Hostname: page-component-7479d7b7d-qlrfm Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-10T08:18:52.008Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Null Subjects in Gothic

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  05 December 2008

David Fertig
David Fertig
Affiliation:
Department of Modern Languages and LiteraturesState University of New YorkUniversity at Buffalo910 Clemens HallBuffalo, NY 14260 [fertig@acsu.buffalo.edu]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Several kinds of systematic deviations from the Greek original, including simple insertions and omissions of subject pronouns and transformations of nonfinite or impersonal Greek constructions into personal finite clauses, provide evidence concerning the distribution of null and overt referential subject pronouns in Gothic. While the evidence leaves no doubt that Gothic was a null-subject language, it also reveals a tendency, not found in Ancient Greek, toward the use of overt subjects for nontopic antecedents. This Gothic pattern is reminiscent of what a number of researchers have found recently in some other null-subject languages such as Italian, but Gothic appears to occupy an intermediate position between Ancient Greek and Italian.*

Type
Articles
Information
Journal of Germanic Linguistics , Volume 12 , Issue 1 , Spring 2000 , pp. 3 - 21
Copyright
Copyright © Society for Germanic Linguistics 2000

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.)

References

REFERENCES

Abraham, Werner. 1991. Null subjects: From Gothic, Old High German and Middle High German to Modern German. From pro-drop to semi-pro-drop. Groninger Arbeiten zur germanistischen Linguistik 34. 1–28.Google Scholar
Adams, Marianne. 1987. From Old French to the theory of pro-drop. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 5. 1–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Amos, Ashley Crandell. 1980. Linguistic means of determining the dates of Old English literary texts. Cambridge, MA: The Medieval Academy of America.Google Scholar
Bayer, Josef. 1984. Comp in Bavarian syntax. The Linguistic Review 3.209–274.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bennett, William H. 1980. An introduction to the Gothic language. (Introductions to the older languages of Europe, 2.) New York: Modern Language Association of America.Google Scholar
Berard, Stephen A. 1993. Biblical Gothic and the configurationality parameter. American Journal of Germanic Linguistics and Literatures 5.111–162.Google Scholar
Burton, Philip. 1996. Using the Gothic Bible: Notes on Jared S. Klein “On the independence of Gothic syntax.” The Journal of Indo-European Studies 24.81–98.Google Scholar
Curme, George O. 1911. Is the Gothic Bible Gothic? The Journal of English and Germanic Philology 10.151–190, 335–377.Google Scholar
Erdmann, Oskar. 1886. Grundzüge der deutschen Syntax nach ihrer geschichtlichen Entwicklung. Stuttgart: Cotta.Google Scholar
Erteschik-Shir, Nomi. 1997. The dynamics of focus structure. (Cambridge studies in linguistics, 84.) Cambridge and New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Friedrichs, Ernst. 1891. Die Stellung des Pronomen personale im Gotischen. Jena: Frommann.Google Scholar
Friedrichsen, G. W. S. 1926. The Gothic version of the Gospels: A study of its style and textual history. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Grimm, Jacob. 1898. Deutsche Grammatik. Vol. 4. Gütersloh: Bertelsmann.Google Scholar
Grimshaw, Jane, and Samek-Lodovici, Vieri. 1998. Optimal subjects and subject universals. Is the best good enough? Optimality and competition in syntax, ed. by Barbosa, Pilar, Fox, Danny, Hagstrom, Paul, McGinnis, Martha, and Pesetsky, David, 193–219. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
Haider, Hubert. 1991. Null subjects and expletives in Romance and Germanic languages. Issues in Germanic syntax, ed. by Abraham, Werner, Kosmeijer, Wim, and Reuland, Eric, 49–66. (Trends in linguistics, studies and monographs, 44.). New York: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Harbert, Wayne. 1982. In defense of tense. Linguistic Analysis 9.1–18.Google Scholar
Harbert, Wayne. 1991. Pro-drop in Old High German. Paper delivered at the Second Annual Michigan-Berkeley Germanic Linguistics Roundtable, Ann Arbor, Michigan, 04 12–14, 1991.Google Scholar
Held, Karl. 1903. Das Verbum ohne pronominales Subjekt in der älteren deutschen Sprache. (Palaestra, 31.) Berlin: Mayer & Müller.Google Scholar
Huang, C. T. James. 1984. On the distribution and reference of empty pronouns. Linguistic Inquiry 15.531–574.Google Scholar
Jaeggli, Osvaldo, and Safir, Kenneth J. (eds.). 1989a. The null subject parameter. Boston: Kluwer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jaeggli, Osvaldo, and Safir, Kenneth J.. 1989b. The null subject parameter and parametric theory. In: Jaeggli and Safir 1989a, 1–44.Google Scholar
Klein, Jared S. 1992a. On the independence of Gothic Syntax, I: Interrogativity, complex sentence types, tense, mood, and diathesis. The Journal of Indo-European Studies 20.339–379.Google Scholar
Klein, Jared S. 1992b. On the idiomatic nature of the Gothic New Testament: A comparative study of prepositional usage in Gothic and New Testament Greek. Transactions of the Philological Society 90.1–80.Google Scholar
Lightfoot, David W. 1991. How to set parameters: Arguments from language change. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press (Bradford Books).Google Scholar
Marshall, Alfred (ed.). 1974. The interlinear Greek-English New Testament. London: Bagster.Google Scholar
Meillet, Antoine. 1908–1909. Notes sur quelques fails gotiques. Mémoires de la Société de Linguistique de Paris 15.73–103.Google Scholar
Miller, Gary D. 1975. The Gothic complementizers þammei and ei. Indogermanische Forschungen 80.110–117.Google Scholar
Mitchell, Bruce. 1985. Old English syntax. Vol. 1. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Mossé, Fernand. 1956. Manuel de la langue gotique. 2nd edn. (Bibliothèque de philologie germanique, 2.) Aubier: Montaigne.Google Scholar
Mustanoja, Tauno F. 1960. A Middle English syntax. Part 1. (Mémoires de la Société Néophilologique de Helsinki, 23.) Helsinki: Société Néophilologique.Google Scholar
Platzack, Christer. 1987. The Scandinavian languages and the null-subject parameter. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 5.377–401.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pogatscher, Alois. 1901. Unausgedrücktes Subjekt im Altenglischen. Anglia: Zeitschrift für englische Philologie 23.261–301.Google Scholar
Rizzi, Luigi. 1997. A parametric approach to comparative syntax: Properties of the pronominal system. The new comparative syntax, ed. by Haegeman, Liliane, 268–285. New York: Longman.Google Scholar
Sallwürk, Ernst von. 1875. Die Syntax des Vulfila. Pforzheim: Flammer.Google Scholar
Samek-Lodovici, Vieri. 1996. Constraints on subjects: An optimality theoretic analysis. Doctoral dissertation, Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey. (ROA#148–1096 <http://ruccs.rutgers.edu/roa.html>).).>Google Scholar
Schrader, Karl. 1874. Ueber den syntactischen Gebrauch des Genitives in der gotischen Sprache. Halle: Buchdruckerei des Waisenhauses.Google Scholar
Schulze, Wilhelm. 1924. Personalpronomen und Subjektausdruck im Gotischen. Beiträge zur germanischen Sprachwissenschaft: Festschrift für Otto Behaghel, ed. by Horn, Wilhelm, 92–109. (Germanische Bibliothek, 11,15.) Heidelberg: Carl Winter.Google Scholar
Snædal, Magnús. 1998. A concordance to Biblical Gothic. 2 vols. Reykjavík: University of Iceland Press.Google Scholar
Streitberg, Wilhelm (ed.). 1919. Die gotische Bibel. 2nd edn.Heidelberg: Carl Winter.Google Scholar
Streitberg, Wilhelm.(ed.). 1920. Gotisches Elementarbuch. 6th edn. (Germanische Bibliothek, 1,1,2.) Heidelberg: Carl Winter.Google Scholar
Stutz, Elfriede. 1966. Gotische Literaturdenkmäler. Stuttgart: Metzler.Google Scholar
Valentin, Paul. 1984. L'interrogation en gotique. Actes du colloque tenu les 19 et 20 décembre 1983 par le Département de Linguistique de l'Université de Paris-Sorbonne, ed. by Valentin, Paul, 147–176. (Linguistica palatina, Colloquia 2.) Paris: Presses de l'Université de Paris-Sorbonne.Google Scholar
Vilutis, Juozas. 1982. Zum Problem der syntaktischen Funktionen des adjektivischen sa, pata, so im Gotischen. Kalbotyra 33(3). 103–107.Google Scholar
Zwart, Jan-Wouter. 1993. Clues from dialect syntax: Complementizer agreement. Dialektsyntax, ed. by Abraham, Werner and Josef, Bayer, 246–270. (Linguistische Berichte, Sonderheft 5.) Opladen, Germany: Westdeutscher Verlag.Google Scholar