Cover not available
Article published In:
Variation and Grammaticalization of Verbal Constructions
Edited by Dániel Czicza and Gabriele Diewald
[Constructions and Frames 14:1] 2022
► pp. 181–223

Clause linkage and degrees of grammaticalization

The case of verdienen with correlated and non‑correlated dass- and infinitival complements

 | Leibniz Universität Hannover
 | Leibniz Universität Hannover
 | Leibniz Universität Hannover
This paper deals with different types of verbal complementation of the German verb verdienen. It focuses on constructions that have been undergoing a grammaticalization process and thus express deontic modality, as in Sie verdient geliebt zu werden (ʽShe deserves to be lovedʼ) and Sie verdient zu leben (ʽShe deserves to liveʼ) (Diewald, Dekalo & Czicza 2021). These constructions are connected to parallel complementation types with passive and active infinitives containing a correlate es, as in Sie verdient es, geliebt zu werden and Sie verdient es, zu leben, as well as finite clauses with the subordinator dass with and without correlative es, as in Sie verdient, dass sie geliebt wird and Sie verdient es, dass sie geliebt wird. This paper attempts to show a close comparative investigation of these six types of constructions based on their relevant semantic and syntactic properties in terms of clause linkage (Lehmann 1988). We analyze the relevant data retrieved from the DWDS corpus of the 20th century and present an expanded grammaticalization path for verdienen-constructions. The finite complementation with dass is regarded as an example of a separate structural option called “elaboration”. Concerning the use of correlative es, it is shown that it does not have any substantial effect on the grammaticalization of modal verdienen-constructions.
Keywords: clause linkage, grammaticalization, correlate, infinitival complements, coherent construction, incoherent construction, animacy, mixed-effects logistic regression models
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Theoretical assumptions
    • 2.1Clause linkage
    • 2.2Coherent vs. incoherent construction
    • 2.3Correlative es, clause integration and grammaticalization
    • 2.4Animacy of the subject in grammaticalization
  • 3.Data and methods
  • 4.Results
    • 4.1Observed counts
      • Ad (i)
      • Ad (ii)
      • Ad (iii)
    • 4.2Statistical models
      • I. correlate ~ animacy + (1|text)
      • II. construction ~ animacy + (1|text)
      • III. construction ~ coherence + (1|text)
  • 5.Discussion
    • i.The role of finite complementation in grammaticalization
    • ii.The role of correlative es
    • iii.The internal distinction of passive and active infinitives
  • 6.Conclusion: A potential grammaticalization path of verdienen as a deontic modal marker
  • Notes
  • References
Published online: 9 August 2022
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/cf.00061.czi
References (28)
References
Askedal, J. O. (1997). Drohen und versprechen als sogenannte ‚Modalitätsverben‘ in der deutschen Gegenwartssprache. Deutsch als Fremdsprache, 34 1, 12–19. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bates, D., Maechler, M., Bolker, B. & Walker, S. (2015). Fitting linear mixed-effects models using lme4. Journal of Statistical Software, 67 (1), 1–48. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bech, G. (1955). Studien über das deutsche verbum infinitum. Einar Munksgaard.Google Scholar
Comrie, B. (1989). Language universals and linguistic typology. Syntax and morphology. 2nd ed. The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Cornillie, B. (2008). On the grammaticalization and (inter)subjectivity of evidential (semi-)auxiliaries in Spanish. In E. Seoane & M. José López-Couso (Eds.), Theoretical and empirical issues in grammaticalization (pp. 55–76). John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Diessel, H. (2019). The grammar network: How linguistic structure is shaped by language use. Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Diewald, G. (1999). Die Modalverben im Deutschen. Grammatikalisierung und Polyfunktionalität. Niemeyer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2000). A basic semantic template for lexical and grammaticalized uses of the German modals. In J. van der Auwera & P. Dendale (Eds.), Modal verbs in Germanic and Romance languages. Belgian Journal of Linguistics, 141, 23–41. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2006). Context types in grammaticalization as constructions. In D. Schönefeld (Ed.), Constructions. Special Volume 1: Constructions all over – case studies and theoretical implications. [URL].
Diewald, G. & Smirnova, E. (2010). Evidentiality in German. Linguistic realization and regularities in grammaticalization. Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Diewald, G., Dekalo, V. & Czicza, D. (2021). Grammaticalization of verdienen into an auxiliary marker of deontic modality: An item-driven usage-based approach. In M. Hilpert, B. Cappelle & I. Depraetere (Eds.), Modality and Diachronic Construction Grammar (pp. 81–122). John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Duden. Die Grammatik (2016). Dudenredaktion (Eds.). Dudenverlag.Google Scholar
Fabricius-Hansen, C. (1992). Subordination. In L. Hoffmann (Ed.), Deutsche Syntax. Ansichten und Aussichten (pp. 458–483). Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Geyken, A. (2007). The DWDS corpus: A reference corpus for the German language of the 20th century. In Ch. Fellbaum (Ed.), Idioms and collocations: Corpus-based linguistic and lexicographic studies (pp. 23–41) Continuum.Google Scholar
Heine, B. & H. Miyashita (2008). Accounting for a functional category: German drohen ‘to threaten’. Language Sciences, 30 1, 53–101. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Himmelmann, N. (2004). Lexicalization and grammaticalization: Opposite or orthogonal? In W. Bisang, N. Himmelmann & B. Wiemer (Eds.), What makes grammaticalization? A Look from its fringes and its components (pp. 21–42). Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Holler, A. (2013). Reanalyzing German correlative ̦esʻ. In S. Müller (Ed.), Proceedings of the 20th International Conference on Head-Driven Phrase Structure Grammar (pp. 90–109). CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
Kuteva, T. (2001). Auxiliation. An enquiry into the nature of grammaticalization. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Lehmann, Ch. (1988). Towards a typology of clause linkage. In J. Haiman & S. A. Thompson (Eds.), Clause combining in grammar and discourse (pp. 181–225). John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2015). Thoughts on grammaticalization. 3rd ed. Language Science Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Los, B. (2005). The rise of the to-infinitive. Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Pütz, H. (1975). Über die Syntax der Pronominalform ̦esʼ im modernen Deutsch. 2nd ed. Stauffenburg.Google Scholar
Reis, M. (2005). Zur Grammatik der sog. ‘Halbmodale’ drohen/ versprechen + Infinitiv. In F. J. d’Avis (Ed.), Deutsche Syntax. Empirie und Theorie. Symposium Göteborg 13.-15- Mai 2004 (pp.125–145). Acta Universitatis Gothoburgensis.Google Scholar
Ulvestad, B. & Bergenholtz, H. (1979). ‚Esʻ als Vorgreifer eines Objektsatzes. Teil 1. Deutsche Sprache, 7 1, 97–116.Google Scholar
(1983). ‚Esʻ als Vorgreifer eines Objektsatzes. Teil 2. Deutsche Sprache, 11 1, 1–26.Google Scholar
Zifonun, G., Hoffmann, L. & Strecker, B. (1997). Grammatik der deutschen Sprache. In 3 Bänden. Mouton de Gruyter. (Schriften des Instituts für Deutsche Sprache).Google Scholar
Zitterbart, J. P. (2002). Zur korrelativen Subordination im Deutschen. Tübingen: Niemeyer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cited by (1)

Cited by one other publication

Ackermann, Tanja
2023. Die formale und funktionale Entwicklung vonbitte. Zeitschrift für germanistische Linguistik 51:1 ► pp. 152 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 10 october 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.