis phenomena and functional left peripheries. Potsdam: Universitätsverlag Potsdam.Google Scholar
2018a Deletion phenomena in comparative constructions: English comparatives in a cross-linguistic perspective. Berlin: Language Science Press.Google Scholar
2018b Deutsche Dialekte und ein anti-kartografischer Ansatz zur CP-Domäne. In Augustin Speyer & Philipp Rauth (eds.), Syntax aus Saarbrücker Sicht 2: Beiträge der SaRDiS-Tagung zur Dialektsyntax, 9–29. Stuttgart: Steiner.Google Scholar
Bresnan, Joan
1973 The syntax of the comparative clause construction in English. Linguistic Inquiry 4(3). 275–343.Google Scholar
Corver, Norbert
1997  Much-support as a last resort. Linguistic Inquiry 28(1). 119–164.Google Scholar
Eggs, Frederike
2006 Die Grammatik von als und wie. Tübingen: Narr.Google Scholar
Gelderen, Elly van
2004 Grammaticalization as economy. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2009 Renewal in the left periphery: Economy and the complementiser layer. Transactions of the Philological Society 107(4). 131–195. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Haspelmath, Martin & Oda Buchholz
1998 Equative and similative constructions in the languages of Europe. In Johan van der Auwera & Dónall Ó Baoill (eds.), Adverbial constructions in the languages of Europe, 277–334. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Hohaus, Vera & Malte Zimmermann
2014 Equatives outside the domain of degree constructions. Paper presented at: Linguistic Evidence 2014 , Tübingen, Universität Tübingen, 13–15 February 2014.
Jäger, Agnes
2010 Der Komparativzyklus und die Position der Vergleichspartikeln. Linguistische Berichte 224. 467–493.Google Scholar
2016  Vergleichskonstruktionen im Deutschen: Diachroner Wandel und synchrone Variation . Universität zu Köln habilitation.
Kántor, Gergely
2013  Hungarian mint as Conj0 . Talk delivered at: 11th International Conference on the Structure of Hungarian (ICSH11), Piliscsaba, Pázmány Péter Catholic University & Research Institute for Linguistics of the Hungarian Academy of Sciences, 29–31 August 2013.
Kenesei, István
1992 On Hungarian complementisers. In István Kenesei & Csaba Pléh (eds.), Approaches to Hungarian 4, 37–50. Szeged: JATE.Google Scholar
Kortmann, Bernd
1997 Adverbial subordination: A typology and history of adverbial subordinators based on European languages. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Lechner, Winfried
1999  Comparatives and DP-structures . University of Massachusetts Amherst dissertation.
2004 Ellipsis in comparatives. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Lipold, Günter
1983 Möglichkeiten der Komparation in den deutschen Dialekten. In Werner Besch, et al. (eds.), Dialektologie: Ein Handbuch zur deutschen und allgemeinen Dialektforschung, 1232–1241. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
López-Couso, María José & Belén Méndez-Naya
2014 On comparative complementizers in English: Evidence from historical corpora. In Nila Méndez-Naya Vazques (ed.), Creation and use of historical English corpora in Spain, 311–333. Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars Publishing.Google Scholar
Merkle, Ludwig
1975 Bairische Grammatik. München: Heimeran.Google Scholar
Rizzi, Luigi
1997 The fine structure of the left periphery. In Liliane Haegeman (ed.), Elements of grammar, 281–337. Dordrecht: Kluwer. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Roberts, Ian & Anna Roussou
2003 Syntactic change. A Minimalist approach to grammaticalization. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Simon, Eszter
2014 Corpus building from Old Hungarian codices. In Katalin É. Kiss (ed.), The evolution of functional left peripheries in Hungarian syntax, 224–236. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
von Stechow, Arnim
1984 Comparing semantic theories of comparison. Journal of Semantics 3. 1–77. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Tarriño, Eusebia
2011 Comparative clauses. In Philip Bardi (ed.), Complex sentences, grammaticalization, typology, 373–426. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Vikner, Sten
1995 Verb movement and expletive subjects in the Germanic languages. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Vikner, Sten, Ken Ramshøj Christensen & Anne Mette Nyvad
2017 V2 and cP/CP. In Laura R. Bailey & Michelle Sheehan (eds.), Order and structure in syntax I: Word order and syntactic structure, 313–324. Berlin: Language Science Press.Google Scholar
Weise, Oskar
1918 Die vergleichenden Konjunktionen in den deutschen Mundarten. Zeitschrift für deutsche Mundarten 13. 169–181.Google Scholar