Skip to main content Accessibility help

We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.

Close cookie message
×
Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-v9fdk Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-08T05:08:15.126Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Chapter 19 - Unbounded Dependency Constructions in Germanic

from Part III - Syntax

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  31 March 2020

By
Martin Salzmann
Edited by
Michael T. Putnam  and
B. Richard Page
Michael T. Putnam
Affiliation:
Pennsylvania State University
B. Richard Page
Affiliation:
Pennsylvania State University
Get access

Summary

Unbounded Dependency Constructions in Germanic are a particular fruitful area for the exploration of the nature of A’-movement because this language family shows an intriguing array of options to form such dependencies. In this survey, I will first introduce the major functions of canonical unbounded dependencies involving a filler-gap dependency (wh-movement, topicalization, relativization), focusing on their shared properties (sensitivity to locality, successive-cyclic movement) and differences (shape of the left periphery, presence/absence of subject-verb inversion, nature of the landing site) both within individual languages and cross-linguistically. After addressing asymmetries between local and long-distance dependencies, I discuss alternatives to canonical long-distance movement such as extraction from verb second clauses (which is sometimes treated as involving a parenthetical), scope marking / partial movement, wh-copying and A’-dependencies that terminate in a pronoun rather than a gap (resumption, prolepsis). In the last part I provide an overview of locality-related issues that are particularly striking in this language family such as the clause-boundedness of A’-movement in German, the variable strength of topic and wh-islands, the (putative) absence of strong island effects in Scandinavian, and variation in that-trace effects.

Keywords

A’-movementlocalitywh-movementquestionsrelative clausestopicalizationinversiondoubly filled Comp?? left peripheryformal frontingcontrast extraction from verb second clausesparentheticalscope markingpartial movementwh-copyingresumption prolepsisclause-boundednesstopic islandwh-islandstrong islandisland that-trace effects superiority
Type
Chapter
Information
The Cambridge Handbook of Germanic Linguistics , pp. 436 - 460
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2020

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Andersson, S-G. and Kvam, S. 1984. Satzverschränkung im heutigen Deutsch. Eine syntaktische und funktionale Studie unter Berücksichtigung alternativer Konstruktionen. Tübingen: Gunter Narr.Google Scholar
Asudeh, A. 2012. The Logic of Pronominal Resumption. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Baltin, M. 2010. “The nonreality of doubly filled comps,” Linguistic Inquiry 41: 331–335.Google Scholar
Barbiers, S., Bennis, H., Devos, M., Vogelaer, G. de, and Ham, M. van der 2005. Syntactic Atlas of the Dutch Dialects (SAND), Vol 1. Amsterdam University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Barbiers, S., Koeneman, O., and Lekakou, M. 2010. “Syntactic doubling and the structure of wh-chains,” Journal of Linguistics 46: 1–46.Google Scholar
Bayer, J. 1984. “Comp in Bavarian syntax,” The Linguistic Review 3: 209–274.Google Scholar
Bayer, J. and Brandner, E. 2008. “On wh-head-movement and the doubly-filled-comp filter.” In Chang, C. B. and Haynie, H. J. (eds.), Proceedings of the 26th West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics. Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Proceedings Project: 87–95.Google Scholar
Bayer, J. and Salzmann, M. 2013. “That-trace effects and resumption – how Improper Movement can be repaired.” In Brandt, P. and Fuss, E (eds.), Repairs: The Added Value of Being Wrong. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter: 275–334.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Behaghel, O. 1928. Deutsche Syntax: eine geschichtliche Darstellung. Band 3: Die Satzgebilde. Heidelberg: Winter.Google Scholar
Bennis, H. 1987. Gaps and Dummies. Dordrecht: Foris.Google Scholar
Bhatt, R. 2015. “Relative clauses and correlatives.” In Alexiadou, A. and Kiss, T. (eds.), Syntax – Theory and Analysis: An International Handbook, Vol. 1. Berlin, Munich, and New York: Mouton de Gruyter: 708–749.Google Scholar
Boef, E. 2012. Doubling in Relative Clauses: Aspects of Morphosyntactic Microvariation in Dutch. Utrecht: LOT.Google Scholar
Branigan, P. 2011. Provocative Syntax. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
Broekhuis, H. and Dekkers, J. 2000. “The minimalist program and optimality theory: Derivations and evaluations.” In Dekkers, J., der Leeuw, F. van, and van der Weijer, J. (eds.), Optimality Theory: Phonology, Syntax, and Acquisition. Oxford University Press: 386–422.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chao, W. and Sells, P. 1983. “On the interpretation of resumptive pronouns,” Proceedings of NELS 13: 47–61.Google Scholar
Cheng, L. 2000. “Moving just the feature.” In Lutz, U., Müller, G., and von Stechow, A. (eds.), Wh-Scope Marking. Amsterdam: John Benjamins: 77–99.Google Scholar
Chomsky, N. 1977. “On wh-movement.” In Culicover, P., Wasow, T., and Akmajian, A. (eds.), Formal Syntax. New York: Academic Press: 71–132.Google Scholar
Chomsky, N. 1995. The Minimalist Program. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Chomsky, N. and Lasnik, H. 1977. “Filters and control,” Linguistic Inquiry 8: 425–504.Google Scholar
Christensen, K. R. and Nyvad, A. M. 2014. “On the nature of escapable relative islands,” Nordic Journal of Linguistics 37: 29–45.Google Scholar
Dikken, M. den 2007. Questionnaire study on Dutch that-trace effects: Stimuli and results. Ms., CUNY.Google Scholar
Douglas, J. 2016. The Syntactic Structures of Relativisation. Ph.D. dissertation, Cambridge University.Google Scholar
Engdahl, E. 1982. “Restrictions on unbounded dependencies in Swedish.” In Engdahl, E. and Ejerhed, E. (eds.), Readings on Unbounded Dependencies in Scandinavian Languages. Stockholm: Almquist & Wiksell International: 151–174.Google Scholar
Engdahl, E. 1985. “Parasitic gaps, resumptive pronouns, and subject extractions,” Linguistics: An Interdisciplinary Journal of the Language Sciences 23: 3–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Engdahl, E. 1986. Constituent Questions: The Syntax and Semantics of Questions with Special Reference to Swedish. Dordrecht: Reidel.Google Scholar
Erteschik-Shir, N. 1992. “Resumptive pronouns in islands.” In Goodluck, H and Rochemont, M. (eds.), Island Constraints. Theory, Acquisition and Processing. Dordrecht: Kluwer: 89–108.Google Scholar
Fanselow, G. 2017. “Partial wh-movement.” In Everaert, M. and Riemsdijk, H. van (eds.), The Wiley Blackwell Companion to Syntax, Second Edition. doi: 10.1002/9781118358733.wbsyncom088.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fanselow, G. and Mahajan, A. 2000. “Towards a minimalist theory of wh-expletives, wh-copying, and successive cyclicity.” In Lutz, U., Müller, G., and von Stechow, A. (eds.), Wh-Scope Marking. Amsterdam: John Benjamins: 195–230.Google Scholar
Fanselow, G. and Cavar, D. 2001. “Remarks on the economy of pronunciation.” In Muller, G. and Sternefeld, W. (eds.), Competition in Syntax. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter: 107–150.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fanselow, G. and Weskott, T. 2010. “A short note on long movement in German,” Linguistische Berichte 222: 129–140.Google Scholar
Featherston, S. 2004. “Bridge verbs and V2 verbs – the same thing in spades?” Zeitschrift für Sprachwissenschaft 23: 181–209.Google Scholar
Featherston, S. 2005. “that-trace in German,” Lingua 115: 1277–1302.Google Scholar
Felser, C. 2001. “Wh-expletives and secondary predication: German partial wh-movement reconsidered,” Journal of Germanic Linguistics 13: 5–38.Google Scholar
Felser, C. 2004. “Wh-copying, phases, and successive cyclicity,” Lingua: International Review of General Linguistics 114: 543–574.Google Scholar
Fleischer, J. 2004. “A typology of relative clauses in German dialects.” In Kortmann, B. (ed.), Dialectology Meets Typology: Dialect Grammar from a Cross-Linguistic Perspective. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter: 211–243.Google Scholar
Fox, D. 1999. “Reconstruction, binding theory, and the interpretation of chains,” Linguistic Inquiry 30: 157–196.Google Scholar
Frey, W. 2006. “Contrast and movement to the German prefield.” In Molnar, V. and Winkler, S. (eds.), The Architecture of Focus. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter: 235–264.Google Scholar
Gärtner, H-M. 2000. “Are there V2 relative clauses in German?” The Journal of Comparative Germanic Linguistics 3: 97–141.Google Scholar
Gelderen, E. van 2013. Clause Structure. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Grewendorf, G. 1988. Aspekte der deutschen Syntax. Eine Rektions-Bindungs-Analyse. Tübingen: Narr.Google Scholar
Grimshaw, J. 1997. “Projection, heads, and optimality,” Linguistic Inquiry 28: 373–422.Google Scholar
Haider, H. 1983. “Connectedness effects in German,” Groninger Arbeiten zur Germanistischen Linguistik 23: 83–119.Google Scholar
Harbert, W. 2007. The Germanic Languages. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Häussler, J., Grant, M., Fanselow, G., and Frazier, L. 2015. “Superiority in English and German: cross-language grammatical differences?” Syntax 18: 235–265.Google Scholar
Heinat, F. and Wiklund, A-L. 2015. “Scandinavian relative clause extractions: Apparent restrictions,” Working Papers in Scandinavian Syntax 94: 36–50.Google Scholar
Hiemstra, I. 1986. “Some aspects of wh-questions in Frisian,” Nowele 8: 97–110.Google Scholar
Hrafnbjargarson, G. H., Bentzen, K., and Wiklund, A-L. 2010. “Observations on extraction from V2 clauses in Scandinavian,” Nordic Journal of Linguistics 33: 299–309.Google Scholar
Kayne, R. 2010. “Why isn’t this a complementizer?” In Kayne, R., Comparison and Contrasts. Oxford University Press: 190–227.Google Scholar
Kiziak, T. 2010. Extraction Asymmetries: Experimental Evidence from German. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Kush, D., Omaki, A., and Hornstein, N. 2013. “Microvariation in islands?” In Sprouse, J. and Hornstein, N. (eds.), Experimental Syntax and Island Effects. Cambridge University Press: 239–264.Google Scholar
Kush, D., Lohndal, T., and Sprouse, J. 2017. “Investigating variation in island effects,” Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 36: 743–779. https://munin.uit.no/handle/10037/13111.Google Scholar
Larsson, I. 2014. “Double complementizers,” Nordic Atlas of Language Structures (NALS) Journal 1.Google Scholar
Lohndal, T. 2009. “Comp-t effects: variation in the position and features of C*,” Studia Linguistica 63: 204–232.Google Scholar
Lühr, R. 1988. “Zur Satzverschränkung im heutigen Deutsch,” Groninger Arbeiten zur Germanistischen Linguistik 29: 74–87.Google Scholar
McCloskey, J. 2017. “Resumption.” In M. Everaert and H. van Riemsdijk (eds.), The Wiley-Blackwell Companion to Syntax, Second Edition. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell. https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/9781118358733.wbsyncom105.Google Scholar
McDaniel, D. 1989. “Partial and multiple wh-movement,” Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 7: 565–604.Google Scholar
Müller, C. 2015. “Against the small clause hypothesis: evidence from Swedish relative clause extractions,” Nordic Journal of Linguistics 38: 67–92.Google Scholar
Müller, G. 1995. A-Bar Syntax: A Study in Movement Types. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Müller, G. 2010. “Movement from verb-second clauses revisited.” In Hanneforth, T. and Fanselow, G. (eds.), Language and Logos. A Festschrift for Peter Staudacher. Berlin: Akademieverlag: 97–128.Google Scholar
Müller, G. and Sternefeld, W. 1993. “Improper movement and unambiguous binding,” Linguistic Inquiry 24: 461–507.Google Scholar
Nunes, J. 2004. Linearization of Chains and Sideward Movement. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Nyvad, A. M., Christensen, K. R., and Vikner, S. 2017. “CP-recursion in Danish: A cP/CP-analysis,” The Linguistic Review 34: 449–477.Google Scholar
Pankau, A. 2013. Replacing Copies: The Syntax of Wh-Copying in German. Utrecht: LOT.Google Scholar
Pesetsky, D. 2017. “Complementizer-trace effects.” In M. Everaert and H. C. Riemsdijk (eds.), The Wiley-Blackwell Companion to Syntax, Second Edition. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell. https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1002/9781118358733.wbsyncom108.Google Scholar
Plessis, H. du 1977. “Wh movement in Afrikaans,” Linguistic Inquiry 8: 723–726.Google Scholar
Postal, P. M. 1998. Three Investigations of Extraction. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Prince, E. F. 1990. “Syntax and Discourse: A look at resumptive pronouns,” BLS 16: 482–497.Google Scholar
Reis, M. 1995. “Extractions from verb-second clauses in German?” In Lutz, U. and Pafel, J. (eds.), On Extraction and Extraposition in German. Amsterdam: John Benjamins: 45–88.Google Scholar
Riemsdijk, H. van 1989. “Swiss relatives.” In Jaspers, D., Klooster, W., Putseys, Y., and Seuren, P (eds.), Sentential Complementation and the Lexicon. Berlin: Foris: 343–354.Google Scholar
Riemsdijk, H. van 2008. “Identity avoidance: OCP effects in Swiss relatives.” In Freidin, R., Otero, C. P., and Zubizarreta, M. L (eds.), Foundational Issues in Linguistic Theory: Essays in Honor of Jean-Roger Vergnaud. Cambridge, MA: MIT: 227–250.Google Scholar
Rizzi, L. 1997. “The fine structure of the left periphery.” In Haegeman, L. (ed.), Elements of Grammar. Dordrecht: Kluwer: 281–337.Google Scholar
Ross, J. R. 1967. Constraints on Variables in Syntax. Doctoral dissertation, MIT.Google Scholar
Salzmann, M. 2006. Resumptive Prolepsis: A study in Indirect A′-Dependencies. Utrecht: LOT.Google Scholar
Salzmann, M. 2017. Reconstruction and Resumption in Indirect A′-Dependencies: On the Syntax of Prolepsis and Relativization in (Swiss) German and Beyond. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Salzmann, M., Häussler, J., Bader, M., and Bayer, J. 2013. “That-trace effects without traces: An experimental investigation,” Proceedings of NELS: 149–162.Google Scholar
Sprouse, J. and Hornstein, N. 2013. Experimental Syntax and Island Effects. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Szabolcsi, A. 2006. “Strong and weak islands.” In Everaert, M. and van Riemsdijk, H. (eds.), The Blackwell Companion to Syntax. 1st edn. Vol. 4. Cambridge: Blackwell, 479–531.Google Scholar
Thráinsson, H. 2007. The Syntax of Icelandic. Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vikner, S. 1995. Verb Movement and Expletive Subjects in the Germanic Languages. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Vries, M. 2002. The Syntax of Relativization. Utrecht: LOT.Google Scholar
Weise, O. 1916. “Die Relativpronomina in den deutschen Mundarten,” Zeitschrift für Deutsche Mundarten 12: 64–71.Google Scholar
Zaenen, A., Engdahl, E., and Maling, J. M. 1981. “Resumptive pronouns can be syntactically bound,” Linguistic Inquiry 12: 679–682.Google Scholar
Zwart, J-W. 1997. Morphosyntax of Verb Movement: A Minimalist Approach to the Syntax of Dutch. Dordrecht: Kluwer.Google Scholar
Zwart, J-W. 2000. “A head raising analysis of relative clauses in Dutch.” In Alexiadou, A., Law, P., Meinunger, A., and Wilder, C. (eds.), The Syntax of Relative Clauses. Amsterdam: John Benjamins: 348–385.Google Scholar

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure [email protected] is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Available formats
×