Cover not available
Part of
Inner-sentential Propositional Proforms: Syntactic properties and interpretative effects
Edited by Werner Frey, André Meinunger and Kerstin Schwabe
[Linguistik Aktuell/Linguistics Today 232] 2016
► pp. 23–48

Correlates of object clauses in German and Dutch

This paper deals with usages of the German pronoun es (and its counterpart het in Dutch) as a correlate of extraposed object clauses. It is argued (i) that es is the head of an argument DP and takes the embedded clause as its complement; (ii) that there are two types of matrix predicates, one of them being compatible with correlate-es, the other one incompatible; and (iii) that correlate-es has to be distinguished from an anaphoric use of the pronoun es that is possible in constructions with both types of matrix predicates, but has different contextual requirements.
Published online: 26 July 2016
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/la.232.02sud
References (36)
References
Altmann, Hans. 1981. Formen der "Herausstellung" im Deutschen. Tübingen: Niemeyer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Averintseva-Klisch, Maria. 2006. The 'Separate Performative' account of the German Right Dislocation. In Proceedings of the Sinn und Bedeutung 10, vol. 1, Christian Ebert & Cornelia Endriss (eds), 15-28. Berlin: ZAS.Google Scholar
Bayer, Josef & Suchsland, Peter. 1997. Expletiva und leere Subjekte im Deutschen. Groninger Arbeiten zur Germanistischen Linguistik 41: 12‑38.Google Scholar
Bennis, Hans. 1987. Gaps and Dummies. Dordrecht: Foris. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
den Besten, Hans. 1983. On the interaction of root transformation and lexical deletive rules. In On the Formal Syntax of the Westgermania [Linguistik Aktuell/Linguistics Today 3], Werner Abraham (ed), 47-138. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bhatt, Christa. 1990. Die syntaktische Struktur der Nominalphrase im Deutschen. Tübingen: Narr.Google Scholar
Breindl, Eva. 1989. Präpositionalobjekte und Präpositionalobjektsätze im Deutschen. Tübingen: Niemeyer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Büring, Daniel & Hartmann, Katharina. 1995. All Right! In On Extraction and Extraposition in German [Linguistik Aktuell/Linguistics Today 11], Uli Lutz & Jürgen Pafel, 179-211. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Chomsky, Noam. 1986. Barriers. Cambridge MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
1995. The Minimalist Program. Cambridge MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
Cinque, Guglielmo. 1993. A null theory of phrase and compound stress. Linguistic Inquiry 24: 239-97.Google Scholar
Fabricius-Hansen, Cathrine. 1980. Sogenannte ergänzende wenn-Sätze. Ein Beispiel semantisch-syntaktischer Argumentation. In Festschrift für Gunnar Bech, Mogens Dyhr, Karl Hyldgaard-Jensen & Jørgen Olsen (eds), 160-188. København: Institut for germansk filologi.Google Scholar
Fabricius-Hansen, Cathrine & Sæbø, Kjell Johan. 2011. Behabitive Reports. In Understanding Quotation, Elke Brendel, Jörg Meibauer & Markus Steinbach (eds), 85-106. Berlin: De Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Frey, Werner. 2006. How to get an object-es into the German prefield. In Form, Structure, and Grammar. A Festschrift Presented to Günther Grewendorf on Occasion of his 60th Birthday, Patrick Brandt & Eric Fuß (eds), 159-185. Berlin: Akademie-Verlag. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Haider, Hubert. 1994. Detached Clauses – The Later the Deeper. Arbeitspapiere des Sonderforschungsbereichs 340 41: 1-22.Google Scholar
. 1997. Projective economy. On the minimal functional structure of the German clause. In German: Syntactic Problems – Problematic Syntax, Werner Abraham & Elly van Gelderen (eds), 83-103. Tübingen: Niemeyer.Google Scholar
. 2010. The Syntax of German. Cambridge: CUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hinterwimmer, Stefan. 2010. When-clauses, factive verbs and correlates. In Language and Logos: Festschrift for Peter Staudacher on his 70th Birthday, Gisbert Fanselow & Thomas Hanneforth (eds), 176-189. Berlin: Akademie-Verlag. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kayne, Richard. 1994. The Antisymmetry of Syntax. Cambridge MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
Lenerz, Jürgen. 1993. Zu Syntax und Semantik deutscher Personalpronomina. In Wortstellung und Informationsstruktur, Marga Reis (ed), 117-153. Tübingen: Niemeyer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Leys, Odo. 1979. Zur Systematisierung von es . Deutsche Sprache 1: 28-34.Google Scholar
Meinunger, André. 2007. About object es in the German 'Vorfeld'. Linguistic Inquiry 38: 553-63. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Müller, Gereon. 1995. On extraposition & successive cyclicity. In On Extraction and Extraposition in German [Linguistik Aktuell/Linguistics Today 11], Uli Lutz & Jürgen Pafel, 213-243. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Müller, Gereon & Sternefeld, Wolfgang. 1993. Improper movement and unambiguous binding. Linguistic Inquiry 24: 461-507.Google Scholar
Pittner, Karin. 1999. Adverbiale im Deutschen. Untersuchungen zu ihrer Stellung und Interpretation. Tübingen: Stauffenburg.Google Scholar
Pütz, Herbert. 1986. Über die Syntax der Pronominalform >es< im modernen Deutsch, 2nd edn. Tübingen: Narr.Google Scholar
Safir, Ken. 1985. Missing subjects in German. In Studies in German Grammar, Jindřich Toman (ed), 193-229. Dordrecht: Foris.Google Scholar
Sandberg, Bengt. 1998. Zum es bei transitiven Verben vor satzförmigem Akkusativobjekt. Tübingen: Narr.Google Scholar
Sonnenberg, Bernhard. 1992. Korrelate im Deutschen. Beschreibung, Geschichte und Grammatiktheorie. Tübingen: Niemeyer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sternefeld, Wolfgang. 2006. Syntax. Eine morphologisch motivierte generative Beschreibung des Deutschen. Tübingen: Stauffenburg.Google Scholar
Steube, Anita. 1992. Syntax und Semantik freier Relativsätze in der deutschen Gegenwartssprache. In Fügungspotenzen. Zum 60. Geburtstag von Manfred Bierwisch, Ilse Zimmermann & Anatoli Strigin (eds), 189-206. Berlin: Akademie-Verlag.Google Scholar
Sudhoff, Stefan. 2003. Argumentsätze und es-Korrelate. Zur syntaktischen Struktur von Nebensatzeinbettungen im Deutschen. Berlin: WVB.Google Scholar
Tomaselli, Alessandra. 1986. Das unpersönliche "es" – Eine Analyse im Rahmen der Generativen Grammatik. Linguistische Berichte 102: 171-190.Google Scholar
Travis, Lisa. 1984. Parameters and Effects of Word Order Variation. PhD dissertation, MIT.
Vikner, Sten. 1995. Verb Movement and Expletive Subjects in the Germanic Languages. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
Zimmermann, Ilse. 1993. Zur Syntax und Semantik der Satzeinbettung. In Satz und Illokution. Band 2, Inger Rosengren (ed), 231-251. Tübingen: Niemeyer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cited by (5)

Cited by five other publications

Hinterhölzl, Roland
2024. Giving content to expletive es in German. The Journal of Comparative Germanic Linguistics 27:1 DOI logo
Ørsnes, Bjarne
2020. On the Performative Use of the Past Participle in German. Journal of Germanic Linguistics 32:4 ► pp. 335 ff. DOI logo
Bentzen, Kristine & Merete Anderssen
2019. The form and position of pronominal objects with non-nominal antecedents in Scandinavian and German. The Journal of Comparative Germanic Linguistics 22:2 ► pp. 169 ff. DOI logo
Weisser, Philipp
2019. Implicational Complement Coordination and beyond: Towards a coherent theory of asymmetric coordination in German. Zeitschrift für Sprachwissenschaft 38:1 ► pp. 81 ff. DOI logo
Molnár, Valéria
2015. The Predicationality Hypothesis. In Approaches to Hungarian [Approaches to Hungarian, 14], ► pp. 209 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 25 july 2024. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers. Any errors therein should be reported to them.