Cover not available
Part of
On Multiple Source Constructions in Language Change
Edited by Hendrik De Smet, Lobke Ghesquière and Freek Van de Velde
[Benjamins Current Topics 79] 2015
► pp. 95–127

Multiple sources for the German scandal construction

ORCID logo | University of Turin
The interaction of several cases of grammaticalization going back to different source constructions may have dramatic consequences on a linguistic system. This paper discusses the so-called German scandal construction, which consists of a verbal complex displaying a number of synchronic form-meaning mismatches. The scandal is solved if a diachronic point of view is adopted, which shows that the mismatches result from the intraference of two different source constructions expanded in the course of the German linguistic history, namely the Perfekt construction and the zu-infinitive construction.
Keywords: auxiliary, form/function mismatch, German, infinitive, perfect
Published online: 25 November 2015
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/bct.79.05gae
References (43)
References
Abraham, Werner. 2004. The grammaticalization of the infinitival preposition — Toward a theory of ‘grammaticalizing reanalysis’. Journal of Comparative Germanic Linguistics 7. 111–170. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ágel, Vilmos. 2001. Gegenwartsgrammatik und Sprachgeschichte: Methodologische Überlegungen am Beispiel der Serialisierung im Verbalkomplex. Zeitschrift für germanistische Linguistik 29. 319–331. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Askedal, John Ole. 1998. Zur Syntax infiniter Verbalformen in den Berthold von Regensburg zu- geschriebenen Predigten. Vorstufe der topologischen Kohärenz-Inkohärenz-Opposition. In John Ole Askedal (ed.), Historische germanische und deutsche Syntax, 231–259. Frankfurt/ Main: Lang.Google Scholar
Bader, Markus & Tanja Schmid. 2009. Verb clusters in colloquial German. Journal of Comparative Germanic Linguistics 12. 175–228. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bech, Gunnar. 1955/57. Studien über das deutsche verbum infinitum. Copenhagen: Munksgaard (Reprint Tübingen: Niemeyer, 1983).Google Scholar
. 1963. Grammatische Gesetze im Widerspruch. Lingua 12. 291–299. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Betten, Anne. 1987. Grundzüge der Prosasyntax. Tübingen: Niemeyer.Google Scholar
Bybee, Joan. 2006. From usage to grammar: The mind’s response to repetition. Language 82(4). 711–733. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Croft, William. 2000. Explaining language change. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Demske, Ulrike. 2001. Zur Distribution von Infinitivkomplementen im Althochdeutschen. In Reimar Müller & Marga Reis (eds.), Modalität und Modalverben im Deutschen, 61–86. Hamburg: Buske.Google Scholar
Ebert, Robert Peter. 1976. Infinitival complements constructions in early new high German. Tübingen: Niemeyer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 1999. Historische Syntax des Deutschen II 1330–1750, 2nd edn. Berlin: Weidler.Google Scholar
Eisenberg, Peter, George Smith & Oliver Teuber. 2001. Ersatzinfinitiv und Oberfeld: Ein großes Rätsel der deutschen Syntax. Deutsche Sprache 29(3). 242–260.Google Scholar
Eroms, Hans-Werner. 2006. Die Entwicklung des “Ersatzinfinitivs” im Deutschen. In Michail Kotin, Piotr Krycki, Marek Laskowski & Tadeusz Zuchewicz (eds.), Das Deutsche als Forschungsobjekt und als Studienfach, 79–93. Frankfurt/Main: Lang.Google Scholar
Fischer, Olga. 1994. The fortunes of the Latin-type accusative and infinitive construction in Dutch and English compared. In Toril Swan, Endre Morck & Olaf J. Westvik (eds.), Language change and language structure: Older Germanic languages in comparative perspective, 91–133. Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Francis, Elaine J. & Laura A. Michaelis. 2003. Mismatch: A crucible for linguistic theory. In Elaine J. Francis & Laura A. Michaelis (eds.), Mismatch: Form-function incongruity and the architecture of grammar, 1–27. Stanford, CA: CSLI.Google Scholar
Gaeta, Livio. 1998. The inflection vs. derivation dichotomy: The case of German infinitives. In Bernard Caron (ed.), Proceedings of the XVI International Congress of Linguists (Paris,20–25 July 1997). Oxford: Pergamon, Paper no. 0199.Google Scholar
. 2008. Mismatch: Grammar distortion and grammaticalization. In María José López-Couso & Elena Seoane (eds.), Rethinking grammaticalization: New perspectives, 103–127. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2010a. Analogical change. In Silvia Luraghi & Vit Bubenik (eds.), A companion to historical linguistics, 147–160. London & New York: Continuum.Google Scholar
. 2010b. The invisible hand of grammaticalization: West-Germanic substitutive infinitive and the prefix ge- . In Wolfgang U. Dressler, Dieter Kastovsky, Hans Christian Luschützky & Franz Rainer (eds.), Variation and change in morphology, 89–105. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Goldberg, Adele & Ray Jackendoff. 2004. The English resultative as a family of constructions. Language 80. 532–568. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Grønvik, Ottar. 1986. Über den Ursprung und die Entwicklung der aktiven Perfekt- und Plusquamperfektkonstruktionen des Hochdeutschen. Oslo: Solum Forlag.Google Scholar
Haider, Hubert. 2003. V-clustering and clause union — causes and effects. In Pieter Seuren & Gerard Kempen (eds.), Verb constructions in German and Dutch, 91–126. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2011. Grammatische Illusionen. Lokal wohlgeformt — global deviant. Zeitschrift für Sprachwissenschaft 30(2). 223–257. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Harris, Alice C. 2003. Cross-linguistic perspectives on syntactic change. In Brian D. Joseph & Richard Janda (eds.), The handbook of historical linguistics, 529–551. Oxford: Blackwell. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Harris, Alice C. & Lyle Campbell. 1995. Historical syntax in cross-linguistic perspective. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Haspelmath, Martin. 1989. From purposive to infinitive — a universal path of grammaticization. Folia Linguistica Historica 10. 287–310.Google Scholar
Heine, Bernd & Tania Kuteva. 2003. Contact-induced grammaticalization. Studies in Language 27(3). 529–572. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2007. The genesis of grammar. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Himmelmann, Nikolaus P. 2004. Lexicalization and grammaticization. In Walter Bisang, Nikolaus P. Himmelmann & Björn Wiemer (eds.), What makes grammaticalization? A look from its fringes and its components, 21–42. Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hock, Hans Heinrich. 1991. Principles of historical linguistics, 2nd edn. Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kotin, Michail L. 2000. Das Partizip II in hochdeutschen periphrastischen Verbalfügungenim 9.–15. Jh. Zur Ausbildung des analytischen Sprachbaus. Zeitschrift für germanistische Linguistik 28. 319–345. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Merkes, Peter Wilhelm. 1895. Der neuhochdeutsche Infinitiv als Teil einer umschriebenen Zeitform. Historisch-grammatische Betrachtungen. Göttingen: Universität Göttingen dissertation.Google Scholar
Paul, Hermann. [1920] 1995. Prinzipien der Sprachgeschichte, 10th edn. Tübingen: Niemeyer.Google Scholar
Reis, Marga. 1979. Ansätze zu einer realistischen Grammatik. In Klaus Grubmüller, Ernst Hellgardt, Heinrich Jellissen & Marga Reis (eds.), Befund und Deutung: zum Verhältnis von Empirie und Interpretation in Sprach- und Literaturwissenschaft, 1–21. Tübingen: Niemeyer.Google Scholar
Schrodt, Richard. 2004. Althochdeutsche Grammatik II. Syntax. Tübingen: Niemeyer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Schmid, Tanja. 2005. Infinitival Syntax: Infinitivus Pro Participio as a repair strategy. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Schmid, Tanja & Ralf Vogel. 2004. Dialectal variation in German 3-verb clusters: A surface- oriented optimality theoretic account. Journal of Comparative Germanic Linguistics 7.235–274. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Speyer, Augustin. 2001. Ursprung und Ausbreitung der AcI-Konstruktion im Deutschen.Sprachwissenschaft 26. 145–187.Google Scholar
Sternefeld, Wolfgang. 2006. Syntax. Eine morphologisch motivierte generative Beschreibung desDeutschen, Vol. 2. Tübingen: Stauffenburg.Google Scholar
Traugott, Elizabeth C. & Richard B. Dasher. 2002. Regularity in semantic change. Cambridge:Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Vogel, Ralf. 2009. Skandal im Verbalkomplex: Betrachtungen zur scheinbar inkorrekten Morphologie in infiniten Verbkomplexen des Deutschen. Zeitschrift für Sprachwissenschaft 28. 307–346. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Zwart, Jan-Wouter. 2005. Continental West-Germanic languages. In Guglielmo Cinque & Richard S. Kayne (eds.), The Oxford handbook of comparative syntax, 903–946. New York & Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar