Deutsche Modalverben 1609. Nicht-epistemische Verwendungsweisen

Fritz, Gerd

doi:10.1515/9783110940848.249

Cited by 24 publications

(6 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…However it is best characterized, it is, in any case, highly abstract. This usage is first attested in 1609 (see Fritz 1991). This accords well with the judgement of my informant, who felt that the difference was perhaps one of register only.…”

Section: On the Development Of Mtissensupporting

confidence: 79%

“…Bech (1951:16) asserts that the older Old High German meaning of muoz was one of permission or possibility, and that the development of 'necessity' was a late Old High German innovation. I would guess here, too, that root possibility is meant, since I have not yet found any epistemic possibility readings at this time (corroborated also by Valentin 1984 andFritz 1991). Uses as 'to necessarily do, must' become more frequent in Middle High German, where miissen begins to change places with dtirfen semantically.…”

Section: On the Development Of Mtissenmentioning

confidence: 75%

“…But as in the case of pleonastic miissen, more work is needed to determine how grammaticalized this variant is. The pleonastic use of wollen is first attested in 1609 (see Fritz 1991). development of the periphrastic perfect and the prefixation of ge-on the participle.…”

Section: On the Development Of Mtissenmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…According to Fritz (1991), the epistemic Er will dort gewesen sein 'He claims to have been there' is also first attested in 1609 (and not in the eighteenth century, as the DWb 30.1342 reports). These last two uses are thus recent and represent the bleaching of the lexical meaning of wollen over time.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

On the Grammaticalization of Germankönnen, dürfen, sollen, mögen, müssen, andwollen

Stevens¹

1995

Am. J. Ger. Linguist. Lit.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In this article the development of Germankönnen, dürfen, sollen, mögen, müssen, andwollenis examined in the light of grammaticalization theory. It is assumed that these verbs form a class (or subclass) of modal auxiliaries. Some of the assertions made on the development of modal verbs across languages are examined. For example, do the modal meanings develop from nonmodal meanings? Do the epistemic uses of these auxiliaries evolve from deontic ones? Can such an evolution be described in terms of metaphor and can the development of these verbs be described as following a distinct “path” that is “unidirectional”? Some of these questions are answered in the affirmative, but new question arise in the course of the investigation.

show abstract

Section: On the Development Of Mtissensupporting

confidence: 79%

Section: On the Development Of Mtissenmentioning

confidence: 75%

Section: On the Development Of Mtissenmentioning

confidence: 99%

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

On the Grammaticalization of Germankönnen, dürfen, sollen, mögen, müssen, andwollen

Stevens¹

1995

Am. J. Ger. Linguist. Lit.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Stevens (1995) suggests that the conditional meaning of German sollte developed out of its future meaning. The past (subjunctive) also adds some irrealis note here (see Fritz 1997b:291). Using the past (subjunctive) of the future auxiliary could therefore also be a possible path, and it still constitutes an upward reanalysis (TP future to TP past ; Cinque 1999).…”

Section: The Grammaticalization Perspectivementioning

confidence: 98%

A (Very) Imperfect Sandwich: EnglishShould, GermanSollte, DutchMocht/Moestas Grammaticalizing Markers of Conditionality

2016

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Based on a comparative corpus study, the present paper contrasts conditionals containing the modal verbs sollte in German, should in English, and mocht/moest in Dutch. The conditionals are examined with respect to the linkage levels between protasis and apodosis, the tense/mood patterns in the two clauses, and the degree of syntactic integration of the protasis into the apodosis. We argue that sollte, should, mocht, and moest are undergoing a process of grammaticalization as markers of conditionality, understood as upwards reanalysis in the hierarchy of functional projections. We show that this grammaticalization process is at different stages in the different languages, not showing any “sandwich”-like pattern.

show abstract

Micro-change and Macro-change in Diachronic Syntax

Gisborne

Truswell

2017

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This volume contains sixteen chapters addressing the process of syntactic change at different granularities. The language-particular component of a grammar is now usually assumed to be nothing more than the specification of the grammatical properties of a set of lexical items. Accordingly, grammar change must reduce to lexical change. And yet these micro-changes can cumulatively alter the typological character of a language (a macro-change). A central puzzle in diachronic syntax is how to relate macro-changes to micro-changes. Several chapters in this volume describe specific micro-changes: changes in the syntactic properties of a particular lexical item or class of lexical items. Other chapters explore links between micro-change and macro-change, using devices such as grammar competition at the individual and population level, recurring diachronic pathways, and links between acquisition biases and diachronic processes. This book is therefore a great companion to the recent literature on micro- versus macro-approaches to parameters in synchronic syntax. One of its important contributions is the demonstration that we can learn a great deal about synchronic linguistics through the way languages change: the case studies included provide diachronic insight into many syntactic constructions that have been the target of extensive recent synchronic research, including tense, aspect, relative clauses, stylistic fronting, verb second, demonstratives, and negation. Languages discussed include several archaic and contemporary Romance and Germanic varieties, as well as Greek, Hungarian, and Chinese, among many others.

show abstract

Deutsche Modalverben 1609. Nicht-epistemische Verwendungsweisen

Cited by 24 publications

References 0 publications

On the Grammaticalization of Germankönnen, dürfen, sollen, mögen, müssen, andwollen

On the Grammaticalization of Germankönnen, dürfen, sollen, mögen, müssen, andwollen

A (Very) Imperfect Sandwich: EnglishShould, GermanSollte, DutchMocht/Moestas Grammaticalizing Markers of Conditionality

Micro-change and Macro-change in Diachronic Syntax

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About