Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-cjp7w Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-06-15T23:04:42.288Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Responsibilities in Syntax

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  05 December 2008

Winfred P. Lehmann
Affiliation:
University of Texas Austin, Texas 78713

Abstract

Syntax has received major attention in recent linguistic study, with many efforts at formalization. Publications have taken data largely from earlier treatments characterized as traditional. In spite of claims for theoretical advances, no treatments of syntax have been produced to replace the earlier, supposedly outmoded treatments. Rather, theoretical claims, such as those advanced on the advantages of a generative approach and formah'sm, have been dismissed by leading figures in the field. More recent grammars, like Mitchell's for Old English and Engel's for modern German, generally observe the traditional approach. Among problems, those for older periods lack the historical approach, as of expression for reflexivization. Investigations into these and other syntactic categories are needed. Further, outstanding works of the past, such as those by Delbruck, should be made available. In addition, specific handbooks, as on Old High German syntax, should be undertaken; in preparation, some texts of the time require reediting.

Type
Research Article
Copyright
Copyright © Society for Germanic Linguistics 1989

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

WORKS CITED

Adelung, Johann Christoph. 1782. Umständliches Lehrgebäude der deutschen Sprache. 2 vols. Leipzig: Breitkopf.Google Scholar
Adelung, Johann Christoph. 18061816. Mithridates oder allgemeine Sprachkunde. 3 vols. Berlin: Voss.Google Scholar
Becker, Karl Ferdinand. 18281829. Deutsche Sprachlehre. 2 vols. Frankfurt: Hermann.Google Scholar
Behaghel, Otto. 1897. Die Syntax des Heliand. Vienna: Tempsky.Google Scholar
Behaghel, Otto. 19231932. Deutsche Syntax. 4 vols. Heidelberg: Winter.Google Scholar
Bethge, Richard, ed. 1902. Ergebnisse und Fortschritte der germanistischen Wissenschaft im letzten Vierteljahrhundert. Leipzig: Reisland.Google Scholar
Bloomfield, Leonard. 1933. Language. New York: Holt.Google Scholar
Blümel, Rudolf. 1914. Einführung in die Syntax. Heidelberg: Carl Winter.Google Scholar
Braune, Wilhelm. 1880. Gotische Grammatik. 1st ed.Halle/Saale: Niemeyer.Google Scholar
Brugmann, Karl. 18931894. Totalität. Leipzig: Edelman.Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam. 1957. Syntactic structures. The Hague: Mouton.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Coetsem, Frans van and Kufner, Herbert L., eds. 1972. Toward a grammar of Proto-Germanic. Tübingen: Niemeyer.Google Scholar
Delbrück, Berthold. 18931900. Vergleichende Syntax der indogermanischen Sprachen. 3 vols. Straßburg: Trübner.Google Scholar
Delbrück, Berthold. 1907. Synkretismus. Ein Beitrag zur germanischen Kasuslehre. Strassburg: Trübner.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Delbrück, Berthold. 1909. Zu den germanischen Relativsätzen. Leipzig: Teubner.Google Scholar
Delbrück, Berthold. 19101911. “Beiträge zur germanischen Syntax”. Beiträge zur Geschichte der deutschen Sprache und Literatur 36:355–65; 7:273–78.Google Scholar
Delbrück, Berthold. 1910. Germanische Syntax I: Zu den negativen Sätzen. Leipzig: Teubner.Google Scholar
Delbrück, Berthold. 1911. Germanische Syntax II: Zur Stellung des Verbums. Leipzig: Teubner.Google Scholar
Delbrück, Berthold. 1916. Germanische Syntax III: Der altisländische Artikel. Leipzig: Teubner.Google Scholar
Delbrück, Berthold. 1919. Germanische Syntax IV: Die Wortstellung in dem älteren westgotischen Landrecht. Leipzig: Teubner.Google Scholar
Delbrück, Berthold. 1919. Germanische Syntax V: Germanische Konjunktionssätze. Leipzig: Teubner.Google Scholar
Engel, Ulrich. 1988. Deutsche Grammatik. Heidelberg: Julius Groos.Google Scholar
Erben, Johannes. 1955. “Prinzipielles zur Syntaxforschung”. Beiträge zur Geschichte der deutschen Sprache und Literatur (Halle) 76:144–65.Google Scholar
Erdmann, Oskar. 1874, 1876. Untersuchungen über die Syntax der Sprache Otfrids. Halle/Saale: Waisenhaus.Google Scholar
Frege, Gottlob. 1952. Translations from the philosophical writings of Gottlob Frege. Trs. and eds. Geach, Peter and Black, Max. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Gamkrelidze, Thomas G. and Ivanov, Vjačeslav V.. 1984. Indoevropejskij jazyk i indoevropejcy. Rekonstrukcija i istorikotipologičeskij analiz prajazyka i protokul'tury. 2 vols. Tbilisi: Tbilisi State Univ. Publishing House.Google Scholar
Glinz, Hans. 1947. Geschichte und Kritik der Lehre von den Satzgliedern in der deutschen Grammatik. Bern: Francke.Google Scholar
Glinz, Hans. 1964. Die innere Form des Deutschen. Eine neue deutsche Grammatik. 4th ed.Bern and Munich: Francke.Google Scholar
Glinz, Hans. 1965. Deutsche Syntax. Stuttgart: Metzler.Google Scholar
Grebe, Paul, ed. 1973. Duden. Grammatik der deutschen Gegenwartssprache. 3rd ed.Mannheim: Bibliographisches Institut.Google Scholar
Grimm, Jacob. 1837, 1898. Deutsche Grammatik, 4. Theil: Syntax. Gütersloh: Bertelsmann.Google Scholar
Guchman, M.M.et al. 19621966. Sravnitel'naja grammatika germaniskich jazykov. 4 vols. Moscow: Nauk.Google Scholar
Harris, Zellig. 1951. Methods in structural linguistics. Chicago: Univ. of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Hartshorne, Charles and Paul, Weiss, eds. 19311935. Collected papers of Charles Sanders Peirce. 1–4. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Univ. Press. See esp. Vol 4:470–87.Google Scholar
Heidolph, Karl Erich, et al. 1981. Grundzüge einer deutschen Grammatik. Berlin: Akademie-Verlag.Google Scholar
Heringer, Hans Jürgen. 1973. Theorie der deutschen Syntax. 2nd ed.Munich: Hueber.Google Scholar
Heusler, Andreas. 1931. Altisländisches Elementarbuch. 3rd ed.Heidelberg: Carl Winter.Google Scholar
Hirt, Hermann. 19311934. Handbuch des Urgermanischen. 3 vols. Heidelberg: Carl Winter.Google Scholar
Holz, Georg. 1902. “Althochdeutsch”. In Bethge 1902:3745.Google Scholar
Jellinek, Max H. 19131914. Geschichte der neuhochdeutschen Grammatik von den Anfängen bis auf Adelung. 2 vols. Heidelberg: Carl Winter.Google Scholar
Jespersen, Otto. 19091949. A modern English grammar on historical principles. 1 vols. Copenhagen: Munksgaard.Google Scholar
Katre, Sumitra M. 1987. A⊡ṭādhyaya of Paṇini. Austin, TX: Univ. of Texas Press.Google Scholar
Keijsper, Cornelia Eva. 1985. Information structure. Amsterdam: Rodopi.Google Scholar
Koschmieder, Erwin. 1965. Beiträge zur allgemeinen Syntax. Heidelberg: Carl Winter.Google Scholar
Langacker, Ronald W. 1987. Foundations of cognitive grammar. I. Theoreticalprerequisites. Palo Alto, CA: Stanford Univ. Press.Google Scholar
Lehmann, Winfred P. 1976. “On complementation in the Early Germanic Languages”. The journal of the Linguistic Association of the Southwest 1, 3–4:17. Followed by articles on specific works.Google Scholar
Lehmann, Winfred P. 1988. Review of Ronald W. Langacker, Foundations of cognitive grammar. General linguistics. To appear.Google Scholar
Lehmann, Winfred P. 1989. “swæ¯s: From middle to pronominal reflexive markers”. To appear.Google Scholar
Markey, Thomas L., Kyes, R.L., Roberge, P. T.. 1977. Germanic and its dialects: A grammar of Proto-Germanie. Vol. 3: Bibliography and Indices. Amsterdam: Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mentrup, Wolfgang, ed. 1971. Schülerduden. Vol. 3: Grammatik. Mannheim: Bibliographisches Institut.Google Scholar
Mitchell, Bruce. 1985. Old English syntax. Oxford: Clarendon.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Newmeyer, Frederick J. 1986. Linguistic theory in America. 2nd ed.New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Nygaard, M. 1905. Norrøn syntax. Kristiania: Aschehoug.Google Scholar
Plant, Helmut R. 1969. Syntaktische Studien zu den Monseer Fragmenten. The Hague: Mouton.Google Scholar
Poutsma, H. 19041929. A grammar of Late Modern English. Groningen: Noordhoff.Google Scholar
Quirk, Randolph, et al. 1972. A grammar of contemporary English. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Ries, John. 1967. Was ist Syntax? Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft. Rpt. of 2nd ed., Prag 1927.Google Scholar
Rumelhart, David, McClelland, James L. and the PDP Research Group. 1986. Parallel distributed processing. Cambridge, MA: Massachusetts Institute of Technology Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schröbler, Ingeborg. 1969. Syntax. In Mittelhochdeutsche Grammatik, ed. by Moser, Hugo and idem. Tübingen: Niemeyer. Pp. 283487.Google Scholar
Schwyzer, Eduard. Griechische Grammatik. 1939, 1959. Vol. 2: Syntax und syntaktische Stilistik. Ed. Debrunner, Albert. Munich: CH. Beck.Google Scholar
Sells, Peter. 1985 Lectures on contemporary syntactic theories. Postscript by Wasow, Thomas. Palo Alto: Stanford Center for the Study of Language and Information.Google Scholar
Streitberg, Wilhelm. 1920. Gotisches Elementarbuch. 5th and 6th eds. Heidelberg: Carl Winter.Google Scholar
Szantyr, Anton. 1965. Lateinische Syntax und Stylistik. Munich: Beck.Google Scholar
Tesniere, Lucien. 1959. Éléments de syntaxe structurale. Paris: Klincksieck.Google Scholar
Visser, F. T. 19631969. An historical syntax of the English language. Leiden: Brill.Google Scholar
Wackernagel, Jacob. 19261928. Vorlesungen über Syntax. 2 vols. 2nd ed.Basel: Birkhäuser.Google Scholar