Cover not available
Part of
Lost in Change: Causes and processes in the loss of grammatical elements and constructions
Edited by Svenja Kranich and Tine Breban
[Studies in Language Companion Series 218] 2021
► pp. 159–198

Loss or variation? Functional load in morpho-syntax – Three case studies

editor
| University of Konstanz
In order to get a better understanding of the circumstances under which elements can get lost in the course of their diachronic development, three phenomena of German non-standard varieties will be compared: loss of adnominal genitive, optional realization of adjectival inflection and variation in the choice of relative clause introducers. It will be shown that on the one hand, a substitutional strategy to compensate for the function of the element that undergoes loss is required but that this alone does not necessarily lead to loss. Depending on the functional load of the individual items and the options the syntax provides the availability of a substitutional strategy may result in loss, optionality or variation.
Keywords: dialectal variation, functional load, adjectival inflection, adnominal genitive, RCIs
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Background
    • 2.1The Alemannic dialect
    • 2.2Theoretical background: Loss from a generative perspective
  • 3.The loss of the adnominal genitive in some varieties of German
    • 3.1The decline of the adnominal genitive
    • 3.2The loss of the adnominal Genitive
  • 4.German adjectival inflection – A case of optionality
    • 4.1Why optionality and not loss?
  • 5.Relative clauses
    • 5.1The Origin of the Alemannic RCIs
  • 6.Discussion
  • Acknowledgements
  • Notes
  • References
Published online: 16 June 2021
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/slcs.218.06reh
References (64)
References
Alexiadou, Artemis, Law, Paul, Meinunger, André & Wilder, Chris. 2000. The Syntax of Relative Clauses [Linguistik Aktuell/Linguistics Today 32]. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Anttila, Arto. 2007. Variation and optionality. In The Cambridge Handbook of Phonology, Paul de Lacy(ed.), 519–536. Cambridge: CUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Barker, Chris. 2019. Possessives and relational nouns. In Semantics-Noun Phrases and Verb Phrases, Paul Hortner, Klaus von Heusinger & Claudia Maienborn (eds), 177–203. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bayer, Josef. 1984. COMP in Bavarian syntax. The Linguistic Review 3 (3): 209–274. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bidese, Ermenegildo, Padovan, Andrea & Tomaselli, Alessandra. 2012. A binary system of complementizers in Cimbrian relative clauses. Working Papers in Scandinavian Syntax 90: 1–21.Google Scholar
Birlinger, Anton. 1868. Die Alemannische Sprache Rechts des Rheins seit dem XIII. Jahrhundert. Berlin: Ferd. Dümmler's Verlagsbuchhandlung.
Boef, Eefje. 2013. Doubling in Relative Clauses: Aspects of Morphosyntactic Microvariation in Dutch. PhD dissertation, Utrecht University.
Borer, Hagit. 2005In Name Only, Vol. 1. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
Brandner, Ellen & Bräuning, Iris. 2013. Relative wo in Alemannic: Only a complementizer? Linguistische Berichte 2013 (234): 131–169.Google Scholar
Braune, Wilhelm & Heidermanns, Frank. 2018. Althochdeutsche Grammatik I. Berlin: De Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bräuning, Iris. 2017. Relativsatzstrategien im Alemannischen. PhD dissertation, University of Konstanz.
Cinque, Guglielmo. 2010. The Syntax of Adjectives. A Comparative Study [Linguistic Inquiry Monographs 57]. Cambridge MA: The MIT Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Demske, Ulrike. 2001. Merkmale und Relationen. Diachrone Studien zur Nominalphrase des Deutschen [Studia Germanica Linguistica 56]. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Fiorentino, Giuliana. 2007. European relative clauses and the uniqueness of the relative pronoun type. Italian Journal of Linguistics 19 (2): 263–291.Google Scholar
Fleischer, Jürg. 2002. Preposition stranding in German dialects. In Syntactic Microvariation. Online Proceedings - Workshop on Syntactic Microvariation Sjef Barbiers, Leonie Cornips & Susanne van der Kleij (eds.), 116–151. <[URL]> (6 November 2020).
. 2004. A typology of relative clauses in German dialects. In Dialectology meets Typology. Dialect Grammar from a Cross-linguistic Perspective, Walter Bisang, Hans Henrich Hock & Werner Winter (eds), 211–243. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
. 2006. Dative and indirect object in German dialects. In Datives and Other Cases. Between Argument Structure and Event Structure [Studies in Language Companion Series 75], Daniel Hole, André Meinunger & Werner Abraham (eds), 213–238. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Fleischer, Jürg & Schallert, Oliver. 2011. Historische Syntax des Deutschen. Eine Einführung. Tübingen: Gunter Narr.Google Scholar
von der Gabelentz, Georg. 1901. Die Sprachwissenschaft. Ihre Aufgaben, Methoden und bisherigen Ergebnisse, 2 edn. Leipzig: Chr. Herm. Tauchnitz.Google Scholar
Gallmann, Peter. 1996. Die Steuerung der Flexion in der DP. Linguistische Berichte 164: 283–314.Google Scholar
. 2018. The genitive rule and its background. In Germanic Genitives [Studies in Language Companion Series 193], Tanja Ackermann, Horst J. Simon & Christian Zimmer (eds), 149–188. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
van Gelderen, Elly. 2011. The Linguistic Cycle. Language Change and the Language Faculty. Oxford: OUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Grimm, Jacob. 1822. Deutsche Grammatik, 4 Vols, Vol. 2. Göttingen: Dietrich.Google Scholar
Hachem, Mirjam. 2015. Multifunctionality. The Internal and External Syntax of D-and W-Items in German and Dutch. Utrecht: LOT.Google Scholar
Hentschel, Elke. 1993. Flexionsverfall im Deutschen? Die Kasusmarkierung bei partitiven Genetiv-Attributen/A decay of inflectional endings in German? The case marking of partitive genitive attributes. Zeitschrift für germanistische Linguistik 21: 320–333.Google Scholar
Jellinek, Max-Hermann. 1914. Geschichte der neuhochdeutschen Grammatik II. Von den Anfängen bis auf Adelung, Vol. Zweiter Halbband. Heidelberg: Carl Winter's Universitätsbuchhandlung.
Julien, Marit. 2005. Nominal Phrases from a Scandinavian Perspective [Linguistik Aktuell/Linguistics Today 87]. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kasper, Simon. 2014. Linking syntax and semantics of adnominal possession in the history of German. In Language Change at the Syntax-Semantics Interface [Trends in Linguistics. Studies and Monographs 278], Chiara Gianollo, Agnes Jäger & Doris Penka (eds), 57–99. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Keenan, Edward L. & Comrie, Bernard. 1977. Noun phrase accessibility and universal grammar. Linguistic Inquiry 8 (1): 63–99.Google Scholar
Kester, Ellen-Petra. 1996. Adjectival inflection and the licensing of empty categories in DP. Journal of Linguistics 32 (1): 57–78. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kiefer, Heinrich. 1910. Der Ersatz des adnominalen Genitivs im Deutschen. PhD dissertation, Hessische Ludwigs University, Giessen.
Klein, Thomas. 2007. Von der semantischen zur morphologischen Steuerung. In Beiträge zur Morphologie. Germanisch, Baltisch, Ostseefinnisch, Hans Fix (ed.), 193–225. Odense: University Press of Southern Denmark. DOI logo
Kovari, Geoffrey. 1984. Studien zum germanischen Artikel. Entstehung und Verwendung des Artikels im Gotischen [Wiener Arbeiten zur germanischen Altertumskunde und Philologie 26]. Wien: Halosar.Google Scholar
Krause, Thomas & Zeldes, Amir. 2016. ANNIS3: A new architecture for generic corpus query and visualization. Digital Scholarship in the Humanities 31(1): 118–139. <
CrossRef DOI logo with hyperlink to permanent DOI
>. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kroch, Anthony. 1994. Morphosyntactic variation. In Papers from the 30th Regional Meeting of the Chicago Linguistics Society. Parasession on Variation and Linguistic Theory 2, Katherine Beals (ed.), 180–201. Chicago IL: CLS.Google Scholar
Kroch, Anthony S. 1989. Reflexes of grammar in patterns of language change. Language Variation and Change 1 (3): 199–244. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lehmann, Christian. 1995. Thoughts on Grammaticalization. Munich: Lincom.Google Scholar
Lindauer, Thomas. 1998. Attributive genitive constructions in German. In Possessors, Predicates and Movement in the Determiner Phrase [Linguistik Aktuell/Linguistics Today 22], Artemis Alexiadou & Chris Wilder (eds), 109–140. John Benjamins: Amsterdam. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Los, Bettelou. 2005. The Rise of the To-infinitive. Oxford: OUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Mausser, Otto Ernst. 1933. Mittelhochdeutsche Grammatik, III Teil. Laut-u. Formenlehre nebst Syntax, Vol. 1. Munich: Max Hueber.Google Scholar
McWhorter, John. 2002. What happened to English? Diachronica 19 (2): 217–272. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Olsen, Susan. 1996. Dem Possessivum seine Eigentümlichkeit. In Die Struktur der Nominalphrase [Wuppertaler Arbeitpapiere zur Sprachwissenschaft 12], Hans Thilo Tappe & Elisabeth Löbel (eds), 112–143. Wuppertal: Bergische Universität-Gesamthochschule.Google Scholar
Osthoff, Hermann. 1876. Zur geschichte des schwachen deutschen adjectivums. Jena: Hermann Costenoble.Google Scholar
Oubouzar, Erika. 1992. Zur Ausbildung des bestimmten Artikels im Althochdeutschen. In Althochdeutsch. Syntax und Semantik. Akten des Lyonner Kolloquiums zur Syntax und Semantik des Althochdeutschen, Vol. 3, Yvon Desportes (ed.), 69–87. Lyon: Université Jean Moulin.Google Scholar
Paul, Hermann. 2007. Mittelhochdeutsche Grammatik, 25th edn. Tübingen: Max Niemeyer.Google Scholar
Pittner, Karin. 2014. Ist der Dativ dem Genitiv sein Tod? Funktionen und Konkurrenzformen von Genitiv-NPs im heutigen Deutsch. In Linguistische und sprachdidaktische Aspekte germanistischer Forschung Chinesisch-Deutsch, Corinna Reuter & Ann-Kathrin Schlief (eds), 41–56. Frankfurt: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
von Polenz, Peter. 1994. Deutsche Sprachgeschichte vom Spätmittelalter bis zur Gegenwart, Bd. 2: 17. und 18 Jahrhundert. Berlin: De Gruyter.Google Scholar
Ramat, Paolo. 1986. The Germanic possessive type dem Vater sein Haus. In Linguistics across Historical and Geographical Boundaries, Vol. 1, Dieter Kastovsky & Aleksander Szwedek (eds), 579–590. Berlin: De Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Rehn, Alexandra. 2019. Adjectives and the Syntax of German(ic) DPs. PhD dissertation, University of Konstanz.Google Scholar
Roberts, Ian & Roussou, Anna. 2003. Syntactic Change. A Minimalist Approach to Grammaticalization [Cambridge Studies in Linguistics 100]. Cambridge: CUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Rowley, Anthony R. 1991. Die Adjektivflexion der Dialekte Nordostbayerns: Morphologische Staffelung in einem ostfränkisch-bairischen Kontaminationsraum. Zeitschrift für Dialektologie und Linguistik 58 (1): 1–23.Google Scholar
Salzmann, Martin. 2006. Resumptive pronouns and matching effects in Zurich German relative clauses as distributed deletion. Leiden Papers in Linguistics 3 (1): 17–50.Google Scholar
. 2013. On three types of variation in resumption: Evidence in favor of violable and ranked constraints. In Linguistic Derivations and Filtering. Minimalism and Optimality Theory, Hans Broekhuis & Ralf Vogel (eds), 76–108. Sheffield: Equinox.Google Scholar
Schirmunski, Viktor M. 1962. Deutsche Mundartkunde (Vergleichende Laut-und Formenlehre der deutschen Mundarten. Berlin). Berlin: Akademie-Verlag.
Schmidt, Jürgen Erich, Herrgen, Joachim & Kehrein, Roland. 2008. Regionalsprache.de (REDE).
Solms, Hans-Joachim & Wegera, Klaus-Peter. 1991. Flexion der Adjektive [Grammatik des Frühneuhochdeutschen: Beiträge zur Laut-und Formenlehre 6]. Heidelberg: Winter.Google Scholar
Staedele, Alfons. 1927. Syntax der Mundart von Stahringen. Br. dissertation. Albert-Ludwigs-University of Freiburg.Google Scholar
Walch, Maria & Häckel, Susanne. 1988. Grammatik des Frühneuhochdeutschen, Band 7: Flexion der Pronomina und Numeralia. Heidelberg: Winter.Google Scholar
Wedel, Andrew, Kaplan, Abby & Jackson, Scott. 2013. High functional load inhibits phonological contrast loss: A corpus study. Cognition 128 (2): 179–186. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Weinrich, Harald. 2005. Textgrammatik der deutschen Sprache, dritte revidierte Auflage. Hildesheim: Georg Olms.Google Scholar
Weiß, Helmut. 2012. The rise of DP-internal possessors: On the relationship of dialectal synchrony to diachrony. In The Dialect Laboratory. Dialects as a Testing Ground for Theories of Language Change, [Studies in Language Companion Series 128], Gunther De Vogelaer & Guido Seiler (eds), 271–294. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Wessén, Elias. 1914. Zur Geschichte der germanischen n-Deklination. Uppsala: Akademische buchdruckerei.Google Scholar
Wiesinger, Peter. 1983. Die Einteilung der deutschen Dialekte. In Dialektologie. Ein Handbuch zur deutschen und allgemeinen Dialekforschung, Vol. 2, Werner Besch, Ulrich Knoop, Wolfgang Putschke & Herbert Ernst Wiegand (eds), 807–900. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Wiltschko, Martina. 1998. On the syntax and semantics of (relative) pronouns and determiners. The Journal of Comparative Germanic Linguistics 2 (2): 143–181. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cited by (1)

Cited by one other publication

Castro-Chao, Noelia
2022. The Emergence and Loss of the English Minor Complementizerstillanduntil. Journal of English Linguistics 50:4 ► pp. 354 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 5 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.