Quantifying Expressions in the History of German

Syntactic reanalysis and morphological change

| University of North Texas
| University of Mississippi
ISBN 9789027257130 | EUR 99.00 | USD 149.00
ISBN 9789027267115 | EUR 99.00 | USD 149.00
This study describes the 1200-year history of German quantifying expressions like nîoman anderro > niemand anderer ‘nobody else’, analyzing the morpho-syntactic developments within the generative framework. The quantifiers examined arose from various lexical sources/categories (nouns, adjectives, and pronouns) but all changed to adjectival quantifiers. These changes are interpreted as a novel type of upward reanalysis from head to specifier, which we associate with degrammaticalization driven by analogy. As for the quantified phrases, most appeared in the genitive in Old High German, indicating a bi-nominal structure. During the Early New High German period, most quantified nouns and adjectives changed to agreement with the quantifier. By Modern German, only quantified DPs and pronouns remain in the genitive. These changes involve downward reanalysis of the quantified elements, being integrated into the matrix nominal depending on the structural size of the quantified phrase. Overall, we conclude that diachronically quantifying expressions may have different syntactic analyses.
[Linguistik Aktuell/Linguistics Today, 230]  2016.  xvii, 299 pp.
Publishing status: Available
Table of Contents
List of abbreviations
Chapter 1. Introduction
Chapter 2. Simplex quantifying word: viel
Chapter 3. From lexical adjective to quantifying adjective: wenig
Chapter 4. Universal quantifiers all and jeder
Chapter 5. Complex indefinite pronouns: jemand, niemand, and nichts
Chapter 6. A different complex indefinite pronoun: etwas
Chapter 7. Exceptional adjectives: ander, folgend and solch
Chapter 8. Conclusions
“The authors of Quantifying Expressions in the History of German provide an in-depth empirical study of the diachronic changes affecting a representative group of quantifying words in the history of German. Some of the changes they report are well known, like the loss of genitive marking with quantifying words like viel and wenig. Historical developments of other quantifiers—that is, strong quantifiers or indefinite pronouns—have until now received only little attention. The book contains a wealth of data for each quantifying expression under investigation and for each historical period of German: future work on the diachrony of quantifying expressions will consider the present book to be an extremely valuable source of data. In addition, the study impressively shows how the multitude of small changes found in the realm of quantifying expressions in German can be accounted for in terms of a more general change triggering Head-to-Specifier reanalysis from the functional head Card to its specifier position SpecCardP. Even if one might not subscribe to each syntactic analysis R&S suggest, the overall picture, taking into account the specific development
of individual quantifying expressions, presents itself as a convincing proposal for the diachrony of quantifying expressions.”
Cited by

Cited by 2 other publications

Roehrs, Dorian & Christopher Sapp
2018. Complex quantifiers with genitive and concord in Old English and beyond. The Journal of Comparative Germanic Linguistics 21:3  pp. 381 ff. Crossref logo
Sapp, Christopher & Dorian Roehrs
2016. Head-to-Modifier Reanalysis: The Rise of the Adjectival QuantifierVieland the Loss of Genitive Case Assignment. Journal of Germanic Linguistics 28:2  pp. 89 ff. Crossref logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 12 september 2021. 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.



Abney, Steven
1987The English Noun Phrase in its Sentential Aspect. PhD dissertation, MIT.
Abraham, Werner
1997The interdependence of case, aspect and referentiality in the his­tory of German: The case of the verbal genitive. In Parameters of Morphosyn­tact­ic Change, Ans van Kemenade & Nigel Vincent (eds), 29-61. Cambridge: CUP.Google Scholar
Alexiadou, Artemis
2003Some notes on the structure of alienable and inalienable possessors.In From NP to DP, Vol. 2: The Expression of Possession in Noun Phrases [Linguistik Aktuell/Linguistics Today 56], Martine Coene & Yves D’hulst (eds), 167-188. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Alexiadou, Artemis, Haegeman, Liliane & Stavrou, Melita
2007Noun Phrase in the Generative Perspective. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Authier, J.-Marc
2014Split quantification and the status of adjunction in the theory of grammar. Studia Linguistica 68: 245-283. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Behaghel, Otto
1923Deutsche Syntax: Eine geschichtliche Darstellung, Vols I-IV. Heidelberg: Winter.Google Scholar
Das Bonner Frühneuhochdeutsch-Korpus
Bošković, Željko
2004Be careful where you float your quantifiers. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 22: 681-742. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Braune, Wilhelm & Ebbinghaus, Ernst
1981Gotische Grammatik, 19th edn. Tübingen: Max Niemeyer.Google Scholar
Braune, Wilhelm & Reiffenstein, Ingo
2004Althochdeutsche Grammatik I, 15th edn. Tübingen>: Max Niemeyer. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Büring, Daniel & Hartmann, Katharina
2001The syntax and semantics of focus-sensitive particles in German. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 19: 229-281. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Cardinaletti, Anna & Giusti, Giuliana
2006. The syntax of quantified phrases and quantitative clitics. In The Blackwell Companion to Syntax, Vol. V, Martin Everaert & Henk van Riemsdijk (eds), 23-93. Oxford: Blackwell. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Cardinaletti, Anna & Starke, Michal
1996Deficient pronouns: A view from Germanic. A study in the unified description of Germanic and Romance. In Studies in Comparative Germanic II, Höskuldur Thráinnson, Samuel David Epstein & Steve Peter (eds), 21-65.Dordrecht: Kluwer. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Chomsky, Noam
1957Syntactic Structures. The Hague: Mouton.Google Scholar
1981Lectures on Government and Binding: The Pisa Lectures. Dordrecht: Foris.Google Scholar
Cinque, Guglielmo
1994On the evidence for partial N-movement in the Romance DP. In Paths Towards Universal Grammar. Studies in Honor of Richard S. Kayne, Guglielmo Cinque, Jan Koster, Jean-Yves Pollock, Luigi Rizzi & Raffaella Zanuttini (eds), 85-110. Washington DC: Georgetown University Press.Google Scholar
2005Deriving Greenberg’s Universal 20 and its exceptions. Linguistic Inquiry 36: 315-332. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2010The Syntax of Adjectives. A Comparative Study. Cambridge MA: The MIT Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Corver, Norbert
1997The internal structure of the Dutch extended adjectival projection. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 15: 289-368. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Demske, Ulrike
2001Merkmale und Relationen: Diachrone Studien zur Nominalphrase des Deutschen. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2013(Dis-)continuous noun phrases in early New High German: Evidence for information structure? Presentation at 35th Conference of the Deutsche Gesellschaft für Sprachwissenschaft , Potsdam.
2014Changes in noun phrase structure. Lecture at SUM-UP, University of Potsdam.
Deutsches Wörterbuch von Jacob Grimm und Wilhelm Grimm
Trier Center for the Digital Humanities. http://​woerterbuchnetz​.de​/DWB (15 November 2013).
Déprez, Viviane
2011From N to D. Charting the time course of the internal rise of French n-words. In The Noun Phrase in Romance and Germanic: Structure, Variation, and Change [Linguistik Aktuell/Linguistics Today 171], Petra Sleeman & Harry Perridon (eds), 257-280. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Doetjes, Jenny Sandra
1997Quantifiers and Selection: On the Distribution of Quantifying Expressions in French, Dutch and English. PhD dissertation, University of Leiden.
Donhauser, Karin
1998aDas Genitivproblem und (k)ein Ende? Anmerkungen zur aktuellen Diskussion um die Ursachen des Genitivschwundes im Deutschen. In Historische germanische und deutsche Syntax. Akten des Internationalen Symposiums anläßlich des 100. Geburtstages von Ingerid Dal, Oslo 1995, John Ole Askedal (ed.), 69-86. Bern: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
1998bNegationssyntax im Althochdeutschen. Ein sprachhistorisches Rätsel und der Weg zu seiner Lösung. In Deutsche Grammatik: Thema in Variationen. Festschrift für Hans-Werner Eroms zum 60. Geburtstag, Karin Donhauser & Ludwig M. Eichinger (eds), 283-298. Heidelberg: Winter.Google Scholar
1959Der Große Duden, Band 4: Grammatik der deutschen Gegenwartsprache. Mannheim: Dudenverlag.Google Scholar
1995Der Duden, Band 4: Grammatik der deutschen Gegenwartsprache. Mannheim: Dudenverlag.Google Scholar
2007Richtiges und gutes Deutsch, Band 9. Mannheim: Dudenverlag.Google Scholar
Ebert, Robert Peter, Reichmann, Oskar, Solms, Hans-Joachim & Wegera, Klaus-Peter
1993Frühneuhochdeutsche Grammatik. Tübingen: Max Niemeyer. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Eisenberg, Peter
1998Grundriß der deutschen Grammatik, Band 1: Das Wort. Stuttgart: Metzler.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Embick, David & Noyer, Rolf
2001Movement Operations after Syntax. Linguistic Inquiry 32: 555-595. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Fanselow, Gisbert
1988Aufspaltung von NPn und das Problem der “freien” Wortstellung. Linguistische Berichte 114: 91-113.Google Scholar
Fehlisch, Ulrike
1986 Jeder: Stellungs- und Referenzeigenschaften. In Zur Syntax der Determinantien, Heinz Vater (ed.), 83-122. Tübingen: Gunter Narr.Google Scholar
Feist, Sigmund
1939Vergleichendes Wörterbuch der gotischen Sprache, 3rd edn. Leiden: Brill.Google Scholar
Fleischer, Jürg & Schallert, Oliver
2011Historische Syntax des Deutschen: Eine Einführung. Tübingen: Gunter Narr.Google Scholar
Fobbe, Eilika
2004Die Indefinitpronomina des Deutschen: Aspekte ihrer Verwendung und ihrer historischen Entwicklung. Heidelberg: WinterGoogle Scholar
Gallée, Johan Hendrik
1993Altsächsische Grammatik. Tübingen: Max Niemeyer. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Gallmann, Peter
1996Die Steuerung der Flexion in der DP. Linguistische Berichte 164: 283- 314.Google Scholar
van Gelderen, Elly
2004Grammaticalization as Economy [Linguistik Aktuell/Linguistics Today 71]. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Giusti, Giuliana
1991The categorial status of quantified nominals. Linguistische Berichte 136: 438-454.Google Scholar
1997The categorial status of determiners. In The New Comparative Syntax, Liliane Haegeman (ed.), 95-123. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Götz, Ursula
2010 vnd schwermen so waidlich / als jemandt anders schwermen kan: Nominalphrasen mit jemand und niemand in der Geschichte des Deutschen. In Historische Textgrammatik und Historische Syntax des Deutschen: Traditionen, Innovationen, Perspektiven, Vol. 1, Arne Ziegler (ed.), 139-156. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Haeberli, Eric
2002Features, Categories and the Syntax of A-positions. Dordrecht: Kluwer. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Haider, Hubert
1993Deutsche Syntax – Generativ. Tübingen: Gunter Narr.Google Scholar
2010The Syntax of German. Cambridge: CUP. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Harbert, Wayne
2007The Germanic Languages. Cambridge: CUP.Google Scholar
Hartweg, Frédéric & Wegera, Klaus-Peter
1989Frühneuhochdeutsch: Eine Einführung in die deutsche Sprache des Spätmittelalters und der frühen Neuzeit. Tübingen: Max Niemeyer. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Haspelmath, Martin
2010The behaviour-before-coding principle in syntactic change. In Mélanges Denis Creissels, Franck Floricic (ed.), 493-506. Paris: Presses de L’École Normale Supérieure.Google Scholar
Haupt, Moritz
(ed.) 1872Wolfram von Eschenbach: Dritte Ausgabe von Karl Lachmann. Berlin: Georg Reimer.Google Scholar
Heim, Irene & Kratzer, Angelika
1998Semantics in Generative Grammar. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Helbig, Gerhard & Buscha, Joachim
2001Deutsche Grammatik: Ein Handbuch für den Ausländerunterricht, 17th edn. Leipzig: Langenscheidt.Google Scholar
Higginbotham, James
1987Indefiniteness and predication. In The Representation of (In)definiteness, Eric J. Reuland & Alice G.B. ter Meulen (eds), 43-70. Cambridge MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
Hogg, Richard M. & Fulk, R.D.
2011A Grammar of Old English, Vol. 2: Morphology. Chichester: Wiley-Blackwell.Google Scholar
Holmberg, Anders
1993On the structure of predicate NP. Studia Linguistica 47: 126-138. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Hopper, Paul J. & Traugott, Elizabeth Closs
2003Grammaticalization, 2nd edn. Cambridge: CUP. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Hulsey, Sarah & Sauerland, Uli
2006Sorting out relative clauses. Natural Language Semantics 14: 111-137. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Jackendoff, Ray S.
1977X’ Syntax: A Study of Phrase Structure. Cambridge MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
Jäger, Agnes
2008History of German Negation [Linguistik Aktuell/Linguistics Today 118]. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Julien, Marit
2005Nominal Phrases from a Scandinavian Perspective [Linguistik Aktuell/Linguistics Today 87]. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Kayne, Richard S.
2005Some 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
Kehrein, Joseph
1968 Grammatik der deutschen Sprache des funfzehnten bis siebenzehnten Jahrhunderts . In drei Teilen. Hildesheim: Georg Olms Verlagsbuchhandlung. Reprinted according to the Leipzig edition 1854-1856.Google Scholar
Kessler, Brett
2002The Old Saxon Heliand, with some lexical statistics. http://​www​.artsci​.wustl​.edu​/~bkessler​/OS​-Heliand/ (23 June 2015).
Kiparsky, Paul
2012Grammaticalization as optimization. In Grammatical Change: Origins, Nature, Outcomes, Dianne Jonas, John Whitman & Andrew Garrett (eds), 15-51. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
Kishimoto, Hideki
2000Indefinite pronouns and overt N-raising. Linguistic Inquiry 31: 557-566. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Köbler, Gerhard
2014Althochdeutsches Wörterbuch, 6th edn. http://​www​.koeblergerhard​.de​/ahdwbhin​.html (29 July 2015).Google Scholar
Kroch, Anthony S.
1989Reflexes of grammar in patterns of language change. Language Variation and Change 1: 199-244. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Leu, Thomas
2015The Architecture of Determiners. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
Lexer, Matthias
1969Matthias Lexers Mittelhochdeutsches Taschenwörterbuch, 33rd edn. Stuttgart: S. Hirzel.Google Scholar
Löbel, Elisabeth
1990D and Q als funtionale Kategorien in der Nominalphrase. Linguistische Berichte 127: 232-264.Google Scholar
Lockwood, William Burley
1968Historical German Syntax. Oxford: Clarendon.Google Scholar
Longobardi, Giuseppe
1994Reference and proper names: A theory of N-movement in syntax and logical form. Linguistic Inquiry 25: 609-665.Google Scholar
Martí, Núria
2010The Syntax of Partitives. PhD dissertation, Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona.
Merchant, Jason
1996Object scrambling and quantifier float in German. NELS 26: 179-193.Google Scholar
Milner, Jean-Claude
1978De la syntaxe à l’interprétation. Quantités, insultes, exclamations. Paris: Le Seuil.Google Scholar
Milsark, Gary
1977Peculiarities of the existential construction in English. Linguistic Analysis 3: 1-29.Google Scholar
Norde, Muriel
2010Degrammaticalization: Three common controversies. In Grammaticalization. Current Views and Issues [Studies in Language Companion Series 119], Katerina Stathi, Elke Gehweiler & Ekkehard König (eds), 123-150. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Norris, Mark
2014A Theory of Nominal Concord. PhD dissertation, University of California, Santa Cruz.
Nykiel, Jerzy
2015The reduced definite article th’ in late Middle English and beyond: An insight from the definiteness cycle. Journal of Germanic Linguistics 27: 105-144. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Ott, Dennis
2011aLocal Instability. The Syntax of Split Topics. PhD dissertation, Harvard University.
2011bDiminutive-formation in German. The Journal of Comparative Germanic Linguistics 14: 1-46. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Paul, Hermann
2007Mittelhochdeutsche Grammatik, 25th edn. Tübingen: Niemeyer.Google Scholar
Partee, Barbara. H.
1988Many quantifiers. In Proceedings of the 5th Eastern States Conference on Linguistics, Joyce Powers & Kenneth de Jong (eds), 383-402. Columbus OH: The Ohio State University.Google Scholar
Paul, Hermann
2007Mittelhochdeutsche Grammatik, 25th edn. Tübingen: Max Niemeyer.Google Scholar
Pfeiffer, Wolfgang
(ed.) 1997Etymologisches Wörterbuch des Deutschen, 3rd edn. München: DTV.Google Scholar
Postal, Paul M.
1966On the so-called pronouns in English. In Nineteenth Monograph on Language and Linguistics, Francis Dinneen (ed.), 177-206. Washington DC: Georgetown University Press.Google Scholar
van Riemsdijk, Henk
1989Movement and regeneration. In Dialect Variation and the Theory of Grammar, Paola Benincà (ed.), 105-136. Dordrecht: Foris.Google Scholar
Roberts, Ian & Roussou, Anna
2003Syntactic Change: A Minimalist Approach to Grammaticalization. Cambridge: CUP. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Roehrs, Dorian
2008aSomething inner- and cross-linguistically different. The Journal of Comparative Germanic Linguistics 11: 1-42. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2008bHigh floating quantifiers: Syntactic or “delayed” V2? Snippets 17: 7-8.Google Scholar
2009aDemonstratives and Definite Articles as Nominal Auxiliaries [Linguistik Aktuell/Linguistics Today 140]. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2009bInflectional parallelism with German adjectives. Interdisciplinary Journal for Germanic Linguistics and Semiotic Analysis 14: 289-326.Google Scholar
2012Complex determiners: A case study of German ein jeder . Interdisciplinary Journal for Germanic Linguistics and Semiotic Analysis 17: 1-56.Google Scholar
2013The inner makeup of definite determiners: The case of Germanic. Journal of Germanic Linguistics 25: 295-411. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Roehrs, Dorian & Julien, Marit
2014Adjectives in German and Norwegian: Differences in weak and strong inflections. In Adjectives in Germanic and Romance [Linguistik Aktuell/Linguistics Today 212], Petra Sleeman, Freek Van de Velde & Harry Perridon (eds), 245-261. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Roehrs, Dorian & Sapp, Christopher D.
2015Quantifying expressions as heads and phrases: Explaining the differences in the cardinal and proportional constructions in OE, OHG, and OIcel. Presented at Comparative Germanic Syntax Workshop 30, University of Chicago.
Rubin, Edward J.
1996The transparent syntax and semantics of modifiers. In Proceedings of the Fifteenth West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics, Brian Agbayani & Sze-Wing Tang (eds), 429-439. Stanford CA: CSLI.Google Scholar
Sapp, Christopher D. & Roehrs, Dorian
2016Head-to-modifier reanalysis: The rise of the adjectival quantifier viel and the loss of genitive case assignment. Journal of Germanic Linguistics 28: 91-168.
Schoorlemmer, Erik
2012Definiteness marking in Germanic: Morphological variations on the same syntactic theme. The Journal of Comparative Germanic Linguistics 15: 107-156. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Schrodt, Richard
2004Althochdeutsche Grammatik II. Tübingen: Max Niemeyer. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Sievers, Eduard
1903An Old English Grammar. Boston MA: Ginn.Google Scholar
Solt, Stephanie D.
2006Why a few? And why not *a many? In Proceedings of the Sinn und Bedeutung 10. ZAS Papers in Linguistics 44: 333-346.Google Scholar
Sportiche, Dominique
1988A theory of floating quantifiers and its corollaries for constituent structure. Linguistic Inquiry 19: 425-49.Google Scholar
Streitberg, Wilhelm
1910Die Gotische Bibel. Heidelberg: Winter.Google Scholar
Svenonius, Peter
1994The structural location of the attributive adjective. In Proceedings of the Twelfth West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics, Erin Duncan, Donka Farkas & Phillip Spaelti (eds), 439-454. Stanford CA: CSLI.Google Scholar
Szczepaniak, Renata
2011Grammatikalisierung im Deutschen, 2nd edn. Tübingen: Gunter Narr.Google Scholar
TITUS (Thesaurus Indogermanischer Text- und Sprachmaterialien)
University of Frankfurt. http://​titus​.uni​-frankfurt​.de (20 June 2012).
Vater, Heinz
1984Determinantien und Quantoren im Deutschen. Zeitschrift für Sprachwissenschaft 3: 19-42. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
1985Determinantien und Pronomina. In Deutsche Grammatik II [Osnabrücker Beiträge zur Sprachtheorie 30], Angelika Redder (ed.), 107-126. Osnabrück: Universität Osnabrück.Google Scholar
1986aZur Abgrenzung der Determinantien und Quantoren. In Zur Syntax der Determinantien, Heinz Vater (ed.), 13-31. Tübingen: Gunter Narr.Google Scholar
1986bZur NP-Struktur im Deutschen. In Zur Syntax der Determinantien, Heinz Vater (ed.), 123-145. Tübingen: Gunter Narr.Google Scholar
2000‘Pronominantien’ - oder: Pronomina sind Determinantien. In Deutsche Grammatik in Theorie und Praxis, Rolf Thieroff, Matthias Tamrat, Nanna Fuhrhop & Oliver Teuber (eds), 185-199. Tübingen: Max Niemeyer. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
van de Velde, Freek
2011Anaphoric adjectives becoming determiners. In The Noun Phrase in Romance and Germanic: Structure, Variation, and Change [Linguistik Aktuell/Linguistics Today 171], Petra Sleeman & Harry Perridon (eds), 241-256. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Wegera, Klaus-Peter
2000Grundlagenprobleme einer mittelhochdeutschen Grammatik. In Sprachgeschichte: Ein Handbuch zur Geschichte der deutschen Sprache und ihrer Erforschung, Werner Besch, Anne Betten, Oskar Reichmann & Stefan Sonderegger (eds), 1304-1320. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Weinhold, Karl
1883Mittelhochdeutsche Grammatik. Paderborn: Ferdinand Schoningh.Google Scholar
Wesemann, Monika
1978Etwas Altes Neu: Ein Beispiel zu Wortklasseneinteilung nach syntaktischen Kriterien. Kopenhagener Beiträge zur Germanistischen Linguistik 13: 52- 67.Google Scholar
Willis, David
2007Syntactic lexicalization as a new type of degrammaticalization. Linguistics 45: 271-310. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Wood, Johanna L. & Vikner, Sten
2011Noun phrase structure and movement. A cross-linguistic comparison of such/sådan/solch and so//so . In The Noun Phrase in Romance and Germanic: Structure, Variation, and Change [Linguistik Aktuell/Linguistics Today 171], Petra Sleeman & Harry Perridon (eds), 89-109. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Zamparelli, Roberto
2000Layers in the Determiner Phrase. New York NY: Garland.Google Scholar
2005The structure of (in)definiteness. Lingua 115: 915-936. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Zimmer, Christian
2015 Bei einem Glas guten Wein(es): Der Abbau des partitiven Genitivs und seine Reflexe im Gegenwartsdeutschen. Beiträge zur Geschichte der deutschen Sprache und Literatur 137: 1-41. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Subjects & Metadata
BIC Subject: CF/2AC – Linguistics/Germanic & Scandinavian languages
BISAC Subject: LAN009000 – LANGUAGE ARTS & DISCIPLINES / Linguistics / General
ONIX Metadata
ONIX 2.1
ONIX 3.0
U.S. Library of Congress Control Number:  2016005636 | Marc record