Cover not available
Article published In:
International Journal of Learner Corpus Research
Vol. 1:1 (2015) ► pp.25–57

“Hätte, wäre, wenn…”

A pseudo-longitudinal study of subjunctives in the Corpus of Learner German (CLEG)

 | Lancaster University, UK
The German subjunctive mood (‘Konjunktiv’) is a grammatical feature that attests to the freedom of human beings to step out of the boundaries of their immediate situation and explore new possibilities in hypothetical scenarios. It therefore plays a pivotal role in advanced learner argumentative writing, but due to its highly complex nature regarding both form and usage, the ‘Konjunktiv’ challenges learners on virtually all levels of linguistic knowledge. This paper presents the first learner corpus-based study of this phenomenon with a two-pronged Contrastive Interlanguage Analysis approach: comparing learner data to native-speaker data and learner data at different levels of proficiency using the Corpus of Learner German (CLEG). The investigation seeks to explain the detected patterns of over-, under- and misuse and developmental paths by drawing on cognitive theories of second language acquisition.
Keywords: German, pseudo-longitudinal, subjunctive mood, ‘Konjunktiv’, argumentative writing
Published online: 23 March 2015
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/ijlcr.1.1.02mad
References (49)
Abe, M. & Tono, Y. 2005. “Variations in L2 spoken and written English: investigating patterns of grammatical errors across proficiency levels”. Proceedings from the Corpus Linguistics Conference Series 1(1). Available at [URL] (accessed 17 November June 2014).Google Scholar
Breckle, M. & Zinsmeister, H. 2012. “A corpus-based contrastive analysis of local coherence in L1 and L2 German”. In V. Karabalić, M. Varga & L. Pon (Eds.), Discourse and Dialogue / Diskurs- und Dialog. Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang, 235–250.Google Scholar
. 2013. “L1 Transfer versus fixed chunks: A learner corpus-based study on L2 German”. In S. Granger, G. Gilquin & F. Meunier (Eds.), Twenty Years of Learner Corpus Research. Looking Back, Moving Ahead. Corpora and Language in Use Proceedings, vol 11. Louvain-la-Neuve: Presses universitaires de Louvain, 25–35.Google Scholar
Brinkmann, H. 1971. Die Deutsche Sprache. Gestalt und Leistung. (2nd ed.). Düsseldorf: Schwann.Google Scholar
Collins, P. 2009. Modals and Quasi-Modals in English. Amsterdam: Rodopi. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Council of Europe. 2001. Common European Framework of Reference for Languages. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
DeKeyser, R. 2005. “What Makes Learning L2 Grammar difficult?”, Language Learning 55(1), 1–25. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dittmar, N. & Ahrenholz, B. 1995. “The acquisition of modal expressions and related grammatical means by an Italian learner of German in the course of 3 years of longitudinal observation”. In A. Giacalone Ramat & G. Crocco Galèas (Eds.), From Pragmatics to Syntax. Modality in Language Acquisition. Tübingen: Narr, 197–232.Google Scholar
Doughty, C. & Williams, J. 1998. Focus on form in classroom second language acquisition. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Durrel, M. 2002. Hammer’s German Grammar and Usage. (4th ed.). London: Arnold.Google Scholar
. 2011. Hammer’s German Grammar and Usage. (5th ed.). London and New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Ellis, N.C. 2008. “Usage-based and form-focused language acquisition”. In N.C. Ellis & P. Robinson (Eds.), Handbook of Cognitive Linguistics and Second Language Acquisition. New York and London: Routledge, 372–405.Google Scholar
Ellis, N.C. & Schmidt, R. 1997. “Morphology and longer distance dependencies: laboratory research illuminating the A in SLA”, Studies in Second Language Acquisition 191, 145–171. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Fabricius-Hansen, C. 1997. “Der Konjunktiv als Problem des Deutschen als Fremdsprache”. In F. Debus & O. Leirbukt (Eds.), Germanistische Linguistik. Studien zu Deutsch als Fremdsprache: Aspekte der Modalität im Deutschen – auch in kontrastiver Sicht. Hildesheim: Olms, 13–36.Google Scholar
Gass, S. & Selinker, L. 2008. Second Language Acquisition. An introductory course. (3rd ed.). New York and London: Routledge. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gilquin, G. 2001. “The Integrated Contrastive Model. Spicing up your data”. Languages in Contrast 3(1), 95–123. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gilquin, G. & Gries, S. 2009. “Corpora and experimental methods: A state-of-the-art review”, Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory 5(1), 1–26. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Granger, S. 1998. “Use of tenses by advanced EFL learners: evidence from an error-tagged computer corpus”. In H. Hasselgard & S. Oksefjell (Eds.), Out of Corpora. Studies in Honour of Stig Johansson. Amsterdam and Atlanta: Rodopi, 191–202.Google Scholar
. 2002. “A Bird’s eye view of learner corpus research”. In S. Granger, J. Hung & S. Petch-Tyson (Eds.), Computer Learner Corpora, Second Language Acquisition and Foreign Language Teaching. Amsterdam: Benjamins, 3–33. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hasko, V. 2013. “Capturing the Dynamics of Second Language Development via Learner Corpus Research: A Very Long Engagement”, The Modern Language Journal 97 (1), 1–10. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hermann, Ch., McCrorie, M. & Sauer, D. 2001. Zeitgeist. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Hirschmann, H., Lüdeling, A., Rehbein, I., Reznicek, M. & Zeldes, A. 2013. “Underuse of Syntactic Categories in Falko. A Case Study on Modification”. In S. Granger, G. Gilquin & F. Meunier (Eds.), 20 years of learner corpus research. Looking back, Moving ahead. Corpora and Language in Use Proceedings, vol. 11. Louvain la Neuve : Presses universitaires de Louvain.Google Scholar
Huddleston, R. & Pullum, G. 2008. The Cambridge Grammar of the English Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Institut für Deutsche Sprache. 2013. Deutsches Referenzkorpus / Archiv der Korpora geschriebener Gegenwartssprache 2013-II (released 19 September 2013). Mannheim: Institut für Deutsche Sprache. Available at [URL] (accessed 05 January 2014).Google Scholar
Isabelli, C. & Nishida, C. 2005. “Development of the Spanish subjunctive in a nine-month study-abroad setting”. In D. Eddington (Ed.), Selected proceedings of the sixth Conference on the Acquisition of Spanish and Portuguese As First and Second Language. Sommerville, MA: Cascadilla Press, 78–91.Google Scholar
Jarvis, S. & Pavlenko, A. 2008. Crosslinguistic influence in language and cognition. London and New York: Routledge. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Jäger, S. 1971. Der Konjunktiv in der deutschen Sprache der Gegenwart – Untersuchungen an ausgewählten Texten. München: Hueber.Google Scholar
Kaszubski, P. 1998. “Learner corpora: The cross-roads of linguistic norm”. In C. Stephens (Ed.), TALC98 Proceedings. Oxford: Humanities Computing Unit, Oxford University, 24–27.Google Scholar
Kempe, V. & MacWhinney, B. 1998. “The acquisition of case marking by adult learners of Russian and German”, Studies in Second Language Acquisition 201, 543–587. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kufner, H. 1962. The Grammatical Structures of English and German. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Leirbukt, O. 1992. “Grammatikvermittlung als Input des Deutschlernens. Überlegungen zu einem Konjunktiv-Regelwerk für norwegische Studierende”. In O. Leirbukt & B. Lindemann (Eds.), Psycholinguistische und didaktische Aspekte des Fremdsprachenlernens / Psycholinguistic and pedagogical aspects of foreign language learning. Tübingen: Narr, 99–108.Google Scholar
Lorenz, G. 1998. “Overstatement in advanced learners’ writing: stylistic aspects of adjective intensification”. In S. Granger (Ed.), Learner English on Computer. London and New York: Longman, 53–66.Google Scholar
Lüdeling, A. & Walter, M. 2009. “Korpuslinguistik für Deutsch als Fremdsprache. Sprachvermittlung und Spracherwerbsforschung”. Available at [URL] (accessed 05 July 2014).
Maden-Weinberger, U. 2009. Modality in learner German. A corpus-based study investigating modal expressions in argumentative writing by British learners of German. PhD thesis. Lancaster University.
McEnery, T. & Kifle, N.A. 2002. “Epistemic modality in argumentative essays of second-language writers”. In J. Flowerdew (Ed.), Academic Discourse. Harlow: Longman, 182–215.Google Scholar
Normann, M. 1992. “Aspekte der Grammatikvermittlung im universitären Bereich mit besonderer Berücksichtigung von Regeln zum Konjuktiv II”. In O. Leirbukt & B. Lindemann (Eds.), Psycholinguistische und didaktische Aspekte des Fremdsprachenlernens/Psycholinguistic and pedagogical aspects of foreign language learning. Tübingen: Narr, 109–116.Google Scholar
Öhlschläger, G. 1984. “Modalität im Deutschen”, Zeitschrift für Germanistische Linguistik 12(2), 229–246.Google Scholar
Park, K. 2014. “Corpora and Language Assessment: The State of the Art”, Language Assessment Quarterly 111, 27–44. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Rayson, P. & Garside, R. 2000. “Comparing corpora using frequency profiling”. Proceedings of the workshop on Comparing Corpora, held in conjunction with the 38th annual meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics 2000 , Hong Kong, 1-8 October 2000. DOI logo
Robinson, P., Mackey, A., Gass, S. & Schmidt, R. 2012. “Attention and awareness in second language acquisition”. In S. Gass & A. Mackey (Eds.), The Routledge handbook of second language acquisition. London and New York: Routledge, 247–267.Google Scholar
Scott, M. 2008. WordSmith Tools. Version 5. Liverpool: Lexical Analysis Software.Google Scholar
Schmidt, R. 1990. “The role of consciousness in second language learning”, Applied Linguistics 111, 129–158. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2012. “Attention, awareness and individual differences in language learning”. In W.M. Chan, K.N. Chin, S.K. Bhatt & I. Walker (Eds.), Perspectives on individual characteristics and foreign language education. Boston and Berlin: De Gruyter, 27–50. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sharwood Smith, M. 1981. “Consciousness raising and the second-language learner”, Applied Linguistics 21, 159–168. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Solt, S., Pugach, Y., Klein, E., Adams, K., Stoyneshka, I. & Rose, T. 2004. “L2 Perception and Production of the English Regular Past: Evidence of Phonological Effects”. In A. Brugos, L. Micciulla & Ch. Smith (Eds.), BUCLD 28: Proceedings of the 28th annual Boston University Conference on Language Development. Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Press, 553–564.Google Scholar
Sundry, C., Somerville, J., Morris, P. & Aberdeen, H. 2000. Brennpunkt. Cheltenham: Nelson Thornes.Google Scholar
Terrell, T. 1991. “The role of grammar instruction in a communicative approach”, The Modern Language Journal 751, 52–63. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Witton, N. 2000. “Inflected and periphrastic subjunctive verb forms in German newspaper texts of the 1960s and 1990s”. In B. Dodd (Ed.), Working with German Corpora. Birmingham: Birmingham University Press, 267–298.Google Scholar
Zifonun, G., Hoffman, L. & Strecker, B. 1997. Grammatik der deutschen Sprache. Schriften des Instituts für deutsche Sprache, vol. 71. Berlin and New York: De Gruyter.Google Scholar
Cited by (2)

Cited by two other publications

Spring, Nicolas, Marek Kostrzewa, David Fröhlich, Annette Rios, Dominik Pfütze, Alessia Battisti & Sarah Ebling
2023. Analyzing sentence alignment for automatic simplification of German texts. In Emerging Fields in Easy Language and Accessible Communication Research [Easy – Plain – Accessible, 14], ► pp. 339 ff. DOI logo
Vyatkina, Nina
2016. TheKansas Developmental Learner corpus(KANDEL). International Journal of Learner Corpus Research 2:1 ► pp. 101 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 5 august 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.