Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-jkksz Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-26T19:49:59.415Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Descriptive relative clauses in Austro-Bavarian German

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 June 2016

Martina Wiltschko
Martina Wiltschko*
Affiliation:
University of British Columbia
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This article discusses the syntactic and semantic properties of descriptive relative clauses, a type of relative clause discussed in the literature on Chinese. It is argued that descriptive relative clauses are found in the dialect of Upper Austria, a version of Bavarian German. In particular this dialect has a set of reduced definite articles that are used for discourse referents that are intrinsically uniquely identifiable, as a matter of world knowledge. As such, they cannot be restricted by a relative clause, where restriction is taken to exclude alternatives. Such DPs can, however, be modified by descriptive relative clauses. I propose that descriptive relative clauses attach to NP while restrictive relative clauses attach to nP. Thus, the article contributes to determining whether there are different relative clauses associated with different layers of projections in the nominal domain.

Résumé

Résumé

Cet article étudie les proprieties syntaxiques et sémantiques de propositions relatives descriptives, un type de proposition relative dont il est question dans la littérature sur le chinois. L’article soutient que l’on trouve des propositions relatives descriptives dans le dialecte de la Haute-Autriche, une variété de l’allemand bavarois. En particulier, ce dialecte possède un ensemble d’articles définis réduits qui s’emploient pour des referents discursifs qui, intrinsèquement, sont uniquement identifiables, en fonction des connaissance du monde. En tant que tel, elles ne peuvent pas être restreintes par une proposition relative, s’il est entendu que la restriction exclut les alternatives. Cependant, de tels SD peuvent être modifiés par des propositions relatives descriptives. Je propose que les propositions relatives descriptives s’attachent au SN, tandis que les propositions relatives restrictives s’attachent au Sn. Ainsi, l’article contribue à déterminer s’il y a différentes propositions relatives associées aux différents niveaux de projections dans le domaine nominal.

Keywords

Austro-Bavariandescriptive relative clausemodificationlittle ncontextual variableAustro-Bavaroisproposition relative descriptivemodificationpetit nvariable contextuelle
Type
Articles
Information
Canadian Journal of Linguistics/Revue canadienne de linguistique , Volume 58 , Issue 2: The syntax of relative clauses La syntaxe des propositions relatives , July 2013 , pp. 157 - 189
Copyright
Copyright © Canadian Linguistic Association 2013

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

Abney, Steven. 1987. The English noun phrase in its sentential aspect. Doctoral dissertation, Massachusetts Institute of Technology.Google Scholar
Acquaviva, Paolo. 2009. Roots, categories, and nominal concepts. Lingue E Linguaggio VIII: 25–51.Google Scholar
Bach, Emmon. 1974. Syntactic theory. New York: Holt, Reinhart and Winston.Google Scholar
Barker, Chris. 2005. Possessive weak definites. In Possessives and beyond: Semantics and syntax, ed. Kim, Ji-yung, Lander, Yury, and Partee, Barbara H., 89–113. Amherst, MA: Graduate Linguistic Student Association (GLSA) Publications.Google Scholar
Bayer, Josef. 1984. COMP in Bavarian syntax. Linguistic Review 3:209–274.Google Scholar
Bittner, Maria and Hale, Ken. 1991. Ergativity: Towards a theory of a heterogeneous class. Linguistic Inquiry 27:531–604.Google Scholar
Bolinger, Dwight. 1967. Adjectives in English: Attribution and predication. Lingua 18:1–34.Google Scholar
Brandt, Maria. 1990. Weiterfiihrende Nebensätze. Stockholm: Almquist and Wiksell.Google Scholar
Brugger, Gerhard and Prinzhorn, Martin. 1996. Some properties of German definite articles. Ms., University of Vienna.Google Scholar
Cabredo-Hofherr, Patricia. 2013. Reduced definite articles with restrictive relative clauses. Ms., Paris 8.Google Scholar
Carlson, Greg. 1977. Amount relatives. Language 53:520–542.Google Scholar
Cinque, Guglielmo. 2006. Two types of appositives. University of Venice Working Papers in Linguistics 16:7–56.Google Scholar
Cinque, Guglielmo. 2008. Two types of nonrestrictive relatives. In Empirical issues in syntax and semantics: Selected papers from CSSP 2007, ed. Bonami, Olivier and Cabredo-Hofherr, Patricia, 99–137. Paris: Colloque de Syntaxe et Sémantique. Available at: http://www.cssp.cnrs.fr/eiss6/index_en.html.Google Scholar
de Vries, Mark. 2006. The syntax of appositive relativization: On specifying coordination, false free relatives, and promotion. Linguistic Inquiry 37:229–270.Google Scholar
Del Gobbo, Francesca. 2001. Appositives Schmappositives in Chinese. In UCI Working Papers in Linguistics 7, ed. Irie, Maki and Ono, Hajirne, 1–25. Irvine Linguistics Student Association: University of California, Irvine.Google Scholar
Del Gobbo, Francesca. 2003. Appositives at the interface. Doctoral dissertation, University of California at Irvine.Google Scholar
Del Gobbo, Francesca. 2005. Chinese relative clauses: Restrictive, descriptive or appositive? In Contributions to the XXX Incontro di Grammatica Generativa, ed. Brugè, Laura, Giusti, Giuliana, Munaro, Nicola, Schweikert, Walter, and Turano, Giuseppina, 287–305. Venice: Cafoscarina.Google Scholar
Ebert, Karin. 1971. Referenz, Sprechsituation und die bestimmten Artikel in einem Nordfriesischen Dialekt (Fering). Doctoral dissertation, Christian-Albrechts-Universitat (Kiel).Google Scholar
Emonds, Joseph. 1979. Appositive relatives have no properties. Linguistic Inquiry 10:211–243.Google Scholar
Fabb, Nigel. 1990. The difference between English restrictive and nonrestrictive relative clauses. Journal of Linguistics 26:57–78.Google Scholar
Féry, Caroline. 1993. German intonational patterns. Tübingen: Max NiemeyerGoogle Scholar
Gillon, Carrie. 2006. The semantics of definite articles: Domain restriction in Skwxwú7mesh. Doctoral dissertation, University of British Columbia.Google Scholar
Göbbel, Edward. 2007. Extraposition as PF movement. In Proceedings of the Thirty-Fourth Western Conference on Linguistics 2006 17, ed. Bainbridge, Erin and Agbayani, Brian, 132–145. Fresno: California State University.Google Scholar
Grosu, Alexandra and Landman, Fred. 1998. Strange relatives of the third kind. Natural Language Semantics 6:125–170.Google Scholar
Hartmann, Dietrich. 1967. Studien zum bestimmten Artikel in ‘Morant und Galie’ und anderen rheinischen Denkmälern des Mittelalters. Giessen: Wilhelm Schmitz Verlag.Google Scholar
Hartmann, Dietrich. 1982. Deixis and anaphora in German dialects: The semantics and pragmatics of two definite articles in dialectal varieties. In Here and there: Cross-linguistic studies on deixis and demonstration, ed. Weissenborn, Jürgen and Klein, Wolfgang, 187–207. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Hawkins, John. A. 1978. Definiteness and indefiniteness. London: Croom Helm.Google Scholar
Heim, Irene. 1987. Where does the definiteness restriction apply? Evidence from the definiteness of variables, in The representation of (in)definiteness, ed. Reuland, Eric and Meulen, Alice ter, 21–42. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Heinrichs, Heinrich M. 1954. Studien zum bestimmten Artikel in den germanischen Sprachen. Giessen: Wilhelm Schmitz Verlag.Google Scholar
Himmelmann, Nikolaus. 1997. Deiktikon, Artikel, Nominalphrase: zur Emergenz syntaktischer Struktur. Tübingen: Niemeyer.Google Scholar
Holler, Anke 2005. Weiterfuhrende Relativsätze: Empirische und Theoretische Aspekte. Berlin: Akademie Verlag.Google Scholar
Holler, Anke. 2008. German dependent clauses from a constraint-based perspective. In “Subordination” vs. “coordination” in sentence and text, ed. Fabricius-Hansen, Cathrine and Ramm, Wiebke, 187–216. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Kayne, Richard. 1994. The antisymmetry of syntax. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Kratzer, Angelika and Selkirk, Elisabeth. 2007. Phase theory and prosodic spell out: The case of verbs. Linguistic Review 24:93–135.Google Scholar
Krifka, Manfred. 2008. Basic notions of Information structure. Acta Linguistica Hungarica 55:243–276.Google Scholar
Larson, Richard. 1998. Events and modification in nominals. In Proceedings from Semantics and Linguistic Theory (SALT) VIII, ed. Strolovitch, Devon and Lawson, Aaron, 145–168. Ithaca: Cornell University.Google Scholar
Larson, Richard and Takahashi, Naoko. 2002. Order and interpretation in prenominal relative clauses. In MIT Working Papers in Linguistics 54: Proceedings of the Workshop on Altaic Formal Linguistics II, ed. Kelepir, Meltem and Öztürk, Belkiz, 101–120. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Leu, Thomas. 2008. The internal syntax of definite articles. Doctoral dissertation, New York University.Google Scholar
Link, Godehard. 1983. The logical analysis of plurals and mass terms: A lattice theoretical approach. In Meaning, use, and the interpretation of language, ed. Bauerle, Rainer, Schwarze, Christoph, and Stechow, Arnim von, 302–323. Berlin: de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Lowenstamm, Jean. 2008. On little n, √, and types of nouns. In Sounds of silence: Empty elements in syntax and phonology, ed. Hartmann, Jutta M., Hegedus, Veronika, and Riemsdijk, Henk van, 105–144. Amsterdam: Elsevier.Google Scholar
Marantz, Alec. 1997. No escape from syntax: Don’t try morphological analysis in the privacy of your own lexicon. In Proceedings of the 21st Annual Penn Linguistics Colloquium, ed. Dimitriadis, Alexis, Siegel, Laura, Surek-Clark, Clarissa, and Williams, Alexander, 201–225. Philadelphia: Penn Graduate Linguistics Society. (University of Pennsylvania Working Papers in Linguistics (UPWPL) 4.2.)Google Scholar
Marvin, Tatjana. 2002. Topics in the stress and syntax of words. Doctoral dissertation, Massachusetts Institute of Technology.Google Scholar
Partee, Barbara. 1975. Montague grammar and transformational grammar. Linguistic Inquiry 6:203–300.Google Scholar
Ritter, Elizabeth. 1991. Two functional categories in noun phrases: Evidence from Modern Hebrew. In Syntax and semantics 25, Perspectives on phrase structure, ed. Rothstein, Susan, 37–62. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Roehrs, Dorian. 2006. The morpho-syntax of the Germanic noun phrase: Determiners move into the determiner phrase. Doctoral dissertation. Indiana University.Google Scholar
Rooth, Mats. 1985. Association with focus. Doctoral dissertation, University of Massachusetts at Amherst.Google Scholar
Sag, Ivan and Libermann, Mark. 1975. The intonational disambiguation of indirect speech acts. Proceedings of the Chicago Linguistics Society 11:487–497.Google Scholar
Sauerland, Uli. 1998. The meaning of chains. Doctoral dissertation, Massachusetts Institute of Technology.Google Scholar
Sauerland, Uli. 2003. Unpronounced heads in relative clauses. In The interfaces: deriving and interpreting omitted structures, ed. Schwabe, Kerstin and Winkler, Susanne, 205–226Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Saxon, Leslie and Wilhelm, Andrea. 2010. The ‘possessed noun suffix’ and ‘possession’ in two Northern Athabaskan languages. Ms., University of Victoria.Google Scholar
Scheutz, Hannes. 1988. Determinantien und Definitheitsarten im Bairischen und Standard-deutschen, In Festschrift für Ingo Reiffensteìn zum 60. Geburtstag, ed. Stein, Peter K., Hayer, Gerald, Hausner, Renate, Muller, Ulrich, and Spechtler, Franz, 231–258. Göppingen: Kümmerle.Google Scholar
Schmitt, Viola. 2006. Hessische Relativsatze. Master’s thesis, Universität Wien.Google Scholar
Schuster, Mauriz and Schikola, Hans. 1984. Sprachlehre der Wiener Mundart. Wien: Österreichischer Bundesverlag.Google Scholar
Schwager, Magdalena. 2007. (Non-)functional concepts: Definite articles in Bavarian. Paper presented at the 8th Szklarska Poreba Workshop, Szrenica, Poland. Slides available at: http://www.blutner.de/Sklarska/Workshop%208/programme.html.Google Scholar
Schwarz, Florian. 2009. Two types of definites in natural language. Doctoral dissertation, University of Massachussetts at Amherst.Google Scholar
Selkirk, Elisabeth. 2005. Comments on intonational phrasing in English. In Prosodies: Selected papers from the Phonetics and Phonology in Iberia Conference, 2003), ed. Frota, Sonia, Vigário, Marina, and Freitas, M. João, 11–58. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Simonenko, Alexandra. 2013. Whisland DPs and pragmatics of questions. Presented at the 6th Toronto-Ottawa-Montreal Semantics Workshop (TOM 6). Available at: http://people.linguistics.mcgill.ca/~alexandra.simonenko/Papers%26Handouts.html.Google Scholar
Stanley, Jason and Szabo, Zoltan. 2000. On quantifier domain restriction. Mind and Language 15:219–261.Google Scholar
Studler, Rebekka. 2008. Artikelparadigmen: Zur Morphosyntax und Semantik der Definit-Determinierer im Schweizerdeutschen. Doctoral Dissertation, Universität Zürich.Google Scholar
Stvan, Laurel. 1998. The semantics and pragmatics of bare singular noun phrases. Doctoral Dissertation, Northwestern University.Google Scholar
Truckenbrodt, Hubert. 1995. Extraposition from NP and prosodic structure. In Proceedings of North East Linguistics Society (NELS) 25, vol. 2, ed. Beckman, Jill, 503–517. Graduate Linguistic Student Association (GLSA), University of Massachusetts, Amherst.Google Scholar
Vergnaud, Jean-Roger. 1974. French relative clauses. Doctoral Dissertation, Massachusetts Institute of Technology.Google Scholar
Waldmueller, Estela. 2006. Contracted preposition-determiner forms in German: Semantics and pragmatics. Doctoral Dissertation, Universitat Pompeu Fabra, Barcelona.Google Scholar
Wiese, Richard. 1996. Phrasal compounds and the theory of word syntax. Linguistic Inquiry 27:183–193.Google Scholar
Williams, Edwin. 1997. Blocking and anaphora. Linguistic Inquiry 28:577–628.Google Scholar
Wiltschko, Martina. 1995. IDs in Syntax and Discourse: An analysis of extraposition in German. Doctoral Dissertation, Universität Wien.Google Scholar
Wiltschko, Martina. 1998. On the syntax and semantics of (relative) pronouns and definite articles. Journal of Comparative Germanic Linguistics 2:143–181.Google Scholar
Wiltschko, Martina. 2012. What does it take to host a (restrictive) relative. In: Working Papers of the Linguistics Circle of the University of Victoria 21:100–145.Google Scholar
Ziv, Yael and Cole, Peter. 1974. Relative extraposition and the scope of definite descriptions in Hebrew and English. In Papers from the Tenth Regional Meeting of the Chicago Linguistic Society, ed. LaGaly, Michael W., Fox, Robert A., and Bruck, Anthony, 772–786, Chicago: Chicago Linguistic Society.Google Scholar