Pronouns Workshop, Tübingen 15.11.2013
When personal pronouns compete with relative pronouns
Ewa Trutkowski & Helmut Weiß
Goethe-Universität, Frankfurt am Main
[email protected]
[email protected]
0. Topic
Agreement patterns in:
Non-restrictive relative clauses (NRRCs) with 1st/2nd person heads
Focussing on:
Standard German (though dialects/other languages will be considered as well)
Subject related relative clauses (RCs), i.e. head noun (HN) and relative pronoun
(RP) are nominative case marked
Outline of the talk:
Introduction of the phenomenon / empirical basis / hypotheses
Experimental investigation
Syntactic/semantic peculiarities associated with particular agreement patterns
Syntactic analysis
1. The phenomenon
There are two possibilities for the finite verb in an RC to agree with: Either with the
RP (1a) or with the HN (1b), eventually supported by an additional resumptive pronoun (ResP), (1c):
(1) a.
b.
c.
( )
* Ich, der sechzig ist,...
(RP agreement)
I, who.sg.masc sixty is
( )
* Ich, der sechzig bin,... (HN agreement)
I, who.sg.masc sixty am
Ich, der ich sechzig bin,... (HN agreement + ResP)
I, who.sg.masc I sixty am
Independently of the chosen agreement pattern, a mismatch is unavoidable:
Either (i) or (ii)
(i) disagreement between HN and RP
(ii) disagreement between RP and ResP (+ HN)
Ito & Mester (2000) postulate ungrammaticality when no ResP is present:
“First and second person pronominal heads demand corresponding agreement morphology on
the verb, i.e., default third person agreement is not permitted. At the same time, first and second person agreement morphology on the verb demands the presence, within the same clause,
2
of a corresponding subject to agree with. This problem is resolved by repeating the pronoun
that serves as the head of the relative as an internal subject precisely in such cases, i.e., precisely when needed to support non-third person singular agreement on the verb.”
Ito & Mester (2000): Mismatch can only be avoided when the finite verb is syncretic
between 1st/3rd person. Moreover, in such cases, insertion of a ResP is not obligatory:
(2)
a. Ich, der ich alles weiß/kann,...
I, who.sg.masc I everything know/can
b. Ich, der alles weiß/kann,...
I, who.sg.masc I everything know/can
c. Wir, die wir sechzig sind,...
We, who.pl we sixty are
d. Wir, die sechzig sind,...
We, who.pl sixty are
However: Insertion of a ResP does not seem to be obligatory, cf. (corpus) data (3)-(8):
RP agreement
(3) Ich, die sich ihr Leben allein aufgebaut hat, habe endlich jemanden1
I, who.sg.fem REFL her life by-myself arranged had, have finally someone
(4) Das fragst gerade du, der sich nicht einmal traut, mit seinem Kind offene
That ask especially you, who.sg.masc REFL not even dares, with his child open
Gespräche über die Gesellschaft zu führen2
conversations about the society to lead
(5) Ihr, die sich schon lange auf diesen Zeitpunkt vorbereitet haben, werdet
You.pl, who.pl REFL already for-long at this moment prepared have, will
schon im Innern gefühlt haben, was vor sich geht3
already in inside felt have, what in-front REFL goes (=what is going on)
HN agreement
(6) Und ich, der noch nie etwas über ebay gekauft habe 4
And I, who.sg.masc yet never something via ebay bought has
(7) Du, der heute den noch siehst, der uns‘re Wege lenkt5
You.sg, who.sg.masc today the-one still see, who our ways directs
(8) Ihr, die aus diesen abscheulichen Gemeinden nicht herauskommen wollt6
You.pl, who.pl out-of these despicable parishes not get-out will
(3)-(8) suggest:
(i) Non-insertion of ResP does not automatically lead to an ungrammatical structure
(ii) HN/RP-agreement in 1st/2nd person NRRCs may be subject to free variation
1
http://www.superillu.de/zeitvertreib/kinotv/sylvia-leifheit-traumhochzeit-auf-schloss-mirabell-die-highligtsauf-superillu
2
http://www.tacheles-sozialhilfe.de/forum/thread.asp?FacId=1839934
3
http://paoweb.org/download/channel/uriel/engel_uriel_13.02.12.pdf
4
http://schmerzwach.blogspot.de/2011/02/freunde-mal-drei.html
5
http://www.reinhard-mey.de/start/texte/alben/schade-da%C3%9F-du-gehen-mu%C3%9Ft
6
http://www.mcreveil.org/Allemand/journaux/german03.htm
3
Trutkowski & Weiß
Ad (ii): there is a strong preference, cf. Google-search (for „Ich, der noch nie“)
After 100 results: 98:2 for RP:HN agreement
Cf. Duden Online (as for a 1st sg HN): RP-agreement or HN agreement + ResP
(Duden does not offer sole HN agreement), cf. (9)-(10):
(9)
ich, der sich immer um Ausgleich bemüht
I, who.sg.masc REFL-3.pers always for balance strives
(10) ich, der ich mich immer um Ausgleich bemühe
I, who.sg.masc I REFL-1sg always for balance strives
Heck & Cuartero (2008)7 – contrary to Ito & Mester (2000) – ResP insertion is not a
conditio sine qua non for NRRCs with 1st/2nd person heads:
- Singular = number (RP) agreement | prediction: *(6), *(7)
- Plural = Person- (HN) agreement | prediction: *(5)
Questions (inter alia):
• How do NRRCs with 1st/2nd person sg/pl head nouns pattern (preferrably)?
• Modulu underspecification (cf. syncretisms): (Why) Is there free variation / optionality [+ (upcoming) language change]?
I.e., what enforces / allows departure from the (prescriptive) ResP strategy?
• What can 1st/2nd person NRRCs tell us about the general properties of (relative) pronouns and relative complementizers (Rcomp) as wo in nonstandard and dialect uses?
• Do the above described agreement patterns differ semantically (e.g. wrt binding)?
Trying to answer these questions via assumption of an ‘agreement chain’, cf.
Kratzer (2009), by looking at effects of departures from this agreement chain:
(i) HN (ii) RP (iii) ResP (iv) ‘co-agreeing’ elements (e.g. REFL) (v) V.fin-RC
[(vi) V.fin-matrix clause]
Before going on: necessary distinction between 1st/2nd person NRRCs and Clefts
Heck & Cuartero (2008) [H&C 2008] assume that RCs and clefts are structurally very
similar, cf. Schachter (1973), Chomsky (1977)
However: Clefts and RCs bear different agreement patterns:
NRRCs: “free”(?) variation wrt agreement
Clefts (no ‘HN’ agreement)
• Tests: Insertion of ResP: 1st person: (11), 3rd person: (12):
7
Cf. also Vogel (2007)
4
(11) a. *Weil ich es bin, der ich die ganze Arbeit mache
Because I it am, who.sg.masc I the whole work do
b. Ich, der ich die ganze Arbeit mache
I, who.sg.masc I the whole work do
(*Cleft)
( Rel.Satz)
(12) a. *Weil er es ist, der er Volljurist ist.
(*Cleft)
Because he it is, who.sg.masc he fully-qualified-lawyer is
b. Aber was macht er, der er immerhin Volljurist und seit
But what does he, who.sg.masc he after-all fully-qualified-lawyer and since
Jahrzehnten in der Politik aktiv ist?8
( Rel.Satz)
decades in the political-world active is
For a more detailed comparison of RCs and clefts see the appendix. As for now, we go
on by concluding that the above data speak against a unification of clefts and RCs.
2. Experimental validation of the agreement patterns
Neither Ito & Mester’s (2000) nor Heck & Cuartero’s (2008) view is based on a
broader empirical basis …
Hypotheses to be checked: (13) and (16) beneath (for now: only wrt the singular)
(13)
Predictions based on empirical observation/introspection
(i) RP agreement is preferred over HN agreement (without additional ResP)9
(ii) HN agreement is better when HN bears 1st person instead of 2nd person features
Ad (ii): suggested by ‘co-agreeing’ elements: reflexives, (14) / possessives, (15):
(14) a. Ich, die mich rasiere.
I, who.fem myself shave.1sg
b. ??Du, die dich rasierst.
You.sg, who.fem yourself shave.2sg
(15) a. Ich, die meine Oma besuche.
I, who.fem my grandma visit.1sg
b. ??Du, die deine Oma besuchst.
You.sg, who.fem your grandma visit.2sg
(16)
b. Predictions of Ito & Mester (2000), cf. empirical observation/introspection
(i) Both agreement patterns (HN & RP agreement) are ungrammatical. I.e., insertion of
a ResP is necessary.
(ii) Omission of the ResP only iff RC-V.fin is underspecified (due to syncretisms);
however, the form with additional ResP “sounds somewhat better”.
8
9
http://www.spiegel.de/politik/deutschland/kredit-enthuellung-wulffs-merkwuerdige-telefonate-a-806664.html
Cf. also Heck & Cuartero (2008): Sg = RP agreement and Pl = HN agreement
5
Trutkowski & Weiß
• Test items of Experiment 1 / Testing hypotheses (13i) and (16ii):
(17)
a.
b.
c.
Ich, die malen lerne, besuche jede Ausstellung. (HN agreement)
I, who-fem.sg to-paint learn.1sg, visit.1sg every exhibition
Ich, die malen kann, besuche jede Ausstellung. (syncretic verb form)
I, who-fem.sg to-paint can.1/3sg, visit.1sg every exhibition
Ich, die malen lernt, besuche jede Ausstellung. (RP agreement)
I, who-fem.sg to-paint learn.3sg, visit.1sg every exhibition
Results of Magnitude Estimation Experiment 1 (with Markus Bader10):
Relative clause ↓
1.
1./3. - syncretic
3.
Main clause
1.
0.0985504 (17a)
0.1689335 (17b)
0.1727277 (17c)
3.11
-0.01427608 (fn i)
0.05897805 (fn ii)
0.03891836 (fn iii)
[„Usual“ range of items between +0,3 und –0,3 // Results after the ratings of 24 subjects]
(18)
(a) RP agreement (17c) is preferred over HN agreement (17a)
(b) Syncretic forms (17b) do not improve acceptability // (17b) not better than (17c)
• Test items of Experiment 2 / Testing hypotheses (13ii) and (16i):
(19)
a.
b.
c.
Ich, die ich malen lerne, besuche jede Ausstellung. (HN-agr + ResP)
Ich, die malen lerne, besuche jede Ausstellung. (HN-agr)
Ich, die malen lernt, besuche jede Ausstellung. (RP-agr)
(20)
a.
b.
c.
Du, die du malen lernst, besuchst jede Ausstellung. (HN-agr + ResP)
Du, die malen lernst, besuchst jede Ausstellung. (HN-agr)
Du, die malen lernt, besuchst jede Ausstellung. (RP-agr)
Results of Magnitude Estimation Experiment 2 (also with Markus Bader)
Relative clause ↓
ResP
HN-agr
RP-agr
10
Main clause
1.
0.15269093 (19a)
0.09568524 (19b)
0.14682897 (19c)
2.
0.09244686 (20a)
0.02026255 (20b)
0.11238934 (20c)
Comment (wrt Experiment 1 and Experiment 2): We used 24x6 test sentences + fillers (from other experiments). The reference sentence was: „Ich glaube, dass den Bericht der Chef in seinem Büro gelesen hat.“
A negative number indicates „more acceptable than the reference sentence“, a negative number indicates „less
acceptable than the reference sentence“. Cf. for comparison:
#1 1 1 Der Opa hat gesagt, dass das Buch ihn schon erfreut hat. = 0.23
#1 1 2 Der Opa hat gesagt, dass das Buch schon ihn erfreut hat. = 0.04
11
Main clause 3rd person:
(i) RS: 1. Person: Ich, die malen lerne, besucht jede Ausstellung.
(ii) RS: 1./3. Person: Ich, die malen kann, besucht jede Ausstellung.
(iii) RS: 3. Person: Ich, die malen lernt, besucht jede Ausstellung
6
(21)
(a) No significant difference in acceptability between RP-agreement (19c, 20c) and
HN-agreement + ResP (19a, 20a)
(b) HN-agreement (without ResP) (19b, 20b) is significantly degraded
(c) There may be an interaction effect12: HN-agreement is better with the 1st than with
the 2nd person, when RC-V.fin is 3rd person.
Summary
o
o
o
o
o
Insertion of a ResP is not necessary.
Syncretisms do not improve the construction
ResP does not sound “somewhat better”.
RP agreement = the preferred pattern for the singular
HN agreement (of RC-V.fin) better with 1st person sg HN than 2nd person sg HN
(For the ANOVAs see appendix)
3. Semantic arguments in favour of particular agreement patterns
Generally:
• Different heads (sg vs. pl // 1st vs. 2nd) seem to demand different agreement patterns
• How is the (pseudo-)compatibility between head and RP and finite verb achieved?
• Can/Do features percolate? And if so: how; under which conditions?
Further tests/evidence via…
(i) Reflexive pronouns
(ii) Possessive pronouns … in the appendix
3.1 Reflexive pronouns in NRRCs with 1st/2nd person head
German: In contrast to .g. Polish, cf. (22), no „real“ reflexive pronouns (except ʽsich’
for the 3rd person), but object pronouns in reflexive use (with person, number and case
specifications), cf. (23)/(24):
(22) Ja *mnie/się wstydzę
I me-ACC/REFL shame
(Polish)
(23) Ich schäme mich/*sich/*den Hans
I shame me-ACC/REFL/the Hans-Acc
(German)
(24) Ich glaube mir/*sich /dem Hans
(German)
I believe me-DAT/REFL/the Hans-DAT
According to e.g. Bierwisch (2006) Reflexives occur in proper, (24), improper, (23),
and pseudo-argument positions. Pseudo-argument positions are of no interest here13.
12
As for now we have the judgements of 27 subjects.
7
Trutkowski & Weiß
Improper arguments must be bound in order to be interpretable
Separating real binding from pseudo-binding (= )
Table (25): (HN/RP) Reflexive … RC-V.fin have +/-identical person features
Person/ Pers/Num features
Number of REFL & V.fin
Proper argument
Improper argument
X, who REFL shaves
X, who REFL is-ashamed
1sg
2sg
1pl
2pl
+ identical
+ object pronoun
?Ich, die mich rasiere 
??Du, die dich rasierst
~ Wir, die uns rasieren
Ihr, die euch rasiert
?*Ich, die mich schäme
*Du, die dich schämst
~ Wir, die uns schämen
Ihr, die euch schämt
1sg
2sg
1pl
2pl
- identical
+ object pronoun
Ich, die mich rasiert 
Du, die dich rasiert 
~ Wir, die uns rasieren
*Ihr, die euch rasieren
*Ich, die mich schämt
*Du, die dich schämt
~ Wir, die uns schämen
*Ihr, die euch schämen
1sg
2sg
1pl
2pl
- identical
- object pronoun
*Ich, die sich rasiere
*Du, die sich rasierst
~ Wir, die sich rasieren
*Ihr, die sich rasiert
*Ich, die sich schäme
*Du, die sich schämst
~ Wir, die sich schämen
*Ihr, die sich schämt
1sg
2sg
1pl
2pl
+ identical
- object pronoun
Ich, die sich rasiert
Du, die sich rasiert
~ Wir, die sich rasieren
*Ihr, die sich rasieren
Ich, die sich schämt
Du, die sich schämt
~ Wir, die sich schämen
*Ihr, die sich schämen
~ = syncretic verb form
(26) Summary of the data / observation:
‘’ = pseudo-binding: Interpretation is possible although the agreement chain is interrupted – ok with proper, but not ok with improper arguments
“Real” binding: agreement chain is intact – ok with proper and improper arguments
Observation can be captured by a principle of Kratzer (2009:196):
If a ʻreflexive direct object […] is a minimal pronoun bound by v, the reflexive and v
must share all of their phi-features via Feature Transmission under Binding’ (Kratzer
2009)
Bierwisch’s (2006:196) principle makes correct predictions as well: “Person and
number [features of a proper/improper reflexive, ET] must agree with the features of
the antecedent”, but he cannot account for the grammaticality of Wir, … sich. 14
13
Occuring only with “subjects without referential capacity” […] “restricted to sich”, cf. Bierwisch (2006:17),
(i) Es handelt sich hier um Prinzipien / It concerns itself here with principles // ‘Principles are at stake here’
14
Whereas Kratzer (2009) can attribute ~ Wir, die uns/sich schämen to the syncretic verb form.
8
• 1st/2nd person sg vs. pl RCs form different agreement chains: Singular: RP agreement
| Plural: HN agreement
= evidenced by the fact that 1st/2nd person NRRCs use two kinds of reflexive pronouns,
namely (i) 3rd person reflexives in the sg, and (ii) 1st/2nd person reflexives in the pl
Reflexive object pronouns can only be properly bound when occurring in a fully intact
agreement chain. Otherwise they occur freely (pseudo-bound).
(= analogous to possessive pronoun bindung in 1st/2nd person NRRCs, cf. appendix)
Summary:
(27) Bindung/coreference in NRRCs with 1./2. person heads
a. Binding is only possible under phi-identity with the features of V.fin
b. All remaining seemingly bound interpretations of 1st/2nd person (reflexive) pronouns
are pseudo-bound (coincidence of phi-features of subject and pronoun)
c. Supposition: different heads (sg: RP | pl: HN) of 1st/2nd person NRRCs in German
Hypothesis wrt (27c):
(28) Hypothesis ad feature percolation / agreement within the RC
a. V.fin of an RC agrees with the element that bears more phi-features (HN or RP)
b. When RP bears just as many phi-features as the HN, i.e., when the amount of features is “the same”, optionality is expected.
(29) RC agreement in German
1./2. Sg
1./2. Pl
HN features (1./2.) Person, Number
(1./2.) Person, Number
RP features Gender, (3.) Person, Number (3.) Person, Number
Pl: Agreement with the element that bears more phi-features (= HN)
Sg: Agreement with the element that conveys new/more specific information (= RP)
Evidence for (28): Polish (HN/(RP) agreement), Swabian (HN agreement)
Polish: A pro-drop language; HN agreement (RP agreement dispreferred but possible):
RP agreement
(30) Ja, która nigdy nie biegała o tej porze roku I, who-sg.fem never not run.3sg.fem at this time (of the) year –
ubrałam się tak: sweter, bluza i gruby bezrękawnik.15
clothe.1sg.fem REFL as-follows: sweater, blouse and big singlet
(31) Ty, który nigdy nie przestawał się śmiać i uśmiechać,
You, who never not stopped.3sg.masc REFL laughing and smiling,
15
http://na-szczycie-pragnien.blogspot.de/2012/11/po-dugiej-przerwie.html
Trutkowski & Weiß
9
nagle zaczął zamykać się w sobie.16
suddenly started close REFL in self
(32) Przez nich cierpimy MY, którzy poszli z duchem czasu.17
Because-of them suffer WE, who.mask-fem studied.3pl.fem
(33) Kochani Forumowicze i Wy, którzy mieli być kelnerem !18
Dear board members and you-pl, who.pl-masc supposed.3pl.masc to-be waiter
HN agreement
(34) Ja, która jestem naiwna i miła, znowu dostaję szału z twojego powodu19
I, who.sg.fem am naive and nice, again get.1sg crazy because-of your reason
(35) Maryjo, Ty, która byłaś tak uległa gdy Bóg o zgodę pytał Cię20
M, you.sg, who.sg.fem were.2sg.fem so mild when God about consent asked you
(36) My, które wchodzimy kuchennymi schodami21
We, who.pl.fem go-up.1pl kitchen’s stairs
(37) Wy, którzy Pana szukacie22
You-pl, who.pl.masc Godfather looking-for.2pl
(38) RC agreement in Polish
1./2. Sg
1./2. Pl
HN features (1./2.) Person, Number
(1./2.) Person, Number
RP features Gender, (3.) Person, Number Gender, (3.) Person, Number
(3rd person = underspecified, cf. non-person; Benveniste 1971, cf. Siewierska 2004)
Swabian: wo-Rcomp bears no phi-features; V.fin only distinctly marked in the sg.; Pl.
= one verb form
(39) a. I, wo mi/*si(ch) uffreg
I, Rcomp REFL.1sg/REFL.3pers upset.1sg
b. Du, wo di/*si(ch) uffregsch
You.sg, Rcomp REFL.2sg/REFL.3pers upset.2sg
(40) a. *I, wo mi/si(ch) uffregt
I, Rcomp REFL.1sg/REFL.3pers upset.3sg
b. *Du, wo di/si(ch) uffregt
You.sg, Rcomp REFL.2sg/REFL.3pers upset.3sg
16
http://nastek.pl/milosc/3453,Przyjazn-z-przywilejami
http://www.networld.pl/news/342488/Wielordzeniowe.procesory.to.nowe.wyzwanie.html?debug=1.html
18
http://forum.gazeta.pl/forum/w,410,138533033,138542201,Mialem_byc_kelnerem_zostalem_naganiaczem_kli
en_.html
19
http://www.tekstowo.pl/piosenka,kan_mi_youn,going_crazy.html
20
http://www.religijne.axt.pl/index.php?a=u&i=759
21
Title of a Swedish film from 1932
22
http://www.brewiarz.katolik.pl/indeksy/pokaz.php3?id=4&nr=136
17
10
(41) a. Mir, wo ons/*si(ch) uffreget
We, Rcomp REFL.1pl/REFL.3pers upset.pl
b. Ihr, wo euch/*si(ch) uffreget
You-pl, Rcomp REFL.2pl/REFL.3pers upset.pl
• HN agreement is always first choice, because neither in the sg nor in the pl can
Rcomp bear more/other phi-features than HN
(42) RC agreement in Swabian
1./2. Sg
1./2. Pl
HN features
Person, Number Person, Number
Rcomp features Person, Number Person, Number
Languages that follow principle (28a): Swabian, German plural, Italian, English…
Languages that follow principle (28b): German singular, Polish…
Problem wrt (28b): No account for preferred patterns (cf. German sg: RP agreement,
Polish: HN agreement)
4. Syntax
RC like (43a, b) pose a challenge for the syntactic analysis, because they contain two
seemingly distinct subjects with different phi-features: an RP which is marked for 3rd
person and masculine gender, and a personal pronoun in the 1st/2nd person respectively
without gender specification.
(43)
a.
b.
Ich, der ich schon sechzig bin, ...
I, who.sg.masc I sixty am
Du, der du schon sechzig bist, ...
You, who.sg.masc you sixty are
Though both pronouns are marked for NOM, it is always the personal pronoun that
agrees with the verb, if both are present. However, if the personal pronoun is absent,
the RP can trigger agreement with the verb as well. Therefore the RP must be a real
subject (and not a fake subject like the Vorfeld-es in German).
(44)
a.
b.
(45)
a.
b.
*Ich, der ich schon sechzig ist, ...
I, who.sg.masc I sixty is
*Du, der du schon sechzig ist, ...
You, who.sg.masc you sixty is
Ich, der schon sechzig ist, ...
I, who.sg.masc sixty is
Du, der schon sechzig ist, ...
You, who.sg.masc sixty is
Trutkowski & Weiß
11
Both pronouns thus differ in many respects, but it is intuitively rather likely that both
pronouns must form a syntactic unit in some sense. We will present an analysis which
can explain why we can have a two-part subject in these cases. There are at least two
possibilities for underlying structures:
1) RP and ResP forming a Big-DP (as for examples proposed for Left Dislocation,
cf. Grewendorf 2002);
2) RP and ResP as multiple Spell-Out of chain positions.
In the following we will argue for the second approach.
4.1 Structure of pronouns
Combining several assumptions made by, e.g., Wiltschko (1998), Freidin & Vergnaud
(2001), Fuß & Wratil (2013), we assume that:
• RP (being d-Pronouns) are of the category D (i.e., containing a bound morpheme in
D° and an agreement morpheme in AgrD°, cf. Wiltschko 1998 and others)
• weak personal pronouns are AgrD elements (expressing phi-features)
• strong pronouns are D elements
• A DP contains (at least) a D-, an AgrD, and an N-part
(46)
a.
b.
d-er Mann
[DP d- [AgrD er [NP Mann]]] (Wiltschko 1998: 149)
In contrast to Wiltschko (1998: 156f.), however, we assume that the NP projection is
present with personal pronouns (cf. Freidin & Vergnaud 2001). In our view, only weak
personal pronouns are AgrD (or φPs, cf. Roberts 2010), whereas strong personal pronouns are DETs, which can be combined with nouns (47a, b) – or modified by an RC.
In dialects like Bavarian which have clearly distinct forms of strong and weak pronouns, it becomes clear that it is the strong form which combines with the noun (cf.
47c-e). We leave open the question whether the NP is completely absent or only silent/empty with weak pronouns.
(47)
wir Linguisten
Weg mit ihm Deppen (internet example)23
away with him idiot
c.
wai’e des ned kapiert hob
because-Iw that not got have
‘because I didn’t get it’
d.
wai I Depp des ned kapiert hob
because Ist idiot that not got have
e.
*wai‘e Depp des ned kapiert hob
because Iw idiot that not got have
Thus, strong pronouns show a derivation as given in (48a): they enter the derivation in
the AgrD position, raise to D° where they were spelled out as strong pronouns, where23
a.
b.
It is often assumed that personal pronouns in the 3rd person cannot take an NP as a complement (cf. Lenerz
1993), but that seems not to be the case. Though very rarely, one can find examples like (47b) in the internet.
12
as the copy in the base position remains silent. In the case of weak pronouns, the pronoun is spelled out in AgrD (48b) and no raising to D occurs:
(48)
a.
b.
[DP Pronst [AgrD Pron [NP …
[DP [AgrD Pronw [NP …
4.2 Syntax of RC
As point of departure, we will assume that RCs in German are always introduced by a
complementizer wo/was (overtly in dialects and covertly in Standard German) (49a).
The RC can contain a gap (or silent pronoun) in the position of the relativized argument (cf. 49a), or a lexical item that spells it out. The dialects exhibit two different
strategies: (i) RP which spell-out the highest copy in SpecCP (49b), and (ii) ResP
spelling out a lower copy, e.g. in the Wackernagel position (49c) or in the base position (49d).
(49)
a.
b.
c.
d.
Der Maurermeister, wo/was bei uns gearbeitet hat
The bricklayer, Rcomp with us worked has
Der Maurermeister, der wo/was bei uns gearbeitet hat
The bricklayer, who.sg.masc. Rcomp with us worked has
Der Maurermeister, wos-er bei uns gearbeitet hat (Fleischer 2004)
The bricklayer, Rcomp-he with us worked has
Die Lyt, wo mer iber sy gschwätzt händ (Fleischer 2004)
The people, Rcomp we about them talked have
The ResP is the normal weak personal pronoun which behaves like any other weak
pronoun, e.g. it raises to the Wackernagel position (WP), if it is the subject or the direct object of the RC. The resumptive strategy may not be very common among German dialects, but it does exist, and there are even some dialects which use ResP not
only for indirect objects or complements of prepositions (as it is known from Swiss
German varieties). One of these dialects is the Middle German variety formerly spoken in Leibitz (or Lubica) in Slovakia. There ResP seem to be (or to have been)
obligatory in any case and they interact with other non-ResP in the normal way, e.g.
subject clitics intervene between the complementizer and object resumptives (cf. 50a,
b).
(50)
a.
b.
(51)
a.
b.
dr maorermeystr, vozǝr bae uns hat gǝorpt
the bricklayer, Rcomp-he with us has worked
s waep, vosǝs uns gǝšpon hat
the woman, Rcomp-it us spun has
dr man vos yχ nǝn deu sæ
the man Rcomp I him there see
dy frao vost zǝ deu zyst
the woman Rcomp-2sg her there see
Trutkowski & Weiß
13
However, only a minority of German dialects uses (or used to use) ResP, whereas the
vast majority exhibit the RP-strategy.
4.3 Analysis
In RCs under 1st/2nd person pronouns, the underlying derivation for a sentence like
(52b) looks like (52c): the pronoun with its articulated structure (= 52a) is merged in
its base position, then raised first to the WP and finally to SpecCP. The spell-out forms
in both landing sites differ, because in the WP the AgrD part is spelled out as a weak
personal pronoun and in SpecCP the D-part as an RP:
(52)
a.
b.
c.
[DP der [AgrD ich [NP e ]]]
Who.sg.masc. I
Ich, der (wo) ich malen lerne
Ich, [CP [DP der [AgrD ich [NP e ]]]i [C‘ (wo) [WP [DP der [AgrD ich [NP e ]]]i
[TP … [DP der [AgrD ich [NP e ]]]i malen lernst …
Note that different spell-out forms are also attested in other cases of pronoun movement, cf. (53a, b), so that is not particular for our case:
(53)
a.
b.
Was glaubst du, wer morgen kommt
What think you, who tomorrow comes
Wer glaubst du, der morgen kommt
Who think you, the.sg.masc tomorrow comes
The feature mismatch is an inevitable consequence, since on the one hand 1st/2nd person pronouns in German are not specified for Gender and on the other hand, RP show
another person specification than 1st/2nd person pronouns do. The ongoing change from
HN-agreement (plus ResP) (43a, b) to RP-agreement (45a, b) as attested in our Experiment 2 may be interpreted as due to a tendency to avoid such mismatches within
the RC.
Our proposal makes the prediction that the ResP is a wPron, which seems to be borne
out by the data. However, that does not exclude stPron to be used as ResP, e.g. if they
are focused. On the other hand, in some cases the ResP can be even a null pronoun (=
pro), e.g. in Bavarian in the 2sg and pl (54a, b), where the pronominal CA allows for
pro-drop (Weiß 2005):
(54)
a.
b.
Du, der (wo-)sd pro a so a Depp bisd
You, the (Rcomp)-2sg pro a such an idiot are
Ös, de (wo-)ds pro sechane Deppm sads
You, the (Rcomp)-2pl pro such idiots are
As noted above, if a subject ResP is present, it always triggers agreement with the
verb. However, that seems not to be the reason for why a ResP must be present, otherwise it would be unexpected that even with objects a ResP is possible (cf. 55a, b).
Since objects do not agree with the verb in German, its spell-out cannot be motivated
14
with agreement. It may be the case that emphasis or focus play a role for ResP to get
spelled out.
(55)
a.
b.
Wir, die man (uns) leicht ärgern kann
We, who.pl one (us) easily tease can
Ihr, die man (euch) ärgern kann
You, who.pl one (you) easily tease can
There is still one issue to explain, namely the question why D is spelled out as dpronoun and not as strong personal pronoun? Why that should be the case is not apparent for two reasons: on the one hand, according to Wiltschko (1998), d- and pronouns are “the same lexical item”. And on the other hand, ‘doubling’ of personal pronoun is not excluded in principle, as many Flemish or Dutch dialects show which allow for pronoun doubling. In these cases, one copy is pronounced as weak or clitic
pronoun and the other one as strong pronoun (van Craenenbroeck & van Koppen 2008,
Barbiers et al. 2010):
(56)
a.
b.
c.
Ik paus da se zaailn kommen
I think that theycl theyst come
Ze heeft zij daar niks mee te maken
shew has shest there nothing with to do
‘She’s got nothing to do with it.’
Zij heeft zij daar niets mee te maken
shest has shest there nothing with to do
‘She has got nothing to do with it.’
(Wambeek Dutch)
(Flemish)
(Flemish Brabant)
As the examples (56b, c) show, it is in principle possible to pronounce the copy in
SpecCP as a (weak or strong) personal pronoun. For the moment, we assume in the
line of Wiltschko (1998)24 that the variable an RC must contain is spelled out as dpronoun when it has undergone A’-movement to SpecCP, and as a ResP when A’movement is not involved (or targets the WP).25 But why that should be so, is an open
question for the moment.
24
Wiltschko (1998: 174): “For semantic reasons, a relative clause needs to contain a variable: it is interpreted as
a predicate entering a predication relation with the head noun. […] In German, as in many other languages, the
variable is provided by the trace left behind by A’-movement of the d-word.”
25
In OHG, personal pronouns could introduce RC without an additional RC, cf. (i) and (ii):
(i) fater unser, thu in himilom bist
(ii) ir then christianiun namun intfangan eigut
15
Trutkowski & Weiß
Appendix
CLEFTS
Heck & Cuartero (2008): Person agreement is confined to plural heads:
(1)
a. Ihr, die immer Ärger macht, habt mir gerade noch gefehlt
You.pl, who.pl always trouble make-2pl, have me PRT PRT lacked
b. *Ihr, die immer Ärger machen, habt mir gerade noch gefehlt
You.pl, who.pl always trouble make-3pl, have me PRT PRT lacked
(2)
a. *Weil ich es bin, der die ganze Arbeit mache
Because I it am, who.sg.masc the whole work do-1sg
b. Weil ich es bin, der die ganze Arbeit macht
Because I it am, who.sg.masc the whole work do-3sg
c. *Weil du es bist, der die ganze Arbeit machst
Because you-sg it is-2sg, who.sg.masc the whole work do-2sg
d. Weil du es bist, der die ganze Arbeit macht
Because you-sg it is-2sg, who.sg.masc the whole work do-3sg
However, H&C (2008) proceed (partly) unsystematically (as for the singular, they only consider clefts; as for the plural, they consider RCs and clefts).
Consider (instead) (3) and (4):
(3)
NRRC
a.
Ich, die die ganze Arbeit mache,...
b.
Ich, die die ganze Arbeit macht,...
c.
Du, die die ganze Arbeit machst,...
d.
Du, die die ganze Arbeit macht,...
e.
Ihr, die die ganze Arbeit macht,...
f.
*Ihr, die die ganze Arbeit machen,...
Cleft-Konstruktion
a’. *weil ich es bin, die die ganze Arbeit mache.
b’. weil ich es bin, die die ganze Arbeit macht.
c’. *weil du es bist, die die ganze Arbeit machst.
d’. weil du es bist, die die ganze Arbeit macht.
e’. weil ihr es seid, die die ganze Arbeit macht.
(Heck & Cuartero 2008: ok; ET&HW: ??)
f’. weil ihr es seid, die die ganze Arbeit machen.
(Heck & Cuartero 2008: ??; ET&HW: ok)
(4)
NRRC sg (1st/2nd)
NRRC pl (2nd)
Cleft sg (1st/2nd)
Cleft pl (2nd)
HN agreement
ok
ok
*
ok / ET&HW: ??
RP agreement
ok
*
ok
ok / H&C (2008): ??
[1st person plural displays systematic syncretisms and is therefore not taken into consideration (by H&C 2008)]
16
EXPERIMENTS
ANOVA
Main clause
Relative clause
Main clause:Relative clause
Subject Analysis
F1
Df1 Df2
25.099 1
16
7.322 2
32
0.817 2
32
p
0.000
0.002
0.448
Item Analysis
F2
Df1 Df2
26.281 1
23
4.439 2
46
0.210 2
46
p
0.000
0.017
0.811
Subject Analysis
F1
Df1 Df2
26
7.023 1
3.217 2
52
0.407 2
52
Item Analysis
p
F2
Df1 Df2
0.014 9.353 1
23
0.048 5.760 2
46
0.668 0.245 2
46
p
0.006
0.006
0.783
Experiment 1
ANOVA
Main clause
Relative clause
Main clause:Relative clause
Experiment 2
BINDING/COREFERENCE
Possessive pronouns in NRRCs with 1st/2nd person heads (= analogous to (25))
Person/
Number
feature sharing of RP Test sentence
or HN & Poss & V.fin (X, who poss-pronoun grandma visit(s))
1sg
2sg
1pl
2pl
HN agreement
Poss = HN features
Sg: pseudo binding 
Pl: “real“ binding
Ichi , die meinei Oma besuche 
?Dui , die deinei Oma besuchst 
Wiri , die unserei Oma besuchen
Ihri , die eurei Oma besucht
1sg
2sg
1pl
2pl
RP agreement
Poss ≠ RP features
Sg: pseudo binding 
Pl: no binding
Ichi , die meinei Oma besucht 
Dui , die deinei Oma besucht 
Wiri , die unsere~i Oma besuchen
*Ihri , die eure Oma besuchen
1sg
2sg
1pl
2pl
HN agreement
Poss ≠ HN features
Sg: no binding
Pl: no binding
Ichi , die ihre*i/k Oma besuche
?Dui , die ihre*i/k Oma besuchst
Wiri , die ihre*i/k Oma besuchen / ?? binding
Ihri , die ihre*i/k Oma besucht
1sg
2sg
1pl
2pl
RP agreement
Poss = RP features
Sg: “real“ binding
Pl: no binding
Ichi , die ihrei/k Oma besucht
Dui , die ihrei/k Oma besucht
Wiri , die ihre*i/k Oma besuchen / ?? binding
*Ihri , die ihre Oma besuchen
Ad ResP + Binding: Possibly a Relativized Minimality effect (Rizzi 1990): intervening
ResP prevents bindung of the possessive pronoun:
(i)
a.
b.
Dui, der auf seinei/k Kinder aufpasst.
You-sg, who.sg.masc for his children cares.2=3sg
Dui, der du auf seine*i/k Kinder aufpasst.
Trutkowski & Weiß
17
References
Barbiers, Sjef, Koeneman, Olaf & Maria Lekakou (2010): Syntactic doubling and the structure of wh-chains. Journal of Linguistics 46: 1-46.
Benveniste, E. (1971) Problems in General Linguistics. Translated by Mary Elisabeth Meek.
Cora Gables, FA. University of Miami Papers
Bierwisch, M. (2006) German Reflexives as Proper and Improper Arguments. In: P. Brandt &
E. Fuß (eds.). Form, Structure, and Grammar: A Festschrift Presented to Günther Grewendorf on Occasion of his 60th Birthday, 15-35. Berlin: Akademie-Verlag.
Craenenbroeck, Jeroen & Koppen, Marjo (2008) Pronominal doubling in Dutch dialects: big
DPs and coordinations. In S. Barbiers, O. Koeneman & M. Lekakou (eds.) Microvariation in
syntactic doubling. Syntax and Semantics volume 36. Emerald, 207-239.
Fleischer, Jürg (2004): (2004): A Typology of Relative Clauses in German Dialects. In: Kortmann, Bernd (Hrsg.): Dialectology meets Typology. Dialect Grammar from a CrossLinguistic Perspective. Berlin, New York, S. 211-245.
Freidin, Robert & Jean-Roger Vergnaud (2001): „Exquisite connections: Some remarks on
the evolution of linguistic theory.“ Lingua 111, 639-666.
Fuss, Eric & Wratil, Meláni (2013) Der Nullsubjektzyklus: Etablierung und Verlust von
Nullargumenten. In:Jürg Fleischer & Horst Simon (hrsg.), Comparing Diachronies. Tübingen:
Niemeyer.
Heck, F. & J. Cuartero (2008) Long Distance Agreement in Relative Clauses. In: Heck, F., G.
Müller & J. Trommer (eds.) Varieties of Competition, 13-48. Linguistische Arbeitsberichte
(Uni Leipzig) Band 87.
Ito, J. & A. Mester (2000) Ich, der ich sechzig bin: An Agreement Puzzle. In: Chung, S., J.
McCloskey & N. Sanders (eds.) Jorge Hankamer WebFest. Internet-Publikation. URL:
http://ling.ucsc.edu/Jorge/ito mester.html
Kratzer, A. (2009) Making a Pronoun: Fake Indexicals as Windows into the Properties of
Pronouns. Linguistic Inquiry 40(2). 187-237.
Lenerz, Jürgen (1993): Zur Syntax und Semantik deutscher Personalpronomina.In: Reis,
Marga (eds.): Wortstellung und Informationsstruktur. Tübingen: Niemeyer, 117-153.
Rizzi (1990) Relativized Minimality. Cambridge. MIT Press
Roberts, Ian (2010) Agreement and head movement. : clitics, incorporation, and defective
goals. Cambridge, Mass: MIT Press.
Siewierska, A. (2004) Person. Cambridge. CUP
Vogel, R. (2007/8) „Ich, der ich . . .“ Seminar Syntax und Morphologie, Wintersemester
2007/2008. Universität Bielefeld.
Weiß, Helmut (2005) Inflected complementizers in Continental West Germanic Dialects.
Zeitschrift für Dialektologie und Linguistik 72,2: 148-166.
Wiltschko, Martina (1998) On the Syntax and Semantics of (Relative) Pronouns and
Determiners. The Journal of Comparative Germanic Linguistics 05-1998, Volume 2, Issue 2,
143-181.