Cover not available
Part of
Morphological Variation: Theoretical and empirical perspectives
Edited by Antje Dammel and Oliver Schallert
[Studies in Language Companion Series 207] 2019
► pp. 283–310

Variation in non-finiteness and temporality from a canonical perspective

| LMU München
In this paper, I take widely varying data on the occurrence and acceptability of overt future infinitives in German as evidence for their current emergence. Such a change, however, seems to conflict with a (tentative) prediction from Canonical Typology: Temporally marked infinitives are less canonical than temporally unmarked ones but change is expected to lead to the more canonical. The aim of the contribution is to save the prediction by bringing the canonical notion of non-finiteness closer to the original core of this framework.
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Methodology and data discussion
    • 2.1Finiteness in German
    • 2.2Variation in German (non-)finiteness
  • 3.Theoretical framework
  • 4.Conclusion
  • Abbreviations
  • Acknowledgements
  • Notes
  • Corpora
  • References
Published online: 27 June 2019
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/slcs.207.10rei
References (49)
Corpora
Used
WebCorp Live <[URL]> (last accessed for this study on 4 November 2014).
DeReKo = Deutsches Referenzkorpus (‘German reference corpus’) <[URL]> (last accessed for this study on 4 November 2014).
Mentioned
DWDS = Digitales Wörterbuch der deutschen Sprache (‘Digital dictionary of the German language’) <[URL]>
DTA = Deutsches Textarchiv (‘German text archive’) <[URL]>
References
Abraham, Werner. 2001. Modals. Towards explaining the ‘epistemic non-finiteness gap’. In Modalität und Modalverben im Deutschen [Linguistische Berichte Sonderheft 9], Reimar Müller & Marga Reis (eds), 7–36. Hamburg: Buske.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
. 2017. Modalpartikel und Mirativeffekte. In Grammatische Funktionen aus Sicht der japanischen und deutschen Germanistik [Linguistische Berichte Sonderheft 24], Shin Tanaka, Elisabeth Leiss, Werner Abraham & Yasuhiro Fujinawa (eds), 75–107. Hamburg: Buske.Google Scholar
Bond, Oliver. 2013. A base for canonical negation. In Brown et al. (eds), 20–47.Google Scholar
Brown, Dunstan, Chumakina, Marina, Corbett, Greville G., Popova, Gergana & Spencer, Andrew. 2012. Defining ‘periphrasis’. Key notions. Morphology 22(2): 233–275. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Brown, Dunstan, Chumakina, Marina & Corbett, Greville G. (eds). 2013. Canonical Morphology and Syntax. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
Bybee, Joan L. 2003. Tense. Definition. International Encyclopedia of Linguistics, Vol. 4, 2nd edn, William J. Frawley (ed.), 223–224. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
Corbett, Greville G. 2011. The penumbra of morphosyntactic feature systems. Morphology 21(2): 445–480. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2012. Features. Cambridge: CUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Diewald, Gabriele & Smirnova, Elena. 2010. Evidentiality in German. Linguistic Realization and Regularities in Grammaticalization [Trends in Linguistics: Studies and Monographs 228]. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dowty, David R. 1991. Word Meaning and Montague Grammar. The Semantics of Verbs and Times in Generative Semantics and in Montague’s PTQ [Studies in Linguistics and Philosophy 7]. Dordrecht: Kluwer. (Reprint from 1979).Google Scholar
Eide, Kristin M. 2016. Introduction. In Finiteness Matters. On Finiteness-related Phenomena in Natural Languages [Linguistics Today 231], Kristin M. Eide (ed.), 1–44. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Fabricius-Hansen, Cathrine. 1999. “Moody time”. Indikativ und Konjunktiv im deutschen Tempussystem. Zeitschrift für Literaturwissenschaft und Linguistik 29(1): 119–146. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Fortescue, Michael. 1984. West Greenlandic. London: Croom Helm.Google Scholar
Gaeta, Livio. 2013. Multiple sources for the German scandal construction. Studies in Language 37(3): 566–598. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Givón, Talmy. 1990. Syntax. A Functional-typological Introduction 2 Vols. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Harris, Alice C. & Campbell, Lyle. 1995. Historical Syntax in Cross-linguistic Perspective [Cambridge Studies in Linguistics 74]. Cambridge: CUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Helbig, Gerhard & Buscha, Joachim. 2001. Deutsche Grammatik. Ein Handbuch für den Ausländerunterricht. Berlin: Langenscheidt.Google Scholar
Holmberg, Anders. 2015. Verb second. In Syntax. Theory and Analysis [Handbücher zur Sprach- und Kommunikationswissenschaft 42.2], Tibor Kiss & Artemis Alexiadou (eds), 342–383. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.Google Scholar
Iatridou, Sabine. 2000. The grammatical ingredients of counterfactuality. Linguistic Inquiry 31(2): 231–270. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Klein, Wolfgang. 1994. Time in Language. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
. 1998. Assertion and finiteness. In Issues in the Theory of Language Acquisition. Essays in Honor of Jürgen Weissenborn, Norbert Dittmar & Zvi Penner (eds), 225–245. Bern: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
. 2008. The topic situation. In Empirische Forschung und Theoriebildung. Beiträge aus Soziolinguistik, Gesprochene-Sprache- und Zweitspracherwerbsforschung; Festschrift für Norbert Dittmar zum 65. Geburtstag, Bernt Ahrenholz, Ursula Bredel, Wolfgang Klein, Martina Rost-Roth & Romuald Skiba (eds), 287–305. Frankfurt: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
Koptjevskaja-Tamm, Maria. 1993. Finiteness. In The Encyclopedia of Language and Linguistics, Vol. 3, Ronald E. Asher (ed.), 1245–1248. Oxford: Pergamon.Google Scholar
Maienborn, Claudia. 2003. Die logische Form von Kopula-Sätzen [Studia Grammatica 56]. Berlin: Akademie. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Martin, Roger. 2001. Null Case and the Distribution of PRO. Linguistic Inquiry 32(1): 141–166. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Mithun, Marianne. 1999. The Languages of Native North America. Cambridge: CUP.Google Scholar
Müller, Stefan. 2018. Grammatical Theory. From Transformational Grammar to Constraint-based Approaches, 2nd edn [Textbooks in Language Sciences 1]. Berlin: Language Science Press. <[URL]>Google Scholar
Myers, James. 2009. Syntactic judgment experiments. Language and Linguistics Compass 3(1): 406–423. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Nikolaeva, Irina. 2007. Introduction. In Finiteness. Theoretical and Empirical Foundations, Irina Nikolaeva (ed.), 1–19. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
. 2013. Unpacking finiteness. In Brown et al. (eds), 20–47.Google Scholar
Palmer, Frank R. 2001. Mood and Modality, 2nd edn. Cambridge: CUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Pinkster, Harm. 2015. The Oxford Latin Syntax, Vol. 1: The Simple Clause. Oxford: OUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Reiner, Tabea. 2015. An emerging future infinitive in present day German? De Gruyter Open Linguistics 1: 503–518.Google Scholar
. 2017. ??…sehen werden kann. Ergebnisse einer Korpusstudie. Sprachwissenschaft 42(2): 191–202.Google Scholar
. 2018. Existiert ein Infinitiv Posterior im Gegenwartsdeutschen? Habilitation thesis, LMU Munich. Supplement: <[URL]>
Reis, Marga. 2001. Bilden Modalverben im Deutschen eine syntaktische Klasse? In Modalität und Modalverben im Deutschen [Linguistische Berichte. Sonderheft 9], Reimar Müller & Marga Reis (eds), 287–318. Hamburg: Buske.Google Scholar
Rothstein, Björn. 2013. Belege mit doppeltem Futur im Deutschen? Ergebnisse einer Internetrecherche. Sprachwissenschaft 38(1): 101–119.Google Scholar
Schallert, Oliver. To appear. A note on misplaced or wrongly attached zu ‘to’ in German. Journal of Germanic Linguistics.
Seiler, Guido. 2015. Syntactization, analogy and the distinction between proximate and evolutionary causations. In Variation in Language. System- and Usage-based Approaches [Linguae & Litterae 50], Aria Adli, Marco García García & Göz Kaufmann (eds), 239–264. Berlin: De Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Stirling, Lesley. 2006. Switch-reference. Encyclopedia of Language and Linguistics, Vol. 12, 2nd edn, Keith Brown (ed.), 316–323. Amsterdam: Elsevier. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Thieroff, Rolf. 1992. Das finite Verb im Deutschen. Tempus - Modus - Distanz [Studien zur deutschen Grammatik 40]. Tübingen: Narr.Google Scholar
Vater, Heinz.1975. Werden als Modalverb. In Aspekte der Modalität [Studien zur deutschen Grammatik 1], Joseph P. Calbert & Heinz Vater (eds), 71–148. Tübingen: Narr.Google Scholar
Zeller, Jochen. 1994. Die Syntax des Tempus. Zur strukturellen Repräsentation temporaler Ausdrücke. Opladen: Westdeutscher Verlag. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Zifonun, Gisela, Hoffmann, Ludger & Strecker, Bruno. 1997. Grammatik der deutschen Sprache [Schriften des Instituts für Deutsche Sprache 7]. Berlin: De Gruyter.Google Scholar
Cited by (1)

Cited by one other publication

Reiner, Tabea
2021. Comparative concepts are not a different kind of thing. In Linguistic Categories, Language Description and Linguistic Typology [Typological Studies in Language, 132], ► pp. 211 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 28 june 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.