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. 83–110

The rise and fall of double agreement

A comparison between Carinthian and Kansas Bukovina Bohemian

 | University of Dusseldorf
This paper provides a comparative description and diachronic analysis of the syntactically conditioned 1st person plural subject agreement allomorphies that can be observed in the Bavarian varieties Carinthian and Kansas Bukovina Bohemian. It is shown that these occurrences of double agreement have to be analyzed as a result of cognitive selection procedures that operate during language acquisition ensuring the choice of the most specific forms and the most economical structures that are compatible with the Primary Linguistic Data. In Carinthian as well as in Kansas Bukovina Bohemian 1st person plural double agreement emerged from the reanalysis of cliticized 1st person plural subject pronouns as C-oriented agreement markers. But it has taken different developmental paths in the respective varieties. Whereas it has been fully restored after a partial loss in Carinthian, it disappeared almost entirely in Kansas Bukovina Bohemian. In both varieties the individual change of double agreement has brought about not only a specialization of verbal paradigms but also a considerable economization of syntactic derivations and representations.
Published online: 26 November 2014
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/la.220.04wra
References (47)
References
Abraham, Werner & Wiegel, Anko. 1993. Reduktionsformen und Kasussynkretismus bei deutschen und niederländischen Pronomina. In Dialektsyntax, Werner Abraham & Josef Bayer (eds), 12–49. Opladen: Westdeutscher Verlag. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Anderson, Stephen R. 1992. A-morphous Morphology. Cambridge: CUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 1993. Wackernagel’s revenge: Clitics, morphology and the syntax of second position. Language 69: 68–98. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Axel, Katrin & Weiß, Helmut. 2011. Pro-drop in the history of German – From Old High German to the modern dialects. In Null Pronouns, Melani Wratil & Peter Gallmann (eds), 21–52. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Bayer, Josef. 1984. COMP in Bavarian Syntax. The Linguistic Review 3: 209–274. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Boas, Hans C. 2002. The Texas German Dialect Project (TGDP). [URL] (4 June 2014).Google Scholar
. 2003. Tracing dialect death: The Texas German dialect project. In Proceedings of the 29th Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society, Julie Larson & Mary Paster (eds), 387–398. Berkeley CA: BLS.Google Scholar
. 2009. The Life and Death of Texas German. Durham NC: Duke University Press.Google Scholar
Bücherl, Rainald & Keel, William D. 1996. The Catholic Bukovinians in Kansas and Their Bohemian German Dialect. In German Emigration from Bukovina to the Americas, William D. Keel & Kurt Rein (eds), 277–284.Lawrence KS: Max Kade Center for German-American Studies.Google Scholar
Cardinaletti, Anna. 1992. On cliticization in Germanic languages. Rivista di Grammatica Generativa 17: 65–99.Google Scholar
. 1999. Pronouns in Germanic and Romanic languages: An overview. In Clitics in the Languages of Europe, Henk van Riemsdijk (ed.), 33–82. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam. 1995. The Minimalist Program. Cambridge MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
Christl-Sorcan, Astrid & Eller, Nicole. 2008. Iazd muasst deitschbehmisch redn, ned des Englisch! Deutschböhmische Dialekte in Kansas und Minnesota. Klagenfurter Beiträge zur Sprachwissenschaft 34: 58–76.Google Scholar
Clark, Robin & Roberts, Ian. 1993. A computational model of language learnability and language change. Linguistic Inquiry 24: 299–345.Google Scholar
den Besten, Hans. 1983. On the interaction of root transformations and lexical deletive rules. In On the Formal Syntax of the Westgermania [Linguistik Aktuell/Linguistics Today 3], Werner Abraham (ed.), 47–131. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Eller, Nicole. 2006. Syntax des bairischen Basisdialekts im Böhmerwald. Regensburg: Regensburger Dialektforum.Google Scholar
Fuß, Eric 2004. Diachronic clues to pro-drop and complementizer agreement in Bavarian. In Diachronic Clues to Synchronic Grammar [Linguistik Aktuell/Linguistics Today 72], Eric Fuß & Carola Trips (eds), 59–100. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2005. The Rise of Agreement [Linguistik Aktuell/Linguistics Today 81]. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Fuß, Eric & Wratil, Melani. 2013. Der Nullsubjektzyklus. Etablierung und Verlust von Nullargumenten. In Sprachwandelvergleich, Jürg Fleischer & Horst Simon (eds),Tübingen: Niemeyer.Google Scholar
Grewendorf, Günther. 1988. Aspekte der deutschen Syntax. Tübingen: Narr.Google Scholar
Haegeman, Liliane. 1992. Theory and Description in Generative Syntax: A Case Study in West Flemish. Cambridge: CUP.Google Scholar
. 1997. Verb second, the split CP and null subjects. In Early Dutch Finite Clauses. GenGenP 4(2): 133–175.Google Scholar
Halle, Morris 1997. Distributed morphology: Impoverishment and fission. In MIT Working Papers in Linguistics 30: PF: Papers At the Interface, Benjamin Bruening, Yoonjung Kang, & Martha McGinnis (eds), 425–450. Cambridge MA: Department of Linguistics and Philosophy, MIT.Google Scholar
Harbert, Wayne. 2007. The Germanic Languages. Cambridge: CUP.Google Scholar
Harris, Alice C. & Campbell, Lyle. 1995. Historical Syntax in Cross-Linguistic Perspective. Cambridge: CUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Keel, William. D. 1981. On dialect mixture: The case of Ellis County (Kansas) Volga-German. In Proceedings of the Mid-America Linguistics Conference 1981, Tina Bennett-Kastor (ed.), 320–325. Wichita.Google Scholar
Kiparsky, Paul. 1973. Elsewhere in phonology. In A Festschrift for Morris Halle, Stephen R. Anderson & Paul Kiparsky (eds), 93–106.New York NY: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.Google Scholar
. 1995. The Indo-European origins of Germanic syntax. In Clause Structure and Language Change, Adrian Battye & Ian Roberts (eds), 140–170. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
Lehmann, Christian. 1985. Grammaticalization: Synchronic variation and diachronic change. Lingua e Stile 20: 303–318.Google Scholar
Lessiak, Primus. 1963. Die Mundart von Kärnten in Pernegg. Marburg: N.G. Elwert.Google Scholar
Lightfoot, David. 1997. Shifting triggers and diachronic reanalyses. In Parameters of Morphosyntactic Change, Ans van Kemenade & Nigel Vincent (eds), 253–272. Cambridge: CUP.Google Scholar
Lunte, Gabriele M. 2006. Besondere Dialektmerkmale der bairisch-deutschböhmischen Mundart von Ellis, Kansas, USA. In Sprachinselwelten – The World of Language Island, Nina Berend & Elisabeth Knipf-Komlósi (eds). Frankfurt: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
. 2007. The Catholic Bohemian German of Ellis County, Kansas. Frankfurt: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
Palmer, Frank R. 2001. Mood and Modality, 2nd edn. Cambridge: CUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Pohl, Heinz-Dieter. 1989. Kleine Kärntner Mundartkunde mit Wörterbuch. Klagenfurt: Heyn.Google Scholar
Rein, Kurt. 1996. Bukovina on the eve of emigration. In German Emigration from Bukovina to the Americas, William D. Keel & Kurt Rein (eds), 37–44. Lawrence KS: Max Kade Center for German-American Studies. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ronneberger-Sibold, Elke. 1994. Konservative Nominalflexion und “klammerndes Verfahren” im Deutschen. In Funktionale Untersuchungen zur deutschen Nominal- und Verbalmorphologie, Klaus Michael Köpcke (ed.), 115–130. Tübingen: Niemeyer.Google Scholar
Szczepaniak, Renata. 2009. Grammatikalisierung im Deutschen. Tübingen: Narr.Google Scholar
Tišerová, Pavla. 2008. Tschechien. In Handbuch der deutschen Sprachminderheiten in Mittel- und Osteuropa, Ludwig M. Eichinger, Albrecht Plewnia & Claudia Maria Riehl (eds), 171–242. Tübingen: Narr.Google Scholar
Thomason, Sarah. 2001. Language Contact. Edinburgh: EUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Wackernagel, Jacob. 1892. Über ein Gesetz der indogermanischen Wortstellung. Indogermanische Forschungen 1: 333–436.Google Scholar
Weerman, Fred. 1989. The V2 Conspiracy. A Synchronic and Diachronic Analysis of Verbal Positions in Germanic Languages. Dordrecht: Foris.Google Scholar
Weiß, Helmut. 1998. Die Syntax des Bairischen. Studien zur Grammatik einer natürlichen Sprache. Tübingen: Niemeyer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2005. Inflected complementizers in Continental West Germanic dialects. Zeitschrift für Dialektologie und Linguistik (ZDL) 72(2): 148–166.Google Scholar
Wiesinger, Peter. 1989. Die Flexionsmorphologie des Verbums im Bairischen. Wien: Verlag der Österreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften.Google Scholar
Wratil, Melani. 2013. Double agreement in the Alpine languages. In Synchrony and Diachrony. A Dynamic Interface [Studies in Language Companion Series 133], Anna Giacalone-Ramat, Caterina Mauri & Piera Molinelli (eds), 201–236. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Zwart, Jan-Wouter. 1997. Morphosyntax of Verb Movement. A Minimalist Approach to the Syntax of Dutch. Dordrecht: Kluwer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar