Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-dzt6s Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-23T09:56:28.212Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

German V2 and the PF-Interface: Evidence from Dialects

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  10 May 2017

John R. te Velde
John R. te Velde*
Affiliation:
Oklahoma State University
*
Department of Foreign Languages and Literatures, Oklahoma State University, Stillwater, OK 74078-1054, USA, [[email protected]]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This investigation of certain verb-second structures found in the German dialects Kiezdeutsch, Yiddish (both Eastern and Western), Bavarian, and Cimbrian, and to a more limited extent in colloquial German, leads to the hypothesis that Phonological Form, via the interface with the narrow syntax, provides three strategies for compliance with the verb-second restriction on main clauses. These are i) the remapping of two syntactic constituents into a single prosodic phrase, ii) the reduction and remapping of two or more words into a single prosodic word, and iii) the prosodic marking of the syntactic edge of a main clause where a restart of the clause occurs. The investigation, using minimalist tools, underscores the central role of the syntax-phonology interface without eliminating the need for the semantic interface in the derivation of German verb-second structures.*

Type
Articles
Information
Journal of Germanic Linguistics , Volume 29 , Issue 2 , June 2017 , pp. 147 - 194
Copyright
Copyright © Society for Germanic Linguistics 2017 

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

REFERENCES

Abraham, Werner (ed.). 1983. On the formal syntax of the Westgermania (Linguistics Today/Linguistik Aktuell 3). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Abraham, Werner, & Josef, Bayer (eds.). 1993. Dialektsyntax (Linguistische Berichte Sonderheft 5). Opladen: Westdeutscher Verlag.Google Scholar
Abraham, Werner, & Elisabeth, Leiss (eds.). 2013. Dialektologie in neuem Gewand (Linguistische Berichte Sonderheft 19). Hamburg: Helmut Buske Verlag.Google Scholar
Alexiadou, Artemis. 2000. On the syntax of temporal adverbs and the nature of Spec, TP. Rivista di Linguistica 12. 53–75.Google Scholar
Alexiadou, Artemis, Elena, Anagnoastopoulou, Sjef, Barbiers, & Hans-Martin, Gärtner. 2002. Introduction Dimensions of movement (Linguistik Aktuell/Linguistics Today 48), ed. by Artemis, Alexiadou, Elena, Anagnoastopoulou, Sjef, Barbiers, & Hans-Martin, Gärtner, 1–16. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Andersson, Lars-Gunnar. 1975. Form and function of subordinate clauses. Gothenburg, Sweden: University of Gothenburg dissertation.Google Scholar
Auer, Peter. 1996. The pre-front field in spoken German and its relevance as a grammaticalization position. Pragmatics 3. 295–322.Google Scholar
Auer, Peter. 2003. ‘Tuürkenslang’: Ein jugendsprachlicher Ethnolekt des Deutschen und seine Transformationen. Spracherwerb und Lebensalter, ed. by Annelies, Häcki Buhofer, 255–264. Tuübingen: Franke.Google Scholar
Axel, Katrin. 2004. The syntactic integration of preposed adverbial clauses on the German left periphery: A diachronic perspective. Lohnstein & Trissler 2004, 23–58.Google Scholar
Bayer, Josef. 2004. Decomposing the left periphery. Dialectal and cross-linguistic evidence. Lohnstein & Trissler 2004, 59–95.Google Scholar
Bayer, Josef. 2013. Klitisierung, Reanalyse und die Lizensierung von Nullformen: zwei Beispiele aus dem Bairischen. Abraham & Leiss 2013, 29–46.Google Scholar
Beckman, Mary E., & Janet, B. Pierrehumbert. 1986. Intonational structure in English and Japanese. Phonology Yearbook 3. 255–309.Google Scholar
Benincà, Paola, & Cecilia, Poletto. 2004. Topic, focus, and V2. Defining the CP sublayers. The structure of CP and IP, ed. by Luigi, Rizzi, 52–75. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Besten, Hans den. 1977/1981. On the interaction of root transformations and lexical deletive rules. Groninger Arbeiten zur Germanistischen Linguistik (GAGL) 20:i-iii, 1–78 (RU Groningen). Reprinted in Abraham 1983: 47–131.Google Scholar
Bhatt, Rakesh Mohan. 1999. Verb movement and the syntax of Kashmiri. Dordrecht: Kluwer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bierwisch, Manfred. 1963. Grammatik des deutschen Verbs. Berlin: Akademie Verlag.Google Scholar
Brandner, Ellen. 2004. Head movement in minimalism, and V2 as FORCE-marking. Lohenstein & Trissler 2004, 97–138.Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam. 1998. Minimalist inquiries: The framework (MIT Occasional Papers in Linguistics 15). Reprinted in Martin, Michaels, & Uriagereka 2000: 89–156.Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam. 2008. On phases. Foundational issues in linguistic theory: Essays in honor of Jean-Roger Vergnaud, ed. by Robert, Freidin, Carlos, P. Otero, & Maria-Louisa Zubizaretta, 133–166. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cinque, Guglielmo. 1999. Adverbs and functional heads. A cross-linguistic perspective. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Diesing, Molly. 2004. The upper functional domain in Yiddish. Focus on Germanic typology, ed. by Werner, Abraham, 195–210. Berlin: Akademie Verlag.Google Scholar
Dyhr, Mogens, & Ingeborg, Zint. 1988. Lubliner Jiddisch. Ein Beitrag zur Sprache und Kultur des Ostjiddischen im 20. Jahrhundert anhand eines Idiolekts. Tübingen: Max Niemeyer Verlag.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Erteschik-Shir, Nomi. 2005. Sounds patterns of syntax: Object shift. Theoretical Linguistics 31. 47–94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fanselow, Gisbert. 2004. Cyclic phonology-syntax-interaction: Movement to first position in German. Interdisciplinary studies on information structure (Working Papers of the SFB 632), vol. 1, ed. by Shinichiro, Ishihara, Michaela, Schmitz, & Anne, Schwarz, 1–42. Potsdam: Universitätsverlag.Google Scholar
Féry, Caroline. 1993. German intonational patterns. Tübingen: Niemeyer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Féry, Caroline. 2007. The prosody of topicalization. Schwabe & Winkler 2004, 69–86.Google Scholar
Féry, Caroline. 2011. German sentence accents and embedded prosodic phrases. Lingua 121. 1906–1922.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Frascarelli, Mara, & Roland, Hinterhölzl. 2007. Types of topics in German and Italian. Schwabe & Winkler 2007 87–116.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Freywald, Ulrike, Leonie, Cornips, Natalia, Ganuza, Ingvild, Nistov, & Toril, Opsahl. 2015. Beyond verb second—a matter of novel information-structural effects? Evidence from German, Swedish, Norwegian and Dutch. Language, youth and identity in the 21st century: Linguistic practices across urban spaces, ed. by Jacomine, Nortier & Bente, A. Svendsen, 73–92. Cambridge: CambridgeUniversity Press.Google Scholar
Gärtner, Hans-Martin. 2002. On the force of V2 declaratives. Theoretical Linguistics 28. 33–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Geller, Ewa. 2001. Warschauer Jiddisch. Tübingen: Max Niemeyer Verlag.Google Scholar
Grabe, Esther. 1998. Comparative intonational phonology. English and German. Nijmegen, The Netherlands: Radboud University Nijmegen and Max Planck Institute for Psycholinguistics dissertation.Google Scholar
Grewendorf, Günther, & Cecilia, Poletto. 2011. Hidden verb second. The case of Cimbrian. Studies on German-language islands, ed. by Michael, T. Putnam, 301–346. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Gussenhoven, Carlos. 2002. Phonology of intonation. Glot International 6. 271–284.Google Scholar
Gussenhoven, Carlos. 2004. The phonology of tone and intonation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Heycock, Caroline. 2006. Embedded root phenomena. The Blackwell companion to syntax, vol. II, ed. by Martin, Everaert & Henk van Riemsdijk, 174–209. Oxford: Blackwell.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hinterhölzl, Roland. 2009. A phase-based comparative approach to modification and word order in Germanic. Syntax 12. 242–284.Google Scholar
Hoekstra, Eric. 1993. Dialectal variation inside CP as parametric variation. Abraham & Bayer 1993, 161–179.Google Scholar
Holmberg, Anders. 2015. Verb-second. Syntax—theory and analysis: An international handbook, vol. 1, ed. by Tibor, Kiss & Artemis Alexiadou, 342–382. Berlin: de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Julien, Marit. 2015. The force of V2 revisited. Journal of Comparative Germanic Linguistics 18. 139–181.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kahan, Newman Zelda. 2013. Time adverbials vs. locative adverbials in the Yiddish of New York Satmar women. Paper presented at the conference on Variation Within and Across Jewish Languages held at University of Antwerp, June 28, 2013.Google Scholar
Kahan, Newman Zelda. 2015. Discourse markers in the narratives of New York Hasidim. More V2 attrition. Germanic heritage languages in North America. Acquisition, attrition and change, ed. by Janne, Bondi Johannessen & Joseph, C. Salmons, 178–197. Amsterdam: Friederike Selting. 2006. Einheitenkonstruktion im John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Kern, Margaret & Friederike, Selting. 2006. Einheitenkonstruktion im Turkendeutschen: Grammatische und prosodische Aspekte. Zeitschrift für Sprachwissenschaft 25. 239–272.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kern, Margaret & Selting, Friederike. 2009. On some syntactic and prosodic structures of Turkish German in talk-in-interaction. Journal of Pragmatics 41. 2496–2514.Google Scholar
Kiefer, Ulrike. 1995. Gesprochenes Jiddisch. Textzeugen einer europäisch-jüdischen Kultur. Tübingen: Max Niemeyer Verlag.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Krifka, Manfred. 2008. Basic notions of information structure. Acta Linguistica Hungarica 55. 243–276.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lohnstein, Horst & Susanne, Trissler (eds.). 2004. The syntax and semantics of the left periphery. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Martin, Roger. Michaels, David, & Uriagereka, Juan (eds.). 2000. Step by step: Essays on minimalist syntax in honor of Howard Lasnik. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Meinunger, André. 2004. On certain adverbials in the German ‘Vorfeld’ and ‘Vor-vor-feld’. Sprache und Pragmatik 52. 64–78.Google Scholar
Meinunger, André. 2006. Interface restrictions on verb second. The Linguistic Review 23. 127–160.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Migdalski, Krzysztof. 2012. Against a uniform treatment of second position effects as force markers. Main clause phenomena, ed. by Lobke, Aelbrecht, Liliane, Haegeman, & Nye, Rachel, 345–363. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mikkelsen, Line. 2015. VP anaphora and verb-second order in Danish. Journal of Linguistics 51. 595–643.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Müller, Stefan. 2005. Zur Analyse der scheinbar mehrfachen Vorfeldbesetzung. Linguistische Berichte 203. 29–62.Google Scholar
Pesetsky, David. 1987. Wh-in-situ: Movement and unselective binding. The representation of (in)definiteness, ed. by Reuland, Eric & Alice Ter Meulen, 98–129. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Pesetsky, David. 2000. Phrasal movement and its kin. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rehbein, Ines. Sören, Schalowski, & Heike, Wiese. 2014. The KiezDeutsch Korpus (KiDKo) Release 1.0. Proceedings of the 9th International Conference on Language Resources and Evaluation (LREC), ed. by Calzolari, Nicoletta, Choukri, Khalid, Declerck, Thierry, Loftsson, Hrafn, Maegaard, Bente, Mariani, Joseph, Moreno, Asuncion, Odijk, Jan, & Piperidis, Stelios, 3927–3934. Reykjavík: LREC.Google Scholar
Reis, Marga. 1997. Zum syntaktischen Status unselbständiger Verbzweit-Sätze. Syntax in Fokus. Festschrift für Heinz Vater, ed. by Dürscheid, Christa, Ramers, Karl-Heinz, & Schwarz, Monika, 121–144. Tübingen: Niemeyer.Google Scholar
Reis, Marga. 2013. “Weil-V2”-Sätze und (k)ein Ende? Anmerkungen zur Analyse von Antomo & Steinbach (2010). Zeitschrift fu?r Sprachwissenschaft 32. 221–262.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Richards, Norvin. 2010. Uttering trees. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rizzi, Luigi. 1997. The fine structure of the left periphery. Elements of grammar. A handbook in generative syntax, ed. by Haegeman, Liliane 281–337. Dodrecht: Kluwer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Roberts, Ian. 2004. The C-system in Brythonic Celtic languages, V2, and the EPP. The cartography of syntactic structures, vol. 2: The structure of CP and IP, ed. by Rizzi, Luigi 297–328. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Santorini, Beatrice. 1993. Jiddisch als gemischte OV/VO-Sprache. Abraham & Bayer 1993, 230–245.Google Scholar
Schalowski, Sören. 2016. From adverbial to discourse connective. Multiple prefields in spoken German and the use of dann ‘then’ and danach ‘afterwards’. Connectives as a functional category: Between clauses and discourse units, ed. by Fried, Mirjam & Lehečková, Eva. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. To appear.Google Scholar
Schwabe, Kerstin, & Winkler, Susanne (eds.). 2007. On information structure, meaning and form. Generalizations across languages. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Selkirk, Elisabeth. 1995. Sentence prosody: Intonation, stress and phrasing. The handbook of phonological theory, ed. by Goldsmith, John A. 550–569. Cambridge, MA: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Stechow, Arni. von, & Sternefeld, Wolfgang. 1988. Bausteine Syntaktischen Wissens. Opladen: Westdeutscher Verlag.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Thiersch, Craig. 1978. Topics in German syntax. Cambridge, MA: MIT dissertation.Google Scholar
Truckenbrodt, Hubert. 1999. On the relation between syntactic phrases and phonological phrases. Linguistic Inquiry 30. 219–255.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Velde, Joh. R. te. 2013. West Germanic left-dislocated adverbial clauses: The role of the semantic interface. Interdisciplinary Journal for Germanic Linguistics and Semiotic Analysis 18. 163–206.Google Scholar
Velde, Joh. R. te. 2016. Temporal adverbs in the Kiezdeutsch left periphery: Combining late Merge with deaccentuation for V3. Studia Linguistica (Early View), 1–36. doi:10.1111/stul.12055.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wagner, Michael. 2005. Asymmetries in prosodic domain formation. Perspectives on Phases (MIT Working Papers in Linguistics 49), ed. by Richards, Norvin & McGinnis, Martha, 329–367. Cambridge, MA: MITWPL.Google Scholar
Wechsler, Stephen. 1991. Verb second and illocutionary force. Views on phrase structure, ed. by Leffel, Katherine & Bouchard, Denis, 177–191. Dordrecht: Kluwer.Google Scholar
Weiß, Helmut. 2013. UG und syntaktische (Mikro-)Variation. Abraham & Leiss 2013, 173–207.Google Scholar
Wiese, Heike. 2009. Grammatical innovation in multi-ethnic urban Europe: New linguistic practices among adolescents. Lingua 119. 782–806.Google Scholar
Wiese, Heike. 2012. Kiezdeutsch. Ein neuer Dialekt entsteht. München: Verlag C. H. Beck. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wiese, Heike. 2013. What can new urban dialects tell us about internal language dynamics? The power of language diversity. Abraham & Leiss 2013, 207–245.Google Scholar
Wiese, Heike. Freywald, Ulrike, Schalowski, Sören, & Mayr, Katharina. 2012. Das KiezDeutsch-Korpus. Spontansprachliche Daten Jugendlicher aus urbanen Wohngebieten. Deutsche Sprache 40. 97–123.Google Scholar
Winkler, Julia. 2014. Verbdrittstellung im Deutschen. Eine wettbewerbstheoretische Analyse. Berlin: Wissenschaftlicher Verlag.Google Scholar
Zeijlstra, Hedde. 2009. Dislocation effects, uninterpretable features, functional heads, and parametric variation: Consequences of conflicting interface conditions. InterPhases. Phase-theoretic investigations of linguistic interfaces, ed. by Kleanthes, K. Grohmann, 82–113. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zwart, C. Jan-Wouter 2001. Syntactic and phonological verb movement. Syntax 4. 34–62.Google Scholar
Zwart, C. Jan-Wouter. 2005. Verb second as a function of Merge. The function of function words and functional categories, ed. by den Dikken, Marcel & Christina, M. Tortora, 11–40. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar