Cover not available

Article published In: Current trends in analyzing syntactic variation:
Edited by Ludovic De Cuypere, Clara Vanderschueren and Gert de Sutter
[Belgian Journal of Linguistics 31] 2017
► pp. 195–218

Get fulltext from our e-platform
JBE logo with link
PDF logo with download linkDownload PDF
authorization required

A corpus-based analysis of pronoun choice in German relative clauses

 | IDS Mannheim |
 | IDS Mannheim |
Published online: 23 April 2018
DOI logo with link
https://doi.org/10.1075/bjl.00008.bra
Abstract
This paper investigates the conditions that govern the choice between the German neuter singular relative pronouns das ‘that’ and was ‘what’. We show that das requires a lexical head noun, while in all other cases was is usually the preferred option; therefore, the distribution of das and was is most successfully captured by an approach that does not treat was as an exception but analyzes it as the elsewhere case that applies when the relativizer fails to pick up a lexical gender feature from the head noun. We furthermore show how the non-uniform behavior of different types of nominalized adjectives (positives allow both options, while superlatives trigger was) can be attributed to semantic differences rooted in syntactic structure. In particular, we argue that superlatives select was due to the presence of a silent counterpart of the quantifier alles ‘all’ that is part of the superlative structure.
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2. was as a default relativizer
    • 2.1Analysis: Inherent gender features trigger das
      • 2.1.1Syntax
      • 2.1.2Spelling out RP
      • 2.1.3Some further consequences of the analysis: wh-forms vs. d-forms
  • 3.Beyond the basic generalization
    • 3.1Distributive quantifiers: Cases of noun ellipsis
    • 3.2Deadjectival nouns
      • 3.2.1Anaphoric/elliptical readings
      • 3.2.2Non-elliptical readings: Nominalized positives
      • 3.2.3Non-elliptical readings: Nominalized superlatives
  • 4.Semantics/pragmatics and choice between das vs. was
    • 4.1Reference to objects as opposed to properties or propositional meanings
    • 4.2Particularization by means of das vs. totalization by means of was
  • 5.Concluding summary
  • Acknowledgements
  • Notes
  • References
References (36)
References
Alexiadou, Artemis. 2011. “Adjectival nominalizations: qualities and properties”. Paper presented at the Workshop on Nounhood and Adjectivehood , Barcelona, March 23–24th 2011.
. 2015. “Encoding properties: The case of English ‘nominalized’ adjectives”. Paper presented at Roots IV , NYU, June 29, 2015.
Bayer, Josef and Eleonore Brandner. 2008. “On wh-head-movement and the doubly-filled-comp filter”. In Proceedings of the 26th West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics, ed. by Charles B. Chang, and Hannah J. Haynie, 87–95. Somerville: Cascadilla Proceedings Project.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Behaghel, Otto. 1928. Deutsche Syntax. Eine geschichtliche Darstellung. Band 3: Die Satzgebilde. Heidelberg: C. Winter.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Benveniste, Emile. 1950. “La phrase nominale”. Bulletin de la Societé Linguistique de Paris 461: 19–36.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 1966. Problèmes de linguistique générale. Paris: Editions Gallimard.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Bierwisch, Manfred. 1967. “Syntactic features in morphology: general problems of so-called pronominal inflection in German”. In To Honor Roman Jakobson: Essays on the Occasion of His Seventieth Birthday, 239–270. The Hague: Mouton.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Blevins, James P. 1995. “Syncretism and Paradigmatic Opposition”. Linguistics and Philosophy 181: 113–152. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Bobaljik, Jonathan. 2012. Universals in Comparative Morphology. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Boef, Eefje. 2012. Doubling in Relative Clauses. Aspects of Morphosyntactic Microvariation in Dutch. Utrecht: LOT.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Brandt, Patrick, and Eric Fuß. 2014. “Most questionable pronouns: Variation between das- vs. was-relatives in German”. Linguistische Berichte 2391, 297–329.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2016. Relativpronomenselektion und grammatische Variation: was vs das . in attributiven Relativsätzen. Ms., IDS Mannheim.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Broekhuis, Hans, and Evelien Keizer. 2012. Syntax of Dutch. Nouns and Noun Phrases. Volume 1. Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Citko, Barbara. 2004. “On headed, headless, and light-headed relatives”. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 221: 95–126. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Curme, George O. 1922. A Grammar of the German Language. Second revised edition. [Ninth printing 1964]. New York: Ungar.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Cutting, Starr Willard. 1902. “Concerning the Modern German relatives, „das“ and „was“, in clauses dependent upon substantivized adjectives.” The Decennial Publications of the University of Chicago, Vol. VII1, 113–131. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Duden. 2016. Die Grammatik. 9th edition. Edited by Angelika Wöllstein, and the Duden editorial staff. Mannheim/Leipzig/Wien/ Zürich: Dudenverlag.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Fuß, Eric. 2017. „Relativierungsverhalten und syntaktische Kategorie substantivierter Adjektive“. In Probleme der syntaktischen Kategorisierung: Einzelgänger, Außenseiter und mehr, ed. by S. Döring, and J. Geilfuß-Wolfgang. Tübingen: Stauffenburg.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Grewendorf, Günther. 2012. “Wh-movement as topic movement”. In Functional Heads: The Cartography of Syntactic Structures, vol. 7, ed. by Laura Brugé, Anna Cardinaletti, Giuliana Giusti, Nicola Munaro, and Cecilia Poletto, 55–68. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Halle, Morris, and Alec Marantz. 1993. “Distributed Morphology and the pieces of inflection”. In The View from Building 20, ed. by Kenneth Hale, and Samuel J. Keyser, 111–176. Cambridge: The MIT Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Halle, Morris. 1997. “Distributed Morphology: Impoverishment and Fission”. In MIT Working Papers in Linguistics 30: PF: Papers At the Interface, ed. by B. Bruening, Y. Kang, and M. McGinnis, 425–450. Cambridge, Mass.: Department of Linguistics and Philosophy, MIT.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Harley, Heidi, and Elizabeth Ritter. 2002. “Structuring the bundle: A universal morphosyntactic feature geometry.” In Pronouns – grammar and representation, ed. by Horst J. Simon, and Heike Wiese, 23–39. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Heck, Fabian, and Juan Cuartero. 2011. “Long distance agreement in relative clauses.” In Local Modelling of Non-Local Dependencies in Syntax, ed. by A. Alexiadou, T. Kiss, and G. Müller, 49–83. Berlin: de Gruyter.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Holler, Anke. 2005. Weiterführende Relativsätze. Empirische und theoretische Aspekte. Berlin: Akademie Verlag.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Horn, Laurence R. 2000. “From IF to IFF: Conditional perfection as pragmatic strenghtening.” Journal of Pragmatics 321: 289–326 Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Kester, Ellen-Petra. 1996a. The nature of adjectival Inflection. PhD dissertation, Utrecht University.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 1996b. “Adjectival inflection and the licensing of empty categories in DP.” Journal of Linguistics 32 (1): 57–78. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Kiparsky, Paul. 1973. “‘Elsewhere’ in phonology”. In A Festschrift for Morris Halle, ed. by S. Anderson, and P. Kiparsky, 93–106. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 1982. “Word-formation and the lexicon”. In Proceedings of the 1982 Mid-America Linguistics Conference, ed. by F. Ingemann. University of Kansas.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Murelli, Adriano. 2012. “ Das Geheimnis, das oder was du mir verraten hast? – Das oder was als Relativpronomen”. In Grammatische Stolpersteine digital. Festschrift für Bruno Strecker zum 65. Geburtstag, ed. by M. Konopka, and R. Schneider, 145–152. Mannheim: Institut für Deutsche Sprache.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Sanders, Daniel. 1879. Deutsche Sprachbriefe. Berlin: Langenscheidt.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Sleeman, Petra. 2013. “Deadjectival human nouns: conversion, nominal ellipsis, or mixed category?” Linguística: revista de estudos linguísticos da Universidade do Porto 81: 159–180.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Wiese, Bernd. 1999. “Unterspezifizierte Paradigmen. Form und Funktion in der pronominalen Deklination“. Linguistik Online 41 ([URL])
. 2013. Relativpronomina: Flexion und Wortfelder. Ms., IDS Mannheim.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Zeijlstra, Hedde. 2012. “There is only one way to agree”. The Linguistic Review 291: 491–539. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2013. Upward Agree is superior. Ms., Unversity of Amsterdam.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Cited by (1)

Cited by one other publication

Moltmann, Friederike
2022. Names, Light Nouns, and Countability. Linguistic Inquiry 54:1 ► pp. 117 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 19 november 2025. 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.

Mobile Menu Logo with link to supplementary files background Layer 1 prag Twitter_Logo_Blue