Cover not available
Part of
Bavarian Syntax: Contributions to the theory of syntax
Edited by Günther Grewendorf and Helmut Weiß
[Linguistik Aktuell/Linguistics Today 220] 2014
► pp. 23–50

Syntactic and phonological properties of wh-operators and wh-movement in Bavarian

Wh-movement is less uniform than suggested by the standard theory of generative grammar. Bavarian provides evidence that word-size wh-operators have syntactic as well as phonological properties of functional heads rather than genuine phrases. At the core of the analysis is the intuition that wh-words embrace the role of the complementizer, and that as a consequence merger of a separate complementizer is suspended. Theoretical reasoning which comes to this conclusion is suggested by judgment as well as production experiments with native speakers of the language. It is argued that from the economy-driven perspective of minimalist syntax, head-style wh-movement, as supported by Bavarian syntax, should actually be the preferred choice.
Published online: 26 November 2014
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/la.220.02bay
References (58)
References
Abney, Steven P. 1987. The English Noun Phrase in its Sentential Aspect. PhD dissertation, MIT.
Altmann, Hans. 1984. Das System der enklitischen Personalpronomina in einer mittel-bairischen Mundart. Zeitschrift für Dialektologie und Linguistik 51(2): 191–211.Google Scholar
Bayer, Josef. 1984. COMP in Bavarian syntax. The Linguistic Review 3: 209–274. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2001. Asymmetry in emphatic topicalization. In Audiatur Vox Sapientiae, Caroline Féry & Wolfgang Sternefeld (eds), 15–47. Berlin: Akademie Verlag.Google Scholar
Bayer, Josef. In press. Doubly-filled comp, wh head-movement, and derivational economy. Ms, Universität Konstanz. DOI logo
Bayer, Josef & Brandner, Ellen. 2008. On wh-head-movement and the doubly-filled-comp filter. In Proceedings of the 26th West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics, Charles B. Chang & Hannah J. Haynie (eds), 87–95. Somerville MA: Cascadilla Proceedings Project.Google Scholar
Bayer, Josef & Bader, Markus. 2007. On the syntax of prepositional phrases. In Interface and Interface Conditions, Andreas Späth (ed.), 157–179. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Bayer, Josef, Bader, Markus & Meng, Michael. 2001. Morphological underspecification meets oblique case: Syntactic and processing effects in German. Lingua 111: 465–514. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Brandner, Eleonore. 2004. Head-movement in minimalism and V2 as force-marking. In The Syntax and Semantics of the Left Periphery, Horst Lohnstein & Susanne Trissler (eds), 97–138. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Bury, Dirk. 2002. Particles, V2 and the ungrammaticality of verb-initial structures. UCL Working Papers in Linguistics 12: 368–387.Google Scholar
Cardinaletti, Anna. 1999. Pronouns in Germanic and Romance languages: An overview. In Clitics in the Languages of Europe, Henk C. van Riemsdijk (ed.), 33–81. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam A. 1986. Barriers. Cambridge MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
. 1995. The Minimalist Program. Cambridge MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam A. & Lasnik, Howard. 1977. Filters and control. Linguistic Inquiry 8: 425–504.Google Scholar
van Craenenbroeck, Jeroen. 2006. Transitivity failures in the left periphery and foot-driven movement operations. Linguistics in the Netherlands 23: 52–64. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2010. Complex wh-phrases don’t move: On the interaction between the split CP-hypothesis and the syntax of wh-movement. In The Complementizer Phase. Subjects and Operators, Phoevos Panagiotidis (ed.). Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
Cruschina, Silvio. 2011. Discourse-related Features and Functional Projections. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
Donati, Caterina. 2006. On wh-head movement. In Wh-movement: Moving on, Lisa Cheng & Norbert Corver (eds), 21–46. Cambridge MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
Fanselow, Gisbert. 2004. Münchhausen-style head movement and the analysis of verb second. In Three Papers on German Verb Movement, Ralf Vogel (ed.). Linguistics in Potsdam 22: 9–49.Google Scholar
. 1987. Konfigurationalität. Untersuchungen zur Universalgrammatik am Beispiel des Deutschen. Tübingen: Narr.Google Scholar
Frey, Werner. 2010. Ā‑movement and conventional implicatures: About the grammatical encoding of emphasis in German. Lingua 120(6): 1416–1435. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Fuß, Eric. 2005. The Rise of Agreement. A Formal Approach on the Syntax and Grammaticalization of Verbal Inflection [Linguistik Aktuell/Linguistics Today 81]. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
van Gelderen, Elly. 2004a. Economy, innovation, and prescriptivism: From spec to head and head to head. Journal of Comparative Germanic Linguistics 7: 59–98. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2004b. Grammaticalization as Economy [Linguistik Aktuell/Linguistics Today 71]. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Georgi, Doreen & Müller, Gereon. 2010. Noun-phrase structure by reprojection. Syntax 13: 1–36. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Goodall, Grant. 2005. Contraction. In The Blackwell Companion to Syntax, Vol. 1, Martin Everaert & Henk van Riemsdijk (eds), 688–704. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Grewendorf, Günther. 2012. Wh-movement as topic movement. In Functional Heads. The Cartography of Syntactic Structures, Vol. 7, Laura Brugè, Anna Cardinaletti, Giuliana Giusti, Nicola Munaro & Cecila Poletto (eds), 55–68. Oxford: OUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gutch, Donald. 1992. Linking and intrusive r in English and Bavarian. In Language and Civilization: A Concerted Profusion of Essays and Studies in Honor of Otto Hietsch, Vol. 1, Claudia Blank (ed.), 555–611. Frankfurt: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
Hornstein, Norbert, Nunes, Jairo & Grohmann, Kleanthes K. 2006. Understanding Minimalism. Cambridge: CUP.Google Scholar
Kathol, Andreas. 2000. Linear Syntax. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
Koeneman, Olaf. 2000. The Flexible Nature of Verb Movement. Utrecht: LOT Publications.Google Scholar
. 2002. The distribution of declarative verb second in Germanic. In Studies in Comparative Germanic Syntax [Linguistik Aktuell/Linguistics Today 53], Jan-Wouter Zwart & Werner Abraham (eds), 175–201. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lutz, Ulrich. 1997. Parasitic gaps und Vorfeldstruktur. In Zur Satzstruktur des Deutschen, Franz-Josef d‘Avis & Ulrich Lutz (eds). Arbeitspapiere des Sonderforschungsbereichs 340(90): 55–80.Google Scholar
Merkle, Ludwig. 1975[1984]. Bairische Grammatik, reprint, 2nd edn. München: Hugendubel.Google Scholar
Müller, Gereon & Sternefeld, Wolfgang. 1993. Improper movement and unambiguous binding. Linguistic Inquiry 24: 461–507.Google Scholar
Noth, Harald. 1993. Alemannisches Dialekthandbuch vom Kaiserstuhl und seiner Umgebung. Freiburg im Breisgau: Schillinger.Google Scholar
Nunes, Jairo. 2001. Sideward movement. Linguistic Inquiry: 303–344. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ortmann, Albert. 1998. Consonant epenthesis: Its distribution and phonological specification. In Phonology and Morphology of the Germanic Languages, Wolfgang Kehrein & Richard Wiese (eds), 51–76. Tübingen: Niemeyer.Google Scholar
Pesetsky, David. 1987. Wh-in-situ: Movement and unselective binding. In The Representation of (In)definiteness, Eric J. Reuland & Alice G.B. ter Meulen (eds.), 98*#x2013;129. Cambridge MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
Pfalz, Anton. 1918. Suffigierung der Personalpronomina im Donau-Bairischen [Sitzungsberichte 190]. Wien: Kaiserliche Akademie der Wissenschaften in Wien, philosophisch-historische Klasse.Google Scholar
Pittner, Karin. 1996. Attraktion, Tilgung und Verbposition. Zur diachronen und dialektalen Variation beim Relativpronomen im Deutschen. In Language Change and Generative Grammar [Linguistische Berichte, Sonderheft 7], Ellen Brandner & Gisella Ferraresi (eds), 120–153. Opladen: Westdeutscher Verlag. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Platzack, Christer. 1996. Germanic verb second – attract versus repel: On optionality, A-bar movement and the symmetrical/asymmetrical verb second hypothesis. In Deutsch – typologisch, Ewald Lang & Gisela Zifonoun (eds), 92–120. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Poletto, Cecilia & Pollock, Jean-Yves. 2004. On wh-clitics and wh-doubling in French and some North Eastern Italian dialects. Probus 16: 241–272. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Postal, Paul. 1966. On so-called ‘pronouns’ in English. In Modern Studies in English, David Reibel & Sanford Schane (eds). Englewood Cliffs NJ: Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
Reis, Marga. 1985. Satzeinleitende Strukturen im Deutschen. Über COMP, Haupt- und Nebensätze, w-Bewegung und die Doppelkopfanalyse. In Erklärende Syntax des Deutschen, Werner Abraham (ed.), 271–311. Tübingen: Narr.Google Scholar
Schiepek, Josef. 1899. Der Satzbau der Egerländer Mundart. Prag: Verlag des Vereines für Geschichte der Deutschen in Böhmen.Google Scholar
Schmeller, J. Andreas. 1872, 1877[2008]. Bayerisches Wörterbuch, 2 Vols. Reprint. München: Oldenburg.Google Scholar
Schönenberger, Manuela. 2006. A glimpse of doubly-filled COMPs in Swiss German. In Organizing Grammar: Studies in Honor of Henk van Riemsdijk, Hans Broekhuis, Norbert Corver, Riny Huybregts, Ursula Kleinhenz & Jan Koster (eds.), 572–581. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Steininger, Reinhold. 1994. Beiträge zu einer Grammatik des Bairischen. Stuttgart: Franz Steiner.Google Scholar
Surány, Balázs. 2003. Head movement and reprojection. In Annales Universitatis Scientiarum Budapestinensis de Rolando Eötvös Nominatae. Sectio Linguistica, Tomus XXVI: 313–342. Budapest: ELTE.Google Scholar
Vangsnes, Øystein. 2005. Microparameters for Norwegian wh-grammars. Linguistic Variation Yearbook 5: 187–226. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Weiß, Helmut. 1998. Syntax des Bairischen. Studien zur Grammatik einer natürlichen Sprache. Tübingen: Niemeyer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2001. On two types of natural languages. Some consequences for linguistics. Theoretical Linguistics 27: 87–103. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2004. Vom Nutzen der Dialektsyntax. In Morphologie und Syntax deutscher Dialekte und historische Dialektologie des Deutschen, Beiträge zum 1. Kongress der Internationalen Gesellschaft für Dialektologie des Deutschen, Marburg/Lahn, 5.–8. März 2003, F. Patocka & P. Wiesinger (eds), 21–41, Wien: Edition Präsens.Google Scholar
. 2005. Inflected complementizers in continental West Germanic dialects. Zeitschrift für Dialektologie und Linguistik 72: 148–166.Google Scholar
Westergaard, Marit. 2009. Microvariation as diachrony: A view from acquisition. Journal of Comparative Germanic Linguistics 12: 49–79. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Westergaard, Marit & Vangsnes, Øystein. 2005. Wh-questions, V2, and the left periphery of three Norwegian dialect types. Journal of Comparative Germanic Linguistics 8(1–2): 119–160. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cited by (4)

Cited by four other publications

Schallert, Oliver & Ermenegildo Bidese
2021. Doubly-filled COMPs in Alpine varieties. STUF - Language Typology and Universals 74:1 ► pp. 129 ff. DOI logo
van Koppen, Marjo
2017. Complementizer Agreement. In The Wiley Blackwell Companion to Syntax, Second Edition, ► pp. 1 ff. DOI logo
Bayer, Josef
2014. Syntactic and phonological properties of wh-operators and wh-movement in Bavarian. In Bavarian Syntax [Linguistik Aktuell/Linguistics Today, 220], ► pp. 23 ff. DOI logo
Lutz, Uli
2014. Structures of ‘emphatic topicalization’ in Bavarian. In Bavarian Syntax [Linguistik Aktuell/Linguistics Today, 220], ► pp. 113 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 24 july 2024. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers. Any errors therein should be reported to them.