A case study in grammaticalized inflectional morphology

Hill, Eugen

doi:10.1075/dia.27.3.02hil

Cited by 37 publications

(4 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…It is one step closer to a true clitic, from which it still differs, though, in maintaining phonological independence. In this context, it is interesting to recall that the suffix of the weak preterite in Germanic is considered to derive from the past tense forms of the Proto-Germanic verb *dōn 'do' (e.g., Kiparsky 2009;Hill 2010). Even though this view dominates, it is still disputed, constituting what Hill (2010: 411) describes as ''one of the oldest and most controversial problems in the historical morphology of the Germanic branch of Indo-European''.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

An OT analysis of do-support across varieties of German

Weber

2018

J Comp German Linguistics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Just like most varieties of West Germanic, virtually all varieties of German use a construction in which a cognate of the English verb do (standard German tun) functions as an auxiliary and selects another verb in the bare infinitive, a construction known as do-periphrasis or do-support. The present paper provides an Optimality Theoretic (OT) analysis of this phenomenon. It builds on a previous analysis by Bader and Schmid (An OT-analysis of do-support in Modern German, 2006) but (i) extends it from root clauses to subordinate clauses and (ii) aims to capture all of the major distributional patterns found across (mostly non-standard) varieties of German. In so doing, the data are used as a testing ground for different models of German clause structure. At first sight, the occurrence of do in subordinate clauses, as found in many varieties, appears to support the standard CP-IP-VP analysis of German. In actual fact, however, the full range of data turn out to challenge, rather than support, this model. Instead, I propose an analysis within the IP-less model by Haider (Deutsche Syntax-generativ. Vorstudien zur Theorie einer projektiven Grammatik, Narr, Tübingen, 1993 et seq.). In sum, the do-support data will be shown to have implications not only for the analysis of clause structure but also for the OT constraints commonly assumed to govern the distribution of do, for the theory of non-projecting words (Toivonen in Non-projecting words, Kluwer, Dordrecht, 2003) as well as research on grammaticalization.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

An OT analysis of do-support across varieties of German

Weber

2018

J Comp German Linguistics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Historical linguistics have intensively studied these two competing morphological strategies for the Germanic preterite, both to reconstruct the earliest stages (i.a. Bailey, 1997;Hill, 2010;Lass, 1990;Mailhammer, 2007;Tops, 1974;Van Coetsem, 1990), and to trace the diachrony of the distribution (e.g. Anderwald -century to 20 th -century Dutch).…”

Section: Preterite Formation In Germanicmentioning

confidence: 99%

Markov Models for Multi-state Language Change

Velde

Smet

2021

Journal of Quantitative Linguistics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Historical linguistics has witnessed an upsurge in quantitative corpus studies. The bulk of these studies involve the use of regression modelling. We point out a number of potential problems with this approach, and offer an alternative. For a multi-state language change, we propose a Markov model in continuous time. The major advantage of this technique, which has been used in medical contexts, is that it is especially geared towards dealing with time as a variable of interest, while it still allows one to look at the effect of several covariates. In this proof-of-concept article, we look at morphological shifts in preterites in Dutch, from 800AD to 2000AD (n = 14,314). This is a well-researched field, allowing us to investigate the performance of the multi-state Markov model.

show abstract

“…Goth. ‐ deþs and ON dáð ‘deed’) and both of these dialect groups seem to preserve the inherited PG ‘do’ verb as formants of the dental preterite: namely, the Gothic forms in ‐ da , ‐ dēs , ‐ dēdum , etc., have usually been thought to have originally signified a perfectivising periphrastic construction of verbal base + ‘did’ (Sverdrup ; Tops ; Hill ; ; Ringe : 179–96; : 166–8 and cf. now Stiles ).…”

Section: Verba Faciendi In Germanicmentioning

confidence: 99%

‘Giving’ and ‘Making’ in Early Runic Epigraphy

Mees

2012

Trans of the Philol Soc

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

A survey of the early Germanic etymological semantics of ‘giving’ and ‘making’ is presented in light of the recent reaffirmation that early Nordic *taujan is etymologically related to Old Norse tœja ‘grant, bestow, help, assist’. Contextualising the early runic fabricatory and dedicatory inscriptions in terms of sociological, textual and anthropological theory, a new interpretation of early runic pragmatics is developed. The new approach to early runic performance proferred seeks to explain the broader function (and context) of epigraphic production, not merely the most logical reading of individual texts. The early runic pragmatics of ‘giving’ and ‘making’ are employed as an analytical frame in which to analyse the socio‐cultural as well as linguistic meaning of a series of both functionally and textually related, often significantly stylised Iron Age epigraphs found on a range of early Scandinavian media: runestones, moor finds and migration‐era amulets.

show abstract

A case study in grammaticalized inflectional morphology

Cited by 37 publications

References 0 publications

An OT analysis of do-support across varieties of German

An OT analysis of do-support across varieties of German

Markov Models for Multi-state Language Change

‘Giving’ and ‘Making’ in Early Runic Epigraphy

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About