This paper deals with inflectional change in Germanic standard and non-standard varieties, challenging the standard model of phonologically driven case loss in favour of a model that allows for interaction between phonological, syntactic, and purely morphological processes. After providing evidence from the language histories of the modern, standardised varieties of High German and Swedish which calls into question the exclusive role of phonology, we concentrate on two Germanic non-standard varieties: Visperterminen Alemannic, a successor of Old High German, and Övdalian, which stems from Old Dalecarlian (Old Swedish is used as a proxy to Old Dalecarlian). Both can serve as a testing ground for system-internal morphological change, as they carry on specific phonological aspects of their ancestral varieties, and have not been subject to excessive language contact that could have triggered external simplification processes. Using these non-standard varieties as an empirical base, we examine the patterns of loss of inflectional case marking and corresponding compensation strategies on the level of the nominal phrase. It can be shown that, while there are extensive syncretisms in noun inflection, these are systematically compensated for in the noun phrase for dative, but not for the nominativeaccusative syncretism. The systematic (non-)compensation in the noun phrase can be explained by word order. Based on our results, we propose an alternative model for morphological change in Germanic that is less prone to counterevidence from non-standard varieties.
One may hear that over time languages tend to simplify their grammar and notably their morphological system. This intuition, probably based on linguists' knowledge of the rich inflectional systems of older Indo-European languages, has been challenged, particularly by sociolinguistic typologists (e.g. Trudgill 2011;Braunmüller 1984Braunmüller , 2003Nichols 1992). They hypothesise that languages spoken by small and isolated communities with a dense network may complexify their grammar (Trudgill 2011: 146-147).The present article investigates the nominal inflection systems of 14 varieties of German in order to survey whether there is any such diachronic tendency towards simplification and whether instances of complexification can be observed, too. The varieties under analysis include present-day Standard German, Old High German and Middle High German (two older stages of German) and eleven present-day non-standard varieties which make part of the Alemannic dialect group.First, it will be shown that there is a diachronic tendency towards simplification if we consider the total complexity of nominal inflection. Second, however, we can identify instances of diachronic complexification too if we take a closer look at single categories. Interestingly, diachronic complexification appears only in the non-standard varieties, not so in the standard variety. This may support the hypothesis that isolated varieties are more complex than non-isolated ones.
No abstract
This paper surveys the emergence of the categoryhumannessin the 3rd person singular personal pronoun in Alemannic (southwest German) dialects. The first part shows that some Alemannic dialects have developed a human/nonhuman distinction in the 3rd person singular neuter personal pronoun: a marked form encoding the human direct object has emerged. The emergence of this form can be explained by the differential object marking hypothesis. The second part reports on a pilot study of the 3rd person singular personal pronoun in Sense Alemannic on the basis of new data. In this dialect, humanness is distinguished not only in the neuter but also in the masculine and feminine. Additionally, some instances are observed that violate the differential object marking principle. Thus, both principles (humanness marking and the differential object marking) form part of the grammar, but the latter one may be violated.*
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.