{"title":"What kind of constructions yield what kind of constructions?","authors":"Andreas Blümel, Marco Coniglio","doi":"10.1093/oso/9780198824961.003.0008","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The chapter investigates the properties and diachrony of the much-debated German was-für construction based on data from historical corpora. It is argued that this construction originated from the was ‘what’ plus partitive genitive construction. The latter is claimed to be a construction stretching over two DPs, the first one consisting of a wh-element and a null noun, the second one being a genitive noun. Given the absence of phonetical evidence for the presence of a null noun in the first DP, it is shown that, during the Early New High German period, this binominal construction was reanalysed as a mononominal construction consisting of the wh-element was in combination with an indefinite NP. A number of properties of this construction (absence of partitive interpretation, possibility to split, etc.) can be explained straightforwardly by means of the diachronic development sketched.","PeriodicalId":378442,"journal":{"name":"Cycles in Language Change","volume":"7 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2019-09-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"3","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Cycles in Language Change","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780198824961.003.0008","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 3
Abstract
The chapter investigates the properties and diachrony of the much-debated German was-für construction based on data from historical corpora. It is argued that this construction originated from the was ‘what’ plus partitive genitive construction. The latter is claimed to be a construction stretching over two DPs, the first one consisting of a wh-element and a null noun, the second one being a genitive noun. Given the absence of phonetical evidence for the presence of a null noun in the first DP, it is shown that, during the Early New High German period, this binominal construction was reanalysed as a mononominal construction consisting of the wh-element was in combination with an indefinite NP. A number of properties of this construction (absence of partitive interpretation, possibility to split, etc.) can be explained straightforwardly by means of the diachronic development sketched.