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. 305–336

The Upper German differential

main Austrian-Bavarian vs. (High) Alemannic differences

| Wien & Munchen

This essay is essentially a list of phenomena taken from the two large dialect areas of what is called Upper German (for German Oberdeutsch, South German (SG henceforth), comprising Austrian and Bavarian dialects as well as High Alemannic). The author himself speaks natively (base and high school) Viennese Austrian and the dialect of the Montafon, Vorarlberg, as samples of these two dialect areas. Although the critical assumptions of micro-linguistics (cf. Poletto 2000; Kayne 2013; Abraham & Leiss 2013) form the bottom seed, no theoretical discussions are entertained as consequences to the empirical data body. Wherever known to me, however, I included the pertinent bibliographical information that leads to advanced and farther reaching conclusions and generalizations particularly in the spirit of Universal grammar.

Published online: 26 November 2014
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/la.220.11abr
References
Abney, Steven
1987 The English Noun Phrase in its Sentential Aspect. PhD dissertation, MIT.
Abraham, Werner
2001 SVOV in German and Dutch. In Reflections on Language and Language Learning. In Honour of Arthur van Essen, Marcel Bax & Jan-Wouter Zwart (eds), 155–167. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2003 Autonomous and non-autonomous components of ‘grammatic (al)ization’: Economy criteria in the emergence of German negation. Sprachtypologie und Universalienforschung (STUF) 56(4): 325–365.Google Scholar
22005 Deutsche Syntax im Sprachenvergleich. Tübingen: Stauffenburg.Google Scholar
2006a  Dialect and typology where they meet – and where they don’t. In Types of Variation: Diachronic, Dialectal and Typological Interfaces [Studies in Language Companion Series 76], Terttu Nevalainen, Juhani Klemola & Mikko Laitinen (eds), 243–268. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2006b Review of Bernd Kortmann (ed.) 2004 Dialectology meets Typology. Dialect Grammar from a Cross-Linguistic Perspective. Linguistische Berichte 205: 95–102.Google Scholar
2009 Methodological considerations on grammar variation. The right periphery as an OV/VO deciding parameter more so than the left periphery: Gradience in the verb cluster. In Describing and Modeling Variation in Grammar, Andreas Dufter, Jürg Fleischer & Guido Seiler (eds), 21–58. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
2012 Gesprochene Syntax im Zimbrischen der deutschen Sprachinseln Oberitaliens. Was sie über Sprachuniversalien und über Wandel unter Sprachkontakt (nicht) verrät. In Perspektiven Vier. Akten der 4. Tagung Deutsche Sprachwissenschaft in Italien Rom, 4.–6. Februar 2010 [Deutsche Sprachwissenschaft international. Band 14], Claudio Di Meola, Antonie Hornung & Lorenza Rega (eds), 37–72. Frankfurt: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
2014a Forthcoming. (Un)Certainty: its onceptual differential. In Certainty [Studies in Language Companion Series], Sibilla Cantarini, Werner Abraham & Elisabeth Leiss (eds), Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
2014b Forthcoming. Von der metaphorischen Sprache der Kastenmenschen zur Universalpragmatik. In Akten der Agrégationtagung 2013 in Montpellier, Michel Lefevre (ed.), Tübingen: Stauffenburg.Google Scholar
Abraham, Werner & Bayer, Josef
(eds) 1993 Dialektsyntax [Linguistische Berichte, Sonderheft 5]. Opladen: Westdeutscher Verlag. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Abraham, Werner & Fischer, Anette
1998 Das grammatische Optimalisierungsszenario von tun als Hilfsverb. In Deutsche Grammatik – Thema and Variationen. Festschrift für Hans-Werner Eroms zum 60. Geburtstag, Karin Donhauser & Ludwig M. Eichinger (eds), 35–48. Heidelberg: Carl Winter.Google Scholar
Abraham, Werner & Leiss, Elisabeth
(eds) 2013 Dialektologie in neuem Gewand. Zu Mikro-/Varietätenlinguistik, Sprachenvergleich und Universalgrammatik [Linguistische Berichte, Sonderheft 19]. Hamburg: Buske.Google Scholar
Barbiers, Sjef
2003–2004. Variatie in de morfosyntaxis van één. In Dialectsyntaxis in Bloei, Sjef Barbiers, Magda Devos & Georges de Schutter (eds). Taal en Tongval. Tijdschrift voor Taalvariatie 54-55(thema nummer15-16): 44–62.Google Scholar
Berwick, Robert
In press. All you need is Merge: Biology, computation, and language from the bottom-up. In The Biolinguistic Enterprise: New Perspectives on the Evolution and Nature of the Human Language Faculty, Anna Maria Di Sciullo & Cedric Boecks (eds) Oxford OUP
Bidese, Ermenegildo, Cognola, Federica & Padovan, Andrea
2012 Zu einer neuen Verb-Zweit-Typologie in den germanischen languages: The Fall des Zimbrischen und des Fersentalerischen. In In simplicitate complexitas. Festgabe for Barbara Stefan zum 70. Geburtstag, Peter Anreiter, Ivo Hajnal & Manfred Kienpointner (eds), 69–86. Wien: Praesens.Google Scholar
Braune, Wilhelm & Mitzka, Walter
1963 Althochdeutsche Grammar. Tübingen: Niemeyer.Google Scholar
Cognola, Federica
2012 Syntactic Variation and Verb-second. A German Dialect of Northern Italy [Linguistik Aktuell/Linguistics Today 201] Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Haan, Germen J. de
2010 Studies in West Frisian grammar. [Linguistik Aktuell/Linguistics Today 161]. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Haider, Hubert
1991 Die menschliche Sprachfähigkeit – exaptiv und kognitiv opak. Kognitionswissenschaft 2: 11–26.Google Scholar
2010 The Syntax of German. Cambridge: CUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2013 Symmetry Breaking in Syntax [Cambridge Studies in Linguistics 135]. Cambridge: CUP.Google Scholar
Haspelmath, Martin
2012 How to compare major word-classes across the world’s languages. In Theories of Everything. In Honor of Ed Keenan. [UCLA Working Papers in Linguistics 17], Thomas Graf, Denis Paperno, Anna Szabolcsi & Jos Tellings (eds). Los Angeles CA: UCLA Linguistics Department.Google Scholar
Hauser, Mark, Chomsky, Noam & Fitch, Tecumseh W
2002 The faculty of language: What is it, who has it, and how did it evolve. Science 298: 1569–1579. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hodler, Werner
1969 Berndeutsche Syntax. Bern: Francke.Google Scholar
Kayne, Richard S
2005 Some notes on comparative syntax, with special reference to English and French. In The Oxford Handbook of Comparative Syntax, Guglielmo Cinque & Richard S. Kayne (eds), 3–69. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
2013 Comparative grammar. Lingua 130: 132–151. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Knipp, Rita
1982 Dialektbedingte Fehler in Schulaufsätzen aus dem Montafon. Examensarbeit,Universität Innsbruck.Google Scholar
Kortmann, Bernd
(ed.) 2004 Dialectology Meets Typology. Dialect Grammar from a Cross-linguistic Perspective [Trends in Linguistics. Studies and Monographs 153]. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Langer, Nils & Davies, Wini
2005 Linguistic Purism in the Germanic Languages. Berlin: De Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Litvinov, Viktor P. & Radčenko, Vladimir I
1998 Doppelte Perfektbildungen in der deutschen Literatursprache [Studien zur deutschen Grammatik 55]. Tübingen: Stauffenburg.Google Scholar
Longobardi, Giuseppe
2001 The structure of DPs: Some principles, parameters, and problems. In The Handbook of Contemporary Syntactic Theory, Mark Baltin & Chris Collins (eds), 562–603. Malden: Blackwell. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Padovan, Andrea
2010 Diachronic clues to grammaticalization phenomena in the Cimbrian CP. Ms, University of Trento.
Paul, Hermann & Mitzka, Walter
1963 Mittelhochdeutsche Grammatik. Tübingen: Niemeyer.Google Scholar
Piattelli-Palmarini, Massimo & Uriagereka, Juan
2005 The evolution of the narrow faculty of language: The skeptical view and a reasonable conjecture. Lingue e Linguaggio IV(1): 27–79.Google Scholar
Piskorz, Jadwiga
2012 Die Grammatikalisierung eines neuen Perfekts im Polnischen: ein Beitrag zur Entwicklungslogik des Perfekts. Ph.D. thesis University Munich, Germany. Printed 2013 Munich: Sagner.
von Polenz, Peter
1986 Sprachnormen ‒ lösbare und unlösbare Probleme. Tübingen: Niemeyer.Google Scholar
Poletto, Cecilia
2000 The Higher Functional Field in the Northern Italian Dialects. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
Rizzi, Luigi
2010 On the nature of linguistic computations: complexity, development, and evolution. Lecture Summer Institute on the Origins of language held at UQÀM, Summer Institute of Cognitive Sciences. [URL] (4 June 2014).
Rödel, Michael
2007 Doppelte Perfektbildungen und die Organisation von Tempus im Deutschen [Studien zur deutschen Grammatik 74]. Tübingen: Stauffenburg.Google Scholar
Ruoff, Arno & Eugen, Gabriel
(eds) 2003 Die Mundarten des Montafons. [Schriften der Vorarlberger Landesbibliothek 3/7; inkl. CD mit Tonaufnahmen]. Graz: W. Neugebauer.Google Scholar
Schallert, Oliver
2012 Untersuchungen zu Ersatzinfinitivkonstruktionen in den Vorarlberger und Liechtensteiner Dialekten. PhD dissertation, University of Marburg. Print 2014: Zur Syntax der Ersatzinfinitivkonstruktion: Typologie und Variation. Tübingen: Narr (Studien zur Deutschen Grammatik; 87).
Schmidlin, Regula
2011 Die Vielfalt des Deutschen: Standard und Variation. Gebrauch, Einschätzung und Kodifizierung einer plurizentrischen Sprache [Studia Linguistica Germanica 116]. Berlin: De Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Steil, Claudia
1989 Untersuchungen zum Verbalkomplex im Schwäbischen. MA thesis, Universität Tübingen.
Tomaselli, A
1995 Cases of verb third in Old High German. In: A. Battye & I. Roberts (eds.), Clause Structure and Language Change, 345–369. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Weiß, Helmut
1998 Syntax des Bairischen. Studien zur Grammatik einer natürlichen Sprache. Tübingen: Niemeyer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Zwart, Jan-Wouter
2011 The syntax of Dutch. Cambridge: CUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cited by

Cited by 1 other publications

Lee, Meng-Chen & Werner Abraham
2020. Episodic versus generic eventualities and nominals. STUF - Language Typology and Universals 73:4 ► pp. 441 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 20 april 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.