Cover not available
Part of
Inner-sentential Propositional Proforms: Syntactic properties and interpretative effects
Edited by Werner Frey, André Meinunger and Kerstin Schwabe
[Linguistik Aktuell/Linguistics Today 232] 2016
► pp. 49–72

Correlative es vs. das in German

An empirical perspective

In the last few decades, the role of correlative elements in recursive sentence embedding has received considerable attention. In the theoretical literature on German, it has been argued that the syntax of correlative constructions is not homogeneous and that one has to distinguish between so-called pro-form and placeholder constructions. In this paper, we give empirical evidence for distinguishing between these two uses, by focusing on two correlative lexemes: es and das. Furthermore, we present psycholinguistic and corpus-based support for the differentiation of two verb classes regarding the realizations of correlative elements.

Published online: 26 July 2016
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/la.232.03axe
References (21)
Bader, Markus & Häussler, Jana
2010 Toward a model of grammaticality judgments. Journal of Linguistics 46: 273–330. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Berman, Judith
1996 Topicalization vs. left dislocation of sentential arguments in German. Proceedings of the LFG '96 Conference , 75–88. Stanford CA: CSLI.
Boszák, Gizella
2009 Realisierung der valenzbestimmten Korrelate des Deutschen. Frankfurt: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam
1981 Lectures on Government and Binding. Dordrecht: Foris.Google Scholar
COSMAS II
1991–2012 Corpus Search, Management and Analysis System. [URL]Google Scholar
Eisenberg, Peter
2004 Grundriss der deutschen Grammatik. Stuttgart: Metzler.Google Scholar
Engel, Ulrich
2004 Deutsche Grammatik, Neubearbeitung. München: Iudicium.Google Scholar
Engel, Ulrich & Schumacher, Helmut
1978 Kleines Valenzlexikon deutscher Verben. Tübingen: Narr.Google Scholar
Fabricius-Hansen, Cathrine, Gallmann, Peter, Eisenberg, Peter & Fiehler, Reinhard
2009 Duden 04: Die Grammatik. Mannheim: Bibliographisches Institut.Google Scholar
Fanselow, Gisbert & Frisch, Stefan
2006 Effects of processing difficulty on judgements of acceptability. In Gradience in Grammar, Gisbert Fanselow, Caroline Féry, Matthias Schlesewsky & Ralf Vogel (eds), 291–316. Oxford: OUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hauser, Marc D., 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
Meindl, Claudia
2011 Methodik für Linguisten. Eine Einführung in Statistik und Versuchsplanung. Tübingen: Narr.Google Scholar
Pittner, Karin
1999 Adverbiale im Deutschen. Untersuchungen zu ihrer Stellung und Interpretation. Tübingen: Stauffenburg.Google Scholar
Pütz, Herbert
1975 Über die Syntax der Pronominalform es im modernen Deutsch [Studien zur deutschen Grammatik 3]. Tübingen: Narr.Google Scholar
Reis, Marga
1997 Zum syntaktischen Status unselbständiger Verbzweit-Sätze. In Sprache im Fokus. Festschrift für Heinz Vater zum 65. Geburtstag, Christa Dürscheid, Karl-Heinz Ramers & Monika Schwarz (eds), 121–144. Tübingen: Niemeyer.Google Scholar
Rohde, Doug
2001 Linger: A Flexible Platform for Language Processing Experiments. [URL]Google Scholar
Schumacher, Helmut
(ed). 1986 Verben in Feldern. Valenzwörterbuch zur Syntax und Semantik deutscher Verben. Berlin/New York: de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Schumacher, Helmut, Kubczak, Jacqueline, Schmidt, Renate & de Ruiter, Vera
2004 valbu - Valenzwörterbuch deutscher Verben. Tübingen: Narr.Google Scholar
Sudhoff, Stefan
2003 Argumentsätze und es-Korrelate. Zur syntaktischen Struktur von Nebensatzeinbettungen im Deutschen. Berlin: WVB.Google Scholar
Zifonun, Gisela, Hoffmann, Ludger & Strecker, Bruno
1997 Grammatik der deutschen Sprache. Berlin: De Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Zimmermann, Ilse
1993 Zur Syntax und Semantik der Satzeinbettung. In Satz und Illokution [Linguistische Arbeiten 278]. Inger Rosengren (ed) 1992/1993, Vol. 2, 231-251. Tübingen: Niemeyer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar