Auxiliary selection in closely related languages: the case of German and Dutch

Gillmann, Melitta

doi:10.1515/9783110348866-012

Cited by 8 publications

(2 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…It should be noted that there are a number of other theories and models that have been developed specifically for Germanic languages (usually German; for example, Perlmutter 1978, Grewendorf 1989, Shannon 1989, Gillmann 2015, 2016; see also Kailuweit & Rosemeyer 2015). These, however, rely on additional assumptions that the ASH does not need (for example, form=function; broader concepts of ergativity and aspect).…”

Section: Germanic Be/have and Auxiliary Selection Hierarchymentioning

confidence: 99%

Auxiliary Selection in Yiddish Dialects

Schäfer

2022

J Ger Ling

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The variation of the two past tense auxiliaries (HAVE and BE) is a well-studied phenomenon in European languages, especially in the West Germanic varieties. So far, however, the situation in Eastern Yiddish has not been examined. This paper focuses on auxiliary selection in these Yiddish dialects based on data from the Language and Culture Archive of Ashkenazic Jewry, which were collected in the 1960s. Like most of the current works on this topic, the following analysis uses and discusses Sorace’s (1993, 2000) Auxiliary Selection Hierarchy, which allows to examine the Yiddish structures in light of historical and diatopic evidence from other Germanic varieties, particularly German and Dutch. The main focus is on intransitive verbs that show a high degree of variation—state verbs, controlled and uncontrolled motional process verbs, and change-of-state verbs. However, the Auxiliary Selection Hierarchy also has weaknesses, as is demonstrated in the following.*

show abstract

Section: Germanic Be/have and Auxiliary Selection Hierarchymentioning

confidence: 99%

Auxiliary Selection in Yiddish Dialects

Schäfer

2022

J Ger Ling

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Ik ben later gevolgd 'I followed later' vs. Ik ben/heb hem gevolgd 'I followed him', cf. alsoGillmann 2015).…”

unclassified

A contrastive approach to grammatical doubts in some contemporary Germanic languages (German, Dutch, Swedish)

Thomas¹

2023

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Unquestionably (or: undoubtedly), every competent speaker has already come to doubt with respect to the question of which form is correct or appropriate and should be used (in the standard language) when faced with two or more almost identical competing variants of words, word forms or sentence and phrase structure (e.g. German "Pizzas/Pizzen/Pizze" 'pizzas', Dutch "de drie mooiste/mooiste drie stranden" 'the three most beautiful/most beautiful three beaches', Swedish "större än jag/mig" 'taller than I/me'). Such linguistic uncertainties or "cases of doubt" (cf. i.a. Klein 2003, 2009, 2018; Müller & Szczepaniak 2017; Schmitt, Szczepaniak & Vieregge 2019; Stark 2019 as well as the useful collections of data of Duden vol. 9, Taaladvies.net, Språkriktighetsboken etc.) systematically occur also in native speakers and they do not necessarily coincide with the difficulties of second language learners. In present-day German, most grammatical uncertainties occur in the domains of inflection (nominal plural formation, genitive singular allomorphy of strong masc./neut. nouns, inflectional variation of weak masc. nouns, strong/weak adjectival inflection and comparison forms, strong/weak verb forms, perfect auxiliary selection) and word-formation (linking elements in compounds, separability of complex verbs). As for syntax, there are often doubts in connection with case choice (pseudo-partitive constructions, prepositional case government) and agreement (especially due to coordination or appositional structures). This contribution aims to present a contrastive approach to morphological and syntactic uncertainties in contemporary Germanic languages (mostly German, Dutch, and Swedish) in order to obtain a broader and more fine-grained typology of grammatical instabilities and their causes. As will be discussed, most doubts of competent speakers - a problem also for general linguistic theory - can be attributed to processes of language change in progress, to language or variety contact, to gaps and rule conflicts in the grammar of every language or to psycholinguistic conditions of language processing. Our main concerns will be the issues of which (kinds of) common or different critical areas there are within Germanic (and, on the other hand, in which areas there are no doubts), which of the established (cross-linguistically valid) explanatory approaches apply to which phenomena and, ultimately, the question whether the new data reveals further lines of explanation for the empirically observable (standard) variation.

show abstract

Tense and aspect marking in (Low) German perfect constructions based on variety contact

Weber

2018

Constructional Approaches to Language

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Auxiliary selection in closely related languages: the case of German and Dutch

Cited by 8 publications

References 0 publications

Auxiliary Selection in Yiddish Dialects

Auxiliary Selection in Yiddish Dialects

A contrastive approach to grammatical doubts in some contemporary Germanic languages (German, Dutch, Swedish)

Tense and aspect marking in (Low) German perfect constructions based on variety contact

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About