On the notion of the subordinate clause in German linguistics

Agnieszka Gaweł

Abstrakt

In traditional linguistic research on German syntax the term “subordinate clause” is defined on the basis of its two distinguishing features, namely its syntactic-functional integration into the matrix, as well as its formal exponents (the presence of introductory elements and the placement of the finite verb at the end of the clause). However, this classical approach to subordination is in fact a descriptive simplification which leads to the exclusion of all reference to the scalar character of this category from syntactic description. In this paper, an alternative approach to subordination is presented through defining the dependent clause as a scalar category, encompassing a wide range of representatives differing in the degree of prototypicality. The proposed model consists of four interrelated components: a precisely defined set of integration features, type-independent general principles, a description of the type-specific clusters of integration features and the differences in the degree of integration between representatives of the same syntactic class, as well as construction-specific restrictions.

Słowa kluczowe: subordinate clause, dependent clause, German syntax, subordination, syntactic integration
References

Antomo M., Steinbach M. 2010. Desintegration und Interpretation: Weil-V2-Sätze an der Schnittstelle zwischen Syntax, Semantik und Pragmatik. – Zeitschrift für Sprachwissen­schaft 29: 1–37.

Eisenberg P. 2006. Grundriss der deutschen Grammatik. [vol. 2]. Der Satz. Stuttgart, Wei­mar: Metzler.

Engel U. 2009. Deutsche Grammatik. Neubearbeitung. München: Iudicium Verlag.

Fabricius-Hansen C. 1992. Subordination. – Hoffmann L. (ed.). Deutsche Syntax. Ansichten und Aussichten. Berlin, New York: De Gruyter: 458–483.

Frey W. 2011. Peripheral adverbial clauses, their licensing and the prefield in German. – Breindl E., Ferraresi G., Volodina A. (eds.). Satzverknüpfungen. Zur Interaktion von Form, Bedeutung und Diskursfunktion. Berlin, New York: De Gruyter: 41–77.

Freywald U. 2013. Uneingeleiteter V1- und V2-Satz. – Meibauer J., Steinbach M., Altmann H. (eds.). Satztypen des Deutschen. Berlin, Boston: De Gruyter: 317–337.

Haegeman L. 2002. Anchoring to speaker, adverbial clauses and the structure of CP. – George­town University Working Papers in Theoretical Linguistics 2: 117–180.

Haegeman L. 2004. The syntax of adverbial clauses and its consequences for topicalisation. – Antwerp Papers in Linguistics 107: 61–90.

Haegeman L. 2006. Conditionals, factives and the left periphery. – Lingua 116: 1651–1669.

Haider H. 2010. The syntax of German. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Haiman J. 1985. Natural syntax. Iconicity and erosion. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Helbig G. 2003. Koordination vs. Subordination von Sätzen. Hauptsatz vs. Nebensatz. – Dimova A., Wiegand H.E. (eds.). Wort und Grammatik. Festschrift für Pavel Petkov anlässlich seiner Emeritierung. Hildesheim, Zürich, New York: Georg Olms: 1–10.

Holler A. 2005. On non-canonical clause linkage. – Müller S. (ed.). The Proceedings of the 12th International Conference on Head-Driven Phrase Structure Grammar. Lisbon: Uni­versity of Lisbon: 157–177.

Holler A. 2008. German dependent clauses from a constraint-based perspective. – Fabrici­us-Hansen C., Ramm W. (eds.). “Subordination” versus “coordination” in sentence and text. A cross-linguistic perspective. Amsterdam, Philadelphia: John Benjamins: 187–216.

König E., van der Auwera J. 1988. Clause integration in German and Dutch conditionals, concessive conditionals and concessives. – Haiman J., Thompson S.A. (eds.). Clause combining in grammar and discourse. Amsterdam, Philadelphia: John Benjamins: 101–133.

Marillier J. 2000. Semantische vs. syntaktische Subordination. Auch ein Beitrag zur Defi­nition der Subordination. – Lefèvre M. (ed.). Subordination in Syntax, Semantik und Textlinguistik. Tübingen: Stauffenburg: 70–83.

Reich I., Reis M. 2013. Koordination und Subordination. – Meibauer J., Steinbach M., Alt­mann H. (eds.). Satztypen des Deutschen. Berlin, Boston: De Gruyter: 536–569.

Reis M. 1997. Zum syntaktischen Status unselbständiger Verbzweit-Sätze. – Dürscheid C., Ramers K.H., Schwarz M. (eds.). Sprache im Fokus. Festschrift für Heinz Vater zum 65. Geburtstag. Tübingen: Niemeyer: 121–144.

Reis M. 2013. „Weil-V2“-Sätze und (k)ein Ende? Anmerkungen zur Analyse von Antomo & Steinbach (2010). – Zeitschrift für Sprachwissenschaft 32: 221–262.

Reis M., Wöllstein A. 2010. Zur Grammatik (vor allem) konditionaler V1-Gefüge im Deut­schen. – Zeitschrift für Sprachwissenschaft 29: 111–179.

Sütterlin L. 1907. Die deutsche Sprache der Gegenwart (ihre Laute, Wörter, Wortformen und Sätze). Ein Handbuch für Lehrer und Studierende. Leipzig: Voigtländer Verlag.

Valentin P. 2000. Was ist Subordination? – Lefèvre M. (ed.). Subordination in Syntax, Se­mantik und Textlinguistik. Tübingen: Stauffenburg: 13–22.

Wöllstein A. 2008. Konzepte der Satzkonnexion. Tübingen: Stauffenburg.

Zifonun G., Hoffmann L., Strecker B. 1997. Grammatik der deutschen Sprache. [vol. 3]. Berlin, New York: De Gruyter.