Cover not available
Part of
Constructions in Contact: Constructional perspectives on contact phenomena in Germanic languages
Edited by Hans C. Boas and Steffen Höder
[Constructional Approaches to Language 24] 2018
► pp. 115–142

Tense and aspect marking in (Low) German perfect constructions based on variety contact

Synchronic variability is an essential characteristic of all human languages. However, issues of linguistic variation have only recently become a popular topic within the framework of construction grammar (cf. Hoffmann 2011), cognitive sociolinguistics (Geeraerts et al. 2010) and variety contact (Höder 2014). This paper investigates synchronic variation of perfect auxiliary constructions with the verb anfangen (‘to start/to begin’) in variety contact of Low- and High German in the Westphalian and Emslandic areas. Based on qualitative and quantitative data analysis, we provide a model of the constructions within Cognitive Linguistics in the form of a two-dimensional geometric analysis of aspectual construals (Croft 2012) and Construction Grammar (Goldberg 1995).
Keywords: perfect tense, variety contact, Low German, synchronic variation, two-dimensional geometric analysis, aspectual contours
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Introduction to the German split auxiliary system
  • 3.Situation of Low German in Westphalia and Emsland
  • 4.Method – Field research and survey design
  • 5.Qualitative characterization of the phenomenon in contact
    • 5.1.The phenomenon in the dialect variety
    • 5.2.The phenomenon in the (regional) standard variety
  • 6.Quantitative empirical analysis
  • 7.Aspectual contours of lexical and grammatical aspect
  • 8.Modeling in the framework of Construction Grammar
  • 9.Conclusion
  • Acknowledgment
  • Notes
  • References
  • Appendix
Published online: 12 December 2018
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/cal.24.04web
References (60)
References
Abraham, W. (1993). Ergativa sind Terminativa. Zeitschrift für Sprachwissenschaft, 12(2), 157–184.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Abraham, W., & Conradie, C. J. (2001). Präteritumschwund und Diskursgrammatik. Präteritumschwund in gesamteuropäischen Bezügen: areale Ausbreitung, heterogene Entstehung, Parsing sowie diskursgrammatische Grundlagen und Zusammenhänge. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Aranovich, R. (2007). Split auxiliary selection from a cross-linguistic perspective. In R. Aranovich (Ed.), Split auxiliary systems. A cross-linguistic perspective (pp. 1–24). Amsterdam, Philadelphia: John Benjamins (Typological studies in language, 69).DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Atlas Alltagssprache. Retrieved from [URL] [last access: 2015.02.19].
Berend, N. (2005). Regionale Gebrauchsstandards – Gibt es sie und wie kann man sie beschreiben? In L. M. Eichinger, & W. Kallmeyer (Eds.), Standardvariation. Wie viel Variation verträgt die deutsche Sprache? (pp. 143–170). Berlin, New York: Walter De Gruyter (Jahrbuch/Institut für Deutsche Sprache, 2004).Google Scholar
Bickel, B. (1997). Aspectual scope and the difference between logical and semantic representation. Lingua, 102(2–3), 115–131.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bühler, K. (1999 [1934]). Sprachtheorie. Die Darstellungsfunktion der Sprache. Ungekürzter Neudr. der Ausg. Jena, Fischer, 1934, 3. Aufl. Stuttgart: Lucius und Lucius (UTB für Wissenschaft, 1159).Google Scholar
Burzio, L. (1986). Italian Syntax. Dordrecht, Holland: D. Reidel Pub. Co.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bybee, J., & Dahl, Ö. (1989). The creation of tense and aspect systems in the languages of the world. Studies in Language, 13(1), 51–103.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bybee, J. L., & Perkins, R. D., & Pagliuca, W. (1994). The evolution of grammar. Tense, aspect, and modality in the languages of the world. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Chambers, J. K., & Trudgill, P. (1998). Dialectology.2nd ed. Cambridge, New York: Cambridge University Press ( Cambridge textbooks in linguistics).DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Clark, H. H., & Brennan, S. A. (1991). Grounding in communication. In L. B. Resnick, J. M. Levine, & S. D. Teasley (Eds.), Perspectives on socially shared cognition (pp. 127–149). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Comrie, B. (1976). Aspect. An introduction to the study of verbal aspect and related problems. Cambridge, New York: Cambridge University Press (Cambridge textbooks in linguistics).Google Scholar
Croft, W. (2001). Radical construction grammar. Syntactic theory in typological perspective. Oxford, New York: Oxford University Press.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2003). Typology and universals. 2 volumes. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
(2012). Verbs. Aspect and causal structure .Oxford, New York: Oxford University Press.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dahl, Ö., & Hedin, E. (2000). Current relevance and event reference. In Ö. Dahl (Ed.), Tense and aspect in the languages of Europe., (pp. 385–401). Berlin, New York: de Gruyter (Empirical approaches to language typology. EUROTYP 20–26).Google Scholar
Dammel, A., Nowak, J., & Schmuck, M. (2010). Strong-Verb Paradigm Leveling in Four Germanic Languages. A Category Frequency Approach. Journal of Germanic Linguistics, 22(4), 337–359.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dentler, S. (1997). Zur Perfekterneuerung im Mittelhochdeutschen. Die Erweiterung des zeitreferentiellen Funktionsbereichs von Perfektfügungen. Göteborg: Acta Universitatis Gothoburgensis (Göteborger germanistische Forschungen, 37).Google Scholar
Diedrichsen, E. (2002). Zu einer semantischen Klassifikation der intransitiven haben- und sein-Verben im Deutschen. In G. Katz, S. Reinhard, & P. Reuter (Eds.), Sinn und Bedeutung VI. Proceedings of the Sixth Annual Meeting of the Gesellschaft für Semantik (pp. 37–52). University of Osnabrück (Publications of the Institute of Cognitive Science).Google Scholar
Dowty, D. (1991). Thematic Proto-Roles and Argument Selection. Language, 67(3), 547–619.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Duden (Ed.). (2006). Duden – Die Grammatik. Unentbehrlich für richtiges Deutsch. 7., völlig neu erarb. und erw. Aufl. Mannheim, Leipzig, Wien: Dudenverlag. (Duden, Bd4).Google Scholar
Engerer, V. (2010). Zur zeitlichen Evaluierung von Phasenverben. Das Problem der leeren Mitte oder: Wie viele Intervalle braucht die Semantik von Phasenverben? Hermes, 44, 153–167.Google Scholar
Fillmore, C. J. (1976). Frame semantics and the nature of language. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, 280(1), 20–32.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Fishman, J. A. (1972). Language in sociocultural change. Stanford: Stanford University Press (Language science and national development).Google Scholar
Fox, J. (2016). Applied regression analysis and generalized linear models. 3. ed. Los Angeles: SAGE.Google Scholar
Geeraerts, D., & Kristiansen, G. (2015). Variationist linguistics. In E. Dabrowska (Ed.), Handbook of Cognitive Linguistics (pp. 366–389). Berlin: de Gruyter (Handbücher zur Sprach- und Kommunikationswissenschaft, 39), checked on 9/30/2015.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Geeraerts, D., Kristiansen, G., & Peirsman, Y. (Eds.). (2010). Advances in cognitive sociolinguistics. New York: de Gruyter (Cognitive linguistics research, 45).DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gillmann, M. (2015). Auxiliary selection in closely related languages: the case of German and Dutch. In R. Kailuweit, & M. Rosemeyer (Eds.), Auxiliary selection revisited. Gradience and gradualness (pp. 333–358). Berlin, Boston: de Gruyter (linguae & litterae, 44).Google Scholar
Goldberg, A. E. (1995). Constructions. A construction grammar approach to argument structure. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press (Cognitive theory of language and culture).Google Scholar
(2003). Constructions: a new theoretical approach to language. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 7(5), 219–224.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2006). Constructions at work: The nature of generalization in language. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Grewendorf, G. (1989). Ergativity in German. Dordrecht: Foris.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gronvik, O. (1986). Über den Ursprung und die Entwicklung der aktiven Perfekt- und Plusquamperfektkonstruktionen des Hochdeutschen und ihre Eigenart innerhalb des germanischen Sprachraumes. Oslo: Solum Forlag.Google Scholar
Hansen-Jaax, D. (1995). Transfer bei Diglossie. Synchrone Sprachkontaktphänomene im Niederdeutschen. Hamburg: Kovac.Google Scholar
Hengeveld, K. (2011). The grammaticalization of tense and aspect. In H. Narrog, & B. Heine (Eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Grammaticalization (pp. 580–594). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Henry, A. (2012). Variation and Syntactic Theory. In J. K. Chambers, P. Trudgill, & N. Schilling-Estes (Eds.), The handbook of language variation and change. 2nd ed. (pp. 267–282). Malden, MA: Blackwell Pub. (Blackwell handbooks in linguistics).Google Scholar
Höder, S. (2011). Niederdeutsch und Hochdeutsch – ein Fall von Diasystematisierung. Jahrbuch des Vereins für niederdeutsche Sprachforschung, 134, 113–136.Google Scholar
. (2014). Constructing diasystems. Grammatical organisation in bilingual groups. In T. A. Åfarli, & B. Mæhlum (Eds.), The sociolinguistics of grammar (pp. 137–152). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins (Studies in language companion series, 154).DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hoffmann, T. (Ed.). (2011). Variation, change and constructions in English. Berlin: de Gruyter (Cognitive linguistics Special issue, 22 (1)).DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hopper, P. J. & Thompson, S. A. (1980). Transitivity in Grammar and Discourse. Language and Speech, 56(2), 251–299.Google Scholar
Keller, F. & Sorace, A. (2003). Gradient auxiliary selection and impersonal passivization in German: an experimental investigation. Journal of Linguistics, 39(1), 57–108.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Klein, W. (1994). Time in language. London, New York: Routledge (Germanic linguistics).Google Scholar
Lehmann, C. (1982). Directions for interlinear morphemic translations. Folia Linguistica, 16, 199–224.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Labov, W. (1966). The social stratification of English in New York City. Washington: Center for Applied Linguistics.Google Scholar
Möller, F., & Windzio, M. (2008). Plattdeutsch im 21. Jahrhundert. Bestandsaufnahme und Perspektiven. Leer: Schuster (Schriften des Instituts für Niederdeutsche Sprache, 34).Google Scholar
Paradis, M. (1985). On the Representation of two Languages in One Brain. Language Sciences, 7(1), 1–39.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Perlmutter, D. (1978). Impersonal passives and the unaccusative hypothesis. In A. C. Woodbury, F. Ackerman, C. Chiarello, O. D. Gensler, J. J. Jaeger, J. Kingston et al. (Eds.), Proceedings of the Fourth Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society (p. 157–189). Berkeley: University of California.Google Scholar
Pustejovsky, J. (1992). The syntax of event structure. In S. Pinker, & B. C. Levin (Eds.), Lexical & conceptual semantics (pp. 47–81). Cambridge: Blackwell (Cognition special issues).Google Scholar
Pütz, M. (2008). Sprachrepertoire / Linguistic repertoire. In U. Ammon, N. Dittmar, K. Mattheier, & P. Trudgill (Eds.), Sociolinguistics. An international handbook of the science of language and society =  Soziolinguistik : ein internationales Handbuch zur Wissenschaft von Sprache und Gesellschaft. 2., vollständig neu bearb. und erw. Aufl. (pp. 226–232). Berlin: de Gruyter (Handbücher zur Sprach- und Kommunikationswissenschaft, 3.1).Google Scholar
Rampton, B. (2010). Speech community. In J. Jaspers, J.-O. Östman, & J. Verschueren (Eds.), Society and language use (pp. 274–303). Amsterdam: John Benjamins (Handbook of pragmatics highlights, 7).DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Rooij, J. D. (1988). Van hebben naar zijn. Het gebruik van hebben en zijn in de voltooide tijden (actief) van zijn, gaan, vergeten en verliezen in standaardtaal, ouder Nederlands en dialect. Amsterdam: P.J. Meertens-Inst. voor Dialectologie Volkskunde en Naamkunde.Google Scholar
Sacks, H., Schegloff, E. A., & Jefferson, G. (1974). A simplest systematics for the organisation of turn-taking in conversation. Language, 50(4), 696–735.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Selting, M., Auer, P., Barth-Weingarten, D., Bergmann, J., Bergmann, P., Birkner, K. et al. (2009). Gesprächsanalytisches Transkriptionssystem 2 (GAT 2). Gesprächsforschung, 10, 353–402.Google Scholar
Shannon, T. (1995). Toward a Cognitive Explanation of Perfect Auxiliary Variation. Some modal and aspectual effects in the history of Germanic. American Journal of Germanic Linguistics and Literatures, 7(2), 129–163.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sorace, A. (2000). Gradients in Auxiliary Selection with Intransitive Verbs. Language, 76(4), 859–890.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Stellmacher, D. (1987). Wer spricht Platt? Zur Lage des Niederdeutschen heute. Eine kurzgefasste Bestandsaufnahme. Bremen: Schuster, Leer (Schriften des Instituts für Niederdeutsche Sprache, 14).Google Scholar
Taylor, J. R. (2003). Cognitive Grammar. Oxford: Oxford University Press. (Oxford Textbooks in Linguistics)Google Scholar
Weinreich, U. (1953). Languages in contact. The Hague: de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Welke, K. (2005). Tempus im Deutschen. Rekonstruktion eines semantischen Systems. Berlin/New York: de Gruyter.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cited by (2)

Cited by two other publications

Beyer, Klaus
2024. A Diasystematic Approach to Multilingual Ecology: The Case of Mbum Speakers in Ngaoundéré, Cameroon. In Multilingualism in Its Multiple Dimensions [Working Title], DOI logo
Gillmann, Melitta & Alexander Werth
2021. Polysemie und morphosyntaktische Variation. Beiträge zur Geschichte der deutschen Sprache und Literatur 143:4 ► pp. 513 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 27 july 2024. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers. Any errors therein should be reported to them.