Cover not available
Part of
Bavarian Syntax: Contributions to the theory of syntax
Edited by Günther Grewendorf and Helmut Weiß
[Linguistik Aktuell/Linguistics Today 220] 2014
► pp. 223–246

Austro-Bavarian directionals

toward a bigger picture

| Utrecht University
This paper discusses Austro-Bavarian directionals, which adhere to the following pattern: preposition plus suffix -a or -i, e.g. auffa (upwards-a) and auffi (upwards-i). These directionals indicate that movement occurs either towards the speaker’s location (-a) or towards a location crucially distinct from the speakers location (-i). I propose that this alternation is an overt manifestation of Hale’s (1986) semantic universal of central versus non-central coincidence. I analyze them as fully fledged PathPs whose internal syntax is based on Ritter and Wiltschko’s (2009) implementation of the coincidence theme. These directionals show that dialectal data can confirm both semantic and syntactic universals that have been argued for on the basis of entirely unrelated domains and languages.
Published online: 26 November 2014
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/la.220.09gru
References (28)
References
Demirdache, Hamida & Uribe-Etxebarria, Myriam. 2000. The primitives of temporal relations. In Step by step: Essays on Minimalist Syntax in Honor of Howard Lasnik, Roger Martin, David Michaels & Juan Uriagereka, 157–186. Cambridge MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
. 2007. The syntax of time arguments. Lingua 117: 330–366. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
den Dikken, Marcel. 2003. On the syntax of locative and directional adpositional phrases. Ms, City University of New York.
Enç¸ Mürvet. 1987. Anchoring conditions for tense. Linguistic Inquiry 18: 633–657.Google Scholar
Fanselow, Gisbert. 1993. Die Rückkehr der Basisgenerierer. Groninger Arbeiten zur Germanistischen Linguistik 36:1–74.Google Scholar
Gehrke, Berit. 2008. Ps in Motion. PhD dissertation, Utrecht University.
Grimm, Jacob & Grimm, Wilhelm. 1854. Deutsches Wörterbuch von jacob und wilhelm grimm. Verlag von S. Hirzel. 16 Bde. in 32 Teilbänden. Leipzig 1854-1961. Quellenverzeichnis Leipzig 1971. [URL] DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Haider, Hubert. 1982. Dependenzen und Konfigurationen: Zur deutschen VProjektion. Groninger Arbeiten zur Germanistischen Linguistik 21: 1–60.Google Scholar
Hale, Kenneth. 1986. Notes on world view and semantic categories: Some Warlpiri examples. In Features and Projections [Studies in Generative Grammar Series 25], Pieter Muysken & Henk van Riemsdijk (eds), 233–254. Berlin: Foris.Google Scholar
Jackendoff, Ray S. 1983. Semantics and Cognition. Cambridge MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
Katz, Jerrold J. & Postal, Paul M. 1964. An Integrated Theory of Linguistic Description. Cambridge MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
Kayne, Richard. 2005. A short note on where vs. place. Ms, New York University.
Koopman, Hilda. 1993. The structure of Dutch PPs. Ms, University of California,Los Angeles.
. 1997. Prepositions, postpositions, circumpositions and particles: The structure of Dutch PPs. Ms, University of California, Los Angeles.
. 2010. Prepositions, postpositions, circumpositions and particles: The structure of Dutch PPs. In The Cartography of Syntactic Structures, Vol.6, Guglielmo Cinque & Luigi Rizzi (eds). Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
Lötscher, Andreas. 1985. Syntaktische Bedingungen der Topikalisierung. Deutsche Sprache 13: 207–229.Google Scholar
McIntyre, Andrew. 2001. German Double Particles as Preverbs. Tübingen: Stauffenburg.Google Scholar
Müller, Stefan. 2003. Mehrfache vorfeldbesetzung. Deutsche Sprache 31: 29–62.Google Scholar
Noonan, Máire. 2005. Spotlight on spatial PPs: Evidence from German shadows. Ms, McGill University.Google Scholar
van Riemsdijk, Henk. 1990. Functional prepositions. In Unity in Diversity: Papers Presented to Simon C. Dik on his 50th Birthday, Harm Pinkster & Inge Genee (eds), 229–241. Dordrecht: Foris.Google Scholar
van Riemsdijk, Henk & Huybregts, Riny. 2002. Location and locality. In Progress in Grammar: Articles at the 20th Anniversary of the Comparison of Grammatical Models Group in Tilburg, Marc van Oostendorp & Elena Anagnostopoulou (eds), 1–23. Amsterdam: Meertens Institute.Google Scholar
Ritter, Elizabeth & Wiltschko, Martina. 2009. Varieties of INFL: TENSE, LOCATION, and PERSON. In Alternatives to Cartography, Hans Broekhuis, Jeroen van Craenenbroeck & Henk van Riemsdijk (eds), 153–202. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Stowell, Tim. 2007. The syntactic expression of tense. Lingua 117: 437–463. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Svenonius, Peter. 2010. Spatial P in English. In The Cartography of Syntactic Structures, Vol.6, Guglielmo Cinque & Luigi Rizzi (eds), 127–160. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
Talmy, Leonard. 1975a. Figure and ground in complex sentences. In Proceedings of the First Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society , 419–430. Berkeley CA: BLS.
. 1975b. Semantics and syntax of motion. In Syntax and Semantics, Vol.4, John P. Kimball (ed.), 181–238. New York NY: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Wunderlich, Dieter. 1984. Zur Syntax der Präpositionalphrase im Deutschen. Zeitschrift für Sprachwissenschaft 3: 65–99. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Zeller, Jochen. 2001. Lexical particles, semi-lexical postpositions. In Semi-lexical Categories, Norbert Corver & Henk van Riemsdijk (eds), 505–549. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar