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. 105–146

Some distinctions in the right periphery of the German clause

Right dislocation/afterthought (resuming a pronoun) obeys prosody and information structure restrictions not shared by extraposition (leaving a gap) in German. Right dislocation/afterthought requires that the preceding clause is an intonation phrase carrying sentence stress on its own. It also requires that no focus-background structure is built across the clause and the dislocated element. Neither requirement is present with extraposition. The syntactic analysis derives right dislocation/afterthought from full clauses by deletion. The separate clause is outside of the root sentence of Bruce Downing (1970), which is tentatively identified with the non-integrated clauses of Reis (1997) and Holler (2008). Earlier analyses are confirmed in a related case: What looks like the resumption of es ‘it’ by clauses (Germ. Korrelate) under certain matrix verbs seems to be syntactic extraposition from [DP es CP] instead.
Published online: 26 July 2016
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/la.232.05tru
References (90)
References
Altmann, Hans. 1981. Formen der ‘Herausstellung’ im Deutschen. Rechtsversetzung, Linksversetzung, Freies Thema und verwandte Konstruktionen. Tübingen: Niemeyer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Averintseva-Klisch, Maria. 2006. The 'separate performative' account of the German right dislocation. In Proceedings of Sinn und Bedeutung 10, Christian Ebert & Cornelia Endriss (eds), 15-28. Berlin: ZASPiL 44.Google Scholar
. 2009. Rechte Satzperipherie im Diskurs. NP-Rechtsversetzung im Deutschen. Tübingen: Stauffenburg.Google Scholar
Beckman, Mary E. & Pierrehumbert, Janet B. 1986. Intonational structure in Japanese and English. Phonology Yearbook 3: 255-309. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bennis, Hans. 1986. Gaps and dummies. Dordrecht: Foris.Google Scholar
Bresnan, Joan. 1971. Sentence stress and syntactic transformations. Language 47: 257-281. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 1972. Stress and syntax: A reply. Language 48: 326-342. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Chomsky, Noam. 1970. Deep structure, surface structure and semantic interpretation. In Studies in General and Oriental Linguistics Presented to Shirô Hattori on the Occasion of his Sixtieth Birthday, Roman Jakobson & Shigeto Kawamoto(eds), 52-91. Tokyo: T.E.C. Company.Google Scholar
Downing, Bruce Theodore. 1970. Syntactic Structure and Phonological Phrasing in English. PhD dissertation, The University of Texas at Austin.
Downing, Laura. 2011. The prosody of 'dislocation' in selected Bantu languages. Lingua 121: 772-786. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Emonds, Joseph. 1970. Root and Structure-preserving Transformations. Bloomington IN: IULC.Google Scholar
Féry, Caroline. 1993. German Intonational Patterns. Tübingen: Niemeyer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Féry, Caroline & Kügler, Frank. 2008. Pitch accent scaling on given, new and focused constituents in German. Journal of Phonetics 36: 680-703. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Féry, Caroline & Samek-Lodovici, Vieri. 2006. Focus projection and prosodic prominence in nested foci. Language 82: 131-150. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Frey, Werner. 2011. Peripheral adverbial clauses, their licensing and the prefield in German. In Satzverknüpfung. Zur Interaktion von Form, Bedeutung und Diskursfunktion [Linguistische Arbeiten 534], Eva Breindl, Gisella Ferraresi & Anna Volodina (eds), 41-77. Berlin: De Gruyter.Google Scholar
. 2012. On two types of adverbial clauses allowing root-phenomena. In Main Clause Phenomena: New Horizons [Linguistik Aktuell/Linguistics Today 190], Lobke Aelbrecht, Liliane Haegeman & Rachel Nye (eds), 405-429. Amsterdam: Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Frey, Werner & Truckenbrodt, Hubert. 2015. Syntactic and prosodic integration and disintegration in peripheral adverbial clauses and in right dislocation/afterthought. In Syntactic Complexity across Interfaces, Andreas Trotzke & Josef Bayer (eds), 75-106. Berlin: De Gruyter.Google Scholar
Gärtner, Hans-Martin. 2000. Are there V2 relative clauses in German? Journal of Comparative Germanic Linguistics 3: 97-141. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Grice, Martine, Stefan Baumann & Benzmuller, Ralf. 2005. German intonation in autosegmental-metrical phonology. In Prosodic Typology: The Phonology of Intonation and Phrasing, Sun-Ah Jun (ed), 55-83. Oxford: OUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Grice, Martine, Baumann, Stefan & Jagdfeld, Nils. 2009. Tonal association and derived nuclear accents – The case of downstepping contours in German. In Tone and Intonation in a Typological Perspective, Sabine Zerbian, Laura Downing & Frank Kügler (eds). Lingua 119(6): 881-905.Google Scholar
Günez, Güliz. 2014. Constraints on syntax-prosody correspondence: The case of clausal and subclausal parentheticals in Turkish. Lingua 150: 278-314. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2015. Deriving Prosodic Structures. PhD dissertation, University of Groningen.
Gussenhoven, Carlos. 1983. On the Grammar and Semantics of Sentence Accents. Dordrecht: Foris.Google Scholar
. 1992. Sentence accents and argument structure. In Thematic Structure, its Role in Grammar, Iggy Roca (ed), 79-106. Dordrecht: Foris. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Haegeman, Liliane. 2004. Topicalization, CLLD and the left periphery. In ZAS Papers in Linguistics 35: Proceedings of the Dislocated Elements Workshop , Claudia Maienborn, Werner Frey & Benjamin Shaer (eds), 157-192. Berlin: ZAS.
Haider, Hubert. 1993. Deutsche Syntax – Generativ. Tübingen: Narr.Google Scholar
Hartmann, Katharina. 2000. Right Node Raising and Gapping. Interface Conditions on Prosodic Deletion. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hayes, Bruce. 1995. Metrical Stress Theory: Principles and Case Studies. Chicago IL: The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Heycock, Caroline. 2006. Embedded root phenomena. In The Blackwell Companion to Syntax, Vol. II, Martin Everaert & Henk van Riemsdijk (eds), 174-209. Oxford: Blackwell. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Höhle, Tilman N. 1992. Über Verum-Fokus im Deutschen. In Informationsstruktur und Grammatik, Joachim Jacobs (ed), 112-141. Opladen: Westdeutscher Verlag, DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Holler, Anke. 2005. Weiterführende Relativsätze. Empirisiche und theoretische Aspekte. Berlin: Akademie-Verlag.Google Scholar
. 2008. German dependent clauses from a constraint-based perspective. In ‘Subordination’ vs. ‘Coordination’ in Sentence and Text. A Cross-linguistic Perspective [Studies in Language Companion Series 98], Cathrine Fabricius-Hansen & Wiebke Ramm(eds), 187-216. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hooper, Joan B. & Thompson, Sandra A. 1973. On the applicability of root transformations. Linguistic Inquiry 4: 465-497.Google Scholar
Jackendoff, Ray S. 1972. Semantic Interpretation in Generative Grammar. Cambridge MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
Jacobs, Joachim. 1993. Integration. In Wortstellung und Informationsstruktur, Marga Reis (ed), 63-116. Tübingen: Niemeyer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kratzer, Angelika & Selkirk, Elisabeth. 2007. Phase theory and prosodic spellout: The case of verbs. The Linguistic Review 24: 93-135. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Krifka, Manfred. 1984. Focus, Topic, syntaktische Struktur und semantische 98Interpretation. Ms, Universität München.Google Scholar
Kuno, Susumo. 1978. Danwa-no bunpoo (Grammar of Discourse). Tokyo: Taishuukan-shoten.Google Scholar
Ladd, D. Robert. 1983. Even, focus, and normal stress. Journal of Semantics: 2: 257-270. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
McCawley, James D. 1982. Parentheticals and discontinuous constituent structure. Linguistic Inquiry 13: 91-106.Google Scholar
Müller, Gereon. 1995. On extraposition and successive cyclicity. In Extraction and Extraposition in German [Linguistik Aktuell/Linguistics Today 11], Uli Lutz & Jürgen Pafel (eds), 213-243. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Neijt, Anneke. 1979. Gapping: A Contribution to Sentence Grammar. Dordrecht: Foris.Google Scholar
Nespor, Marina & Vogel, Irene. 1986. Prosodic Phonology. Dordrecht: Foris.Google Scholar
. 1989. On clashes and lapses. Phonology 6: 69-116. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Nübling, Damaris. 2009. Die nicht flektierbaren Wortarten. In Duden. Die Grammatik, 567-633. Berlin: Dudenverlag.Google Scholar
Ott, Dennis & de Vries, Mark. 2012. Thinking in the right direction: An ellipsis analysis of right-dislocation. Linguistics in the Netherlands 29: 123-133. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2014. A biclausal analysis of right-dislocation. Proceedings of NELS 43, Vol. 2, 41-54.Google Scholar
Pesetsky, David. 1995. Zero Syntax: Experiencers and Cascades. Cambridge MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
Pheby, John. 1981. Phonologie: Intonation. In Grundzüge einer deutschen Grammatik, Karl Erich Heidolph, Walter Flämig & Wolfgang Motsch (eds), 839-897. Berlin: Akademie-Verlag.Google Scholar
Pierrehumbert, Janet Breckenridge. 1980. The Phonology and Phonetics of English Intonation. PhD dissertation, MIT.
Potts, Christopher. 2005. The Logic of Conventional Implicatures. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
Prince, Alan & Smolensky, Paul. 2004. Optimality Theory: Constraint Interaction in Generative Grammar. Oxford: Blackwell. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Pütz, Herbert. 1986. Über die Syntax der Pronominalform 'es' im modernen Deutsch. 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
. 2006. Is German V-to-C movement really semantically motivated? Some empirical problems. Theoretical Linguistics 32: 369-380. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Rooth, Mats. 1992. A theory of focus interpretation. Natural Language Semantics 1: 75-116. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Safir, Ken. 1986. Relative clauses in a theory of binding and levels. Linguistic Inquiry 17: 663-689.Google Scholar
Schwabe, Kerstin. 2012. The German sentential proform es in all-focus sentences. In Discourse and Grammar (A Festschrift in honor of Valéria Molnár), Johan Brandtler, David Hakansson, Stefan Huber & Eva Klingvall (eds), 459-474. Lund: Lund University.Google Scholar
. 2013. Eine uniforme Analyse sententialer Proformen im Deutschen. Deutsche Sprache 41: 142-164.Google Scholar
Schwarzschild, Roger. 1999. Givenness, AvoidF and other constraints on the placement of accent. Natural Language Semantics 7: 141-177. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Selkirk, Elisabeth. 1984. Phonology and Syntax: The Relationship between Sound and Structure. Cambridge MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
. 1995a. Sentence prosody: Intonation, stress, and phrasing. In The Handbook of Phonological Theory, John Goldsmith (ed), 550-569. Cambridge MA: Blackwell.Google Scholar
. 1995b. The prosodic structure of function words. In Papers in Optimality Theory [University of Massachusetts Occasional Papers 18], Jill Beckman, Laura Walsh Dickey & Suzanne Urbanczyk (eds), 439-469. Amherst MA: GLSA.Google Scholar
. 2005. Comments on intonational phrasing in English. In Prosodies. With Special Reference to Iberian Languages, Sónia Frota, Marina Vigário & Maria João Freitas (eds), 11-58. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
. 2008. Contrastive focus, givenness, and the unmarked status of ‘discourse new’. Acta Linguistica Hungarica 55: 331-346. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2011. The syntax-phonology interface. In The Handbook of Phonological Theory, 2nd edn, John Goldsmith, Jason Riggle & Alan Yu (eds), 435-484. Oxford: Blackwell. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sudhoff, Stefan. 2003. Argumentsätze und es-Korrelate. Zur syntaktischen Struktur von Nebensatzeinbettungen im Deutschen. Berlin: WVB.Google Scholar
Tanaka, Hidekazu. 2001. Right-dislocation as scrambling. Journal of Linguistics 37: 551-579. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Tancredi, Christopher Damian. 1992. Deletion, Deaccenting, and Presupposition. PhD dissertation, MIT.
Truckenbrodt, Hubert. 1995. Phonological Phrases: Their Relation to Syntax, Focus, and Prominence. PhD dissertation, MIT.
. 2002. Upstep and embedded register levels. Phonology 19: 77-120. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2004. Final lowering in non-final position. Journal of Phonetics 32: 313-348. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2005. A short report on intonation phrase boundaries in German. Linguistische Berichte 203: 273-96.Google Scholar
. 2006. Phrasal stress. In The Encyclopedia of Languages and Linguistics, Vol. 9, 2nd edn, Keith Brown (ed), 572-579. Oxford: Elsevier. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2007. Upstep of edge tones and of nuclear accents. In Tones and Tunes, Vol. 2: Experimental Studies in Word and Sentence Prosody, Carlos Gussenhoven & Tomas Riad (eds), 349-386. Berlin: Mouton. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2012a. On the prosody of German wh-questions. In Prosody and Meaning, Gorka Elordieta & Pilar Prieto (eds), 73-118. Berlin: Mouton. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2012b. Effects of indefinite pronouns and traces on verb stress in German. In Prosody Matters: Essays in Honor of Lisa Selkirk, Toni Borowsky, Shigeto Kawahara, Takahito Shinya & Mariko Sugahara (eds), 487-513. London: Equinox.Google Scholar
. 2013. An analysis of prosodic F-effects in interrogatives: Prosody, syntax and semantics. Lingua 124: 131-175. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2015. Intonation phrases and speech acts. In Parenthesis and Ellipsis: Cross-Linguistic and Theoretical Perspectives, Marlies Kluck, Dennis Ott & Mark de Vries (eds), 301-349. Berlin: De Gruyter.Google Scholar
. In press. Intonation in der Lautsprache: Prosodische Struktur. In Handbuch Sprachwissen: Laut – Gebärde – Buchstabe, Ulrike Domahs & Beatrice Primus (eds), 106-124. Berlin: De Gruyter.
Truckenbrodt, Hubert & Darcy, Isabelle. 2010. Object clauses, movement, and phrasal stress. In The Sound Patterns of Syntax, Nomi Erteschik-Shir & Lisa Rochman (eds), 189-216. Oxford: OUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Truckenbrodt, Hubert & Féry, Caroline. 2015. Hierarchical organization and tonal scaling. Phonology 32: 19-47. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Uhmann, Susanne. 1991. Fokusphonologie. Eine Analyse deutscher Intonationskonturen im Rahmen der nicht-linearen Phonologie. Tübingen: Niemeyer.Google Scholar
Vikner, Sten. 1995. Verb Movement and Expletive Subjects in the Germanic Languages. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
Wagner, Michael. 2005. Prosody and Recursion. PhD dissertation, MIT.Google Scholar
. 2012. Focus and givenness: A unified approach. In Contrasts and Positions in Information Structure, Ivona Kučerová & Ad Neeleman (eds), 102-148. Cambridge: CUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Zifonun, Gisela, Hoffmann, Ludger & Strecker, Bruno. 1997. Grammatik der deutschen Sprache, Band 2. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ziv, Yael & Grosz, Barbara. 1994. Right dislocation and attentional state. In The Israel Association for Theoretical Linguistics. Proceeding of the 9th Annual Conference and the Workshop on Discourse , Rhonna Buchalla & Anita Mittwoch (eds), 184-199. Jerusalem: Akademon.Google Scholar
Zwart, Jan-Wouter. 2001. Backgrounding ('right-dislocation') in Dutch. University of Groningen. <[URL]>
. 2011. The Syntax of Dutch. Cambridge: CUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cited by (5)

Cited by five other publications

Belkind, Aleksandra
2023. Two structures of extraposition in central dialects of Early New High German. The Journal of Comparative Germanic Linguistics 26:1 DOI logo
Melefa, Omotosho Moses & Oluwasegun Matthew Amoniyan
2023. Compound stress in educated Igbo and Yoruba accents of Nigerian English. Cogent Arts & Humanities 10:2 DOI logo
Vinckel-Roisin, Hélène
2023. Die ZGL aus französischer Perspektive: Öffnung und neue Impulse ja, aber nicht um jeden Preis!. Zeitschrift für germanistische Linguistik 51:2 ► pp. 375 ff. DOI logo
Neeleman, Ad
2017. PP-over-V meets Universal 20. The Journal of Comparative Germanic Linguistics 20:1 ► pp. 3 ff. DOI logo
[no author supplied]
2020. Right Peripheral Fragments [Linguistik Aktuell/Linguistics Today, 258], DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 25 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.