Hostname: page-component-7b7567c8c-7pwfn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-11-12T07:46:54.257Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Targets and paradigmatic borrowing in Romantsch

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  22 April 2026

John Haiman
John Haiman*
Affiliation:
Australian National University
Get accessRights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Recent work in generative grammar has demonstrated the relationship between surface structure constraints and transformational rules. In some cases, various unrelated rules have been found to interact, and, in so doing, to satisfy a given constraint, characterized as a target.

Evidence is presented that Vallader, a Romantsch dialect, has a phonological target, realized by a number of rules, some peculiar to that dialect. In addition, Vallader shares a syntactic deletion rule with the other Romantsch dialects. In order to satisfy both of these conditions at once, Vallader has resorted to paradigmatic borrowing for one form of the present indicative.

Information

Type
Research Article
Information
Language , Volume 47 , Issue 4 , December 1971, pp. 797 - 809
Copyright
Copyright © 1971 by Linguistic Society of America

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.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Arquint, Jachen. 1964. Vierv ladin. Tusaun: Lia Rumantscha.Google Scholar
Baue, Arthur. 1969. Grüezi mitenand. Winterthur: Gemsberg.Google Scholar
Bifrun, Giachen. 1560. Das neue Testament von Bifrun. (Ed. by Gartner, T., Dresden: Gesellschaft für romanische Literatur, 1913.)Google Scholar
Bresnan, Joan. 1968. Adsententials. Mimeo, MIT.Google Scholar
Gartner, Theodor. 1883. Rätoromanische Grammatik. Heilbronn: Gebr. Henninger.Google Scholar
Gartner, Theodor. 1910. Handbuch der rätoromanischen Sprache und Literatur. Halle: Niemeyer.Google Scholar
Held, Karl. 1903. Das Verbum ohne pronominales Subjekt im Althochdeutschen. (Palästra, 31.) Berlin: Mayer & Müller.Google Scholar
Hodler, Werner. 1969. Berndeutsche Syntax. Bern: Francke.Google Scholar
Kiparsky, Paul, and Kiparsky, C. 1970. Fact. Progress in linguistics, ed. by Bierwisch, M. and Heidolph, K. E., 143–73. The Hague: Mouton.Google Scholar
Kisseberth, Charles. 1970. The functional unity of phonological rules. Linguistic Inquiry 1.291–306.Google Scholar
Lakoff, George. 1968. Output conditions on anaphoric pronouns. Mimeo, Harvard.Google Scholar
Lakoff, George. 1969. Generative semantics. Unpublished.Google Scholar
Mustanoja, Tauno. 1960. A Middle English syntax, part I. (Mémoires de la Société Néophilologique, 23.) Helsinki.Google Scholar
Perlmutter, David. 1968. Deep and surface structure constraints in syntax. Doctoral dissertation, MIT.Google Scholar
Ross, John. 1967. Constraints on variables in syntax. Doctoral dissertation, MIT.Google Scholar
Scheitlin, Walter. 1962. Il pled Puter. Samedan: Stampa Engiadinaisa.Google Scholar
Spies, Heinrich. 1901. Studien zur Geschichte des englischen Pronomens im XV. und XVI. Jahrhundert. (Studien zur englischen Philologie, 1.) Halle: Niemeyer.Google Scholar
Ulleland, Magnus. 1965. L'el ascitizio nella prima singolare del verbo soprasilvano. Studia Neophilologica 37.105–15.10.1080/00393276508587341CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Widmer, Ambros. 1959. Das personale Pronomen im Bundnerromanischen. (Romania Helvetica, 67.) Bern: Francke.Google Scholar