Cover not available
Part of
Language Change at the Interfaces: Intrasentential and intersentential phenomena
Edited by Nicholas Catasso, Marco Coniglio and Chiara De Bastiani
[Linguistik Aktuell/Linguistics Today 275] 2022
► pp. 189–214

Discourse-driven asymmetries between embedded interrogatives and relative clauses in West Germanic

| University of Konstanz
The article examines embedded constituent questions and relative clauses in West Germanic, arguing that asymmetries regarding doubly filled COMP patterns are due to information-structural differences. While both clause types involve operator movement, they differ crucially regarding the information-structural status of the operator: in interrogatives, the operator can be associated with discourse-new information, while in relative clauses the operator is discourse-old and can be potentially left out. This asymmetry regarding information-structural properties has further important consequences. First, doubling patterns involving an overt operator and an overt complementiser emerge across West Germanic languages in embedded questions but not in relative clauses. Second, the reanalysis of the operator into a complementiser is attested in relative clauses but not in embedded interrogatives.
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Reanalysis
  • 3.Doubling and information structure
  • 4.Historical changes in English
  • 5.Information structure and the Accessibility Hierarchy
  • 6.Conclusion
  • Acknowledgements
  • Notes
  • References
Published online: 21 April 2022
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/la.275.06bac
References (80)
References
Adani, Flavia, Sehm, Marie & Zukowski, Andrea. 2013. How do German children and adults deal with their relatives. In Advances in Language Acquisition, Stavroula Stavrakaki, Marina Lalioti & Polyxeni Konstantinopoulou (eds), 14–22. Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars Publishing.Google Scholar
Allen, Cynthia L. 1977. Topics in Diachronic English Syntax. PhD dissertation, University of Massachusetts.
Austin, Frances O. 1985. Relative which in late 18th-century usage: The Clift family correspondence. In Papers from the 4th International Conference on English Historical Linguistics: Amsterdam, 10–13 April 1985, Roger Eaton, Olga Fischer, Willem F. Koopman & Frederike van der Leek (eds), 15–29. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Axel, Katrin. 2009. Die Entstehung des dass-Satzes: Ein neues Szenario. In Koordination und Subordination im Deutschen, Veronika Ehrich, Christian Fortmann, Ingo Reich & Marga Reis (eds), 21–42. Hamburg: Buske.Google Scholar
Axel-Tober, Katrin. 2017. The development of the declarative complementizer in German. Language 93: 29–65. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bacskai-Atkari, Julia. 2018. Deutsche Dialekte und ein anti-kartografischer Ansatz zur CP-Domäne. In Syntax aus Saarbrücker Sicht 2: Beiträge der SaRDiS-Tagung zur Dialektsyntax, Augustin Speyer & Philipp Rauth (eds), 9–29. Stuttgart: Steiner.Google Scholar
. 2020a. Changes affecting relative clauses in Late Modern English. In Late Modern English: Novel Encounters, Merja Kytö & Erik Smitterberg (eds), 91–115. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2020b. Non-degree equatives and reanalysis: A case study of doubling patterns in German and Hungarian. In Approaches to Hungarian 16: Papers from the 2017 Budapest Conference, Veronika Hegedűs & Irene Vogel (eds), 5–23. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2020c. German V2 and Doubly Filled COMP in West Germanic. The Journal of Comparative Germanic Linguistics 23(2): 125–160. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ball, Catherine N. 1996. A diachronic study of relative markers in spoken and written English. Language Variation and Change 8(2): 227–258. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bayer, Josef & Brandner, Ellen. 2008. On wh-head-movement and the Doubly-Filled-Comp Filter. In Proceedings of the 26th West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics, Charles B. Chang & Hannah J. Haynie (eds), 87–95. Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Proceedings Project.Google Scholar
Bhatt, Rajesh. 2005. Three theories of relative clauses. Paper presented at LOT Summer School on “The Syntax and Semantics of Nominal Modification”, 26 January 2005.
Boef, Eefje. 2013. Doubling in Relative Clauses: Aspects of Morphosyntactic Microvariation in Dutch. Utrecht: LOT.Google Scholar
Bošković, Željko. 2002. On multiple wh-fronting. Linguistic Inquiry 33(3): 351–383. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Brandner, Ellen & Bräuning, Iris. 2013. The particle wo in Alemannic: Only a complementizer? Linguistische Berichte 234: 131–169.Google Scholar
Brandt, Patrick & Fuß, Eric. 2014. Most questionable pronouns: Variation between das- vs. was-relatives in German. Linguistische Berichte 239: 297–329.Google Scholar
Büring, Daniel. 2013. Syntax, information structure, and prosody. In The Cambridge Handbook of Generative Syntax, Marcel den Dikken (ed), 860–896. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Caldwell, Sarah. 1974. The Relative Pronoun in Early Scots. Helsinki: Société Néophilologique de Helsinki.Google Scholar
Chafe, Wallace L. 1976. Givenness, contrastiveness, definiteness, subjects, topics and point of view. In Subject and Topic, Charles N. Li (ed), 27–55. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam & Lasnik, Howard. 1977. Filters and control. Linguistic Inquiry 8(3): 425–504.Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam. 1965. Aspects of the Theory of Syntax. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Coniglio, Marco. 2019. Relative clause marking in historical German. Linguistische Berichte 258: 139–177.Google Scholar
Curme, George O. 1912. A history of English relative constructions. Journal of English and Germanic Philology 10: 225–377.Google Scholar
Diercks, Michael & Sikuku, Justine. 2013. Object Clitics in a Bantu language: Deriving Pronominal Incorporation in Lubukusu. Ms., Pomona College & Moi University.Google Scholar
Dreyfuss, Gail. 1977. Relative Clause Structure in Four Creole Languages. PhD dissertation, University of Michigan.
Fleischer, Jürg. 2004a. A typology of relative clauses in German dialects. In Trends in Linguistics: Dialectology Meets Typology, Bernd Kortmann (ed), 211–243. Berlin: Mouton De Gruyter.Google Scholar
. 2004b. Zur Typologie der Relativsätze in den Dialekten des Deutschen. In Morphologie und Syntax Deutscher Dialekte und Historische Dialektologie des Deutschen, Franz Patocka & Peter Wiesinger (eds.), 60–83. Vienna: Edition Praesens.Google Scholar
. 2016. Relativsatz-Einleitung. SyHD-atlas, Jürg Fleischer, Alexandra N. Lenz & Helmut Weiß (eds), <[URL]> (2 May 2020).
Fuß, Eric. 2004. Diachronic clues to pro-drop and complementizer agreement in Bavarian. In Diachronic Clues to Synchronic Grammar, Eric Fuß & Carola Trips (eds), 59–100. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
van Gelderen, Elly. 2004. Grammaticalization as Economy. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2009. Renewal in the left periphery: Economy and the complementiser layer. Transactions of the Philological Society 107(2): 131–195. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2013. Clause Structure. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gisborne, Nikolas, & Truswell, Robert. 2017. Where do relative specifiers come from? In Micro-change and Macro-change in Diachronic Syntax, Eric Mathieu & Robert Truswell (eds), 25–42. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Groos, Anneke & van Riemsdijk, Henk. 1981. Matching effects in free relatives: A parameter of core grammar. In Theory of Markedness in Generative Grammar: Proceedings of the 4th GLOW Conference, Adriana Belletti, Luciana Brandi & Luigi Rizzi (eds), 171–216. Pisa: Scuola Normale Superiore.Google Scholar
Halliday, Michael A. K. 1967. Intonation and Grammar in British English. The Hague: Mouton. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hansen, Maj-Britt M. & Visconti, Jacqueline. 2009. On the diachrony of “reinforced” negation in French and Italian. In Grammaticalisation and Pragmatics: Facts, Approaches, Theoretical Issues, Corinne Rossari, Claudia Ricci & Adriana Spiridon (eds), 137–171. Bingley: Emerald Publishing.Google Scholar
Hansen, Maj-Britt M. 2009. The grammaticalisation of negative reinforcers in Old and Middle French. In Current Trends in Diachronic Semantics and Pragmatics, Maj-Britt Mosegaard Hansen & Jacqueline Visconti (eds.), 227–251. Bingley: Emerald Publishing. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hawkins, John. 1995. A Performance Theory of Order and Constituency. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Herrmann, Tanja. 2005. Relative clauses in English dialects of the British Isles. In A Comparative Grammar of British English Dialects: Agreement, Gender, Relative Clauses, Bernd Kortmann (ed), 21–124. Berlin: Mouton De Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Jäger, Agnes. 2018. Vergleichskonstruktionen im Deutschen. Berlin: De Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kaufmann, Göz. 2018. Relative markers in Mennonite Low German: Their forms and functions. In Syntax aus Saarbrücker Sicht 2: Beiträge der SaRDiS-Tagung zur Dialektsyntax, Augustin Speyer & Philipp Rauth (eds), 109–148. Stuttgart: Steiner.Google Scholar
Keenan, Edward L. & Comrie, Bernard. 1977. Noun phrase accessibility and universal grammar. Linguistic Inquiry 8(1): 63–99.Google Scholar
Keenan, Edward L. & Hawkins, Sarah. 1987. The psychological validity of the accessibility hierarchy. In Universal Grammar: 15 Essays, Edward L. Keenan (ed), 60–85. London: Croon Helm.Google Scholar
Keenan, Edward L. 1975. Variation in universal grammar. In Analyzing Variation in Language: Papers from the Second Colloquium on New Ways of Analyzing Variation, Ralph W. Fasold & Roger W. Shuy (eds), 136–149. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.Google Scholar
Keyser, Samuel J. 1975. A partial history of the relative clause in English. In Papers in the History and Structure of English, Jane Barbara Grimshaw (ed), 1–33. Amherst, MA: University of Massachusetts.Google Scholar
Kirby, Simon. 1996. Function, Selection and Innateness: The Emergence of Language Universals. PhD dissertation, University of Edinburgh.
Koopman, Hilda. 1997. The doubly filled C filter, the principle of projection activation and historical change. Ms., UCLA.Google Scholar
Kortmann, Bernd & Wagner, Susanne. 2007. A fresh look at Late Modern English dialect syntax. In “Of Varying Language and Opposing Creed”: New Insights into Late Modern English, Javier Pérez-Guerra (ed), 279–300. Bern: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
Krifka, Manfred. 2008. Basic notions of information structure. Acta Linguistica Hungarica 55(3–4): 243–276. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lees, Robert B. 1960. The Grammar of English Nominalizations. The Hague: Mouton.Google Scholar
1961. The constituent structure of Noun Phrases. American Speech 36: 159–168. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Miller, Jim. 1993. The grammar of Scottish English. In Real English, James Milroy & Lesley Milroy (eds.), 99–138. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Montgomery, Michael & Bailey, Guy. 1991. In which: A new form in written English. American Speech 66: 147–163. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Morris, Richard. 1880. The Blickling Homilies of the Tenth Century, Early English Text Society, os. 58, 63, and 73. London: N. Trübner & Co.Google Scholar
Nawata, Hiroyuki. 1999. Split-CP, doubly-filled COMP, and locality of language change. English Linguistics 16(1): 121–144. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Paul, Hermann. 1880. Prinzipien der Sprachgeschichte. Halle: Niemeyer.Google Scholar
Pittner, Karin. 1995. The case of German relatives. The Linguistic Review 12(3): 197–231. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Romaine, Suzanne. 1980. The relative clause marker in Scots English: diffusion, complexity and style as dimensions of syntactic change. Language in Society 9: 221–249. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 1982. Socio-historical Linguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 1984. Some historical and social dimensions of syntactic change in Middle Scots relative clauses. In English Historical Linguistics: Studies in Development, Norman Francis Blake & Charles Jones (eds), 101–122. Sheffield: University of Sheffield Press.Google Scholar
Rooth, Mats. 1985. Association with Focus. PhD dissertation, University of Massachusetts.
Salzmann, Martin. 2017. Reconstruction and Resumption in Indirect A’-Dependencies: On the Syntax of Prolepsis and Relativization in (Swiss) German and Beyond. Berlin: Mouton De Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sauerland, Uli. 1998. The Meaning of Chains. PhD dissertation, MIT.
. 2003. Unpronounced heads in relative clauses. In The Interfaces: Deriving and Interpreting Omitted Structures, Kerstin Schwabe & Susanne Winkler (eds), 205–226. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Schallert, Oliver, Dröge, Alexander & Pheiff, Jeffrey. 2016. Doubly-filled COMPs in Dutch and German: A bottom-up approach. Ms., Universität München / Universität Marburg.Google Scholar
Schwenter, Scott. 2006. Fine tuning Jespersen’s Cycle. In Drawing the Boundaries of Meaning: Neo-Gricean Studies in Pragmatics and Semantics in Honor of Laurence R. Horn, Betty J. Birner & Gregory L. Ward (eds), 327–344. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Söderlind, Johannes. 1964. The attitude to language expressed by or ascertainable from English writers of the 16th and 17th centuries. Studia Neophilologica 36(1): 111–126. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sweet, Henry. 1900. A New English Grammar: Logical and Historical. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
Tagliamonte, Sali, Smith, Jennifer & Lawrence, Helen. 2005. No taming the vernacular! Insights from the relatives in northern Britain. Language Variation and Change 17: 75–112. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
van Riemsdijk, Henk. 2006. Free relatives. In The Blackwell Companion to Syntax Vol. I, Martin Everaert & Henk van Riemsdijk (eds), 338–382. Oxford: Blackwell. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Vanacker, Valeer F. 1948. Syntaxis van het Aalsters Dialect. Tongeren: Michiels.Google Scholar
von Stechow, Arnim. 1981. Topic, focus and local relevance. In Crossing the Boundaries in Linguistics, Wolfgang Klein & Willem Levelt (eds), 95–130. Dordrecht: Springer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Walkden, George. 2014. Syntactic Reconstruction and Proto-Germanic. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Wallage, Phillip. 2013. Functional differentiation and grammatical competition in the English Jespersen Cycle. Journal of Historical Syntax 2: 1–25.Google Scholar
Wanner, Eric & Maratsos, Michael. 1978. An ATN approach to comprehension. In Linguistic Theory and Psychological Reality, Morris Halle, Joan Bresnan & George Miller (eds), 119–161. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Watanabe, Akira. 2009. A parametric shift in the D-system in Early Middle English: Relativization, articles, adjectival inflection, and indeterminates. In Historical Syntax and Linguistic Theory, Paola Crisma & Giuseppe Longobardi (eds), 358–374. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Weiß, Helmut. 2013. Satztyp und Dialekt. In Satztypen des Deutschen, Jörg Meibauer, Markus Steinbach & Hans Altmann (eds), 764–785. Berlin: Walter De Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2016. Doubly-filled COMP. SyHD-atlas. In: Jürg Fleischer, Alexandra N. Lenz & Helmut Weiß (eds), <[URL]> (2 May 2020).
Zimmermann, Richard. 2012. Rule independence and rule conditioning: Grammar competition in Old English relative clauses. In Proceedings of ConSOLE XX, Enrico Boone, Martin Kohlberger & Maartje Schulpen (eds), 315–332. Leiden: SOLE.Google Scholar
Zwart, Jan-Wouter. 2000. A head raising analysis of relative clauses in Dutch. In The Syntax of Relative Clauses, Artemis Alexiadou (ed), 349–385. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cited by (1)

Cited by one other publication

Bacskai‐Atkari, Julia
2024. Subject‐Object Asymmetries and the Development of Relative Clauses between Late Middle English and Early Modern English. Transactions of the Philological Society DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 5 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.