The internal syntax of jeder ‘every’

Abstract

In this paper I explore the elements that make up the German distributive universal quantifier jeder, and the structural relationships among them. I argue that jeder consists of three overt morphemes je-d-er, which are heads in an extended adjectival projection (xAP). Their relative order is derived by movement [ xAP je d er t jeP ]. Je corresponds to the adjectival stem, -d-is an adjectival article (which in turn is analyzed as a relative complementizer) and -er is an agreement head, AgrA. The xAP further contains movement traces/ copies of the nominal which jeder quantifies over. One of these copies is in the complement of je where, I claim, it supplies the restriction (distributive key or range). The components of the proposal are all motivated independently of jeder: (i) its morphology identifies jeder as adjectival, hence an analysis of it must incorporate an (independently motivated) adjectival syntax; (ii) a comparison with the distributive dual quantifier beid-'both' further informs the syntactic analysis internal to the word jeder; and (iii) a comparison of je in jeder and in other je-words suggests that je takes an N(P) complement, a fact that confirms the expectations regarding the selectional properties of je raised by the preceding discussion. Finally, a comparison of jeder with counterparts of it in other languages, as well as with other complex determiners in German, will broaden the scope and corroborate important aspects of the present proposal.

On the functional architecture of DP and the feature content of pronominal quantifiers in Low German

“…The central claim is that some PQEs in Low German provide overt evidence for a complex functional architecture inside the DP, and that the overt syntactic structure of PQEs and the feature content of their parts exhibit microvariation across the West Germanic dialects. As such, the article contributes to the growing body of literature in this domain; see, for example, Barbiers (2005) on variation in the syntax of indefinite numeral expressions; Corver and van Ostendorp (2005) on microvariation in possessive DPs in various Low Saxon dialects of the Netherlands; Kallulli and Rothmayr (2008) on complex indefinite DPs in upper German dialects; and Kallulli and Rothmayr (2008), Leu (2009), and Roehrs (Complex determiners: a case study of German ein jeder. To appear in Interdisciplinary Journal for Germanic Linguistics and Semiotic Analysis) on the complex PQE ein jeder in Standard German.…”

Growing syntax: The development of a DP in North Germanic

“…The obligatoriness of a determiner before an adjective in our analysis comes down to a structural requirement to have an element marked for definiteness in the D position on the left edge, and the weak/strong feature on the adjective cannot fulfill this role. It is interesting at this point to note the analysis based on fundamentally different assumptions from ours by Leu (2008). He does not deal with historical data, but assumes for the present-day varieties of both Mainland Scandinavian and English that the definite article forms a constituent with the adjective phrase.…”

“…Rießler (2011:164) Leu (2008) for modern Scandinavian languages as well as English. We return to a discussion of this in §6.3.…”

The polyfunctionality of which in Övdalian

“…is kind of syncretism is fairly common across Germanic for other adnominal wh-items. English adnominal what is a case in question, and the German was für and the Dutch wat voor construction is generally considered to be compatible with both and readings, see Bennis et al (1998), van Riemsdijk (2005, Leu (2008aLeu ( , 2008b and references cited there. e same holds for the Faroese hvat fyri construction (Vangsnes 2009), and as we saw above, it also holds for the Övdalian wen för (ien) construction.…”