Cover not available
Article published In:
The Diachrony of Infinitival Patterns: Their origin, development and loss
Edited by Ulrike Demske and Łukasz Jędrzejowski
[Journal of Historical Linguistics 5:1] 2015
► pp. 72–109

On the loss of copy-raising and the development of infinitive complements

The case of German beginnen ‘begin’

 | University of Potsdam
This article deals with (non‑)finite complement clauses embedded under the inceptive phase predicate beginnen ‘begin’ in the history of German and illustrates how infinitives replaced finite clauses headed by the complementizer dass ‘that’. The main objective is to show that it was possible in Old High German (750–1050) to raise the subject from the embedded clause into the matrix subject position, crossing a CP boundary and leaving a pronominal copy in the dependent clause (copy-raising). Moreover, it is claimed that beginnen in its function as a subject control verb instantiates a recent development in the history of German and that this use developed out of a raising structure.
Keywords: inceptives, control, infinitives, raising, beginnen, German, complement clauses
Published online: 28 August 2015
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/jhl.5.1.03jed
References (107)
BFK Das Bonner Frühneuhochdeutschkorpus, Early New High German Corpus. Available at [URL].
DeReKo COSMAS II, Modern German. Available at [URL].
Er Hartmann von Aue. 1080–1090. Erec. Zweite Ausgabe von Moriz Haupt. Leipzig: Verlag von S. Hirzel.Google Scholar
Goe Goethes Werke. Available as electronic corpus in COSMAS II.
Gri Brüder Grimm. Sagen, Kinder- und Hausmärchen, Kinderlegenden. Available as electronic corpus in COSMAS II.
Isi Der althochdeutsche Isidor. 1964. Nach der Pariser Handschrift und den Monseer Fragmenten ed. by Hans Eggers. Tübingen: Max Niemeyer.Google Scholar
Iw Hartmann von Aue. 1200 [1843]. Iwein. Mit Anmerkungen von G. F. Benecke und K. Lachmann, zweite Ausgabe. Berlin: G. Reimer.Google Scholar
NotB Notker der Deutsche: Boethius >>De consolatione philosophiae<<. Buch I/II: [1986], Buch III: [1988], Buch IV/V [1990] ed. by Petrus W. Tax. Tübingen: Max Niemeyer.Google Scholar
NotP Notker der Deutsche: Der Psalter. Psal 1–50 [1979], Psalm 51–100 [1981], Psalm 101–150, die Cantica und die katechetischen Texte. [1983] ed. by Petrus W. Tax. Tübingen: Max Niemeyer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Otf Otfrids Evangelienbuch. 1973. Ed. by Oskar Erdmann. Sechste Auflage besorgt von Ludwig Wolff. Tübingen: Max Niemeyer.Google Scholar
SBfJ Sonntags=Blatt für Jedermann aus dem Volke. A newspaper from the 19th century, available as electronic corpus in COSMAS II.
Tat Die lateinisch-althochdeutsche Tatianbilingue Stiftsbibliothek St. Gallen Cod. 56. [1994]. (= Studien zum Althochdeutschen, 25.) Ed. by Achim Masser. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
WiK Willirams Kommentar des Hohen Liedes. [2001]. Die älteste Überlieferung. Ed. by Rudolf Schützeichel und Birgit Meinecke (= Studien zum Althochdeutschen, 39). Redaktionelle Gestaltung: Dieter Kannenberg. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht.Google Scholar
Abraham, Werner. 1997. The Interdependence of Case, Aspect and Referentiality in the History of German: The Case of the Verbal Genitive. Parameters of Morphosyntactic Change ed. by Ans van Kemenade & Nigel Vincent, 29–61. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
. 2004. The Grammaticalization of the Infinitival Preposition—Toward a Theory of ‘Grammaticalizing Reanalysis’. Journal of Comparative Germanic Linguistics 7:2.111–170. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Abraham, Werner & Elisabeth Leiss. 2012. The Case Differential: Syntagmatic versus Paradigmatic Case—Its Status in Synchrony and Diachrony. Transactions of the Philological Society 110:3.316–341. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ademola‑Adeoye, Feyisayo Fehintola. 2011. A Cross‑Linguistic Analysis of Finite Raising Constructions. University of KwaZulu‑Natal PhD thesis.Google Scholar
Adesola, Oluseye. 2005. Pronouns and Null Operators: A-Bar Dependencies and Relations in Yoruba. The State University of New Jersey PhD thesis.Google Scholar
Askedal, John Ole, ed. 1998. Historische germanische und deutsche Syntax. Akten des internationalen Symposiums anläßlich des 100. Geburtstages von Ingerid Dal, Oslo, 27.9.–1.10.1995. Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
. 1998. Zur Syntax infiniter Verbalformen in den Berthold von Regensburg zugeschriebenen deutschen Predigten. Vorstufe der topologischen Kohärenz-Inkohärenz-Opposition. In John Ole Askedal, ed., 231–259.Google Scholar
Asudeh, Ash & Ida Toivonen. 2012. Copy Raising and Perception. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 30:2.321–380. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Axel, Katrin. 2001. Althochdeutsche Modalverben als Anhebungsverben. In Reimar Müller & Marga Reis, eds., 37–60.Google Scholar
. 2009. Die Entstehung des ‘dass’‑Satzes: ein neues Szenario. Koordination und Subordination im Deutschen ed. by Veronika Ehrich, Christian Fortmann, Ingo Reich & Marga Reis, 21–41. Hamburg: Helmut Buske.Google Scholar
Axel‑Tober, Katrin. 2012. (Nicht-)kanonische Nebensätze im Deutschen. Synchrone und diachrone Aspekte. (= Linguistische Arbeiten, 542.) Berlin: De Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Barðdal, Jóhanna. 1997. Oblique Subjects in Old Scandinavian. NOWELE 371.25–51. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2001. The Role of Thematic Roles in Constructions? Evidence from the Icelandic Inchoative. Proceedings of the 18th Scandinavian Conference of Linguistics 2000 ed. by Arthur Holmer, Jan-Olof Svantesson & Åke Viberg, 127–137. Lund: Department of Linguistics.Google Scholar
Barðdal, Jóhanna & Thórhallur Eythórsson. 2006. Control Infinitives and Case in Germanic: ‘Performance Error’ or Marginally Acceptable Constructions? Case, Valency and Transitivity ed. by Leonid Kulikov, Andrej Malchukov & Peter de Swart, 147–177. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bech, Gunnar. 1955–1957. Studien über das deutsche verbum infinitum. (= Historisk-filologiske Meddelelser udgivet af Det Kongelige Danske Videnskabernes Selskab, 35, 37.) København: Munksgaard.Google Scholar
Behaghel, Otto. 1924. Deutsche Syntax. Eine geschichtliche Darstellung. Band II: Die Wortklassen und Wortformen. B. Adverbium. C. Verbum. Heidelberg: Carl Winter’s Universitätsbuchhandlung.Google Scholar
Besten, Hans den & Jean Rutten. 1989. On Verb Raising, Extraposition, and Free Word Order in Dutch. Sentential Complementation and the Lexicon ed. by Dany Jaspers, Wim G. Klooster, Yvan Putseys & Pieter A.M. Seuren, 41–56. Dordrecht: Foris. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Boeckx, Cedric, Norbert Hornstein & Jairo Nunes. 2010. Control as Movement. (= Cambridge Studies in Linguistics, 126.) Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Brandner, Ellen. 2006. Bare Infinitives in Alemannic and the Categorial Status of Infinitival Complements. Linguistic Variation Yearbook 61.203–268. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Chomsky, Noam. 1995. The Minimalist Program. Cambridge: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
. 2000. Minimalist Inquiries: The Framework. Step by Step: Essays on Minimalist Syntax in Honor of Howard Lasnik ed. by Martin Roger, David Michaels, Juan Uriagereka & Samuel Jay Keyser, 89–155. Cambridge: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
. 2001. Derivation by Phase. Ken Hale: A Life in Language ed. by Michael Kenstowicz, 1–52. Cambridge: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
. 2008. On phases. Foundational Issues in Linguistic Theory: Essays in Honor of Jean‑Roger Vergnaud ed. by Robert Freidin, Carlos P. Otero & Maria Luisa Zubizaretta, 133–166. Cambridge: The MIT Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Demske, Ulrike. 2001. Zur Distribution von Infinitivkomplementen im Althochdeutschen. In Reimar Müller & Marga Reis, eds., 61–86.Google Scholar
. 2008. Raising Patterns in Old High German. Grammatical Change and Linguistic Theory: The Rosendahl Papers ed. by Thórhallur Eythórsson, 143–172. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Denecke, Arthur. 1880. Der Gebrauch des Infinitives bei den althochdeutschen Übersetzern des 8. und 9. Jahrhunderts. Leipzig: Druck von Pöschel & Trepte.Google Scholar
Denison, David. 1989. Auxiliary + Impersonal in Old English. Folia Linguistica Historica 91.139–166.Google Scholar
Deprez, Viviane. 1992. Raising Constructions in Haitian Creole. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 10:2.191–231. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Donhauser, Karin. 1990. Moderne Kasuskonzeptionen und die Kasussetzung im Althochdeutschen. Überlegungen zur Stellung des Objektsgenitivs im Althochdeutschen. Neuere Forschungen zur historischen Syntax des Deutschen ed. by Anne Betten, 98–112. Tübingen: Niemeyer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 1991. Das Genitivproblem in der historischen Kasusforschung. Ein Beitrag zur Diachronie des deutschen Kasussystems. Universität Passau Habilitationsschrift.Google Scholar
. 1998. Das Genitivproblem und (k)ein Ende? In John Ole Askedal, ed., 69–86.Google Scholar
Ebert, Robert Peter. 1976. Infinitival Complement Constructions in Early New High German ( = Linguistische Arbeiten, 30). Tübingen: Max Niemeyer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Erdmann, Oskar. 1876. Untersuchungen über die Syntax der Sprache Otfrids. 2. Teil. Halle: Verlag der Buchhandlung des Waisenhauses.Google Scholar
Faarlund, Jan Terje. 2007. Parameterization and Change in Non‑Finite Complementation. Diachronica 24:1.57–80. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Fabricius-Hansen, Cathrine. 1980. Sogenannte ergänzende wenn-Sätze. Ein Beispiel syntaktisch-semantischer Integration. Festschrift für Gunnar Bech: zum 60. Geburtstag am 23. März ed. by Gunnar Bech, Mogens Dyhr, Karl Hyldgaard-Jensen & Jørgen Olsen, 61–83. København: Institut for germansk filologi, Københavns universitet.Google Scholar
Fleischer, Jürg & Oliver Schallert. 2011. Historische Syntax des Deutschen. Eine Einführung. Tübingen: Narr Verlag.Google Scholar
Fox, Daniel. 1999. Reconstruction, Binding Theory, and the Interpretation of Chains. Linguistic Inquiry 30:2.157–196. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Fukuda, Shin. 2007. On the Control/Raising Ambiguity with Aspectual Verbs: A Structural Account. Studies in Complement Control ed. by Barbara Stiebels, 159–195. Berlin: Zentrum für Allgemeine Sprachwissenschaft.Google Scholar
Graff, Eberhard Gottlieb & Hans F. Massmann. 1838. Althochdeutscher Sprachschatz oder Wörterbuch der althochdeutschen Sprache. Vol. 41. Berlin: Nikolai.Google Scholar
Grimm, Jacob. 1837. Deutsche Grammatik. Vierter Theil. Göttingen: Dieterichsche Buchhandlung.Google Scholar
Grosse, Julia. 2005. Zu Kohärenz und Kontrolle in infiniten Konstruktionen des Deutschen. Marburg: Tectum Verlag.Google Scholar
Grosu, Alexander & Julia Horvath. 1984. The GB Theory and Raising in Rumanian. Linguistic Inquiry 15:2.348–353.Google Scholar
Gunkel, Lutz. 2000. Selektion verbaler Komplemente. Zur Syntax der Halbmodal- und Phasenverben. Deutsche Grammatik in Theorie und Praxis ed. by Rolf Thieroff, Matthias Tamrat, Nanna Fuhrhop & Oliver Teuber, 111–121. Tübingen: Max Niemeyer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Haddad, Youssef A. 2012. Raising in Standard Arabic: Forward, Backward, and None. Arabic Language and Linguistics ed. by Reem Bassiouney & Graham Katz, 61–78. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.Google Scholar
Haider, Hubert. 1989. Against Raising. Sentential Complementation and the Lexicon: Studies in Honour of Wim de Geest ed. by Dany Jaspers, Wim Klooster, Yvan Putseys & Pieter Seuren, 173–187. Dordrecht: Foris. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 1993. Deutsche Syntax–generativ. Vorstudien zur Theorie einer projektiven Grammatik. ( = Tübinger Beiträge zur Linguistik, 325.) Tübingen: Narr.Google Scholar
. 2009. The Syntax of German. ( = Cambridge Syntax Guides .) Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hinterwimmer, Stefan. 2012. When-Clauses, Factive Verbs and Correlates. Language and Logos: Studies in Theoretical and Computational Linguistics ed. by Thomas Hanneforth & Gisbert Fanselow, 176–189. Berlin: Akademie-Verlag.Google Scholar
Jędrzejowski, Łukasz. 2015. Subjektanhebungsverben im Deutschen. Ihre Entstehung, Entwicklung und Komplemente. University of Potsdam PhD thesis.Google Scholar
Jędrzejowski, Łukasz & Katrin Goldschmidt. 2015. On the Status of the Infinitival Marker zu ‘to’ in the History of German: A Corpus-Based Analysis. Universität Potsdam manuscript.
Johnk, Linn Dale. 1979. Complementation in Old High German. The University of Texas at Austin PhD thesis.Google Scholar
Kayne, Richard. 1980. De quelques différences entre le français et l’anglais. Langages 60:1.47–65. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Keinästö, Kari. 1986. Studien zu Infinitivkonstruktionen im mittelhochdeutschen Prosa-Lancelot. ( Regensburger Beiträge zur deutschen Sprach- und Literaturwissenschaft, 30). Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
. 1990. Über ingressive und egressive Infinitivkonstruktionen im mittelhochdeutschen Prosa‑Lancelot. Neuere Forschungen zur historischen Syntax des Deutschen. Referate der Internationalen Fachkonferenz Eichstätt 1989 ed. by Anne Betten, 56–70. Tübingen: Max Niemeyer.Google Scholar
Kim, Jong‑Bok. 2014. English Copy Raising Constructions: Argument Realization and Characterization Condition. Linguistics 52:1.167–203. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kiss, Tibor. 2005. Subjektselektion bei Infinitiven. Der Infinitiv im Deutschen ed. by Jean‑François Marillier & Claire Rozier, 115–132. Tübingen: Stauffenburg.Google Scholar
Lamiroy, Béatrice. 1987. The Complementation of Aspectual Verbs in French. Language 63:2.278–298. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Landau, Idan. 2011. Predication vs. Aboutness in Copy Raising. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 29:3.779–813. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2013. Control in Generative Grammar: A Research Companion. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Los, Bettelou. 2000. Onginnan/beginnan with Bare and to‑Infinitive in Ælfric. Pathways of Change: Grammaticalization in English ed. by Olga Fischer, Anette Rosenbach & Dieter Stein, 251–274. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2005. The Rise of the to-Infinitive. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Mensching, Guido. 2000. Infinitive Constructions with Specified Subjects: A Syntactic Analysis of the Romance Languages. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Meurers, Walt Detmar. 2000. Lexical Generalizations in the Syntax of German Non‑Finite Constructions. Arbeitspapiere des SFB 340, vol. 1451. Tübingen: Eberhard‑Karls‑Universität.Google Scholar
Moore, John. 1998. Turkish Copy‑Raising and A‑Chain Locality. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 16:1.149–189. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Müller, Reimar & Marga Reis, eds. 2001. Modalität und Modalverben im Deutschen. Hamburg: Helmut Buske.Google Scholar
Nunes, Jairo. 2004. Linearization of Chains and Sideward Movement. ( = Linguistic Inquiry Monographs, 43). Cambridge: The MIT Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ogura, Michiko. 1997. On the Beginning and Development of the begin to Construction. Studies in Middle English Linguistics ed. by Jacek Fisiak, 403–428. Berlin: de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Perlmutter, David. 1970. The Two Verbs begin . Readings in English Transformational Grammar ed. by Roderick A. Jacobs & Peter S. Rosenbaum, 107–119. Waltham, MA: Ginn and Company.Google Scholar
Potsdam, Eric & Maria Polinsky. 2012. Backward Raising. Syntax 15:1.75–108. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Pye, Clifton. 2009. Cycles of Complementation in the Mayan Languages. In Elly van Gelderen, ed., 265–284.Google Scholar
Reis, Marga. 2007. Modals, So-Called Semi-Modals, and Grammaticalization. Interdisciplinary Journal for Germanic Linguistics and Semiotic Analysis 121.1–57.Google Scholar
Roetteken, Hubert. 1884. Der zusammengesetzte Satz bei Berthold von Regensburg. Ein Beitrag zur mittelhochdeutschen Syntax. Strassburg: Trübner & Comp. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Rooryck, Johan. 1992. On the Distinction between Raising and Control. Romance Languages and Modern Linguistic Theory: Papers from the 20th Linguistic Symposium on Romance Languages, Ottawa, 10–14 April, 1990 ed. by Paul Hirschbühler & Konrad Koerner, 225–250. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sauerland, Uli. 2003. Intermediate Adjunction with A‑Movement. Linguistic Inquiry 34:2.308–313. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Schwabe, Kerstin & Robert Fittler. 2013. Variations of Argument Realization of German Clause Embedding Predicates. A talk presented at the 19th Germanic Linguistics Annual Conference , University at Buffalo.Google Scholar
Schrodt, Richard. 1992. Die Opposition von Objektsgenitiv und Objektsakkusativ in der deutschen Sprachgeschichte: Syntax oder Semantik oder beides? Beiträge zur Geschichte der deutschen Sprache und Literatur 114:3.361–394. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sichel, Ivy. 2007. Raising in DP Revisited. New Horizons in the Analysis of Control and Raising ed. by William D. Davies & Stanley Dubinsky, 15–34. Dordrecht: Springer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sims, Lynn. 2013. Aspectual Loss and Renewal: onginnan, beginnan, start . Periphrasis, Replacement and Renewal: Studies in English Historical Linguistics ed. by Irén Hegedűs & Dóra Pődör, 57–82. Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars Publishing.Google Scholar
Sitaridou, Ioanna. 2009. On the Emergence of Personal Infinitives in the History of Spanish. Diachronica 26:1.36–64. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Speyer, Augustin. 2015. Semantic Factors for the Status of Control Infinitives in the History of German. Infinitives at the Syntax-Semantics Interface: A Diachronic Perspective ed. by Łukasz Jędrzejowski & Ulrike Demske. Berlin & Boston: De Gruyter.Google Scholar
Sternefeld, Wolfgang. 2008. Syntax. Eine morphologisch motivierte generative Beschreibung des Deutschen. (= Stauffenburg Linguistik, 31). Tübingen: Stauffenburg. (3., überarbeitete Auflage.).Google Scholar
Thráinsson, Höskuldur. 2007. The Syntax of Icelandic. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Traugott, Elisabeth Closs. 1997. Subjectification and the Development of Epistemic Meaning: The Case of promise and threaten . Modality in Germanic Languages: Historical and Comparative Perspectives ed. by Toril Swan & Olaf Jansen Westvik, 185–210. Berlin: De Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2010. (Inter)subjectivity and (Inter)subjectification: A Reassessment. Subjectification, Intersubjectification and Grammaticalization ed. by Kristin Davidse, Lieven Vandelanotte & Hubert Cuyckens, 29–74. Berlin: De Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ura, Hiroyuki. 1998. Checking, Economy and Copy‑Raising in Igbo. Linguistic Analysis 28:1.67–88.Google Scholar
Van Gelderen, Elly, ed. 2009. Cyclical Change. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2009. Cyclical Changes, an Introduction. In Elly van Gelderen, ed., 1–12. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2011. The Linguistic Cycle: Language Change and the Language Faculty. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Von Monsterberg-Münckenau, Sylvius. 1885. Der Infinitiv in den Epen Hartmanns von Aue. (= Germanistische Abhandlungen, 5.) Breslau: Verlag von Wilhelm Koebner.Google Scholar
Wilder, Christopher. 1988. On the German Infinitival Marker zu and the Analysis of Raising Constructions. Lingua 76:2/3.115–175. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Wöllstein‑Leisten, Angelika. 2001. Die Syntax der dritten Konstruktion. Eine repräsentationelle Analyse zur Monosententialität von zu‑Infinitiven im Deutschen. ( Studien zur deutschen Grammatik, 63.) Tübingen: Stauffenburg Verlag.Google Scholar
Wurmbrand, Susanne. 1999. Modal Verbs Must Be Raising Verbs. Proceedings of the 18th West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics (WCCFL 18) ed. by Sonya Bird, Andrew Carnie, Jason D. Haugen & Peter Norquest, 599–612. Somerville, MA.: Cascadilla Press.Google Scholar
Zifonun, Gisela, Ludger Hoffmann & Bruno Strecker. 1997. Grammatik der deutschen Sprache. (= Schriften des Instituts für Deutsche Sprache ). Berlin: De Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cited by (1)

Cited by one other publication

Jędrzejowski, Łukasz
2021. On the habitual verbpflegenin German: Its use, origin, and development. Linguistics 59:6 ► pp. 1473 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 4 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.