Are there V2 relative clauses in German?

  • Hans-Martin Gärtner

Abstract

This paper describes a construction from (spoken) German that will be called integrated verb second (IV2). This term refers to V2 clauses that look like relative clauses except that they must contain a weak demonstrative in initial position and have to be extraposed. Their syntactic behavior will be accounted for by a paratactic analysis. IV2 can only modify wide scope indefinites inside what looks like the matrix clause. This is captured at the level of DRS construction. Since the matrix clause alone doesn't constitute a complete informational unit, IV2 can be introduced as a condition into the matrix DRS before evaluation. The weak demonstrative of IV2 establishes the relative link by copying a top-level discourse marker. In addition, the assertional nature of IV2 prevents it from modifying definite descriptions. Reference is made to the close relatedness of demonstrative and relative pronouns in Indo-European. Dutch, Swedish, and Zurich German provide the comparative horizon of this study. My answer to the question in the title is negative from the syntactic perspective but positive with reference to interpretation.

assertion DRT indefinites parataxis relative clauses verb second 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Bach, Emmon and Robin Cooper: 1978, 'The NP-S Analysis of Relative Clauses and Compositional Semantics', Linguistics and Philosophy 2, 145–150.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bayer, Josef: 1996, Directionality and Logical Form, Kluwer, Dordrecht.Google Scholar
  3. Brandt, Margareta: 1990, Weiterführende Nebensätze, Almqvist and Wiksell, Stockholm.Google Scholar
  4. Bühler, Karl: 1982 [1934], Sprachtheorie, UTB, Stuttgart.Google Scholar
  5. Chierchia, Gennaro: 1992, 'Anaphora and Dynamic Binding', Linguistics and Philosophy 15, 111–183.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Chierchia, Gennaro: 1995, 'Individual-Level Predicates as Inherent Generics', in G. Carlson and F. Pelletier (eds.), The Generic Book, University of Chicago Press, Chicago, pp. 176–223.Google Scholar
  7. Donnellan, Keith: 1966, 'Reference and Definite Descriptions', The Philosophical Review 75(3), 281–304.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Dunbar, Ted: 1979, Discourse Pragmatics and Subordinate Clause Word Order in German, unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, University of Wisconsin-Madison.Google Scholar
  9. Engdahl, Elisabeth: 1986, Constituent Questions, Reidel, Dordrecht.Google Scholar
  10. Fabricius-Hansen, Cathrine: 1991, 'Verbklassifikation', in A. von Stechow and D. Wunderlich (eds.), Semantik: Ein internationales Handbuch der zeitgenössischen Forschung, de Gruyter, Berlin, pp. 692–709.Google Scholar
  11. Fanselow, Gisbert: 1987, Konfigurationalität, Narr, Tübingen.Google Scholar
  12. Fodor, Janet D. and Ivan A. Sag: 1982, 'Referential and Quantificational Indefinites', Linguistics and Philosophy 5, 355–398.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Groenendijk, Jeroen and Martin Stokhof: 1984, 'Interrogative Quantifiers and Skolem Functions', in J. Groenendijk and M. Stokhof, Studies on the Semantics of Questions and the Pragmatics of Answers, unpublished joint and cumulative Ph.D. dissertation, University of Amsterdam, pp. 165–208.Google Scholar
  14. Heim, Irene: 1988, The Semantics of Definite and Indefinite Noun Phrases, Garland, New York.Google Scholar
  15. Heim, Irene: 1991, 'Artikel und Definitheit', in A. von Stechow and D. Wunderlich (eds.), Semantik: Ein internationale Handbuch der zeitgenössischen Forschung, de Gruyter, Berlin, pp. 487–535.Google Scholar
  16. Hintikka, Jaakko: 1986, 'The Semantics of A Certain', Linguistic Inquiry 17(2), 331–336.Google Scholar
  17. Hooper, Joan and Sandra Thompson: 1973, 'On the Applicability of Root Transformations', Linguistic Inquiry 4, 465–497.Google Scholar
  18. Horn, Laurence R.: 1969, 'A Presuppositional Analysis of Only and Even', CLS 5, 98–107.Google Scholar
  19. Jacobs, Joachim: 1993, 'Integration', in M. Reis (ed.), Wortstellung und Informationsstruktur, Niemeyer, Tübingen, pp. 63–116.Google Scholar
  20. Jäger, Gerhard: 1996, 'Topics in Dynamic Semantics', CIS-Bericht 96-92, Centrum für Informations und Sprachverarbeitung, LMU, München.Google Scholar
  21. Janssen, Theo M. V.: 1982, 'Compositional Semantics and Relative Clause Formation in Montague Grammar', in J. A. G. Groenendijk, T. M. V. Janssen and M. B. J. Stokhof (eds.), MCTRACT 135 (Formal Methods in the Study of Language), University of Amsterdam, pp. 237–276.Google Scholar
  22. Jong, Francisca de: 1987, 'The Compositional Nature of (In)definiteness', in E. Reuland and A. ter Meulen (eds.), The Representation of (in)definiteness, MIT Press, Cambridge, pp. 270–285.Google Scholar
  23. Jónsson, Jóhannes: 1996, Clausal Architecture and Case in Icelandic, unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, University of Massachussetts, Amherst.Google Scholar
  24. Kamp, Hans and Uwe Reyle: 1993, From Discourse to Logic, Kluwer, Dorecht.Google Scholar
  25. Karttunen, Lauri: 1976, 'Discourse Referents', in J. McCawley (ed.), Syntax and Semantics 7, Academic Press, New York, pp. 363–385.Google Scholar
  26. Kiparsky, Paul: 1996, 'The Shift to Head-Initial VP in Germanic', in H. Thráinsson, S. Epstein and S. Peter (eds.), Comparative Germanic Syntax Vol. II, Kluwer, Dordrecht, pp. 140–179.Google Scholar
  27. Kirsner, Robert S.: 1979, 'Deixis in Discourse: An Exploratory Quantitative Study of Modern Dutch Demonstrative Adjectives', in T. Givón (ed.), Syntax and Semantics 12, Academic Press, New York, pp. 355–375.Google Scholar
  28. Krifka, Manfred: 1992, 'A Compositional Semantics for Multiple Focus Constructions', in J. Jacobs (ed.), Linguistische Berichte, Sonderheft Vol. 4, pp. 17–53.Google Scholar
  29. Krifka, Manfred: 1993, 'Focus and Presupposition in Dynamic Interpretation', Journal of Semantics 10, 269–300.Google Scholar
  30. Ladd, D. Robert: 1986, 'Intonational Phrasing: The Case for Recursive Prosodic Structure', Phonology Yearbook 3, 311–340.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Lehmann, Christian: 1996, 'Der Relativsatz', in J. Jacobs, et al. (eds.), Syntax: An International Handbook of Contemporary Research, Vol. 2, de Gruyter, Berlin, pp. 1199–1216.Google Scholar
  32. Lewis, David: 1986, 'Scorekeeping in a Language Game', Philosophical Papers, Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp. 233–249.Google Scholar
  33. Linde, Charlotte: 1979, 'Focus of Attention and the Choice of Pronouns in Discourse', in T. Givón (ed.), Syntax and Semantics 12, Academic Press, New York, pp. 337–354.Google Scholar
  34. McCawley, James: 1981, 'The Syntax and Semantics of English Relative Clauses', Lingua 53, 99–149.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. McCawley, James: 1982, 'Parentheticals and Discontinuous Constituent Structure', Linguistic Inquiry 13(1), 91–106.Google Scholar
  36. Partee, Barbara, Alice ter Meulen and Robert Wall: 1993, Mathematical Methods in Linguistics, Kluwer, Dordrecht.Google Scholar
  37. Postma, Gertjan: 1994, 'The Indefinite Reading of WH', in R. Bok-Bennema and C. Cremers (eds.), Linguistics in the Netherlands, John Benjamins, Amsterdam, pp. 187–198.Google Scholar
  38. Reis, Marga: 1985, 'Satzeinleitende Strukturen im Deutschen', in W. Abraham (ed.), Erklärende Syntax des Deutschen, Narr, Tübingen, pp. 271–311.Google Scholar
  39. Reis, Marga: 1993, 'Satzfügung und kommunikative Gewichtung', in M. Reis (ed.), Wortstellung und Informationsstruktur, Niemeyer, Tübingen.Google Scholar
  40. Reis, Marga: 1997, 'Zum syntaktischen Status unselbständiger Verbzweit-Sätze', in F. D'Avis and U. Lutz (eds.), Zur Satzstruktur des Deutschen, Arbeitspapiere des SFB 340 Nr90, Stuttgart and Tübingen, pp. 121–142.Google Scholar
  41. Riemsdijk, Henk van: 1989, 'Swiss Relatives', in D. Jaspers et al. (eds.), Complementation and the Lexicon, Foris, Dordrecht, pp. 343–354.Google Scholar
  42. Rizzi, Luigi: 1996, 'Residual Verb Second and the Wh-Criterion', in A. Belletti and L. Rizzi (eds.), Parameters and Functional Heads, Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp. 63–90.Google Scholar
  43. Safir, Ken: 1986, 'Relative Clauses in a Theory of Binding and Levels', Linguistic Inquiry 17(4), 663–689.Google Scholar
  44. Schuetze-Coburn, Stephan: 1984, 'On the Borders of Subordination', BLS 10, 650–659.Google Scholar
  45. Sells, Peter: 1985, 'Restrictive and Non-Restrictive Modification', CSLI Report No. 28.Google Scholar
  46. Smits, R. J. C.: 1989, Eurogrammar, Foris, Dordrecht.Google Scholar
  47. Stechow, Arnim von: 1991, 'Current Issues in the Theory of Focus', in A. von Stechow and D. Wunderlich (eds.), Semantik: Ein internationales Handbuch der zeitgenössischen Forschung, de Gruyter, Berlin, pp. 804–825.Google Scholar
  48. Stechow, Arnim von and Wolfgang Sternefeld: 1988, Bausteine syntaktischen Wissens, Westdeutscher Verlag, Opladen.Google Scholar
  49. Stuurman, Frits: 1983, 'Appositives and X-Bar Theory', Linguistic Inquiry 14(4), 736–744.Google Scholar
  50. Urmson, J. O.: 1963, 'Parenthetical Verbs', in C. Caton (ed.), Philosophy and Ordinary Language, University of Illinois Press, Urbana, pp. 220–240.Google Scholar
  51. Vikner, Sten: 1994, Verb Movement and Expletive Subjects in the Germanic Languages, Oxford University Press, Oxford.Google Scholar
  52. Wechsler, Stephen: 1991, 'Verb Second and Illocutionary Force', in K. Leffel and D. Bouchard (eds.), Views on Phrase Structure, Kluwer, Dordrecht, pp. 177–191.Google Scholar
  53. Wegener, Heide: 1993, 'Weil - das hat schon seinen Grund: Zur Verbstellung in Kausalsätzen mit weil im gegenwärtigen Deutsch', Deutsche Sprache 21, 289–305.Google Scholar
  54. Wiltschko, Martina: 1998, 'On the Syntax and Semantics of (Relative) Pronouns and Determiners', Journal of Comparative Germanic Linguistics 2, 143–181.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Wittenburg, Kent: 1987, 'Extraposition from NP as Anaphora', in J. Huck and A. Ojeda (eds.), Syntax and Semantics Vol. 20, Academic Press, New York, pp. 427–445.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Kluwer Academic Publishers 2000

Authors and Affiliations

  • Hans-Martin Gärtner
    • 1
  1. 1.ZASBerlinGermany E-mail

Personalised recommendations