J Comp German Linguistics (2015) 18:6592

DOI 10.1007/s10828-015-9071-4
O R I G I N A L PA P E R

When the subject follows the object. On a curiosity

in the syntax of personal pronouns in some German
dialects
Helmut Wei 1

Received: 12 August 2013 / Accepted: 19 March 2014 / Published online: 7 June 2015
# Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2015

Abstract In this paper, I present new data from several German dialects concerning the
order of pronominal subjects and objects. The data are taken from three sources
(Wenker survey, Bavarian Linguistic Atlas, Syntax of Hessian Dialects) and cover a
time span of nearly 150 years, thus providing a very robust empirical basis. Although
the canonical order in all German varieties is subject before object and this serialization
holds for pronominal as well as for non-pronominal arguments, a certain proportiom of
reverse orders for pronouns is attested in all three data sources. That is, there are
speakers of various dialectal varieties who prefer object before subject as the unmarked
order of pronouns (e.g., haben dir sie geholfen lit. have you they helped). I will try to
explain the emergence of the reverse order adopting the null subject cycle (NSC)
proposed by Fu and Wratil (2013) as a point of departure and modifying it into a
more general pronoun cycle (PC): The PC implies the development of reduced
pronouns out of full ones, which then replace clitic or null pronouns (depending on
the person and number combination). The reverse order comprises the steps in the
cycle where a clitic or a null subject pronoun is replaced with a reduced subject
pronoun out of which eventually a clitic pronoun evolves. The reduced subject
pronoun follows the object clitic as the clitic subject does as well for a short
period of time before it is placed again before the object clitic. In the concluding
section I discuss the observable mismatch between morphological paradigms and the
syntactic level, in that syntax requires a tripartite distinction for which morphology
mostly provides only two distinct forms.
Keywords German dialects . Pronouns . Object-subject order . Null subject cycle .
Pronoun cycle

* Helmut Wei
Weiss@lingua.uni-frankfurt.de
1

Department of Modern Philology, Institute for Linguistics, Goethe University Frankfurt a.M.,
Grneburgplatz 1, 60629 Frankfurt am Main, Germany

66

H. Wei

1 Introduction
The syntax of pronouns in (Standard) German has been the object of investigation
several times since Lenerz (1977). The main focus of research lay on the aspects of
their position and serialization with respect to non-pronominal arguments, especially on
their raising to the so called Wackernagel position (WP), i.e., the position immediately
following C (Lenerz 1977, 1992; Haftka 1981; Hofmann 1994; Hoberg 1997; Haider
and Rosengren 1998; Cardinaletti 1999; Mller 2002, and many others).
Although there has been some theoretical discussion about pronoun raising to the
WP, its exact nature and the trigger for it are still unclear. There are very controversial
opinions with respect to pronoun raising: For Sternefeld (2007: 352) it is just an
instance of scrambling, whereas Lenerz (1977) and Haider (1993) distinguish the two
movement types. For some linguists, pronoun fronting is syntactic movement, which is
either feature-driven and targets Spec-positions of TP (Yoshida 1999), or not feature
driven, targeting an outer specifier of vP (Mller 2002: 210). For others, however,
pronoun raising is just a kind of PF-cliticization (Breitbarth 2005), or a combination of
scrambling and PF-cliticization (Corver and Delfitto 1999; Wei 1998).
Another influential focus of investigation was opened by Cardinaletti and Starkes
(1999) tripartition of pronominal systems. According to their system, pronouns can be
distinguished into three types: strong, weak, and clitic pronouns. Strong and weak
pronouns are both maximal projections and differ among other things with regard to
the phonological feature [+/stress], whereas clitics are just heads. Since it is unclear
whether (Standard) German has clitic pronouns at all (cf. Fu and Wratil 2013), some
linguists instead make a distinction between weak and reduced forms (e.g., Mller 2002).
The pronominal syntax of German dialects differs from that of the standard system in
many respects (for a general overview cf. Sect. 3.1). The main difference is the existence
of clitics, i.e., of pronominal forms that are segmentally reduced as compared to full
forms and which are syntactically restricted to the WP (Wei, forthc. a). There has been
some research on the syntax of personal pronouns in German dialects in the last few
years (e.g., Bayer 1984, Abraham and Wiegel 1993, and Wei 1998 on Bavarian;
Nbling 1992 on Alemannic; Haag-Merz 1996 on Swabian; Cooper 1999 and Werner
1999 on Zurich German; Grtner and Steinbach 2003a, b on Hessian). Parts of this and
other research was devoted to the question of whether German pronouns are clitics or
not, and if they are, whether they differ (and in what ways) from Romance clitics. An
additional research topic concerning pronouns in German dialects was the relation
between subject clitics, complementizer agreement, and pro-drop (e.g., Axel and Wei
2011; Bayer 1984; Fu 2005, 2008; Harnisch 1989; Wei 1998, 2005, forthc. b).
In this paper I will present new data. The phenomenon they represent has nearly
completely escaped notice so far even in descriptive research and has consequently
never been discussed before within a theoretical framework. A fundamental generalization for word order in Standard as well as in dialectal German is that pronominal
arguments occur in the order subject before object, as in (1a), while the reverse order is
only possible if the subject pronoun is strong (1b). 1 However, as I will show in this
paper, there are dialectal varieties where the reverse order object>subject is the
1

In fact, this ordering is independent of the categorical nature of the arguments: subject before object is
unmarked with DPs as well (Lenerz 1977; Hhle 1982).

When the subject follows the object. On a curiosity in the syntax

67

grammatical one. (1c) is an unmarked utterance in these varieties corresponding to (1a)

in other varieties.
(1)

a.
b.
c.

Ttst du ihn besser

kennen!
Did
you him better
know
Ttst ihn DU/*du
besser
kennen!
Did
him YOU/*you better
know
Ttst ihn du
besser
kennen!
Did
him you better
know
If you knew him better!

2 The Data
The data I will present in this section are taken from three sources which cover a time
span of nearly 150 years. The reverse order was first attested in the Wenker survey at the
end of the 19th and at the beginning of the 20th century (Sect. 2.1). Its existence was
then independently confirmed in two research projects, in the Bayerischer Sprachatlas
(Bavarian Linguistic Atlas) (Sect. 2.2) and in the project Syntax Hessischer Dialekte
(Syntax of Hessian Dialects) (Sect. 2.3). Based on data from three independent sources,
the analysis given in Sect. 3 thus has a broad and sound empirical basis.
2.1 The Wenker survey
Georg Wenker (18521911) started in the 1870s to send out questionnaires to nearly 50,000
schoolmasters, and he received completed questionnaires from about 45,000 of them.
Together with material compiled later, into the 1930s (e.g., in Austria), there were 51,480
questionnaires from 49,363 locations (http://www.diwa.info/Geschichte/Fragebogen.aspx).2
Wenkers questionnaire contained 40 sentences in standard German, which the informants
had to translate into their regional variants (Chambers and Trudgill 2004).
In the following section, I can make use of yet unpublished results of Jrg Fleischers
research project Morphosyntactic evaluation of Wenker sentences: a small part of the
Wenker questionnaires was investigated with respect to selected syntactic phenomena in
order to draw linguistic maps (such as Map 1 on the following page).3 The relevant Wenker
sentence for our phenomenon (i.e., order of pronominal subject and object) is sentence 18
which is given (partly) in (2a). Map 1 on the next page is based on the same sample as in
Fleischer (forthc.), but only Frisian and German locations are taken into account here.
The relevant item is the first sentence which contains a pronominal subject and a
pronominal object. Almost 1500 informants (out of 2200) translated the sentence with the
expected order subject>object (plus approximately 600 tokens of other variants with noninverted order4 which are not included in 2), whereas approximately 150 informants chose
2

All the questionnaires can be accessed electronically through the Digitaler Wenkeratlas (DiWA), available
under the URL: http://www.diwa.info.
Thanks to J. Fleischer and S. Leser for providing me with Map 1. For further information on the project see
Fleischer (forthc.).
4
These variants are the non-inverted counterparts to (2cg) which have, e.g., a d-pronoun instead of the
personal pronoun as object.
3

68

H. Wei

Map 1 Wenker sentence 18

the reverse order in different variants. The score for each variant in (2ag) is added in
brackets.
(2) a. Httest du ihn gekannt! Dann wre
es anders gekommen,
Had
you him known! Thenwould.have it differently come
Had you known him, it would have turned out differently
b. Httest
ihn
du
gekannt!
Had
him you
known
Had you known him!
c. Httest
den
du gekannt!
Had
that.one
you known
Had you known that one/this guy!
d. wenn ihn du
when him
you
If you (had known) him
e. wenn
den
du
when
that.one
you
If you (had known) that one/that guy
f. wennst
ihn du
when.2SG him you
If you (had known) him
g. wennst
den
du
when.2SG that.one
you
If you (had known) that one/that guy

(1459)

(127)

(5)

(11)

(2)

(7)

(1)

When the subject follows the object. On a curiosity in the syntax

69

Map 2 (BSA SMF vol. 7, map 126), reprinted with permission

The percentage of all reverse orders is approximately 7 %. This is not a very high score,
but there are additional facts which speak for the reliability of the results of the Wenker
survey. First of all, the reverse orders are not spread all over the German dialect area, but are
attested mostly in Upper German dialects, that is, the reverse order of pronominal arguments
is an areal feature. Secondly, the reverse order is also attested in cases where the object
pronoun is a d-pronoun5 (as in 2c, e, g), and, thirdly, it is constant over different construction
types, because it also appears in V1 as well as in complementizer introduced sentences (cf.
2b, c vs. 2dg). On the other hand, there remains an element of methodological uncertainty,
5

It is a widespread phenomenon in German dialects that d-pronouns replace 3. pers. personal pronouns (Wei,
forthc. a).

70

H. Wei

because there was only one informant per location and if the informant made an incorrect
translation, the result for the whole location is incorrect. However, later dialect surveys
applying more advanced and reliable methods have proven the existence of the reverse
order to be true, as will become clear in the next two sections.
2.2 Bayerischer Sprachatlas (Bavarian Linguistic Atlas)
The Bayerischer Sprachatlas (BSA) consists of six regional linguistic atlases, which
cover the different dialect regions of Bavaria and whose material was compiled in the
1980s and 1990s. Dialects spoken in the state of Bavaria are Bavarian, Franconian and
Swabian. The BSA investigated mainly phonological, morphological and lexical features, and only to a minor extent also syntactic ones.
The reverse order occurs in two of the six regional atlases, namely in the Linguistic Atlas
of Middle Franconia (Sprachatlas von Mittelfranken, BSASMF) and in that of BavarianSwabia (Sprachatlas von Bayerisch-Schwaben, BSASBS).6 The relevant sentences from
the BSASMF (vol. 7) are given in (3ac) and from the BSASBS (vol. 9.2) in (4):
(3) a. Wenn ich (ein) Geld
htte, dann knnte ich mir was
kaufen.
If I
(one) money had, then could I
me something buy
If I had money, then I could buy something for me.
b. Das kann ich mir schon
denken
That can I
me
already
think
I can easily imagine that.
c. Das kann ich dir schon
geben.
That can I
you already
give
I can already give this to you.
(4) Da
tt ich
mich frchten.
There
did I
me
fear
I would be scared then.
(3ac) and (4) are the target sentences which the informants had to translate into their
dialects. Each of the sentences was originally designed to cover other phenomena like the
periphrasis of conjunctive in (3a) and (4), but because the reverse order was spontaneously
produced by some informants they turned out to be so revealing with respect to pronoun
order that it was decided to draw maps for this feature as well. In Middle Franconia, the
reverse order was elicited in an area to the south of the region, and the area was more or less
the same for all three sentences (3ac). Maps 2 and 3 may be sufficient to illustrate the
nearly identical area of distribution of the reverse order of (3a) and (3c), which is symbolized
by a black square.7
Let us now turn to the results for Bavarian-Swabia. Sentence (4), here repeated as (5a),
has been elicited with reverse order as in (5b) in a region in the north of the area of
6

However, there is only one additional regional atlas with a syntactic part, namely the Linguistic Atlas of
Lower Bavarian, whereas the remaining three do not contain syntactic phenomena.
7
Blank squares symbolize the non-inverted order, and blank squares with a cross symbolize sentences with
null subjects. See also map 127 (BSASMF Bd. 7) displaying roughly the same areal distribution of the
reverse order for (3b).

When the subject follows the object. On a curiosity in the syntax

71

investigation: on Map 4 one can see black squares (symbolizing inverted orders) mostly in
the north, but in the same area non-inverted orders (symbolized by bars) and null-subjects
(symbolized by grey circles) are also attested, so the inversion area is more mixed than it is
in the case of Middle Franconia. However, there is a clear contrast to the south of the area of
investigation, where inverted orders occur only marginally (and null subjects also occur to a
lesser extent).
(5)

a
b

Da tt ich mich frchten.

There did I
me
fear
Da tt mich ich frchten.
There did me
I
fear
I would be scared then.

Map 3 (BSA SMF vol. 7, map 128), reprinted with permission

72

Map 4 (BSA SBS vol. 9.2, map 393), reprinted with permission

H. Wei

When the subject follows the object. On a curiosity in the syntax

73

Interestingly, the inversion areas of Middle Franconia and Bavarian-Swabia form a

more or less continuous region, because the north of Bavarian-Swabia lies immediately
to the south of the respective area of Middle Franconia.8 Since Swabian and Franconian
are both Upper German dialects, the findings of the BSA are not unexpected given that
the reverse order was also found in Upper German in the Wenker survey.
2.3 Syntax of Hessian Dialects (SyHD)
The third source of data is the research project on the syntax of Hessian
dialects (SyHD). 9 Hessian largely belongs to Middle German, but the area
comprises Low German as well. As was noted above, the reverse order of
pronominal arguments was attested mostly in Upper German dialects. So it
could not be expected in the Hessian dialects as well. However, in a pilot study
completed before the start of SyHD, we encountered it in a spontaneous answer
of an informant in a context designed for the elicitation of a recipient passive
(see below). So we decided to include two tasks to check the existence and
distribution of the reverse order in Hessian dialects. The test sentences which were
used are given in (6): (6a) is a slightly modified version of Wenker sentence 18 (cf. Sect. 2.1)
and (6b) is the spontaneous example of the informant mentioned above:
(6) a.

b.

Ttst du ihn richtig kennen, httest du eine bessere Meinung von ihm.
Did you him right know, had you a better opinion of him
If you really knew him, you would have a better opinion of him.
Und haben
dir
sie geholfen?
And have
you
they helped
So did they help you?

The sentences were presented in the form of a judgment test and introduced by a
small story describing a situation which serves to establish discourse referents and to
determine an information structure for the sentences to be judged.10 The purpose of the
situation described in the story was to deliver a context which precludes that one of the
pronouns in the test sentences receives focus. That was necessary especially for Wenker
sentence 18, because the original version allows for focus on the subjectand with a
focused subject, the reverse order would be the only appropriate one. However, what
we wanted to check was whether the reverse order is also possible if both pronouns
have a reading that is neutral with regard to information-structure. The informants were
supplied with both orders and asked to choose one or both options. In addition, the
8

One may object that the results of both BSAs are not strictly comparable, because in one (SMF) the object
pronoun is a direct object, whereas in the other one (SBS) it is the indirect object. That is true, but to my
knowledge there is no evidence that direct object clitics and indirect object clitics behave differently with
respect to their relative order with subject clitics, so the results may nevertheless be comparable. Note that the
test sentences applied in SyHD (cf. ex. (6a, b) in Sect. 2.3) also contained different objects but nevertheless
yielded similar results.
9
The SyHD-project (cf. www.syhd.info; Fleischer et al. 2012; Strobel 2012), funded by the German Research
Foundation (DFG) for 6 years (June 1, 2010May 31, 2016), is carried out in collaboration between the
Universities of Frankfurt am Main (Helmut Wei), Marburg (Jrg Fleischer) and Vienna (Alexandra N. Lenz).
It aims at collecting, processing, making available and analyzing in a systematic and spatially comprehensive
way syntactic data of a German dialect area (i.e., the state Hesse) for the first time.
10
See Fleischer et al. (2012) for a description and discussion of the various elicitation methods used in SyHD.

74

H. Wei

15. Hilde und ihr Mann Paul reden ber einen Verwandten von Hilde, den Paul nicht besonders mag, weil er ihn
fr einen Nichtsnutz hlt. Hilde sagt zu diesen Anschuldigungen ganz erbost:
Bitte kreuzen Sie die Stze an, die Sie in Ihrem Platt/Dialekt sagen knnen (auch Mehrfachnennungen sind
mglich).
a)
b)

Ttst du ihn richtig kennen, httest du eine bessere Meinung von ihm.
Ttst ihn du richtig kennen, httest du eine bessere Meinung von ihm.

Wrden Sie den Satz normalerweise in einer Form sagen, die gar nicht aufgefhrt ist? Wenn ja: Bitte
notieren Sie hier den Satz so, wie Sie ihn normalerweise sagen wrden:
c)

a)

Welcher Satz ist fr Sie der natrlichste?

, b)
oder c)

Fig. 1 Task 15 (questionnaire 3)

informants could give their own version (in case they reject the given ones). At last, the
informants had to decide which variant is the most natural form for them.
Figure 111 contains the task for sentence (6a).
Figure 212 displays the quantitative results13 and Map 5 the areal distribution. In this
task, the own alternative was mostly one with a null subjectas could be expected,
because pro-drop is widespread in German dialects with the 2.SG (Wei 2005). So we
have three variants of the test sentence (6a).
The numbers in Fig. 2 reveal that the overall proportion of the reverse order is not
very high. The percentage of its occurrence is only 9.48 %. However, there are 7 (out of
17) regions where it scored above the average, and these regions are located in the north
11
Hilde and her husband Paul are talking about a relative of Hilde whom Paul does not particularly like,
because he considers him to be a ne'er-do-well. Hilde furiously replies to these accusations:
Please mark those sentences which you can say in your dialect with a cross (multiple answers are
permitted):

(a)
Do.2.SG.CONJ you him really know, have.2.SG.CONJ you a beer opinion of him
(b)
Do.2.SG.CONJ him you really know, have.2.SG.CONJ you a beer opinion of him
If you really knew him, you would have a beer opinion of him.

Would you utter this sentence in a form that is not mentioned? If yes: Please write down the
sentence, as you would usually utter it:
(c) .
Which sentence is the most natural one for you?
a)

, b)

, or c)

12

The abbreviations in the second row represent the dialect areas and transition zones for each of which a
separate dialect version of the questionnaire was made. NH = North-Hessian, NHOH = North-Hessian/EastHessian, NHTH = North-Hessian/Thuringian, OFL = Eastfalian, OH = East-Hessian, RF = Rhine-Franconian,
WFL = Westfalian, ZH = Central-Hessian, ZHMF = Central-Hessian/Moselle-Franconian, ZHMFRF =
Central-Hessian/Moselle-Franconian/Rhine-Franconian, ZHNH = Central-Hessian/North-Hessian, ZHOHOF
= Central-Hessian/East-Hessian/East-Franconian, ZHRH = Central-Hessian/Rhine-Franconian.

13
The numbers in Figs. 2 and 4 differ from the ones given in Wei (2013), because the database now includes
more questionnaires.

When the subject follows the object. On a curiosity in the syntax

75

NH_a

NH_b

NHOH

NHTH

OFL

RF_a

RF_b

WFL

ZH_a

ZH_b

ZHMF_a

ZHMF_b

ZHMFRF

ZHNH

ZHOHOF

ZHRF

sum

OH

E3-15: -- a) S > O ("du ihn") -- b) O > S ("ihn du") -- c) null subject (" ihn")

a ("du ihn") 52

36

30

31

11

51

41

46

68

60

63

17

19

33

27

29

19

633

88.88%

b ("ihn du")

68

9.48%

c (" ihn")

16

2.23%

Fig. 2 Absolute numbers and percentage

(NHa, NHb, NHTH), in the middle (ZHNH, ZHMFRF, ZHOHOF), and in the east
(OH) of the area of investigation. The core area seems to lie in the transition zones of
Central-Hessian/North-Hessian and of North-Hessian/Thuringian, because there the
reverse order achieved the highest scores, namely 15.63 % (ZHNH) and 16.22 %
(NHTH) respectively. This means that the reverse order is an areal feature, although it is
clearly the minority option in all regions.
A similar result was obtained in the second task. As mentioned above, the
sentence we used in the task was noted by an informant in a pilot study before
SyHD started, so we had a clue that the reverse order existed in Hessian
dialects. The task was again a judgment test and constructed identically to
the previous one, as Fig. 314 shows.
Figure 4 displays the quantitative results and Map 6 the areal distribution. Note that
there is a difference from the previous results in that we did not elicit null subjects with
the 3.PL (that was no surprise, because null subjects are not attested for that person in
German dialects, cf. Wei 2005).
With respect to the total number of reverse-order answers and to the number
of regions with a score above the average, the reverse order shows an even
more restricted distribution for the 3.PL than for the 2.SG: 3.84 % on average,
and six regions above the average with NHa (10.77 %) and ZHNH (12.5 %)
achieving the highest scores. However, there is a significant geographical
overlap, because four regions (i.e., NHa, NHTH, OH, ZHNH) scored above
the average in both tasks. Additionally, it should be noted that in the 3.PL the

14

Paul tells Willi that last year he asked his neighbors to water his garden while he was in a health resort. Willi
asks him with interest:
Please mark those sentences with a cross which you can say in your dialect (multiple answers are
permitted):
(a)
And - have.3.PL they you.2.SG.Dat helped?
(b)
And - have.3.PL you.2.SG.Dat they helped?
And have they helped you?

Would you utter this sentence in a form that is not mentioned? If yes: Please write down the sentence,
as you would usually utter it:
(c) .
Which sentence is the most natural one for you?
a)
, b)
, or c)

76

H. Wei

Map 5 Areal distribution of du>ihn/ihn>du/ihn

reverse order performed surprisingly well in the Low German speaking area of
WFL (whereas it scored slightly below average with the 2.SG).
The intersection of reverse-order areas in both tasks is good evidence of the
validity of the SyHD-results. Most reverse-order responses were due to the

When the subject follows the object. On a curiosity in the syntax

77

2. Paul erzhlt Willi, dass er die Nachbarn letztes Jahr gefragt hat, ob sie ihm den Garten gieen, whrend er auf
Kur ist. Willi fragt ihn daraufhin interessiert:
Bitte kreuzen Sie die Stze an, die Sie in Ihrem Platt/Dialekt sagen knnen (auch Mehrfachnennungen sind
mglich).
a)
b)

Und haben sie dir geholfen?

Und haben dir sie geholfen?

Wrden Sie den Satz normalerweise in einer Form sagen, die gar nicht aufgefhrt ist? Wenn ja: Bitte
notieren Sie hier den Satz so, wie Sie ihn normalerweise sagen wrden:
c)
Welcher Satz ist fr Sie der natrlichste?
a)
, b)
oder c)

Fig. 3 Task 2 (questionnaire 3)

selection of a given option, i.e., the informant had marked the reverse-order option with
a cross. In addition, in the task for sentence (6b), four informants wrote down their own
variants with a reversed order ((7c) was written down by two informants):
(7)

a.

b.
c.

h hon
desche
da wenigstens
And have you.they there at.least
So, did they help you at least there?
O
hon desche
geholfe?
And have you.they helped
Un hu
da sche
gehulfe?
And have you they helped
And did they help you?

geholfe?
helped

(NH_a)

(OH)
(ZHNH)

This is an especially good piece of evidence, because it is much less likely that
informants select the wrong option while writing down their own variant than when
choosing between given variants by marking one with a cross. Taking all evidence
together, we can be fairly sure that reverse orders do really exist within the Hessian
dialects and are by no means a methodological artifact.
2.4 Summary
In German dialects, the unmarked order of subject and object pronouns is
subject before object in most cases. However, in a small portion of dialectal

NH_a

NH_b

NHOH

NHTH

OFL

RF_a

RF_b

WFL

ZH_a

ZH_b

ZHMF_a

ZHMF_b

ZHMFRF

ZHNH

ZHOHOF

ZHRF

sum

OH

E3-2: -- a) S > O ("sie dir") -- b) O > S ("dir sie")

a ("sie dir") 58

42

28

35

20

64

57

54

70

64

71

17

19

42

28

34

23

726

96.16%

b ("dir sie")

29

3.84%

Fig. 4 Absolute numbers and percentage

78

H. Wei

Map 6 Areal distribution of sie>dir/dir>sie

varieties, the reversed order object before subject is also attested as the unmarked one. The data presented above stem from three sources (Wenker survey,
BSA, SyHD); they cover a time span of nearly 150 years; and they represent

When the subject follows the object. On a curiosity in the syntax

79

all three major groups of German dialects (i.e., Low, Middle, and Upper
German). The average percentage of the reverse orders lies between 4 and
10 % approximately (SyHD E4-2: 3.84 % - Wenker survey: 6.91 % - SyHD
E4-15: 9.48 %).15 However, some dialect areas investigated in the SyHD-project
display a much higher reverse-order proportion. Finally, reverse orders are
attested for three different persons: the 1. and 2.SG, and the 3.PL. As a
conclusion of this empirical section, we can state that there is enough evidence
to prove the existence of the reversed pronoun order in German dialects. The
existence of this particularity of pronominal syntax has been mostly unknown
so far. In the next section I will propose an explanation of this particularity.

3 Analysis
3.1 Outline of the morpho-syntax of pronouns in German dialects
As briefly mentioned in the introduction, the pronominal syntax of German
dialects has been investigated from various perspectives, but there is no systematic study of the topic (with the exception of Wei, forthc. a). Before I
present my explanation for the reverse orders, it is necessary to give a short
sketch of the morpho-syntax of personal pronouns in German dialects (based on
Wei, forthc. a).
As a point of departure, I will take Cardinaletti and Starkes (1999) tripartition
of pronominal systems. Cardinaletti and Starke (1999) distinguish between
strong, weak, and clitic forms. Strong and weak pronouns differ at least with
respect to phonological and syntactic features. Only strong pronouns can bear
stress and can be modified or coordinated. Whether strong and weak pronouns
additionally differ with respect to their phrase-structural status is another question which I will address shortly. Clitic pronouns, however, are clearly different
in that they are just heads or Ps (Roberts 2010). For ease of discussion, I will
assume that pronouns are DPs containing a P (or AgrD in the sense of
Wiltschko 1998). 16 Strong pronouns spell out the D part (8a) and clitic pronouns the
part (8b). As for weak pronouns, I assume that they are ambiguous in that they can
spell out both parts depending on the syntactic position they appear in. The evidence for
this assumption comes from German dialects, where they are possible in SpecCP as well
as in the WP (Wackernagel position; see below).
(8)

15

a.
b.
c.
d.

[DP Pronst [P [NP

[DP [P Proncl [NP
[DP Pronw [P [NP
[DP [P Pronw [NP

For the BSA it is not possible to calculate the (averaged) percentage of reverse-order occurrences.
This structural proposal combines assumptions made, e.g., in Wiltschko (1998), Freidin and Vergnaud
(2001), Dchaine and Wiltschko (2002), van Craenenbroeck and van Koppen (2008), Roberts (2010), or Fu
and Wratil (2013).
16

80

H. Wei

For the time being, I use the terms strong and weak in (8a, c, d) in the sense
of Cardinaletti and Starke (1999). Note, however, that in Sect. 3.2 I will present
a modified version that does without these terms (using full and reduced in
their place). The necessity of such a modification will become clear after I have
described the morpho-syntax of pronouns in greater detail.
On the morphological level most (if not all) German dialects only distinguish
between two pronominal forms. There are dialects which show a distinction
between clitic and non-clitic pronouns, whereas other dialects distinguish between reduced and non-reduced forms. Bavarian is a dialect which has clitic
pronouns which differ not only phonologically from full forms, but syntactically
as well, because clitics are restricted to the WP. In (9a) all pronouns are clitics
occurring in the WP. In case the pronominal subject or indirect object is raised
to SpecCP, it must change its form and appear as a full form.17 In this position,
they can, but need not bear stress, which means we actually have three forms:
full forms with or without stress, and clitic forms.
(9)

a.
b.
c.

Gesdan
hanedan
scho
zrugg geem.
Yesterday have.I.you.it
already
back given
I
handan
gesdan
scho
zrugg geem.
I
have.you.it yesterday already
back given
Dia hanen
doch gesdan
scho
zrugg geem.
You have.I.it
but yesterday already
back given
I already gave it back to you yesterday.

Central Hessian is an example of a German dialect which mainly distinguishes

between reduced and non-reduced pronouns. For instance, the pronoun of the 3.SG
fem. she has the two forms si and se: the first one is the strong pronoun which bears
stress (10a), whereas the second one corresponds to the weak and clitic pronouns in the
sense of Cardinaletti & Starke (10b, c). Since reduced pronouns like se she are
possible in the WP (10c) and in SpecCP (10b), I assume that they are ambiguous with
respect to their phrase structural status: in SpecCP they must be DPs, whereas in the
WP they (can) remain Ps (like clitics). The phrase structure proposed for pronouns in
(8) can account for this dual nature of weak pronouns.
(10)

a.
b.
c.

17

SI singd unn daazd

de
SHE sings and dances
the
Se
singd unn daazd
de
she
sings and dances
the
Dai
Kist hoddse
de Inge
Your box has.she
the Inge
She gave your box to Inge.

gannse
whole
gannse
whole
gegwwe.
given

Doag.
day
Doag.
day

The pronominal direct object can be raised to SpecCP as well, but it would then be replaced by the dpronoun den. The substitution of d-pronouns for personal pronouns of the 3. Pers. seems to be a widespread
phenomenon in German dialects, which has not been investigated systematically so far.

When the subject follows the object. On a curiosity in the syntax

81

There is yet another kind of pronoun attested in German dialects: null

(subject) pronouns or pro (cf., e.g., Bayer 1984; Fu 2005; Wei 1998, 2005,
forthc. a). Null subjects mostly occur in the 2.SG and, to a lesser extent, in the
2.PL (11a, b). Additional occurrences of null subjects are attested for the 1.PL
in Central Bavarian (cf. Bayer 1984; Wei 1998, 2005) and for the 1.SG in
Alemannic (see below). Null pronouns are restricted to the WP in German
dialects (and licensed via c-command by Agr in C, cf. Axel and Wei 2011;
Wei 2005 for further details).
(11)

a.
b.

wennsd
if.2SG
wennds
if.2PL

pro
pro
pro
pro

mogsd.
like.2SG
megds.
like.2PL

(Central Bavarian, likewise

North Bavarian, and East
Franconian)

To summarize so far, we can say that on the morphological level there are four
segmentally different forms (full, reduced, clitic, and null pronouns). However, for
most person, number, gender and case combinations there are only two distinct forms
available which correspond to strong and weak pronouns in Cardinaletti and Starkes
(1999) system. Since strong pronouns are always expressed by full forms, it is the weak
pronoun which displays variation between reduced, clitic, and null forms.18 Most
German dialects show a mixed behavior in that they have more than one kind of
pronoun for the weak use in their pronominal systems (see also Sect. 3.2 below on
this point).
With respect to their syntax, pronominal arguments are commonly thought to move
to the WP in German dialects. In case they are all clitic or weak pronouns, they form a
cluster and appear in the surface order subject before (indirect before direct) object
(Wei, forthc. a). As briefly mentioned in the introduction (Sect. 1), there is no
consensus about why pronouns raise to the WP. Following proposals made, e.g., by
Wei (1998), Corver and Delfitto (1999), and van Craenenbroeck and van Koppen
(2008), I will assume that pronoun raising consists of two steps: (i) they are raised out
of their VP-internal base position to the specifier of their respective AgrPs from where
(ii) they undergo cliticization into the WP, which means they encliticize to C. Whereas
the first movement step is clearly triggered by the need of feature checking (cf., among
many others, van Craenenbroeck and van Koppen 2008) and may be considered an
instance of scrambling (Wei 2004), the motivation for the second step is less obvious.
Since subject as well as object clitics undergo raising to the WP, I do not think that
agree plays a role as trigger (as is sometimes assumed for subject clitics which were
held to cliticize onto C in order to check some -feature against an appropriate C-head
like Fin, cf. van Craenenbroeck and van Koppen 2008).19

18

Exceptionally, we observe in German dialects that only one form is available for strong and weak uses. This
is the case with the pronoun for 1.SG nominative in Central Hessian where we encounter only non-reduced
forms with a diphthong or an umlaut like aich, each, or ch I which occurs even in the WP (Wei, forthc. a).
19
Though I prefer a PF-account for the second step for various reasons, my explanation of the reverse order
would also be compatible with a feature-checking approach, as long as the different orders of clitic and nonclitic pronouns as described with respect to (12ac) are accounted for. For some diachronic arguments against
a feature-checking approach cf. Wei (forthc. b).

82

H. Wei

Additional evidence for a PF-cliticization account is provided by specific serialization effects. Though the order within the cluster is fairly rigid, it can be changed if one
of the pronouns is stronger than the other one(s). There are mainly two relevant cases
to distinguish:
(i) if one of the pronouns is focused, it must be realized as a strong pronoun which is
then located lower in the sentence structure (12a);20
(ii) though German dialects often have clitic pronouns, the clitic system is sometimes
defective in that in some cases there are weak instead of clitic pronouns (Wei,
forthc. a) and weak pronouns are placed after clitics independent of their syntactic
function. This is, for example, the case with Bavarian eam him-Dat which
always follows direct object pronouns, even if it is not focusedin contrast to
the clitical da you-Dat, which triggers no inversion with the direct object clitic
(Wei 1998) (cf. 12b vs. 12c).21
(12)

a.

b.

c.

Und hodn
ebba
EA
And had.him PRT
HE
And did even he also see him?
Und hodan
eam geem?
And had.he.it him given
And did he give it to him?
Und hodadan
geem?
And had.he.you.it
given
And did he give it to you?

aa
too

gseng?
seen

Given these regularities, one is strongly tempted to assume that the reverse order
is solely due to the principle clitic before non-clitic pronoun: In cases of reverse
order, only the object pronoun is a clitic, whereas the subject pronoun is some kind
of full pronoun (see below). However, an analysis of this kind could not nearly
explain all cases. The data of the BSA are all transcribed phonetically so we can tell
in every case whether subject and object pronoun differ with respect to their
syntactic status. 22 In the BSA-SMF, there are reverse-order cases attested where
the subject pronoun in the 1.SG is a full form (//) (cf. 13a) or consists at least of a
long vowel (/i:/) (cf. 13b), so it (may) differ from the object pronoun. However, in
the vast majority of reverse-order cases, the subject pronoun consists solely of a

20

Note that German dialects differ from the Dutch dialects spoken in Belgium, which have obligatory clitic
doubling in constructions like (12a). Wambeek Dutch, for instance, requires the presence of both a clitic and a
strong subject pronoun in such cases. Since clitic doubling generally does not occur in German dialects, an
approach like the one proposed by van Craenenbroeck and van Koppen (2008) for Wambeek Dutch is not
applicable to them.
21
Note that in Austrian-Bavarian eam him-Dat seems to be a clitic pronoun that does not require inversion
with the direct object clitic (Th. Distler, p.c.).
22
Since we used a rather broad, non-phonetic transcription in SyHD to render the dialect examples on the
questionnaires, the SyHD data are not conclusively informative with respect to the exact form of the pronouns.
The same holds for the Wenker survey, where the dialect sentences were written down by the informants.

When the subject follows the object. On a curiosity in the syntax

83

short vowel, so there is no difference between it and the object pronoun dar/dr
you-Dat in phonological strength (cf. 13c):
(13)

a.

b.
c.

Dskhndrgm.
(021 Stbach)
That.can.you.DAT.I.give
I can give that to you.
Dskhndrgm.
(165 Dietfurt)
That.can.you.DAT.I.already.give
Dskhndrgv.
(078 Brundorf)
That.can.you.DAT.I.already.give
I can give that to you.

Therefore, an explanation based merely on a difference in phonological

weight between object and subject pronoun does not work. Nevertheless, I
think the question of whether the subject pronoun is a clitic or not, is relevant
for the emergence of the reverse order.23
3.2 The pronoun cycle
The overview of pronominal morpho-syntax in German dialects in Sect. 3.1 revealed
that pronouns occurring in the WP can vary with respect to their form: they can be null
(i.e., pro), clitic, or reduced. The three possibilities are illustrated in (14ac) for subject
pronouns. Whereas null and clitic pronouns are restricted to the WP, reduced forms are
licit also sentence-initially (14d):
(14)

a
b
c
d

Wennsd pro mogsd.

If.2SG
pro like.2SG
Gesdan
hanedan scho
Yesterday have.I.you.it already
Dai Kist hoddse
de Inge
Your box has.she
the Inge
Se singd unn daazd
de
she sings and dances
the

zrugg geem.
back given
gegwwe.
given
gannse Doag.
whole
day

In light of these observations I propose a modification of Cardinaletti and Starkes

(1999) system, because null, clitic and reduced pronouns are all instances of weak
pronouns. That means that the distinction between strong and weak pronouns is more
essential than the one between weak and clitic (or null) pronouns. Whereas strong and weak

One reviewer suggests that the reverse order may reflect the possibility that the 1st and 2nd person
pronouns occupy a different position than the 3rd person. Even if this were indeed the case, it would only
affect Wenker sentence 18 (cf. 2) and the second SyHD-sentence (cf. 6a) respectively, which combine a 3rd
person object pronoun with a 2nd person subject pronoun, but it would not contribute anything to explain the
reverse order of the other sentences: The four BSA sentences (cf. 3 and 4) only contain 1st and 2nd person
pronouns and the second SyHD-sentence (cf. 6b) has a 3rd person pronominal subject which can nevertheless
follow a 2nd person object pronoun. Therefore, it is not the case that only 1st and 2nd person subjects follow
pronominal objects.

23

84

H. Wei

Pronouns

strong

full

weak

reduced

clitic

null

Fig. 5 Typology of pronouns

pronouns differ with respect to fundamental semantico-pragmatic properties (cf., e.g., Fu

and Wratil 2013), the main difference between clitic (or null) and reduced pronouns lies in
their syntactic distribution. Additionally, the availability at least of reduced and clitic
pronouns depends on language (or dialect) specific morphological circumstances, whereas
all languages must distinguish between strong and weak (uses of) pronouns (cf. also Fu
and Wratil 2013 on the last point). So we have a pronominal typology as given in Fig. 5.
After the revision of Cardinaletti and Starkes (1999) system, we can now reformulate
the pronominal phrase structures in (8ad) as (8ad). The reformulation replaces strong
and weak with full and reduced because the terms strong/weak do not correspond to lexical
items, but to specific uses of pronominal forms which can be full, reduced, or clitic. Note
that it is now the reduced pronoun which is ambiguous between a DP and a P structure.
(8)

a.
b.
c.
d.

[DP Pronfull [P [NP

[DP [P Proncl/ [NP
[DP Pronred [P [NP
[DP [P Pronred [NP

In the syntax, we thus have two three-way distinctions, the first acting on the positions
where pronouns appear, and the second affecting their phrase structures. In the WP only
Ps are allowed, in SpecCP only DPs (which can be full or reduced pronouns), and
elsewhere in the sentence only (focused) DPs. Morphology, however, only makes a twoway distinction in most dialects. With respect to these morphological distinctions, there
are two types of dialects: distinct clitic dialects which reflect the DP/P distinction, and
distinct reduced form dialects which do not reflect it in morphology.24
Reduced, clitic and null pronouns compete with each other for the weak use of pronouns.
According to the null subject cycle (NSC) postulated by Fu and Wratil (2013), null pronouns
evolve from weak pronouns which in turn emerge from strong pronouns. Fu and Wratil
(2013) assume that null pronouns correspond to weak pronouns: a null pronoun is nothing
other than the covert or null variant of the corresponding weak pronoun. Over the course of
time, weak pronouns tend to diminish and eventually to disappear completelyyet strong
pronouns get weakened so that new weak forms emerge which set the cycle in motion again.
However, although the NSC is in principle a correct generalization, I think it should
be modified in two respects: (i) I would like to add a further development stage and (ii)
generalize it to a pronoun cycle.
24

The terminological distinction of the two types of dialects I owe to Jim Wood.

When the subject follows the object. On a curiosity in the syntax

85

(i) As is shown above, pronominal systems in German dialects display a tripartite system
with respect to weak pronouns: null and clitic pronouns, which are both restricted to
the WP, and reduced pronouns, which are licit in the pre-field (i.e., in SpecCP) as
well. In this system, clitic and reduced pronouns are equivalent, the only difference
being that clitics are more specific in that they are bound to the WP.25 Clitics are thus
an intermediate step in the development from reduced to null pronouns. That this step
is a necessary one can be seen in German dialects: here, null pronouns can only
evolve (if at all) from clitics, but never directly from reduced pronouns. In addition to
that, it even seems to be the case that the cycle does not necessarily involve the stage
of null pronouns, but can start anew when a reduced pronoun replaces a clitic
pronoun. This modification is thus necessary to make anyway.
(ii) The NSC is a special case of a more general pronoun cycle (PC) that involves the
developmental stages from full 26 to reduced to clitic pronouns. The PC is not
restricted to subject pronouns, but can be observed with object pronouns as well,
because the fundamental distinction between two different weak types (reduced vs.
clitic) also holds for object pronouns. Only subject pronouns proceed to the additional step of becoming null forms, even though that is not always the case (as we
shall see later in more detail with respect to the 3.PL).27 If this assumption is correct,
it would imply that the NSC proposed by Fu and Wratil (2013) is a special case of a
more general pronoun cycle, which in German involves the following steps:
(15)

Pronoun cycle (PC)

full > reduced > clitic (> null or agreement)

An important precondition for the possibility that the different pronominal forms
evolve out of each other along the scale in (15) through increasing weakening is the fact
that each form is syntactically in direct competition with its neighbor(s). As we have
seen above, in distinct clitic dialects where clitics are only opposed to full forms, the
latter can appear as strong and weak pronouns in SpecCP, whereas in distinct reduced
dialects, reduced forms are licit in SpecCP (like weakly used full forms) and in the WP
(like clitics). Therefore, it is absolutely plausible to envision that a weakly used full
form in SpecCP got segmentally reduced and would then be allowed in the WP, where
it could develop into a clitic (and eventually become null).
There are two necessary adjustments to the PC. First, there is the possibility that the cycle
does not necessarily involve null pronouns, but works with clitics as well: reduced pronouns
also tend to replace clitic pronouns in those persons where null pronouns are not available
(remember that German dialects are only partial null subject languages). Before reduced
pronouns become null, they must have undergone a clitical phaseand some pronouns
apparently never develop null forms, so the cycle begins anew without passing through a
25

Here I leave aside the difference between simple and special clitics, because it plays no role in the present
contextalthough it is a relevant distinction for German dialects (cf. Wei, forthc. a for further details on that issue).
26
As we have seen with respect to the 1.SG subject pronoun in Central Hessian (mentioned in Sect. 3.1), there
are cases where a full form functions as a weak pronoun as well.
27
There are other cyclical changes concerning pronouns which are discussed in the literature. A further
example of a special case (and similar to the NSC) is the Subject Agreement Cycle (SAC) proposed by van
Gelderen (2011a, b) and illustrated, among others, with French: In the history of French, the subject jo I is
reanalyzed from emphatic pronoun to subject pronoun to clitic je and is currently regarded by many [] as an
agreement marker (van Gelderen 2011b: 3 f.). See also Fu and Wratil (2013) on French.

86

H. Wei

null stage. This is in accordance with the fact that German dialects are partial null subject
languages where not all subject pronouns have developed null forms. Additionally, since
object pro-drop does not occur in German dialects, it seems that object pronouns in the WP
never become null in these dialects.28 If we assume that even object pronouns (can) pass the
pronoun cycle, then we are forced to make the modification indicated above.
Second, clitic pronouns in German dialects became null for two reasons: (i) they
disappeared for phonological reasons or (ii) they got reanalyzed as (part of the) agreement
morphology. It is presumably for phonological reasons that subject pronouns in the 1.SG
disappeared in Alemannic varieties (cf. Sect. 3.3), and it was mainly the subject pronoun in
the 2.SG that got systematically reanalyzed as part of the agreement morphology (Wei
2005). However, at least 3rd person pronouns stopped at the clitic stage and were never
reanalyzed as agreement markers since Old High German times. For this reason, the PC in
(15) is more common than Fu & Wratils NSC or van Gelderens SAC.
3.3 Explanation of the reverse order
Before we can start with the explanation for the reverse order, we should note
another crucial issue that has relevance for our purposes: the reverse order is not
only at variance with the normal order, but also with null subjects. As we have
seen in the example of Wenker sentence 18 and the corresponding SyHD-sentence
(6a) above, there are actually three constructions which compete with one another,
because some speakers can drop the subject pronoun as well. Null subjects in the
1.SG were also an option for some informants in the BSA. The three possibilities
are given in (16ac):
(16)

a.
b.
c.

Subj>Obj
Obj
Obj>Subj

Now, I would like to describe the emergence of the reverse orders in the context of
the PC and propose the following hypothesis:
The areal distribution of the three options in (16ac) reflects the diachronic
development within the PC.
We must distinguish two cases based upon whether the cycle involves a stage of null
subjects (1. and 2.SG) or not (3.PL):

28

Yet in other languages object pronouns can become null, cf. van Gelderens (2011a) object agreement cycle.
In German, there are (and always were, cf. Volodina and Wei, forthc.) two clearly different types of null
arguments: (i) null topics in SpecCP which could be null object and subject pronouns, and (ii) subject pro in
the WP. Since pro must be licensed and identified by Agr-in-C (cf. Wei 1998, 2005; Axel and Wei 2011), it
is apparent why object pro is excluded: there is no object agreement in German to license and identify it.
Topical null object pronouns are restricted to SpecCP and licensed by an antecedent; their existence is thus
irrelevant for our purpose.

When the subject follows the object. On a curiosity in the syntax

87

(i) a subject clitic (step I) disappears (i.e., becomes null) (step II); later, a new reduced
pronoun evolves which replaces the null pronoun (step III) and eventually becomes a clitic again (step IV).
(ii) The second development scenario does not contain step II, because the new
reduced subject pronoun replaces the old subject clitic; that is, step III follows
immediately after step I.
According to the principle of pronoun serialization clitic before non-clitic pronoun
which holds for the WP, the new reduced pronoun that evolves in step III initially
follows the clitic object pronoun, thus giving rise to the reverse order. Since I assume a
PF-account for the final step of pronominal cliticization into the WP (cf. Sect. 3.1), the
reverse order requires no special syntax, but just a phonological reordering within the
WP. When the reduced subject pronoun again turns into a clitic, it remains for some time
in its position after the object, but is finally positioned again before the object pronoun
and the reverse order disappears (step V). As we have seen in the BSA-data, postposed
subjects can, but need not be full forms (cf. 13ac). I take this as empirical proof that
subject clitics can remain in their postposed position for a short time.29
German dialects are partial null subject languages, that is, they allow null subjects in
some, but not in all persons and to a different extent (Axel and Wei 2011; Wei 2005).
Null subjects in the 1.SG are especially known to occur in Alemannic and Swabian under
certain, though not entirely understood conditions. In order to drop the subject clitic // I,
the necessary precondition is the presence of another pronominal clitic in the WP.
However, in most Alemannic/Swabian varieties, further conditions are required, but this
is open to microvariation: while in the Swabian variety of the Westallgu the mere presence
of another pronominal clitic seems to be sufficient (according to Gruber 1989: 231), it must
be a dative pronoun in the Low Alemannic of Stahringen (Staedele 1927: 22), or, as in
Zurich German, either a vowel-initial pronoun or two pronominal clitics (Seiler 2012). This
fits well with the results from Bavarian-Swabia and from the area of Middle Franconia
immediately adjacent to it. As mentioned above, the BSA elicitated null subjects as well (in
the case of Middle Franconian followed by a dative pronoun, cf. (3ac), and in the
Bavarian-Swabian example followed by an accusative pronoun, cf. (4)).
As for the drop of a 1.SG-subject in these varieties, one can assume a rule like the one in
(17) (which neglects details concerning the additional specific conditions mentioned above).
(18ae) sketches the five steps of the development: in step I there are two clitic pronouns
with the canonical order subject before object (scl > ocl); in step II, the subject clitic has
vanished and become null; the null subject is replaced with a reduced pronoun (Pronred)
which is non-clitical and thus appears to the right of the object clitic (step III); the reduced
subject pronoun is weakened and eventually develops into a clitic which, however, initially
stays in the position after the object clitic (step IV), before the canonical order subject before
object clitic is restored again in step V.

As one reviewer rightly objects, it is unclear what is meant by a short period. Since the data do not
provide any information about the time span for which the reverse order exists, I am not able to give a more
precise specification. It is at the moment just a hypothesis whose validity has to be confirmed in future
research.

29

88

H. Wei

(17)

// ; / __ ocl

(18)

a.
b.
c.
d.
e.

// (=scl)

redPron
scl
scl

Vfin-scl1>ocl
Vfin-ocl
Vfin-ocl>Pronred
Vfin-ocl>scl2
Vfin-scl2>ocl

(= step I)
(= step II)
(= step III)
(= step IV)
(= step V)

As mentioned above, the precise conditions under which pro-drop in the 1.SG is
licensed are not entirely known. In contrast to that, we know very well the circumstances under which the subject clitic in the 2.SG became null: (parts of) the clitic were
reanalyzed as part of the verbal inflection already at OHG times, so the unmarked or
canonical form of the 2.SG pronoun occurring in the WP is the null pronoun in many
German dialects (Wei 2005). The steps of development are given in (19ae):
(19)

a.
b.
c.
d.
e.

thu (=scl)

redPron
scl
scl

Vfin-scl1>ocl
Vfin-ocl
Vfin-ocl>Pronred
Vfin-ocl>scl2
Vfin-scl2>ocl

(= step I)
(= step II)
(= step III)
(= step IV)
(= step V)

The analysis proposed in this paper is based on the assumption that, at some time in
the history of a variety, there is a null subject pronounwhich poses no problem in
case of the 1. and 2.SG, because for these persons null subjects are attested anyway.
However, that is not the case with the 3.PL, for which the reverse order nevertheless
occurs in Hessian dialects, though null subjects are to my knowledge not attested so far
with 3.PL in the modern dialects of German (Wei 2005).
As mentioned above, there is the possibility that the cycle does not necessarily involve
null pronouns, but works with clitics as well: reduced pronouns also tend to replace clitic
pronouns in those persons where null pronouns are not available. Before reduced pronouns become null, they must have undergone a clitical phaseand some pronouns
obviously never develop null forms, so the cycle begins anew without passing through a
null stage. The cycle yielding the reverse order in the 3.PL would look like (20):
(20)

a.
b.
c.
d.

/s/ (=scl) Vfin-scl1>ocl

redPron
Vfin-ocl>Pronred
scl
Vfin-ocl>scl2
scl
Vfin-scl2>ocl

(= step I)
(= step III)
(= step IV)
(= step V)

4 Concluding remarks
In this paper, I have presented and discussed data from German dialects representing a
hitherto largely unnoticed phenomenon: the reverse order of pronominal arguments. In
some dialectal varieties, there are speakers for whom the order object pronoun before
subject pronoun is the unmarked order (e.g., haben dir sie geholfen lit. have you they

When the subject follows the object. On a curiosity in the syntax

89

helped). I gave an explanation for the emergence of the reverse order employing the
PC (a modification of the NSC as proposed by Fu and Wratil 2013): The PC implies
the development of reduced, unstressed pronouns out of full ones, which then replace
null or clitic pronouns. The reverse order comprises the steps in the development where
a null or clitic subject pronoun is replaced with a reduced subject pronoun, from which
eventually a clitic pronoun evolves. The reduced subject pronoun follows the object
clitic and stays in that position for a brief period even after it has evolved into its clitic
form, before it is placed again to the left of the object clitic.
This explanation is based on the assumption that a clitic form does exist alongside
full, reduced and null forms within pronominal paradigms. Therefore, a tripartite
system (distinguishing either between strong, weak, and null pronouns (Fu and
Wratil 2013) or between strong, weak, and clitic pronouns (Cardinaletti and Starke
1999)) is not sufficient for German dialects. However (and this may be a bit confusing),
there is a certain mismatch on the morphological level, because pronominal paradigms
mostly only possess two segmentally different forms in German dialects (cf. Wei,
forthc. a): namely, clitic and full form (e.g., 2.SG in Hessian: de vs. du), null and full
form (e.g., 2.SG in Bavarian: vs. du), or reduced and full form (e.g., 3.SG.fem in
Hessian: se vs. si).30 Full pronouns (as opposed to clitics/null pronouns) can be strong
or weak (indicated by stress) and the difference between clitics and reduced pronouns is
that clitics are licit only in the WP, whereas reduced pronouns can occur in the pre-field
(SpecCP) as well. Therefore, there is a certain mismatch between morphological
paradigms and the syntactic level in that syntax requires a tripartite distinction for
which morphology often provides only two distinct forms. Neither Cardinaletti and
Starke (1999) nor Fu and Wratil (2013) have observed this systematic mismatch
between syntax and morphology.
A last conclusion to draw is that in German dialects, null pronouns do not compete
with weak pronouns (as assumed by Fu and Wratil 2013), but primarily with clitics,
because both are restricted to the WP. Null and reduced pronouns are possible
competitors in those cases where the paradigm only provides reduced pronouns (in
addition to full ones). Concerning the morphological expression of non-strong pronouns, German dialects display three possibilities (null, clitic, reduced), whereby all
three are allowed to occur in the WP, but only weak pronouns can appear elsewhere in
the sentence (e.g., in the pre-field).
Acknowledgments Parts of the material presented in this article (in Sect. 2.3) are derived from the research
project Syntax of Hessian Dialects funded by the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft. The data and preliminary
versions of the analysis were presented (as parts of more general talks) at the 4th Congress of the International
Society of German Dialectology (Internationale Gesellschaft fr Dialektologie des Deutschen, IGDD) (September 1315, 2012, Kiel) and at the LIPP-Symposion (Grammatische Variation und Standardgrammatik,
LMU Mnchen, November 15, 2012). I would like to thank the audiences at both conferences for helpful
discussions and suggestions as well as Cecilia Poletto, Eric Fu, and Oliver Schallert for comments on a
written version. A special thanks to Jrg Fleischer for supplying me with the map concerning the Wenker
survey (Sect. 2.1), to the SyHD team for their help with the Hessian data (especially Isabella Bohn, Philipp
Rauth and Steffi Leser), and to Melanie Hobich and Anja Schenk for their help with the preparation of and
comments on the text. Many thanks also to three anonymous reviewers and Jim Wood, associate editor of
JCGL, for detailed written comments which helped to considerably improve the paper.

30

The distinction between three forms is an exception and maybe restricted to the 1.SG in Alemannic
(distinguishing between strong, clitic, and null forms).

90

H. Wei

References
Abraham, Werner, and Anko Wiegel. 1993. Reduktionsformen und Kasussynkretismus bei deutschen und
niederlndischen Pronomina. In Dialektsyntax, ed. Werner Abraham and Joseph Bayer. Opladen:
Westdeutscher Verlag. LB Sonderheft 5.
Axel, Katrin, and Helmut Wei. 2011. Pro-drop in the history of German: from Old High German to the
modern dialects. In Empty pronouns, ed. Peter Gallmann and Melanie Wratil, 2151. Berlin, New York:
Mouton de Gruyter.
Bayer, Josef. 1984. COMP in Bavarian syntax. The Linguistic Review 3: 209274.
Breitbarth, Anne. 2005. Live fast, die youngthe short life of Early Modern German auxiliary ellipsis. Ph.D.
Diss., Tilburg University. Utrecht: LOT dissertation 115. (Dissertation).
Cardinaletti, Anna. 1999. Pronouns in Germanic and Romance languages: An overview. In Clitics in the
languages of Europe, ed. Henk van Riemsdijk, 3482. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Empirical Approaches
to Language Typology / Eurotyp 205.
Cardinaletti, Anna, and Michel Starke. 1999. The typology of structural deficiency: On the three
grammaticalclasses. In Clitics in the languages of Europe, ed. Henk van Riemsdijk, 145233. Berlin:
Mouton de Gruyter. Empirical Approaches to Language Typology / Eurotyp 205.
Chambers, J.K., and Peter Trudgill. 2004. Dialectology, 2nd ed. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Cooper, Kathrin. 1999. On the nature and distribution of Zurich German pronominal clitics. In Clitics in the
languages of Europe, ed. Henk van Riemsdijk, 711772. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Empirical
Approaches to Language Typology / Eurotyp 205.
Corver, Norbert, and Denis Delfitto. 1999. On the nature of pronoun movement. In Clitics in the languages of
Europe, ed. Henk van Riemsdijk, 799861. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Eurotyp 2025.
van Craenenbroeck, Jeroen, and Marjo van Koppen. 2008. Pronominal doubling in Dutch dialects: Big DPs
and coordinations. In Microvariation in syntactic doubling, ed. Sjef Barbiers, Olav Koeneman, and Maria
Lekakou, 207239. Bingley: Emerald. Syntax and Semantics 36.
Dchaine, Rose-Marie, and Martina Wiltschko. 2002. Decomposing pronouns. Linguistic Inquiry 33: 409
442.
Fleischer, Jrg. forthc. Pro-Drop und Pronominalenklise in den Dialekten des Deutschen: eine Auswertung
von Wenkersatz 12. In Deutsche Dialekte: Konzepte, Probleme, Handlungsfelder. Akten des 4.
Kongresses der Internationalen Gesellschaft fr Dialektologie des Deutschen (IGDD), ed. Michael
Elementaler and Markus Hundt. Stuttgart: Steiner (Zeitschrift fr Dialektologie und Linguistik Beihefte).
Fleischer, Jrg, Simon Kasper, and Alexandra N. Lenz. 2012. Die Erhebung syntaktischer Phnomene durch
die indirekte Methode: Ergebnisse und Erfahrungen aus dem Forschungsprojekt Syntax hessischer
Dialekte(SyHD). Zeitschrift fr Dialektologie und Linguistik 79(1): 142.
Freidin, Robert, and Jean-Roger Vergnaud. 2001. Exquisite connections: Some remarks on the evolution of
linguistic theory. Lingua 111: 639666.
Fu, Eric. 2005. The rise of agreement. A formal approach to the syntax and grammaticalization of verbal
inflection. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Fu, Eric. 2008. Multiple agreement and the representation of inflection in the C-domain. Linguistische
Berichte 213: 78108.
Fu, Eric, and Melani Wratil. 2013. Der Nullsubjektzyklus: Etablierung und Verlust von Nullargumenten. In
Comparing Diachronies, ed. Jrg Fleischer and Horst Simon, 163196. Tbingen: Niemeyer.
Grtner, Hans-Martin, and Markus Steinbach. 2003a. What do reduced pronominals reveal about the syntax of
Dutch and German? Part 1: Clause-internal positions. Linguistische Berichte 195: 257294.
Grtner, Hans-Martin, and Markus Steinbach. 2003b. What do reduced pronominals reveal about the syntax of
Dutch and German? Part 2: Fronting. Linguistische Berichte 196: 459490.
Gruber, Anton. 1989. Die Westallguer Mundart. 1. Grammatik. Sprache - Literatur und Geschichte 2. Winter:
Heidelberg.
Haag-Merz, Christine. 1996. Pronomen im Schwbischen - Syntax und Erwerb. Univ. Stuttgart. Edition
Wissenschaft, Reihe Sprachwissenschaften Bd. 6. (Dissertation)
Haftka, Brigitta. 1981. Reihenfolgebeziehungen im Satz. In Grundzge einer deutschen Grammatik, ed. KarlErich Heidolph et al., 702764. Berlin: Akademieverlag.
Haider, Hubert. 1993. Deutsche syntaxGenerativ. Tbingen: Narr.
Haider, Hubert, and Inger Rosengren. 1998. Scrambling.[Sprache und Pragmatik 49] Lund: Germanistisches
Institut.

When the subject follows the object. On a curiosity in the syntax

91

Harnisch, Rdiger. 1989. Die sogenannte sogenannte Flexion der Konjunktionen. Ein Paradigma aus der
Bavaria thuringica. In Bayerisch-sterreichische Dialektforschung, ed. Erwin Koller et al., 283290.
Wrzburg: Knigshausen u. Neumann.
Hoberg, Ursula. 1997. Die Linearstruktur des Satzes. In Grammatik der deutschen Sprache, ed. Gisela
Zifonun, Ludger Homann, and Bruno Strecker, 14981680. [Schriften des Instituts fr Deutsche
Sprache] Berlin/ New York: de Gruyter.
Hofmann, Ute. 1994. Zur Topologie im Mittelfeld: Pronominale und nominale Satzglieder. Tbingen:
Niemeyer.
Hhle, Tilman. 1982. ber Komposition und Derivation: zur Konstituentenstruktur von
Wortbildungsprodukten im Deutschen. Zeitschrift fr Sprachwissenschaft 1: 76112.
Lenerz, Jrgen. 1977. Zur Abfolge nominaler Satzglieder im Deutschen. Tbingen: Narr.
Lenerz, Jrgen. 1992. Zur Syntax der Pronomina im Deutschen, Sprache und Pragmatik 29. Lund: University
of Lund.
Mller, Gereon. 2002. Harmonic alignment and the hierarchy of pronouns in German 2001. In Pronouns
Grammar and representation, ed. Horst Simon and Heike Wiese, 205232. Amsterdam: Benjamins.
Nbling, Damaris. 1992. Klitika im Deutschen. Schriftsprache, Umgangssprache, alemannische Dialekte.
Tbingen: Narr.
Roberts, Ian. 2010. Agreement and head movement: Clitics, incorporation, and defective goals. Cambridge,
MA: MIT Press.
Seiler, Guido. 2012. Non-standard average European. Talk at the IGDD-Kongress, Universitt Kiel,
15.9.2012.
Staedele, Alfons. 1927. Syntax der Mundart von Stahringen. Moritz Schauenburg: Lahr i.Br.
Sternefeld, Wolfgang. 2007. Syntax. Eine morphologisch motivierte generative Beschreibung des Deutschen,
vol. 1. Tbingen: Stauffenburg Verlag.
Strobel, Thomas. 2012. On the areal and syntactic distribution of indefinite-partitive pronouns in German:
methodological advances and empirical results within the project Syntax of Hessian Dialects (SyHD).
In Proceedings of the International Symposium on Limits and Areas in Dialectology (LimiAr). Lisbon
2011, ed. Xos Afonso lvarez Prez, Ernestina Carrilho, and Catarina Magro. http://limiar.clul.ul.pt,
Lisboa: Centro de Lingustica da Universidade de Lisboa.
Van Gelderen, Elly. 2011a. The linguistic cycle: Language change and the language faculty. New York:
Oxford University Press.
Van Gelderen, Elly. 2011b. Language change as cyclical. Studies in Modern English 27: 123.
Volodina, Anna, and Wei, Helmut. forthc. Diachronic development of null subjects in German. In Firm
foundations: Quantitative approaches to grammar and grammatical change, ed. Yannick Versley and
Sam Featherston. Berlin/ New York: Mouton de Gruyter. (Trends in Linguistics: Studies and
Monographs).
Wei, Helmut. 1998. Syntax des Bairischen. Studien zur Grammatik einer natrlichen Sprache. Tbingen:
Niemeyer. Linguistische Arbeiten 391.
Wei, Helmut. 2004. Information structure meets Minimalist syntax. On argument order and case morphology
in Bavarian. In The Composition of meaning: From lexeme to discourse, ed. Alice ter Meulen and Werner
Abraham, 139165. Amsterdam, Philadelphia: Benjamins. Current Issues in Linguistic Theory 255.
Wei, Helmut. 2005. Inflected complementizers in Continental West Germanic Dialects. Zeitschrift fr
Dialektologie und Linguistik 72(2): 148166.
Wei, Helmut. 2013. UG und syntaktische (Mikro-)Variation. In Dialektologie in neuem Gewand. Zu Mikro-/
Variettenlinguistik, Sprachenvergleich und Universalgrammatik, ed. Werner Abraham and Elisabeth
Leiss, 171204. Sonderheft Linguistische Berichte.
Wei, Helmut. forthc. a. Pronominalsyntax deutscher Dialekte. In Syntaktische Variation areallinguistische
Perspektiven, ed. Alexandra L. Lenz and Franz Patocka. Wien: Wiener Linguistische Arbeiten.
Wei, Helmut. forthc. b. The Wackernagel position and complementizer agreement The emergence of a
syntactic particularity at the left edge of the German middle field. In Clause structure and word order in
the history of German, eds. Gisella Ferraresi, Agnes Jger, and Helmut Wei.
Werner, Ingegerd. 1999. Die Personalpronomen im Zrichdeutschen. Stockholm: Almqvist & Wiksell
International. Lunder germanistische Forschungen 63.
Wiltschko, Martina. 1998. On the syntax and semantics of (relative) pronouns and determiners. The Journal of
Comparative Germanic Linguistics 2: 143181.
Yoshida, Mitsunobu. 1999. Zur Bewegung der Personalpronomina im Deutschen. Studies in Language and
Culture 25: 128.

92

H. Wei

Sources
[BSA SBS] Knig, Werner (ed.) 2003. Bayerischer Sprachatlas. Sprachatlas von Bayerisch-Schwaben.
Band 9,2: Formengeographie II. Heidelberg.
[BSA SMF] Heyse, Thurid et al. 2007. Bayerischer Sprachatlas. Sprachatlas von Mittelfranken Vol. 7:
Morphologie und Syntax. Heidelberg.
[DiWA] Schmidt, Jrgen Erich, and Joachim Herrgen (eds.) 20012009. Digitaler Wenkeratlas. Marburg:
Forschungszentrum Deutscher Sprachatlas. http://www.diwa.info.