Refine
Document Type
- Article (1)
- Book (1)
- Part of a Book (1)
Is part of the Bibliography
- no (3) (remove)
Keywords
- Deutsch (2)
- Bairisch (1)
- Diachronie (1)
- Gothic, EPP (1)
- Grammatik (1)
- Kongress (1)
- Kongruenz <Linguistik> (1)
- Mundart (1)
- Nebensatz (1)
- Old English (1)
Publisher
- Benjamins (1)
- De Gruyter (1)
- Univ. Press (1)
Grammatische Strukturen verbinden Systeme des Denkens und Systeme des Sprechens und Zeigens, deren jeweilige Bedingungen kaum zueinander zu passen scheinen. Der Reparaturansatz betrachtet den regulären Umgang mit Übersetzungsproblemen innerhalb des grammatischen Systems und an seinen Schnittstellen als konstitutiv für Expressivität und Ökonomie der Sprache. Reparaturen sind produktive Wiedergutmachungs- und Anpassungsmechanismen, die linguistische Phänomene als Reflex der Kompensation für derivationelle oder interpretative Schäden erklären.
In recent minimalist work, it has been argued that C-agreement provides conclusive support for the following theoretical hypotheses (cf. Carstens 2003; van Koppen 2005; Haegeman & van Koppen 2012): (i) C hosts a separate set of phi-features, a parametric choice possibly linked to the V2 property; (ii) feature checking/valuation is accomplished under (closest) c-command (i.e. by the operation Agree, cf. Chomsky 2000 and subsequent work). This paper reviews the significance of C-agreement for syntactic theory and argues that certain systematic asymmetries between regular verbal agreement and complementizer agreement suggest that the latter does not result from operations that are part of narrow syntax. The case is based on the observation that at least in some Germanic varieties (most notably Bavarian), the realization of inflectional features in the C-domain is sensitive to adjacency effects and deletion of the finite verb in right node raising and comparatives. The fact that C may not carry inflection when the finite verb has been elided is taken to suggest that complementizer agreement does not involve a dependency between C and the subject, but father between C and the finite verb (i.e. T). More precisely, it is argued that inflectional features present in the C-domain are added postsyntactically via a process of feature insertion (cf. e.g. Embick 1997; Embick & Noyer 2001; Harbour 2003) that creates a copy of T’s (valued) <J)-set. It will then be shown that this account can also capture phenomena like first conjunct agreement (FCA) and external possessor agreement, which are often presented as crucial evidence of the syntactic nature of complementizer agreement (cf. van Koppen 2005; Haegeman & van Koppen 2012).
This paper focuses on the origin of the V2 property in the history of Germanic. Considering data from Gothic and Old English (OE), it is suggested that the historical core of the V2 phenomenon reduces to V-to-C movement that is triggered in operator contexts. Therefore, the historical system shares basic propertieswith limited V2 in Modern English. It is shown that apparent deviations from this pattern that can be observed in Gothic can be attributed to the influence of Greek word order. Concerning the apparently more elaborate V2 properties of OE, it is claimed that a large part of them in fact do not involve a Spec-head relation, but rather result from linear adjacency between the clause-initial element and a finite verb located in T0. Special attention is paid to the placement of pronominal subjects in OE, which are claimed to occupy SpecTP. This contrasts with a lower position of full subjects due to the absence of an EPP in OE. Finally, the loss of superficial V2 orders in the Middle English period is attributed to the development of an EPP feature in T.