Control predicates in Alemannic: Syntax and Semantics

Transcription

Empirical base Syntax Semantics Analysis Microtypology
Control predicates in Alemannic:
Syntax and Semantics
Oliver Schallert
oliver.schallert@staff.uni-marburg.de
Philipps-Universität Marburg,
Institut für Germanistische Sprachwissenschaft
Workshop European Dialect Syntax VII
University of Konschtanz, June 14, 2013
Oliver Schallert (Marburg)
Motto. . .
Motto. . .
All languages are equal,
but some dialects are more equal than others.
(based loosely on George Orwell: Animal Farm)
Overview
1
A short note on the empirical base
2
Syntactic properties of control predicates
Complementation types
The status of zum
3
Semantic properties of control predicates
Predicate classes
Event coherence
4
Analysis
Constituent structure, unification of θ-grids
How to handle control?
5
Bonus track: Microtypology
What is this talk about?
The phenomenon and the empirical base:
Control predicates, in particular those lacking the infinitival
marker zu ‚to‘, cf. (1).
Alemannic dialects in Vorarlberg (westernmost province of
Austria).
The phenomenon and the empirical base:
Control predicates, in particular those lacking the infinitival
marker zu ‚to‘, cf. (1).
Alemannic dialects in Vorarlberg (westernmost province of
Austria).
(1)
Häat s’ [. . . ] g’seit, am Bau’r häi
v’rschprocha
Has she
said a farmer has-3.SBJV promised
ihra a’ Kapella ∅ baua.
her a chapel
build
„She said a farmer had promised her to build a chapel“
(XI/295, 2: Bildstein)
Questions:
Questions:
What are the syntactic and semantic properties of control
constructions? Integration in terms of „(in)coherence“,
predicate classes involved, etc.
What is the proper syntactic and semantic analysis?
Microtypological aspect: How do control constructions work in
other German dialects? What are the „minimal units of
syntactic variation“ (Kayne 1996: xiii)?
Vorarlberg and the surrounding areas:
Vorarlberg is the westernmost province of Austria; only part
where Alemannic dialects are spoken (as opposed to the rest of
Austria with Southern or Central Bavarian varieties)
More speakers (≈ inhabitants) than Icelandic: 368.000 as
opposed to 320.00
Very interesting region for studying (spatial) variation:
Transitional zone between High Alemannic (Switzerland) and
other Alemannic varieties (e.g. „Lake Alemannic“, Swabian) as
well as (Austrian) Bavarian.
Dialect use in Vorarlberg (cf. Jochum 1999: 40–50): medial
diglossia in a somewhat weakened form.
Figure 1: Vorarlberg and the surrounding regions
Figure 1: Vorarlberg and the surrounding regions
As main data sources, I used parts of the materials that were
collected and/or analyzed in the project Syntax der Vorarlberger
und Liechtensteiner Mundarten (SVLM) and my PhD-thesis on
substitute infinitive constructions (Schallert 2010, 2012):
As main data sources, I used parts of the materials that were
collected and/or analyzed in the project Syntax der Vorarlberger
und Liechtensteiner Mundarten (SVLM) and my PhD-thesis on
substitute infinitive constructions (Schallert 2010, 2012):
1
Two questionnaire studies (2 series), following the
methodological standards of the SADS (Syntaktischer Atlas der
deutschen Schweiz), cf. Bucheli and Glaser (2002);
Bucheli Berger (2008); Glaser (2006).
2
Questionnaires of the Wenker survey that were sent out all
over Austria in the 1920s and 1930s.
3
Transcribed sound recordings of the Tonarchivs der
Mundarten Vorarlbergs („sound archive of the Vorarlberg
dialects“), which were started in the context of the Deutsches
Spracharchiv (DSAv), but were mostly conducted to
supplement the Linguistic Atlas of Vorarlberg (VALTS), cf.
Ruoff (2004); Ruoff and Gabriel (1998).
Complementation types The status of zum
Control predicates occur with quite different topological
structures: Either fully extraposed (2) or with the so-called third
construction (cf. Wöllstein-Leisten 2001), see (3). In both cases,
marking with zu ‚to‘ is optional.
(2)
I hon vrgässa a Karta (z) koofa (VA)
I have forgotten a ticket to buy
(3)
I hon a Karta vrgässa (z) koofa
I have a ticket forgotten to buy
„I have forgotten to buy a ticket.“
j The third construction and, crucially, even the fully extraposed
variant shows clear signs of coherence (see in particular Reis
2007 w. r. t. drohen ‚threaten‘ and versprechen ‚promise‘).
Argument for mono-clausality of the third construction (among
many others, see e. g. Wöllstein-Leisten 2001): long passive
(4)
?weil
die wichtige Brief vergesse wore sind [ti lese]
because the important letters forget were are
read
„because they forgot to read the important letters“ (passive)
(Brandner 2006: 332, ex. (90a.))
j The DP die wichtige Brief ‚the important letters‘ agrees in
number with the matrix verb (which is a clear sign of case
conversion).
Conversely, there is also a construction type with the
complementizer zum, which at least projects a CP and thus must be
taken as evidence for the incoherent construction:
(5)
I han vrgeässo zum a Karto koufo.
I have forgotten COMP a ticket buy
„I have forgotten to buy a ticket“ (ID 77, 69/m: Lustenau)
(6)
dass sie mir
verbota häat zum däs Buch leasa,
that she me-DAT forbidden has COMP that book read
ischt scho allerhand.
is
quite something
„It’s quite something that she has forbidden me to read this
book“ (ID 38, 77/m: Hohenems)
The categorial status of zum
The complementizer zum (consisting of the preposition zu and a
contracted form of a dative determiner dem) usually occurs with
purposive clauses like (7) and thus behaves like a typical Co -element
In this context, it functions more or less like SG um . . . zu.
(7)
a. I bruuch s Auto, zum d Lea ufa Bahnhof tua
b. Ich brauche das Auto, um Lea zum Bahnhof zu bringen
„I need the car to drive Lea to the railway station“
The complementizer zum (consisting of the preposition zu and a
contracted form of a dative determiner dem) usually occurs with
purposive clauses like (7) and thus behaves like a typical Co -element
In this context, it functions more or less like SG um . . . zu.
(7)
a. I bruuch s Auto, zum d Lea ufa Bahnhof tua
b. Ich brauche das Auto, um Lea zum Bahnhof zu bringen
„I need the car to drive Lea to the railway station“
The use of zum as a complementizer must not be confused with the
allomorphic variant of ’z used especially by younger speakers:
(8)
a. aa-zum-fanga
b. ab-zum-schniida
(lit. on-to-catch„begin“)
(lit. off-to-cut „cut off“)
Predicate classes:
Semantic classification of control predicates in VA, mainly after
Wurmbrand (2001) and Stiebels (2010).
Class
Examples
aspectual
aafanga ‚begin‘, uufhöra ‚stop‘,
khoo ‚come‘
vrgässa „forget“, si traua ‚dare,
have the guts to‘
zwinga „force“, vrbiata ‚forbid‘
probiera ‚try‘, im Sinn hoo ‚intend‘, verschschpreha ‚promise‘
implicative
influence p.
irrealis
a
Frequency
of zum a
3
17, 9
7
19
n = 95 (Questionnaire 1), n = 87 (Questionnaire 2).
Predicate classes Event coherence
VA does not allow infinitival complements (irrespective of whether
zum ist present or not) under factive and propositional verbs
(a finite clause is fine, though):
(9)
a. *Är bereut, (zum) des Buach überhaupt gläsa hoo.
„He regretted having read this book.“
b. *Sie isch stolz (druuf), (zum) ian kenna.
„She is proud to know him.“
c. *Är hot behauptat, (zum) se kenna.
„He claimed knowing her.“
See Brandner (2006: 211–213) for similar observations on „Lake
Alemannic“.
Event coherence (Stiebels 2010: 414):
„integration of two subevents to a coherent event“
Easy test is to check for independent local or temporal
modification in the SOA.
With e. g. commissive or directive predicates like versprechen
„promise“ or bitten „ask“, this property is lifted:
(10)
Sie hat mir
gestern versprochen, heute das neue
She has me-DAT yesterday promised
today the new
Betriebssystem zu installieren.
operating system to install
„Yesterday, she promised me to install the new OS today.“
(Stiebels 2010: 423, ex. (70))
Most predicates that allow embedding of an infinitive in VA
need to fulfill this restriction (there are exceptions, however:
e. g. verschschpreha ‚promise‘)
Event coherence can be used as a conceptual argument against
a functionally enriched structure of control complements (e. g.
in terms of a TP).
Also note that zu ‚to‘ (as already discussed by Bech 1955: 15)
is a inflectional element and does not function like a To -head.
The same applies to its Alemannic counterpart z.
(11)
a. Er versuchte gleichzeitig [ zu essen und *(zu) trinken]
b. He tried to [ eat and drink at the same time]
c. anzufangen; angefangen
Unification Control
Analysis
Control predicates either project a CP/VP-structure
(zum-variant), as is independently assumed for German (e. g.
Haider 2010, Wöllstein 2008) or they are bare VP-complements
(see in particular Brandner 2006 on Lake Alemannic).
Semantically, the coherent variant can best be analyzed in
terms of unification of θ-grids.
(12)
[CP I hon [VP vrgässa [CP zum [VP a Karta koofa]]]]
(13)
[CP I hon [VP vrgässa [VP a Karta koofa]]]
Unification Control
Analysis
Unification of θ-grids
Quite different implementations on the market, e. g. in
Categorial Grammar (Jacobs 1992, Williams 2003), HPSG
(Kiss 1995, Müller 2002) or representational variants of
GB/Minimalism (Haider 1994, 2001, Sternefeld 2009: ch. 9).
Often too restrictive (which is not a bad thing): Certain
assumptions have to be modified: e. g. the role of zu or the
strict adjacency requirement (e. g. Haider 1993: 267).
Unification Control
Analysis
What is necessary for unification, what isn’t?
The presence of z’ ‚zu‘ is not necessary for unification,
although it can appear optionally. This can be taken as
evidence for its status as a redundant element (Brandner 2008)
or – with regard to SG – the existence of different types of zu
(Wöllstein and Rapp 2009: 173).
Unification Control
Analysis
Neither is strict adjacency (clustering) necessary for unification;
however, there are clear directionality effects, see below.
Unification Control
Analysis
Neither is strict adjacency (clustering) necessary for unification;
however, there are clear directionality effects, see below.
Unified theta grids need to correspond to the ones of a simple
verb (Kiss 1995: 215 or Wöllstein-Leisten 2001: 198): yes,
although there are some problems with Standard German
(Müller 2002: 64–67).
Unification Control
Analysis
Directionality matters:
The control predicate helfen ‚help‘ allows for both left- and
right-branching serializations.
Crucially, only with the right-branching pattern, nonverbal
interveners are allowed, cf. (14)–(15). This asymmetry is
well-known for uncontroversial cluster constructions (see e. g.
Wurmbrand 2004, Sapp 2011: 124–128).
(14)
Er hot gholfa dr Mama abwäscha.
He has helped the mother wash up
(15)
Er hot dr Mama abwäscha (*dr Mama) gholfa
He has the mother wash up the mother helped
„He helped his mother doing the washing up.“
Unification Control
Analysis
How to handle control?
(16)
Definition of obligatory control (OC) (Stiebels 2007: 13)
OC applies to structures in which a predicate P1 selects an
SOA-argument and requires one of its (individual) arguments to
be (improperly) included in the set of referents of an argument of
the embedded predicate P2 heading the SOA-argument.
[Xi P1 (Yj ) [SOA Zk P2 . . . ]] with k ∩ {i, j} 6= ∅
Theory-neutral definition of control that abstracts away from the
question whether the control reading is obtained either structurally
or semantically/lexically.
Unification Control
Analysis
Derivational approaches to control like the Movement theory of
control (e. g. Boeckx and Hornstein 2004, Boeckx, Hornstein,
and Nunes 2010) don’t fare that well when it comes to dealing
with the Alemannic data; semantic or selectional theories of
control (e. g. Sag and Pollard 1991, Jackendoff and Culicover
2003) seem to work fine.
For the sake of illustration, I will mention just one empirical
argument against the MTC; a more thorough discussion can be
found in Kiss (2005).
Unification Control
Analysis
According to the MTC, passivation of an object control predicate
with a lexical dative argument should induce a control shift:
(17)
wel
dr Klausj am
Hansi vrbota
hot [SOA
because the Klaus the=DAT Hans forbidden has
∅i/*j (zum) des Buach läsa]
COMP this book read
„because Klaus forbid Hans to read the book“
(18)
wel
am
Hansi vom
Klausj vrbota
because the-DAT Hans from=the-DAT Klaus forbidden
wora isch, [SOA ∅i/*j (zum) des Buach läsa ]
was is
COMP this book read
„because Klaus was forbidden (by Hans) to read this book“
Microtypology
Typological complexity of (potential) control predicates:
Orientierung ‚orientation‘ (cf. Bech 1955): Is control the only
option?
Is a SOA-argument even possible? If yes, how closely is it
integrated?
Morpho-syntactic factors: Auxiliary selection, marking of the
SOA-argument
Microtypology
Typological complexity of (potential) control predicates:
Orientierung ‚orientation‘ (cf. Bech 1955): Is control the only
option?
Is a SOA-argument even possible? If yes, how closely is it
integrated?
Morpho-syntactic factors: Auxiliary selection, marking of the
SOA-argument. I will concentrate on this question.
Microtypology
Case study on phasals (e. g. anfangen ‚begin‘)
What is interesting about this verb class is that it can show
both raising (19) and control patterns (20).
What is more, there are diverging positions as to whether these
predicates allow the incoherent construction (e. g. Müller 2002,
Reis 2007, Reis and Sternefeld 2004).
(19)
Ihm
fing an [SOA schlecht zu werden ]
Him-DAT began
sick
to become
„He began to feel sick.“
(20)
Eri fing an, [SOA ∅i seine Unterlagen zu sortieren].
He began
his papers
to sort
„He began to sort his papers“
Microtypology
Infinitive prominence (Mayerthaler et al. 1993; 1995: Does the
respective dialect even allow embedding of an infinitive?
(21)
Wenn es zu schneien anfängt, . . .
If
it to snow
begins
(22)
Wann-s s Schnaim an fangd, . . .
If=it
the snowing starts
(Donhauser 1989: 90–91, Bsp. (8), (8a))
(23)
. . . daß d Milch bald zum kocha
ofongt
that the milk soon to=the-DAT cook starts
(WB 43025: Holzgau, Tirol)
Microtypology
Morphosyntactic variation w. r. t. the marking of the infinitival
complement:
(24)
Se fungen an un hauen op em daal
They started on to hit
on him down
„They began to beat him up“ (North Lower Saxon; Thies
2010: 67)
(25)
Er håt’s galåt fa/za studiern.
„He stopped studying.“
(South Bavarian [Laurein]; Mayerthaler et al. 1995: 66)
(26)
d’rnå håt m’r abber afanga d’ Schtrååß ∅ bua
then has one MP start-IPP the road
build
„then, one started building the road“
(Highest Alemannic [Vorarlberg]; I/425, 2–3: Warth)
Microtypology
A short view on the Wenker survey (thanks to Jürg Fleischer for
providing me with this map). . .
Microtypology
Microtypology
Further complications arise through variation in auxiliary
selection.a
a
Examples taken from the Zwirner corpus: PQ1908 + neighbors (North
Lower Saxon in the south of Oldenburg, Emsland
(27)
da sind wi anfungen den Heimatverein
to grünnen
there are we begun
the historical society to found
„Then we started founding the local historical society“
(ZW0M0)
(28)
un bin dann anfangen to arbeiten
and am then started to work
„and then I started working“ (ZW0M2)
j A nice map from the Atlas der deutschen Alltagssprache. . .
http://www.philhist.uni-augsburg.de/lehrstuehle/germanistik/sprachwissenschaft/ada/runde_4/f01c/
Microtypology
Microtypology
Coherence properties with phasals in Alemannic:a
a
Model sentence: Die Kinder hatten die Treppe mit Wachsmalstiften zu
beschmieren begonnen. „The children had started smearing the stairs with
crayons.“
(29)
Gogo hend scho agfango d’Steago mit Ölkriedo
∅ aschmearbo. (ID 21, 69/m: Schwarzenberg)
(30)
D’ Kind hon d’ Stäga mit Ölkridai agfanga [ ti ischmiera ]!
(ID 75, 60/w: Gaschurn)
(31)
D’ Kind hond scho agfanga ka, zum d’ Stäga mit Ölkrieda
aschmiera. (ID 62, 67/w: Gaißau)
Microtypology
Phasals pattern with other control verbs (see this talk) in that
they allow the whole spectrum of infinitival complementation:
zu-less infinitives, third construction, incoherent
zum-introduced clauses
The zum-variant is clear evidence against Reis’ (2007: 48–49,
Fn. 28) that all phase predicates (including drohen „threaten“
and versprechen „promise“ construe obligatorily coherent!
Summary
In Alemannic (and other parts of Upper German), complements
of control predicates can occur without zu-marking; such
predicates show clear signs of coherence (in terms of syntactic
integration), although there is also an incoherent variant
available (zum-introduced ICs).
There are clear restrictions as to which predicates allow for an
embedded infinitive (no factive and propositional verbs); event
coherence also seems to play an important role.
It is not clear how derivational theories of control are able to
account for basic control facts in VA (e. g. passivation of object
control verbs like verbiate ‚forbid‘ or zwinga ‚force‘).
From a microtypological perspective, there are interesting areal
contrast to be observed (and tough nuts to crack) in the
(other) German dialects.
Thanks for your attention!
If you want the slides of my talk, you can download them from my website
(just google me):
http://www.uni-marburg.de/fb09/igs/mitarbeiter/schallert/
index_html
References I
Bader, Markus and Tanja Schmid (2009). “Verb clusters in
colloquial German”. In: Journal of Comparative Germanic
Linguistics 12, 175–228.
Bech, Gunnar (1955). Studien über das deutsche verbum infinitum.
Vol. 1. Kopenhagen: Munksgaard.
Boeckx, Cedric and Norbert Hornstein (2004). “Movement under
control”. In: Linguistic Inquiry 35, 431–452.
Boeckx, Cedric, Norbert Hornstein, and Jairo Nunes (2010). Control
as Movement. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Brandner, Ellen (2006). “Bare Infinitives in Alemannic and the
Categorial Status of Infinitival Complements”. In: Linguistic
Variation Yearbook 6, 203–268.
– (2008). “Patterns of Doubling in Alemannic”. In: Microvariation
in Syntactic Doubling. Ed. by Sjef Barbiers et al. Bingley:
Emerald Publishing, 353–379.
References II
Bucheli, Claudia and Elvira Glaser (2002). “The Syntactic Atlas of
Swiss German Dialects: empirical and methodological problems”.
In: Syntactic Microvariation. Ed. by Sjef Barbiers and
Leonie Cornips. Online-Publikation, Meertens Instituut, 41–74.
url: http://www.meertens.knaw.nl/books/synmic/.
Bucheli Berger, Claudia (2008). “Neue Technik, alte Probleme: Auf
dem Weg zum Syntaktischen Atlas der Deutschen Schweiz
(SADS)”. In: Sprachgeographie digital: Die neue Generation der
Sprachatlanten. Ed. by Stephan Elspaß und Werner König.
Hildesheim, Zürich, New York: Olms, 29–44.
Donhauser, Karin (1989). “Zur Typologie des bairischen Infinitivs”.
In: Probleme regionaler Sprachen. Ed. by Hans-Werner Eroms.
(Bayreuther Beiträge zur Dialektologie; 4). Hamburg: Buske,
83–102.
References III
Glaser, Elvira (2006). “Schweizerdeutsche Dialektsyntax. Zum
Syntaktischen Atlas der Deutschen Schweiz.” In: Raumstrukturen
im Alemannischen. 15. Arbeitstagung zur alemannischen
Dialektologie auf Schloss Hofen (Vorarlberg), 19.–21.09.2005.
Ed. by Hubert Klausmann. Graz/Feldkirch: W. Neugebauer,
85–90.
Haider, Hubert (1993). Deutsche Syntax – generativ. Vorstudien zur
Theorie einer projektiven Grammatik. Tübingen: Narr.
– (1994). “Fakultativ kohärente Infinitivkonstruktionen im
Deutschen”. In: Zur Satzwertigkeit von Infinitiven und Small
Clauses. Ed. by Anita Steube and Gerhild Zybatow. Tübingen:
Niemeyer, 75–106.
– (2001). “Heads and selection”. In: Semi-lexical categories. Ed. by
Norbert Corver and Henk van Riemsdijk. Berlin: de Gruyter,
67–96.
References IV
Haider, Hubert (2010). The Syntax of German. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Jackendoff, Ray and Peter W. Culicover (2003). “The Semantic
Basis of Control in English”. In: Language 79.3, 517–556.
Jacobs, Joachim (1992). “Bewegung als Valenzvererbung – Teil 1”.
In: Linguistische Berichte 148, 85–142.
Jochum, Barbara (1999). “Sprachgebrauch in Vorarlberg zwischen
deutschschweizerischer Diglossie und bairisch-österreichischer
Polyglossie”. MA thesis. Universität Wien.
Kayne, Richard (1996). “Microparametric syntax: some introductory
remarks”. In: Microparametric syntax and dialect variation.
Ed. by James R. Black and Virginia Motapanyane. Amsterdam:
Benjamins, ix–xviii.
References V
Kiss, Tibor (1995). Infinitive Komplementation. Neue Studien zum
deutschen Verbum infinitum. Linguistische Arbeiten; 333.
Tübingen: Niemeyer.
– (2005). “On the Empirical Viability of the Movement Theory of
Control”. Manuskript, Ruhr-Universität Bochum. url:
http://www.linguistics.ruhr-unibochum.de/~kiss/publications.html.
Mayerthaler, Willi, Günther Fliedl, and Christian Winkler (1993).
Infinitivprominenz in europäischen Sprachen. Teil 1: Die Romania
(samt Baskisch). Tübingen: Narr.
– (1995). Infinitivprominenz in europäischen Sprachen. Teil 2: Der
Alpen-Adria-Raum als Schnittstelle von Germanisch, Romanisch
und Slawisch. Tübingen: Narr.
References VI
Müller, Stefan (2002). Complex Predicates. Verbal Complexes,
Resultative Constructions, and Particle Verbs in German. (Studies
in constraint-based lexicalism; 13). Standford: CSLI Publications.
Reis, Marga (2007). “Modals, so-called semi-modals, and
grammaticalization in German”. In: Interdisciplinary Journal for
Germanic Linguistics and Semiotic Analysis 12, 1–56.
Reis, Marga and Wolfgang Sternefeld (2004). “Review article of S.
Wurmbrand „Infinitives. Restructuring and clause structure“”. In:
Linguistics 42.2, 469–508.
Ruoff, Arno (2004). “Die Tübinger Arbeitsstelle ‚Sprache in
Südwestdeutschland‘”. In: Tübinger Korrespondenzblatt 57,
19–52.
References VII
Ruoff, Arno and Eugen Gabriel, eds. (1998). Die Mundarten
Vorarlberg. Ein Querschnitt durch die Dialekte des Landes.
(Schriften der Vorarlberger Landesbibliothek, Band 3 [inkl. CD
mit Tonaufnahmen]). Graz: W. Neugebauer.
Sag, Ivan A. and Carl J. Pollard (1991). “An Integrated Theory of
Complement Control”. In: Language 67.1, 63–113.
Sapp, Christopher D. (2011). The Verbal Complex in Subordinate
Clauses from Medieval to Modern German. (Linguistik Aktuell;
173). Amsterdam, Philadelphia: Benjamins.
Schallert, Oliver (2010). “Syntax des Vorarlberger Alemannischen:
Ergebnisse eines Forschungsprojekts”. In: Montfort 62.1, 35–67.
– (2012). “Untersuchungen zu Ersatzinfinitivkonstruktionen in den
Vorarlberger und Liechtensteiner Dialekten”. PhD thesis.
Universität Marburg.
References VIII
Sternefeld, Wolfgang (2009). Syntax. Eine morphologisch motivierte
generative Beschreibung des Deutschen. 3., überarbeitete. Vol. 2.
Tübingen: Stauffenburg.
Stiebels, Barbara (2007). “Towards a typology of complement
control”. In: ZAS Papers in Linguistics 47, 1–80.
– (2010). “Inhärente Kontrollprädikate im Deuschen”. In:
Linguistische Berichte 224, 391–440.
Thies, Heinrich (2010). Plattdeutsche Grammatik. Neumünster:
Wachholtz.
Williams, Edwin (2003). Representation Theory. Cambridge (Mas.):
MIT Press.
Wöllstein, Angelika (2008). Konzepte der Satzkonnexion. Tübingen:
Stauffenburg.
References IX
Wöllstein, Angelika and Irene Rapp (2009). “Infinite Strukturen:
selbständig, koordiniert und subordiniert”. In: Linguistische
Berichte, 159–179.
Wöllstein-Leisten, Angelika (2001). Die Syntax der dritten
Konstruktion. Tübingen: Stauffenburg.
Wurmbrand, Susanne (2001). Infinitives. Restructuring and clause
structure. (Studies in Generative Grammar; 55). Berlin, New
York: Mouton de Gruyter.
Wurmbrand, Susi (2004). “West Germanic verb clusters: The
empirical domain”. In: Verb clusters: A study of Hungarian,
German, and Dutch. Ed. by Katalin É. Kiss and
Henk van Riemsdijk. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 43–85.

Control predicates in Alemannic: Syntax and Semantics

Transcription

Similar documents

BSZ Ausgabe 52

Panorama Nr. 35 - Bergbahnen Malbun AG