Hostname: page-component-77f85d65b8-hzqq2 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-04-20T09:07:29.999Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The development of the declarative complementizer in German

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 January 2026

Katrin Axel-Tober
Katrin Axel-Tober*
Affiliation:
University of Tübingen
*
[katrin.axel-tober@uni-tuebingen.de]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

It is standardly assumed that the German declarative dass-complementizer evolved from the demonstrative pronoun (Old High German thaz) used cataphorically. On this analysis, the source structure would be a paratactic sequence of two sentences in which thaz occurred in the final position of the first clause and pointed forward to the content of the second clause. Out of this structure, thaz developed into a subordinate conjunction/complementizer via a shift of the clause boundary (as in Mary knows that: Peter is lying → Mary knows that Peter is lying). This article takes issue with the standard assumption and puts forward an alternative account in which the declarative complementizer developed from a correlative construction (as in Mary knows that, that Peter is lying). The correlative construction (arguably also with an optionally silent correlative) is robustly attested in the old Germanic and old Indo-European languages. The source structure was thus not a sequence of syntactically independent clauses, but a hypotactic structure with an explicative relative clause associated with a silent correlative element in the main clause. In line with the hypothesis currently under discussion—that apparent noun-complement clauses are in fact relative clauses—it is argued that the explicative clause in the correlative structure was a relative clause, and thus the declarative complementizer developed from the relative complementizer thaz. The syntactic reanalyses involved in this new scenario are far less radical than in the traditional one. The new scenario is furthermore supported by crosslinguistic evidence: the development of relativizers into complementizers is a frequently attested grammaticalization path.

Keywords

complementizercomplement clauserelative clauseOld High Germanreanalysis

Information

Type
Historical Syntax
Information
Language , Volume 93 , Issue 2 , June 2017 , pp. e29 - e65
Copyright
Copyright © 2017 Linguistic Society of America

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Afros, Elena. 2006. Gothic relative and explicative clauses introduced by enclitic ei. Amsterdamer Beiträge zur älteren Germanistik 61. 5–16. DOI: 10.1163/18756719-061001002.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Afros, Elena. 2010. Gothic relative clauses introduced by izei and sei revisited. Amsterdamer Beiträge zur älteren Germanistik 66. 5–20. DOI: 10.1163/18756719-066001002.10.1163/18756719-066001002CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Allen, Cynthia Louise. 1977. Topics in diachronic English syntax. Amherst: University of Massachusetts dissertation. Althochdeutsches Wörterbuch: Auf Grund der von Elias von Steinmeyer hinterlassenen Sammlungen im Auftrag der Sächsischen Akademie der Wissenschaften zu Leipzig begründet von Elisabeth Karg-Gasterstädt und Theodor Frings. vol. 2: C-D, ed. by Grosse, Rudolf. Berlin: Akademie, 1970–1997.Google Scholar
Arsenijević, Boban. 2009. Clausal complementation as relativization. Lingua 119. 39–50. DOI: 10.1016/j.lingua.2008.08.003.10.1016/j.lingua.2008.08.003CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Axel, Katrin. 2007. Studies on Old High German syntax: Left sentence periphery, verb movement and verb-second. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.10.1075/la.112CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Axel, Katrin. 2009. Die Entstehung des dass-Satzes—ein neues Szenario. Koordination und Subordination im Deutschen (Special issue of Linguistische Berichte 16), ed. by Ehrich, Veronika, Fortmann, Christian, Reich, Ingo, and Reis, Marga, 21–41. Hamburg: Buske.Google Scholar
Axel-Tober, Katrin. 2012. (Nicht-)kanonische Nebensätze im Deutschen: Synchrone und diachrone Aspekte. Berlin: De Gruyter.10.1515/9783110276671CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Axel-Tober, Katrin, Holler, Anke; and Trompelt, Helena. 2016. Correlative es vs. das in German: An empirical perspective. Inner-sentential propositional proforms: Syntactic properties and interpretative effects, ed. by Frey, Werner, André, Meinunger, and Schwabe, Kerstin, 49–72. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bayer, Josef. 1995. On the origin of sentential arguments in German and Bengali. Studies in comparative Germanic syntax, ed. by Haider, Hubert, Olsen, Susan, and Vikner, Sten, 47–75. Dordrecht: Kluwer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bayer, Josef. 1996. Directionality and logical form: On the scope of focusing particles and wh-in-situ. Dordrecht: Kluwer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bayer, Josef. 2001. Two grammars in one: Sentential complements and complementizers in Bengali and other South Asian languages. The yearbook of South Asian languages: Tokyo Symposium on South Asian Languages—Contact, convergence and typology, ed. by Bhaskararao, Peri and Subbarao, Karumuri Venkata, 11–36. New Delhi: Sage.Google Scholar
Behaghel, Otto. 1877. Über die Entstehung der abhängigen Rede und die Ausbildung der Zeitfolge im Altdeutschen. Paderborn: Schöningh.Google Scholar
Behaghel, Otto. 1928. Deutsche Syntax: Eine geschichtliche Darstellung. Vol. 3: Die Satzgebilde. Heidelberg: Winter.Google Scholar
Bianchi, Valentina. 1999. Consequences of antisymmetry: Headed relative clauses. Berlin: De Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Breindl, Eva. 1989. Präpositionalobjekte und Präpositionalobjektsätze im Deutschen. Tübingen: Niemeyer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Buridant, Claude. 2000. Grammaire nouvelle de l'ancien français. Paris: SEDES.Google Scholar
BÜring, Daniel. 1995. On the base position of embedded clauses in German. Linguistische Berichte 159. 370–80.Google Scholar
Cha, Jong-Yul. 1998. Relative clause or noun complement clause: The diagnoses. Selected papers from the 11th International Conference on Korean Linguistics, ed. by Park, Byung-Soo and Hye, James Yoon, Suk, 73–82. Seoul: International Circle of Korean Linguistics.Google Scholar
Cleasby, Richard, and Vigfusson, Gudbrand. 1874. An Icelandic-English dictionary. Oxford: Clarendon.Google Scholar
Dal, Ingerid. 1966. Kurze deutsche Syntax auf historischer Grundlage. 3rd edn. Tübingen: Niemeyer.Google Scholar
Dorchenas, Ingeborg. 2005. Etymologie und Syntax der Konjunktion ‘daß’ in der deutschen Grammatik von ihren Anfängen bis 1800 vor dem Hintergrund antiker und moderner ‘daß’-Forschung. Berlin: Rhombos.Google Scholar
Downing, Bruce Theodore. 1970. Syntactic structure and phonological phrasing in English. Austin: University of Texas, Austin dissertation.Google Scholar
Ebert, Robert Peter. 1978. Historische Syntax des Deutschen. Stuttgart: Metzler.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Erdmann, Oskar. 1874. Untersuchungen über die Syntax der Sprache Otfrids. 2 vols. Halle: Waisenhauses.Google Scholar
Faarlund, Jan Terje. 1994. Old and Middle Scandinavian. The Germanic languages, ed. by König, Ekkehard and van, Johan Auwera, der, 38–71. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Fabricius-Hansen, Cathrine, and Stechow, Arnim von. 1989. Explikative und implika- tive Nominalerweiterungen im Deutschen. Zeitschrift für Sprachwissenschaft 8. 173. 205. DOI: 10.1515/zfsw.1989.8.2.173.10.1515/zfsw.1989.8.2.173CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ferraresi, Gisella. 1991. Die Stellung des gotischen Verbs im Lichte eines Vergleichs mit dem Althochdeutschen. Venice: University of Venice master's thesis.Google Scholar
Ferraresi, Gisella, and WEIß, Helmut. 2011. Al die wîle und ich lebe<: Und nicht nur koordinierend. Satzverknüpfungen: Zur Interaktion von Form, Bedeutung und Diskursfunktion, ed. by Breindl, Eva, Ferraresi, Gisella, and Volodina, Anna, 79–106. Berlin: De Gruyter. DOI: 10.1515/9783110252378.79.10.1515/9783110252378.79CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fleischer, Jürg. 2004. A typology of relative clauses in German dialects. Dialectology meets typology: Dialect grammar from a cross-linguistic perspective, ed. by Kortmann, Bernd, 211–43. Berlin: De Gruyter.Google Scholar
Fleischer, Jürg. 2005. Relativsätze in den Dialekten des Deutschen: Vergleich und Typologie. Dialektologie an der Jahrtausendwende (Linguistik online 24), ed. by Christen, Helen, 171–86. Online: http://www.linguistik-online.de/24_05/fleischer.html.10.13092/lo.24.642CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fleischmann, Klaus. 1973. Verbstellung und Relieftheorie: Ein Versuch zur Geschichte des deutschen Nebensatzes. Munich: Fink.Google Scholar
Freywald, Ulrike. 2009. Kontexte für nicht-kanonische Verbzweitstellung: V2 nach ‘dass’ und Verwandtes. Koordination und Subordination im Deutschen (Special issue of Linguistische Berichte 16), ed. by Ehrich, Veronika, Fortmann, Christian, Reich, Ingo, and Reis, Marga, 113–34. Hamburg: Buske.Google Scholar
Freywald, Ulrike. 2010. Obwohl vielleicht war es ganz anders: Vorüberlegungen zum Alter der Verbzweitstellung nach subordinierenden Konjunktionen. Historische Textgrammatik und Historische Syntax des Deutschen, ed. by Ziegler, Arne, 55–84. Berlin: De Gruyter.10.1515/9783110219944.55CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gebhardt, August. 1907. Grammatik der Nürnberger Mundart, with Otto Bremer. Leipzig: Breitkopf & Härtel.Google Scholar
Haag, Earl C. 1982. A Pennsylvania German reader and grammar. University Park: Pennsylvania State University Press.Google Scholar
Haegeman, Liliane. 2012. Adverbial clauses, main clause phenomena, and the composition of the left periphery. Oxford: Oxford University Press.10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199858774.001.0001CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Haegeman, Liliane, and Ürögdi, Barbara. 2010. Referential CPs and DPs: An operator movement account. Theoretical Linguistics 36. 111–52. DOI: 10.1515/thli.2010.008.Google Scholar
Haider, Hubert. 1994. Detachment—the later, the deeper. Working papers of the SFB 340 41 (Universities of Stuttgart and Tübingen).Google Scholar
Haider, Hubert. 1996. Downright down to the right. On extraction and extraposition, ed. by Lutz, Uli and Pafel, Jürgen, 245–71. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Harbert, Wayne. 1983. On the nature of the matching parameter. The Linguistic Review 2. 237–84.Google Scholar
Harbert, Wayne. 1992. Gothic relative clauses and syntactic theory. On Germanic linguistics: Issues and methods, ed. by Rauch, Irmengard, Carr, Gerald F., and Kyes, Robert L., 109–46. Berlin: De Gruyter.Google Scholar
Harbert, Wayne. 2007. The Germanic languages. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Harbert, Wayne. 2012. Contrastive linguistics and language change: Reanalysis in Germanic relative clauses. Languages in Contrast 12. 27–46. DOI: 10.1075/lic.12.1.03har.10.1075/lic.12.1.03harCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Harris, Alice C., and Campbell, Lyle. 1995. Historical syntax in cross-linguistic perspective. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Heim, Irene, and Kratzer, Angelika. 1998. Semantics in generative grammar. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Heine, Bernd, and Kuteva, Tania. 2002. World lexicon of grammaticalization. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9780511613463CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Helgander, John. 1971. The relative clause in English and other Germanic languages: A historical and analytical survey. Gothenburg: University of Gothenburg dissertation.Google Scholar
Hellquist, Elof. 1922. Svensk etymologisk ordbok. Lund: Gleerup.Google Scholar
Hettrich, Heinrich. 1988. Untersuchungen zur Hypotaxe im Vedischen. Berlin: De Gruyter.10.1515/9783110892123CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Heusler, Andreas. 1967. Altisländisches Elementarbuch. 7th edn. Heidelberg: Winter.Google Scholar
Hinterhölzl, Roland, and Petrova, Svetlana. 2010. From V1 to V2 in West Germanic. Lingua 120. 315–28. DOI: 10.1016/j.lingua.2008.10.007.10.1016/j.lingua.2008.10.007CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hopper, Paul J., and Traugott, Elizabeth Closs. 1993. Grammaticalization. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Horaček, Blanka. 1964. Kunstprinzipien der Satzgestaltung: Studien zu einer inhaltbezogenen Syntax der deutschen Dichtersprache. Vienna: Böhlau.Google Scholar
Huang, C.-T. James. 1982. Logical relations in Chinese and the theory of grammar. Cambridge, MA: MIT dissertation.Google Scholar
Inaba, Jiro. 2007. Die Syntax der Satzkomplementierung: Zur Struktur des Nachfeldes im Deutschen. Berlin: Akademie.10.1524/9783050087290CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Johnk, Linn Dale. 1979. Complementation in Old High German. Austin: University of Texas, Austin dissertation.Google Scholar
Kayne, Richard S. 1994. The antisymmetry of syntax. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Kayne, Richard S. 2014. Why isn't this a complementizer? Functional structure from top to toe, ed. by Svenonius, Peter, 188–231. New York: Oxford University Press.10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199740390.003.0007CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kiparsky, Paul. 1995. Indo-European origins of Germanic syntax. Clause structure and language change, ed. by Battye, Adrian and Roberts, Ian, 140–69. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Klamer, Marian. 2000. How report verbs become quote markers and complementisers. Lingua 110. 69–98. DOI: 10.1016/S0024-3841(99)00032-7.10.1016/S0024-3841(99)00032-7CrossRefGoogle Scholar
König, Ekkehard, and van, Johan Auwera, der. 1988. Clause integration in German and Dutch conditionals, concessive conditionals and concessives. Clause combining in grammar and discourse, ed. by Haiman, John and Thompson, Sandra A., 101–33. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Kratzer, Angelika. 2006. Decomposing attitude verbs. Talk given at The Hebrew University of Jerusalem. Online: http://semarch.linguistics.fas.nyu.edu/Archive/DcwY2JkM/attitude-verbs2006.pdf.Google Scholar
Lehmann, Christian. 1984. Der Relativsatz: Typologie seiner Strukturen, Theorie seiner Funktionen, Kompendium seiner Grammatik. Tübingen: Gunter Narr.Google Scholar
Lehmann, Christian. 1988. Towards a typology of clause linkage. Clause combining in grammar and discourse, ed. by Haiman, John and Thompson, Sandra A., 181–225. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.10.1075/tsl.18.09lehCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lehmann, Christian. 1995. Relativsätze. Syntax: Ein internationales Handbuch zeitgenössischer Forschung/An international handbook of contemporary research, ed. by Jacobs, Joachim, Stechow, Arnim von, Sternefeld, Wolfgang, and Vennemann, Theo, 1199–1216. Berlin: De Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lehmann, Winfred Philipp. 1986. A Gothic etymological dictionary. Leiden: Brill.10.1163/9789004610538CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lenerz, Jürgen. 1984. Syntaktischer Wandel und Grammatiktheorie: Eine Untersuchung an Beispielen aus der Sprachgeschichte des Deutschen. Tübingen: Niemeyer.10.1515/9783111633312CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Liberman, Mark. 2007. Gapless relatives. Language Log, October 14, 2007. Online: http://itre.cis.upenn.edu/myl/languagelog/archives/005019.html.Google Scholar
Lockwood, William Burley. 1968. Historical German syntax. Oxford: Clarendon.Google Scholar
Longobardi, Giuseppe. 1994. La posizione del verbo gotico e la sintassi comparata dei complementatori germanici: Alcune riflessioni preliminari. Miscellanea di studi linguistici in onore di Walter Belardi, ed. by Cipriano, Palmira, Giovine, Paolo Di, and Mancini, Marco, 353–73. Rome: Il Calamo.Google Scholar
Lühr, Rosemarie. 2004. Der Nebensatz in der Westgermania. Die Indogermanistik und ihre Anrainer: Dritte Tagung der Vergleichenden Sprachwissenschaftler der Neuen Länder, stattgehabt an der Ernst-Moritz-Arndt-Universität zu Greifswald in Pommern am 19. und 20. Mai 2000, ed. by Poschenrieder, Thorwald, 161–79. Innsbruck: IBS.Google Scholar
Lühr, Rosemarie. 2008a. Competitive Indo-European syntax. Principles of syntactic reconstruction, ed. by Ferraresi, Gisella and Goldbach, Maria, 121–59. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Lühr, Rosemarie. 2008b. Sentence embedding in Old Indo-European languages. Paper presented at the workshop Syntax under Lexical Rule: The Case of Clause-Embedding Predicates, December 12-13, 2008, Zentrum für Allgemeine Sprachwissenschaft, Berlin.Google Scholar
Lühr, Rosemarie. 2012. Komplementsätze im Indoiranischen. Historische Sprachforschung 125. 227–41. Online: http://www.jstor.org/stable/24433403.Google Scholar
Manzini, M. Rita. 2014. The Romance k-complementizers. Functional structure from top to toe, ed. by Svenonius, Peter, 148–87. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Matsumoto, Yoshiko. 1997. Noun-modifying constructions in Japanese. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mendoza, Imke. 2007. Relativsätze in den Birkenrindentexten. Linguistische Beiträge zur Slavistik XIII, ed. by Junghanns, Uwe, 49–62. Munich: Sagner.Google Scholar
Meyer, Roland. 2010. The C system of relatives and complement clauses in the history of Slavonic languages. Paper presented at the 32nd annual conference of the German Linguistic Society, Berlin, February 23-26, 2010.Google Scholar
Miller, D. Gary. 1975. The Gothic complementizers pammei and ei. Indogermanische Forschungen 80. 110–17. DOI: 10.1515/9783110243222.110.Google Scholar
Mitchell, Bruce. 1984. The origin of Old English conjunctions: Some problems. Historical syntax, ed. by Fisiak, Jacek, 271–99. Berlin: De Gruyter.Google Scholar
Moulton, Keir. 2009. Natural selection and the syntax of clausal complementation. Amherst: University of Massachusetts dissertation.Google Scholar
Moulton, Keir. 2014. Simple event nominalizations: Roots and their interpretation. Crosslinguistic investigations of nominalization patterns, ed. by Paul, Ileana, 119–44. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Müller, Gereon. 1996. On extraposition and successive cyclicity. On extraction and extraposition in German, ed. by Lutz, Uli and Pafel, Jürgen, 213–43. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Müller, Gertraud, and Frings, Theodor. 1959. Die Entstehung der deutschen ‘daß’- Sätze. 2nd edn. Berlin: Akademie.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nedoma, Robert. 2001. Kleine Grammatik des Altisländischen. Heidelberg: Winter.Google Scholar
Nichols, Lynn. 2003. Attitude evaluation in complex NPs. Formal approaches to function in grammar, ed. by Carnie, Andrew, Harley, Heidi, and Willie, MaryAnn, 155–64. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Noreen, Adolf. 1923. Altnordische Grammatik I: Altisländische und Altnorwegische Grammatik (Laut- und Flexionslehre) unter Berücksichtigung des Urnordischen. 4th edn. Halle (Saale): Niemeyer.Google Scholar
Paul, Hermann. 1920. Deutsche Grammatik. Vol. 5, part 4: Wortbildungslehre. Halle (Saale): Niemeyer.Google Scholar
Petrova, Svetlana. 2008. Zur Interaktion von Tempus und Modus im Deutschen: Studien zur Entwicklungsgeschichte des deutschen Konjunktivs. Heidelberg: Winter.Google Scholar
Pittner, Karin. 1995. The case of German relatives. The Linguistic Review 12. 197–231. DOI: 10.1515/tlir.1995.12.3.197.10.1515/tlir.1995.12.3.197CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Prell, Heinz-Peter. 2001. Der mittelhochdeutsche Elementarsatz: Eine syntaktische Untersuchung an Prosatexten des 11. bis 14. Jahrhunderts. Oslo: Unipub.Google Scholar
Reis, Marga. 1997. Zum syntaktischen Status unselbständiger Verbzweit-Sätze. Sprache im Fokus: Festschrift für Heinz Vater zum 65. Geburtstag, ed. by Dürscheid, Christa, Ramers, Karl-Heinz, and Schwarz, Monika, 121–44. Tübingen: Niemeyer.Google Scholar
Roberts, Ian, and Roussou, Anna. 2003. Syntactic change: A minimalist approach to grammaticalization. Cambridge: Cambrige University Press.10.1017/CBO9780511486326CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Salzmann, Martin. 2006. Resumptive pronouns and matching effects in Zurich German relative clauses as distributed deletion. Leiden Working Papers in Linguistics 3 (1). 1750. Online: http://www.ehu.eus/ojs/index.php/ASJU/article/view/4356.Google Scholar
Schlachter, Eva. 2012. Syntax und Informationsstruktur im Althochdeutschen: Untersuchungen am Beispiel der Isidor-Gruppe. Heidelberg: Winter.Google Scholar
Schrodt, Richard. 1983. System und Norm in der Diachronie des deutschen Konjunktivs: Der Modus in althochdeutschen und mittelhochdeutschen Inhaltssätzen (Otfried von Weißenburg—Konrad von Würzburg). Tübingen: Niemeyer.10.1515/9783111351834CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Selkirk, Elisabeth. 2005. Comments on intonational phrasing in English. Prosodies: With special reference to Iberian languages, ed. by Frota, Sónia, Vigário, Marina, and Freitas, Maria João, 11–58. Berlin: De Gruyter.10.1515/9783110197587.1.11CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Selkirk, Elisabeth. 2011. The syntax-phonology interface. The handbook of phonological theory, 2nd edn., ed. by Goldsmith, John A., Riggle, Jason, and Yu, Alan C. L., 435–84. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Smits, Rik J. C. 1989. Eurogrammar: The relative and cleft constructions of the Germanic and Romance languages. Dordrecht: Foris.10.1515/9783110882704CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stepanov, Arthur. 2007. The end of CED? Minimalism and extraction domains. Syntax 10. 80–126. DOI: 10.1111/j.1467-9612.2007.00094.x.10.1111/j.1467-9612.2007.00094.xCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sternefeld, Wolfgang. 2006. Syntax: Eine morphologisch motivierte generative Beschreibung des Deutschen. 2 vols. Tübingen: Stauffenburg.Google Scholar
Stowell, Tim. 1981. Origins of phrase structure. Cambridge, MA: MIT dissertation.Google Scholar
Streitberg, Wilhelm. 1920. Gotisches Elementarbuch. 5th and 6th revised edn. Heidelberg: Winter.Google Scholar
Sudhoff, Stefan. 2003. Argumentsätze und ‘es ’-Korrelate: Zur syntaktischen Struktur von Nebensatzeinbettungen im Deutschen. Berlin: Wissenschaftlicher.Google Scholar
Szczepaniak, Renata. 2009. Grammatikalisierung im Deutschen: Eine Einführung. Tübingen: Gunter Narr.Google Scholar
Tomanetz, Karl. 1879. Die Relativsätze bei den althochdeutschen Uebersetzern des 8. u. 9. Jahrhunderts. Vienna: Carl Gerold's Sohn.Google Scholar
Tomasello, Michael. 1999. The cultural origins of human cognition. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Truckenbrodt, Hubert. 2005. A short report on intonation phrase boundaries in German. Linguistische Berichte 203. 273–96.Google Scholar
Truckenbrodt, Hubert. 2015. Intonation phrases and speech acts. Parenthesis and ellipsis: Cross-linguistic and theoretical perspectives, ed. by Kluck, Marlies, Ott, Dennis, and Vries, Mark de, 301–49. Berlin: De Gruyter.Google Scholar
Truckenbrodt, Hubert. 2016. Some distinctions in the German Nachfeld. Inner-sentential propositional proforms: Syntactic properties and interpretative effects, ed. by Frey, Werner, André, Meinunger, and Schwabe, Kerstin, 105–46. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Trutkowski, Ewa, and WEIß, Helmut. 2016. When personal pronouns compete with relative pronouns. The impact of pronominal form on interpretation, ed. by Grosz, Patrick and Patel-Grosz, Pritty, 135–66. Berlin: De Gruyter. DOI: 10.1515/9781614517016-006.Google Scholar
van Gelderen, Elly. 2004. Economy, innovation, and prescriptivism: From spec to head and head to head. Journal of Comparative Germanic Linguistics 7. 59–98. DOI: 10.1023/BJC0M.0000003601.53603.b2.10.1023/B:JCOM.0000003601.53603.b2CrossRefGoogle Scholar
von Polenz, Peter. 2000. Deutsche Sprachgeschichte vom Spätmittelalter bis zur Gegenwart, vol. 1: Einführung, Grundbegriffe, Deutsch in der frühbürgerlichen Zeit. 2nd edn. Berlin: De Gruyter.10.1515/9783110824889CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Webelhuth, Gert. 1992. Principles of syntactic saturation. Oxford: Oxford University Press.10.1093/oso/9780195070415.001.0001CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Weise, Oskar. 1917. Die Relativpronomina in den deutschen Mundarten. Zeitschrift für deutsche Mundarten 12. 64–71. Online: http://www.jstor.org/stable/40497865.Google Scholar
Wellmann, Caroline, Holzgrefe, Julia, Truckenbrodt, Hubert, Wartenburger, Isabell; and Höhle, Barbara. 2012. How each prosodic boundary cue matters: Evidence from German infants. Frontiers in Psychology 3:580. DOI: 10.3389/fpsyg.2012.00580.10.3389/fpsyg.2012.00580CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
WessÉn, Elias. 1970. Schwedische Sprachgeschichte, vol. 3: Grundriss einer historischen Syntax. Trans. by Suzanne Öhmann. Berlin: De Gruyter.Google Scholar
Wiltschko, Martina. 1998. On the syntax and semantics of (relative) pronouns and determiners. Journal of Comparative Germanic Linguistics 2. 143–81. DOI: 10.1023/A:1009719229992.10.1023/A:1009719229992CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wunder, Dieter. 1965. Der Nebensatz bei Otfrid: Untersuchungen zur Syntax des deutschen Nebensatzes. Heidelberg: Winter.Google Scholar