{"id":802,"date":"2010-08-15T10:00:12","date_gmt":"2010-08-15T08:00:12","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/elanguage.net\/blogs\/booknotices\/?p=802"},"modified":"2010-06-14T14:08:02","modified_gmt":"2010-06-14T12:08:02","slug":"comparative-studies-in-germanic-syntax","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/journals.linguisticsociety.org\/booknotices\/?p=802","title":{"rendered":"Comparative studies in Germanic syntax"},"content":{"rendered":"
Comparative studies in Germanic syntax: <\/strong>From Afrikaans to Zurich German. Ed. By Jutta M. Hartmann<\/strong> and L\u00e1szl\u00f3 Moln\u00e1rfi<\/strong>. (Linguistik aktuell\/Linguistics today 97.) Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 2006. Pp. vi, 332. ISBN 9789027233615<\/a>. $188 (Hb).<\/div>\n

Reviewed by Jim Paul Wood<\/strong>, University of New Hampshire<\/em><\/p>\n

A collection of papers from the Twentieth Comparative Germanic Syntax Workshop in Tilburg, June 2005, this volume contains ten papers divided into three thematic parts: predication, the (pro)nominal system, and diachrony. The editors make their commitment to the comparative approach explicit by requiring each paper to study at least two Germanic languages in detail.<\/p>\n

<\/strong><\/p>\n

Part 1 presents studies of predication. In \u2018The Nom\/Acc alternation in Germanic\u2019 (13\u201350), Halld\u00f3r \u00c1rmann Sigur\u00f0sson<\/strong> observes that relatively case-poor languages tend to assign accusative case to objects in predicative constructions, whereas relatively case-rich languages assign nominative case in the same situation. He defends a view in which the difference between, for example, English and Icelandic is whether case marking differentiates between determiner phrases (DPs) or arguments, respectively.<\/p>\n

In \u2018Shape conservation, Holmberg\u2019s generalization and predication\u2019 (51\u201387), Olaf Koeneman<\/strong> argues that Anders Holmberg\u2019s generalization (i.e. that object shift is fed by verb-raising) is best accounted for in narrow syntax as shape conservation, ensuring a linear uniformity between phonological form (PF) and logical form (LF).<\/p>\n

Mark de<\/strong> Vos<\/strong>\u2019s \u2018Quirky verb-second in Afrikaans: Complex predicates and head movement\u2019 (89\u2013114) focuses on a construction in which a conjoined verb string occupies the verb second position in Afrikaans. He concludes that some instances of head movement cannot be reduced to remnant or phonological movement.<\/p>\n

Marit Julien<\/strong> closes out the predication section with \u2018Nominal arguments and nominal predicates\u2019 (115\u201340). Julien demonstrates that the nominal predicate\/argument distinction is not a structural difference, as predicative and argumental nominal phrases can be equally large or small. The difference, he proposes, must be in the semantics.<\/p>\n

Part 2 contains three papers on pronominals. Dorian<\/strong> Roehrs<\/strong>\u2019s \u2018Pronominal noun phrases, number specifications, and null nouns\u2019 (143\u201380) analyzes pronominal noun phrases in which the pronoun and head noun disagree semantically but agree morphologically (e.g. German Sie verrotztes Nichts <\/em>\u2018you snotty nothing\u2019 with plural morphology and singular semantics) and vice versa. He argues that the apparently disagreeing head nouns are actually in a specifier position, while the pronoun agrees with a null noun in a head position.<\/p>\n

In \u2018Toward a syntactic theory of number neutralization: The Dutch pronouns je<\/em> \u2018you\u2019 and ze<\/em> \u2018them\u2019\u2019 (181\u2013200), Gertjan Postma<\/strong> extends Richard Kayne\u2019s theory of number neutralization to Dutch third-person pronouns. Postma argues that two syntactic distributors, one taking an A-antecedent and the other an A\u2019-antecedent, are responsible for apparent plural use of singular pronouns.<\/p>\n

In \u2018Long relativization in Zurich German as resumptive prolepsis\u2019 (201\u201334), Martin Salzmann <\/strong>proposes an analysis for resumptive pronouns in Zurich German long-distance relative clauses that parallels English tough-<\/em>movement.<\/p>\n

Part 3 includes three historical studies. In \u2018Auxiliary selection and counterfactuality in the history of English and Germanic\u2019 (237\u201362), Thomas McFadden<\/strong> and Artemis<\/strong> Alexiadou<\/strong> present convincing evidence that the appearance of have <\/em>in English perfects was directly related to a rise in the use of counterfactuals in perfect constructions. Be <\/em>is shown to be incompatible with past-tense counterfactual semantics.<\/p>\n

Theresa Biberauer<\/strong> and Ian Roberts<\/strong>, in \u2018Loss of residual \u201chead-final\u201d orders and remnant fronting in Late Middle English: Causes and consequences\u2019 (263\u201397), analyze head-final word orders in Middle English as instances of optional pied piping of the verb phrase rather than the DP to the specifier of inflection (Spec,Infl\u00b0). Carola Trips<\/strong> concludes with \u2018Syntactic sources of word-formation processes: Evidence from Old English and Old High German\u2019 (299\u2013329). She analyzes word formation in English and German diachronically, focusing on how formerly syntactic processes can eventually be reanalyzed by language-acquirers as morphological and arguing that syntax and morphology build structure differently.<\/p>\n

The papers are well chosen, often presenting previously un- or underdiscussed data from a variety of perspectives. The contributors illustrate the usefulness of the comparative approach to reach a deeper understanding of natural language syntax in general and Germanic languages in particular.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Comparative studies in Germanic syntax: From Afrikaans to Zurich German. Ed. By Jutta M. Hartmann and L\u00e1szl\u00f3 Moln\u00e1rfi. (Linguistik aktuell\/Linguistics today 97.) Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 2006. Pp. vi, 332. ISBN 9789027233615. $188 (Hb). Reviewed by Jim Paul Wood, University of New Hampshire A collection of papers from the Twentieth Comparative Germanic Syntax Workshop in Tilburg, […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":3,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":[],"categories":[],"tags":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/journals.linguisticsociety.org\/booknotices\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/802"}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/journals.linguisticsociety.org\/booknotices\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/journals.linguisticsociety.org\/booknotices\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/journals.linguisticsociety.org\/booknotices\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/3"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/journals.linguisticsociety.org\/booknotices\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=802"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/journals.linguisticsociety.org\/booknotices\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/802\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":803,"href":"https:\/\/journals.linguisticsociety.org\/booknotices\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/802\/revisions\/803"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/journals.linguisticsociety.org\/booknotices\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=802"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/journals.linguisticsociety.org\/booknotices\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=802"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/journals.linguisticsociety.org\/booknotices\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=802"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}