Article published in:
Linguistic Variation
Vol. 21:2 (2021) ► pp. 322–369

Variation and dynamics of “complementizer agreement” in German

Analyses from the Austrian language area

| University of Vienna
| University of Vienna
To date, there has been limited empirical research on complementizer agreement (CA). We investigate CA drawing on a corpus of 144 speakers from 13 locations across Austria that was elicited through computer supported language production experiments and recorded in conversations. We investigate the linguistic factors that govern the occurrence of CA, as well as its areal distribution. We further explore the role of CA in speakers’ linguistic repertoires. The study finds evidence for the hypothesis that the (non-)occurrence of CA is strongly dependent on the structure of its hosting C-elements and finds regional patterns. It also identifies CA as a phenomenon which speakers place in a non-standard register. We use the collected data to test a theory of the emergence of CA from clitic pronouns for Bavarian varieties of German.
Keywords: complementizer agreement, morphology, syntax, grammaticalization, dialectology, linguistic repertoires, methodology, experimental linguistics
Available under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial (CC BY-NC) 4.0 license.

For any use beyond this license, please contact the publisher at rights@benjamins.nl.

Published online: 06 August 2020
https://doi.org/10.1075/lv.00014.fin

Full-text

Variation and dynamics of “complementizer agreement” in German
References

References

Altmann, Hans
1984 Das System der enklitischen Personalpronomina in einer mittelbairischen Mundart. In Zeitschrift für Dialektologie und Linguistik 51(2). 191–211.Google Scholar
Bayer, Josef
1984 Comp in Bavarian Syntax. In The Linguistic Review 3(3). 209–274. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2015 Doubly-Filled Comp, wh Head-Movement and Derivational Economy. In Marc van Oostendorp and Henk van Riemsdijk (eds.), Representing structure in phonology and syntax. Berlin, Boston: De Gruyter Mouton. 7–39. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Bayer, Josef & Ellen Brandner
2008 On Wh-Head-Movement and the Doubly-Filled-Comp Filter. In Charles B. Chang & Hannah J. Haynie (eds.), West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics (26). Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Proceedings Project. 87–95.Google Scholar
Bohn, Isabella & Helmut Weiß
2016 Komplementiererflexion im Hessischen. In Augustin Speyer & Philipp Rauth (eds.). Syntax aus Saarbrücker Sicht I. Beiträge der SaRDiS-Tagung zur Dialektsyntax. Stuttgart: Steiner (Zeitschrift für Dialektologie und Linguistik. Beihefte, 165). 159–186.Google Scholar
2017 Flektierte Konjunktion. In Jürg Fleischer, Alexandra N. Lenz & Helmut Weiß (eds.). SyHD-Atlas. Marburg/Wien/Frankfurt am Main. 437–448.Google Scholar
Bousquette, Joshua
2014 Complementizer agreement in eastern Wisconsin. (Central) Franconian features in an American heritage language community. In STUF – Language Typology and Universals 67(4). 561–588. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Braune, Wilhelm, Heidermanns, Frank
2018 Althochdeutsche Grammatik I, 16th edn. Berlin/Boston: De Gruyter. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Breuer, Ludwig & Lars, Bülow
2019 Experimental approaches in the realm of language variation – How Language Production Tests can help us to better understand language variation. In: Bülow, Lars / Herbert, Kristina / Fischer, Ann-Kathrin (Hg.): Dimensionen des sprachlichen Raums: Variation – Mehrsprachigkeit – Konzeptualisierung. (Schriften zur deutschen Sprache in Österreich, Bd. 45). Wien: Peter Lang, 251–269.Google Scholar
Diercks, Michael
. Indirect agree in Lubukusu complementizer agreement. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 31, 357–407 (2013) CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Fuß, Eric
2004 Diachronic Clues to Pro-Drop and Complementizer Agreement in Bavarian. In Eric Fuß & Carola Trips (eds.): Diachronic Clues to Synchronic Grammar. Amsterdam, Philadelphia: Benjamins (Linguistik Aktuell/Linguistics Today (LA) 72). 59–100. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2014 Complementizer Agreement (in Bavarian). Feature Inheritance or Feature Insertion. In Günther Grewendorf & Helmut Weiß (eds.). Bavarian syntax. Contributions to the Theory of Syntax (Linguistik Aktuell/Linguistics Today (LA) 220). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: Benjamins. 51–82. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Gruber, Bettina
2008 Complementiser Agreement – New Evidence from the Upper Austrian Variant of Gmunden. MA Thesis. University of Vienna, Wien.Google Scholar
Haegeman, Liliane
1992 Theory and Description in Generative Syntax: A Case Study in West Flemish. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Haeringen, C. B. van
1939 Congruerende Voegwoorden. In Tijdschrift voor Nederlandse Taal- en Letterkunde 58. 161–176.Google Scholar
Hoekstra, Eric, and Caroline Smits
1998 Everything you always Wanted to Know about Complementizer Agreement. In Elly van Gelderen & Vida Samiian (eds.) Proceedings of the Twenty-seventh Western Conference on Linguistics. Fresno, CA: Department of Linguistics, California State University, Fresno. 189–200.Google Scholar
Holthausen, Ferdinand
1886 Die Soester Mundart. Laut- und Formenlehre nebst Texten. Norden/Leipzig: Soltau.Google Scholar
Koppen, Marjo van
2005 One probe, two goals: Aspects of Agreement in Dutch Dialects. PhD Dissertation. Universiteit Leiden, Leiden.Google Scholar
2017 Complementizer Agreement. In Martin Everaert & Henk C. van Riemsdijk (eds.), The Wiley Blackwell Companion to Syntax, 2nd edn. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley Blackwell. 923–962. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Lenz, Alexandra N.
2009 On the Perspectivization of a Recipient Role – Crosslinguistic Results from a Speech Production Experiment. In Marc Fryd (ed.), The Passive in Germanic Languages (Groninger Arbeiten zur germanistischen Linguistik 49). 125–144.Google Scholar
2016 On Eliciting Dialect-Syntactic Data. Comparing Direct and Indirect Methods. In Augustin Speyer & Philipp Rauth (eds.), Syntax aus Saarbrücker Sicht I. Beiträge der SaRDiS-Tagung zur Dialektsyntax (Zeitschrift für Dialektologie und Linguistik. Beihefte, 165). Stuttgart: Franz Steiner. 187–219.Google Scholar
2018 The Special Research Programme „German in Austria. Variation – Contact – Perception“. In Ammon, Ulrich & Marcella Costa (eds.), Sprachwahl im Tourismus – mit Schwerpunkt Europa. Language Choice in Tourism – Focus on Europe. Choix de langues dans le tourisme – focus sur l’Europe (Yearbook Sociolinguistica 32). Berlin & Boston: de Gruyter. 269–277. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Lenz, Alexandra N., Ludwig Maximilian Breuer, Matthias Fingerhuth, Anja Wittibschlager & Melanie Seltmann
2019 Exploring Syntactic Variation by Means of “Language Production Experiments”. Methods from and Analyses on German in Austria. In Journal of Linguistic Geography 7/2, 63–81. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Lenz, Alexandra, Timo Ahlers & Martina Werner
2014 Zur Dynamik bairischer Dialektsyntax – eine Pilotstudie. In Zeitschrift für Dialektologie und Linguistik 81(1). 1–33.Google Scholar
Maurmann, Emil
1898 Die Grammatik der Mundart von Mühlheim a. d. Ruhr. Leipzig: Breitkopf und Härtel.Google Scholar
Münch, Ferdinand
1904 Grammatik der ripuarisch-fränkischen Mundart. Bonn: Cohen.Google Scholar
Mottausch, Karl-Heinz
2009 Historische Syntax des Südhessischen auf der Grundlage der Mundart von Lorsch (Schriftenreihe Philologia, Band 137). Hamburg: Verlag Dr. Kovač.Google Scholar
Newton, G.
1990 Central Franconian. In Charles V. J. Russ (ed.), The Dialects of Modern German. A Linguistic Survey. London: Routledge, 136–209.Google Scholar
Nübling, Damaris
1992 Klitika im Deutschen. Schriftsprache, Umgangssprache, alemannische Dialekte (ScriptOralia 42). Tübingen: Narr.Google Scholar
Pfalz, Anton
1918 Suffigierung der Pronomina im Donaubairischen. In Beiträge zur Kunde der bayerisch-österreichischen Mundarten I. Wien (Sitzungsberichte der k. Akademie der Wissenschaften Wien, Phil.-hist. Klasse 190/2). 3–21.Google Scholar
Renn, Manfred & Werner König
2006 Kleiner bayerischer Sprachatlas. München: Deutscher Taschenbuch Verlag.Google Scholar
Richter, Helmut
1979 Personenmarkierte Einleitung von Nebensätzen in deutschen Mundarten und als umganssprachliches Randphänomen. In Harald Weydt (ed.), Die Partikeln der deutschen Sprache. Berlin & New York: de Gruyter. 528–539. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Rinas, Karsten
2005 Die Flexion der Konjunktionen aus diachroner und pädolinguistischer Sicht. In Sborník Prací Filozofické Fakulty Brnsborník prací filosofické fakulty Brněnské University 10. 23–63.Google Scholar
2006 Zur Genese flektierender Konjunktionen. In Sprachwissenschaft 31(2). 113–157.Google Scholar
Schallert, Oliver Alexander Dröge & Jeffrey Pheiff
2018 Doubly-filled COMPs in Dutch and German. A Bottom-up Appraoch. Universities Munich and Marburg, Manuscript.Google Scholar
Schiepek, Josef
1899 Der Satzbau der Egerländer Mundart. Vol.1. Prag: Verlag des Vereins für Geschichte der Deutschen in Böhmen.Google Scholar
Vogelaer, Gunther de & Johan van der Auwera
2010 When Typological Rara Generate Rarissima: Analogical Extension of Verbal Agreement in Durch Dialects. In Jan Wohlgemuth & Michael Cysouw (ed.): Rara & rarissima. Documenting the fringes of linguistic diversity, 47–73. Berlin & New York: De Gruyter. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Watanabe, Akira
2000 Feature Copying and Binding: Evidence from Complementizer Agreement and Switch Reference. In Syntax 3(3). 159–181. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Weise, Otto
1907 Die sogenannte Flexion der Konjunktionen. In Zeitschrift für Deutsche Mundarten 2. 199–205.Google Scholar
Weiß, Helmut
2005 Inflected Complementizers in Continental West Germanic Dialects. In Zeitschrift für Dialektologie und Linguistik 72(2). 148–166.Google Scholar
2015 When the subject follows the object. On a curiosity in the syntax of personal pronouns in some German dialects. In Journal of Comparative Germanic Linguistics 18(1). 65–92. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2018 The Wackernagel Complex and Pronoun Raising. In Agnes Jäger, Gisella Ferraresi & Helmut Weiß (eds.), Clause structure and word order in the history of German. Oxford: Oxford University Press (Oxford studies in diachronic and historical linguistics, 28). 132–154.Google Scholar
Weiß, Helmut & Thomas Strobel
2018 Neuere Entwicklungen in der Dialektsyntax. In Linguistische Berichte 253. 3–35.Google Scholar
Weiß, Helmut & Anna Volodina
2018 Referential Null Subjects in German. Dialects and Diachronic Continuity. In Federica Cognola, Jan Casalicchio (eds.), Null subjects in generative grammar. A synchronic and diachronic perspective. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 261–284.Google Scholar
Wiesinger, Peter
1983 Die Einteilung der deutschen Dialekte. In Werner Besch, Ulrich Knoop, Wolfgang Putschke & Herbert Ernst Wiegand (eds.), Dialektologie. Ein Handbuch zur deutschen und allgemeinen Dialektforschung, vol. 2 (Handbücher zur Sprach- und Kommunikationswissenschaft/Handbooks of Linguistics and Communication Science 1.2) 807–900. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Zwart, Jan-Wouter
1993 Clues from Dialect Syntax: Complementizer Agreement. In Josef Bayer & Werner Abraham (eds.), Dialektsyntax (Linguistische Berichte Sonderheft 5). Opladen: Westdeutscher Verlag. 246–270. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
1997 Morphosyntax of verb movement: A minimalist approach to the syntax of Dutch. Dordrecht: Springer Science+Business Media. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Cited by

Cited by 1 other publications

Fingerhuth, Matthias & Ludwig Maximilian Breuer
2020. Language production experiments as tools for corpus construction: A contrastive study of complementizer agreement. Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory 0:0 Crossref logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 16 june 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.