The Verbal Complex in Subordinate Clauses from Medieval to Modern German

The Verbal Complex in Subordinate Clauses from Medieval to Modern German

Linguistik Aktuell/Linguistics Today (LA) Linguistik AktueU!Linguistics Today (LA) provides a platform for original monograph studies into synchronic and diachronic linguistics. Studies in LA confront empirical and theoretical problems as these are currently discussed in syntax, semantics, morphology, phonology, and systematic pragmatics with the aim to establish robust empirical generalizations within a universalistic perspective.

General Editors VVerneri\braharn

Elly van Gelderen

University ofVienna I Rijksuniversiteit Groningen

Arizona State University

Advisory Editorial Board Josef Bayer University of Konstanz

Christer Platzack University of Lund

Cedric Boeckx ICRENUniversitat Autonoma de Barcelona

Ian Roberts Cambridge University

Guglielmo Cinque University of Venice

McGill University

Liliane Haegeman University of Ghent

StenV!kner University of Aarhus

Hubert Haider University of Salzburg

C. Jan-Wouter Zwart University of Groningen

Lisa deMena Travis

Terje Lohndal University of Maryland

Volume173 The Verbal Complex in Subordinate Clauses from Medieval to Modern German by Christopher D. Sapp

The Verbal Complex in Subordinate Clauses from Medieval to Modern German Christopher D. Sapp University of Mississippi

John Benjamins Publishing Company Amsterdam I Philadelphia

The paper used in this publication meets the minimum requirements of American National Standard for Information Sciences - Permanence of Paper for Printed Library Materials, ANSI z39.48-1984.

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Sapp, ChristDpher D. The verbal complex in subordinate clauses from medieval to modem German I Christopher D. Sapp.

p. em. (Linguistik.Ak:tueU!Linguistics Today, ISSN o166-o829; v.173) Includes bibliographical references and index. 1.

German language--Verb phrase. 2. German language--Syntax. 3· Grammar, Comparative and general--Verb phrase. I. Title.

PF3315.P52S27

2011

435:6--dc22 ISBN 978 90

272 5556 3 (Hb ; alk. paper)

ISBN 978 90

272 8725 o (Eb)

© 2011- John Benjamins B.V. No part of this book may be reproduced in any form, by print, photoprint, microfilm, or any other means, without written permission from the publisher.

John Benjamins Publishing Co.· P.O. Box 36224 • 1020 ME Amsterdam· The Netherlands John Benjamins North America· P.O. Box 27519 ·Philadelphia PA 19118-0519 • usA

Table of contents

Acknowledgements

v

CHAPTER 1

Inrroduction 1.1 The verbal complex in modern and older German 1 1.2 Previous scholarship on diachronic German verb order 1.2.1 The sentence-frame analysis 4 1.2.2 The verbal complex in MHG and ENHG 5 1.2.3 The verbal complex in contemporary German 13 1.3 Organization 14

1

4

CHAPTER 2

Factors influencing verb order in MHG 2.1 Introduction 15 2.1.1 Basic facts 15 2.1.2 The database 17 2.1.3 Analysis with GoldVarb X 19 2.1.4 Organization of this chapter 19 2.2 Complexes of two verbs in MHG 20 2.2.1 Introduction 20 2.2.2 Phonological, morphological, and syntactic factors 2.2.3 Diachronic, dialectal, and sociolinguistic variation 2.2.4 Conclusion 36 2.3 Complexes of three verbs in MHG 36 2.3.1 Introduction 36 2.3.2 Phonological, morphological, and syntactic factors 2.3.3 Diachronic, dialectal, and sociolinguistic variation 2.3.4 Conclusion 43 2.4 Conclusion 44 2+1 Summary of findings 44 2+2 The combined effect of the favoring factors 44

15

20

31

38 41

VI

The Verbal Complex in Subordinate Clauses from Medieval to Modern German

CHAPTER 3

Factors influencing verb order in ENHG 3.1 Introduction 47 3-1.1 Basic facts 47 3.1.2 The database 50 3.1.3 Organization of this chapter 53 3.2 Complexes of two verbs in ENHG 53 3.2.1 Introduction 53 3.2.2 Non-favoring factors 53 3.2.3 Favoring factors 56 3.2.4 Diachronic, dialectal, and sociolinguistic variation 66 3.2.5 Conclusion 75 3·3 Complexes of three verbs in ENHG 76 3.3.1 Introduction 76 3.3.2 Non-favoring factors 77 3.3.3 Favoring factors 79 3·3·4 Diachronic, dialectal, and sociolinguistic variation 85 3·3·5 Conclusion 90 3·4 Discussion 91 3.4.1 Favoring factors in individual texts and dialects 91 3.4.2 Dialect groups in ENHG 92 3·4·3 Developments from MHG to ENHG 95 3·5 Conclusion 97 3.5.1 Summaryoffindings 97 3.5.2 The combined effect of the favoring factors 98

47

CHAPTER 4

Verbal complexes in contemporary German 4.1 Introduction 101 4.2 Previous studies 101 4.2.1 Introduction 101 4.2.2 Two-verb complexes 102 4.2.3 Three-verb complexes no 4.2.4 Complexes of four or more verbs 120 4.2.5 Verbal complexes with an intervening constituent 4.2.6 Conclusion 129 4·3 Focus and two-verb complexes in dialects 129 4.3.1 Introduction 129 4.3.2 Swabian and Austrian 130 4·3·3 Zurich German 137 4·3·4 Conclusion 149

101

124

Table of contents

4·4 Focus and three-verb complexes in Standard German 4.4.1 Introduction 150 4.4.2 Schmid & Vogel (2004)

150

150

4·4·3 Magnitude estimation experiment 153 4·4-4 Discussion 160 4·5 Conclusion 161 4·5-1 Summary of findings 161 4.5.2 From ENHG to Modern German 162 CHAPTER

5

German clause structure and the prosody-syntax interface 5.1 Introduction

165

165

5.2 The structure of German subordinate clauses 165 5.2.1 Introduction 165 5.2.2 Diachronic approaches 166 5.2.3 The OV approach to German clause structure 167 5.2.4 The VO approach to German clause structure (Zwart 1996) 5.2.5 The OV and VO approaches compared 176 5·3 Focus, prosody; and verb order 179 5.3.1 Observations that need to be accounted for 179 5.3.2 Formal syntactic analyses of focus and verb order 181 5·3·3 Accounting for prosodic factors 186 5·3·4 Focus marking and its prosodic and syntactic effects 199 5·3·5 Summary 204 5·4 Conclusion 205

175

CHAPTER 6

Conclusions 6.1 Summary of findings 207 6.2 Implications 2o8 6.2.1 The origin of Standard German 208 6.2.2 The clause structure of German 210 6.2.3 The peripheral nature of verbal complex phenomena 6.2.4 Syntactic change in German 212 6.3 Outlook 213

207

211

Bibliography Primary sources from the Bochumet· Mittelhochdeutschkotpus 215 Primary sources from the Bonner FrUhneuhochdeutschkorpus 215 Secondary sources 217

215

Inde."

223

VII

Acknowledgements

This project began as a brief paper comparing Verb Projection Raising in Swiss German with the same phenomenon in West Flemish. At the end of the paper, I asked why these two non-contiguous dialects share this construction, which exists in neither Standard Dutch nor Standard German. My advisor, Rex A. Sprouse, encouraged me to seek an answer by investigating the verbal complex from a diachronic perspective, thus I owe him a debt of gratitude for shaping this project from its beginning. I would like to thank several other people for facilitating this research. KlausPeter Wegera and Sandra Waldenberger gave me access to the Bochum Middle High German Corpus, which forms the basis of Chapter 2. I conducted the surveys discussed in Chapter 4 during stays in Tiibingen where I worked with the SFB 441, in Vienna by invitation of Werner Abraham and Richard Schrodt, and in Zurich where I received valuable aid from Claudia Bi.icheli-Berger. I would also like to acknowledge all of the participants in my surveys. Allison Burkette, Owen Davis, Robert D. Fulk. Kari Ellen Gade, Stefanie Hirscher, Barbara Vance, an anonymous reviewer, and the editors at John Benjamins provided invaluable proofreading and comments. Participants at the following conferences also engaged me in helpful discussions on the more recent stages of this research: the 2007 International Workshop on Information Structure and Word Order Variation in older Germanic at Humboldt University, the 15th Germanic Linguistics Annual Conference in Banff, the 24th Comparative Germanic Syntax Workshop in Brussels, and the 11th Diachronic Generative Syntax conference in Campinas. This book is dedicated to the memory of two friends and fellow Germanisten: Marshall Billings and Prof. Jim Knowlton.

CHAPTER 1

Introduction

1.1

The verbal complex in modem and older German

A well-known characteristic of Modern Standard German is the asymmetry between main-clause and subordinate-clause word order. In main clauses, the finite verb occupies the second position of the clause (la-d), and any non-finite verb (lb) or verbal particle (lc) will occur at the end of the clause. If there is more than one non-finite verb, these will occur adjacent to each other at the end of the clause (ld), forming a "verb cluster" or "verbal complex" (VC), in which the verbs appear in a prescribed order relative to each other (le).l (1) a. Klaus liest heute das Buch. K. reads6n today the book 'Klaus reads the book today: b. Klaus will heute das Buch lesen. K. wantsfin today the book readmf 'Klaus wants to read the book today.' c. Klaus liest heute das Buch durch. K. readsfin today the book through 'Klaus reads through the book today.' d. Klaus will heute das Buch lesen kiJnnen. K. wantsfin today the book readmr canmr 'Klaus wants to be able to read the book today: e. *Klaus will heute das Buch kiJnnen lesen. K. wantsfin today the book Catl;.0 f readinr

Throughout this work. parts of the verbal complex will be italicized In addition, extraposed or intervening constituents will be indicated by bold face.

1.

2

The Verbal Complex in Subordinate Clauses from Medieval to Modern German

In subordinate clauses introduced by complementizers, on the other hand, all verbs, finite and non-finite, occur at the end of subordinate clauses (2a).2 If the subordinate clause has two or more verbs, these will form a verbal complex. Word order within the VC is fixed, at least when the complex consists of only two verbs. I will call the finite verb 1, and the non-finite verb selected by the finite verb will be labeled 2. (Any dependent verb selected by verb 2 will be labeled 3, and so on.) In Standard German, the only possible order for a two-verb complex in a subordinate clause is 2-1, i.e. the non-finite V followed by the finite Vas in (2b). (2) a.

. .. dass Klaus heute das Buch liest. that K. today the book reads that Klaus is reading the book todaY:

b.

. .. dass Klaus heute das Buch lesen will. that K. today the book read2 wants 1 that Klaus wants to read the book today:

c.

. .. dass Klaus heute das Buch wiU le.sen. that K. today the book wants 1 read2 '... that Klaus wants to read the book today:

The word-order asymmetry between main and subordinate clauses goes back to Old High German, the earliest recorded stage of the language: main clauses strongly tend toward V2, while subordinate clauses have later placement of the finite verb (Axel 2007: 6). Because verbs in subordinate clauses tend to occur late, earlier stages of German, like the modern language, exhibit verbal complexes. However, medieval varieties of German (like many contemporary continental West Germanic dialects) show considerable variation in word order within the VC. This variability can be illustrated with clusters of two verbs in Early New High German (ENHG), the language of the central and southern German-speaking areas from 1350 to 1650. In addition to the 2-1 order (3a), we find the opposite order 1-2 (3b). Furthermore, some material may occur between the verbs, resulting in an order that we willlabel1-x-2 (3c). Finally, independently of verb order, a constituent may be extra posed, i.e. placed to the right of the verbs (3d).

Unintroduced subordinate clauses, typically the complements of bridge verbs, display main-dause-like, verb-second word order:

2.

(i) Ich habe gesagt, Klaus will heute das Buch lesen. I have said K. wants 1 today the book read2

'I said Klaus wants to read the book today.'

Chapter 1. Introduction

(3) a.

das er in kainer sund verczweiffeln sol that he in no sin despair2 shall1 'that he shall not despair in any sin'

(Pillenreuth 161)

b. das der mensch alle sein lebttag nicht anders scholt thun that the person all his life.days nothing else should1 do2 'that man should do nothing else all the days of his life' (Pillenreuth 206) c.

das der mensche nicht scholt sein rew sparen ... that the person not should 1 his regret sav~ 'that one should not hold back his repentance .. .' (Pillenreuth 212)

d. Wye man fragen sol dy krancken how one ask2 shall 1 the sick 'how one should ask the sick'

(Pillenreuth 166)

Word order variation within the verbal complex is the subject of this study. Although VCs occur in both main and subordinate clauses, this study is limited to subordinate clauses. This is because in main clauses, the finite verb is always in the second position, so that VCs can occur only when there are three or more verbs in the clause, as in (ld). Given that the vast majority ofVCs contain only two verbs, especially in older texts, subordinate clauses provide the most fruitful ground for searching for complexes. Moreover, comparing VCs in main and subordinate clauses may be comparing unlike types, since main clauses have complexes of only non-finite verbs, while subordinate-clause verbal complexes usually contain a finite verb. This study investigates these VCs in the history of German, beginning with medieval German and continuing to some modern varieties of German. For medieval and early modern German, I will attempt to describe as accurately as possible the frequencies of particular word orders, the linguistic factors that favor some orders over others, and the diachronic and dialectal spread of these phenomena. For Modern German, I investigate similar phenomena, both in the standard language and in several dialects, resulting in a more complete understanding of synchronic grammar and diachronic developments. There are at least two reasons why the changes in the relative order of verbs that occur in the history of German are interesting, not only for philologists of German but also for those interested in language change and syntactic theory. First of all, many changes in word order have been argued to be related to other changes in the language, such as the loss of inflectional morphology. However, the inflectional system of German has remained remarkably stable throughout its attested history. Therefore, the diachronic developments within the German VC present an interesting case, because the change in word order appears to be motivated by factors other than morphological change.

3

4

The Verbal Complex in Subordinate Clauses from Medieval to Modern German

The second reason that this phenomenon is worthy of diachronic treatment is because it has increasingly received synchronic attention. There has been a flurry of research in the last twenty years seeking the best analysis for the 1-2 and 2-1 orders in Dutch and varieties of German (see Chapter 5). Because written Standard Dutch shows variation in the VC, it can be adequately investigated using corpus studies, as in de Sutter et al. (2008). Contemporary dialects of German, on the other hand, are rarely written, thus a large-scale corpus study of variation in the VC is necessarily limited to older stages of the language. Earlier stages of German appear to allow even more variation than most of the modern dialects, thus providing additional data that the synchronic analyses should take into account. Moreover, investigating earlier stages of contemporary varieties may help explain some aspects of these orders that have not been understood. The rest of this chapter is organized as follows. Section 1.2 presents some previous scholarship on the VC in earlier stages of German. Section 1.3 outlines the organization of the rest of this book.

1.2

Previous scholarship on diachronic German verb order

1.2.1

The sentence-frame analysis

Despite an enormous body of diachronic research on the word order of German, the verbal complex has been relatively neglected. Most scholarship on syntactic change in German has concentrated on two aspects of German word order. First, the verb-second (V2) phenomenon of main clause word order has received substantial diachronic treatment e.g. by Lenerz (1985) and more recently by Axel (2007). Secondly; extraposition (both in main and subordinate clauses) has been a major topic in German grammar, being an object of research in many historical studies of word order in German. This state of aftrurs is, I believe, largely a result of the traditional sentenceframe analysis of German word order (e.g. Wollstein-Leisten et al. 1997:53-54). Under this model, illustrated in Table 1, the verbs in main clauses "frame, the rest of the sentence, with the finite verb forming the so-called "left bracket" and the non-finite verb the "right bracket': In subordinate clauses, the complementizer forms the "left bracket" and the verb duster the "right bracket': The positions before, between, and after the "brackets, are labeled the "pre-field~ "middle field~ and "post-field~ respectively.

Chapter 1. Introduction

Table 1. The sentence-frame analysis of German

maind

sub. d.

pre-field

L bracket

middle field

Rbracket

Klaus

will dass

heute das Buch Klaus heute das Buch

lesen. lesen will.

post-field

Modern German strictly limits what kinds of constituents can be extraposed, i.e. found in the post-field. However, as discussed above and illustrated in (3), earlier stages of German are much freer in this respect. Thus much of the scholarship on the history of German word order has focused on the development of the sentence frame, i.e. the decreasing frequency of extra position. The relative order of the verbs in the VC is often either ignored (because the variation is within the so-called right bracket) or as in Admoni (1990: 156), the 1-2 order is treated as an instance of extraposition (i.e. the non-finite verb is in the post-field). Lenerz (1985: 105) similarly downplays changes in the VC, noting that there is synchronic and diachronic variation but labeling this an example of"stylistic reorderings" that "do not concern the syntactic structures of German as such."

1.2.2

The verbal complex in MHG and ENHG

1.2.2.1

Behaghel (1932)

For many years, most discussion of Middle High German (MHG) grammar was limited to the poetic texts from the high point of courtly literature. Many earlier grammars such as Paul (e.g. 1966) hardly discuss the position of verbs at all. The exception is Behaghel's Deutsche Syntax, which discusses word order in older Germanic prose texts in great detail, from Old English through Old High German to ENHG. This includes a lengthy treatment of verbal complexes in subordinate clauses (1932: 86-118). Regarding two-verb complexes, Behaghel notes that both orders are possible and claims that the 2-1 order is increasingly preferred under Latin influence (1932: 87). In addition, a rhythmic principle influences verb order: the combination of a stressed word plus a verbal complex with the 1-2 order produces the sequence "Hochton, Unton, Hochton" ('stressed word, unstressed word, stressed word'), while the combination of a light word and the 2-1 order produces the sequence "Unton, Hochton, Unton" (1932:87). Finally. Behaghel finds that constructions with infinitives behave differently from those with participles, with the participial construction preferring the 2-1 order (1932: 105).

5

6

The Verbal Complex in Subordinate Clauses from Medieval to Modern German

Prell (2001) Prell (2001) provides a very thorough study of MHG syntax, based primarily on prose rather than courtly poetry. He analyzes word order in main and subordinate clauses from twenty-four MHG prose texts from an early version of the Bochumer MHG corpus.3 Prelfs work forms the basis of the thoroughly revised syntax section ofPaufs (2007) MHG grammar. Of the 901 instances of two-verb complexes in subordinate clauses in Prell (2001:83), 28% have the 1-2 order. Prell finds several factors that have an effect on verb order. First, there is an increasing tendency for VCs in the 2-1 order to appear clause-finally: at the beginning of the 12th century, nearly half of the 2-1 complexes have extra position, while by the 14th less than a quarter do (2001: 84). On the other hand, VCs with the 1-2 order continue to occur with a high degree of extraposition throughout the period (2001:84), a trend that is found in several ENHG studies. Secondly, there is a strong effect of syntagm: 39% of modalinfinitive syntagms have the 1-2 order, while 24.7% of perfects and only 16.8% of passives do (2001:85). Thirdly, when the non-finite verb has a stressed separable prefix (SSP), the 1-2 order occurs more frequently than expected: there are 21 instances of the 2-1 order but 22 instances of 1-2 (2001: 87). With respectto complexes of three verbs, Prell ( 2001: 88) finds only 16 instances in subordinate clauses. Of these, 7 are in the 1-3-2 order, 5 are 3-1-2, and4 are 1-2-3. The majority of these examples involve a modal verb with the passive voice. Prell finds no instances of 3-2-1, the prevalent order in Modern Standard German. Prell concludes from this data that MHG, like Modern German, is a verb-final language with movement of the finite verb to COMP in main clauses (2001: 119). For Prell, the topological fields in the two stages of German are exactly the same, so that the structure for both is as in Table 1 above. The differences are that the postfield is a "strong" position in MHG (i.e. extraposition was frequent) but has weakened in the modern language, while the 2-1 order in the right bracket was "weak" in MHG (i.e. there was variation in the VC) but has become "strong (2001: 119). Prell suspects that these two changes may be related, with the result that Modern German subordinate clauses nearly always end in a finite verb (2001: 119).

1.2.2.2

Hammarstrom (1923) By Early New High German (ENHG), prose texts range across many dialects and genres, and thanks to an increasingly literate population, there are many texts such as personal letters that may more accurately reflect the speech of the time. Hammarstrom (1923) looks at verb placement in ENHG in both chancery

1.2.2.3

3· Although this is the same corpus from which I selected texts for my study (Chapter 2), only five texts were selected by both Prell (2001) and my study: Notker, Buch der Konige, Speculum ecdesiae, Schwarzwalder Predigten, and Muhlhauser Reichsrechtsbuch.

Chapter 1. Introduction

documents and popular literature. The earliest chancery documents, from the first half of the 14th century, have the 1-2 order 12-16% of the time. By the 16th century, this has fallen to 0-1%. The rates of 1-2 are higher for popular literature of the 16th century. ranging from 5-37%. In all time periods and text types, the rate of the 1-2 order is higher for the modal-infinitive construction than for the participial constructions.4 Hammarstri:im (1923: 150-162) also looks at subordinate clauses with three verbs, but the number of tokens is quite small. Generally speaking, he finds a preference for the 3-2-1 order in official documents but for 1-3-2 with the IPP construction. Hammarstrom's (1923: 199-200) conclusion is that the word order of the chancery documents was influenced by Latin (although he does not explicitly discuss what form that influence took), and the chancery documents, in turn, served as the model for the emerging written standard. However, Hammarstrom's selection of texts is very uneven, with the chancery documents much older than the literary texts and, as Maurer (1926: 84) points out, not distinguished by dialect.

Maurer (1926) Maurer (1926) places much more emphasis on dialect differences. He investigates a large number of both official documents and literary texts, from different dialect areas from 1300 to 1700. Unlike Hammarstrom (1923), Maurer looks only at perfect constructions. Although he does not give the results for perfects with haben 'have' in tabular form, his results for perfects with sein 'be' are repeated in Table 2. Based on these results, he concludes that the Alemannic areas (Switzerland, Alsace, Swabia, and Baden) have the highest rates of 1-2, while East Middle German (EMG) and North Bavarian (i.e. Nuremberg) have the lowest rates.

1.2.2.4

Table 2. Frequency of 1-2 order with sein perfects in Maurer (1926) Region

Percentage of 1-2 order (1400-1600)5

High Alemannic (Swiss) Low Alemannic (Swiss) Alsatian Swabian S. and M. Bavarian N. Bavarian (Nuremberg) Rhine Franconian EMGdialect EM G written language

30% 12% 50%-+ 33% 50% -+60% 8% 3% 10%-+ 30% 60% -+20% 5% -+0%

4· See Sapp (2006) for a more detailed discussioiL

s.

Adapted from Maurer (1926: 148). Maurer's table is more complicated than this, with some variation over time for some dialects.

7

8

The Verbal Complex in Subordinate Clauses from Medieval to Modern German

Maurer (1926: 151) concludes that the EMG and North Bavarian dialects prefer the 2-1 order because they were already under the influence of the written language at this early stage. The tendency to have 2-1 in the written ENHG language, according to Maurer (1926: 123), is a direct result of Latin influence. Maurer (1926: 180) claims that late-medieval Latin school grammars prescribed the 2-1 word order for perfect passives like quod dictum est 'which was said', which then provided the model for ENHG word order.6 Maurer (1926: 165) finds that verb clusters translated from Latin may vary in word order when the Latin original is a simplex verb (4), but are 2-1 when the original is a cluster with 2-1 order (5). (4) a. b.

(5) a.

Latin original:

a quo lingua latina nomen accepit from REL language Latin name receives

translation:

von deme latinisch tunge ist genannt from REL Latin tongue is named 'for which the Latin language is named'

Latin original:

Qui postea dictus est Sedechias who afterward said is S.

b. translation:

geMten was Sedechias der dar rul who afterward called was S. 'who was later called Sedechias'

Furthermore, in Latin-based texts, Maurer (1926: 164) finds a higher frequency of the 2-1 order with perfects formed with sein than with haben, supporting his conclusion that the Latin perfect passive (which is formed with the verb esse 'to be') played an important role. Finally. in addition to Latin influence, Maurer (1926: 159) attributes a certain role to so-called rhythm: some combinations of verbs prefer specific orders, to maintain an alternation of stressed and unstressed syllables, and verbal prefixes affect the rhythmic structure as well. Maurer (1926: 161-162) also claims that falling intonation favors 2-1 order, so 2-1 is more likely to occur in a sentence-final subordinate clause than in a sentence-initial one. Besides the problems with Maurer's Latin hypothesis pointed out by Ebert (1981) (discussed in Section 1.2.2.6 below), there are several problems with the way his study is conducted. First of all, it does not look at modal plus infinitive constructions, which Hammarstrom and later studies show to have a higher rate of 1-2. Secondly, it mixes text types, so it is not clear how much of the variation is due to dialect and how much is due to genre. The EMG data in Table 2 are especially telling in this regard: that dialect shows both the highest and lowest

However, Burridge (1993: 115) and Ebert ( 1998: 116) demonstrate that medieval grammars of German do not make any such prescriptions.

6.

Chapter 1. Introduction

percentages of the 1-2 order, because it is divided into two categories. Thirdly, as Hard (1981: 26) points out, the number of tokens from each text is quite small. It is unclear whether the differences between Hamrnarstrom's and Maurer's results are due to the fact that Maurer takes into account texts from various dialects. or due to the problems with his study. Finally, like Hammarstrom (1923), Maurer (1926) does not give any indication of whether his results are statistically significant.

Hard (1981) Hard (1981) is a studyof17,073 clusters of three or more verbs, from 1450 to 1975. We will be concerned here only with his first period (1450-1580), from which he has 2,704 tokens. The details of his study will be discussed and compared to my results in Chapter 3, but here I will summarize his basic findings. First of all, Hard (1981:75) finds that, although ENHG has an increasing tendency to have the finite verb at the end of a two-verb cluster (2-1), it has the opposite tendency in three-verb clusters, with an increasing preference for the 1-3-2 order. Secondly, Hard (1981: 54) finds this trend mainly in the High German dialects, with Low German preferring the 3-2-1 order. Finally, after the ENHG period, Hard (1981: 174) demonstrates that the downward trend in the 3-2-1 order reverses for all constructions except the IPP, becoming the norm by the 20th century.

1.2.2.5

Ebert (1981) Ebert (1981) examines a variety of text types written by forty-four people from Nuremberg from the 14th to 16th centuries. By investigating texts from just one city, Ebert is able to pinpoint some of the social and stylistic variables that determine the variation between the 2-1 and 1-2 orders.7 He thus avoids Maurer's pitfall oflumping all types of texts together while dodging the problem of dialect differences. Moreover, Ebert uses a sophisticated statistical model (Generalized Linear Interactive Modeling) that controls the variables stress, time, style, class, education, and occupation. Ebert (1981: 219-228) finds that the following factors have an eftect on verb order. The stress of the word preceding the VC turns out to be a significant factor. When the preceding word is a noun (i.e. stressed according to Ebert), there is no clear preference for either order, but when the preceding word is a pronoun (assumed to be unstressed), the 2-1 order is strongly preferred. Time is also a significant variable, with a general decline in the 1-2 order as has been shown in other studies. The results for style are significant as well, with more formal letters having

1.2.2.6

7. Ebert (1981) treats only VCs where the two verbs are adjacent, thus excluding instances of 1-x-2.

9

10

The Verbal Complex in Subordinate Clauses from Medieval to Modern German

higher rates of 2-1. Combining the factors class, education, and occupation gives the following hierarchy: administrators have the highest rates of 2-1, followed by merchants, artisans, students, nuns, and secular women. The type of syntagm is significant as well: werden + participle has the highest rate of 2-1, followed by haben + participle, modals/wet·den + infinitive, and finally sein + participle. Ebert considers other "rhythmic" factors, which have been given primary importance since Maurer (1926). First. Ebert (1981: 206) disproves Maurer's contention that sentence-final subordinate clauses show a higher rate of 2-1 and thus that the 2-1 order is linked to falling intonation. Secondly, Ebert (1981: 229) confirms Maurer's findings (1926: 159) that verbs with stressed separable prefixes are the least likely to show the 2-1 order. Thirdly, Ebert (1981: 208) finds that the alternation of stressed and unstressed syllables in the VC "may affect the choice" of orders, but the number of examples is too small for statistical analysis. Finally, Ebert (1981: 209) notices that the placement of the VC within the clause may have an effect on the ordering within the duster: when the verbs are in clause-final position, the 2-1 order is preferred. Based on these findings, Ebert concludes that Latin influence on the 2-1 order has been overstated. First of all, the preference for 2-1 is not tied to an individual's knowledge of Latin: merchants and artisans, who would not have had much schooling in Latin, show a higher rate of 2-1 than students, who received their education in Latin. Secondly, although Maurer claimed that Latin perfect passives like quod dictum est 'which was said' influenced the German passive das gesagt ist 'which is said: sein + participle is the syntagm which shows the lowest rate of 2-1. Ebert (1981: 231) maintains that this "soundly refutes" the Latin hypothesis. a According to Ebert (1981: 237), the tendency to show the 2-1 order more and more over time is an example of "change from above~ passed down from the chancery style, rather than an imitation ofLatin syntax.9

Ebert (1998) Ebert (1998) studies verb placement primarily in the language of teenagers from 16th-century Nuremberg. Ebert (1998:65-67) finds several factors that influence verb order in the writings of these individuals. First, as seen in earlier research,

1.2.2.7

8. Ebert's examples of sein + participle are all the perfect active use of sein; he excludes the sein passive (1981: 204). Other studies find that the sein passive has very high rates of 2-1, see the discussion of Ebert (1998) below and Chapters 2 and 3. This somewhat weakens Ebert's refutation of Latin hypothesis, since Maurer (1926) would predict high rates of2-1 with the sein passive, not necessarily the sein perfect. 9· However, as Burridge (1993: 117) points out, this still does not rule out indirect Latin influence, since Latin word order could have influenced chancery style.

Chapter 1. Introduction

different syntagms favor the 2-1 order to different degrees, following the hierarchy -wet·den passive > sein passive > haben perfect > infinitive constructions > sein perfect. Second, the stress or category of the preceding word affects verb order (as in Ebert 1981). Third, Ebert claims that the rhythmic structure of the non-finite verb affects word order, although essentially this is reducible to the type of prefix on the verb. Fourth, Ebert finds that for some individuals the lexeme of the nonfinite verb plays a role, but this is possibly reducible to prefix type and syntagm. The highest rates of 2-1 occur with the verbs vernehmen/vernommen 'perceive (inf./PPP)' and empfangen 'receive (inf./PPP): which have an unstressed prefix, while the lowest rates occur with the forms gewest 'been' and wet·denlworden 'become (inUPPP)'. Ge-west and worden occur only in the sein perfect, and -werden is an infinitive, thus these forms necessarily occur in the syntagms with the lowest rates of 2-1.10 Fifth, some individuals show lower rates of the 2-1 order when the finite verb is subjunctive. Finally, the 2-1 order increases over time, and the effect of some factors (the stress of the preceding word, the lexeme of the non-finite verb) diminishes over time. In addition, most of the individuals show increasing rates of 2-1 over their lifetimes. Ebert investigates not only the linguistic factors that affect verb order with these teenagers, but also the social circumstances that may have influenced them. Although individuals show higher rates of 2-1 with increased schooling (and young men more than young women), the above factors continue to favor the 1-2 order, leading Ebert (1998: 102) to conclude that children acquired the effect of those factors on VC order from the spoken language of the time, rather than learning them in school. Moreover, Ebert (1998: 116) finds no mention of VC order in school books or grammars of the time. Ebert's (1998: 154) examination of printed texts from Nuremberg reveals much higher rates of 2-1, with only syntagm having a significant efiect on verb order. Ebert (1998: 154) concludes from this that the teenagers' increasing tendency to use the 2-1 order was influenced by contemporary printed texts, but that the factors that favor the choice of word orders are genuine features of spoken ENHG.

Bies (1996) Another recent study of ENHG word order is Bies (1996). Bies compiles a corpus of over 5,000 clauses (900 of which are subordinate clauses) mainly from letters, including material from a wide range of dialects. Assuming that ENHG, like Modern Standard German, is an underlyingly SOY language, she investigates two aspects of ENHG syntax: extraposition and the 1-2 order.

1.2.2.8

On the other hand, gewesen 'bee.O: an alternative form to gewest, has the same syntagmatic distribution but a much higher frequency of 2-1.

10.

u

12

The Verbal Complex in Subordinate Clauses from Medieval to Modern German

In the section on extraposition, Bies (1996: 66) points out that ENHG, like Modern Standard German, allows the extraposition of clauses, PPs, and heavy NPs. Unlike Modern Standard German, however, ENHG also allows the extraposition of non-heavy NPs. When heavy NP shift has been controlled for, Bies (1996: 39) finds that NPs extrapose to force a narrow focus interpretation. This focus-driven extraposition is lost by the Modern German period (1996:65). In her study of the 1-2 order, Bies (1996:61) confirms some of Ebert's (1981) results, establishing that the rate of 1-2 falls over time and agreeing with Ebert that ENHG is undergoing a change from above. Although Bies (1996:54) determines only a weak effect of social class, she does find a significant effect of style, with higher rates of 1-2 in "less monitored styles': She also generally confirms Ebert's hierarchy of syntagms. However, Bies disputes some other results of Ebert. First, Bies (1996:59) finds that the stress of the word preceding the VC has no significant impact on the order of verbs. She believes that this may be "due to a comparison of unlike objects across corpora" (1996:60).11 Secondly, Bies (1996:60) concludes that the placement of the VC within the clause is insignificant, i.e. extraposition has no effect on verb order. However, her data do show an effect of extraposition on word order, if one looks at different types of extraposition separately. In Bies' Table 17 (1996:61), the 1-2 order occurs more often than expected with an extraposed NP (37.1% versus the expected rate of27.3%), whereas extraposed PPs have the 1-2 order at 29.2%, close to the expected rate. Reifsnyder (2003) Reifsnyder (2003) is a study of the ENHG dialect of Augsburg, using a corpus with a wide variety of text types from the period 1500-1660. Her study covers orthographic, morphological, and syntactic variation in Augsburg, with the three syntactic variables being double negation, position of the verb within the clause (i.e. extraposition), and order within the VC. Only the results for the latter variable will be discussed here. There are three factors that affect verb order in her study. First, as in previous studies, Reifsnyder (2003: 229) finds a general decline of 1-2 over time. Secondly, Reifsnyder (2003: 224-225) confirms the importance of text type for verb order. The text types assumed to be removed from the spoken languagechronicles, city ordinances, letters from schoolmasters, official letters and reports, and printed pamphlets-have the lowest rates of the 1-2 order. Personal letters, personal narratives, and guild books are assumed to be most reflective of the 1.2.2.9

11. My own study, like Bies, finds no such effect across dialects in ENHG, but like Ebert I find the effect in particular dialects (see Chapter 3.2.3.2).

Chapter 1. Introduction

spoken language and indeed have the highest rates of 1-2. Thirdly, Reifsnyder (2003: 226-227) determines an effect of clause type: clauses starting with a whword or with the relative complementizer so have the highest rates of 2-1. For Reifsnyder (2003:245), the prevalence of the 2-1 order in official texts, as well as its increasing frequency over time, is the result of the adoption of a standard language ideology. Summary Because traditional philological study of MHG concentrated on the poetic language of the most famous literary works, the study of its prose syntax has only begun to receive much attention, for example by Prell (2001). There is a larger body of scholarship on ENHG syntax, although tew studies address word order within the verbal complex. The studies that do treat the relative order of verbs are all incomplete in some sense. Hammarstrom (1923) investigates a variety of texts over the whole ENHG period, but does not take dialect differences into account. Maurer (1926) covers a wide range of dialects but has tew tokens from each text. Moreover, these early studies do not use any kind of test for statistical significance. Hard (1981) uses a very large corpus of three-verb complexes but ignores those with only two verbs altogether. Ebert (1981, 1998) treats only two-verb clusters and only in writings from Nuremberg, and Reifsnyder (2003) does the same for Augsburg. Bies (1996) looks at two-verb dusters from a broader geographic distribution but does not give detailed information on dialect differences. Finally, only Ebert (1981, 1998) pays serious attention to the factors that favor particular orders. In attempting to establish linguistic factors that afiect word order in the VC, the following factors are discussed by more than one of these studies: syntagm type, rhythm, extra position, prefix type, dialect, sociolinguistic factors, and Latin influence. However, no study to date has tested all of these factors against each other using a large corpus and sophisticated statistical tools. The historical studies presented in Chapters 2 and 3 attempt to fill this gap in the research by including a wide variety of prose texts from many dialects, addressing clusters of two and three verbs, and statistically testing multiple linguistic and social factors.

1.2.2.10

1.2.3

The verbal complex in contemporary German

Like the previous scholarship on word order in ENHG, studies of contemporary German verb order have focused almost exclusively on extraposition. It is relatively rare to find a description of a German dialect that gives details on the relative order of the verbs. Even rarer is a discussion of the linguistic factors that influence VC order. (Those few studies that do address these phenomena will be

13

14

The Verbal Complex in Subordinate Clauses from Medieval to Modern German

discussed in detail in Chapter 4 below.) Thus the chapter on Modern German seeks to broaden the synchronic description of these orders in present-day standard and dialectal German. Moreover, since the phenomena investigated are the same as for ENHG, the study of the contemporary language allows for a better understanding of the diachronic developments involved.

1.3

Organization

The remainder of this book is organized as follows. Chapter 2 treats verb order in subordinate clauses in Middle High German (1050-1350), based on a database compiled from the Bochumer Mittelhochdeutschkorpus. Chapter 3 examines similar phenomena in Early New High German (1350-1650) using the Bonner Frithneuhochdeutschkorpus. These chapters establish the frequencies of the various word orders, the linguistic factors that favor them, and their diachronic, dialectal, and sociolinguistic distributions. Chapter 4 covers Modern Standard German and several contemporary dialects of German. After reviewing existing descriptions of these varieties, the chapter presents three new studies: a questionnaire-based study of word order in Austrian dialects and Swabian, a more detailed questionnaire study of the effect of focus on these orders in Zurich German, and a Magnitude Estimation study of Standard German word order. This will allow a comparison with the data from MHG and ENHG. Note that Chapters 2 through 4 are primarily descriptive in nature, and I attempt to avoid terminology that assumes a particular syntactic analysis. Therefore, purely descriptive labels such as 1-2 and 1-x-2 are used instead of the more familiar terms Verb Raising and Verb Projection Raising, which imply an analysis like that of Haegeman (1992). Likewise, in these descriptive chapters the term extra position should not be taken to imply a specific analysis (such as rightward movement), but instead is used to simply describe the occurrence of a constituent to the right of the verbal complex. Chapter 5 builds on the descriptive and empirical work of the previous chapters to addresses the theoretical aspects of this research. The two primary goals of this chapter are to establish the best analysis of German clause structure and to determine the nature of the relationship between focus, prosody, and word order in the VC. At that point, I will make more explicit assumptions about the syntax of these word orders. Chapter 6 concludes the book, summarizing the most important findings and discussing their broader synchronic and diachronic implications for German word order.

CHAPTER 2

Factors influencing verb order in MHG

2.1

Introduction

2.1.1

Basic facts

Middle High German (MHG) is a term that encompasses central and southern dialects of German from approximately 1050 to 1350. MHG is often associated with the courtly poetry of the high Middle Ages in the German -speaking realms, and many previous descriptions of the language are based primarily on this narrow range of texts. This was the case, for example, with the first twenty-four editions of the standard Mittelhochdeutsche Grammatik edited by Hermann Paul et al., although the twenty-fifth edition of the Mittelhochdeutsche Grammatik (Paul 2007) and the new grammar by Klein et al. (to appear) are based on a much wider variety of text types, including both verse and prose texts. In the present study; only prose texts are analyzed, since rhyme and meter could have effects on word order in the verbal complex that might not be present in prose or in everyday speech. In MHG, subordinate clauses are generally distinguishable from main clauses by word order (Paul 2007: 396).1 This certainly holds true in the texts examined here: of the 1,133 subordinate clauses analyzed in this study, only 52 have the finite verb in the second position of the clause. Within the verbal complex, there are three possible orderings when the VC consists of two verbs. In the 2-1 order, the finite verb follows the non-finite verb (1), which is the dominant order according to this study and Paul (2007: 455). Also possible is the 1-2 order as in (2), in which the finite verb immediately precedes the non-finite verb. When the finite verb precedes, a non-verbal constituent may be found between the two verbs (1-x-2) as seen in (3).

As in Modern German, there are also subordinate clauses which are not introduced by a conjunction; these are verb-first or verb-second and often use the subjunctive mood (Paul 2007: 400-401 ). Because the object of this study is the clause-final VC, unintroduced subordinate clauses will not be treated further.

1.

16

The Verbal Complex in Subordinate Clauses from Medieval to Modern German

(1) (wier daz volk verflvchet) daz got gefegent het. how he the people cursed, REL God blessed 2 had 1 '(How he cursed the people) whom God had blessed: (Buch der KlJnige 04va) (2) (alle die) den got gewalt ufi geriht hat verlihen. all those REL God power and rule has 1 granted2 '(all those) whom God has granted power and rule: (Buch der KiJnige OSra) (3) (daz dv vnf vergrebest) swaz wir vbelf heten an dir geta.n. that you us torgive REL we evil had1 to you done2 '( ... that you forgive us) whatever evil we have done to you:

(Buch der KlJnige 03va) A fourth logically possible order would be for the verbs to be in the order 2-1 but with an intervening constituent. This order is unattested in my MHG corpus.2 Thus MHG follows the generalization tor the West Germanic verb-raising languages discussed in Chapter 4.2.5, that no constituents can intervene between the verbs when in the left-governing (2-1) order. In addition to variation in the position of the verbs relative to each other, the verbs need not be in the clause-final position. Some constituents may follow the VC, and this extraposition can occur regardless of the relative order of the verbs (4a-b), even with the 1-x-2 construction (4c). (4) a.

Do iofeph gelebt het hvnd't iar vn zehn iar when ]. lived2 had1 hundred years and ten years 'When Joseph had lived 110 years .. : (Buch der KlJnige 03vb)

b.

alf and' din genoz hant getan. in Ierufalem ... as other your companions have 1 done 2 in ]. 'as other companions of yours have done in Jerusalem

c.

daz ein iclich man hie ... fal vrfdf habi in fimf huis ... that an every man here shall1 peace have2 in his house 'that every man here ... shall have peace in his house

(Buch der Konige 10va)

(Mahlhauser R. b2ra)

2. The only item that may come between the verbs in the 2-1 order is the negative particle ne-, which may be prefixed to the auxiliary:

(i)

(Neheine zungen ... ne fint) da iro predige gehoret tae fin. no tongues NEG are where their sermons heard2 NEG are 1 '(There are no languages) where their sermons are not heard.' (Notker 030ra)

This construction occurs in the two earliest texts in the database, Notker and Williram (which could be considered late OHG), and in four other texts. If one treats the particle as being part of verbal morphology. these are straightforward examples of the 2-1 order.

Chapter 2. Factors influencing verb order in MHG

VCs with three verbs are much rarer, but also display variation within the complex. Four of the six logically possible orders are attested in my MHG database: there is one instance of the 3-2-1 order (5), five of the 1-3-2 order (6), seven of the 1-2-3 order (7), and ten of3-1-2 (8):

(5) uuanta er geb6ran uutrdan uuolta uon armen u6rderon. wanted 1 of poor ancestors because he born3 be2 (Williram lOr) 'because he [Christ] wanted to be born of humble origins: (6) daz elliv werlt die er gefaphen Mte. folti verlorn werdfn. that all world REL he created had should 1 lost3 be2 'that the whole world that he had created should be lost: (Speculum eccL 08r) (7) wie er och Joelte wtie gemarterot an de (heiligen) cvce. how he also should 1 be2 martyred3 on the holy cross '... how he should also be martyred on the holy cross:

(Schwarzw. Pred. 009v) (8) daz daz chint befnitin folti werdin. that the child circumcised3 should1 b~ '... so that the child should be circumcised .. .'

(Speculum eccL llv)

These four orders are also reported for MHG by Paul (2007:456). In addition, extraposition can occur with these VCs, and there are three instances where a constituent intervenes within a 1-3-2 cluster: (9) daz fiv niene mahti mit handen gervoret wtiin ... that she not could 1 with hands touched3 be2 'that it could not be touched with hands .. : (Zaricher Pr. lOSva) The other two logically possible orders for three-verb clusters, 2-1-3 and 2-3-1, are unattested in my MHG database. (10) *uuanta er uutrdan 2 uuolta1 geb6ran3 (11) *uuantaer uutrdan 2 geb6ran3 uuolta 1 There are no instances of a VC with four verbs in the database, which should come as no surprise given the scarcity of three-verb complexes.

2.1.2

The database

The MHG database analyzed in this study consists of 1,133 subordinate clauses. These clauses are taken from thirteen prose texts of the Bochumer Mittelhochdeutschkorpus (BoMiKo). Although the BoMiKo has many more prose texts than this, this selection of texts attempts to represent one text from each century and

17

18

The Verbal Complex in Subordinate Clauses from Medieval to Modern German

dialect in the corpus. In some cases, there is no text in the corpus for a given century/dialect, and in other cases, the text for a century/dialect was not analyzed because it is a gloss and thus might not be a reliable source for analyzing syntax. Where a century/dialect has more than one appropriate text and one of those was a sermon, I chose the sermon so that the database would have texts most reflective of spoken language. Table I. Texts in my MHG database3 Dialect

1070-1100

1150-1200

1250-1300

Bavarian

Wiener Notker

Physilogus Speculum ecdesiae

Buch der KCJnige Stadtbuch Augsburg

Ztlricher Predigten

Schwarzwalder Predigten Satzungsbuch Ntlrnberg

Swabian, ind W. Bavarian Alemannic East Franconian

Williram

(1302-1315) Middle Franconian Hessian Thuringian

Frankfurter Predigtfragmente

DieLilie Mitteldeutsche Predigten Mtlhlhauser Reichsrechtsbuch

Clauses were selected for the database if they are introduced by a subordinating conjunction or relative pronoun and contain at least one finite and one non-finite verb (except for embedded infinitival clauses).4 Of the 1,133 subordinate clauses in the database, 1,109 clauses have two verbs, 23 have three verbs, and one was excluded from analysis because it contained two finite verbs (like example (15) in Chapter 3). In the case of shorter texts, the entire text was analyzed, and from longer texts the first 100 or so relevant clauses were analyzed. The number of clauses taken from each text ranges from 28 to 107, with an average of 87.2 clauses per text. Each clause in the database was coded for the following variables: verb order (the dependent variable), syntagm type, constituent preceding the VC, constituent intervening in the VC, constituent following the VC, focus type (new vs. contrastive), focused constituent, whether an intervening constituent is part of the focus,

3· For complete philological information about these texts and others in the corpus, see Wegera (2000). 4· Because of the ambiguity between relative and demonstrative pronouns in German, apparently relative clauses with V2 are ambiguous with main clauses (Paul 2007: 396). Likewise, wande 'because' may be either a coordinating or subordinating conjunction (Paul2007: 396). Clauses introduced by a (relative) pronoun or wande were included in the database, but any V2 clauses were tagged as such.

Chapter 2. Factors influencing verb order in MHG

whether an extraposed constituent is part of the focus, prefix type, scrambled object, and verb second.s Each text in the database was tagged for century, dialect, genre, and the sex, occupation, and education of the author. 2.1.3 Analysis with GoldVarb X

The analyses were conducted using the statistics package GoldVarb X (Sankoff et al. 2005). This program was originally developed for sociolinguistic studies, and allows the researcher to determine the extent of the effect of several independent variables (linguistic and sociolinguistic factors) on a dependent variable. GoldVa.rb can be a useful tool in historical linguistics as well, since time can be treated as an independent variable. Sets of independent variables are called factor groups, and each value of the variable is called a factor. For example, syntagm is a factor group with the factors passive, perfect, modal-infinitive, etc. A powerful feature of GoldVarb is the ability to recode the factors during the analysis. If the researcher is not certain whether a particular distinction will be significant, e.g. the difference between present perfect and pluperfect, they can be initially tagged as separate factors. Then during the course of the analysis, one can recode, combining these specific factors into more general ones, and test which combination has the most significant effect. There are three statistical outputs of GoldVarb X that will be utilized in this chapter. The first is statistical significance. Note that this represents the statistical significance of the entire factor group, e.g. syntagm, but does not indicate which factor or factors have the significant effect For that, one has to look at the second output, the factor weight. The factor weight is expressed as a probability between 0 and 1, with 0.5 indicating no effect. The further the factor weight is from 0.5, the greater that factor's effect is on the dependent variable. Finally, GoldVarb has a step-up/step-down analysis, which tests all possible combinations of factor groups to determine which combination results in the most statistically significant model. For details on GoldVarb, see Tagliamonte (2006).

2.1.4

Organization of this c.hapter

This chapter is organized as follows. Section 2.2 presents the results of the analysis of the MHG database for complexes of two verbs, and Section 2.3 presents the results for complexes of three verbs. This chapter is concluded in Section 2.4. 5· Two additional factors, clause type and VP coordination, had no effect and will not be discussed further here.

19

20

The Verbal Complex in Subordinate Clauses from Medieval to Modern German

2.2

Complexes of two verbs in MHG

2.2.1

Introduction

My MHG database contains 1,109 subordinate clauses with one finite and one non-finite verb. Ofthose, 320 clauses (28.9%) have the 1-2 (or the 1-x-2) order.6, 7 Thus a rate of 1-2 higher than 28.9% in a given context indicates that the order is favored in that context, which should be expressed as a factor weight greater than 0.5 by GoldVarb. In Section 2.2.2, I discuss the linguistic factors that affect verb order: syntagm type, the category and weight of the word preceding the VC, extraposition, focus, and verbal prefixes. Section 2.2.3 discusses variation in the rate of the 1-2 order over time, across dialects, and sociolinguistically. Of the factors that have a significant aftect on verb order, six were selected by GoldVarb's step-up/step-down function as the most significant combination of factors: syntagm, constituent before the VC, focus, dialect, genre, and occupation.

2.2.2

Phonological, morphological, and syntactic factors

2.2.2.1

Syntagm type

Many previous studies of historical and contemporary West Germanic dialects have shown a correlation between VC order and syntagm type. In modern varieties that have some word -order freedom, there is a general tendency to have 2-1 in constructions with participles and 1-2 in those involving infinitives (Wurmbrand 2006: 237; Chapter 4 below). As shown in Table 2 below, MHG follows this trend. The syntagms are listed in order of the rate of 1-2, from least frequent to most frequent. The passives are the least likely to have the 1-2 order, occurring less often that the total rate of 1-2 and with low factor weights. The perfects have the 1-2 order very close to the expected rate of 28.7%. The modal-infinitive syntagm somewhat favors 1-2 at 35.5%, while other syntagms with an infinitive favor that order even more strongly. (In addition, there are a handful of instances of the progressive, a syntagm which will be discussed in more detail in Chapter 3.2.3.1.) The effect of syntagm is statistically significant and was selected in GoldVarb's step-up/step-down function as one of the most significant factor groups.

6.

Throughout this section, these two orders are treated together unless indicated otherwise.

7. This rate of the 1-2 order is quite similar to that found by Prell, in whose corpus 27.9% of the two-verb dusters are 1-2 (2001: 84, cited inPaul2007:455).

Chapter 2. Factors influencing verb order in MHG

Table 2. Effect of syntagm on 1-2 order Syntagm

2-1

1-2

Factorwt.

sein passive progressive werden passive perfect with sein perfect with haben modal +in£ other V + inf. future

127 (90.1%) 5 (83.3%) 145 (82.9%) 52 (71.2%) 181 (70.7%) 272 (64.5%) 7 (25.9%) 0 (0%)

14 (9.9%) 1 (16.7%) 30 (17.1 %) 21 (28.8%) 75 (29.3%) 150 (35.5%) 20 (74.1%) 6 (100%)

0.233 0.355 0.362 0.526 0.532 0.602 0.887

Total

789 (71.3%)

317 (28.7%)

n/a

p < 0.001 These numbers are very similar to Prell's (2001) findings for MHG (see Chapter 1.2.2.2).8 The hierarchy from my MHG corpus (12a) can be compared to those found by Prell (12b): ( 12) a. b.

sein pass. > werden pass. > sein perf. > haben pert~ > modals sein pass. > werden pass. > pedtd > modals (Prel12001: 85, cited in Paul 2007: 455-456)

In both my MHG study and Prell (2001), the statal passive with sein has the 1-2 order considerably less often than the werden passive does. Other than that, the hierarchies are similar to that in ENHG, all showing the general pattern of passive> perfect> modal. Note also that this is likely a genuine effect of syntagm independently of the effect of the auxiliary or the type of non-finite verb (participle vs. infinitive): both the sein passive and sein perfect involve the auxiliary sein plus a participle, yet the two syntagms show quite difierent word order preferences. 2.2.2.2

Word/phrase preceding the verbal complex

Ebert (1981: 206) finds that the distinction noun vs. pronoun influences verb order in ENHG texts from Nuremberg. In this section, we examine whether the preceding word, not only noun vs. pronoun but other categories as well, has any effect in MHG. First of all, let us see what effect the previous word may have on the VC in terms of category. As shown in Table 3, a preceding non-pronominal noun phrase ("noun'') favors the 1-2 order at 36.4%, well above the expect rate of 1-2 (28.7%).

8. Recall from Chapter 1 that my database overlaps with Prell's by five texts.

21

22

The Verbal Complex in Subordinate Clauses from Medieval to Modern German

Quantified NPs behave similarly. On the other hand, pronouns occur with the 1-2 order only 22% of the time, somewhat less than expected.9 Table 3. Effect of the category of the preceding word on 1-2 order Class of preceding word

2-1

1-2

Factorwt.

noun pronoun quantified NP adjective adverb prepositional phrase stranded preposition clause (infinitival or finite) nothing precedes Totallo

185 (63.6%) 202 (78.0%) 27 (64.3%) 15 (53.6%) 162 (76.8%) 170 (74.2%) 7 (77.8%) 2 (66.6%) 18 (64.3%)

106 (36.4%) 57 (22.0%) 15 (35.7%) 13 (46.4%) 49 (23.2%) 59 (25.8%) 2 (22.2%) 1 (33.3%) 10 (35.7%)

0.593 0.418 0.586 0.688 0.435 0.469 0.421 0.560 0.586

788 (71.6%)

312 (28.4%)

p < 0.001 In addition to non-pronominal NPs, adjectives strongly favor the 1-2 order. Both of the remaining frequently occurring categories, adverbs and prepositional phrases, have rates that are close to or slightly below the expected rate of 1-2. (Possible reasons for the effect of stranded prepositions and clauses with nothing preceding the VC will be discussed in more detail in Chapter 3.2.3.2.) This raises the question of why the category of the preceding word should have any effect on verb order. Ebert (1981: 207), who found similar effects in ENHG, attributed the differing effect of nouns and pronouns on verb order to phonological stress. This is based on an earlier claim by Behaghel (1932:IV, 87), that the combination of a stressed word such as a noun plus a VC with the 1-2 order produces the sequence heavy word, light word, heavy word, while the combination of a light word plus verbs in the 2-1 order produces the alternation light, heavy, light According to this claim, other combinations result in disfavored sequences of two stressed words or two unstressed words. To test this claim, I recoded pronouns, short adverbs, the negator, and da-compounds as unstressed and other categories as stressed. As can be seen in Table 4, the rate of 1-2 is somewhat higher

9· Throughout this section, "NP" includes both nouns and pronouns. When pronouns are meant to be excluded, the terms "noun" or "non-pronominal NP" will be used No distinction will be made between NP and DP.

The total for this table is lower because the analysis excludes six cases where the preceding "word" was a verbal prefix.

10.

Chapter 2. Factors influencing verb order in MHG

than expected following a stressed word (34%) and somewhat lower following an unstressed word, confirming Behaghel's claim. Table 4. Effect of the stress of the preceding word on 1-2 order Stress of preceding word

2-1

1-2

Factorwt.

stressed unstressed Totaln

420 (66.0%)

216 (34.0%)

0.570

351 (79.4%)

91 (20.6%)

0.401

771 (71.5%)

307 (28.7%)

p < 0.001 Alternatively, the differing effect of nouns versus pronouns on verb order could be due to a difterence in definiteness. As seen in Table 5, when the preceding NP is indefinite (including QPs withjeder, kein, aile), the rate of 1-2 is much higher than expected at 42.4%, but when it is definite (including pronouns and proper names), the rate is close to the expected rate. Thus, definiteness could partially explain the differing behavior of nouns versus pronouns. Table 5. Effect of definiteness of the preceding NP on 1- 2 order Preceding NP

2-1

1-2

Factorwt.

indefinites (including QPs) definites

57 (57.696)

42 (42.496)

0.634

357 (72.4%)

136 (27.6%)

0.473

Total

414 (69.996)

178 (30.196)

p = 0.005 However, there are two arguments against the possibility that definiteness accounts for the noun/pronoun distinction found in Table 3. First, note that the results in Table 5, although statistically significant, have a lower p score than those in Table 3 or 4. Secondly, in GoldVarb's step-up/step-down analysis, the factor group preceding constituent is selected as one of the most significant factor groups when coded by part of speech or heaviness, but not when coded by definiteness. The log likelihood (an output of GoldVarb indicating the best model fit for a combination of factor groups) was worst with this factor group coded by definiteness (-494.350), better when coded by part of speech (-484.571 ), and best when coded by weight (-480.682). Therefore, definiteness is the least likely reason for the effect of the preceding constituent on the order of verbs within the VC, and heaviness is the most likely reason, confirming Behaghefs ( 1932) hypothesis.

The totals for this table are lower because the analysis excludes cases where no word precedes the verbal complex.

11.

23

24

The Verbal Complex in Subordinate Clauses from Medieval to Modern German

2.2.2.3

Extraposition

As mentioned above, although the VC tends to be clause-final in MHG, some constituent (or more rarely, more than one constituent) may appear be extraposed, i.e., located to the right of the VC (Paul2007: 458). Based on the high frequency of extra position, Lehman claims that medieval German is an SVO language, unlike the SOV structure of Modern Standard German (1971: 19). Because the 2-1 order is frequently associated with SOV typology (Greenberg 1963: 85), one might expect non-SOV clauses (i.e. those with extraposition) to have the 1-2 order. As can be seen in Table 6, there is indeed such a correlation.12 This is a statistically significant factor group, although it was not selected as one of the most significant groups in the step-up/step-down analysis. Table 6. Effect of extraposition on 1- 2 order Extraposition

2-1

1-2

Factorwt.

extraposed argument NP/PP extraposed adjunct PP nothing extraposed

34 (55.7%) 109 (69.4%) 602 (73.4%)

27 (44.3%) 48 (30.6%) 218 (26.6%)

0.670 0.530 0.481

Total

745 (71.8%)

293 (28.2%)

p = 0.014 When there is no extraposed constituent, the rate of the 1-2 order is 26.6%, slightly less than the expected rate. Likewise, when an adjunct PP is extraposed, the rate of the 1-2 order is slightly greater than expected at 30.6%; the factor weight, being close to 0.5, indicates that extraposed adjunct PPs have very little effect on the order of the verbs. On the other hand, an extraposed argument (including both NPs and PPs) favors the 1-2 order at 44.3%, considerably higher than expected, with the factor weight indicating a strong effect. Similar results have been found for ENHG (see Chapter 3). Finally, of the 1,106 clauses in the MHG database, 218 have some extraposed constituent, yielding a rate of extraposition of 19.7%. This is consistent with the data for MHG reported in Prell (2001), who also finds higher rates of 1-2 with extra position. 2.2.2.4

Focus

A constituent is considered to be focused if it introduces new information into the discourse or is contrastive. Note that focus is not identical to stress: 12. When extraposition is broken down into the category of the extraposed constituent (NPs versus pronouns, etc.) the result was not statistically significant (p = 0.063). Note that Table 6 excludes the following low frequency types: multiple extraposed constituents, extraposed adjective, extraposed comparison, and extraposed second conjunct

Chapter 2. Factors influencing verb order in MHG

although a focused constituent may be stressed, a given stress pattern can often be associated with different focus interpretations. This can be illustrated using a Modern German example, in which a single sentence with the same stress (indicated with all capitals) can answer very different questions: in (13a) only the object is new to the discourse and thus focused, while in (13b) the entire clause is focused: (13) a.

What did Karl give to the child yesterday? Gestern hat Karl dem Kind [poe das BUCH) geschenkt. yesterday has K. the child the book given b. What happened yesterday? Gestern hat [Foe Karl dem Kind das BUCH geschenkt]. 'Karl gave the book to the child yesterday.' (Stechow & Sternefeld 1988:461)

In order to test the effect of focus on word order in the VC, each clause in the database was examined within its section (or within one or two pages, if the text was not divided into sections) in order to determine what elements of the clause are contrastive or discourse-new. The clause was then tagged as having focus on the entire clause (14a), the subject, the object (14b), the verb, the VP (14c), or some other constituent. (14) a.

[Foe

daz di fvginden kint durch vnfirs h'ren willen our Lord's sake that the nursing children tor

worden irjlagfn.] were 1 killed 2 '(the day) that the infants were killed because of our Lord:

(Mitteldt. Pred. alra) b.

die !Foe finin willin ] heton getan. his will had1 done 2 'who had done his will' daz ir [Foe fin' gutdete muzit gen{zen ]. that you his good.deeds might1 enjoy2 'that you might enjoy his good deeds'

REL

c.

(Zaricher Pr. 109rb)

(Mitteldt. Pred. a1ra)

Moreover, the focused constituent was characterized as representing newinformation focus or contrastive focus. If there were no new or contrastive constituents, the clause was tagged as old information. Table 7 presents the results for focus, regardless of which constituent is focused. Both new and contrastive focus favor the 1-2 order at 33.7% and 31%, respectively, slightly higher than the expected rate of 28.7%, while clauses with all old information disfavor 1-2. However, unlike ENHG (see Chapter 3.2.3.4) where the favoring effect of contrastive focus was stronger than that of new

25

26

The Verbal Complex in Subordinate Clauses from Medieval to Modern German

information, in MHG there is little difference between the two types of focus.B (Although statistically significant, this factor group was not selected as one of the most significant in GoldVarb's step-up/step-down analysis, probably because it largely overlaps with the next group.) Table 7. Effect of focus on 1-2 order (general) Focus

2-1

1-2

Factorwt.

contrastive focus new information focus old information

49 (69.0%) 490 (66.3%) 250 (84.5%)

22 (31.0%) 249 (33.7%) 46 (15.5%)

0.539 0.569 0.324

Total

789 (71.3%)

317 (28.7%)

p < 0.001 Having established that focus in general has an effect on the order within the VC, the next factor group is the particular constituent that is focused. As seen in the table below, focus on an object is the most favorable context for the 1-2 order at 50.7%, well above the expected rate of 28.7%. The other favoring focus context is focus on the entire clause, which has the 1-2 order 38.3% of the time. Two other contexts, VP focus and focus on some other constituent (e.g. an adjunct) have the 1-2 order somewhat more frequently than expected, but neither has a factor weight much above 0.5, indicating at most a slight favoring effect. Finally, verb focus and subject focus disfavor the 1-2 order. This factor group was selected as one of the most significant in the step-up/step down analysis. Table 8. Effect of focus on 1-2 order (specific constituents) Focus constituent

2-1

1-2

Factorwt.

object focus clausal focus VP focus focus on another constituent verb focus subject focus nothing (old information)

34 (49.3%) 71 (61.7%) 158 (65.6%) 74 (67.3%) 185 (73.4%) 17 (73.9%) 250 (84.5%)

35 (50.7%) 44 (38.3%) 83 (34.4%) 36 (32.7%) 67 (26.6%) 6 (26.1%) 46 (15.5%)

0.684 0.566 0.525 0.506 0.433 0.426 0.470

Total

789 (71.3%)

317 (28.7%)

p < 0.001

13. New and contrastive focus appear to behave similarly for a given focus constituent as well, although there are too few examples of each type of contrastively focused constituent to draw any firm conclusions.

Chapter 2. Factors influencing verb order in MHG

To corroborate the effect of object focus on the 1-2 order, two related factors were tested. The first, the definiteness of an NP, was presented above in Table 5, which demonstrates a strong and significant correlation between indefinite NPs and the 1-2 order. Because indefinite NPs tend to be discourse-new and thus focused, while definite NPs generally represent old information, the correlation between definiteness and verb order may support the finding that focus effects verb order. The second factor that correlates to focus is scrambling; however, there were too few examples of this in the database to draw any conclusions. Finally, let us examine the interaction between focus on an object, the position of that object relative to the VC, and verb order. First let us examine cases where a constituent intervenes in the VC, i.e. the 1-x-2 order. There are 35 instances of this construction in the MHG database. Only two of these, as in (15), involve narrow focus on only the intervening constituent, so clearly, this is not a typical position for narrow focus. Perhaps crucially, both of these are ambiguous between a relative clause with 1-x-2 order and a main clause, as the relative pronoun is homophonous with the demonstrative. In 15 instances, the intervening constituent and some other constituent (usually the lexical verb) are focused, thus this construction may be used to focus the VP or a larger projection such as the entire clause. In (16), the focus, indicated in brackets, is on all of the clause except the subject pronoun. In the remaining 18 instances. there is VP or clausal focus but the intervening constituent is not part of the focus, as in (17), where the pronoun 'you' is mentioned in the matrix clause.

Jolte [poe ane vlecken] fin (15) (efn lfip flahen.) daz a lamb slaughter REL/DEM should 1 without spots be 2 'slaughter a lamb, which should be without spots .. .' 'slaughter a lamb. That should be without spots .. .' (Mitteldt. Pred. b4ra) (16) daz fi [Foe fnden oitem }olden efn lap flahen]. that they in the Easter should 1 a lamb slaughter 2 '... that they should slaughter a lamb at Easter (Mitteldt. Pred. b4ra) wir [poe vbeli] heten an dir geta.n. (17) ... swaz whatever we evil had on you done '( ... we ask you to forgive) whatever evil we have done to you.'

(Buch der KiJnige 03va) Thus it appears that the position between the two parts of the VC has two functions: the constituent there may be part of wide focus or it may be defocused. That position, however, is very unlikely to be a focus position.14 14. No statistical analysis is possible, since intervening constituents are necessarily found with only one word-order type, 1-x-2.

27

28

The Verbal Complex in Subordinate Clauses from Medieval to Modern German

The relationship between focus and extraposition is less clear. Extraposed constituents may be narrowly focused (18), part of wider (usually VP) focus (19), or defocused (20). (18)

(div bihte.) die wir tun fuln [Foe untern priftern]. the confession REL we do 2 should 1 our priests '(the confession) which we should make to our priests:

(19)

die

(Mitteldt. Pred. b4va-b) dir tievil hate gebvndin mit den fvndon]. REL the devil had 1 bound2 with the sins whom the devil had bound by sin: [Foe

(Zitricher Fred. b4ra)

(20) alf fi wol [Foe verdinet] hat an dem armen manne. as she well deserved2 has 1 on the poor man 'as she [Jezebel] well deserved because of the poor

man:

(Buch der KCln ige 07vb) As seen in Table 9 below, 48 of the extraposed constituents are defocused,lS 59 are narrowly focused, and 111 are part of a wider focus projection. Neither the extra position of defocused nor of narrowly focused constituents has an effect on verb order, since the rates of 1-2 are similar in these contexts to the expected rate and the factor weights are close to 0.5. However, when an extraposed constituent is part of wider focus, the 1-2 order is favored at 40.5%, well above the expected frequency. Thus, the conclusion from Section 2.2.2.3 above that extra position of an argument has an effect on verb order must be revised somewhat: instead, it appears that extraposition of an argument that is part ofVP focus favors 1-2. Table 9. Effect of the focus of an e.x:traposed constituent on 1-2 order Extraposed constituent

2-1

1-2

Factorwt.

not focused narrowly focused part ofVP focus nothing extraposed

34 (70.8%) 43 (72.9%) 66 (59.5%) 602 (73.4%)

14 (29.2%) 16 (27.1%) 45 (40.5%) 218 (26.6%)

0.513 0.488 0.636 0.481

Total

745 (71.8%)

293 (28.2%)

p = 0.034

15. Of the defocused extraposed constituents, most are adjunct PPs, leaving only 26 cases where a non-focused argument is extraposed.. Recall from Section 2.2.2.3 above that adjunct PPs extrapose at higher rates than other types of constituents in MHG and also in Modern German.

Chapter 2. Factors influencing verb order in MHG

Summing up this section, it seems that focus on an object plays some role in determining verb order. Narrowly focused, unscrambled, and indefinite NPs favor the 1-2 order, while wide focus favors the 1-x-2 orders and the 1-2 order with extraposition. However, because focus is associated with stress, it is difficult to determine whether these are effects of focus pet· se or of the phonological manifestation of focus. In Chapter 5, we will see that stress turns out to be the best way of accounting for the relationship between focus and word order. 2.2.2.5

Prefix type

The continental West Germanic languages have two kinds of verbal prefixes: unstressed prefixes such as ge- (21a), and stressed, separable prefixes (also known as converbs or verbal particles), most of which are derived from prepositions (21b ). (21) a. b.

daz got gefegent het REL God blessed2 had 1 daz im Ionathaf wa.z ab gega.nge. that him Jonathan was 1 away-gone 2 'that J. had departed him'

(cf. (1a) above)

(Buch der KiJnige 12rb)

The stressed prefixes tend to be adjacent to the verb when the verb is in the clausefinal position (usually appearing as prefixes, hence the name) but may also be stranded in clause final position when the head verb is finite and in the V2 position. Prell (2001:87) finds that stressed separable prefixes favor the 1-2 order, and Ebert (1981: 207; 1998 passim) has similar results from ENH G. Therefore, the present study tests whether the effect in MHG is significant. As can be seen in Table 10, my MHG database, like Prell's, shows a favoring eftect of stressed-prefix verbs on the 1-2 order, which occurs 40.4% of the time in that context, considerably higher than the total rate of 28.7%. In addition, verbs with no prefix also favor the 1-2 order at 38.1 %. Thus the most important distinction is between verbs with a stressed or no prefix, which favor 1-2, and verbs with an unstressed prefix, which slightly disfavor 1-2. Table 10. Effect of prefix type on 1-2 order Prefix type

2-1

1-2

Factorwt.

stressed no prefix unstressed Total p < 0.001

31 (59.6%) 203 (61.9%) 555 (76.4%)

21 (40.4%) 125 (38.1%) 171 (23.6%)

0.620 0.547 0.470

789 (71.3%)

317 (28.7%)

29

30

The Verbal Complex in Subordinate Clauses from Medieval to Modern German

This state of affairs suggests that it is not prefixation per se that affects word order, but rather the syntagms involved. Past participles typically have the unstressed prefixge-, while infinitives may have no prefix, a stressed prefix, or an unstressed prefix. Therefore, the apparent preference for the 2-1 order with unstressed prefixes may be because many of these are syntagms with participles, which favor the 2-1 order (Section 2.2.2.1 above). In fact, of the 726 verbs with an unstressed prefix, 396 have the prefix ge-. The interaction between syntagm type and prefix type may explain why only one of these two factors, syntagm, was selected during the step-up/step-down analysis as one of the most significant factor groups. This kind of interaction can be tested using the cross-tabulation function of GoldVarb. The cross-tabulation of prefix type and syntagm type, given in Table 11, suggests that the factors prefix type and syntagm type overlap to a great extent but are still independent of each other. For all three factors in the factor group prefix type, the frequency of 1-2 is higher with infinitival constructions (54%, 39%, and 33% respectively) than with participial constructions (27%, 24%, and 21%, respectively). Likewise, for both past participles and infinitives, the frequency of 1-2 is highest with stressed prefixes (27% and 54% respectively), lower with no prefix (24% and 39%), and lowest with unstressed prefixes (21% and 33%). Table 11. Cross-tab of prefix type with syntagm type Prefix type stressed

word order 1-2

7 (27%)

14 (54%)

21 (40%)

no prefix

2-1

35 (76%)

166 (61%)

201 (63%)

1-2

11 (24%)

107 (39%)

118 (37%)

unstressed

2-1

451 (79%)

101 (67%)

552 (77%)

1-2

122 (21%)

49 (33%)

171 (23%)

2-1

505 (78%)

279 (62%)

784 (72%)

1-2

140 (22%)

170 (38%)

310 (28%)

Total

2-1

participial syn. 19 (73%)

infinitival syn. 12 (46%)

Total 31 (60%)

In sum, the presence of a stressed separable prefix on the non-finite verb favors the 1-2 word order, and this effect is somewhat independent of syntagm type. Having discussed four internal linguistic factors that favor the 1-2 order in MHG, in the next section I will present the variation in subordinate clause word order over time, across dialects, and sociolinguistically.

Chapter 2. Factors influencing verb order in MHG

2.2.3

Diachronic, dialectal, and sociolinguistic variation

2.2.3.1

Date

As will be seen in the next chapter, the 1-2 order decreases over the course of the ENHG period from approximately 35% in the 14th century to just 11% in the 16th, disappearing by Modern Standard German. However, it appears that the decrease in ENHG begins in that period. As can be seen in Table 12, at both the beginning and end of the MHG period, rate of the 1-2 order is roughly the same as at the beginning of ENHG: about 32% and 34%, respectively. Table 12. Effect of time period on 1-2 order Century

2-1

1-2

Factorwt.

1070-1100 1150-1200 1250-130016

139 (67.8%) 253 (83.8%) 397 (66.3%)

66 (32.2%) 49 (16.2%) 202 (33.7%)

0.560 0.451 0.504

Total p < 0.001

789 (71.3%)

317 (28.7%)

On the other hand, there is an inexplicable drop in the rate of 1-2 in the middle of the MHG period. It is difficult to say whether this dip represents any linguistic reality or is merely a result of the four texts selected for this century. In any case, although the factor group is statistically significant, it was not selected as one of the most significant factor groups by GoldVarb's step-up/step-down analysis. Having seen that the 1-2 order (in the general sense that the finite verb precedes the non-finite verb) remains mostly stable throughout MHG, let us examine the difference between the 1-2 order in the narrow sense (the finite verb immediately precedes the non-finite verb) and the 1-x-2 order. As shown in Table 13, both the 1-2 order in the stricter sense and the 1-x-2 order show the same trend as in the table above, with the eleventh and thirteenth centuries roughly the same, but a drop in the twelfth century.l7 However, the frequencies of 1-x-2 and

16. Recall that the text representing this time period for Nuremberg is slightly later, having been written between 1302 and 1315.

17. Gold Varb X is not equipped for multi-variate analyses, i.e., although it can calculate the

raw nwnbers and percentages for several values of the dependent variable, it can statistically test only two values. Thus the data for 1-x-2 order are given without factor weights or statistical significance.

31

32

The Verbal Complex in Subordinate Clauses from Medieval to Modern German

the 1-2 order in the strict sense remain very stable relative to each other, with the 1-x-2 order making up roughly 10-12% of the cases where the finite precedes the non-finite verb. Table 13. Effect of time on 1-2 and 1-x-2 orders Century

2-1

1-2

1-x-2

1070-1100 1150-1200 1250-1300

139 (67.896) 253 (83.8%) 397 (66.3%)

58 (28.396) 44 (14.6%) 180 (30.1%)

8 (3.9%) 5 (1.7%) 22 (3.7%)

Total

789 (71.3%)

282 (25.5%)

35 (3.2%)

Recall from Section 2.1.2 above that some subordinate clauses with the verb in the second position (but introduced by an unambiguously subordinating conjunction) were coded as potentially V2 in the database. This makes it possible to exclude such clauses in a GoldVat·b analysis. Excluding potential verb-second clauses is especially important in the case of 1-x-2 clauses, to rule outthe possibility that they involve main clause word order rather than true, unambiguous 1-x-2 (with more than one constituent preceding the finite verb). Excluding these subordinate clauses with possibly main clause word order results in a smaller number of 1-2 clauses (especially 1-x-2 clauses), as can be seen by comparing Table 14 with Table 13. The remaining 1-2 and 1-x-2 subordinate clauses must then be treated as true verbal complexes. Table 14. Effect of time on 1-2 and 1-x-2 orders, V2 clauses removed Century

2-1

1-2

1-x-2

1070-1100 1150-1200 1250-1300

139 (71.6%) 253 (86.3%) 397 (66.3%)

53 (27.3%) 37 (12.4%) 160 (28.0%)

2 (1.0%) 3 (1.0%) 14 (2.4%)

Total

789 (74.6%)

250 (23.6%)

19 (1.8%)

2.2.3.2

l)ialect

Having examined the relative stability of subordinate-clause verb order over time, let us now consider dialectal variation in MHG. As seen in Table 15, the frequency of the 1-2 order (in the wider sense, i.e. including 1-x-2) varies greatly by dialect, ranging from about 11% in the text from Thuringia up to 81.7% in one text from the Black Forest.

Chapter 2. Factors influencing verb order in MHG

Table 15. Effect of dialect on 1-2 order Dialect

2-1

1-2

Factorwt

Bavaria Swabia (incl. W. Bavaria) Alemannic: SwissJs Alemannic: Black Forest is

Hesse Thuringia Is

177 (68.1 %) 175 (87.5%) 86 (86.9%) 19 (18.3%) 133 (80.6%) 24 (53.3%) 84 (64.1 %) 91 (89.2%)

83 (31.9%) 25 (12.5%) 13 (13.1 %) 85 (81.7%) 32 (19.4%) 21 (46.7%) 47 (35.9%) 11 (10.8%)

0.494 0.336 0.262 0.894 0.447 0.830 0.525

Total

789 (71.3%)

317 (28.7%)

E. Franconian CologneJs

0.434

p < 0.001

There is no clear pattern here that might correspond to traditional dialect divisions: for example, the two Alemannic texts behave very differently. There is something of a geographic pattern when plotted onto a map of the German-speaking area, as in Figure 1. The three dialects with relatively high rates of 1-2 (and factor weights above 0.5) cluster along the Rhine: Black Forest, Hesse, and Cologne. However, combining these three dialects into a western group and all others into an eastern group results in a worse model fit. Moreover, note that many of these dialects are represented by just one text, so the apparent dialectal variation may be reducible to differences between individual texts.

Figure 1. Frequency of the 1-2 order by dialect

18. Each of these dialects is represented by only one text.

33

34

The Verbal Complex in Subordinate Clauses from Medieval to Modern German

Nor does one see a clear pattern when looking at the rate of 1-2 across the dialects and by century. As can be seen in Table 16, the rate of the 1-2 order increases from the 11th to the 13th century in the Bavarian texts but decreases in the East Franconian texts. With this kind of variation, it is difficult to draw any conclusions about the dialectal or diachronic distribution of 1-2 in MHG. Whatever the reason for this variation, the factor group is clearly an important one, having been selected as one of the most significant in the step-up/stepdown analysis. Table 16. Effect of dialect and century on 1-2 order

Dialect

1070-1100

1150-1200

1250-1300

Total

Bavaria

24.5%

11.7% 18.0%

41.2% 8.8%

31.9% 12.5% 13.1%

81.7% 11.1%

81.7% 19.4% 46.7%

Swabia Swiss Black Forest E. Franc. Cologne

13.1% 39.8%

Hesse Thuringia

37.0%

46.7% 35.6% 10.8%

35.9% 10.8%

2.2.3.3 Sociolinguistic factors

In several studies ofENHG syntax (Hammarstrom 1923; Ebert 1981 and 1998; Bies 1996; and Reifsnyder 2003), subordinate-clause word order varies greatly by sociolinguistic factors and text type. In my MHG database, clauses were coded for four sociolinguistic factors: the genre of the text and the sex, education, and occupation of the author. However, none of the texts in the database are written by women, and the level of education is only known for one of them. Therefore, the only factor groups that may yield any relevant results are occupation and genre. Unfortunately for the factor group occupation, the only two occupations tagged in the database are clerics and unknown. Still, these two groups have quite different word-order preferences, as seen in Table 17. The clerics have the 1-2 order somewhat more often than expected (35.7%), and the texts by authors of unknown occupation have that order somewhat less than expected (19%). Although this effect is not a very strong one, as evidenced by the fact that the factor weight in both cases is very dose to 0.5, it is statistically significant and was even selected as one of the most important factor groups in the step-up/ step-down analysis.

Chapter 2. Factors influencing verb order in MHG

Table 17. Effect of occupation on 1-2 order Occupation (number of texts)

2-1

1-2

Factorwt.

clerics (7) unknown(6)

410 (64.6%) 379 (81.0%)

228 (35.7%) 89 (19.0%)

0.508 0.490

Total

789 (71.3%)

317 (28.7%)

p < 0.001 Genre was also selected by step-up/step-down as one of the most significant factor groups. All texts in the database were tagged as one of four types: chronicle, chancery document, sermon, and other religious text, and the effect of these text types on word order is presented in Table 18. The most formal text type in the corpus, chancery documents, has the lowest frequency of 1-2 at 9.8%, well below the expected rate of 1-2. Sermons, on the other hand, favor the 1-2 order at 37.4%, while other types of religious texts have roughly the same rate of 1-2 as the expected rate. The one chronicle in the database strongly favors 1-2, but it is unclear whether that is a property of chronicles per se or an idiosyncratic feature of the particular text. One might tentatively conclude from these data that since sermons are the genre closest to the spoken language and strongly favor 1-2, the 1-2 order is more prevalent in spoken MHG, while the most formal written language tends to shun that order. Table 18. Effect of genre on 1-2 order Genre (number of texts)

2-1

chancery docwnent (3) sermon(5) other religious text (4) chronicle (1)

240 271 231 47

Total

1-2

Factorwt.

(90.2%) (62.6%) (70.6%) (58.8%)

26 (9.8%) 162 (37.4%) 96 (29.4%) 33 (41.2%)

0.406 0.557 0.433 0.754

789 (71.3%)

317 (28.7%)

p < 0.001 Finally, given the fact that sermons and other religious texts were mostly written by clerics, let us examine whether the effects of genre and occupation are independent of each other. This is presented in the cross-tabulation of genre and occupation in Table 19.19 Of the texts written by clerics, sermons have a higher rate of the 1-2 order at 37% than other religious texts written by clerics at 32%. Of the texts by persons of unknown occupation, religious texts have a higher rate

19. We will set aside the one instance of a chronicle.

35

36

The Verbal Complex in Subordinate Clauses from Medieval to Modern German

of 1-2 (25%) than chancery documents (10%). Religious texts by clerics use the 1-2 order more frequently (32%) than the religious texts by non-clerics (25%). Thus the two factors are indeed somewhat independent of each other and have a cumulative effect on verb order. Table 19. Cross-tab of genre with occupation Genre

word order

clerics

occup. unknown

sermons

2-1

271 (6396)

1-2

162 (3796)

0 (096)

162 (3796)

other religious

2-1

139 (6896)

92 (7596)

231 (7196)

1-2

66 (3296) 0 (096)

30 (2596) 240 (9096)

96 (2996) 240 (9096)

0 (096)

Total 271 (6396)

chancery

2-1 1-2

0 (096)

26 (1096)

26 (1096)

Total

2-1

410 (6496)

332 (8696)

742 (7296)

1-2

228 (3696)

56 (1496)

284 (2896)

2.2.4 Conclusion In this section, I have discussed the results of my analysis of word order variation in MHG complexes of two verbs, based on a database of 13 texts. Several factors were determined to affect verb order: syntagm type, the category and weight of the word preceding the VC, extra position, focus, verbal prefixes, dialect, occupation of the author, and genre. Of these, the following combination was found to be the most significant factors by GoldVarb's step-up/step-down analysis: syntagm type, preceding word, focus, dialect, occupation, and genre. The next section will test all of these factors on subordinate clauses with clusters of three verbs.

2.3

Complexes of three verbs in MHG

2.3.1 Introduction Perhaps unsurprisingly, there are few examples in my MHG database ofVCs containing three verbs. One reason for this is that MHG still has robust use of the preterit tense, so in complex syntagms such as the past tense of the passive, MHG has two verbs (the preterit passive) where later stages of the language tend to have three verbs (the present perfect passive). In my database of 1,133 clauses with a VC, just 26 have three verbs and none have four verbs. Given the small number

Chapter 2. Factors influencing verb order in MHG

of tokens, this section will report the numbers, percentages, and statistical significance, but factor weights will only be reported in the few instances where the factor has a statistically significant effect. Recall from Section 2.1.1 that the following orders for three-verb complexes are attested in MHG (repeated here for the reader's convenience): the 3-2-1 order (5), the 1-3-2 order (6), the 1-2-3 order (7), and 3-1-2 (8): (5) uuanta er geb6ran uuerda.n u.uolta uon armen u6rderon. wanted1 of poor ancestors because he bom3 be2 (Williram lOr) 'because he [Christ] wanted to be born of humble origins: (6) daz elliv werlt die er gefaphen Mte.folti verlorn werdfn. that all word REL he created had should 1 lost3 b~ 'that the whole world that he had created should be lost: (Speculum eccL 08r) (7) wie er och Joelte wi:ie gemarterot an de (heiligen) cvce. how he also should 1 bez martyred3 on the holy cross '... how he should also be martyred on the holy cross: (Schwarzw. Fred. 009v)

Jolti werdin. (8) daz daz chint befnitin that the child circumcised3 should1 be 2 '... so that the child should be circumcised .. .'

(Speculum eccL llv)

Moreover, recall that a constituent may break up the VC with the order 1-3-2, resulting in what I call1-x-3-2 (9). Throughout this section, no distinction will be made between 1-3-2 proper and 1-x-3-2. Having four possible word orders presents a number of methodological challenges. The first has to do with the fact that GoldVarb X allows only binomial analyses, and having four word orders requires a multinomial analysis. To get around this limitation, I ran three separate analyses for each factor group.2o I tested the order 1-3-2 against the combined orders 3-2-1, 1-2-3, and 3-1-2. Then I tested the 1-2-3 order against the other three combined, etc. This allowed me to test for factor weights and statistical significance for each dependent variable. The second problem is the low number of tokens. There are only 26 clauses with three-verb complexes to begin with, and this is compounded by having four dependent variables. Thus in this section, statistical significance is not achieved in any of the analyses, unless otherwise noted. Other recodes were attempted in many cases, but in no case did recoding result in increased significance, thus such recodes will not be discussed further.

20.

Since only one clause has the 3-2-1 order, that order is not tested for signlli.cance at all

37

38

The Verbal Complex in Subordinate Clauses from Medieval to Modern German

The third problem is one of presentation, thus I will briefly explain how to interpret the tables for this section. Taking Table 20 as an example, there are two occurrences of the order 1-2-3 with the modal+ perfect syntagm. These two instances make up 66.7% of the three total instances of that syntagm. To determine whether this is a favoring factor for the 1-2-3 order, this percentage should be compared notto the percentages of the other word orders, hutto the expected rate of 1-2-3 in the database, which is 26.9%. Thus it appears that the modal + perfect syntagm strongly favors the 1-2-3 order, since the order appears more frequently in that context (66.7%) than its overall expected rate (26.9%). Of course, to determine whether that really is a strong favoring effect, the factor weight needs to be consulted. In this section, factor weights will be reported in the body of the text when relevant. This section is organized as follows. In Section 2.3.2, I examine whether the linguistic factors that affect two-verb clusters also affect three-verb clusters. Section 2.3.3 discusses the effect of date, dialect, and sociolinguistic factors on threeverb clusters in MHG.

2.3.2

Phonological, morphological, and syntactic factors

2.3.2.1

Syntagm type

In Section 2.2.2.1 above, I showed that syntagm type plays a major role in subordinate clauses with complexes of two verbs. This is also the case for complexes of three verbs, as shown in Table 20. Several examples of modal + passive are given in (5)-(8) above, and the other three syntagms are modal+ perfect (22), modal+ modal+ infinitive (23), and other, such as modal+ causative (24):

han (22) den er von im genomen Jolte REL he from him tak.en3 should1 have 2 'which he should have taken from him:

(Stadtbuch Aug. 20va)

(23) Swenne wir alliz daz nit uollfn grundfn mvgfn if we all that (... REL ••• ) not want1 prove3 can2 'If we do not want to be able to prove all (that we have heard)'

(Mitteldt. Fred. b4va) (24) daz er daz hus nider Jol haizzen Jlahen ... that he the house down shall1 order2 strike3 'that he shall order the house struck down .. :

(Sta.dtbuchAug. 19ra)

Chapter 2. Factors influencing verb order in MHG

Table 20. Effect of syntagm on three-verb complexes Syntagm

3-2-1

1-3-2

1-2-3

3-1-2

modal + passive modal + perfect21 modal + modal + in£ other Total

1 (5.3%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%)

6(31.6%) 0(0%) 1 (100%) 1 (33.3%)

4 (21.1%) 2 (66.7%) 0 (0%) 1 (33.3%)

8 (42.1%) 1 (33.3%) 0 (0%) 1 (33.3%)

1 (3.8%)

8 (30.8%)

7 (26.9%)

10 (38.5%)

Although not statistically significant, we can perhaps draw some preliminary conclusions from the data above. First, note that as in Paul (2007:456), modal verbs governing an auxiliary plus participle (i.e. the first two syntagms in the table above) make up the overwhelming bulk of the three-verb complexes in my database.22 Secondly, as in Paul (2007:456), the modal+ passive syntagm can occur with any of the four word orders. Thirdly, there is only one instance of the 3-2-1 order in my database, and Paul concurs that the order is extremely rare in MHG (2007:456). As a final note, I find no examples of the infinitivus pm participio (IPP) or Ersatzinjiniti11 construction,23 although Paul does find two instances (2007: 456). The three orders other than 3-2-1 are about equally frequent in my study as in Prell's (2001:88). In each of these three orders (1-3-2, 1-2-3, and 3-1-2), finite verb (V1) precedes the verb it modifies (V2). This seems to be the opposite preference from that in complexes of two verbs, where 71% of the VCs have the finite verb in the final position (2-1). However, note that in almost all of the three-verb complexes in the database, the finite verb is a modal which tend to favor the 1-2 order in MHG. Thus it is an open question whether the preference for a finite verb to occur early in the three-verb complex is a property of three-verb complexes per se or due to the fact that modal verbs tend to occur before the verbs they select. 2.3.2.2

Word/phrase preceding the verbal complex

In Section 2.2.2.2 above, it was demonstrated that in VCs with two verbs, thecategory and phonological weight of the word preceding the VC influenced the order of the verbs. When a non-pronominal NP or a QP preceded, the rate of 1-2 was

21. Actually, two of these are the modal+ perfect as in (22), and the other is a verb of perception plus perfect: uuanot ergezzen haben 'believe to have forgotten' (Notker 014ra). 22.

Recall that the syntax section of Paul (2007) is written by Prell, largely based on Prell (200 1).

23. See Chapter 3 for a description and examples of this phenomenon in ENHG.

39

40

The Verbal Complex in Subordinate Clauses from Medieval to Modern German

higher than expected, and that order was lower than expected when preceded by a pronoun. When recoded according to phonological weight, preceding stressed words were found to favor the 1-2 order while unstressed ones disfavored it For complexes of three verbs, this factor group is not significant for any of the word orders, neither when coded by part of speech as shown in Table 21, nor when coded by stress as in Table 22. The numbers are very small and no clear pattern can be seen in the distribution of the factors across the various word-order types. Table 21. Effect of the preceding category on three-verb complexes Cat. of prec. word

3-2-1

1-3-2

1-2-3

noun pronoun adverb prepositional phrase nothing precedes

0 (0%) 1 (33.3%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%)

4 (33.3%) 0 (0%) 2 (66.7%) 0 (0%) 2 (50.0%)

4 (33.3%) 1 (33.3%) 1 (33.3%) 0 (0%) 1 (25.0%)

3-1-2 4 (33.3%) 1 (33.3%) 0 (0%) 4 (100%) 1 (25.0%)

Total

1 (3.8%)

8 (30.8%)

7 (26.9%)

10 (38.5%)

Table 22. Effect of the preceding stress on three-verb complexes Stress of prec. word

3-2-1

1-3-2

1-2-3

3-1-2

stressed unstressed nothing precedes

0(0%) 1 (16.7%) 0(0%)

5 (27.8%) 2 (33.3%) 1 (50.0%)

5 (27.8%) 2 (33.3%) 0 (0%)

8 (44.4%) 1 (16.7%) 1 (50.096)

Total

1 (3.8%)

8 (30.8%)

7 (26.9%)

10 (38.5%)

2.3.2.3 Extraposition Like the previous factors, NP/PP extraposition has an effect on VCs with two verbs but not on those with three verbs. As seen in Table 23, clauses with nothing extra posed are about evenly distributed across the three common word orders, as are clauses with extraposed adjunct PPs. Moreover, none of the tests of the word orders yielded statistically significant results. Table 23. Effect of extraposition on three-verb complexes Extraposition

3-2-1

1-3-2

1-2-3

3-1-2

extraposed argument nothing extraposed extrapos. adjunct PP

1 (33.3%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%)

0(0%) 6 (37.5%) 2 (28.6%)

0 (0%) 5 (31.2%) 2 (28.6%)

2 (66.7%) 5 (31.296) 3 (42.9%)

Total

1 (3.8%)

8 (30.8%)

7 (26.9%)

10 (38.596)

Chapter 2. Factors influencing verb order in MHG

2.3.2.4 Focus In Section 2.2.2.4 above, I showed that focus favors the 1-2 order, while old information disfavors it. As seen in Table 24, there is no dear efiect of focus on VCs with three verbs. Clauses with new/contrastive focus are about evenly distributed across the three common word orders, and the results are not significant for any order. Table 24. Effect of focus in three-verb complexes Focus

3-2-1

1-3-2

1-2-3

new I contrastive old information Total

1 (4.8%) 0 (0%)

8 (38.1%) 0 (0%)

5 (23.8%) 2 (40.0%)

7 (33.3%) 3 (60.0%)

1 (3.8%)

8 (30.8%)

7 (26.9%)

10 (38.5%)

3-1-2

2.3.2·5 Prefix tvpe As with other factor groups, prefix type does not have a discernable effect on the choice of verb orders with three verbs. As shown in Table 25, the number of clauses representing any given word order and prefix type is quite small, and this factor is not significant for any order. Moreover, this factor group largely overlaps with syntagm., as the numbers for unstressed in this factor group are nearly identical to those for modal+ passive in Table 20. Finally, note that the only two instances of a VC with a stressed prefix are in the 1-2-3 order. Table 25. Effect of prefix type on three-verb complexes Prefix: type

3-2-1

1-3-2

1-2-3

Stressed No prefix Unstressed Total

0 (0%) 0 (0%) 1 (4.8%)

0 (0%) 1 (33.3%) 7 (33.3%)

2 (100%) 1 (33.3%) 4 (19.0%)

0 (0%) 1 (33.3%) 9 (42.9%)

1 (3.8%)

8 (30.8%)

7 (26.9%)

10 (38.5%)

3-1-2

2.3.3 Diachronic, dialectal, and sociolinguistic variation 2.3.3·1 Date Turning now to date, we find first of all that there are only two instances of threeverb complexes in the 11th century, as seen in Table 26. From the 12th to the 13th centuries, the 1-3-2 order changes little, the 3-1-2 order becomes less frequent, and the 1-2-3 order greatly increases in frequency. Only this last development is statistically significant. changing from a factor weight of 0.198 in the 12th century to 0.837 in the 13th.

41

42

The Verbal Complex in Subordinate Clauses from Medieval to Modern German

Table 26. Effect of time on three -verb complexes Century

3-2-1

1-3-2

1-2-3

3-1-2

1070-1100 1150-1200 1250-130024

1 (50.0%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%)

1 (50.0%) 4 (33.3%) 3 (25.0%)

0 (0%) 1 (8.3%) 6 (50.0%)

0 (0%) 7 (58.3%) 3 (25.0%)

Total

1 (3.8%)

8 (30.8%)

7 (26.9%)

10 (38.5%)

s ignificance2s

n/a

p =0.568

p = 0.012

p = 0.191

2.3.3.2 Dialed

As might be expected given the rather random dialectal distribution of twoverb complexes (Section 2.2.3.2 above), the distribution of three-verb complexes is even less clear. Given the small number of tokens per dialect, for none of the four word orders is this factor group statistically significant, as shown in Table 27. However, a few remarks may still be made. First, note that the 3-1-2 order is the most frequent order in Bavaria, Swabia, and Switzerland, dialects that favor that order both in ENHG (see Chapter 3) and the modern period (see Chapter 4). Secondly, note that the 1-2-3 order is the only one found in the text from the Black Forest, an Alemannic dialect, while Swiss, also an Alemannic dialect, does not have any instances of that order. This may indicate that these differences are due to idiosyncrasies of the representative texts, rather than true dialectal variation. Table 27. Effect of dialect on three-verb complexes

Dialect

3-2-1

1-3-2

1-2-3

3-1-2

Bavaria Swabia Black Forest26 E. Franconian Cologne26 Hesse Thuringia26

1 (50.0%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%)

0 (0%) 3 (30.0%) 1 (20.0%) 0 (0%) 1 (50.0%) 0 (0%) 3 (100%) 0 (0%)

0 (0%) 2 (20.0%) 0 (0%) 3 (100%) 1 (50.0%) 1 (100%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%)

1 (50.0%) 5 (50.0%) 4 (80.0%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%)

Total

1 (3.8%)

8 (30.8%)

7 (26.9%)

10 (38.5%)

Swiss26

24. Recall that the text representing this time period fur Nuremberg is slightly later (1302-1315). 25. Statistical significance for each order was calculated by combining the 11th and 12th centuries. 26. Each of these dialects is represented by only one text

Chapter 2. Factors influencing verb order in MHG

2.3.3.3 Sociolinguistic factors In Section 2.2.3.3 above, I demonstrated that occupation and genre have an effect on word order in two-verb complexes, with clerics and religious texts favoring the 1-2 order. However, with three-verb complexes, no such preferences emerge, probably due to the very small number of tokens for each of the four word orders. As seen in Table 28, sex/occupation does not have a significant effect on any verb order. However, the 1-3-2 order is disfavored in texts by unknown authors (factor weight= 0.286). The other orders are more evenly distributed, and the factor weights are close to 0.5, indicating little favoring effect.

Table 28. Effect of sex/occupation on three-verb complexes Sex/occupation27 males/clerics (7) unknown(6) Total

3-2-1 1 (5.3%) 0 (0%) 1 (3.8%)

1-3-2 7 (36.8%) 1 (14.3%) 8 (30.8%)

1-2-3 4 (21.1%) 3 (42.9%) 7 (26.9%)

3-1-2 7 (36.8%) 3 (42.9%) 10 (38.5%)

As seen in Table 29, genre has no statistically significant effect on any word order either. Chancery documents do slightly disfavor 1-3-2 (factor weight= 0.351) while favoring 1-2-3 somewhat (factor weight= 0.635). Again, the number of tokens is quite small, and it would be hasty to draw any conclusions from this. Table 29. Effect of genre on three-verb complexes Genre chancery doc. (3) sermon(5) other religious (4) chronicle (1) Total

3-2-1 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 1 (33.3%) 0 (0%) 1 (3.8%)

1-3-2 1 (20.0%) 6 (35.3%) 1 (33.3%) 0 (0%) 8 (30.8%)

1-2-3 2 (40.0%) 4 (23.5%) 1 (33.3%) 0 (0%) 7 (26.9%)

3-1-2 2 (40.0%) 7 (41.2%) 0 (0%) 1 (100%) 10 (38.5%)

2.3.4 Conclusion

In this section, I have attempted to establish whether the factors that affect twoverb clusters also affect clusters of three verbs. Because of the small number of tokens for each word order, few significant effects could be found. However, two preliminary conclusions may perhaps be drawn. First, the 3-2-1 order is rare, while the other three orders are about equally frequent. Secondly, the 1-2-3 order increases greatly from the 12th to the 13th century. 27. Recall that all non-anonymous texts in the database are by male clerics, thus these two categories are identical

43

44

The Verbal Complex in Subordinate Clauses from Medieval to Modern German

2.4

Conclusion

2.4.1 Summary of findings This chapter reports on a study of verbal complexes in subordinate clauses in thirteen MHG texts. Although few conclusions can be made about VCs containing three verbs, there are a number of interesting results for two-verb complexes. First of all, syntagm has a significant effect on verb order, with participial constructions favoring the 2-1 order and infinitival constructions favoring 1-2 (Section 2.2.2.1). Secondly, the category and phonological weight of the word preceding the VC influences the order within the complex (Section 2.2.2.2). Thirdly, focus plays an interesting role in the choice of verb orders, with narrow object focus favoring the 1-2 order, wide focus favoring 1-x-2 and 1-2 with extraposition, and old information favoring 2-1 (Section 2.2.2.4). Fourthly, the effect of dialect is significant (2.2.3.2). Finally, genre and occupation have significant effects, with clerics and religious texts independently favoring the 1-2 order (Section 2.2.3.3). The above factors in combination were found to have the most significant effect on verb order in GoldVarb's step-up/step-down function. In addition, extraposition (2.2.2.3) and prefix type (2.2.2.5) influence the relative order of the verbs, although these effects are largely the result of interactions with other factors, namely focus and syntagm. Time is also a significant fuctor, although rather than a steady development, we find that the 1-2 order dipped in the 12th century before rising again in the 13th (Section 2.2.3.1). The next chapter will test these same effects on a corpus of Early New High German, with largely the same results.

2.4.2 The combined effect of the favoring factors In this chapter, I have discussed a number offactors that favor the 1-2 order in MHG. However, none of these alone can account for the high frequency of the 1-2 order in the database. However, when all of these factors are considered together, they account for the vast majority of the occurrences of that order. As seen in Table 30, just 13 of the 317 clauses with the 1-2 order, or 4.1%, have none of the favoring factors. Thus, although no individual factor forces the 1-2 order, the relatively high frequency of 1-2 in these texts can be understood as the result of the cumulative favoring effect of a number of factors.

Chapter 2. Factors influencing verb order in MHG

Table 30. All favoring factors for 1- 228 Favoring factor

1-(x)-2

Syntagm with infinitive Preceding stressed word Separable prefix verb Focus Extraposition No scrambling None ofthe favoring factors Total

170 216 21 271 28 9 13

317

Throughout this chapter, we have seen that several prosodic factors have an effect on word order within the verbal complex: a preceding stressed word, a stressed prefix, and focus (which is expressed through prosody). Table 31lists only those factors that are arguably related to prosody and focus. With only the prosodic/ focus factors considered, the majority of 1-2 clauses are still accounted for. Only 21, or 6.6%, of the clauses are not accounted for by a prosodic factor. Table 31. Prosody-related favoring factors for 1-2 Favoring factor

1-(x)-2

Preceding stressed word Separable prefix verb Focus Extraposition No scrambling None of the prosodic factors Total

216

21 271

28 9

21 317

In Chapter 3, we will see that these factors have largely the same effect in ENHG as in MHG. Chapter 4 will investigate variation in verb order in some varieties of Modern German: we will see that syntagm type and prosodic factors continue to be the major factors impacting verb order today.

28. Many clauses are represented in this table more than once, since a clause may have two or

more of the favoring factors.

45

CHAPTER3

Factors influencing verb order in ENHG

3.1

Introduction

3.1.1 Basic facts Early New High German (ENHG) is the stage of the language spoken approximately from 1350 to 1650. This period of European history represents the transition from the Middle Ages to the modern world, and is characterized (among many other developments) by the rise of the city, the invention of the printing press, and the Protestant reformation. It is a time of increasing mass literacy, including literacy in vernacular languages, and as a result this period sees a dramatic increase in the type and number of texts produced. ENHG is also an age of linguistic transition: over those three hundred years the language gradually takes on many of the phonological morphological, and syntactic features that characterize Modern Standard German. In traditional scholarship on the history of German, ENHG was not considered a separate stage of the language at all (Schmidt 1996: 27), so that texts before about 1500 were often characterized as corrupt or dialectal late MHG, while those after 1500 were seen as the New High German language forged by Martin Luther. Most recent reference works, however, recognize ENHG as a separate stage, albeit one that is characterized by much dialectal and diachronic variation. We shall see in this chapter, in fact, that subordinate-clause verb order at the beginning of ENHG is quite similar to that of MHG, while many of the later texts approximate the syntax of modern German. As in prior stages of the language, the 2-1 order (i.e. the Modern Standard German order in which the finite verb follows the non-finite verb), is a frequent word order in ENHG: (1) daz er chain todsund nymmer mer tuen wolt

that he no death-sin never more do2 would 1 'that he would never again commit a deadly sin'

(Pillenreuth 160)

In addition to the 2-1 order, there are also clauses in which the finite verb precedes the non-finite verb, either directly, resulting in the 1-2 order (2), or separated by some constituent, in the 1-x-2 order (3):

48

The Verbal Complex in Subordinate Clauses from Medieval to Modern German

(2) das der mensch aile sein lebttag nicht anders scholt thun that the person all his life.days nothing else should 1 do 2 'that man should do nothing else all the days of his life' (Pillenreuth 206) (3) das der mensche nicht scholt sein rew sparen an das todpett that the person not should 1 his regret save2 on the deathbed 'that one should not hold back his repentance on his deathbed'

(Pillenreuth 212) The fourth logically possible order, in which the verbs are in the order 2-1 with an intervening constituent, is virtually unattested in my ENHG corpus.! In addition to variation within the verbal complex. its position within the clause mayvary. As in MHG, constituents maybe extraposed whether the VC is in the 2-1 or 1-2 order, even with the 1-x-2 order (3). Thus ENHG largely continues the word-order possibilities found in MHG. In complexes of three verbs, the four word orders of MHG are also found in ENHG (albeit in much greater numbers): the 3-2-1 order (4) with each verb selecting its complement verb to the left. the 1-2-3 order (5) with each verb selecting its complement verb to the right, and two mixed orders, 1-3-2 (6) and 3-1-2 (7): (4) das so darvorgesetzt ist in fragweis verstanden werden soll that REL before.set is in question understood3 be 2 should 1 'that what is set before should be understood as a question' (Eunuchus 14) (5) so er dan den menschen nicht ha.t mugen vberwinden when he then the person not has 1 can2 overcome3 'when he has not been able to overcome the person' (Pillenreuth 158) (6) als er des tages scholt begraben werden as he the day should1 buried3 be 2 'when he should be buried on that day'

(Pillenreuth 212)

t. There are only three examples in which this order does occur, all of which are from a single text, the Oxforder Benediktinerregel from the 14th century. Perhaps crucially, in all three examples, the intervening constituent is the negator, with a negative prefix on the finite verb: (i) daz sie mit missetroste virloren nit inwerde that she with false.comfort 1ost2 not NEG-be1 'that she not be lost because of false comfort' (Benediktinerregel16)

This does not necessaril ypose a challenge to the observation that no constituents can intervene between the verbs in their base order (Bobaljik 2004: 139), if one assumes that in these cases nit is part of the verbal inflection. Note that this is quite unlike the cases in MHG, where only the particle ne- but never the free-standing negator was found in this position.

Chapter 3. Factors influencing verb order in ENHG

er ... getan solt haben he done 3 should1 have2 'that he should have done'

(7) dy

REL

(Pillenreuth 159)

The other two logically possible orders, 2-1-3 and 2-3-1, are unattested in my ENHG database, as in MHG.2 In addition, with two of these orders, 1-3-2 and 1-2-3, some constituent may break up the VC. In all eleven instances involving the order 1-3-2 (some of which are V2 and thus ambiguous with main clauses), the intervening constituent appears just before the non -finite verb of which it is the complement, i.e. V 3 (8). The fact that no constituent may break up the 3-2-1 order, or appear between V 3 and in the 1-3-2 order, follows the generalization discussed above, that no constituent can intervene between verbs in the left-governing order. On the other hand, in the four instances involving the 1-2-3 order, the intervening constituent appears once between verbs 1 and 2 (9), once between verbs 2 and 3 (10), and once between all three verbs (11):

v2

(8) die sich niemals haben Schande vbergehen lassen REL REFL never have 1 disgrace come.upon3 let2 'who have never let disgrace come upon themselves'

(Bange Chronik 7r)

(9) wie si ain wuenderlich ding hiet vor dem ofen gesehen ligen how she a miraculous thing has 1 before the oven seen 2 lie3 'how she saw a miraculous thing lying in front of the overi

(Denkwitrdigk. 17) (10) das er seinen Sohn fuer vns hat lassen ein Schlachtopffer werden that he his son for us has 1 let2 a sacrifice.victim become3 'that he has let his son become a sacrificial victim for us' (Passionale 46v) (11) das jhr euch dis Capitel wollet ja lassen Iiebi angelegen vnd that you REFL this chapter will1 yes let2 dear fitting and befohlen sein recommended be3 'that you will indeed let this chapter be dear, fitting, and recommended to you' (Passionale 35r)

2. It may be safe to claim that these word orders were ungrammatical in ENHG, first because they are unattested in my corpus. and secondly because they are ungrammatical or extremely rare in modern German dialects (Chapter 4.2.3).

49

so

The Verbal Complex in Subordinate Clauses from Medieval to Modern German

There is only one attested order for complexes of four verbs: 1-2-4-3, which occurs just three times. Two of these clauses exhibit the infinitivus pm participio (IPP) construction plus either another infinitive (12) or a passive (13), and one involves a modal plus causative lassen plus passive (14). (12) das Gott wunderbarlicher wyB hat lassen herfiirwallen geschinen REL God miraculous way has 1 let2 forth.flow4 appear3 'which God miraculously caused to appear to flow forth' (Gespenster 19v) (13) das sie mehr fiir ein Rilst- dann Schlaffkammer ... hette moegen that it more for an armor than sleep.chamber had 1 can2

gehalten werden held4 be3 'that it could have been considered more an armory than a bedroom'

(Beschreibung 13) (14) das die selben jre Prediger jnen sollen lassen befolhen sein that the same their pastors them shalh let2 ordered4 be3 'that they should let their pastors be ordered to them' (Sum maria 19v) Finally, as discussed in Section 3.3.2.2 below, extraposition may occur with threeverb complexes, regardless of the order of the verbs.

3.1.2 The database

My ENHG database consists of 2,906 subordinate clauses from thirty texts available on the on-line Bonner Frithneuhochdeutschkorpus. These thirty texts represent three texts each from ten dialect areas: Cologne, Hesse, Alsace, Zurich, Swabia, Nuremberg, Thuringia, Saxony, Augsburg, and Vienna. Within each dialect, there is one text each from the 14th, 15th, and 16th centuries} There are 2,737 clauses with VCs consisting of two verbs, 166 clauses with complexes of three verbs, and three clauses with four verbs. Approximately 100 clauses from each text were selected according to the following criteria.4 First of all, the database contains only finite subordinate clauses with complexes of at least two verbs, not counting the infinitive of any embedded infinitival clause. Not included in this study are participles with no auxiliary,

3· The Bonner corpus has texts from 4 time periods: 1350-1400, 1450-1500, 1550-1600, and 1650-1700. I have not included any texts from the last period, since I consider that to be the NHG era and presume that the rate of1-2 would be too low for statistical analysis. 4· Pillenreuth ~stik is written in two hands; I took 97 clauses from the first hand and 80 clauses from the second hand

Chapter 3. Factors influencing verb order in ENHG

Table 1. Texts in my ENHG databases Dialect

1350-1400

1450-1500

1550-1600

Cologne Hesse Alsace Zurich Swabia Nuremberg Thuringia Saxony Augsburg Vienna

Buch ]((jln Benedictinerregel Mannen Naturlehre Altvater Namen Psalter Dresden Altdeutsche Pred. ThJja Rationale

Koellwff Chronik Hortus Santitatis Chirurgie Edlibach Chronik Eunuch us Pillenreuth M1stik Rothe Chronik Sermon Vita Denkwurdigkeiten

Gegenwartigkeit Walter Ralegh Nachbarn Gespenster Beschreibung Summaria Bange Chronik Passionale Nachtmahl M.oscouia

which are fairly common in ENHG (for a discussion, see Reifsnyder 2003:231234). Also excluded are two tokens with a repeated finite verb as in (15), another construction discussed in Reifsnyder (2003: 237 -241). rache ist gehaissen ist revenge is 1 called2 is 1 'which is called revenge'

(15) der da

REL PART

(Altdeutsche Fred. 7)

Secondly, only unambiguous subordinate clauses were selected.6 Frequently, clauses with 1-2 or 1-x-2 order had to be rejected because they were ambiguous with verb-second (V2) main clauses. Many potential relative clauses were rejected, since the relative pronoun is usually homophonous with the demonstrative pronoun, resulting in clauses that are ambiguous between a main clause and a subordinate clause (16a). Thus relative clauses were included in the database only if at least one constituent intervened between the pronoun and the verb, indicating an unambiguous subordinate clause (16b).

werden vergeben sein sund be 1 forgiven2 his sin 'that one I whom will be forgiven his sin' b. der in dem himel nicht mocht sein vnter got REL in the heaven not could 1 be2 under God 'who could not be in heaven with God'

(16) a.

dem

DEM/REL

(Pillenreuth 176)

(Pillenreuth 162)

5· Complete titles are found in the bibliography, and additional information can be found on the website for the Bonn corpus: http://www.korpora.org/Fnhd!

These criteria are stricter than those used in the MHG study (Chapter 2), which included V2 clauses introduced by wande and even those introduced by an ambiguous relative/demonstrative pronoun.

6.

51

52

The Verbal Complex in Subordinate Clauses from Medieval to Modern German

Also frequently ambiguous are clauses with wan. According to Reichmann & Wegera (1993:473) wan is subordinating in the meaning 'when' (17), but in the meaning 'for/because: wan may be coordinating (18a) or subordinating (18b ). (17) wan sich dy sel sol abschaiden von dem leib when REFL the soul shall1 part2 from the body 'when the soul shall leave the body'

(Pillenreuth 161)

wan er mag nymer mer sunden for he can 1 never more sin2 'for he can never sin again' (Pillenreuth 158) b. wan er kain menschen lest mer angefochten werden for he no person lets 1 more tempted3 be 2 'for he does not let anyone be more tempted' (Pillenreuth 166)

( 18) a.

With wa.n 'for/because, clauses are only included in the database in cases where it is dearly subordinating, i.e. when at least two constituents intervene between the complementizer and the finite verb, as in (18b ). Finally, if the complementizer is unambiguously subordinating but the clause is V2, as in (19), the clause is kept in the database but coded as V2. This allowed me to include such clauses in the database (under the assumption that they involve extra position), while maintaining the option of excluding them if more restrictive criteria seemed necessary later on. (19) ob er wolt leben in aynem rechten cristenlichen glauben if he would1 live2 • • • in a correct Christian faith 'whether he would live ... in a true Christian faith' (Pillenreuth 167) The analyses were conducted using the statistics package GoldVarb X (Sankoff et al. 2005). For more information about GoldVarb and on how to interpret the tables, see Chapter 2.1.3. The clauses were coded for the following factor groups: verb order (the dependent variable), syntagm type, constituent preceding the VC, constituent intervening in the VC, constituent following the VC, clause type, focus type (new vs. contrastive), prefix type, scrambled object, coordination, and verb second.7 Each text in the database was tagged for century; dialect, genre, and the sex, occupation, and education of the author.

7. Two of these factors, clause type and VP coordination, had no effect and will not be discussed further here, but they were discussed in detail in Sapp (2006). A pilot study (Sapp 2005) tested two additional variables that had no effect and thus were not coded in the complete database: position of the clause within the sentence and the alternation of stressed and unstressed syllables (see Section 2.1 below). Finally, note that some factors were tested in MHG (see Chapter 2) but not in ENHG: constituent focused, whether an intervening constituent is part of the focus, and whether an extraposed constituent is part of the focus.

Chapter 3. Factors influencing verb order in ENHG

3.1.3 Organization of this chapter

This chapter is organized as follows. The analyses of VCs consisting of two verbs are presented in Section 3.2. Section 3.3 treats three-verb complexes. Section 3.4 discusses the factors that influence word order in individual texts and in the various dialects, uses those data to propose dialectal divisions in ENHG, and compares the MHG results with those from ENHG. This chapter is concluded in Section 3.5.

3.2

Complexes of two verbs in ENHG

3.2.1 Introduction

In my database of 30 texts from the Bonner Friihneuhochdeutschkorpus, there are 2,737 subordinate clauses with exactly one finite and one non-finite verb. In 671, or 24.5%, of these clauses, the finite verb precedes the non-finite verb. I refer to these instances as "the 1-2 order~ and unless otherwise noted, this refers to all cases with a fronted finite verb, i.e. it includes both the 1-2 order proper and the 1-x-2 order. As a rough approximation, a rate of 1-2 higher than 24.5% indicates a favoring effect. A favoring effect on the 1-2 order should be expressed by GoldVa.rb as a factor weight greater than 0.5, with a higher factor weight signifying a stronger effect In Section 3.2.2, I discuss factors that do not have any effect on verb order, contrary to the claims of previous scholarship: the position of the subordinate clause within the sentence and the pattern of stressed and unstressed syllables in the VC. In Section 3.2.3, I discuss the five factors that do affect verb order: syntagm type, the category of the word preceding the VC, extraposition, focus, and verbal prefixes. Section 3.2.4 discusses the diachronic, dialectal, and sociolinguistic variation in the rate of the 1-2 order in ENHG. Of the factors that have a significant favoring effect on the 1-2 order, eight were determined to be the most significant combination of factors by GoldVarb's step-up/step-down function: syntagrn., constituent before the VC, focus, prefix type, date, dialect, genre, and occupation. 3.2.2 Non-favoring factors 3.2.2.1 Position of clause Using a small sample of ENHG clauses, Maurer finds that the position of the subordinate clause within the sentence affects word order (1926: 161-162). In his data, sentence-final clauses tend to have the order 2-1 and non-sentence-final

53

54

The Verbal Complex in Subordinate Clauses from Medieval to Modern German

clauses 1-2. He argues that the 2-1 order is preferred in sentence-final clauses due to the falling intonation at the end of the sentence and the tendency for auxiliaries to be located in phonologically weak positions. I examined this factor in a pilot study of four texts (Sapp 2005).8 The data from that study do not support Maurer's findings. Table 2 shows that whether the clause is sentence-final or not, the rate of the 1-2 order is very similar to 27%, the overall rate of 1-2 in these four texts. The distinction between sentence-final and non-sentence-final clauses is very slight: 26% versus 28%, with factor weights very close to 0.5. Furthermore, this distinction is not statistically significant.

Table 2. Effect of the position of the clause on 1-2 order (Sapp 2005)9 Position of clause

2-1

sentence final not sentence final

87 (73%) 251 (71%)

1-2 32 (26%) 98 (28%)

Total

338 (72%)

130 (27%)

Factorwt. 0.469 0.510

p = 0.102 Thus the effect of the position of the subordinate clause within the sentence on the choice of verb orders could not be confirmed. Nor was Ebert able to confirm any effect in his study of texts from Nuremberg: "there is no consistent pattern here of influence due to occurrence in a 'Vordersatz' vs. 'Nachsatz'" (1981: 206). Since neither Sapp (2005) nor Ebert (1981) could verify this effect, it was not tested on the whole ENHG database and will not be discussed further. 3.2.2.2

Alternation of stressed and unstressed syllables

ENHG, like the other continental West Germanic languages, has a series of verbal prefixes. There are a number of stressed, separable prefixes (SSPs), like auff in (20). There are also unstressed prefixes, which are inseparable from the verb, such as ver- in (21).

8. For the pilot study, I selected clauses from four 15th-century texts from the Bonner FrUhneuhochdeutsch-Korpus: Eunuchus, Edlibach Chronik, Rothe Chronik, and Pillenreuth Mystik. 9· This analysis was conducted using GoldVarb 2001 (Robinson et al. 2001), an earlier version of the program than was used for the other analyses in this book GoldVarb 2001 does not round up percentages, so they add up to 99% rather than 100%. Moreover, in Sapp (2006) I analyzed the data with the 2-1 order as the default variable, thus factor weights greater than 0. 5 indicate a favoring effect on the 2-1 order in these two analyses.

Chapter 3. Factors influencing verb order in ENHG

(20) dye got der her pannherczi.gklich hat auffgenumen REL God the Lord mercifully has 1 up.taken2 'whom God the Lord has mercifully received'

(Pillenreuth 160)

(21) das er in kainer sund verczweiffeln sol that he in no sin despair2 shall1 'that he shall not despair in any sin'

(Pillenreuth 161)

Ebert (1981: 207; 1998 passim), like Maurer (1926: 159), finds that non-finite verbs with a SSP favor the 1-2 order as in (20), while non-finite verbs with an unstressed prefix favor the 2-1 order as in (21). This observation holds true in my database as well, as demonstrated by Section 2.3.5 below. Ebert (1981: 208) attempts to account for this eftect of prefix type by hypothesizing that the verb order is sensitive to the alternation of stressed and unstressed syllables within the VC.IO According to Ebert, some patterns should favor either order (SOLlen SCHREiben - SCHREiben SOL/en 'should write'), since both orders produce an alternation of stressed and unstressed syllables. For other patterns, reordering to 1-2 results in consecutive stressed or unstressed syllables (beRICHten SOLlen ~ *SOLlen beRICHten 'should report') and thus should not favor 1-2. Likewise, the 1-2 order should be favored when it results in alternating stressed and unstressed syllables. However, this explanation does not hold for the texts analyzed in Sapp (2005), as shown in Table 3. In fact, the results here are the opposite of what one would expect under Ebert's hypothesis. When the underlying 2-1 order has alternating stressed and unstressed syllables but reordering to 1-2 removes that alternation, the frequency of 1-2 order is actually higher (44%) than the expected rate of 27%. Moreover, when the 2-1 order involves consecutive stressed (or unstressed) syllables but reordering to 1-2 would produce an alternating pattern, the rate of 1-2 is lower than expected (19%). Finally. clusters like schreiben sollen, which Ebert finds to have a high frequencyof1-2, have 1-2 at close to the expected rate (22%).11 Given the failure of the pilot study to find the expected effect, and given the difficulty of coding syllable structure in a large corpus, this factor was not tested on the complete database of thirty texts.

Ebert concedes that his sample is too small to for statistical significance. He does not maintain this explanation in a later study; however, he continues to find that when the V has the pattern as in beRICHten, 2-1 is fuvored (1998: 162). Note that this pattern is exclusively found in verbs with an unstressed prefix. which do slightly favor 2-1 in my corpus.

10.

Ebert limited his conclusions to modal + infinitive clusters. I tested this again excluding syntagms other than modal + infinitive and found very similar results to those in Table 3.

11.

55

56

The Verbal Complex in Subordinate Clauses from Medieval to Modern German

Table 3. Effect of syllable pattern on 1-2 order (Sapp 2005) 12 Alternating syllables

2-1

1-2

Factorwt.

both orders result in clash both orders alternate 2-1 alternates, 1-2 dashes 2-1 dashes, 1-2 alternates

14 (70%) 168 (77%) 64 (55%) 92 (80%)

6 (30%) 50 (22%) 52 (44%) 22 (19%)

0.448 0.515 0.434 0.548

Total p < 0.001

338 (72%)

130 (27%)

Thus there does not seem to be a general effect of alternating stressed and unstressed syllables within the VC. However, as discussed in Section 3.2.3.5 below, there is an effect of prefix type per se. 3.2.3 Favoring factors 3.2.3.1 Syntagm type In those West Germanic dialects (including Standard Dutch) that allow 1-2, there is a preference for 2-1 in constructions with participles, and for 1-2 with a modal plus infinitive (see Chapter 4 for details and references). As discussed in Chapter 1, several earlier studies have found a similar effect in earlier stages of German, and the current study confirms this for MHG in Chapter 2. The data from my ENHG database match this tendency. as can been seen in Table 4. The passive syntagms have the lowest rates of 1-2 at around 11%. The perfect syntagms display frequencies of the 1-2 order that are fairly close to the expected rate of24.5%, and the factor weights indicate little efiect on verb order. On the other hand, syntagms with an infinitive favor 1-2, with frequencies higher than the total and factor weights well above 0.5. The effect of syntagm was selected in GoldVarb's step-up/ step-down function as one of the most significant factor groups. In addition to the participial and infinitival syntagms, there is a relatively rare third type, the progressive tense. The ENHG progressive consists of the auxiliary sein or werden plus either the infinitive or present participle:13

was (22) do nue die Junk.chfraun vnd y-eder man slaffen when now the virgins and every man sleep-inf2 was 1 'now when the virgins and everyone were sleeping' (Denkwardigk. 15) 12.

Analysis was conducted with GoldVarb 2001 (see footnote for Table 2 above for details.)

13. The 24 instances of subordinate clauses with the progressive tense in my corpus come from only five texts. Ten of these have the infinitive as in (22)-(23). All14 instances with the present participle come from a single text, Mannen.

Chapter 3. Factors influencing verb order in ENHG

Table 4. Effect of syntagm on 1-2 order

Syntagm

2-1

sein passive werden passive

236 (89.4%) 446 (89.0%) 20 (83.3%) 520 (77.4%) 49 (76.6%) 177 (70.8%) 592 (65.5%) 26 (44.8%)

28 (10.6%) 55 (11.0%) 4 (16.7%) 152 (22.6%) 15 (23.496) 73 (29.2%) 312 (34.5%) 32 (55.296)

2066 (75.5%)

671 (24.5%)

progressive perfect with haben future perfect with sein modal +inf other V + inf. Total

1-2

Factorwt. 0.287 0.295 0.404 0.498 0.509 0.583 0.641 0.806

p < 0.001 (23) do sich sein sach pessern ward when REFL his case improve-inf2 was 1 'when his case was improving'

(Denkwardigk. 14)

(24) sider ich dise bekentnisse von dir habende bin since I these confessions from you having2 am 1 'since I have these confessions from you'

(Mannen 4)

(25) das ich ... frvege alleine wart sitzzende that I early alone was 1 sitting2 'that I was sitting alone early (in the morning)'

(Mannen 3)

Although the number of tokens is too small to allow one to draw any firm conclusions, the progressives appear to pattern with the participial constructions. The resulting hierarchy can now be compared to those in previous studies. The hierarchy from my ENHG corpus (26a) is largely similar to the hierarchies in Bies' (26b) and Ebert's (26c) ENHG corpora. These are also comparable to the hierarchy I find in MHG, repeated in (27) from Chapter 2. (26) a. b.

sein pas.> werden pas.> haben pf. > fut. > sein pf. >mod. werden pas. > sein pas. > haben pf. > sein pf. > fut. > mod. (Bies 1996: 58)

c.

werden pas. > sein pas. > haben pf. > fut. > mod. > sein pt~ (Ebert 1992: 5)14

(27) sein pass.> werden pass.> sein perf.> haben perf.> mod.

14. As reportedinBies (1996: 58); this is verysimil.artothehlerarchy reported in Ebert (1998:65), see Chapter 1. Ebert (1981) is not compared here because sein passives were not included The direction of the arrows here indicates the descending preference fur the 2-1 order.

57

58

The Verbal Complex in Subordinate Clauses from Medieval to Modern German

The hierarchies do not correspond exactly, but the general trend of passive >perfect> modal does hold. 3.2.3.2 Word preceding the verbal complex Ebert (1981: 206) finds that a noun preceding the VC favors 1-2 while a preceding pronoun favors 2-1, and I have found similar results in MHG (see Chapter 2). However, as can be seen in Table 5, in my ENHG database there is no difference at all between the rate of the 1-2 order after a noun versus after a pronoun. In both cases, the rate is close to 24.5%, the expected rate of 1-2. This indicates that Ebert's (1981:206) claim about the effect of word stress on verbal order in Nuremberg does not hold for all of ENHG. Table 5. Effect of the category of the preceding word on 1-2 order Class of preceding word

2-1

1-2

Factorwt.

noun pronoun quantified NP adjective adverb prepositional phrase stranded or da-preposition clause (infinitival or finite) nothing precedes Total

519 (75.596) 302 (75.996) 49 (68.196) 39 (60.0%) 436 (75.096) 598 (79.0%) 6 (27.3%) 45 (81.8%) 72 (72.0%)

168 (24.5%) 96 (24.1%) 23 (31.9%) 26 (40.0%) 145 (25.0%) 159 (21.0%) 16 (72.2%) 10 (18.296) 28 (28.096)

0.502 0.498 0.594 0.675 0.509 0.453 0.892 0.409 0.548

2066 (75.5%)

671 (24.596)

p < 0.001 Although the predicted noun/pronoun distinction does not hold, this factor group is statistically significant, probably because of the effects of other parts of speech, to be explained to some degree below. (Moreover, this was selected as one of the most significant factor groups by GoldVarb's step-up/step-down analysis.) The categories that have a favoring effect on verb order are adjectives, stranded prepositions, and nothing preceding. With an adjective preceding the VC, the rate of the 1-2 order is 40%, considerably higher than the expected rate of 24.5%. I have no explanation for the fact that adjectives seem to favor 1-2; however, note that the number of tokens with adjectives is relatively low. ENHG, unlike Modern Standard German, allows preposition stranding: (28) (durch die wuisti) da anthonius inne was gewesen through the desert REL A. in was been 'through the desert that Anthonius had been in'

(Altvater73v)

Chapter 3. Factors influencing verb order in ENHG

When preceded by a stranded preposition (or ada-compound), the 1-2 order is more frequent than expected, at a rate of over 70%. This fact is easily accounted for by the interaction with time. Of the ten occurrences of preposition stranding, six are from the 14th century (three of which are nearly identical clauses from a single text, Altviitet·), when the rate of 1-2 is the highest, and none at all are from the 16th century; when 1-2 is rare. When no constituents occur between the complementizer or relative pronoun and the VC, the 1-2 order occurs at a rate of 28%, somewhat higher than the expected rate. This is also easily accounted for: most instances of 1-2 with nothing preceding the VC come from second conjuncts, and thus are best analyzed as instances of anacoluthon, i.e., a sentence starts as one type but after some syntactic break continues as another type. One of the most frequent kinds of anacoluthon in earlier stages of German involves conjoined subordinate clauses: although the second conjunct should have subordinate-clause word order, it sometimes has main-clause word order instead (Paul1920: 381). This is especially clear when the second conjunct contains several arguments, as in (29), for which the most likely analysis is that the finite verb wil is in the V2 position while the constituents dir and ring are in the middle field, rather than assuming that wil dir ring machen is a VC in the 1-x-2 order: (29) das ich mich in dein sel pergen mufi vnd wil dir ring that I REFL in your soul hidez must1 and want1 you humble machen alles das make 2 all that 'that I must hide myself in your soul and want to make all of that humble for (Pillenreuth 223) you' Thus apparent instances of 1-2 with nothing preceding the finite verb are probably best treated as having main-clause-like V2 word order. Recall from Chapter 2 that Ebert (1981: 207) attributed the differing effect of nouns and pronouns on verb order to phonological stress, speculating that the heavier stress of nouns compared to pronouns favors the 1-2 order. In a later, much more detailed study; Ebert (1998:65) finds stress to be a significant factor, independent of the noun vs. pronoun distinction. Likewise, in my MHG analysis presented in Chapter 2, both the part of speech and the stress of the word preceding the VC had significant effects. So, although the analysis presented Table 5 fails to show any effect of the noun/pronoun distinction in my ENHG database, perhaps the phonological weight of the preceding word plays some role. Treating pronouns, short adverbs, the negator, and da-compounds as unstressed, with all other categories considered stressed (including the significant types adjective

59

6o

The Verbal Complex in Subordinate Clauses from Medieval to Modern German

and stranded preposition), stress has no effect at all.15 As can be seen in Table 6, the rate of 1-2 is nearly exactly the same whether the VC follows a stressed or an unstressed word. Table 6. Effect of the stress of the preceding word on 1-2 order Stress of preceding word

2-1

1-2

Factorwt.

stressed unstressed

1295 (75.5%) 699 (75.9%)

421 (24.5%) 222 (24.1%)

0.502 0.497

Total

1994 (75.6%)

643 (24.4%)

p = 0.777 These results, together with Bies' (1996:59) findings, indicate that the stress of the preceding word has no efiect on the order of the verbs in general ENHG. However, such an effect exists in ENHG at the dialectal level, as determined by Ebert for Nuremberg. In fact, Sapp (2006) analyzes each dialect individually, determining that the 1-2 order is favored by a preceding noun in most dialects (see Table 40 below for details). One of these dialects is. perhaps not coincidentally, Nuremberg, the subjectofEbert's studies. On the other hand, some dialects show the opposite effect, i.e. preceding nouns disfavor and pronouns favor 1-2. Thus the favoring effect of preceding nouns on the 1-2 order, which is present in much of the ENHG-speaking area, is probably cancelled out in the analysis of the entire database by texts that show the opposite behavior. Perhaps the conclusion from this should be that there was indeed a strong favoring effect of preceding nouns on the 1-2 order in MHG (perhaps due to Behaghel's "rhythmic" principle), an effect which by ENHG has become limited to certain dialects and which soon becomes obsolete in written German with the disappearance of the 1-2 order. 3.2.3.3 Extraposition Ebert (1981: 209) notes that when the VC is in clause-final position, the 2-1 order is preferred. To put it differently, there is a correlation between the 1-2 order and the extraposition of some constituent, usually an NP or a PP. This holds true in my data as well, as can be seen in Table 7. When an argument occurs to the right of the VC, the 1-2 order occurs nearly 35% of the time, well above the expected rate of24.3%. (Although statistically significant, this was not selected as one of the most significant groups in the step-up/step-down analysis.)

15. This method of determining stressed vs. unstressed words is the same as Ebert's (1998:7), so the difference between my study and his is not due to differing criteria

Chapter 3. Factors influencing verb order in ENHG

Table 7. Effect of e.xtraposition on 1-2 order NP/PP extrapositionl6

2-1

1-2

extraposed argument extraposed adjunct PP nothing extraposed

143 (65.3%) 152 (72.4%) 1742 (77.0%)

76 (34.7%) 58 (27.6%) 520 (23.0%)

Total

2037 (75.7%)

654 (24.3%)

Factorwt. 0.625 0.545 0.484

p < 0.001 When there is no extraposition, the rate of the 1-2 order is 23%. very dose to the expected rate. The one category of extraposed constituent that behaves difterently from other categories is adjunct PPs, such as an das todpett in (3). When an adjunct PP is extraposed, the rate of 1-2 is just 27.6%, also close to the expected rate.l7 Finally. note the rate of extra position in the corpus. Of the 2,691 clauses, 210 or 7.9% have a extraposed adjunct PP, while 219 or 7.9% have some other constituent extraposed. The total rate of extraposition is 15.9%, which has decreased somewhat from the rate of extra position in MHG (19.7%). This leads to an interesting comparison with Modern Standard German. First of all, nearly half of the extraposed constituents in my ENHG corpus are adjunct PPs. Secondly, the fact that adjunct PPs have 1-2 at a lower rate than other types of extraposed constituents suggests that they are not subject to the same restrictions on extraposition. This is not surprising, since adjuncts also extrapose more easily than NPs and argument PPs in Modern Standard German. In Lambert's (1976: 137) corpus of written and spoken Standard German, 16.5% of the sentences have an extraposed adverbial phrase, which includes adverbial PPs, while only 3.5% of the sentences have an extraposed argument PP. Bies (1996:65) concludes that focus-driven extra position of NPs and argument PPs was lost in the transition to NHG, while extraposition of adjuncts continued. The data presented in this section are consistent with that conclusion. 3.2.3.4 Focus In the previous chapter, it was determined that focus affects verb order in MHG. In this section, focus effects in ENHG are tested. Unlike in my MHG database, in the ENHG database no distinction is made between focus on difierent constituent 16. This table excludes a small number of extraposed constituents that are neither adjunct PPs nor arguments. 17. Recall from Chapter 1 that Bies' data also show that NP extraposition affects verb order,

while PP extraposition does not. In fact, her numbers are strikingly similar to mine: 1-2 occurs 37.1% of the time with NP extraposition and 29.2% with PP extraposition. versus the expected rateof27.3% (Bies 1996:61).

61

62

The Verbal Complex in Subordinate Clauses from Medieval to Modern German

types, e.g. direct object focus versus focus on a verb. Rather, clauses were tagged as either having new information focus on some constituent, contrastive focus on some constituent, or no focus (i.e. all old information). For example, in (30) the context is the sufferings of Christ, thus 'I have done everything' is discourse-old, and du.rch die mensch is the new information in the clause. Examples (31) and (32) illustrate cases where contrastive focus can be detected, with the NP nicht anders in (31) contrasting with the following clause, and the two verbs in (32) contrasting with each other. (30) das ich alles lFoe durch die mensch] hab getha.n. that I all for the person have done 'that I have done everything for the sake of

man:

(Pillenreu.th 220)

(31) das der mensch alle sein Iebttag [Foe nicht anders] scholt thun, denn that the person all his life.days nothing else should do than 'that man should do nothing else all the days of his life, than ..: (Pillenreuth 206) (32) das ein cristenmensch in dem stat getar (Fleben], in dem er nicht that a christian. person in the place dares live, in REL he not gern wolt [Foe sterben] gladly would die '(It is a wonder), that a Christian dares LIVE in a place where he would not like to DIE' (Pillenreuth 211) Clauses were tagged new if an argument was new within the section of the text, or new within one or two pages if the text was not divided into sections. Clauses were tagged contrastive regardless of whether an argument was new or given in the discourse, if it could be interpreted as contrastive. If there were no new or contrastive arguments, the clause was tagged as old. As seen in Table 8, if there is contrastive focus, the 1-2 order is very strongly favored, occurring more than 53% of the time. With new information focus, 1-2 is also favored at the rate of nearly 31%, still considerably higher than the expected rate of24.5%. On the other hand, old information has a disfavoring effect on 1-2, occurring only 19% of the time. The effect of focus is not only statistically significant but was also selected in GoldVarb's step-up/step-down function as one of the most significant factor groups. Using context for determining the focus structure of a sentence in a nonliving language can be quite difficult, and that is especially true for contrastive focus. It is possible that in some cases the 1-2 order has biased me into reading the clauses with a special intonation, and there are no doubt instances of focus that I have overlooked. However, there are some additional data that lend support to the argument that focus influences verb order.

Chapter 3. Factors influencing verb order in ENHG

Table 8. Effect of focus on 1-2 order Focus

2-1

1-2

contrastive focus new information old information

15 (46.9%) 815 (69.1%) 1236 (81.0%)

17 (53.1 %) 365 (30.9%) 289 (19.0%)

Total

2066 (75.5%)

671 (24.5%)

Factorwt. 0.782 0.587 0.426

p < 0.001

Therefore, let us attemptto corroborate the effect ofinformation structure by looking at two additional factors: the definiteness of the NP immediately preceding the VC and scrambling. It is well known that indefinite NPs tend to represent new information while definite NPs and pronouns tend to represent old information, thus one would predict that indefinites favor the 1-2 order and definites do not. However, in my database, there is no favoring effect of indefinite NPs preceding the VC, as seen in Table 9. When the preceding NP is indefinite (including QPs withjeder, kein, or aile), the rate of 1-2 is 21.9%, and when it is definite (including pronouns and proper names), the rate is 25.8%. Note, however, that the definiteness of the preceding constituent would only be able to capture new information focus, since contrastive focus may involve a preceding definite NP.

Table 9. Effect of the definiteness of the preceding NP on 1-2 order Preceding NP

2-1

1-2

Factorwt.

indefinites (including QPs) definites

235 (78.1%) 635 (74.2%)

66 (21.9%) 221 (25.8%)

0.461 0.514

Total

870 (75.2%)

287 (24.8%)

p = 0.176 The second piece of supporting evidence that focus influences verb order is the correlation between lack of scrambling and the 1-2 order. An object is considered to be scrambled if it appears to the left of a sentential adverb or negator, like den menschen in (33), and is not scrambled if it is to the right, like the word sundt in (34): (33) so der teutel [den menschen] nit vberwinden mag if the devil the person not overcome can 'if the devil cannot overcome that person' (34) als ob du nie [sundt] habst gethan as if you never sin have done 'as if you have never committed sin'

(Pillenreuth 163)

(Pillenreuth 223)

63

64

The Verbal Complex in Subordinate Clauses from Medieval to Modern German

When an object is new information or contrastive it should not undergo scrambling but remain inside the VP, whereas old information NPs tend to scramble to the left. In the database, clauses were tagged as unscrambled if an object appeared to the right of a negator or adverbial (i.e. immediately left of the verbs) and scrambled if an object was separated from the VC by some constituent. As seen in Table 10, clauses with unscrambled objects favor the 1-2 order at a rate of 38.4%, well above the expected rate. In clauses with scrambled NPs, on the other hand, the rate of 1-2 is closer to the expected rate, although there does seem to be a slight favoring effect. The fact that the 1-2 order is favored with unscrambled objects may confirm the effect of focus on that order; however, it may also be a result of the so -called rhythmic effect of an NP immediately preceding the V C. Table 10. Correlation between scrambling and 1-2 order Scrambled object

2-1

1-2

object not scrambled object is scrambled cannot tellls

45 (61.6%) 115 (71.4%) 1906 (76.1%)

28 (38.4%) 46 (28.6%) 597 (23.9%)

Total

2066 (75.5%)

671 (24.5%)

Factorwt. 0.657 0.553 0.492

p = 0.013 Finally, Section 3.2.3.2 above showed that extraposition favors the 1-2 order. This fact may also support the favoring effect of focus on 1-2, because according to Bies (1996) extraposed constituents in ENHG tend to be focused. 3.2.3.5 Prefix type In his studies of ENHG texts from Nuremberg, Ebert (1981: 207; 1998 passim) finds that stressed separable prefixes (SSP) favor the 1-2 order. The same effect is also found in my MHG study (Chapter 2). As seen in Table 11, this also holds for my ENHG corpus: when the non-finite verb has a stressed prefix, the 1-2 order occurs 35.7% of the time, well above the expected rate of 24.5%. The factor weight, well above 0.5, confirms that this factor strongly favors the 1-2 order. Verbs with no prefix have a slight favoring effect on 1-2, while those with an unstressed prefix disfavor it The effect of prefix type was selected in GoldVarb's step-up/step-down function as one of the most significant factor groups.

18. I have included pronouns in this category. Pronouns do scramble since they are always old

information, and tend to appear much earlier in the clause than other NPs, with pronominal objects often coming even before the subject When this factor is removed from the analysis, so that only the dear cases of scrambling versus non-scrambling are tested, the significance is improved top = 0.003.

Chapter 3. Factors influencing verb order in ENHG

Table 11. Effect of prefix type on 1- 2 order Prefix type

2-1

1-2

Factorwt. 0.636 0.576 0.442

stressed no prefix unstressed

187 (64.3%) 531 (69.9%) 1348 (80.0%)

104 (35.7%) 229 (30.1%) 338 (20.0%)

Total

2066 (75.5%)

671 (24.5%)

p < 0.001 A conceivable reason for the correlation between prefix type and word order could be an interaction with syntagm type. Past participles usually have an unstressed prefix, especially the perfective marker ge-, whereas infinitives do not necessarily. (Either form may have an SSP.) GoldVarb X has a cross-tabulation function, which allows the researcher to test for interactions of this kind. The result of the cross-tabulation of prefix type and syntagm type, given in Table 12, suggests that the factors prefix type and syntagm type are independent of each other, and that their effect on verb order is cumulative. For all three factors in the factor group prefix type, the frequency of 1-2 is higher with infinitival constructions than with participial constructions (stressed prefix: 51%> 25%; no prefix: 33% > 22%; unstressed prefix 34% > 17%). Likewise, for both types of syntagms, the frequency of 1-2 is highest with stressed prefixes and lowest with unstressed prefixes (past participles: 25% > 17%; infinitives: 51%> 34%). Table 12. Cross-tab of prefix type with syntagm type Prefix type

word order

stressed

2-1

128 (75%)

57 (49%)

1-2

43 (25%)

59 (51%)

102 (36%)

no prefix

2-1

106 (78%)

409 (67%)

515 (69%)

1-2

30 (22%)

197 (33%)

227 (31%)

unstressed

2-1

1145 (83%)

201 (66%)

1346 (80%)

1-2

235 (17%)

103 (34%)

338 (20%)

2-1

1379 (82%)

667 (65%)

2046 (75%)

1-2

308 (18%)

359 35%)

667 (25%)

Total

participle

infinitive

Total 185 (64%)

In conclusion, the presence of a stressed separable prefix on the non-finite verb favors the 1-2 word order, and this effect is independent of syntagm type. Because prefix type has a significant, independent effect, and Section 3.2.2.2 above demonstrates that Ebert's account for the efiect of prefix type does not hold in my ENHG database, another explanation must be sought. Perhaps there is a syntactic reason for this preference, such as the fact that a verb and its SSP form a complex predicate (Muller 2002:409). On the other hand, phonology could be the reason,

65

66

The Verbal Complex in Subordinate Clauses from Medieval to Modern German

but not in the way Ebert claims. While Ebert claims that the prosody of prefixed verbs plays a role due to a preference for alternating stressed syllables in the VC, I suggest in Chapter 5 that SSPs may result in a clash of word stresses with the word preceding the VC. Alternatively, one might appeal to Behaghel's (1932:III, 367) Gesetz der wachsenden Glieder ('Law of the growing constituents'), which states that in German, heavier items tend to be placed as late as possible in a clause. Since a verb with an SSP is phonologically heavier than a verb without an SSP, it follows that complexes including such verbs would be a favoring environment for the 1-2 order. Having discussed four linguistic factors that favor 1-2 in ENHG subordinate clauses, in the next section I will present the variation in subordinate clause word order over time, across dialects, and sociolinguistically.

3.2.4 Diachronic, dialectal, and sociolinguistic variation 3.2.4.1 Date As discussed in Chapter 1, it is well established that the 1-2 order decreases over time, becoming ungrammatical in Modern Standard German. At the end of the MHG period, the 1-2 order occurred in 33.7% of two-verb complexes (see Chapter 2). In the ENHG corpus, there is a sharp decrease in the rate of 1-2 order from the 14th to the 16th centuries, as seen in Table 13. In the 14th century, the rate of 1-2 is 35.5%, considerably higher than the overall rate of 24.5%. By the 15th century, the rate of 1-2 has dropped to 22%, just below the overall rate. The frequency of 1-2 in the 16th century is lower still. The effect of the date of the text is significant, and in fact was selected in GoldVarb's step-up/step-down function as one of the most significant factor groups. Table 13. Effect of time on 1-2 order

Century

2-1

1-2

Factorwt.

1350-1399 1450-1499 1550-1599

544 (64.596) 783 (78.096) 739 (83.196)

300 (35.596) 221 (22.096) 150 (16.996)

0.638 0.475 0.395

2066 (7 5.596)

671 (24.596)

Total

p < 0.001 The relatively high rate of 1-2 in the 16th century in the table above may be a bit misleading, due to the presence of one text, Walter Ralegh. In Walter Ralegh, 69% of the VCs with two verbs have the 1-2 order, more than twice as high as any other 16th-century text, and more than triple the earlier Hessian texts. I believe

Chapter 3. Factors influencing verb order in ENHG

the extremely high frequency of 1-2 is a result of the fact that the ENHG Walter Ralegh is a translation from Dutch.19 With that questionable text removed from the analysis, the following distribution obtains, with the frequency of 1-2 in the 16th century reduced to 11.5%. Table 14. Effect of time on 1-2 order, excluding Walter Ralegh Century

2-1

1-2

Factorwt.

1350-1399 1450-1499 1550-1599

544 (64.596) 783 (78.096) 714 (88.596)

300 (35.596) 221 (22.096) 93 (11.596)

0.666 0.505 0.321

2041 (76.996)

614 (23.1 96)

Total

p < 0.001 This result is largely similar to trends found in previous studies. In Hammarstram (1923), Ebert (1981), and Bies (1996), 1-2 generally declines over time, as seen in Table 15. For all three corpora, the frequency of 1-2 is highest at the beginning of the period and lowest at the end. However, unlike my ENHG corpus and Hammarstrom's study, which show a steady decrease of 1-2 over time, both Ebert's and Bies' data have an increase in the middle of the period (1500-1550 and 1450-1500, respectively) before decreasing in the end. According to Bies (1996:50), this kind of discrepancy across corpora is "suggestive of widespread synchronic variation and the normative pressure of a change from above=' Table 15. Effect of time on 1-2 order: Comparison to previous studies Period 1300-1350 1350-1400 1400-1450 1450-1500 1500-1550 1550-1600

Hammarstr0m20

Ebert (1981)21

12.696

30.796

5.096

25.296

096

32.396 23.696

Bies (1996) 36.196 20.696 19.296 34.896 24.296

Table 14 35.596 22.096 11.596

19. Walter Ralegh had to be removed from the time, dialect, and sociolinguistic analyses, where one text could have a strong influence on the results. However, Walter Ralegh is included in the other analyses because the favoring factors are the same as other ENHG texts (see Sapp 2006

for analyses of each individual text). 20.

Percentages for imperial and princely documents. For details, see Sapp (2006).

21. As reported in Bies (1996: 52). Bies converts Ebert's ratios to percentages. Moreover, I have averaged the percentages for sentence-internal and sentence-final, to ease comparison.

67

68

The Verbal Complex in Subordinate Clauses from Medieval to Modern German

Having seen the decrease over time of 1-2 in the wider sense (the finite verb precedes the non-finite verb), let us look at the difference between the 1-2 order in the narrow sense (the finite verb immediately precedes the non-finite verb) and the 1-x-2 order. As seen in Table 16, the rate of the 1-2 order in the narrow sense decreases over time, while the 1-x-2 order decreases only slightly..22 As a result, over time the 1-x-2 order makes up a larger percentage of the VCs in which the finite verb precedes, from 36 out of300 (12%) in the fourteenth century to 24 out of93 (nearly 26%) in the sixteenth. Table 16. Effect of time on 1-2 and 1-x-2 orders Century

2-1

1-2

1-x-2

1350-1399 1450-1499 1550-159923

544 (64.4%) 783 (78.0%) 714 (88.5%)

264 (31.3%) 170 (16.9%) 69 (8.6%)

36 (4.3%) 51(5.1%) 24 (3.0%)

2041 (76.9%)

503 (18.9%)

111 (4.2%)

Total

Recall from Section 3.1.2 above that some clauses introduced by unambiguously subordinating conjunctions but with the verb in the second position were tagged as V2, making it possible to exclude such clauses in a GoldVa.rb analysis. Doing so is especially important with 1-x-2 clauses, to rule out the possibility that they involve main clause word order rather than unambiguous 1-x-2. Excluding these subordinate clauses with potentially main clause word order results in a smaller number of 1-2 clauses (especially 1-x-2 clauses), as can be seen in Table 17, although a comparison with Table 16 shows that this difierence is very slight. In any event, those 1-x-2 subordinate clauses that remain cannot be accounted for by main clause word order, indicating that ENHG, like some contemporary West Germanic dialects (see Chapter 4), allows VCs with an intervening constituent (the so-called Verb Projection Raising construction). The rate of the 1-x-2 order is fairly stable throughout the period, both as a percentage of the total clauses, and as a percentage of the 1-(x)-2 orders. Thus most of the decrease over time of the non- 2-1 word orders is a result of the decrease of the 1-2 order in the strict sense rather than a decrease of the 1-x-2 order.

GoldVarb X is not equipped for multi-variate analyses, i.e., although it can calculate the raw numbers and percentages for several values of the dependent variable, it can statistically test only two values. Thus the data for 1-x-2 order are given without fuctor weights or statistical 22.

significance. 23.

Excludes Walter Ralegh.

Chapter 3. Factors influencing verb order in ENHG

Table 17. Effect of time on 1-2 and 1-x-2 orders, V2 clauses removed Century

2-1

1-2

1-x-2

1350-1399 1450-1499 1550-159924

544 (68.0%) 783 (80.9%) 714 (89.0%)

227 (28.4%) 152 (15.7%) 68 (8.5%)

29 (3.6%) 33 (3.4%) 20 (2.5%)

Total

2041 (79.4%)

447 (17.4%)

82 (3.2%)

3.2.4.2 lJialect As one might expect from a linguistic feature that shows great variation by linguistic context and over time, verb order in subordinate clauses in ENHG varies widely by dialect As seen in Table 18, the frequency of the 1-2 order (in the wider sense, i.e. including 1-x-2) ranges from a low of 8.6% in texts from Cologne to a high of 41.7% in texts from Swabia. The effect of dialect on word order is one of the most significant factor groups, according to GoldVarb's step-up/step-down function. Table 18. Effect of dialect on 1-2 order 1-2

Dialect

2-1

Cologne Alsace Hesse25 Thuringia Zurich Augsburg Vienna Saxony Nuremberg Swabia

256 (91.4%) 247 (88.2%) 155 (87.6%) 179 (85.2%) 192 (83.8%) 216 (76.1%) 215 (75.7%) 193 (68.7%) 226 (64.2%) 162 (58.3%)

24 (8.6%) 33 (11.8%) 22 (12.4%) 31 (14.8%) 37 (16.2%) 68 (23.9%) 69 (24.3%) 88 (31.3%) 126 (35.8%) 116 (41.7%)

2041 (76.9%)

614 (23.1%)

Total

Factorwt. 0.259 0.332 0.346 0.392 0.418 0.539 0.544 0.629 0.674 0.727

p < 0.001 The geographical distribution of the 1-2 order is clearest when seen on a map of the German-speaking area, as in Figure 1. It appears that the main division is between the northern and western dialects (Cologne, Alsace, Hesse, Thuringia, and Zurich), with a frequency of 16% or less, and the southern and eastern dialects (Augsburg, Vienna, Saxony, Nuremberg, and Swabia), with a frequency of 23% or more. With the exceptions of Zurich and Saxony, this division roughly

24. Excludes Walter Ralegh. 25. Excludes Walter Ralegh.

69

70

The Verbal Complex in Subordinate Clauses from Medieval to Modern German

corresponds to the isogloss bundle between Middle German or Mitteldeutsch (with varying degrees of the High German consonant shift) and Upper German or Oberdeutsch (with the complete consonant shift). The correspondence with phonological isoglosses suggests that this north-west/south-east distribution is a genuine one. Note, however, that this distribution is somewhat different from that in MHG, where the northwestern dialects had among the highest rates of the 1-2 order (see Chapter 2, Figure 1).

Figure 1. Frequency of the 1-2 order by dialect

Looking at the rate of 1-2 across the dialects and by century, however, complicates this picture a great deal. The percentages are given in Table 19 (the raw numbers can be found in Sapp 2006). Note that since the BFnhdK has only one text per dialect per century, the percentages here represent the results for just one individual text, which may account for much of the fluctuation seen here. For example, the drop in Augsburg from 58% in the 14th century to 7% in the 15th may reflect the fact that the 14th-century text is literary while the 15th-century representative is a chronicle (see Section 3.2.4.3 below for the effect of genre). As Ebert (p.c.) points out, given the fact that word order varies sociolinguistically, a single text cannot accurately represent a dialect.

Chapter 3. Factors influencing verb order in ENHG

Table 19. Effect of dialect and century on 1-2 order Dialect Cologne Hesse Alsace Zurich Swabia Nuremberg Thuringia Saxony Augsburg Vienna

1350-1399

1450-1499

1550-1599

Total

5%

19%

0%

9%

6% 18%

21% 7%

69% 8%

28% 7896 43%

13% 19% 33%

12% 25% 32%

30% 12% 16%

23% 46%

21% 32%

6% 13%

58% 3496

7% 34%

4% 2%

42% 36% 15% 31% 24% 24%

Nevertheless, there are several points to be made here. First of all every dialect shows a decrease in the rate of 1-2 from the 14th to the 16th century, some with a slight increase in the 15th (the obvious exception is Hessian, see footnote 19 above). Secondly, the north-west/south-east distinction is much less clear than before. In the 14th century, Cologne and Hesse have very low rates of 1-2, while Zurich and Thuringia have considerably higher rates (although still lower than 35.5%, the 14th-century average). Then in the 15th century, Cologne, Hesse, and Thuringia have higher rates of the 1-2 order (close to the overall rate for the 15th century, 22%), while Alsace and Zurich have somewhat lower rates. In the 16th century, the south-eastern dialects have very low rates of 1-2, patterning more with the north -western dialects. Because of the complexity of the data, it is necessary to use GoldVarb to determine the best dialect groups. The best model fit resulted from the following grouping, with the percentages given in Table 20, illustrated graphically in Figure 2. Table 20. Effect of time and most significant dialect groups on 1-2 Dialect group West (Col., Hes., Als., Zur.) Central (Swabia, Nuremb.) EMG (Saxony, Thuringia) Bavarian-Austrian

1350-1399

1450-1499

1550-1599

Total

12%

15%

7%

12%

61% 43% 46%

28% 27% 21%

28% 9% 3%

38% 24% 24%

71

7:2.

The Verbal Complex in Subordinate Clauses from Medieval to Modern German

Rata of 1-2 ordar ovar time by most slgnlftcant dalact groups --+--West

70% 60%

50%

J

::!!

40%

"'

~

~-

~ 30% 20% 10%

..

--Q..-.

""' ··. .... ·..... ~""' ~

---6--EMG

••'I<

~

~

.

·~ -)(

0% 14th cent

Central

15th cent

- • ~ • BavarianAustrian

16th cent.

Figure 2. Frequency of the 1-2 order by century and dialect group

The first group is a we~ern group consisting of dialects along the Rhine. including Cologne. Hesse. Alsa.ce. and Zurich.26 As can be seen in Tables 19 and 20. these dialects have a low rate of 1-2 order in the 14th century. with a slight decrease from the 15th to the 16th century; resulting in a very low rate by the end of the period Zurich is something of an outlier in this group. with slightly higher rates of 1-2 order. The second group consists of two dialects in the center of the ENHG area. Nuremberg and Swabia These two dialects have a high rate of 1-2 in the 14th century. with a sharp drop in the 15th century. followed by little change from the 15th to the 16th century. The frequency of 1-2 order in this group is higher than in all other groups. especially at the end of the period The third group is East Middle German (Thuringia and Saxony). and the fourth group is Bavarian/Austrian (Augsburg and Vienna). These two groups behave very similarly.27 In the 14th century. they have a relatively high rate of 1-2. which decreases steadily in the 15th century along the lines of the central dialects. In the 16th century. however. the 1-2 order continues to decrease to the point where it is as infrequent as in the western dialects. These groups will need to be modified somewhat in the light of additional data. but this division based on the frequency of 1-2 alone is a good first approximation.

:2.6. Walter Ralegh is excluded. :2.7- In fact, the model fit is improved if they are combined. However, I treat them as separate

dialect areas because they are not geographically contiguous.

Chapter 3. Factors influencing verb order in ENHG

3.2.4.3 Sociolinguistic factors As discussed in Chapter 1 above, previous studies have found that subordinateclause word order in ENHG is subject to a great deal of sociolinguistic variation. Therefore, in my ENHG database, clauses were coded for four sociolinguistic factors: the author's sex. education, and social class, and the genre of the text. There are only two texts by women in the corpus (Denkwiirdigkeiten and Pillenreuth Mystik), so no conclusions can be made about the influence of sex on word order. In addition, the Bonn corpus only gives education level for three of the authors, so this study can draw no conclusions about the effect of education either. Two remaining factors, occupation and genre, were among those selected in GoldVarb's step-up/step-down analysis as the most significant factor groups. The effect of occupation is obvious, with the higher-status occupations having the lowest rates of 1-2 and vice versa, as seen in Table 21.28 The two university officials and the two nobles have the 1-2 order at a rate of 8.3% and 11.7%, respectively, well below the expected rate of 17.6%. The texts by scribes, printers, and physicians have the 1-2 order at frequencies close to the expected rate. The six texts in the corpus written by clerics have the highest rate of 1-2 at 24.5%. Recall from Chapter 2 that the texts written by clerics also had the highest rates of 1-2 in MHG. Table 21. Effect of occupation on 1-2 order Occupation(# of texts)

2-1

university officials (2) nobles (2) scribes/printers (6) physicians (3) clerics (6)

166 (91.7%) 121 (88.3%) 408 (85.2%) 214 (82.3%) 415 (75.5%)

15 (8.3%) 16 (11.7%) 71 (14.8%) 46 (17.7%) 135 (24.5%)

Total p < 0.001

1324 (82.4%)

283 (17.6%)

1-2

Factorwt. 0.309 0.395 0.462 0.515 0.616

This generally confirms the findings of previous studies of ENHG. In Ebert (1981:222-223), patrician administrators have lower frequencies of 1-2 than do merchants and artisans. In Bies (1996:56), nobles and merchants do not significantly differ from each other, but clerics have 1-2 at a significantly higher rate than the other two groups. Taken together, these two studies confirm the general

28. This data excludes the many anonymous texts, most of which are early,. so the overall rate ofl-2 for this factor group (17.6%) is lower than for the corpus as a whole (24%). Furthermore, the occupations judge and merchant, which had only one representative each, are excluded. The text Walter Ralegh is excluded by virtue of (the ENHG translation) being an anonymous text

73

74

The Verbal Complex in Subordinate Clauses from Medieval to Modern German

hierarchy in Table 21, with clerics having the highest rates of 1-2, followed by middle-class professions, with nobles having the lowest rates of 1-2. In Reifsnyder (2003: 224), however, private letters by patricians have a much higher rate of 1-2 (56.76%) than letters written by scribes on behalf of artisans (28%), letters by schoolmasters (10.34%), and official letters (4.76%). The fact that private letters by patricians differ so much from letters written by scribes in Reifsnyder's study suggests that the intended audience of the text may be as important as the class of the writer. Note that there may be some interaction between time and occupation in my study. For example, the two texts written by the university officials are from the 16th century, which could be the main reason why they have the lowest rates of 1-2. However, time alone cannot account for the high rate of 1-2 with clerics: even in the 14th and 15th centuries, clerics have a higher frequency of 1-2 than do other occupations. Genre has an eftect on word order in the current study, as can be seen in Table 22. The most formal text type in the corpus, chronicles, has the lowest frequency of 1-2 at 13.8%, well below the expected rate of 23.1%. Technical prose also has a relatively low rate of1-2 (19.4%).29 The two less formal genres, literature and religious prose, have higher-than-expected frequencies at 29.5% and 28.1% respectively. Table 22. Effect of genre on 1-2 order

Genre

2-1

1-2

Factorwt.

literature religious technical prose chronide30

196 (70.596) 941 (71.996) 249 (80.696) 655 (86.296)

82 (29.596) 367 (28.196) 60 (19.496) 105 (13.896)

0.592 0.575 0.456 0.358

2041 (76.996)

614 (23.1 96)

Total

p < 0.001 These findings are confirmed by previous scholarship. Hammarstrom (1923) finds higherrates of 1-2 in literature than in chancery documents. Ebert ( 1981: 221 ), who looked primarily at letters, found that less formal letters had higher rates of 1-2. Ebert's (1998: 166) studyof16th-centuryNurembergfound thatchanceryandother official documents had the lowest rates of1-2 (7-8%). followed by religious texts

29. Note that three of the four texts in this category were written by physicians, so it is difficult to separate genre from profession in this case. 30. Excludes Walter Ralegh.

Chapter 3. Factors influencing verb order in ENHG

(19%), technical writings (26%), and private letters (23-35%).31 In Bies (1996:54), expository essays and government writings also have a lower rate of 1-2 (16.9% and 21.1 %, respectively), while literary texts have the highest frequency (43.5%). In Reifsnyder (2003: 224), official letters and city ordinances have the lowest rates of 1-2 (4.76% and 5.07%, respectively), chronicles rank in the middle (24.29%), and the highest rates are in text types closest to the spoken language, such as flyers (32.06%), guild records (48.36%), and personal letters (56.76%). It is not immediately obvious that religious texts are a less formal genre. Some of the religious texts in the corpus are less formal such as sermons, while others are more formal like the Oxfarder Benedictinerregel (the rules of a Benedictine monastery). The high rate of the 1-2 order in religious texts maybe primarily due to the fact that religious texts are overrepresented in the 14th-century. when the frequency of 1-2 was highest. Of the ten 14th-century texts in the corpus, seven are religious in nature. In contrast, only two 15th-century and five 16th-century texts are religious. Another explanation for the high rate of 1-2 in religious texts could be that many of them (but not all) are written by clerics, who show higher rates of 1-2 than other occupations, as mentioned above.

3.2.5 Conclusion In this section, I have discussed the results of my analysis of word order variation with VCs consisting of two verbs, based on a corpus of30 ENHG texts. Of the variables examined, two were not found to affect verb order: the position of the subordinate clause relative to the main clause and the alternation of stressed and unstressed syllables. On the other hand, five morpho-syntactic factors were found to affect verb order: syntagm type, the part of speech of the word preceding the VC, extraposition of an argument, new-information or contrastive focus, and type of verbal prefix. Among the sociolinguistic factors, the date, dialect, and genre of the text, as well as the occupational status of the author, play a major role in the choice of word orders. Eight of the significant factor groups were selected by GoldVarb's step-up/step-down function as the most significant combination: syntagm, constituent before the VC, focus, prefix type, date, dialect, genre, and occupation. The next section will test these same factors on subordinate clauses with complexes containing three verbs.

31. The percentages reported here are from the period 1510-1560, since fewer genres are represented in the following period (1560-1600).

75

76

The Verbal Complex in Subordinate Clauses from Medieval to Modern German

3·3

Complexes of three verbs in ENHG

3.3.1 Introduction Of the nearly 3,000 subordinate clauses in my ENHG corpus, 166 clauses have VCs containing three verbs, and three clauses have VCs made up of four verbs.32 The basic facts regarding the four-verb complexes were given in Section 3.1.1 and will not be discussed further. Recall from Section 3.1.1 that four of the six logically possible orders for three-verb complexes are attested in ENHG: the left-selecting 3-2-1 order (4), the right-selecting 1-2-3 order (5), and two mixed orders, 1-3-2 (6) and 3-1-2 (7). (The examples are repeated here for convenience.) Of these, only 3-2-1 and 1-3-2 are widely accepted in Modern Standard German. (4) das so darvorgesetzt ist in fragweis verstanden werden soli that REL before.set is in question understood3 bez should 1 'that what is set before should be understood as a question' (Eunuchus 14) (5) so er dan den menschen nicht hat mugen vberwinden when he then the person not has 1 can2 overcome3 'when he has not been able to overcome the person' (Pillenreuth 158) (6) als er des tages scholt begraben werden as he the day should1 buried3 be2 'when he should be buried on that day'

(Pillenreuth 212)

(7) dy er ... geta.n solt ha.ben REL he done 3 should 1 have2 'that he should have done'

(Pillenreuth 159)

Moreover, recall that a constituent may intervene in verbal complexes with the orders 1-3-2 and 1-2-3. These orders were described in Section 3.1.1 above, and hereafter will be treated with the other instances of 1-3-2 and 1-2-3. Recall that GoldVarb X allows only binomial analyses, thus I ran four separate analyses for each factor group. (See Chapter 2.3.1 on how to interpret these tables.) Because there are only 169 clauses in my database with three-verb clusters and these are divided among four dependent variables, statistical significance is only rarely found. Any analyses for which no p value is indicated can be assumed to be not significant.

32. Hereafter, the four-verb complexes will be analyzed together with the others. Recall that these display the order 1-2-4-3; they are treated here as instances of 1-2-3.

Chapter 3. Factors influencing verb order in ENHG

This section is organized as follows. In Section 3.3.2, I will present two factors that do not affect word order in three-verb complexes, although they did have an effect in VCs with two verbs: preceding word and extraposition.33 Section 3.3.3 discusses the three factors that do affect verb placement in these VCs: syntagm type, focus, and verbal prefixes. Finally, Section 3.3.4 discusses the effect of date, dialect, and sociolinguistic factors on three-verb complexes. 3.3.2 Non-favoring factors 3·3·2.1 Word/phrase preceding the verbal complex In Section 3.2.3.2 above, I found that the category of the word preceding the VC had little effect on the order of the VC with two verbs. Likewise, for complexes of three verbs, this factor group is not significant for any of the word orders, as shown in Table 23. Thus no firm conclusions can be drawn. For the record, however, note that for the more frequent categories adverb and prepositional phrase, the percentages for each word order are close to the expected rates. On the other hand, after NPs the 3-2-1 order is disfavored, occurring at just 9.8%, well below the expected 17.8%, while the order 3-1-2 is favored, occurring 31.4% of the time, above the expected rate of 23.1 %. Although not significant, these results are surprising, since NPs had no effect on the order of two-verb clusters. Table 23. Effect of the preceding category on three-verb complexes

Cat. of prec. word noun I pron./ QP

3-2-1

1-3-2

1-2-3

3-1-2

adjective adverb prepositional phrase nothing precedes

5 (9.896) 2 (40.0%) 7 (15.6%) 11 (20.496) 5 (35.796)

18 (35.3%) 1 (20.0%) 22 (48.9%) 24 (44.4%) 5 (35.7%)

12 (23.596) 1 (20.096) 8 (17.896) 7 (13.0%) 2 (14.396)

16 (31.496) 1 (20.0%) 8 (17.8%) 12 (22.296) 2 (14.396)

Total

30 (17.896)

70 (41.4%)

30 (17.8%)

39 (23.196)

In Table 24, the effect of the word preceding the VC is shown, this time coded by phonological weight rather than part of speech. Analyzed this way, the preceding word still has no statistically significant effect on complexes of three verbs, and the factor weights are fairly close to 0.5 in all cases.

33· The other two fuctors that had no effect on two-verb dusters, position of the subordinate clause in the sentence and alternation of stressed and unstressed syllables, were not tested on three-verb dusters in the pilot study (Sapp 2005) and will not be treated here.

77

78

The Verbal Complex in Subordinate Clauses from Medieval to Modern German

Table 24. Effect of the preceding stress on three -verb complexes Stress of prec. word

3-2-1

1-3-2

1-2-3

3-1-2

stressed unstressed nothing precedes

23 (20.5%) 5 (10.0%) 2 (28.6%)

44 (39.3%) 25 (50.0%) 1 (14.3%)

20 (17.9%) 8 (16.0%) 2 (28.6%)

25 (22.3%) 12 (24.0%) 2 (28.6%)

Total

30 (17.8%)

70 (41.4%)

30 (17.8%)

39 (23.1%)

3.3.2.2 Extraposition The previous factor group had no efiect on either two-verb or three-verb complexes. NP/PP extraposition, on the other hand, has an effect on two-verb complexes (as shown in Section 3.2.3.3 above), but no effect on VCs with three verbs. As seen in Table 25, the effect of this factor group is not statistically significant for any of the four word orders.34 Table 25. Effect of extraposition on three-verb complexes Extraposition

3-2-1

1-3-2

1-2-3

3-1-2

extrap. argument nothing extraposed extrap. adjunct PP

1 (16.7%) 26 (17.1%) 3 (27.3%)

1 (16.7%) 65 (42.8%) 4 (36.4%)

1 (16.7%) 28 (18.4%) 1 (9.1 %)

3 (27.3%) 33 (21.7%) 3 (50.0%)

Total

30 (17.8%)

70 (41.4%)

30 (17.8%)

39 (23.1%)

Although no firm conclusions can be drawn concerning the efiect of extraposition on verb order in three-verb complexes, the following observations can be made about extraposition in these clauses. First of all, of the 169 clauses with three-verb complexes, 17 clauses or just over 10% have extraposition. This rate is lower than the rate of extraposition with two-verb complexes (15.9%), suggesting that the larger VCs may be more difficult to extrapose around. Secondly, note that while adjunct PPs made up just half of the cases of extraposition with twoverb complexes, adjunct PPs make up more than half of the cases of extraposition with three-verb complexes (11 out of 17, or 65%). This suggests that whatever the impediment for extraposition over three-verb complexes may be, it is easier to extra pose adjunct PPs than other constituents. Having discussed two factors which do not affect word order in clusters of three verbs, in the next section we turn to three factors that do. These are syntagm type, focus, and verbal prefixes.

34· Further tests did not result in improved significance, neither combining extraposed adjunct PPs with other extraposed constituents, nor combining extraposed adjunct PPs with clauses without extraposition.

Chapter 3. Factors influencing verb order in ENHG

3·3·3 Favoring factors 3·3·3·1 Syntagm type In Section 3.2.3.1 above, we saw that syntagm type plays a major role in subordinate clauses with VCs consisting of two verbs. Table 26 and Table 27 demonstrate that this is also the case for complexes of three verbs. Table 26 shows the distribution of the attested syntagms, which are illustrated in (35) -(43): (35) als er des tages scholt begra.ben werden as he the day should1 buried3 be2 'when he should be buried on that day' (36) das auB Guiana gellracht worden ist REL from G. brought3 b~ is 1 'which has been brought from Guyana' (37) dy er ... getan solt haben REL he done3 should 1 hav~ 'that he should have done ...

(modal + passive)

(Pillenreuth 212) (perfect of passive)

(Wa.lter Ralegh iv) (modal+ perfect)

(Pillenreuth 159)

(38) so er dan den menschen nicht hat mugen vberwinden (IPP) not has 1 can2 overcome3 when he then the person 'when he has not been able to overcome the person' (Pillenreuth 158)

hat gehoert reden (39) das thais phedriam ee that T. P. more has 1 heard2 speak.3 'that Thais heard Phedria speak, rather (than saw him)' (40) dz si es ... willen behaben mugent that they it want2 have3 can1 'that they may want to have it'

(pertect + ACI)35

(Eunuchus 23) (mod.+ mod.+ int~)

(EdUbach Chr. 9)

(41) Weyl sie an disen zeichen sich nicht wo 6 llett settigen lassen(causative) because they on these signs REFL not want1 satisty3 let2 'because they do not want to be satisfied by these signs' (Summaria 21r) (42) wenn . . . Jesus . . . wird . . . herrlich gemacht werden when J. wil11 glorious made3 be 2 'When ... Jesus ... will ... be made glorious'

(future passive)

(Passionate 42v)

(43) da6 wir also eine ... Heymfahrt wuerden gehabt haben (future perfect) that we such a return-trip would 1 had3 have 2 'that we would have had such a ... return journey' (Wa.ltet· Ra.legh 5)

35· Both instances of this construction have gehoert as the second verb.

79

so The Verbal Complex in Subordinate Clauses from Medieval to Modern German

Table 26. Effect of specific syntagms on three-verb complexes Syntagm

3-2-1

1-3-2

1-2-3

3-1-2

modal + passive perfect of passive modal + perfect IPP perfect + ACI modal + modal + inf modal + causative future + pass./perf Total

20 (25.096) 7 (26.9%) 1 (12.5%) 0 (0.096) 0 (0.0%) 1 (25.0%) 1 (7.1%) 0 (0.0%)

36 (45.0%) 9 (34.6%) 5 (62.5%) 10 (30.3%) 0 (0.096) 1 (25.0%) 7 (50.0%) 2 (100.0%)

2 (2.5%) 0 (0.0%) 0 (0.0%) 22 (66.7%) 2 (100.0%) 1 (25.0%) 3 (21.4%) 0 (0.096)

22 (27.596) 10 (38.5%) 2 (25.0%) 1 (3.096) 0 (0.0%) 1 (25.0%) 3 (21.4%) 0 (0.0%)

30 (17.8%)

70 (41.4%)

30 (17.8%)

39 (23.1 %)

Note that there are many syntagms that have no occurrences with a given word order. These zeros are known in GoldVarb as knock-out factors, and preclude GoldVarb from running a statistical analysis. Thus there is no statistical significance available for Table 26. In Table 27, the minor syntagms perfect+ ACI and future passive/perfect have been removed. The remaining ones are analyzed in the most significant combination, with the three main kinds of syntagms containing a participle (35)-(37) combined, the IPP (38) left separately, and the two syntagms containing a modal plus two infinitives (modal+ causative and modal +modal+ infinitive) combined. Table 27. Effect of general syntagm type on three -verb complexes Syntagm

3-2-1

1-3-2

modal + passive, perfect of passive, modal + perfect IPP modal + inf + inf Total significance

28 (23.7%)

52 (44.1%)

4 (3.4%)

34 (28.8%)

0 (0.0%) 2 (11.1%) 30 (17.896)

10 (30.3%) 8 (44.4%) 70 (41.4%)

22 (66.7%) 4 (22.2%) 30 (17.8%)

1 (3.0%) 4 (22.2%) 39 (23.196)

p = 0.075

p = 0.351

p < 0.001

p =0.003

1-2-3

3-1-2

The results for three-verb complexes are similar to those with two verbs. Recall from Table 4 that in two-verb clusters, syntagms with a participle slightly disfavor the 1-2 order. Similarly, three-verb syntagms with participles strongly disfavor the 1-2-3 order, occurring just 3.4% of the time versus the expected rate of 17.8% (factor weight 0.262), while slightly favoring the other orders. Recall also from Table 4 that in two-verb complexes, syntagms with an infinitive strongly favor the 1-2 order and disfavor the 2-1 order. Likewise, three-verb syntagms with infinitives strongly disfavor the 3-2-1 order: this order is unat-

Chapter 3. Factors influencing verb order in ENHG

tested for IPP and occurs only twice for modal plus two infinitives.36 The IPP construction overwhelmingly favors the 1-2-3 order at a rate of 66.7% (factor weight= 0.860). To an equal degree, IPP disfavors the 3-1-2 order, with a rate of only 3% versus the expected 23.1% (factor weight= 0.117). Finally, note that the frequency of the 1-3-2 order for each syntagm is close to the expected rate (41.4%), indicating that syntagm has little effect on this word order (which is probably the reason for the low significance of the factor group). The fact that the 1-3-2 order is the most frequent, plus the fact that syntagm type has little effect on it, indicates that it may be the unmarked order inENHG. Since the number of tokens with three verbs in my corpus is small. my results should be compared to those in the much larger study by Hard (1981). For the period 1450-1580, Hard has 2,704 tokens with three or more verbs. Results from Hard for this period are presented in Table 28.37 Table 28. Verb orders by syntagm in Hard (1981 :46-52) Syntagm (Hard's class)

3-2-1

1-3-2

modal + pass. I perf. (III) perfect of passive (I) perfect + IPP (IV) modal + in£ + in£ (V, VI) werden + pass. I perf (II)

15.8% 23.2% 2.3% 15.1% 17.8%

56.7% 26.3% 28.8% 43.3% 72.1%

1-2-338

56.9% 30.4%

3-1-2 27.5% 40% 8.3% 11.1% 10.1%

Hard's results are remarkably similar to my data in Table 26, with identical rankings for all syntagms except modal + two infinitives. As in my corpus, the modal+ passive and modal + perfect have 1-3-2 as the most frequent order (56.7% in Hard, versus 45% and 62.5% in mine), followed by 3-1-2 and 3-2-1. The perfect of the passive favors the 3-1-2 order (40% in Hard and 38.5% in my study), followed by 1-3-2 and 3-2-1. The IPP construction strongly prefers the

36. In another test of the 3-2-1 order, I combined these two factors, testing them against the participial syntagms. The result, which was significant (p < 0.001), was that the two infinitival syntagms strongly disfavor the 3-2-1 order (factor weight= 0.130). 37· Hl1rd refers to these orders by the position of the finite verb: "Endstellung" (3-2-1 ), "Voranstellung" (1-3-2 and 1-2-3), and "Zwischenstellung" (3-1-2). 38. Hl1rd (1981:59) only distinguishes 1-3-2 from 1-2-3 in the IPP and modal+ inf. +in£ constructions. He claims that the 1-2-3 order is rare for the other constructions, except in Low German, and thus does not give separate percentages for 1-3-2 vs. 1-2-3 for those syntagms..

81

82

The Verbal Complex in Subordinate Clauses from Medieval to Modern German

1-2-3 order in both studies (56.9% and 66.7%, respectively), followed by 1-32 and 3-1-2, with the 3-2-1 order being nearly unattested in Hard (2.3%) and unattested in my study. Finally, a finite verb plus two infinitives favors the 1-3-2 order in Hard's corpus (43.3%), and in my study the 1-3-2 order accounts for 8 out of 18 examples (or 44.4%) of the two types modal+ modal+ infinitive and modal + causative. The overwhelming agreement between the current study and Hard (1981) confirms that the data in Table 26 and Table 27, despite the small number of tokens and statistical insignificance, are indeed representative ofENHG as a whole. 3·3·3·2 Focus In Section 3.2.3.4 above, I showed that contrastive focus and new information focus favor the 1-2 order, while old information favors the 2-1 order. The effect of focus on complexes of three verbs can be seen in Table 29 (with contrastive focus and new information combined due to the small number of tokens). Just as old information favors the 2-1 order with two-verb complexes, in threeverb complexes it favors the 3-2-1 order, at a rate of 24.4% versus the expected 17.8% (factor weight= 0.612). Contrastive focus and new information favor the combination of the other three orders, occurring 87.9% of the time versus the expected 82.2%. Table 29. Effect of focus on three-verb complexes Focus

3-2-1

1-3-2

1-2-3

3-1-2

new/contrastive old information Total significance

11 (12.1%) 19 (24.4%)

40 (44.0%) 30 (38.5%)

17 (18.7%) 13 (16.7%)

23 (25.3%) 16 (20.5%)

30 (17.8%)

70 (41.4%)

30 (17.8%)

39 (23.1%)

p = 0.040

p = 0.478

p = 0.737

p =0.473

Although focus favors the 1-3-2, 1-2-3, and 3-1-2 orders combined (tested against 3-2-1), no effect could be detected on these word orders individually. The results for these orders alone were not statistically significant. For all three orders, the frequency with focus is just one or two percentage points over the expected rate, with factor rates very close to 0.5. It was not possible to corroborate the effect of focus on three-verb complexes by comparing it to scrambling. Out of the already small number of clauses with three verbs, there were only a handful with both an object and an adverb.

Chapter 3. Factors influencing verb order in ENHG

3·3·3·3 Prefix tvpe Section 3.2.3.5 above demonstrated for two-verb complexes that the type of verbal prefix afiects verb order. A similar efiect is found in VCs with three verbs, as shown in Table 30. Just as two-verb complexes containing a separable prefix favor 1-2, in three-verb complexes, the rate of the 1-2-3 order with such verbs is 45.5% (factor weight= 0.843), well above the expected rate of 17.8%. Likewise, just as stressed prefixes disfavor the 2-1 order with two verbs, with stressed prefixes the rate of 3-2-1 order is quite low at just 9.1% (factor weight= 0.353). The 3-1-2 order patterns very similarly to the 3-2-1 order in this factor group, with a rate of only 9.1% with stressed prefixes (factor weight= 0.275) versus 23.1% overall. As with syntagm type and focus, this factor group has no effect on the 1-3-2 order, again suggesting that it is the default order in ENHG. Table 30. Effect of prefix type on three-verb complexes

Prefix type

3-2-1

1-3-2

1-2-3

3-1-2

stressed no prefix unstressed

2 (9.196) 1 (3.796) 27 (22.596)

8 (36.496) 13 (48.196) 49 (40.896)

10 (45.596) 11 (40.796) 9 (7.596)

2 (9.196) 2 (7.496) 35 (29.296)

Total

30 (17.896)

70 (41.496)

30 (17.896)

39 (23.196)

significance

p = O.Q18

p =0.689

p < 0.001

p =0.008

An interesting difference between the two-verb and three-verb complexes is the effect of verbs with no prefix. Recall from Table 11 that prefixless verbs had no effect on verb order, patterning with the verbs with unstressed prefixes. With three verbs. however, the percentages and factor weights for verbs with no prefix are remarkably close to those for verbs with stressed prefixes (factor weight= 0.816 for 1-2-3, versus 0.174 for 3-2-1 and 0.233 for 3-1-2). The fact that in three-verb complexes, verbs with no prefix pattern with the SSPs rather than the unstressed prefixes suggest that something other than prefix type is really at play. This pattern is most likely due to an interaction with syntagm type. The vast majority of past participles in ENHG have an unstressed prefix, usually ge-. On the other hand, infinitives may have a stressed, unstressed, or no prefix depending on the lexical item. To illustrate this interaction, Table 31 compares the top line of Table 27 with the "Unstressed" line of Table 30. Note that the numbers are almost exactly the same, indicating that the exact same tokens are involved.

83

84

The Verbal Complex in Subordinate Clauses from Medieval to Modern German

Table 31. Comparison of tokens with participle and unstressed prefix Factor

3-2-1

1-3-2

1-2-3

3-1-2

syntagms with participle unstressed prefix

28 27

52 49

4 9

34 35

For two-verb complexes, the cross-tabulation in Table 12 illustrated that the effect of the prefix on verb order was independent of syntagm type. For complexes of three verbs, however, this interaction cannot be ruled out, as illustrated by the cross-tabulation in Table 32. In syntagms with a participle, with a stressed or no prefix the 1-3-2 order is most frequent (62% vs. the total rate of 44% for that word order with participles), but with an unstressed prefix all four word orders are close to the expected (total) frequencies. In syntagms with infinitives, on the other hand, the rate of 1-2-3 order is higher than expected with a stressed prefix or no prefix (58% vs. the expected 51% of 1-2-3 with an infinitive). The fact that the factor stressed/no prefix strongly prefers one order with participles (1-3-2) but another with infinitives (1-2-3) suggests that the effect of prefix type is subordinate to the effect of syntagm. Table 32. Cross-tab of prefix type with syntagm type (three verbs) Prefix type stressed I no prefix

unstressed

Total

word order

participle

infinitive

Total

3-2-1

2 (12%)

1 (3%)

3 (6%)

1-3-2

10 (62%)

11 (33%)

21 (43%)

1-2-3

2 (12%)

19 (58%)

21 (43%)

3-1-2

2 (12%)

2 (6%)

4 (8%)

3-2-1

26 (25%)

1 (7%)

27 (22%)

1-3-2

42 (41%)

7 (39%)

49 (41%)

1-2-3

2(2%)

7 (39%)

9 (8%)

3-1-2

32 (31%)

3 (17%)

35 (29%)

3-2-1

28 (24%)

2 (4%)

30 (18%)

1-3-2

52 (44%)

18 (35%)

70 (41%)

1-2-3

4(3%)

26 (51%)

30 (18%)

3-1-2

34 (29%)

5 (10%)

39 (23%)

Having discussed some linguistic factors that affect word order in VCs with three verbs, in the next section we turn to the distribution of these word orders by century, dialect, and sociolinguistic variables.

Chapter 3. Factors influencing verb order in ENHG

3·3·4 Diachronic, dialectal, and sociolinguistic variation 3·3·4·1 Date In Section 3.2.4.1 above, we saw that there is a decrease in the rate of1-2 from the 14th to the 16th century. The picture with three-verb complexes is more complicated, as seen in Table 33. The only order with statistically significant results is the 3-1-2 order, which shows a rise in frequency in the 15th century (factor weight= 0.771), followed by a sharp drop to just 13.5% in the 16th century (factor weight= 0.376). The low frequency of 3-1-2 near the end of the ENHG period should not be surprising, since this order is ungrammatical in most written varieties of Modern Standard German. Table 33. Effect of time on three -verb complexes

Century

3-2-1

1-3-2

1-2-3

3-1-2

14th century 15th century 16th century

1 (7.7%) 6 (13.3%) 23 (20.7%)

8 (61.5%) 13 (28.9%) 49 (44.1%)

1 (7.7%) 5 (11.1%) 24 (21.6%)

3 (23.1%) 21 (46.7%) 15 (13.5%)

Total

30 (17.8%)

70 (41.4%)

30 (17.8%)

39 (23.1%)

significance

p = 0.304

p =0.068

p = 0.165

p <0.001

The results for the other orders are not statistically significant; however, some basic trends can be seen. First, the 3-2-1 order (with only one attestation in MHG and just one in the 14th century) shows a gradual increase from century to century, which is expected since this is the most common order for three-verb complexes in Modern Standard German. Secondly; the 1-3-2 order fluctuates in inverse proportion to the 3-1-2 order, suggesting that the increase in the 3-1-2 order in the 15th century discussed above was at the expense of 1-3-2. Finally; the 1-2-3 order gradually increases over the course of the period, which is surprising given the fact that this order is ungrammatical in Modern Standard German. To test whether the results from my small number of tokens are representative for ENHG as a whole, let us compare them to the much larger study by Hard (1981). As can be seen in Table 34, the results from the two studies are largely similar. In the period 1450-1500, both studies have similar rates of the "Voranstellung" word orders 1-3-2 and 1-2-3 (41% and 40%), and the rates of 3-1-2 in both studies are also similar. In both studies, the least frequent order in this period is 3-2-1. For the second period (1550-1580), the frequencies are also similar across the two studies, with the vast majority of the tokens (71% and 66%) having the 1-3-2/1-2-3 orders. The diachronic trends also show similarity; with

85

86

The Verbal Complex in Subordinate Clauses from Medieval to Modern German

the frequency of the 1-3-2/1-2-3 orders sharply increasing from the first period to the next, while the 3-1-2 order declines sharply. The major difference is that my study shows the 3-2-1 order increasing, from 13% to 21%, while Hard finds that the 3-2-1 order decreased from 26% to 14%. Table 34. Effect of time on three-verb complexes: Comparison to Hiird

Period

3-2-1

1-3-2/1-2-3

3-1-2

Hil.rd: 1450-150039

105 (26%) 6 (13%)

198 (41%) 18 (40%)

182 (36%) 21 (47%)

93 (14%) 23 (21%)

489 (71%) 73 (66%)

99 (15%) 15 (14%)

Table 33: 1450-1500 Hil.rd: 1550-158040

Table 33: 1550-1600

To sum up the findings of this section in light of Hard (1981), the 3-1-2 order declines sharply over the ENHG period, while the 1-3-2 order increases sharply. The status of the 1-2-3 order is less dear, since my results are not statistically significant and Hard's are split by syntagm. 41 Finally, despite being the most typical order in Modern Standard German, the 3-2-1 order remains relatively infrequent in ENHG. 3·3·4·2 Dialect As might be expected given the rather complex dialectal distribution ofVCs with two verbs (Section 3.2.4.2 above), the picture with three verbs is even more complicated, as shown in Table 35. Given the small number of tokens per dialect, for none of the four word orders is this factor group statistically significant The four main dialect groups suggested for VCs consisting of two verbs in Section 3.2.4.2 above do not hold for complexes of three verbs. For example, in the proposed Western group of dialects, Cologne, Alsace, and Zurich each prefer a different order for three-verb complexes.

39. Calculated from the tables in Hard (1981: 38-39). I took the 485 tokens containing three verbs (ignoring those with an elided verb form or more than four verbs) from texts 1-16. All ofthese texts were begun in the period 1450-1500, although some were completed as late as 1519. 40. Calculated from the tables in Hil.rd (1981: 38-39). I took the 681 tokens (same criteria as above) from texts 43-55. 41. The IPP construction maintains a high rate of 1-2-3, while this order declines for the modal + in£ + in£ constructions, and the rate of 1-2-3 order is unreported for other constructions

(Hil.rd 1981: 61).

Chapter 3. Factors influencing verb order in ENHG

Table 35. Effect of dialect on three-verb complexes Dialect42

3-2-1

Cologne Hesse Alsace Zurich Swabia Nuremberg Thuringia Saxony Augsburg Vienna

9 (45.0%) 2 (8.3%) 3 (16.7%) 2 (11.1%) 3 (18.8%) 0 (0.0%) 0 (0.0%) 3 (17.6%) 4 (25.0%) 4 (26.7%)

Total

30 (17.8%)

1-3-2

1-2-3

3-1-2

8 (40.0%) 10 (41.7%) 8 (44.4%) 5 (27.8%) 6 (37.5%) 8 (40.0%) 4 (80.0%) 9 (52.9%) 7 (43.8%) 5 (33.3%)

1 (5.0%) 7 (29.2%) 1 (5.6%) 6 (33.3%) 4 (25.0%) 5 (25.0%) 0 (0.0%) 3 (17.6%) 2 (12.5%) 1 (6.7%)

2 (10.0%) 5 (20.8%) 6 (33.3%) 5 (27.8%) 3 (18.8%) 7 (35.0%) 1 (20.0%) 2(11.8%) 3 (18.8%) 5 (33.3%)

70 (41.4%)

30 (17.8%)

39 (23.1%)

The best model fit for dusters of three verbs requires the dialects to be divided up in a slightly different way, with Zurich moved to the proposed Central group, as in Table 36. This represents the best recode for the 1-2-3 order, but the recode is statistically significant only for that order. The combined dialects Zurich, Swabia, and Nuremberg strongly favor 1-2-3 at 27.8% versus the expected 15.9% (factor weight= 0.706). Note that the p number of the 3-2-1 order is quite low, although still not statistically significant. 43 Although not significant, in this recode, 3-2-1 is favored in Cologne-Hesse-Alsace at 27.3% and in Bavaria-Austria at 25.8%. Table 36. Effect of dialect on three-verb complexes (most significant) Dialect

3-2-1

1-3-2

Col-Hes.44-Als.

12 (27.3%)

16 (36.4%)

3 (6.8%)

13 (29.5%)

5 (9.3%) 3 (13.6%) 8 (25.8%)

19 (35.2%) 13 (59.1%) 12 (38.7%)

15 (27.8%) 3 (13.6%) 3 (9.7%)

15 (27.8%) 3 (13.6%) 8 (25.8%)

Zur.-SWab.-Nuremb. EMG (Thur.-Sax.) Bavarian-Austrian

1-2-3

3-1-2

Total

28 (18.5%)

60 (39.7%)

24 (15.9%)

39 (25.8%)

significance

p=0.074

p = 0.243

p= 0.023

p = 0.404

42. All of the data for Hessian are included in this table, but statistical analyses were conducted without the text WaltEr Ralegh, which has a very high rate of3-2-1. Furthermore, the 3-2-1 order was tested without Nuremberg and Thuringia, and the 1-2-3 order was also tested without Thuringia, since those dialects had no instances of the respective word orders. 43· This recode was the closest to statistical significance for the 3-2-1 order.

44· Excludes Walter Ralegh.

87

88

The Verbal Complex in Subordinate Clauses from Medieval to Modern German

In Table 37, I have taken the percentages from Hard (1981) and my data from Table 35, and combined them into the dialect groups discussed above. The conclusion reached above that the dialect area containing Cologne, Hesse, and Alsace favors the 3-2-1 order is untenable, since in Hard's study this area has this order at a rate of only 24%, which is comparable with other dialects. Doubt is also cast on my conclusion that the 1-2-3 order is favored in Switzerland, Swabia, and Nuremberg, since their rate of the 1-3-2/1-2-3 orders is much lower in Hard's study (43%) than in mine (63%). On the other hand, the comparison with Hard (1981) lends some support to my conclusions that the 1-3-2 order is favored in East Middle German while the 3-2-1 order is favored in BavarianAustrian. Table 37. Frequency of orders by dialect group: compared to Hiird

Dialect Hitrd: Sapp: Hitrd: Sapp: Hitrd: Sapp: Hard: Sapp:

Hesse-Alsace Cologne-Hesse-Alsace Switz.-Swabia-Franc. Zurich -Swabia-Nuremb. Thuringia-Saxony Thuringia-Saxony Bavaria Bavarian-Austrian

3-2-1 45 (24%) 12 (27%) 257 (24%) 5 (9%) 44 (23%) 3 (14%) 129 (44%) 8 (26%)

1-3-2/1-2-3

3-1-2

128 19 456 34 117 16 107 15

16 (8%) 13 (30%) 341 (32%) 15 (28%) 31 (16%) 3 (14%) 60 (20%) 8 (26%)

(68%) (43%) (43%) (63%) (61%) (7296) (3696) (4896)

This data will be weighed against that regarding two-verb complexes and additional data in Section 3.4.1 below, which will settle on a final dialect division for ENHG. 3·3·4·3 Sociolinguistic factors In Section 3.2.4.3 above, I showed that occupation and genre have an effect on word order in two-verb complexes, with higher status writers and more formal genres preferring the 2-1 order. However, with three-verb complexes, the picture is much less clear, probably due to the very small number of tokens for each of the four word orders. As seen in Table 38, the 3-2-1 order is disfavored only by physicians, and is slightly favored by all other occupations, although these results are not significant. The 1-3-2 and 1-2-3 orders are not statistically significant either, but for therecord, 1-3-2 is favored by scribes/printers and clerics, and 1-2-3 is favored by university officials and clerics. Finally, in the only significant result, the 3-1-2 order is favored by nobles (factor weight= 0.716) and physicians (factor weight= 0.809).

Chapter 3. Factors influencing verb order in ENHG

Table 38. Effect of occupation on three-verb complexes Occupation45 university officials nobles scribes/printers physicians clerics Total significance

3-2-1

1-3-2

1-2-3

3-1-2

5 (26.3%)

7 (36.896)

4 (21.1%)

3 (15.8%)

4 (33.3%) 6 (28.6%) 1 (4.5%) 8 (19.0%)

3 (25.0%) 10 (47.6%) 5 (22.7%) 19 (45.2%)

0 (0.096) 1 (4.8%) 4 (18.2%) 10 (23.8%)

5 (41.7%) 4 (19.0%) 12 (54.5%) 5 (11.9%)

24 (20.7%)

44 (37.996)

19 (16.4%)

29 (25.0%)

p =0.110

p =0.237

p =0.230

p =0.005

There are a few parallels between the distributions of two-verb complexes and three-verb complexes. First, recall from Table 21 that nobles (along with university officials) had the highest rate of 2-1; likewise, nobles have the highest rate of the 3-2-1 order. Second, clerics had the highest rates of 1-2, and indeed they have a high rate of the 1-2-3 order. On the other hand, there are a number of facts that do not correlate with the distribution of two-verb complexes, such as the very high rate of the 3-1-2 order among nobles and physicians. Genre is statistically significant only for the 1-2-3 and 3-1-2 orders, as seen in Table 39. However, for completeness' sake I briefly discuss the favoring effect on all four orders. The 3-2-1 order is favored in chronicles and literary texts. Literary texts also favor the 1-3-2 order. The 1-2-3 order is favored in religious texts (factor weight= 0.632) but strongly disfavored in chronicles (factor weight= 0.166). Finally, the 3-1-2 order is favored in chronicles (factor weight= 0.680) and technical texts (factor weight= 0.804). Table 39. Effect of genre on three-verb complexes Genre

3-2-1

1-3-2

1-2-3

3-1-2

literature religious technical prose chroniclf46

5 (27.8%) 13 (16.9%) 1 (4.5%) 9 (26.5%)

9 (50.096) 35 (45.596) 5 (22.7%) 11 (32.4%)

3 (16.7%) 16 (20.8%) 4 (18.296) 1 (2.9%)

1 (5.6%) 13 (16.9%) 12 (54.5%) 13 (38.2%)

Total significance

28 (18.5%)

60 (39.7%)

24 (15.996)

39 (25.8%)

p = 0.100

p = 0.137

p = 0.050

p < 0.001

45· This data excludes the many anonymous texts (including Walter Ralegh), as well as the occupations judge and merchant, which had only one representative each. 46. Excludes Walter Ralegh.

89

90

The Verbal Complex in Subordinate Clauses from Medieval to Modern German

Note first of all that all of the texts in the genre technical prose are written by physicians, thus the distributions of the different word orders are exactly the same for those two factors. Disregarding technical prose and literature, which have few tokens, the following parallels between the two-verb complexes and three-verb complexes obtain. Recall from Table 22 that chronicles have the highest frequency of the 2-1 order, and similarly they favor the 3-2-1 order and strongly disfavor the 1-2-3 order. Conversely, religious texts have the highest rate of 1-2, and indeed they favor the 1-2-3 order as well. On a final note, the high frequency of 3-1-2 order in chronicles, a relatively formal genre, is surprising, since this order is ungrammatical in (written) Modern Standard German. This section also found a high rate of this order with nobles. Recall from 3.3.4.1 that this order sharply decreased from the 15th to the 16th centuries. Sociolinguistic pressures may have caused the increase in the 3-2-1 and 1-3-2 orders, as argued by Hammarstrom (1923), who found higher rates of 3-2-1 in official documents than in literature. However, the reason for the decline of the 3-1-2 order is much less clear, since it was frequent in formal genres and among the highest-status writers. 3·3·5 Conclusion In this section, I have discussed the factors that do and do not favor various word orders in VCs with three verbs in ENHG and drawn comparisons where possible with the more extensive study by Hard (1981). Preceding constituent, which does not affect verb order in ENHG two-verb complexes, has no effect in three-verb complexes either, and extraposition, which does affect two-verb complexes, has no effect on three-verb clusters. Syntagm plays a major role in the choice of word orders, with the IPP construction favoring the 1-2-3 order and most other syntagms favoring 3-2-1 and 1-3-2. Focus disfavors the 3-2-1 order, and slightly favors the others. The type of prefix on the lexical verb also affects word order, although this is largely due to interaction with syntagm type. The frequency of the different orders varies in somewhat unpredictable ways by date, dialect, occupation of the author, and genre of the text. Finally, I have suggested that 1-3-2 is the unmarked order in ENHG, since it exhibits the least syntactic and sociolinguistic variation.

Chapter 3. Factors influencing verb order in ENHG

3·4

Discussion

3-4-1 Favoring factors in individual texts and dialects In Sapp (2006), the most significant favoring factors in the database as a whole were used to conduct separate GoldVarb analyses on each dialect and each text in the database. Although the details for each text and dialect will not be discussed here, a few important conclusions result from those studies. In general the factors that favor the 1-2 order in the whole ENHG corpus also favor it in the individual analyses (albeit with reduced significance due to the lower number of tokens). Thus the results for ENHG discussed above are genuine features of the language, rather than some accidental result of the combination of the texts in the database. Four factors have a consistent favoring effect on the 1-2 order in every dialect, and indeed in almost every text. In fact, these are the four factors that were shown to favor that order in the whole ENHG database in Section 3.2.3 above: syntagm, extraposition, focus, and prefix type. As expected, syntagms with infinitives favor the 1-2 order in every dialect and in most of the individual texts (Sapp 2006: 174 ). Prefix type has an effect on word order in every dialect except Alsatian (Sapp 2006: 175). Focus also favors 1-2 in all dialects (Sapp 2006: 175), although due to the small number of tokens no difference between new information and contrastive focus could be determined, nor could the effect of focus be supported by evidence from scrambling. Extraposition favors the 1-2 order in every dialect, although in many dialects this effect disappears by the 16th century. Recall from Section 3.2.3.3 above that in the database as a whole, the extraposition of an adjunct PP has a weaker favoring effect on the 1-2 order than the extraposition of other constituents. This is also true in almost all of the individual dialects, except Swabia and Nuremberg, where adjunct-PP extraposition actually favors 1-2 more strongly than other types of extraposition (Sapp 2006: 180). Preceding constituent was the most inconsistent factor group. Recall that Ebert (1981) found that preceding non-pronominal NPs favor and pronouns disfavor the 1-2 order in letters from Nuremberg, and similar results obtain in my MHG database (Chapter 2 above). However, as shown in Section 3.2.3.2, no such effect was found in my ENHG database as a whole. The analyses of individual dialects in Sapp (2006: 179) find a number of dialects that do indeed show the favoring effect of preceding NPs on 1-2: Cologne, Hesse, Saxony, Thuringia, Nuremberg, and Swabia. On the other hand, three dialects actually show the opposite effect: Augsburg, Vienna, and Swiss. The remaining dialect, Alsatian, shows no effect at all. Thus it appears that the lack of any difference between preceding

91

92

The Verbal Complex in Subordinate Clauses from Medieval to Modern German

non-pronominal NPs and pronouns in Section 3.2.3.2 above is due to the fact that the dialects where NPs favor the 1-2 order are cancelled out by those where NPs disfavor 1-2. Finally, note that in the 16th century, several texts have such a low frequency of the 1-2 order that it is difficult to determine what factors, if any, favor the 1-2 order (Sapp 2006: 180). Cologne has no instances of 1-2, Vienna has some instances but with no favoring effects, and in Augsburg only syntagm shows any effect. In the other dialects, however, many favoring factors are still detectable despite the very low rate of 1-2.

3.4.2 Dialect groups in ENHG The favoring factors discussed in the previous section can now help complete the discussion of the dialect groups begun in previous sections. Recall that in Section 3.2.4.2, using the frequency of the 1-2 order as the criterion, a Western group was proposed, which included Cologne, Hesse, Alsace, and Zurich. In Section 3.3.4.2, this group was modified to exclude Zurich based on the behavior of three-verb complexes. Now, let us draw in a third line of argument: the factors that fuvor the 1-2 order in individual dialects in Sapp (2006). Three differences in the favoring factors are summarized in Table 40: the effect of an NP immediately preceding the VC, the effect of adjunct-PP extraposition, and whether any factors have an effect in the 16th century. Table 40. Differences in the favoring factors, by dialect Dialect

precedingNP favors 1-2

lower% of 1-2 with adj.-PP extraposition

favoring factors in 16th century

Cologne Hesse47 Alsace Zurich Swabia Nuremberg Thuringia Saxony Augsburg Vienna

yes yes no effect no yes yes yes yes no no

yes yes yes yes no

no n/a yes yes yes yes yes yes no no

no yes yes yes yes

47· This excludes the problematic text Walter Ralegh, thus there is no result for 16th-century Hessian.

Chapter 3. Factors influencing verb order in ENHG

Using these criteria, five different dialect groups emerge, each consisting of two regions. First, Cologne and Hesse show a favoring effect of the preceding nonpronominal NP on the 1-2 order and a lower rate of the 1-2 order with the extraposition of adjunct PPs. (The third criterion is inconclusive, due to the exclusion of Walter Ralegh.) Second, Alsace and Zurich show either a disfavoring or no effect of a preceding NP on 1-2, a lower rate of 1-2 with adjunct-PP extraposition, and the effect of favoring factors in the 16th century. Third, in Swabia and Nuremberg, a preceding NP and adjunct-PP extraposition favor 1-2, and some factors continue to favor 1-2 in the 16th century. Thuringia and Saxony have the favoring effect of preceding NPs on the 1-2 order, a reduced effect of adjunct-PP extra position, and the presence of favoring factors in the 16th century. Finally, in Augsburg and Vienna, a preceding NP disfavors 1-2, adjunct-PPs have a lesser effect on verb order than other types of extraposition, and favoring factors disappear in the 16th century. Note that in each of these five groups, the two dialects are geographically contiguous. Note also that each group differs in at least one feature from every other group. Finally, each group except Swabia-Nuremberg is consistent with the conventional classification for German dialects: Cologne and Hesse are Franconian, Alsace and Zurich are Alemannic, Thuringia and Saxony are East Middle German, and Augsburg and Vienna are Bavarian. Now, let us re-examine the first two criteria (the frequency of verb orders in two- and three-verb complexes) in light of the best groups for the third criterion (the favoring factors). Beginning with the two-verb complexes, when placed into these five dialect groups. the frequency of the 1-2 order has the distribution shown in Table 41. This result is very similar to Table 20, and both are extremely significant (p < 0.001). In light of the different behavior of Cologne-Hesse versus AlsaceZurich with respect to the favoring factors, and in light of the fact that this analysis is also significant, it thus makes sense to split up the Western group this way. Table 41. Effect of dialect and century on 1-2 order, five best groups Dialect group

1350-1399

1450-1499

1550-1599

Total

Cologne-Hesse4s Alsace-Zurich Central (Swabia, Nurem.) EMG (Saxony, Thuringia) Bavarian-Austrian

5% 21%

19% 10%

0% 10%

10% 14%

61%

28%

28%

38%

43% 46%

27% 21%

9% 3%

24% 24%

48. Excludes Walter Ralegh.

93

94

The Verbal Complex in Subordinate Clauses from Medieval to Modern German

With respect to complexes of three verbs, grouping the dialects this way gives the result shown in Table 42. These groups are less statistically significant than those in Table 36, aside from the 3-2-1 order, which is nearly the same (p = 0.072 versus p = 0.074). The largest difference between the two groupings is the 1-2-3 order, which is significant in Table 36 but not here. This is probably because Alsace, which disfavors 1-2-3, is grouped with Zurich, which favors it. However, recall from Section 3.3.4.2 that the preference for 1-2-3 in the ZurichSwabia-Nuremberg was not found by Hard (1981). Moreover, the other Western dialects, Cologne and Hesse, showed different word-order preferences for three-verb complexes. The only coherent groups in terms of their favoring effect on three-verb complexes were East Middle German and Bavarian -Austrian. Thus grouping the dialects according to the favoring factors is no worse than the analysis in Table 36 for three-verb complexes, since it keeps the two coherent groups and dispenses with the two incoherent ones (Western and ZurichSwabia-Nuremberg). Table 42. Effect of dialect on three-verb complexes, five best groups Dialect

3-2-1

1-3-2

1-2-3

3-1-2

Cologne- Hesse49 Alsace-Zurich Central EMG Bavarian-Austrian Total significance

9 (34.6%)

8 (30.8%)

2 (7.7%)

7 (26.9%)

(36.1%) (38.9%) (59.1%) (38.7%)

7 (19.4%) 9 (25.0%) 3 (13.6%) 3 (9.7%)

11 (30.6%) 10 (27.896) 3 (13.6%) 8 (25.8%)

28 (18.5%)

60 (39.7%)

24 (15.9%)

39 (25.8%)

p=0.072

p = 0.330

p= 0.260

p=0.550

5 (13.9%) 3 (8.3%) 3 (13.6%) 8 (25.8%)

13 14 13 12

In conclusion, the five groups determined in this section are probably the best ones. Each of these five groups consists of two geographically contiguous dialects that behave similarly with respect to the favoring factors and have similar distributions of the 1-2 order over time. Moreover, two of these groups. EMG and Bavarian-Austrian, have coherent preferences for complexes of three verbs. Finally, with the exception of the Central group, these groups correspond largely to conventional dialect divisions (see Figure 1).

49· Excludes Walter Ralegh.

Chapter 3. Factors influencing verb order in ENHG

3-4-3 Developments from MHG to ENHG As seen in Figure 3, the frequency of the 1-2 order remains roughly stable from the eleventh century (32.2%) to the fourteenth (35.5%), aside from the drop in the twelfth century discussed in Chapter 2. However, in the fifteenth century, the order begins to decline, falling to just 11.5% by the end of the ENHG period. This decline sets the stage for the complete loss of the 1-2 order in Modern Standard German, although it continues to be found in some modern dialects (see Chapter 4 for details).

60%

~ ~

50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0%

10701100

11501200

12501300

13501400

14501500

15501600

Figure 3. Frequency of the 1-2 order from MHG to ENHGSO

The change in word order preference from MHG to ENHG in various dialects is far from clear. As can be seen in Table 43, some dialects have wildly different frequencies of the 1-2 order in the two periods: in Cologne, for example, 1-2 appears to drop from a rate of 46.7% in MHG to just 8.6% in ENHG.

so.

Compiled from the data in Table 12 from Chapter 2 and Table 13 above.

95

96

The Verbal Complex in Subordinate Clauses from Medieval to Modern German

Table43. Effect of dialect on 1-2 order, MHG vs. ENHGSl Dialect (MHG I ENHG area)

% of1-2inMHG

% of1-2inENHG

Cologne Alsace Hesse

46.7% n/a 35.9% 10.8% 13.1% 12.5% 31.9% n/a 19.496 81.7% 28.796

8.6% 11.8% 12.4% 14.8% 16.2% 23.9% 24.3% 31.396 35.896 41.7% 23.196

Thuringia

Switzerland (Eastern) Swabia I Augsburg Bavaria I Vienna Saxony E. Franconia I Nuremberg Black Forest I Swabia Total

On the other hand, the favoring factors are quite consistent across the two time periods. In both MHG and ENHG, syntagm, focus, prefix type, extraposition, genre, and occupation have a significant effect on the choice of verb orders in complexes of two verbs. The one factor that behaves somewhat difierently is the word preceding the VC: in MHG, this factor had a significant effect both when analyzed by part of speech and by phonological weight. In ENHG, however, such an effect was only detected in certain dialects, with no effect in the database as a whole. The changes from MHG to ENHG in three-verb complexes are less clear. This may be due to the smaller number of tokens, or because many three-verb syntagms such as the IPP have not yet become common in MHG. In MHG, 3-2-1 is very rare, with the other three orders about evenly distributed. By ENHG all orders are robustly attested, with 1-3-2 the most frequent, and the distribution of orders is largely determined by syntagm type.

51. Percentages from Table 15 in Chapter 2 and Table 18 above. Note that the dialect areas do

not correspond exactly, due to slightly different classifications used by the Bochumer and the Bonner corpora. For example, I have decided to compare the MHG text from the Black Forest to the ENHG texts from (Western) Swabia, while comparing the MHG texts from (Eastern) Swabia (including Augsburg) to ENHG Augsburg, an eastern Swabian dialect.

Chapter 3. Factors influencing verb order in ENHG

3·5

Conclusion

3·5-1 Summary of findings This chapter reports on a study of verb order in ENHG subordinate clauses. Unlike some previous research (Ebert 1981, 1998; Reifsnyder 2003), the corpus used in this study includes materials from many ENHG dialects. Unlike others (Hard 1981; Bies 1996), this study examined both two-verb and three-verb complexes and attempted to determine what linguistic factors favor the various orders. Finally, unlike some early research (Maurer 1926; Hammarstrom 1923; and even Hard 1981), this study presented not only the raw data, but also a statistical analysis. A number oflinguistic and sociolinguistic factors were tested for an effect on word order. This study refutes some findings of previous scholarship, confirms others, and makes some new findings as well. For two factors, little or no effect on verb order was determined. First of all contra Maurer (1926), no effect of the position of the subordinate clause within the sentence could be found (see Section 3.2.2.1). Secondly. this study was unable to confirm Ebert's (1981) hypothesis that the syllable structure of the verbs helps determine their relative order (Section 3.2.2.2). The following factors did have an effect on the order of verbs. First of all, as has been pointed out by most previous studies, syntagm had a significant effect on verb order, with passives and perfects favoring the 2-1 order, while infinitival constructions favor 1-2 (Section 3.2.3.1). This effect was even stronger with complexes of three verbs, where some constructions appear to be ungrammatical with certain word orders (Section 3.3.3.1). Secondly. the category of the word preceding the VC has an effect on verb order in two-verb complexes, although unlike Ebert's (1981) results for Nuremberg and my own results from MHG (Chapter 2 above), this cannot be attributed to a preference for the 1-2 order after phonologically heavy words (Section 3.2.3.2) and there were no discernable effects in threeverb complexes (Section 3.3.2.1). Thirdly. Ebert's (1981) observation that NP/PP extraposition favors the 2-1 order was confirmed (Section 3.2.3.3), although no effect on complexes of three verbs could be determined (Section 3.3.2.2). Fourth, new information and contrastive focus favored the 1-2 order for two verbs (Section 3.2.3.4), and every order but 3-2-1 for three verbs (Section 3.3.3.2). Finally. as pointed out by Ebert (1981), verbs with stressed, separable prefixes favored the 1-2 order, while verbs with unstressed prefixes favored the 2-1 order (Section 3.2.3.5). In complexes of three verbs, however, the effect of prefix type was not distinct from that of syntagm (Section 3.3.3.3).

97

98

The Verbal Complex in Subordinate Clauses from Medieval to Modern German

Over the course of the ENHG period, the 1-2 and 3-1-2 orders decreased in frequency, while the 2-1 and 1-3-2 orders became firmly established in the written language (Sections 3.2.4.1 and 3.3.4.1). The frequencies of these orders varied widely by dialect (Sections 3.2.4.2 and 3.3.4.2). Finally, as argued in previous studies, the social status of the author and genre of the text played a major role in word order variation, with less formal styles preferring the 1-2 and 1-2-3 orders but more formal styles favoring 2-1 and 3-2-1 (Sections 3.2.4.3 and 3.3.4.3).

3.5.2 The combined effect of the favoring factors This chapter has discussed a number of factors that favor the 1-2 order in ENHG. However, the high frequency of 1-2 in ENHG cannot be attributed to any single factor. Rather, only when taken together do they account for this word order. As seen in Table 44, only 50 of the 671 clauses with the 1-2 order, or 7 .5%, have none of the favoring factors (excluding sociolinguistic factors of the text or author). Thus the frequency of 1-2 in the database can be understood as the result of the slight favoring effect of a number of factors. Ebert (1986: 122) calls this "one of the best examples in ENHG of the interaction of linguistic and extralinguistic factors in syntactic variation and change."52 Lotscher (1978: 11) makes a similar point regarding modern Swiss German: "The additional complication, that one single rule type is hardly sufficient to account for word order, must be taken into account as well" (translation in Schmid & Vogel2004: 242). Table 44. All linguistic favoring factors for 1-253 Favoring factor

1-(x)-2

Syntagm with infinitive Preceding stressed word Separable prefix verb Focus Extraposition No scrambling None ofthe favoring factors Total

359 421 104

382 151

28 50

671

52. My translation of "zu den scMnsten Beispielen des Zusammenwirkens von spracb.lichen

und auSersprachlichen Faktoren bei der syntaktischen Variation und dem Sytaxwandel" 53· Many clauses are represented in this table more than once, since a clause may have two or more of the favoring factors.

Chapter 3. Factors influencing verb order in ENHG

For MHG, I argued that prosody plays a major role in verb order. This appears to be the case in ENHG as well: the prosodic factors that affect VC word order are the preceding word (at least dialectally), verbal prefixes, focus, and the other focus-related factors (scrambling and extraposition). These factors, which are listed in Table 45, account for the vast majority of the 1-2 clauses in the database. Only 113, or 16.8%, of the clauses are not accounted for by at least one of the prosodic or focus-related factors. Clearly, prosody plays a prominent role in the choice of orders in the verbal complex, in conjunction with syntagm.54 Table 45. Prosodic favoring factors for 1-2 Favoring factor

1-(x)-2

Preceding stressed word Separable prefix verb Focus Extraposition No scrambling None of the prosodic factors Total

421 104

382 151

28 113

671

Having discussed the distribution of verbal complexes in MHG and ENHG, Chapter 4 will investigate variation in verb order in Modern Standard German and several modern dialects. Among the factors that continue to influence the choice of verb orders in these varieties are syntagm and prosody.

54· Although syntagm can to some degree imply prosody (because of the characteristic prefix ge- on most participles), recall that the effects of prefix type and syntagm are independent of each other.

99

CHAPTER4

Verbal complexes in contemporary German

4.1

Introduction

The previous chapters address word order within subordinate-clause verbal complexes in Middle and Early New High German. This chapter will discuss VC order in subordinate clauses in Modern Standard German and contemporary dialects of German. In previous chapters, I claim that prosodic factors have an effect on the choice of verb orders within the VC in MHG and ENHG. Because focus and stress must be deduced from historical texts, one of the main goals of this chapter is to determine what role prosody plays in the VC today, in order to support my claims about earlier stages of the language. Section 4.2 reviews previous scholarship on VC word order in contemporary standard and dialectal German. Section 4.3 reports on new research that I conducted on Swabian, Austrian German, and Zurich German VCs. Section 4.4 discusses verb order in the Standard German werden + modal construction, based on a survey using the magnitude estimation method. A summary of the contemporary German data and a discussion of the implications for MHG and ENHG are presented in Section 4.5.

4.2

Previous studies

4.2.1 Introduction This section reviews some of the literature on VC order in subordinate clauses in Modern Standard German and contemporary dialects of German. There are, of course, many more grammars of German dialects than could be discussed here. The dialects presented here were chosen based on two criteria. First, the descriptions of these dialects specifically address subordinate-clause verb order, providing information about ungrammatical as well as grammatical orders. For example, although VCs in varieties of Thuringian display very interesting morphological phenomena (see Spangenberg 1993:262-270 for an overview), I have not found good descriptions of the relevant word orders. Secondly, these dialects are more or less direct descendants of the ENHG dialects treated in

102

The Verbal Complex in Subordinate Clauses from Medieval to Modern German

Chapters 2 and 3 above. Therefore, well-described dialects such as Low German (Matras & Reershemius 2003) and Moselle Franconian (Bruch 1973) are excluded from this study. This part of the chapter is organized as follows. First, Section 4.2.2 discusses complexes of two verbs in several varieties of German. Three-verb complexes in these varieties are treated in Section 4.2.3. Section 4.2.4 provides a brief discussion ofVCs consisting of more than three verbs. Finally, VCs with an intervening constituent (1-x-2 or Verb Projection Raising) are covered in Section 4.2.5.

4.2.2 4.2.2.1

Two-verb complexes

Modern Standard German

In Modern Standard German (MSG), the 2-1 order is the only possible word order for two-verb complexes in subordinate clauses (Duden 1995: 786). This is true for all syntagms: (1)

dass Klaus heute das Buch lesen wilL that K. today the book read.INF2 wants 1 that Klaus wants to read the book today:

(2)

dass Klaus gestern das Buch gelesen hat. that K. yesterday the book read.PPP2 has 1 that Klaus read the book yesterday:

The 1-2 order (3) and the 1-x-2 order (4) are completely ungrammatical according to prescriptive grammars. (3) * ... dass Klaus heute das Buch will lesen. that K. today the book wants 1 read 2 that Klaus wants to read the book today.' (4) * ... dass Klaus heute will

das Buch lesen. that K. today wants 1 the book read2 that Klaus wants to read the book today.'

These orders are not only disallowed by prescriptive grammars but are also extremely rare in written German: Grubacic (1965: 9) found only eight instances in a corpus of 16,000 pages of 20th-century German. To my knowledge, there are no studies showing exactly how infrequent the 1-2 and 1-x-2 orders are in spoken Standard German; however, in informal discussions with native speakers of German, these orders are consistently judged as completely ungrammatical or possible "only in poetry':

Chapter 4. Verbal complexes in contemporary German 103

There are, of course, other word-order possibilities in colloquial forms of the standard language. The subordinate clause must display main clause word order if the clause is not introduced by a complementizer (Duden 1995: 784): (5) Ich glaube, Klaus will heute das Buch lesen. I think K. wants 1 today the book read 2 'I think Klaus wants to read the book today.' Additionally, some constituent may be extraposed, i.e. may appear to the right of the VC, as in (6) and (7). Extraposition is far less frequent in written Standard German than in colloquial varieties, but even in the written language it is possible under certain discourse conditions (Duden 1995:790-791). Extraposed arguments (6) are more marked than extraposed adjuncts (7), as Lambert's (1976) corpus study of extraposition in Standard German shows. (6) ·... dass Klaus heute lesen will das Buch. that K. today read 2 wants 1 the book that Klaus wants to read the book today.' (7) ·... dass Klaus das Buch lesen will heute. that K. the book read wants 1 today that Klaus wants to read the book today.' 4.2.2.2

Cross-dialect studies

In his seminal research on German dialects, Wenker (1888-1923) presents some information on subordinate-clause word order. Participants were asked to translate into their dialect a Standard German sentence beginning with the following clause: (8) Als wir gestern Abend zurllck kamen ... when we yesterday evening back came 'When we came back yesterday evening .. .' Speakers of southern dialects, which lack the preterit tense, rendered the preterit in (8) with a present perfect as in (9). Wenker reported the following word orders (as discussed in Maurer 1926:33 and Konig 1994: 163): (9) a.

b. c. d.

wie mir gestern abend heim komme sinn when we yesterday evening home come.PPPz are 1 'When we came home yesterday evening .. .' wie mir gestern abend heim sinn 1 komme2 wie mir gestern abend sinn 1 heim komme2 wie mir sinn 1 gestern abend heim komme2

104

The Verbal Complex in Subordinate Clauses from Medieval to Modern German

Southern Alsace, Baden, northern Swabia, northern Bavaria, and Franconia have the 2-1 order (9a). Northern Alsatian and Rhine Hessian have only the 1-2 order (9b). Dialects of the Palatinate, along the river Main, and in most of Bavarian display both of these orders plus 1-x-2 (9c). Finally, Swabian speakers also reported the order in (9d), which is ambiguous between a 1-x-2 order and a V2 order, given the limited data. In a more recent study, Wurmbrand (2004b) reports on a questionnaire-based survey of possible word orders in German, Austrian, and Swiss dialects. The first task on the questionnaire presented the participants with words in random order in standard German orthography and asked them to form a sentence from those words, including changing the orthography to reflect pronunciation. The second task asked participants to give grammaticality judgments of sentences written in standard German orthography, based on whether the word order would be natural in their dialect. Most of the sentences involved VCs with three and four verbs (discussed in Section 4.2.3 below), with only two sentences per task involving two-verb complexes. Wurmbrand's (2004b: 60) result for complexes of two verbs is that German and Austrian speakers only allow the 2-1 order, as in Modern Standard German. Wurmbrand's results for Swiss German will be discussed in Section 4.2.2.8 below. Wurmbrand's study indicates that 2-1 is the most natural order in these dialects; however, her finding that no German or Austrian speakers accepted the 1-2 order contradicts the findings of other studies, including those discussed below in this section and my own surveys of Swabian and Austrian German in Section 4.3. As Wurmbrand points out (2004b: 69, fn. 3), the format of her study makes it difficult to rule out influence of the standard language on the participants' judgments. Moreover, the study may have shown so little word-order variation because the sentences did not have any factors which favor the 1-2 order, such as focus or extra position. 4.2.2.3 Austrian dialects Since Wenker's study does not include information from outside the former German Empire, Maurer (1926) supplements Wenker's data with the following information about Austrian dialects. According to Maurer (1926:60-63) the dialects of Upper Austria and Lower Austria mainly have the 2-1 order, while Tyrolean has both the 2-1 and 1-2 orders. These observations about Austrian dialects are largely confirmed in the more recent study by Patocka (1997). He finds, however, a great deal of variation not only by dialect, but also by syntagm. First of all the passive with wet·den allows only the 2-1 order, in all dialects:

Chapter 4. Verbal complexes in contemporary German

(10) daB des Flaisch a weng gmischt wiad

that the meat a bit rnixed 2 AUX 1 'that the meat is mixed a little bit'

(Patocka 1997:271)

The modal-infinitive (11) and perfect syntagrns (12), on the other hand, allow both word orders, depending on the dialect wM(l) i dA mit n Wagl so wMtfdan muafl because I there with the wagon so far travel2 rnust1 'because I had to travel there so far by wagon b. wo des a HAathulz muafl sai(n) where that a hardwood rnust1 be2 'where there must be hardwood' (Patocka 1997:275)

(11) a.

wia rna da VAta voa zwoanzg JAh(r)n s Haus gebm hat how me the father ago twenty years the house given2 has 1 'how my father gave me the house twenty years ago' b. dea den Gaia hat ahagschossn REL the hawk has 1 down-shot2 'who shot down the hawk' (Patocka 1997: 290)

(12) a.

Judging by a comparison of Patocka's map 5 (1997: 277) and map 9 (1997: 292), the 1-2 order is possible (sometimes alongside the 2-1 order, sometimes the only possible order) in both of these syntagrns in the western and southern regions of Austria, i.e. most of Tyrol, Carinthia, and Styria.l Only the 2-1 order is possible in the more northerly dialects (Upper Austria, most of Salzburg, and western Lower Austria). The eastern part of the country (Vienna, eastern Lower Austria, and Burgenland) forms a transitional zone where only 2-1 is allowed for infinitives but both orders are attested for perfects.

4.2.2.4 Bavarian According to WeiB (1998), both the 2-1 and 1-2 orders are possible in Bavarian, although 2-1 is the unmarked order: (13) a.

b.

daB'a'da des gschengd hod that he her that given2 has 1 'that he gave that to her' und wia's a soo hand furtganga midanand and how they too thus have 1 away-gone 2 with-eachother 'and how they left together like that too' (WeiB 1998: 51)

1. The westernmost province, Vorarlberg, is not included in Patocka's study. as the dialect there is Alemannic.

105

106

The Verbal Complex in Subordinate Clauses from Medieval to Modern German

The 1-2 order is more acceptable, however, when an element that is "closely associated with the verb" is extraposed, as in (13b). This observation is especially interesting given the correlation between extraposition and the 1-2 order in ENHG (see Chapters 2 and 3). WeiB (1998: 52) finds that both orders are also possible when a modal selects an infinitive, although as with perfects, the 2-1 order is preferred. 4.2.2.5 West Central German Dubenion-Smith (2008) analyzes a corpus of spoken West Central German and presents results of a questionnaire of dialect speakers from that region.2 In the corpus study, which represents speech samples collected from 1955 to 1970, the 1-2 order is relatively rare with perfects and passives (7.6%), but it is far more frequent (25.1 %) in the modal-infinitive syntagm (2008: 85). Respondents to Dubenion-Smith's questionnaire, on the other hand, did not provide the 1-2 order with perfects in a sentence-completion task, and only four of the 51 respondents produced that order with modals (2008: 169).3 4.2.2.6 Swabian Steil (1989: 39) finds that the 1-2 order is possible in Swabian, although as in Bavarian, the 2-1 order is preferred. The 1-2 order occurs mainly in the perfect tenses: (14) ... bis di(a) Franzosa sen' komm(e)n ... until the French are 1 come.PPP 2 '... until the French came .. :

(Steil1989: 40)

According to Steil (1989:40), the 1-2 order "very rarely" occurs in the modal+ infinitive construction. This state of affairs, like the situation in eastern Austrian dialects, is the opposite of the pattern found in some other West Germanic dialects, such as Dutch and ENHG, where 1-2 is preferred with infinitives. 4.2.2.7 Alsatian According to Heitzler (1975), Alsatian also prefers the 2-1 order (15), as indialects in Germany and Austria. However, when the syntagm is the modal plus infinitive, both orders are allowed (16). 2. This larger dialect area includes both the Hessian and Cologne dialects that are discussed in Chapters 2 and 3 above.

3· In a grammaticality-judgment task, only 7.8% of respondents judged the 1-2 order acceptable with the perfect, and none preferred it In the modal syntagm, 1-2 was judged acceptable or preferred by 29.4% of respondents (Dubenion-Smith 2008: 172).

Chapter 4. Verbal complexes in contemporary German

(15) van ar Ama sundig sbod ufg5danda e5 when he on Sunday late up-stood 2 is 1 'when he got up late on Sunday' (16) a.

b.

van ar amol fordge vel if he even away-go2 wants1 'if he even wants to go away' van ar amol veltfordgi!z

(Heitzler 1975: 34)4

(Heitzler 1975: 35)

This is similar to the state of affairs in Dutch, Swiss German, and Tyrolean but unlike that in eastern Austrian dialects and Swabian, where the 1-2 order is more acceptable in the perfect. 4.2.2.8 Swiss dialects In Swiss German, the 1-2 order is much more frequent than in dialects of Austria and Germany. However, there seem to be dialect differences within Swiss German with respect to the acceptability of the 1-2 order with participial syntagms. In the dialect of Zurich (Lotscher 1978), participial syntagms allow only the 2-1 order (17). In syntagms with infinitives, however, both orders are possible, although the 1-2 order is preferred (18).5 (17) wil mer em Hans es vela gschankt hand because we the Hans the bike given2 have 1 'because we have given Hans the bike'

(Wtscher 1978:2)

(18) wil mer em Hans es vela wand schitnke because we the Hans the bike want1 give2 'because we want to give Hans the bike'

(Wtscher 1978:4)

In Hadler's (1969:691) study of texts from the Bern region, both orders are attested for both syntagms. For perfects, Hodler finds that the 2-1 order is somewhat preferred, with 133 instances versus 81 examples of 1-2. For infinitives, the opposite is true, with only 23 instances of 2-1 versus 76 occurrences of 1-2. Thus a difference between the Bern and Zurich dialects is that Bernese is more tolerant of the 1-2 order with participles. Wurmbrand's (2004b:53) Swiss data confirm one of the basic findings here, that 2-1 is preferred with perfects: all five of her participants accepted this order, with only one accepting the 1-2 order. On the other hand, her study does not confirm the preference for 1-2 with modals that Hadler and Lotscher found. Each

4· I do not reproduce all of the diacritics in Heitzler's transcription system here. 5· St. Galler German behaves sinlilarly to Zurich German (ScMnenberger 1995: 366).

107

108

The Verbal Complex in Subordinate Clauses from Medieval to Modern German

order was accepted by four out of five participants, so the two orders appear to be equally grammatical, although this does not rule out the possibility that some of the participants prefer the 1-2 order.

4.2.2.9 Summary and discussion The data for complexes of two verbs in contemporary German are summarized in Table 1. Table 1. Word order in two-verb complexes Dialect

modalinfinitive

auxiliaryparticiple

Standard German German & Austrian dialects (Wurmbrand) S and W Austria N Austria EAustria Bavarian West Central German Swabian Alsatian Swiss

2-1 2-1 1-2/ (2-1) 2-1 2-1 2-1/ (1-2) 2-1/ (1-2) 2-1 2-1/ (1-2) 1-2/ (2-1)

2-1 2-1 1-2/2-1 2-1 1-2/2-1 2-1/ (1-2) 2-1 2-1/ (1-2) 2-1 2-1/ (1-2)

Wurmbrand's (2004b) survey found that speakers of German and Austrian dialects accepted only the 2-1 order. However, those data look more like the prescriptive rules of Standard German than the results of the studies of individual dialects, which show 1-2 as a possible order in Bavarian, West Central German, Swabian, and Alsatian, and as the preferred order in some syntagms in certain Austrian dialects. Either Wurmbrand's survey elicited only the preferred order (perhaps due to the methodology), or dialect speakers today are more strongly influenced by Standard German than was previously the case. Indeed, in my dialect surveys (see Section 4.3 below), younger dialect speakers seem to have more Standardlike word order than earlier studies indicate. Based on the results of this dialect survey, as well as other West Germanic languages, Wurmbrand reaches this generalization: "if the '1-2' order is possible in an auxiliary-participle construction it is also possible in the modal-infinitive constructions (but not vice versa)" (2004b: 44). In Dutch and Swiss German, both orders are possible, but 1-2 is preferred with infinitives and 2-1 in perfects. Some varieties, including West Flemish and Afrikaans, allow only 1-2 with infinitives and only 2-1 with perfects (see Wurmbrand 2004b: 45 for references). Recall from Chapters 2 and 3 above that ENHG shows similar preferences. However, when

Chapter 4. Verbal complexes in contemporary German 109

more of the German dialects are taken into account, Wurmbrand's generalization is weakened. Although it holds for Swiss German, West Central German, Alsatian, and southern and western Austrian dialects, Swabian and eastern Austrian dialects show the opposite pattern: the 2-1 order is allowed for perfects but not for the modal + infinitive syntagm. Finally, let us compare these contemporary dialects with their ENHG predecessors as shown in Table 2. Recall from Chapter 3 that all dialects of ENHG showed a preference for the 2-1 order, especially in the participial syntagms. Not surprisingly, most of the dialects prefer the 2-1 order in both the ENHG period and currently. Two oddities stand out, however. First, early-modern Swabian shows a very high frequency of the 1-2 order with modals, and yet, unlike neighboring dialects (Bavarian, Alsatian, and Swiss), this order is ungrammatical with modals today. On the other hand, earlier Swabian has a relatively high rate of 1-2 with perfects, which is still grammatical in the contemporary dialect.6 Table 2. Two-verb complexes, ENHG vs. contemporary dialects Dialect

German & Austrian dialects (Wurmbrand) EAustria Bavarian West Central German Swabian Alsatian Swiss

modal-infinitive

auxiliary-partidple

% of1-2 inENHG

preferred order today

%of1-2 inENHG

preferred order today

35%

2-1

18%

2-1

35% 34% 30% 48% 17% 25%

2-1 2-1 2-1 2-1 2-1 1-2

18% 18% 15% 37% 7% 12%

2-1 2-1 2-1 2-1 2-1 2-1

Secondly, modern Swiss German is reported to prefer the 1-2 order with modals; however, in the ENHG period the rate of 1-2 with infinitives in Switzerland is surprisingly low at just 25%, lower than the ENHG average for infinitives (34%). This could simply be a result of the genres of the texts selected in the Bonner Fruhneuhochdeutschkorpus: they consist of one scientific text and two chronicles. Lotscher (2000: 201) finds that early-modern Swiss chronicles have a much lower rate of the 1-2 order than personal letters from the same

The percentages for ENHG for "German and Austrian dialects" are taken from Chapter 3 above. Those for individual dialects ofENHG come from Chapter 3 ofSapp (2006), with West Central German represented by the average of the percentages from Hesse and Cologne.

6.

uo The Verbal Complex in Subordinate Clauses from Medieval to Modern German

period. On the other hand, in Lotscher's (2000: 207) study, the word-order difference between the modal-infinitive and auxiliary-participle syntagms starts to increase at the end of the 16th century, so the strong preference for 1-2 with modals appears to be a relatively recent phenomenon in Swiss German. Therefore the low rate of 1-2 in the ENHG Swiss texts vis-a-vis the modern language may be due in part to the genres represented but also reflects a real increase in this order over time. 4.2.3 Three-verb complexes 4.2.3.1 Modern Standard German For most syntagms involving three verbs, the left-governing order 3-2-1 is the only possible order in MSG (Duden 1995:786). This is the case when a modal verb selects another modal and infinitive (19), a perfect (20), or a passive (21), and in the perfect of the passive (22).

(19) weil er es kaufen kiJnnen muss because he it buy3 can2 must1 'because he must be able to buy it' (20) weil er es geka.uft ha.ben muss because he it bought3 hav~ must1 'because he must have bought it' (21) weil es gekauft werden muss because it bought3 AUX2 must1 'because it must be bought' (22) weil es gekauft worden ist because it bought3 AUX z Aux1 'because is has been bought' In the IPP (infinitivus pro participio or Ersatzinfinitiv) construction, i.e. in the present perfect of a modal which governs an infinitive, 1-3-2 is the only possible order (Duden 1995:786): (23) weil er es hat kaufen mtissen because he it has 1 buy3 must.INF 2 'because he had to buy if Although prescriptive grammar rules allow only 1-3-2 in this construction, in an experiment Bader & Schmid (2009) found that as many as 28% of Standard German speakers accepted the 3-2-1 order with the IPP and fully 61% accepted 3-1-2. •

Chapter 4. Verbal complexes in contemporary German

When the IPP effect is optional e.g. when the perfect auxiliary governs an ACI verb, the 1-3-2 order occurs with the IPP (24a) but the 3-2-1 order with the participle (24b) (Duden 1995:786). (24) a.

b.

well er sie hat singen hiiren because he her has 1 sinS,:~ hear.INF 2 'because he (has) heard her sing' well er sie singen gehort hat because he her si1183 heard 2 has 1 'because he (has) heard her sing'

Finally; when the future auxiliary werden governs two infinitives, both the 3-2-1 and 1-3-2 orders are possible (Duden 1995: 786): (25) a.

b. c.

weil er es ka.ufon kOnnen wird because he it buy3 can2 will1 'because he will be able to buy it' weller es winl 1 kaufen 3 konnen 2 'll>weil er es kaufon3 winl1 konnen2

In addition, the 3-1-2 order (25c) may be becoming more frequent in colloquial Standard German (Tilman Hohle, Wolfgang Sternefeld, p.c.). Bader & Schmid ( 2009) found that native speakers of Standard German judged the 3-1-2 order acceptable with the syntagm nearly as frequently as 3-2-1. According to Schmid & Vogel (2004: 239), 3-1-2 is also a possible order for this syntagm under the right focus conditions. The effectoffocus on the choice between 3-2-1, 1-3-2, and 3-1-2 in this construction in Standard German will be discussed in Section 4.4 below.

4.2.3.2 Cross-dialect studies In Wurmbrand's (2004b) questionnaire-based study, dialect speakers in Germany show judgments that agree with the standard language for some syntagms but not others. The syntagms that, according to Duden, only allow the 3-2-1 order in the standard also strongly favor 3-2-1 in these dialects. For the syntagms modal+ modal+ infinitive (19), modal+ perfect (20), modal+ passive (21), and the perfect of the passive (22), Wurmbrand's participants from Germany overwhelmingly (above 80%) rejected any order besides 3-2-1 (2004b: 55).7 The judgments in Wurmbrand (2004b: 55) for the IPP construction ( 23) show much more deviation from the standard language. Adding the scores for "yes" and "maybe~ the standard-like 1-3-2 order received 100%, followed by 3-1-2 (73.3%), 7. Wurmbrand's (2004b) results for Austria will be treated in the next section and those for Switzerland in Section 4.2.3.8.

111

112

The Verbal Complex in Subordinate Clauses from Medieval to Modern German

3-2-1 (65.2%), and 1-2-3 (41.1%). The other logically possible orders, 2-3-1 and 2-1-3, were strongly rejected. For the werden + modal construction (25), Wurmbrand's participants found 3-2-1, one of the standard orders, to be grammatical (83.9%), but were less certain about the other standard order, 1-3-2, with 54.5% accepting it and 43.6% unsure (2004b: 55). The 3-1-2 was accepted by very few speakers (3.6%), with the remainder of participants evenly split between ungrammatical and unsure. Schmid & Vogel (2004) examine the word order possibilities in the ·werden + modal construction in various dialects. The results for some specific dialects will be discussed in the following sections, and their study will be evaluated in Section 4.4.2 below. One general result is that all non-Swiss dialects pattern with MSG in strongly preferring the orders 3-2-1 and 1-3-2 (Schmid & Vogel2004: 239). 4.2.3.3 Austrian dialects First of all, let us look at Wurmbrand's (2004b: 55) general findings for Austrian dialects. Austrians showed similar judgments to Germans for the syntagms modal+ perfect (20), modal+ passive (21), and the perfect of the passive (22), in strongly rejecting all orders other than 3-2-1. However, Austrians less decisively rejected the 1-3-2 order with two modals (19): only 36.4% of them found it ungrammatical and 54.5% were unsure. Austrians' judgments of the IPP construction (23) and werden + modal construction (25) were also similar to GermanS, except that they were much more tolerant of the 3-1-2 order. Patocka's (1997) corpus study treats only two syntagms -the perfect of the passives and the IPP. In the perfect of the passive, the 3-2-1 and 3-1-2 orders are usual, with only one attestation of 1-3-2: (26) a.

b.

c.

daB ameli biuU woa.dn wa(r) that once buillPPP3 AUX.PPP2 were.SUBJ 1 'that (it) would have been built once' daB in Triant aa oans gmartart isch woadn that in Trent also one tortured.PPP3 is 1 AUX.PPP 2 'that one was also tortured in Trent' wArm a Kind is taaft gwoadn when a child is 1 baptized.PPP3 AUX.PPP 2 'when a child was baptized' ( Patocka 1997: 289)

Patocka does not show the distribution of these orders geographically.

8. He treats the werden-passive separately from sein- passive, but they behave largely the same.

Chapter 4. Verbal complexes in contemporary German

Patocka finds three word orders for the IPP in Austrian dialects, the standardlike 1-3-2, the "typically Austrian, 3-1-2, and the "more conservative" 1-2-3: wiar i mit Knecht und Dian hd.un daba.tn miassn how I with servant and maid have 1 work3 mustiNF 2 'how I had to work with servants and maids' b. da rna wAs leana hettn soin that wir something learn3 had1 shall.INF 2 'that we should have learned something' c. daB i s hab miassn lau.ssn that I it have1 mustiNF 2 leave3 (Patocka 1997:278) 'that I had to leave it'

(27) a.

Although there are few examples of each type, the following geographical distribution emerges in Patocka (1997: 281): 1-3-2 is found mainly in the east of the country, and it is not clear whether this is chiefly due to the influence of standard German. The 3-1-2 order is found in all parts of Austria, and seems to be the normal order in colloquial speech, even appearing in writing. The 1-2-3 order is rarer, but is also evenly distributed geographically. Patocka's results are somewhat at odds with Wurmbrand's (2004b ). First of all, Wurmbrand's participants accepted only the 3-2-1 order for the perfect of the passive, while Patocka's study finds that 3-1-2 is also frequent Secondly, in Wurmbrand (2004b), 1-3-2 is the most grammatical order for the IPP, while Patocka shows that 3-1-2 is more common than 1-3-2. It is striking that Wurmbrand's participants show preferences similar to the standard language, which may indicate a methodological difference or the possibility that Patocka's study highlights moribund features, while Wurmbrand's is more reflective of contemporary Austrian speech. Schmid & Vogel (2004: 238) examine the ·werden + modal syntagm in one dialect that is closely related to Austrian dialects: South Tyrolean, spoken in northern Italy. Of the dialects they investigate, this one shows the greatest number of wordorder possibilities, and is the only one to display the 2-1-3 order. With stress on the auxiliary, three orders are possible (3-2-1.1-2-3, and 1-3-2), but with stress on any other word in the clause, five orders are possible: 3-2-1, 1-2-3, 1-3-2, 3-1-2, and 2-1-3. It is unclear why this dialect shows such tolerance for so many word orders - whether it is a genuine difference from other Austrian dialects or results from Schmid & Vogel's method of data collection (see Section 4.4.2 below).

113

114

The Verbal Complex in Subordinate Clauses from Medieval to Modern German

4.2.3.4 Bavarian According to WeiG (1998), three orders are possible in the perfect of the passive and in the double pertect9 construction: 3-2-1, 3-1-2, and 1-3-2 (Weill1998:51). (28) a.

b.

c.

wia Bayern zum K~nigreich gmocht woarn ist how Bavaria to kingdom made.PPP 3 AUX.PPP 2 is 1 'how Bavaria was made a kingdom' hod ghod wia'ra des gheerd how he it heard.PPP3 has 1 had.PPP2 'how he had heard it' wia de Doudn e da Schdum am Bred ha.nd afbohrd woa.n how the dead in the room on.the board have 1 out-laid3 AUX2 'how the dead were laid out on the board in the parlor' (WeiB 1998: 52)

Although both syntagms allow all three orders, the perfect of the passive strongly prefers the 3-2-1 order as in (28a), and the double perfect strongly prefers the 3-1-2 order as in (28b). It is not clear what the distribution of 1-3-2 is, since WeiG (1998: 52) states that it is only possible with sein, but his only example (28c) has haben. For the IPP construction, WeiG reports that the orders 3-1-2, 1-2-3, and 1-3-2 are grammatical: (29) a.

b.

c.

wa a nimmer reen hod kina I kind what he never say3 has 1 can.INF 2 can.PPP 2 'what he never could say' woa 's heijd sooln hairaddn where they had.SUBJ 1 shall.INF 2 marry3 'where they should have married' daB ned a jeda Firmd~d extra hod einspanna brau.ha. that not an every sponsor extra has 1 team.up3 need.INF2 'that not every confirmation sponsor needed to team up (the horses)' (WeiB 1998: 53)

According to Weill (1998:53), the 3-1-2 order, as in (29a), is the unmarked and most common order, while 1-2-3 (29b) and 1-3-2 (29c) are marked. WeiG (1998:53) claims that the orders 2-1-3, 2-3-1, and 3-2-1 are ungrammatical in Bavarian with this construction. Although WeiG (1998) does not mention the werden +modal construction, Schmid & Vogel (2004: 238) provide some information from the Bavarian Forest.

9· Dialects without a preterit tense cannot form the pluperfect in the usual ws:y (with preterit of the perfect auxiliary), so the pluperfect is expressed by perfect tense of the auxiliary plus the participle of the lexical verb, as in (28b).

Chapter 4. Verbal complexes in contemporary German

When the subject, object, or auxiliarywerden is stressed, the orders 3-2-1, 1-3-2, and 3-1-2 are possible, and when the lexical verb or modal verb is stressed, those orders plus 1-2-3 are possible.

4.2.3.5 West Central German Dubenion-Smith's (2008) corpus of spoken West Central German contains fewer instances of three-verb complexes, so here I only report on the syntagms that are most robustly attested. In the perfect of the passive, VCs are evenly split between 3-2-1 and 3-1-2, with the other orders unattested. The modal plus passive prefers the 3-1-2 order, followed by 3-2-1 and 1-3-2. Finally, the IPP is attested with all four orders, with ten instances of 3-1-2, six of 1-2-3, four of 1-3-2, and three of 3-2-1 (Dubenion-Smith 2008:94). In Dubenion-Smith's questionnaire, respondents overwhelmingly completed sentences in the perfect of the passive and sentences containing a modal verb plus a perfect, passive, or other modal with the 3-2-1 order, with 1-3-2 and 3-1-2 trailing distantly. No respondent used 3-2-1 with the IPP syntagm, instead preferring 1-3-2, with a few respondents giving 3-1-2 or 1-2-3 (2008: 169). Similar results obtained from the grammaticalityjudgment task (2008: 172). These results largely support the corpus data. 4.2.3.6 Swabiatt Steil (1989) deals only with VCs that have haben, werden, or a modal as the finite verb. In general, Steil finds that the most common word order in Swabian is the one used in Standard German, but that Swabian allows for additional orders (1989: 1). In the double modal construction, two orders are possible:lO (30) a.

b.

Glaubsch, da6 mr des rad nomolrichda lasse ka? think:-2SG that we the wheel again straighten3 let2 can1 'Do you think we can have the wheel straightened again?' (Steil1989: 19) Glaubsch, daB mr des rad nomoi ka 1 richda3 lasse2?

to. Two additional orders are possible when the second verb is helfen 'to help': (i) a. Frag dr vaddr, ob r dir d kardoftl ka haifa scheela. ask the father if he you the potatoes can1 help2 peel3 ~k Father if he can help you peel the potatoes: b. Frag dr vaddr, ob e m haifa kocha soli. ask the father if he me help 2 cook3 shall 1 ~k Father ifhe will help me cook: (Steil1989: 19) The verb helfen in Swabian generally shows very different word orders from other verbs that take an infinitive (Steil1989: 103).

115

116

The Verbal Complex in Subordinate Clauses from Medieval to Modern German

Note that these are the two orders that occur in Standard German, although for this syntagm, only 3-2-1 is allowed in the standard language. In the IPP construction, four word orders are possible (five when helfen is the second verb): (31) a.

b. c. b.

I glaub, daB d Anna ons bsuacha wella hat. I think that the A. us visit3 wil1INF 2 has 1 'I think that Anna wanted to visit us: I glaub, daB d Anna ons hat1 bsuacha3 wella 2• I glaub, daB d Anna ons bsuacha3 hat1 wella 2• I glaub, daB d Anna ons hat1 wellaz bsuacha3•

(Steil1989: 17)

This is much more variation than is allowed in the standard language, where only 1-3-2 is possible. In the werden + modal syntagm, only the two standard German orders are possible:ll (32) a.

b.

Moinsch, daB r des fahrrrad macha kenna wird? think.2sG that he the bicycle make3 can2 will1 'Do you think that he will be able to build the bicycle?' Moinsch, daB r des fahrrrad wird1 macha3 kennaz?

(Steil1989: 19)

However, in this case Swabian actually shows a more restricted distribution than does the standard language (Steil 1989: 18): when the modal is sollen 'shall' or durfen 'maY, only the 1-3-2 order is possible. Schmid & Vogel show a different picture for the werden + modal syntagm in Swabian. Whereas Steil accepts only 3-2-1 and 1-3-2, Schmid & Vogel (2004: 238) find that two additional orders are possible, depending on the stress. Their data for Swabian is the most complex of any dialect they investigate, and bears repeating in full: Table 3. Orders in Swabian werden + modal syntagm (S&V 2004) Stressed word

Possible orders

subject object lexical verb modal auxiliary

123 132 123 132 312 123 132 312 132 312

11.

321

Again, when helfen rather than a modal is the second verb, 1-2-3 and 2-3-1 are allowed

Chapter 4. Verbal complexes in contemporary German

There may be two reasons for the differences between Steil's and Schmid & Vogel's data for Swabian. First, it is possible that Steil did not take stress differences into account. Secondly, perhaps this is due to dialect differences within Swab ian: Steil is from greater Stuttgart, while Schmid & Vogel's participant was from Tubingen, about 40 km south of Stuttgart. 4.2.3.7 Alsatian Heitzler (1975) gives only one example of a three-verb complex in Alsatian, which happens to be the double perfect syntagm:

hed (33) van ar gasa khed when he eaten3 had.PPP 2 has 1 'when he had eaten'

(Heitzler 1975: 34)

Heitzler gives no indication as to whether other word orders are possible in this or any other three-verb syntagm. 4.2.3.8 Swiss dialects In the Swiss dialect of St. Gallen (Schonenberger 1995), four out of the 6logically possible orders are allowed for the IPP construction: (34) a.

b. c. d.

das de Jonas schwimme maese hat that the J. swim3 musliNF 2 has 1 'that Jonas had to swim' das de Jonas hat1 schwimme3 maese2 das de Jonas schwimme3 hat1 maese2 das de Jonas hat1 maese2 schwimme3

(ScMnenberger 1995: 367)

In Wurmbrand's more general study, word order judgments vary wildly by syntagm in Swiss German. Because the data are not broken down by dialect, it is difficult to know how much of this variation is due to differences among Swiss dialects. For the IPP, all of Wurmbrand's (2004b:56) participants liked 1-2-3, and most liked 1-3-2 and 3-1-2; however, a majority rejected 3-2-1, contrary to Schonenberger's acceptance of this order. Other syntagms are very difterent. With the modal +perfect, the 3-1-2 and 1-3-2 orders are grammatical, 3-2-1 is marginal, and 1-2-3 (the best order for the IPP) is ungrammatical. With two modals, the situation is reversed: 1-2-3 and 3-2-1 are grammatical and the other two orders ungrammatical. Wurmbrand's (2004b: 60) participants allowed only 3-2-1 in the perfect of the passive. Finally, in the werden + modal syntagm, Wurmbrand (2004b: 56) finds that 1-2-3, 1-3-2, and 3-1-2 are grammatical, while the majority of participants were unsure about 3-2-1.

117

us The Verbal Complex in Subordinate Clauses from Medieval to Modern German

Schmid & Vogel (2004: 238) show a possible dialect difference between St. Galler German and Bernese with respect to the werden + modal syntagm. Their participant from Bern allowed only the 1-2-3 order, while the one from St. Gallen additionally allowed 3-1-2 when the lexical verb was stressed and 2-1-3 when the modal was stressed.

4.2.3.9 Summary and discussion The data for three-verb complexes in MSG and contemporary dialects of German are summarized in Table 4.12 Judging from this table, it looks as if the werden + modal syntagm shows the greatest word-order variability. That may indeed be the case, since it is the only syntagm to allow any variation in written Standard German. On the other hand, this may be merely due to the fact that this construction is the object of Schmid & Vogel's (2005) study, which reports very detailed and stress-sensitive results. A few generalizations can be drawn from the data on three-verb complexes presented here. First of all, it appears that if a dialect displays the 1-2-3 order at all, it will do so at least in the IPP construction, followed by the werden + modal syntagm, and with the double modal syntagm only in Swiss. Secondly, the IPP does not force a particular word order: even 3-2-1 can occur with the IPP (also noted by Zwart 2005). Thirdly, the 1-2-3 order is ungrammatical if the complex contains a participle, even in Swiss.l3 Fourthly; the werden + modal syntagm tends to show a mixture ofiPP and participial word orders, as seen most clearly in Standard German, but also in Bavarian and Swabian. Finally, the 2-1-3 and 2-3-1 orders are extremely rare, with the former being found only under certain focus conditions in Austrian and Swiss, and the latter found only with the verb helfon in Swabian. Recall from Chapter 2 that the 2-1-3 and 2-3-1 orders did not occur in my ENHG corpus. However, the similarities between the three-verb complexes in ENHG and Modern German seem to end there, as seen in Table 5. Whereas all modern (non-Swiss) varieties treated here prefer the 3-2-1 order for the syntagms with participles, this was not the most frequent order in ENHG. In my ENHG corpus (excluding the Swiss data), in the perfect of the passive 3-1-2 is the most All data are from the dialect studies discussed in the previous sections. In this table, the superscripts are used as follows: the percentage sign has its conventional value, i.e. grammatical in one (micro-)dialect and ungrammatical in another. For other judgments that are split by dialect, the slash is used, so e.g. *I! indicates that the order is reported to be ungrammatical in one dialect, but possible under the appropriate focus conditions in another.

12.

13.

According to Wurmbrand (2004b: 48), this also holds true for Afrikaans, but not for Dutch.

Chapter 4. Verbal complexes in contemporary German

Table 4. Word orders in three-verb complexes Dialect

modal+ passive

modal+ perfect

passive perfect

double perfect

double modal

werden+ modal

IPP

MSG

3-2-1

3-2-1

3-2-1

n/a

3-2-1

1-3-2

German dialects (Wurmbrand) Austrian

3-2-1

3-2-1

3-2-1

3-2-1

3-2-1 1-3-2 3-2-1 1-3-2 13-1-2

3-2-1

3-2-1

3-2-1 3-1-2

3-2-1 11-3-2

Bavarian

W.Cen.G.

3-2-1 1-3-2 3-1-2 3-2-1 13-1-2 11-3-2

3-2-1 13-1-2 11-3-2

3-2-1 1-3-2 3-1-2

3-2-1 13-1-2 11-3-2

3-2-1 11-3-2 13-1-2

Swabian

Alsatian Swiss

3-2-1 1-3-2

3-2-1 1-3-2 3-1-2 1-2-3 *1!2-1-3 3-2-1 1-3-2 3-1-2 !1-2-3 11-3-2 13-2-1 13-1-2 11-2-3 3-2-1 1-3-2 *1!3-1-2 *1!1-2-3

3-2-1 1-3-2 3-1-2 11-2-3 3-2-1 1-3-2 3-1-2 11-2-3 1-3-2 3-1-2 1-2-3 1-3-2 13-1-2 11-2-3 3-2-1 1-3-2 3-1-2 1-2-3

3-2-1 13-2-1 1-3-2 3-1-2 *1-2-3

3-2-1 11-3-2 13-1-2 1-2-3

*113-2-1 ok/!1-3-2 ok/!3-1-2 1-2-3 *1!2-1-3

%3-2-1 1-3-2 3-1-2 1-2-3

frequent order (nine times), followed by 3-2-1 (seven times) and 1-3-2 (six times). In the modal+ passive and modal+ perfect syntagms, 1-3-2 is the most frequent (twenty-seven times), with only sixteen instances of3-2-1 and fifteen of3-1-2. In the IPP construction, the least common order in the modern dialects (1-2-3) is the most frequent in ENHG with fourteen instances, followed by eight examples of the modern order 1-3-2 and just one of the 3-1-2 order. Thus it appears that the preference in Standard German and in modern Austrian and German dialects for the 3-2-1 order with participles and the 1-3-2 order with the IPP arises after the ENHG period.

119

120

The Verbal Complex in Subordinate Clauses from Medieval to Modern German

Table 5. Three-verb complexes, ENHG vs. contemporary dialects14 Passive _£erfect

Modal+ partici_£le

IPP

ENHG

Wurmbrand

ENHG

Wurmbrand

ENHG

Wurmbrand

Germany &Austria

3-1-2 > 3-2-1 > 1-3-2 >

3-2-1 > 1-3-2

1-3-2 > 3-2-1 > 3-1-2 >

3-2-1

1-2-3 > 1-3-2 > 3-1-2

Swiss

1-3-2 > 3-2-1/ 3-1-2

3-2-1 > 1-3-2 > 3-1-2

3-1-2 > 1-3-2/ 3-2-1

3-1-2 > 1-3-2 > (3-2-1)

1-2-3

1-3-2 > 3-1-2 > 3-2-1 > (1-2-3) 1-2-3 > 1-3-2 > 3-1-2 > (3-2-1)

Dialect

On the other hand, there is much more agreement between my ENHG results from Switzerland and Wurmbrand's (2004b) results from modern Swiss German. Modern Swiss prefers the 1-2-3 order for the IPP, and indeed all four instances of the IPP in my data from Zurich are in that order. For the modal+ perfect, modern speakers prefer the 3-1-2 and 1-3-2 orders, with 3-2-1 marginal and 1-2-3 ungrammatical and in ENHG 3-1-2 is most frequent with three occurrences, with one attestation each of 1-3-2 and 3-2-1 and none of 1-2-3. In the passive perfect in Swiss German, 3-2-1 is clearly preferred, 1-3-2 and 3-1-2 are marginal, and 1-2-3 is ungrammatical. Early Modern Swiss German shows somewhat difierent rankings, with three instances of 1-3-2 and one each of3-2-1 and 3-1-2; however, here 1-2-3 is unattested as well. In sum, the preference in Modern Swiss German for the 1-2-3 order with the IPP and for other orders with participial syntagms has clear parallels in the ENHG data from Switzerland.

4.2.4 Complexes of four or more verbs 4.2.4.1 Modern Standard German According to Duden (1995:786-787), the normal order in MSG complexes of four verbs is 4-3-2-1. The 1-4-3-2 may optionally occur with werden plus two infinitives (35) and is obligatory in the so-called high IPP construction, i.e. when ha.ben is the finite verb in the complex (36). In the low IPP, i.e. when haben is an infinitive selected by another verb, the 1-2-4-3 order is found (37).

14. Data under "Wurmbrand" are from Wurmbrand (2004b), discussed in Sections 4.2.3.2 and 4.2.3.8 above. ENHG data are those from Chapter 3, Table 28, with the Swiss numbers counted separately.

Chapter 4. Verbal complexes in contemporary German

weil er es kaufen kiinnen massen wird because he it buy4 can3 must2 will 1 'because he will have to be able to buy it' b. weil er es wird kaufen kiinnen milssen because he it will1 buy4 can3 must2

(35) a.

(36) weil er es ha.t kaufen kiinnen milssen because he it has 1 buy4 can3 must.INF 2 'because he must have been able to buy if (37) weil er es wird haben kaufen kiinnen because he it will1 have2 buy4 can.IPP3 'because he will have been able to buy it'

(Duden 1995:786-787)

There are certainly other word order possibilities in the standard language than Duden (1995) prescribes. In addition to the 1-4-3-2 order, Haegeman & van Riemsdijk (1986) claim that the high IPP allows the 1-2-4-3 order: (38) a.

b.

dass er hatte kommen wollen kiinnen that he has.SUBJI come4 want3 can.INF 2 'that he could have wanted to come' dass er hatte1 kiinnen 2 kommen4 wollen 3 (Haegeman &van Riemsdijk 1986:427)

Wollstein-Leisten et al. (1997: 70-71) indicate that lassen 'to let' behaves like werden, allowing both the usual verb-final order (39a) and the 1-3-2 order (39b ). When itself selected by another verb, la..~en may additionally show either IPP-like order (40b-c). Finally, in a complex of five verbs, a total offour orders are possible (41).15 (39) a.

b. (40) a.

b. c.

. .. daB man ihn hier liegen bleiben lasst that one him here lie3 remain 2 lets 1 '... that one lets him remain lying here' . .. daB man ilin hier lasst1 liegen3 bleiben 2 . .. da6 man ihn hier liegen bleiben lassen kann that one him here lie4 remain3 let2 can 1 '... that one can let him remain lying here' . .. daB man ilin hier kann 1 liegen4 bleiben3 lassen 2 . .. da6 man ilin hier kann 1 lassen 2 liegen 4 bleiben3

In an informal survey of four native speakers of German, (41d) was consistently rated as ungrammatical Therefore, although WOllstein-Leisten et al. list it as grammatical, I give it a question mark.

15.

121

122

The Verbal Complex in Subordinate Clauses from Medieval to Modern German

(41) a.

b. c. d.

daB man ihn hier liegen bleiben lassen kiinnen wird that one him here lie5 remain. let3 can2 will1 that one will be able to let him remain lying here' da6 man ihn hier wird 1 liegen 5 bleiben4 lassen 3 kiinnen 2 daB man ihn hier wird 1 kiinnen 2 liegen 5 bleiben4 lassen 3 da6 man ihn hier wird 1 kiinnen 2 lassen3 liegen 5 bleiben4 (\Wllstein-Leisten et al1997:70-71)

The generalization from these examples is that the two lowest verbs in the complex must remain in the descending order.

4.2.4.2 l)ialects Wurmbrand (2004b) included in her questionnaire a section involving VCs containing four verbs with the high and low IPP constructions. Participants completed two tasks: first they arranged a scrambled-up clause into the best order, and then they judged the grammaticality of several orders. Wurmbrand (2004b: 14) notes that many speakers commented that these constructions were rare in their dialect, and some participants simplified the VCs in the re-arranging task. For the high IP P construction, the majority of German and Austrian participants accepted only the 1-4-3-2 order, as in the standard language, while the Swiss preferred 1-2-3-4 and 1-2-4-3 while also accepting other orders (Wurmbrand 2004b: 85). For the low IPP construction, speakers of all three nationalities rejected every word order in the second task (Wurmbrand 2004b: 85), although in the first task the most frequent arrangement was 1-4-2-3, followed by 4-3-2-1 and the standard-like 1-2-4-3 (Wurmbrand 2004b:59). According to Steil (1989: 36), with the high IPP in Swabian, the orders 1-4-3-2, 1-2-4-3, and 4-3-1-2 are possible when V2 is a modal:16 (42) a.

b. c.

Woisch du, worom mr den ned had ganga lassa wella? know you why we him not have1 go 4 let3 wantiNF 2 'Do you know why we did not want to let him go?' Woisch du, worom mr den ned had1 wella 2 ganga 4 lassa 3? Woisch du, worom mr den ned ganga4 lassa3 had1 wella 2? (Steil1989: 36)

When a modal governs lassen, as in the Standard German examples in (40), the 4-3-2-1 and 1-4-3-2 orders are possible:

16. When V2 is lassen, only 1-4-3-2 and 1-2-4-3 are acceptable.

Chapter 4. Verbal complexes in contemporary German

Glaubsch, daB mr den rna so liega bleibe lassa ka? think-2sG that we him PART so lie4 stay3 let2 can 1 'Do you think we can just let him remain lying like that?' b. Glaubsch, daB mr den rna so ka 1 liega4 bleibe3 1assaz? c. *Glaubsch, daB mr den rna so ka 1 Iassaz liega 4 bleibe3? d. *Glaubsch, daB mr den rna so liega4 bleibe3 ka1 lassa2? (Steil1989: 38)

(43) a.

Oddly, although Swabian allows 1-2-4-3 for the IPP, it does not allow it for modal+ lassen (43c), although that is grammatical in Standard German (40c). Not surprisingly. Swiss German shows much more variation with four-verb complexes than other varieties of German. There are eight, perhaps nine, possible word orders in the dialect of St. Gallen: 17

(44) a.

b. c. d. e. f.

hat wlJle

chiJne kampfe

has 1 want.INF 2 can3 figh4 'has wanted to be able to fight' hat1 wiJle2 kitmpfe4 chiine3

hat1 kampfe4 chiJne3 wlJle2 kitmpfe4 hitt1 wiile2 chiine3 wiile2 hat1 kitmpfe4 chiine3 wiile2 hitt1 chiine3 kampfe4 g. chiine3 kampfe4 hitt1 wlJle2 h. kitmpfe4 chone3 hiit1 wiile2 h'. kiimpfe4 chiine2 hitt1 wole3

(Scbonenberger 1995:383-384)

This state of affairs is largely in agreement with the results from the second fourverb task in Wurmbrand's (2004b) questionnaire: the majority of Swiss respondents agreed with Schonenberger in allowing 1-2-4-3, 1-2-3-4, 4-1-2-3, and 1-43-2, but unlike Schonenberger also accepted 1-4-2-3. Like Schonenberger, they rejected 4-3-2-1 and 4-1-3-2, and only 30% of them accepted 4-3-1-2, the order that Schonenberger is not sure about. IS

4.2.4.3 Comparison to ENHG Recall from Chapter 3.1.1 that there are only three instances of a four-verb complexin ENHG, and all of these are in the 1-2-4-3 order. One of them has a modal

17. ScMnenberger is unsure about the interpretation of (44h). If it means 'has wanted to be

able to fighf, then it has the structure indicated by the subscripts in (44h). However, if it means 'has been able to want to fight; then in represents a ninth order as in (44h'). 18. These judgments are found in Table 16 in an earlier version of the Wurmbrand's paper,

accessible at http://wurmbrand..uconn.edu/Papers/WG-empirical.pd.f However, in the print version, the Swiss data are not in the table (2004"b: 85).

123

124

The Verbal Complex in Subordinate Clauses from Medieval to Modern German

as the finite verb governing lassen, and two are IPP constructions. Although three examples are not sufficient to make any firm claims, the tendency to have the 1-2-4-3 order in ENHG is supported by Hard's (1981) data from 1450-1580. Of the forty IPP four-verb complexes in Hard's study. twenty-two display the 1-2-4-3 order, eight are 1-2-3-4, and there are just a few examples of each of the other five orders (1981:63-64). Thus it appears that there is a strong ENHG tendency in VCs with four verbs, as with three verbs, to place the finite verb at the front of the complex. Moreover, 1-2-4-3 is the preferred order. This is quite different from the state of affairs in Modern German. Although the standard language requires 1-2-4-3 with the low IPP, Wurmbrand's (2004b) participants preferred 1-4-3-2 even with the low IPP. and in Swabian 1-2-4-3 is not possible when the finite verb is a modal. Thus it appears that there has been a trend from 1-2-4-3 to 1-4-3-2 in both the standard language and (non-Swiss) dialects. Hard (1981: 175) finds that these word order preferences arise in the early 19th century in Standard German.

4.2.5 Verbal complexes with an intervening constituent (1-x-2, etc.) 4.2.5-1 Modern Standard German This section deals with VCs that are split by some constituent. In the generative literature, this phenomenon is called Verb Projection Raising (see Chapter 5.2.3.2), but here as in previous chapters, the orders are given the theory-neutral descriptive labels 1-x-2, 1-x-3-2, etc. In my ENHG data, there is a robust generalization that a VC can never be broken up if the verbs are in their left-governing order, i.e., the orders *2-x-1 and *3-{x}-2-{x}-1 do not occur. Not surprisingly, this generalization holds for MSG. This means that breaking up VCs is limited to the two syntagms which allow 1-3-2, the only possible rightgoverning order in the standard language. According to Duden (1995:787), the 1-x-3-2 order is possible only in the IPP construction (45) and with werden plus two infinitives (46). This is confirmed by Kefer & Lejeune (1974), who find what they term "Einklammerung" only in these two syntagms: ... obwohl ich mich hatte niitzlich machen konnen ... although I REFL have.SUBJ 1 useful make3 can.INFz '... although I could have made myself useful ... (Kefer & Lejeune 1974: 330) ( 46) ... daB er mich wird an die Front schicken lassen. that he me will1 on the front send 2 let3 '... that he will have me sent to the front' (Kefer & Lejeune 1974: 322)

(45)

Chapter 4. Verbal complexes in contemporary German

4.2.5.2 l)ialects Some contemporary dialects of German are much more tolerant ofbreaking up the VC than the standard language is. A similar state of affairs exists in Dutch, where dialects such as West Flemish, but not Standard Dutch, display 1-x-2 and similar orders (Haegeman 1992). In what follows, examples are given of these orders in some dialects of German. Note that most of the studies that report on these orders do not indicate whether they differ in meaning from other orders. For Austrian dialects, Patocka (1997: 298-317) finds the orders 1-x-2 (47), 1-2-x-3 (48), and 1-x-3-2 (49). (47) und wia s san friah wegganga. and how they are 1 early away.gone2 'and how they went away early'

( Patocka 1997: 30 5)

(48) und wAs rna dA habm miassn rulchar aafiegn and what we there have 1 must-INF 2 afterwards on.lay3 'and what we had to put on there afterwards' ( Patocka 1997: 299)

(49) wAnn i wein hab aus da Not htJ(l)fa kina when I someone have 1 out the need help 3 can-INF 2 'when I was able to help someone in need' ( Patocka 1997: 299) Note that Patocka does not report an order which is found in ENHG, 1-x-2-3 (see Chapter 2.1.1 above). Patocka (1997: 317) finds that these orders are completely optional, although he speculates that they may be favored by factors such as focus and semantic closeness between the intervening constituent and the verb. Weill (1998) shows that the verbal complex can be split by some constituent in Bavarian main clauses: (50) der hod wolln sei Sau abstecha he has 1 want-INF 2 his sow slaughter3 'he wanted to slaughter his sow'

(WeiB 1998: 54)

He refers to this as main-clause phenomenon, not indicating whether breaking up the VC is possible in subordinate clauses. Dubenion-Smith finds twenty instances of the 1-x-2 order in West Central German (2008: 89). In eleven of these cases the intervening item is a stressed separable prefix (51a),19 with two to four examples each of intervening adjectives/adverbs (51b), PPs (51c), and indefinite NPs (51d).

19. Note that in Chapters 2 and 3, I do not consider verbal prefixes to be intervening constitu-

ents, treating such cases as instances of the 1-2 order, rather than the 1-x-2 order.

125

126

The Verbal Complex in Subordinate Clauses from Medieval to Modern German

(51) a.

b.

c.

d.

dass man so frlih musste aufstehen that one so early must1 stand-up 2 'that you had to get up so early' die so frUh wollten fertig sein who so early wanted 1 finished be 2 'who wanted to be finished so early' dass er jeden Augenblick musste hinter eine Heeke laufen that he any moment must1 behind a hedge run2 'that he had to run behind a hedge at any moment' dass sie da massen einen ordentlichen Korb . . . kochen that they there must1 a decent basket cook2 'that they have to cook a decent basketful of food' (Dubenion-Smith 2008:89)

Dubenion-Smith only finds four instances of three-verb complexes with an intervening constituent, all of which are in the 1-x-3-2 order (2008: 96): (52) well die ja massen warm gemacht werden because they yes must 1 warm made3 be2 'because they must be made warm' (Dubenion-Smith 2008: 96) Steil ( 1989: 85-9 3) discusses intervening constituents only in three-verb complexes. (This may be taken to imply that 1-x-2 is ungrammatical in Swabian, which I find to be the case in Section 4.3.2.2 below.) The orders 1-x-3-2 (53), and 1-2-x-3 (54) are grammatical as in Austrian dialects. Also as in Austrian, the 1-x-2-3 order (55) is ungrammatical. Oddly. a similar yet more complex order, 1-x-2-x-3 (56) is more acceptable.zo (53) ... , wenn se han da Kuu(r)zkratta traga kenna. when they have1 the short-basket carry3 can.INF 2 when they were able to carry the short basket' (54) ... ,daB se hot kenna en Kaffee macha. that she has 1 can.INFz a coffee make3 that she was able to make coffee:

solla aruafa. (55) *I woiB ned, ob r had dera frao I know not if he has 1 the woman shall2 call3 'I don't know whether he was supposed to call the woman: (56) ·... ,daB mir hedded den briaf solla dr Sabine zaiga? that we have 1 the letter shall2 the Sabine show3 that we were supposed to show the letter to Sabine' (Steil1989: 85-87)

20. The grammaticality of this order seems to depend on the part of speech of the first x: an adverb is more acceptable here than an object (Steil1989:22).

Chapter 4. Verbal complexes in contemporary German

Although both Austrian and Swabian allow 1-2-x-3, they appear to be more restrictive than Swiss (see below) and ENHG in disfavoring 1-x-2-3. However, as in ENHG, no constituent can break up a VC in the 3-2-1 or 3-1-2 orders (e.g. Steil1989: 23). In Alsatian, the 1-x-2 order is possible (57a) with the modal plus infinitive syntagm (Heitzler 1975: 35). Heitzler explicitly states that the 2-x-1 order is ungrammatical (57a), supporting the generalization discussed above that constituents may not break up a left-governing complex. van ar vel !rna ova fordge if he wants 1 on evening away-go 2 b. *van ar fordge altl
(57) a.

(Heitzler 1975: 35)

Heitzler does not discuss constituents intervening in three-verb complexes. According to Lotscher ( 1978: 4) and Schonenberger ( 1995: 347), Swiss dialects allow the 1-x-2 order (at least in those cases where the 1-2 order is possible): (58) wil mer em Hans wand es velo schitnke because we the Hans want1 the bike give 2 'because we want to give Hans the bike'

(Wtscher 1978:4)

Clusters of three verbs also allow one or more constituents to appear between the verbs, at least in the 1-2-3 order: (59) a.

b.

das er wil em Karajan en arie chtJne vorsinge that he wants 1 the K. an aria can.INF 2 sinSJ 'that he wants to be able to sing an aria to Karajan' das er wil1 chtJne2 em Karajan en arie vorsinge3 das er wil1 em Karajan chtJne2 en arie vorsinge3 (ScMnenberger 1995: 376-377)

4.2.5.3 Discussion Kefer & Lejeune (1974: 329) find that in most instances, the placement of the constituent within the VC is optional. It occurs most often when there is a dose semantic connection between the intervening constituent and one of the verbs, as in idioms (also noted by Duden 1995:787). It may also serve to resolve an ambiguity that would result if the constituent were placed in the usual position. In ( 60a), selbst unambiguously emphasizes der Herr, since it is not adjacent to heute, whereas in (60b) selbst may emphasize either der Het-r or heu.te. (60) a.

. .. den der Herr selbst hittte heute nehmen wollen. REL the lord EMPH have.SUBJI today tak.e3 want.INF 2 '... that the lord himself would have wanted to take todaY:

127

u.s The Verbal Complex in Subordinate Clauses from Medieval to Modern German

b.

. .. den der Herr selbst heute hittte nehmen wollen. ibid or'... which the lord would have wanted to take this very day: Kefer & Lejeune (1974: 335)

Most interestingly, Keter & Lejeune point out some properties of this phenomenon that are related to focus. First of all, they claim that the constituent that breaks up the VC is often the "last heavily stressed element of the sentence" (Kefer & Lejeune 1974: 331). The fact that such a constituent is stressed indicates that it is part of the focus. Secondly, Kefer & Lejeune (1974: 326) make an interesting observation with respect to contrastive focus. They argue that in (61a), the contrastive element is einen Roman 'a novel: contrasting for example with die Zeitung 'the newspaper'. This would then have the focus structure in (61b). (61) a.

b.

. .. daB er (eher) einen Roman hittte lesen sollen. that he rather a novel have.SUBJ 1 read.INF 3 shall.INF 2 '(He knows) that he should have read a novel (instead): . .. daB er eher (p0~einen Roman] ~tte lesen sollen Kefer & Lejeune ( 197 4: 326)

In (62a), however, the contrastive element is einen Roman lesen 'read a novel: contrasting with another VP such as Hunden nachlaufen 'chase dogs' (Kefer & Lejeune 1974: 326). This focus structure could be represented as in (62b ). (62) a. Er weiB, daB er (eher) hittte einen Roman lesen sollen. b. . .. daB er eher ~tte lFoc einen Roman lesen] sollen Lotscher (1978:4-6) also discusses functional (focus) differences between 1-2 and 1-x-2 in Swiss German. His findings about Swiss German are similar to Kefer & Lejeune's claims about Standard German. First, Lotscher (1978: 5) finds that the 1-x-2 order forces the sentential accent to be on the x. Secondly, the order is not possible in Swiss when the x alone is the focus, but only when both the x and the verb that governs it are included in the focus (1978:6). However, Lotscher (1978: 5) finds no such functional difference between the 2-1 and 1-2 orders. Recall from Chapter 2.2.2.4, that in MHG intervening NPs appear to be either defocused or part of wider focus, but are only rarely narrowly focused. This is quite in line with both Keter & Lejeune's (1974) observation about 1-x-3-2 in Standard German and Lotscher's (1978) analysis of 1-x-2 in Swiss. Thus it appears that in several historical and contemporary varieties of German, these word orders are used to indicate focus on the VP.

Chapter 4. Verbal complexes in contemporary German 129

4.2.6 Conclusion This section has yielded a number of interesting results. In VCs with two verbs, there are several dialects that allow the 1-2 order in at least some syntagms, but all of these except Swiss German prefer the 2-1 order. Moreover, there seems to be little connection between the dialects which strongly favored the 1-2 order in ENHG and those which allow the order today. In three-verb complexes, ENHG and the contemporary dialects are similar in that the 2-1-3 and 2-3-1 orders are unattested or rare. Contemporary Swiss German largely maintains the preferences of Early Modern Swiss texts; however, other contemporary dialects and Modern Standard German developed a strong preference for the 3-2-1 and 1-3-2 orders after the ENHG period. Swiss German also differs from other dialects in allowing many possible orders in four-verb complexes, whereas other dialects and the standard language prefer the order 1-4-3-2. Finally, although very restricted in Modern Standard German, contemporary dialects allow the VC to be split up by some constituent, as in ENHG. In all of these varieties, the generalization holds that the constituent may only intervene between verbs in the right-governing order. In addition, several studies indicate that the 1-x-2 and similar orders have a specific focus interpretation, namely focus on the intervening object plus the lexical verb (VP focus), or that prosody plays a role. The next two sections attempt to determine whether right-governing orders with no intervention (1-2, 1-3-2 etc.) also show focus or prosodic effects in some modern varieties of German.

4·3

Focus and two-verb complexes in dialects

4.3.1 Introduction Because word order in the VC has been attributed both to prosodic factors (e.g. Behaghel1932; Schmid & Vogel2004) and to focus (Lotscher 1978), this section attempts to establish the effect of focus on two-verb complexes in three dialects of German. The studies of Swabian and Austrian German are more informal and use the same methods, thus they are discussed together in Section 4.3.2. In Section 4.3.3, I report on my broader and more methodologically sound study of Zurich German. Section 4.3.4 discusses the results of these studies, concluding that they do not definitively establish an effect of focus on VC word order independently of prosody.

130

The Verbal Complex in Subordinate Clauses from Medieval to Modern German

4.3.2 Swabian and Austrian 4·3·2.1 Study design For each of these two dialects, I asked the first study participant to give me the dialect equivalent of some Standard German words.21 These dialect words were entered into a word-processing program, which was used to generate sentences in that dialect. From then on, the first participant saw only these dialect sentences on the computer screen. Subsequent participants were shown a print out of the first participant's sentences and were allowed to write down phonological adjustments if necessary. in case of variation within the dialect. This process was intended to minimize the effect of the standard language by limiting the participants' exposure to the Standard German equivalents of the test sentences. The spoken exchange with the researcher (small talk, instructions, and clarifications when necessary) took place in Standard German. Each participant was asked to perform two tasks. First, he or she was shown a list of sentences and asked to judge their grammaticality. giving each sentence a score from 1 to 5. These sentences were the dialect translations of the Standard German sentences in (63), with each sentence appearing in fourteen different word orders. (63) a.

b.

Ich glaube, dass Klaus heute das Buch lesen wilL I think that Klaus today the book read.INF2 wants 1 'I think that Klaus wants to read the book today.' Ich glaube, dass Klaus gestem das Buch gelesen hat. I think that Klaus yesterday the book read.PPP 2 has 1 'I think that Klaus read the book yesterday.'

The word-order variations involved various combinations of VC order (2-1, 1-2, 1-x-2, and 2-x-1), with different placements of the object (preceding the VC, scrambled, or extraposed). All of these orders will be illustrated in the sections below. The second task involved judging dialect versions of the same basic sentences in (63), with the only variation being verb order (2-1 versus 1-2). However, in this task each pair of sentences, which will be illustrated below, was given a context question to elicit focus on the object, verb, VP, or the entire clause. In this way. the survey attempted to elicit new-information focus without specifically referring to stress. Participants were asked to judge the naturalness of the sentences as a response to the question.

I collected the data presented here while on research grants at the University of Thbingen (2004-2005) and the University of Vienna (2005-2006). I thank the Deutscher Akademischer Austauschdienst and the William J. Fulbright Program, respectively, for generous funding making this research possible. The data were gathered with the approval of the Indiana University Bloomington Human Subjects Committee (#03-8702). 21.

Chapter 4. Verbal complexes in contemporary German

4.3.2.2 Swabian results Swabian is an Alemannic dialect of southwestern Germany. Recall from Section 4.2.2.5 above that the 2-1 order is preferred but the 1-2 order is also possible, being more acceptable in perfects than with modals. For Swabian, I interviewed two speakers, one male and one female. Both were students at the University ofTiibingen, who were approximately twenty-five years old. The first speaker was from a large suburb of Stuttgart, and the second was from a village just outside ofTubingen. The dialects are similar enough that the second interviewee did not make any phonological adjustments to the sentences generated by the first participant. The following are the Swabian sentences in the present perfect that were judged in the first task. The first two sentences, (64a-b), show the 2-1 order, with the object unscrambled and scrambled, respectively, and (64c-d) show the 1-2 order with an unscrambled vs. scrambled object. Sentences (64e-f) represent subordinate clauses that could be interpreted as having either the V2 order or 1-x-2 with two constituents intervening in the VC. Unambiguous cases of intervention are shown with the 1-x-2 order in (64g-h) and the 2-x-1 order in (64i-j). The remaining sentences illustrate extraposition of an object (64k-l) or adverb (64m-n), with the VC in the 2-1 and 1-2 order, respectively.22 I glaub, dass Glaus geschdern des Buach glese had. I think that Klaus yesterday the book read.PPP 2 has 1 'I think that Klaus read the book yesterdaY: b. 1 glaub, dass Glaus des Buach geschdernglese ha.d. c. ![ glaub, dass Glaus geschdern des Buach had glese. d. ![ glaub, dass Glaus des Buach geschdern had glese. e. !![ glaub, dass Glaus had geschdern des Buach glese. f. !![ glaub, dass Glaus had des Buach geschdern glese. g. !*[ glaub, dass Glaus geschdern had des Buach glese. h. !*I glaub, dass Glaus des Buach had geschdernglese. i. *I glaub, dass Glaus geschdern glese des Buach had. j. *I glaub, dass Glaus des Buachglese geschdern had. k. !![ glaub, dass Glaus geschdernglese had des Buach. 1. !*I glaub, dass Glaus geschdern had glese des Buach. m. I glaub, dass Glaus des Buach glese had geschdern. n. !![ glaub, dass Glaus des Buach had glese geschdern.

(64) a.

22. Consistent with other examples in this work, parts of the VC are italicized. Of course, the sentences seen by the participants did not have italics nor the superscripts indicating grammaticality. The superscripts represent the average of the two participants' judgments rounded up to the nearest whole number: no superscript represents 5, 1 is 4, 1r means 3, !* equals 2, and * represents 1.

131

132

The Verbal Complex in Subordinate Clauses from Medieval to Modern German

The participants judged these same orders in the modal + infinitive syntagm:

I glaub, dass Glaus heud des Buach lese mecht. I think that Klaus today the book read.INF 2 wants 1 'I think that Klaus read the book yesterdaY. b. I glaub, dass Glaus des Buach heud lese mecht. c. !!J glaub, dass Glaus heud des Buach mecht lese. d. !*I glaub, dass Glaus des Buach heud mecht lese. e. !!J glaub, dass Glaus mecht heud des Buach lese. f. !!J glaub, dass Glaus mecht des Buach heud lese. g. !!I glaub, dass Glaus heud mecht des Buach lese. h. !*I glaub, dass Glaus des Buach mecht heud lese. i. *I glaub, dass Glaus heud lese des Buach mecht. j. !*I glaub, dass Glaus des Buach lese heud mecht. k. !!I glaub, dass Glaus heud lese mecht des Buach. 1. !!I glaub, dass Glaus heud mecht lese des Buach. m. !!I glaub, dass Glaus des Buach lese mecht heud. n. !*I glaub, dass Glaus des Buach mecht lese heud.

(65) a.

Several observations can be made from this data. First of all, it confirms Steil's (1989) claim that the 1-2 order in Swabian is more grammatical with the perfect than with modals, being ranked one or two points higher in the present perfect version (64c-d) than in the modal-infinitive version (65c-d). Secondly, there maybe a correlation between scrambling and the 1-2 order: whereas there is no difference in grammaticality between the variants of the 2-1 clauses with and without scrambling in the modal-infinitive, both participants rated the 1-2 order higher when the object was not scrambled (65c) than when it was scrambled (65d). Thirdly, the clauses with a V2-lik.e order, (64e-f) and (65e-f) are better than the clauses that are unambiguous cases of 1-x-2 or VPR, (64g-h) and (65g-h); recall that Wenker (1888-1923) also found this order in Swabian (9d).23 Fourthly, note that the 2-x-1 order, as in (64i-j) and (65i-j), which is not attested in any dialect, is indeed judged much worse than other orders. Finally, the clauses with extraposition showed a great deal of variation between participants, so it is unclear how the data should be interpreted; however, to the extent that the average of the two participants' scores is meaningful, it appears that extraposition does not favor the 1-2 order, but actually seems to make the clause worse: (641-n) are worse than (64c-d).

23. These ambiguous clauses more likely involve embedded V2 than 1-x-2, because straightforward instances of 1-x-2 (64g) are not accepted, and because they allow scrambling (64f), a phenomenon of the middle field

Chapter 4. Verbal complexes in contemporary German

In the second task, participants judged the 2-1 and 1-2 orders in different focus conditions, which were elicited using context questions. The focus conditions tested were object focus (66), focus on the lexical verb (67), focus on the VP, i.e. the object and lexical verb (68), and focus on the entire subordinate clause (69). Note that what is being tested here is focus in the syntactic sense, rather than phonological stress, as all sentences except (67) have the sentential accent on the direct object. All of these sentences were tested with both a present perfect and a modal-infinitive variant; they are illustrated here using the present perfect sentences.24 (66) Was had Glaus geschdern glese? 'What did Klaus read yesterday?' a. I glaub, dass Glaus [Foe des BUACH] glese had. b. !I glaub, dass Glaus [Foe des BUACH] had glese. (67) Was had Glaus geschdern mit dem Buach gmacht? 'What did Klaus do yesterday?' a. I glaub, dass Glaus des Buach [Foe GLESE] had. b. !!I glaub, dass Glaus des Buach had [Foe GLESE]. (68) Was had Glaus geschdern gmacht? 'What did Klaus do yesterday?' a. I glaub, dass Glaus lFoc des BUACH glese had]. b. !!I glaub, dass Glaus [Foe des BUACH ha.d glese]. (69) Was isch geschdem bassierd? 'What happened yesterday?' a. I glaub, dass IFo~ Glaus des BUACH glese had]. b. !!I glaub, dass !Foe Glaus des BUACH had glese]. In this task there was considerable inter-speaker variation. The only consistent result was that for both speakers, the 1-2 variants were clearly less acceptable than the 2-1 variants in all contexts and with both syntagms. Interestingly, in this task there was little difference in the acceptability of 1-2 in the present perfect versus the modal-infinitive syntagm. One of the participants, however, did find a difference between the grammaticality of the 1-2 order when the object was focused (66b), which was judged with 4 out of 5 points, versus the 1-2 order in all of the other conditions, which all received a 3. 24. Italics indicate the VC, sentential stress is marked by all capitals, and focus is indicated with brackets. The sentences seen by the participants used conventional German punctuation and capitalization. The judgments here are for the present perfect sentences only, with the modal + infinitive sentences showing slightly different results, calculated as in the judgments for task one.

133

134 The Verbal Complex in Subordinate Clauses from Medieval to Modern German

In conclusion, very little effect of focus could be established by this study. Even in the present perfect, which according to Steil (1989) should allow the 1-2 order, this order is dearly less acceptable than 2-1. Moreover, since extra position is ungrammatical in the modern dialect, clauses with both extraposition and 1-2 are worse than clauses with only one of these features, unlike the favoring effect of extraposition on the 1-2 order found in ENHG. 4.3.2.3 Austrian results Austria has considerable dialectal variation. Most Austrian dialects are classified as Bavarian dialects, except the dialect of the small westernmost province Vorarlberg, which along with dialects of Switzerland and south-west Germany is an Alemannic dialect. This study was conducted with five speakers from difterent regions of Austria, two male and three female and all students at the University of Vienna in their mid-twenties. The first interviewee was from a small town in Lower Austria near the border with Styria. The same method was used as in the Swabian study; i.e., as the first interviewee, this participant translated the lexical items from Standard German into dialect and then was asked to judge dialect sentences generated from those lexical items, which were shown on a computer screen. Contrary to Patocka's (1997) finding that this dialect allows 1-2 with perfects, this speaker rejected all clauses with the 1-2 order. Because this speaker has no variation in VC order, her judgments are not included in the discussion below. Three subsequent participants were shown the sentences on paper in the Lower Austrian dialect (based on the first participant's translation) and allowed to make phonological adjustments in addition to judging the word order. These three participants were from small towns in Styria, Tyrol, and Vorarlberg. The final participant, another speaker from Tyrol was shown sentences reflecting the phonological adjustments from the first Tyrolean's interview. Despite the strong dialect differences, especially between Vorarlberg and other Austrian dialects, the judgments in these tasks were largely similar. The judgments for the sentences in task one are presented below. Unlike the Swabian study, the Austrian judgments showed very little difterence by syntagm, so I have averaged the scores for the perfect and modal-infinitive syntagms. The sentences are illustrated using the perfect syntagm and are given in the Lower Austrian form in which most of the participants saw them:25

25. As in the Swabian study, the sentences seen by the participants followed Standard German punctuation and capitalization rules and did not have superscripts indicating grammaticality. The superscripts were determined in the same manner as in the Swabian study (see fn. 22). The fourteen word orders listed in (70a-n) are the same as those in (64a-n).

Chapter 4. Verbal complexes in contemporary German

I glaub, dass da Klaus gestan des Buach glesn hot. I think that the Klaus yesterday the book read 2 has 1 'I think that Klaus read the book yesterday: b. I glaub, dass da Klaus des Buach gestan glesn hot. c. !!I glaub, dass da Klaus gestan des Buach hot glesn. d. !*I glaub, dass da Klaus des Buach gestan hot glesn. e. *I glaub, dass da Klaus hot gestan des Buach glesn. f. *I glaub, dass da Klaus hot des Buach gestan glesn. g. !!I glaub, dass da Klaus gestan hot des Buach glesn. h. *I glaub, dass da Klaus des Buach hot gestan glesn. i. *I glaub, dass da Klaus gestanglesn des Buach hot. j. !*I glaub, dass da Klaus des Buachglesn gestan hot. k. !*I glaub, dass da Klaus gestan glesn hot des Buach. l. *I glaub, dass da Klaus gestan hot glesn des Buach. m.!!J glaub, dass da Klaus des Buachglesn hot gestan. n. *I glaub, dass da Klaus des Buach hot glesn gestan.

(70) a.

There are a number of interesting results from this study. First of all, recall from Section 4.2.2.3 above that previous scholarship has found the 1-2 order to be grammatical in Austrian dialects, especially in western Austria. In this study, however, the 2-1 order (70a-b) is clearly more grammatical than the 1-2 order (70c-d), which was judged to be marginal; moreover, no speaker showed a clear difference in the acceptability of 1-2 by syntagm. Secondly, as in the Swabian study, although the 1-2 order is not fully grammatical, it is better when the object is unscrambled (70c) than when it is scrambled (70d).26 Thirdly, unlike in Swabian, in Austrian dialects the 1-x-2 order is as grammatical as the 1-2 order, at least when the intervening constituent is the object (70g). The one participant in this study with any formal training in syntax indicated that this order was totally ungrammatical unless when the intervening constituent is focused. As in Swabian and ENHG, the 2-x-1 orders are ungrammatical. Finally, the extraposition of an adverb (70m) is more grammatical than the extraposition of an object (70k), which is in line with studies of extraposition in Modern Standard German (Lambert 1976). Unlike ENHG but like Swabian, extraposition does not make the 1-2 order more acceptable, instead making the sentence even more ungrammatical (701-n). As in the Swabian study, the Austrian participants were given a second task, in which they were presented with pairs of sentences difiering only by verb order (2-1 vs. 1-2), using questions to elicit different focus structures. In this task, none of the four participants showed any difference in acceptance of the 1-2 order 26. For some speakers, this distinction was as strong as 5/5 (fully grammatical) with an unscrambled object to 1/5 (completely ungrammatical) with scrambling.

135

136 The Verbal Complex in Subordinate Clauses from Medieval to Modern German

based on focus (elicited in this manner). However, after completing the survey, the speaker from Styria mentioned that the 1-2 order sounds better when the object is stressed: (70) c.

!!l glaub, dass da Klaus gestan des Buach hot glesn. !I glaub, dass da Klaus gestan des BUACH hot glesn.

The fact that the participant mentioned this but did not show any difference in task two between the different focus conditions could mean one of three things. One possibility is that new information focus alone is not enough to make the 1-2 order more acceptable, but that contrastive focus is necessary. The second possibility is that the background question was not sufficient to elicit the intended focus interpretation. Third, it is possible that the effect here is purely prosodic and not directly related to information structure. Despite studies such as Maurer (1926) and Patocka (1997), which found that the 1-2 order was acceptable in many Austrian dialects, the respondents in my study show a clear preference for the 2-1 order. This may reflect that these dialects are continuing to undergo the loss of 1-2, which has been characteristic of (nonSwiss) dialects of German since the ENHG period, as these are all younger speakers. On the other hand, these speakers may reject the 1-2 order not because it is ungrammatical in the dialect, but because they, as university students in Vienna, are under influence of Standard German. 4.3.2.4 Discussion This section discussed two small studies on possible word orders in Swabian and Austrian German, as well as the effect of focus on those word orders. Neither the Swabian study nor the Austrian study was able to show a direct link between information structure and verb order in the second task. However, there is in both dialects an effect of the position of the object, such that the 1-2 order is better when not scrambled, i.e. adjacent to the VC. This could be an effect of focus, but it also follows from Behaghel's (1932) observation that 1-2 is preferred after a stressed word. Indeed, under heavy stress on the object (heavier than what could be elicited with a background question), one participant showed improved acceptance of the 1-2 order and another participant of the 1-x-2 order. Nevertheless, these results must be considered preliminary at best Note also that these studies did not follow the usual practices to ensure reliable results in experimental linguistics, such as filler sentences, lexical variation, randomized presentation, and tests for statistical significance, as recommended by Cowart (1997). In fact, during the course of the activities, some participants did begin to show weariness at the repetitiveness of the lexical items in the

Chapter 4. Verbal complexes in contemporary German 137

tasks, and the judgments of at least one participant may have been affected by the presentation on the page.27 Therefore, the next study attempts to test the same phenomenon using more reliable methodology in a dialect with robust use of the 1-2 order. 4·3·3 Zurich German 4·3·3·1 Study design

As discussed in Sections 4.2. 2.8, 4.2. 3.8, and 4.2.4.2, Swiss dialects of German have a great deal of variation in the verbal complex. In order to test the effect of focus on the verbal complex, I chose to investigate one particular dialect, abstracting away from dialect differences within Swiss German. Zurich German is ideal for such a study, given the large number of speakers in a relatively small area.2s For the study, I devised a four-page questionnaire consisting of fifteen question and answer sets in Zurich German.29 Ten of these sets are the experimental items, and five are fillers. Each set consists of a background question and three possible answers differing only in word order. The format of the items is based on the surveys used for the SASD or Syntactic Atlas of Swiss German Dialects (see Bucheli & Glaser 2002). Each questionnaire collected demographic data about the participant (age, sex, occupation, city of residence, and time lived in that city) and provided brief instructions, all of which was written in Standard German. The experimental items are designed to elicit particular focus interpretations by using a correction format. The question and answer differ in one constituent, prompting contrastive focus on that constituent. For example, the background question in Figure 1 ('What? Martin must read a novel?') should prompt the participant to read the possible answers with focus on the verb: 'No! I said that Martin has to WRITE a novel: This format attempts to elicit focus without clues from the

27. This participant from Tyrol rejected every 1-2 clause in the second task, giving each the lowest possible score ("1"). However, on the first task, she had rated the exact same sentences much higher ("3" or "5"). The presentation in the second task of the 2-1 and 1-2 sentences in pairs may have lead her to maximize the difference between the judgments of those sentences. 28. This research was generously funded with a Faculty Research Grant by the University of Mississippi. The work with human subjects was approved by the university's Institutional Review Board (protocol #08-115).

29. The Zurich German sentences were written by me in consultation with dialect dictionaries and proofread by Dr. Claudia Bucheli-Berger, a native speaker of that dialect.

138

The Verbal Complex in Subordinate Clauses from Medieval to Modern German

researcher and without resorting to typographically marking the focused word or words. For the experimental items, the three word-order options for the answer are 2-1, 1-2, and 1-x-2. 1. We/cheder fo/genden Si.itze konnen Sie in lhrem Dialekt als Antwort auf die Frage sagen (,jaN), we/che sind nicht moglich (,neinN)? Frage: Was?

a.

ja D

nein D

b. c.

D D

D D

Da Martin

mues en Roman lase?

Neill ha gsait, dass da Martin en Roman mues schriibe. Neill ha gsait, dass da Martin en Roman schriibe mues. Neil I ha gsa it, dass da Martin mues en Roman schriibe.

Welche ,JaN-Variante (a-c) ist fiir Sie die natiirlichste?--

Figure 1. Example of a question and answer set from questionnaire30

The answers in all the experimental sets consist of 'No! I said 'followed by a subordinate clause with a two-verb complex. Five of the experimental items test the modal-infinitive syntagm, and the other five test the present perfect. Each syntagm appears once in each of five focus conditions: focus on the lexical verb as in Figure 1 and (71), focus on the modal or auxiliary verb (72), focus on the direct object (73), focus on the VP (the lexical verb and the direct object) (74), and focus on the whole clause (75). These focus conditions are illustrated below using one of the lexical variants in the modal-infinitive syntagm with just one of the possible responses (the 2-1 order).31

30. The italicized words are in Standard German, while the experimental question and answers are in Zurich German. Translation: 1.

Which of the following sentences can you say in your dialect as an answer to the question (yes?. which are not possible ('no?? Question: Whatf Martin must read a novel? yes no a. b. c.

D D No! I said that Martin a novel must write. D D No! I said that Martin a novel write must. D D No! I said that Martin must a novel write.

Which of the 'yes'-variants (a-c) is the most natural for you?_ 31. Following the practice throughout this paper, the verb complex is italicized; in addition, the focus element has been placed in brackets. Note, however, that in the questionnaire, only standard typography was used The Swiss German sentences followed the Standard German practice of capitalizing all nouns.

Chapter 4. Verbal complexes in contemporary German

(71) Was? Dl! Martin mues en Roman hise? what the M. must a novel read 'What? Martin must read a novel?' Nei! I ha gsl!it, dass dl! Martin en Roman [Foe schriibe] mues. no I have said that the M. a novel write2 must1 'No! I said that Martin must [Foe write] a novel: (72) Was? Dl! Martin cha en Roman schriibe? what the M. can a novel write 'What? Martin can write a novel?' Nei! I ha gsl!it, dass dl! Martin en Roman scht"iibe [Foe mues]. 'No! I said that Martin [Foe must] write a novel: (73) Was? Dl! Martin mues l1 Gschicht schriibe? what the M. must a story write 'What? Martin must write a story?' Nei! I ha gsl!it, dass dl! Martin [poe en Roman] schriibe mu.es. 'No! I said that Martin must write [Fo~ a novel]: (74) Was? Dl! Martin mues l1 Gschicht llise? what the M. must a story read 'What? Martin must read a story?' Nei! I ha gsl!it, dass dl! Martin IFoe en Roman schriibe] mu.es. 'No! I said that Martin must [Foe write a novel]: (75) Was? D Maria cha l1 Gschicht llise? what the M. can a story read 'What? Maria can read a story?' Nei! I ha gsl!it, das s [Foe dl! Martin en Roman schri ibe mues] . 'No! I said that [Foe Martin must write a novel ] : The perfect syntagm was tested with very similar background questions, except in the case of auxiliary focus. Whereas in the modal-infinitive syntagm, one modal verb could be contrasted with another (72), in the perfect syntagm, this focus condition was tested by contrasting the perfect auxiliary with the present tense auxiliary tun ('do'), illustrated in (76). (76) Was? Dl! Martin tuet en Roman schriibe? what the M. does a novel read 'What? Martin is reading a novel?' Nei! I ha gsl!it, dass dl! Martin en Roman geschriibe [Foe hat]. no I have said that the M. a novel written2 has 1 'No! I said that Martin [poe has] written a novel:

139

140

The Verbal Complex in Subordinate Clauses from Medieval to Modern German

In keeping with the standard procedures for experimental linguistics, the questionnaire was randomized in several respects. First of all participants did not see the same lexical items over and over again, as they are presented in (71)-(75). Instead, ten different sets of lexical items are used for the experimental items, and the questionnaire presents each combination of focus and syntagm with a different set of lexical items. For example, the first set of lexical items is that illustrated in (71)-(75), the second involves Stefan eating cake, the third Stephanie buying a car, etc. Secondly, to minimize any impact oflong or rare words on the grammaticality judgments, the lexical items are balanced for word length, and only common lexemes were used.32 Third, in order to eliminate the possibility that particular lexical items favor particular word orders, there are ten difierent versions of the questionnaire, such that each version has a difterent lexical item for any given combination of syntagm and focus. For example, the first version of the questionnaire tests verb focus in the modal-infinitive syntagm using the 'Martin must write a novel' set (71 ), while the second version tests that same syntagm/focus combination using the lexical set 'Stefan may eat cake, with 'Martin has written a novel' appearing in the perfect under object focus. Finally, to guard against any potential effect of the order of presentation, the order in which the syntagm/focus combinations appear on the questionnaire is randomized, the order of the three word orders is random in each set, and the filler sentences are interspersed throughout The five filler sentences, unlike the experimental sentences, are the same on every version of the survey. Four of them consist of a main clause, providing the participants some relief from the subordinate clauses in the experimental sentences, and most are adapted from sentences in other sources about Zurich German. As in the experimental sentences, participants were asked to choose the best of three answers, which differ only in word order. In fillers (77) and (78), the other answers varied in the position of the non-finite verb, in (79) and (80), the position of the verbal particle varied, and in (81), the only subordinate clause, the finite verb appeared in different positions. (77) Was hil.t d Simone geschter gsrut? what has the S. yesterday said 'What did Simone say yesterday?' Si hilt vo niiilt anderem weder vo irem Schatz geredt. than of her boyfriend spoken she has of nothing else 'She hasn't spoken of anything other than her boyfriend: (Weber 1964: 311)

32. The subjects of the clauses were ten male and ten female proper names, 4-9 characters long and listed in the top 20 most frequent names for children born in 1987 in Zurich on http:// www.statistik.:zh.ch. The other lexical items were 4-9 characters long.

Chapter 4. Verbal complexes in contemporary German

(78) Was Mlst du vom Franz? what hold you of-the F. 'What do you think of Franz?' verwundere. (Weber 1964: 311) I cha mi nUd gneug ilber sy Tilmi I can me not enough about his stupidity wonder 'I could not be more astounded at his stupidity: (79) Wo isch ili1 Herbert? where is the H. 'Where is Herbert?' Er staat nie vor de nililne uuf. he stands never before the nine up 'He never wakes up before nine:

(80) Was macht de Vatter iez? what does the tather now 'What is father doing now?' Er wischt in dr Kilechi s Gschier ab. he cleans in the kitchen the dishes off 'He is washing the dishes in the kitchen:

(Weber 1964: 311)

(Wtscher 1978:2)

(81) Warum gehst du zu Fuss? why go you on foot 'Why are you walking?' Wil d Silvia hilUt myn Vela Mit. because the S. today my bike has 'Because Silvia has my bike todaY.

For each set of question and answers. the questionnaire instructs participants to decide whether each answer was possible in the context, and in case there was more than one acceptable answer, to choose the most natural one. The researcher was present to provide instructions and answer any questions while the participants filled out the questionnaire. Some participants wished to discuss the orthography of the sentences or minor pronunciation difierences and were permitted to note these on the questionnaire, although they do not play any role in the research. Sixteen of the participants were selected from a list of thirty-five people who live in the Zurich area and had previously participated in the questionnaires that form the basis of the SASD. I recruited an additional seven participants by word of mouth. All participants lived in Zurich and the immediately surrounding suburbs ofForch, KUsnacht, Langnau, Meilen, Thalwil, and Urdorf. All were born in Zurich or one of these suburbs and most had lived in the area their entire life. There were eleven female and twelve male participants, ages 22 to 77. I met participants at their homes or in public settings and interacted with them in Standard German.

141

142 The Verbal Complex in Subordinate Clauses from Medieval to Modern German

4·3·3·2 Results The analyses were conducted with GoldVat·b X (Sankoff et al. 2005). The responses were entered into a database and were tagged for: the judgments for the acceptabilityof each word order (yes or no), the choice of most natural order, focus condition, the version number of the questionnaire, syntagm, lexical set, and the participant's sex, age, occupation, and place of residence. The questionnaire version and lexical set did not have any significant effect on the word order judgments, indicating that there were no confounding efiects such as order of presentation and that the judgments hold across the lexicon. Neither did the participants' sex, age, occupation, or place of residence affect the judgments, suggesting that word order in the VC is not subject to sociolinguistic variation in the Zurich area, although the numbers for each age group. occupation, and town are too small to draw any firm conclusions. First of all, let us examine the effect of syntagm on the choice of word orders for the verbal complex. Recall from Section 4.2.2.8 above Lotscher's (1978) claim that the 2-1 order is grammatical and 1-2 ungrammatical in the present perfect, while in the modal-infinitive syntagm, both 2-1 and 1-2 are possible, with a preference for 1-2. Looking at the yes vs. no responses for each word order, shown in Table 6, we find that participants judged 95.7% of the present perfect sentences with the 2-1 order to be acceptable. However, contrary to Lotscher's (1978) claim that the 1-2 order is ungrammatical with perfects, 15.4% of the 1-2 sentences in the perfect were judged acceptable; i.e., the 1-2 order appears to grammatical in some cases and/or for some speakers. The 1-x-2 sentences fare slightly better than 1-2 at 19.3% acceptable, which bears some discussion below. Table 7 below gives the participants' choices for the most natural of the three word orders. As predicted by Lotscher (1978), in the present perfect, the 2-1 order is the clear favorite at 90.4%, with the 1-2 order very rarely the preferred order at just 2.6%. Turning now to the responses for the modal-infinitive syntagm, we see in Table 6 that all three orders were judged acceptable relatively often, from 63.2% of sentences to 76.5%. Contrary to Lotscher's (1978) observation but in line with Wurmbrand's (2004b), there does not seem to be a preference for the 1-2 order; in fact, the 2-1 order is judged acceptable more often. Looking at the second part of the judgments, where the questionnaire asks participants to choose the most natural order (Table 7), we find that the 1-x-2 order is the most frequent response at 43.5%, while 1-2, rather than being the preferred order, is in third place at 19.4%. One puzzling result from this study is the relative acceptability of the 1-x-2 order. According to Lotscher (1978: 2), we should not find this order any more than the 1-2 order in the present perfect; however, 1-x-2 scores higher in my

Chapter 4. Verbal complexes in contemporary German 143

Table 6. Acceptable word order by syntagm (n and% of yes) Syntagm

2-1

1-2

1-x-2

Present perfect33 Modal-infinitive significance34

110/115 (95.7%) 88/115 (76.5%)

18/115 (15.4%) 72/114 (63.2%)

22/114 (19.3%) 79/114 (69.3%)

p < 0.001

p < 0.001

p < 0.001

Table 7. Most natw-al word order by syntagm Syntagm

2-1

1-2

1-x-2

Present perfect Modal-infinitive3s Total significance36

104 (90.4%) 40 (37.0%)

3 (2.6%) 21 (19.4%)

8 (7.0%) 47 (43.5%)

144 (64.6%)

24 (10.8%)

55 (24.7%)

p < 0.001

p < 0.001

p < 0.001

survey on both the acceptability question and the 'most natural' question. The reason for this may be that participants interpreted the clauses to have mainclause-like V2 order. In Zurich German, as in the standard variety; subordinate clauses with a complementizer show verb-final order (82a), while those without a complementizer are V2 (82b ). (82) a.

b.

I ha gsltit, dass d~ Martin en Roman schriibe mues. I have said that theM. a novel write2 must1 'I said that Martin must read a novel: I ha gsltit, d~ Martin mues en Roman schriibe. I have said the M. must1 a novel write 2 'I said Martin must read a novel:

33· The twenty-three questionnaires had five perfect sentences and five modal sentences, thus there are a total of 115 responses for each syntagm. However, there were three responses which were not dearly marked 'yes' or 'no'; these were excluded from the analysis, so in some cells on this table the total is less than 115. 34· Because GoldVarb analyses are binomial, significance refers to the 'yes' responses vs. the 'no' responses for the order in question, not to acceptability ofthat order vis-a-vis the other two orders. 35· This excludes seven instances (6.1% of the modal-infinitive sentences judged) where the participant wrote more than one answer under 'most natural~ Four of these had all three options marked as most natural, two chose 1-2 and 1-x-2, and one chose 2-1 and 1-x-2. 36. Again, significance here refers to the significance of the effect of syntagm on the order in question, but this time with the responses that the word order in question was most natural tested against the responses in favor of another order.

144 The Verbal Complex in Subordinate Clauses from Medieval to Modern German

The difference between a subordinate clause with V2 and one with 1-x-2 order would be dear if there were other constituents in the clause besides the subject and object.37 Since this was not the case in the experimental sentences, the only difference between the two would be the presence of the complementizer: (83) a. b.

I ha gs~t, dass d~ Martin mues en Roman schriibe. I ha gsilit. d~ Martin mues en Roman schriibe.

Some of the participants interpreted sentences like (83a) to be without complementizers (83b ): I occasionally heard participants skipping dass when reading the sentences aloud, and other participants crossed out the word dass on the questionnaire. Others told me that sentences with dass are not natural in the dialect, and that they would use main-clause-like word order instead. Therefore, at least some of the choices that were intended to represent the 1-x-2 order were instead interpreted as embedded clauses with V2. We can see this in the questionnaire results by removing from the analysis three participants who indicated that they did not like verb-final subordinate clauses, shown in Table 8. Excluding these surveys results in slight decreases in the number of 2-1 and 1-2 sentences judged most natural (two and four fewer, respectively), but in a much bigger drop in the number of 1-x-2 sentences judged most natural (nine fewer). Table 8. Most natural word order for modal-infinitive syntagm Participants

2-1

1-2

1-x-2

All participants

40 (37.096) 38 (40.996)

21 (19.496) 17 (18.396)

47 (43.596) 38 (40.996)

Excluding those that dislike SCs

On the other hand, Lotscher (1978) finds that Zurich German allows the 1-x-2 order with the modal-infinitive syntagm (Section 4.2.5.2 above), and in my study this order is clearly better in the modal-infinitive syntagm than in the present perfect, as shown in Table 7. Thus at least some of the 1-x-2 sentences in the survey must have been interpreted as intended. It is not possible to determine exactly how many of those sentences were interpreted as subordinate clauses with verb-final, 1-x-2 word order and how many were interpreted as embedded V2. However, I attempt to minimize the ambiguity somewhat in the analyses that follow by excluding the answers from the three participants who indicated that they prefer embedded V2 clauses.

37· I chose not to include additional constituents such as sentential adverbs, because their position vis-a-vis the complement is dependent on scrambling, which may have forced specific focus interpretations.

Chapter 4. Verbal complexes in contemporary German

Let us now turn to the analysis of the effect of focus on word order. In the present perfect, there were few instances of orders other than 2-1 that were judged acceptable, and these were fairly evenly distributed across focus conditions. Therefore, the remainder of the discussion of the effect of focus will be limited to the modal-infinitive sentences, which show the most word-order variation. Table 9 below presents the results, which are also illustrated in Figure 2. The best focus conditions for the 2-1 order are clause, object, and VP focus. The 1-2 order is clearly more likely to be judged acceptable under focus on the object, VP, or lexical verb than in the other two focus conditions. The order 1-x-2 appears to be the preferred order with focus on the lexical or modal verb. However, this gives only a rough idea of the relationship between focus and these verb orders - to test whether these effects are significant, the orders are analyzed separately below. Table 9. Preferred word order by focus type (modals only)3S Focus type

2-1

Clausal focus Object (or other compl) focus VP (verb and complement) focus Focus on lexical verb Focus on modal verb Total

10 (55.6%) 8 (44.4%) 8 (42.1%) 6 (30.0%) 6 (33.3%) 38 (40.9%)

1-2

1 (5.6%) 4 (22.2%) 5 (26.3%) 5 (25.0%) 2 (11.1%) 17 (18.3%)

1-x-2

7 (38.9%) 6 (33.3%) 6(31.6%) 9 (45.0%) 10 (55.6%) 38 (40.9%)

60% ~----------------------------------~

50% 40%

30% 20% 10% 0%

!!.."'!

dause focus

object focus

VP focus

verb focus

1-X-2

modal focus

Figure 2. Preferred word order by focus type (modal-inf. only)

38. Excludes the results from the three participants who rejected all verb-final subordinate clauses. Also excludes sentences with multiple answers. None of these analyses were statistically significant. However, the analysis of 1-2 vs. the other two orders was significant when the three favoring focus conditions (focus on the object, VP, and lexical verb) were combined and the two disfavoring conditions were combined (p = 0.042).

145

146 The Verbal Complex in Subordinate Clauses from Medieval to Modern German

As seen in Table 10 below, focus on the VP or the modal verb favors the 2-1 order, which is judged acceptable 90% of the time, more frequently than the expected rate (79%) and with a factor weight well above 0.5. These results are somewhat different from the judgments for 2-1 as the most natural word order by focus type (Table 9 above), where 2-1 was the preferred word order for focus on the whole clause, object focus, and VP focus. In both analyses, focus on the lexical verb is the least favorable context for 2-1. Note, however, that the judgments for 2-1 as the most natural order are not statistically significant. Table 10. Acceptability of the 2-1 order by focus type, modals only39 Focus type

yes

no

Factorwt.

Clausal focus Object (or other complement) focus VP (verb and complement) focus Focus on lexical verb Focus on modal verb Total

16 (80.0%) 15 (75.0%) 18 (90.0%) 12 (60.0%) 18 (90.0%)

4 (20.0%) 5 (25.0%) 2 (10.0%) 8 (40.0%) 2 (10.0%)

0.482 0.412 0.677 0.259 0.677

79 (79.0%)

21 (21.0%)

p = 0.124 Table 11. Acceptability of the 1-2 order by focus type, modals only40 Focus type

yes

no

Factorwt.

Clausal focus Object (or other complement) focus VP (verb and complement) focus Focus on lexical verb41 Focus on modal verb Total

12 (60.0%) 14 (70.0%) 17 (85.0%) 10 (52.6%) 10 (50.0%)

8 (40.0%) 6 (30.0%) 3 (15.0%) 9 (47.4%) 10 (50.0%)

0.446 0.556 0.752 0.373 0.349

63 (63.6%)

36 (36.4%)

p = 0.115 As seen in Table 11, under object focus the 1-2 order occurs at 70%, somewhat more often than the expected rate of 63.6%. The factor weight, which is higher than 0.5, confirms that this is a favoring effect. Focus on the VP more strongly favors 1-2 at 85%, with a much higher factor weight. These results are similar

39· Significance improves to p = 0.030 when combining the favoring focus types VP and modal focus (factor weight = 0.677) and the neutral factors clausal and object focus (factor weight = 0.446).

40. Significance improves top = 0.032 when the disfavoring focus types dause, lexical verb, and modal focus are combined (factor weight= 0.389). 41. Excludes one sentence with an ambiguous answer.

Chapter 4. Verbal complexes in contemporary German 147

to the judgments for 1-2 as the most natural word order by focus type (Table 9 above), except that focus on the lexical verb was an additional favoring factor in that analysis. Note also that although the 1-2 order is overall less acceptable than 2-1, it is judged acceptable at least 50% of the time in every focus condition. In Table 12 below, the acceptability judgments for the 1-x-2 sentences are presented. It appears that VP focus slightly favors this order at 70% while focus on the modal more strongly favors the order at 78.9%. This is somewhat different than the results for 1-x-2 in Table 9 above, where the order was judged the most natural order under focus on the modal or lexical verbs. Although neither analysis is statistically significant, it is notable that in both, focus on the modal verb is a favorable environment for 1-x-2. Table 12. Acceptability of the 1-x-2 order by focus type, modals only Focus type

yes

no

Factor wt.

Clausal focus Object (or other complement) focus VP (verb and complement) focus Focus on lexical verb Focus on modal verb42

12 (60.0%) 13 (65.0%) 14 (70.0%) 11 (55.0%) 15 (78.9%)

8 7 6 9 4

0.434 0.487 0.544 0.384 0.657

Total p = 0.555

65 (65.7%)

34 (34.3%)

(40.0%) (35.0%) (30.0%) (45.0%) (21.1%)

Although there is a clear preference for the 2-1 order in the present perfect, word order in the modal-infinitive is much more varied in Zurich German. Focus clearly has an effect on the choice of word orders for the verbal complex, but the data are quite complex. Some generalizations based on the data are discussed in the next section. 4·3·3·3 Discussion The previous section finds a number of focus effects on word order that merit discussion. Let us look first of all at the 2-1 order. This order is disfavored under focus on the lexical verb in both the acceptability question (Table 10) and the most natural question (Table 9). For all other focus conditions, this order was judged to be acceptable at least 75% of the time, with VP and modal focus especially favoring the order. We can illustrate this as follows: (84) a. subject [Foe object verb2] modah b. subject object verb 2 [Foe modal1 ] c. !subject object [Foe verb 2 ] modal 1

42. Excludes one sentence with an ambiguous answer.

148 The Verbal Complex in Subordinate Clauses from Medieval to Modern German

Note that in (84b ), the focused element is at the right edge of the VC, and according to Schmid & Vogel (2004: 249-250), some dialects have a preference for focused constituents to appear on a particular edge. If focused constituents tend toward the right edge in ZG, this may account for the lower acceptability of 2-1 with focus on the lexical verb, since the focused verb is not at the right edge (84c). Turning to the focus conditions where 2-1 was judged most natural note that all three of these, clause focus, VP focus, and object focus, are consistent with stress on the object, the normal stress placement in German. Following Hohle's (1982) assumptions, this suggests that 2-1 is the default order, since it allows the largest number of focus interpretations under normal intonation: (85) a. b. c.

subject lFoc OBJECT] verb 2 modal1 subject [Foe OBJECT verb 2) modal1 [Foe subject OBJECT verb 2 modald

Now, let us examine the effect of focus on the 1-2 order. In both the acceptability question (Table 11) and the most natural question (Table 9), this order is favored under object focus and VP focus. In addition, this order is favored under focus on the lexical verb on the most natural question but not on the acceptability question. We can illustrate this as follows: (86) a. subject lFoc b. subject lFoc c. !subject d. *subject

object] object] object object [Foe

modal1 verb 2 modal1 [Foe verb 2 ] modal1 lFoc verbz] modal1 ] verb 2

The favoring effect of object focus on the 1-2 order (86a), which is also found in MHG (see Chapter 2), will ultimately be attributed in Chapter 5 to a prosodic preference to separate the stressed object and verb 2 • This is especially clear in the case ofVP focus in this order (86b ), as both elements of the VP would be stressed to some degree, with the intervening modal unstressed. Verb focus in the 1-2 order is easily explicable (86c), assuming that the right edge of the complex is a position for narrow focus or that the focused (and stressed) lexical verb should not be adjacent to the object. Both of these explanations can also account for the unacceptability of modal focus with this order (86d). The low acceptability of this order with focus on the clause may be explained as above, that the widest focus is associated with the default order, which I claim is 2-1. Finally. focus did not have a statistically significant efiect on the 1-x-2 order in either the acceptability question (Table 12) or the most natural question (Table 9). Note, though, that for both questions the order is favored under focus on the modal verb. Additionally. this order was judged the most natural order under focus on the lexical verb. The order is also fairly acceptable under the other focus types:

Chapter 4. Verbal complexes in contemporary German 149

(87) a. b. c. d. e.

!Foe

subject !Foe modal1 ] subject modal1 subject modal1 !Foe subject modal1 lFo.: modal1 subject

object verb2 object [Foe verb2 ] verb2 ) object object ) verb2 object verb2 )

Focus on the modal with this order looks inconsistent with the edge effect discussed above, but may be explained by thinking of the object and verb as being defocused (87a). Focus on the lexical verb, however, is consistent with the right edge as a focus position (87b). Focus on the VP with this order (87c), slightly favored in Table 12, agrees with the observations by Kefer & Lejeune (1974) for Standard German and Lotscher (1978) for Zurich German, that the order is used when the VP is focused (see Section 4.2.5 above). On the other hand, contrary to the claims of Kefer & Lejeune and L6tscher, narrow focus on the object is possible with this order (87d), and is not demonstrably worse than VP focus. Finally, the order is possible with focus on the whole clause, which is unexpected if, as claimed above, focus on the clause should favor the 2-1 order. However, because it is not dear whether the sentences listed in (87) were perceived by the participants as true instances of the 1-x-2 construction or as embedded V2, none of these results can be considered very reliable. As a final note, although some participants were distracted by issues such as orthography, the format of the questionnaire proved to be a successful method for investigating the effect of information structure on word order in a dialect.

4·3·4 Conclusion Section 4.3 has examined the acceptability of various word order possibilities for the verbal complex in three southern dialects of German: Swabian, Austrian German, and Zurich German. Although the methodologies of these studies were quite different, a few contrasts can be determined. First of all, word order in Swabian and Austrian German verbal complexes is largely similar to that of Standard German, with the 1-2 and 1-x-2 orders judged marginal to unacceptable. Zurich German, however, preserves the robust use of all three orders in the modal-infinitive, although the focus evidence suggests that 2-1 is the default order. Secondly, perhaps not surprisingly given the lack of variability in word order, we were unable to establish whether focus influences VC order in Austrian or Swabian. In Zurich German modal-infinitive complexes, on the other hand, there were significant effects of focus context on the frequencies of 2-1 and 1-2. Despite these differences, however, there are some similarities. In Swabian and Austrian, the 1-2 order seems to be more acceptable when the preceding

150

The Verbal Complex in Subordinate Clauses from Medieval to Modern German

direct object is unscrambled or stressed, and in Zurich German 1-2 is favored by object and VP focus, both of which involve sentential stress on the object. This suggests that similar factors may be at play in all three dialects, but that the phenomenon is stronger in Zurich because the 1-2 order is still robust in that dialect. In Chapter 5, we will explore analyses for these data, ultimately determining that the best explanation for the focus effects on VC order involves a prosodic preference for alternating stressed words.

4·4

Focus and three-verb complexes in Standard German

4.4.1 Introduction Having demonstrated evidence that suggests the eftect of focus on verb order within the VC in some dialects of German, let us turn to the standard language. This discussion is necessarily restricted to the one construction in MSG that allows any variation within the verbal complex. Recall from Section 4.2.3.1 above that when the future auxiliary werden governs two infinitives, both the 3-2-1 and 1-3-2 orders are possible, and the 3-1-2 order is possible in some colloquial varieties: well er es kaufen kiJnnen wird because he it buy3 can2 will 1 'because he will be able to buy if b. weller es wird 1 kaufen 3 kiJnnen 2 c. %weil er es kaufen3 wird1 kiJnnen 2

(25) a.

Schmid & Vogel (2004) find that the word orders in this construction are influenced by stress. both in Standard German and in some German dialects. Their study will be discussed in detail in the next section. After that, Section 4.4.3 will describe an experiment that I conducted in an attempt to determine exactly which focus conditions favor which orders in Standard German.

4-4-2 Schmid & Vogel (2004) Schmid & Vogel (2004) conducted an empirical study of the werden +modal+ infinitive syntagm in Standard German and several dialects of German. 43 For most

43· Although in Standard German. werden plus any two infinitives shows this kind of word order variation. Schmid and Vogel (2004: 236) limit their study to werden + modal + infinitive to control for the possible effect of verb class.

Chapter 4. Verbal complexes in contemporary German

dialects, they had one participant. The participant was asked to translate sentences containing this syntagm with various word orders from Standard German to their dialect, and then give a grammaticality judgment for each sentence. For Standard German, Schmid & Vogel (2004: 239) report the following data:44 Table 13. Orders in Standard German werden-modal complexes Stressed word

Possible orders

subject object lexical verb modal auxiliary

132 132 132 132 (132)

321 321 321 (321) 321

(312) (312) 312 312 (312)

The 1-3-2 order is acceptable in every stress pattern except stress on the auxiliary. Likewise, 3-2-1 is acceptable unless the modal is stressed. The more marginal 3-1-2 order, rejected by prescriptive grammars but sometimes found in writing, becomes grammatical with stress on the lexical verb or modal verb. For the dialects that they study, Schmid & Vogel (2004: 238) present the following data: Table 14. Word orders in werden-modal complexes in dialects Bav. Forest

St.

321 132

321 132 312

123 132 312

132

123 132 312

321 132

Tab.

Stressed word

Rheid Platt

Upper Hess.

subject

321 132

132

123 132

object

321 132

132

lexical verb

321 132 213

132 312

Franc.

Swab.

Bern

Meran

123

123

321 132 312

123

123

321 123 132 312

123 312

123

321 123 132 312 213 321 123 132 312 213 321 123 132 312 213

Gallen

44· Orders in parentheses are dispreferred. with some speakers accepting and some rejecting them. For clarity, I have indicated the stressed verb with a bold number.

151

152

The Verbal Complex in Subordinate Clauses from Medieval to Modern German

Table 14. (continued)

Tfib.

Stressed word

Rheid Platt

Upper Hess.

Swab.

modal

321 132 312

132 312

132 312

aux.

321 132

132

321

Bav. Forest

St.

321 132 312

321 123 132 312

321 132 312

321 132 312

Franc.

Bern

Meran

123 213

123

123

123

321 123 132 312 213 321 132 312

Gallen

Note that of the six logically possible orders, only five occur, with 2-3-1 unattested in dialects of German.45 Schmid & Vogel (2004: 239-240) divide these dialects into two groups. Swiss German dialects (Bern and St. Gallen) have as their default order 1-2-3, with the default order being the most common order and/or the order found with verum focus, i.e. stress on the auxiliary. All of the other dialects are termed "Standard German dialects" by Schmid and Vogel (2004: 239), by which they mean not varieties of the standard language, but rather dialects which have as their default orders the Standard German orders 3-2-1 and 1-3-2. Despite the complex and intriguing results of Schmid & Vogel's study, these should only be taken as preliminary results due to the study design: each dialect is represented by only one speaker, it is impossible to rule out the effect of the standard language on the judgments, and standard practices for experimental linguistics (filler sentences, statistical tests, etc.) were not followed. In addition, there are a couple of issues which are not necessarily methodological flaws, but do leave unanswered questions. First of all, the word orders reported are not ranked by grammaticality, but are reported as either grammatical or ungrammatical, although Schmid (p.c.) reports that some orders were easier to elicit than others.46 Secondly; Schmid & Vogel test phonological stress rather than focus, which makes their results difficult to compare with my historical data, where focus may be recoverable from the data but stress is not. In a later experiment, Bader & Schmid 4S· Note that these are the four ENHG word orders plus 2-1-3, which is quite limited, being found only in Meran, in St. Gallen only with stress on the modal, and in Rheiderlilnder Platt only with stress on the lexical verb. 46. For Standard German. an additional category is indicated by parentheses, but Schmid & Vogel's (2004: 239) description of this use - "dispreferred under a given stress pattern and [ ... ] rejected by some speakers and accepted by others" - conflates grammatical marginality and inter-speaker variation.

Chapter 4. Verbal complexes in contemporary German

(2009) test the effect of focus on word order in the IPP construction by manipulating the placement of the focus particle nut· 'only' and find no effect of focus. In order to expand on Schmid & Vogefs (2004) findings for Standard German but also facilitate better comparison with my historical and dialectal focus data, I conducted an experiment on the wet·den +modal+ infinitive construction in Standard German using the magnitude estimation method. This study was designed using standard practices for psycho linguistics, thus avoiding some of the methodological problems associated with Schmid & Vogel (2004). In addition, the experiment was intended to be comparable to those of my ENHG study by investigating focus rather than stress.

4-4-3 Magnitude estimation experiment 4-4-3.1 Magnitude estimation Magnitude estimation is an experimental method originally developed for psycho-physics. Participants estimate the degree of a stimulus, e.g. the brightness of light, and place their judgments on an interval scale relative to other judgments. Bard et al. ( 1996) demonstrate the applicability of this method to elicit grammaticalityjudgments, and it has become an increasingly common method of linguistic research in recent years. Using magnitude estimation to elicit grammaticality judgments has anumber of benefits. First of all, many sentences are tested, helping to abstract away from the possible effects of individual lexical items. Secondly, the study involves multiple participants, abstracting away from the possibly idiosyncratic judgments of individuals. Thirdly, rather than eliciting absolute grammaticality judgments, each sentence is judged relative to a reference sentence and to the other sentences in the experiment, often resulting in fine-grained judgments. Finally, note that in magnitude estimation, there is no fixed scale for judgments. Rather, participants are instructed to rate sentences on a scale of their own choosing. After one or two practice exercises, participants are shown a reference sentence and asked to rate the sentence with a number. Thereafter, sentences that are deemed more natural than the reference sentence should be assigned a higher number, and less natural ones should receive a lower number. Participants are encouraged to distinguish between degrees of naturalness as much as possible and are allowed to use decimal points. For the statistical analysis, judgments are normalized into z-scores, which allows for comparison across participants.47

47· The z-score equals the grammaticality judgment minus the participant's mean grammaticality judgment, divided by the participant's standard deviation of grammaticality judgments.

153

154 The Verbal Complex in Subordinate Clauses from Medieval to Modern German

4·4·3·2

l)esi~

The purpose of the experiment was to test the effect of focus on word order in subordinate clauses with the Standard German ·werden +modal+ infinitive construction. 48 In order to elicit focus on particular constituents, a correction format was used.49 In the instructions, participants were asked to imagine that they are speaking with a friend, who always misunderstands everything, so that they have to constantly repeat themselves. The situation was illustrated in the instructions with the following sentence: (88) Was? Udo hat die Bohnen gegessen? what U. has the beans eaten 'What? Udo ate the beans?' Nein! Ich habe gesagt, dass Ute die M~hren gegessen hat no I have said that U. the carrots eaten has 'No! I said that Ute ate the carrots: Participants were instructed to judge only the answer. This format has anumber of advantages: it clearly elicits contrastive focus, the subordinate clauses to be judged are as short and simple as possible, and all of the experimental sentences have identical structures (nouns rather than pronouns, no ellipsis, etc.) despite repetition, because repetition is a normal feature of these correction sentences.

48. The study reported on here is actually the second of two experiments. The first experiment, which is discussed in Sapp (2006), had a number of design flaws and did not show any significant effects of focus on word order. Both experiments were approved by Indiana University's Human Subjects Committee (#03-8702). 49· This format was used to solve the problems of the first version of the experiment (Sapp

2006), which attempted to elicit new information focus with sentences like this: (i) Maria wird wohl einen Roman schreiben mtissen, aber ich weiE nicht, M. will probably a novel write must but I know not ob [p00 Klaus] einen Roman schreiben mUssen wird. if K. a novel write must will 'Maria will probably have to write a novel, but I dolft know if Klaus will have to write a novel' These sentences were problematic for a number of reasons. They may not have successfully elicited focus, they were too long, and one would expect the second half of the sentence to elide repeated information ('Maria will probably have to write a novel, but I doItt know if Klaus will'). Thanks to Janina Rado for help devising the correction format

Chapter 4. Verbal complexes in contemporary German

Using this format, five focus conditions were tested: subject focus (89a), object focus (89b ), VP focus (89c), focus on the lexical verb (89d), and focus on the modal (89e).so (89) a.

Was? what Nein! no

Maria wird einen Roman schreiben mftssen? M. will a novel write must Ich habe gesagt. dass U:oc Klaus] einen Roman I have said that K. a novel

scht-eiben milssen wird.

b.

write must will 'What? Maria will have to write a novel?' 'No! I said that Klaus will have to write a novel: Was? Klaus wird eine Geschichte schreiben mftssen? will a story write must what K. Nein! Ich habe gesagt, dass Klaus U:oc einen Roman]

schreiben miissen wird.

c.

'What? Klaus will have to write a story?' 'No! I said that Klaus will have to write a novel: Was? Klaus wird eine Geschichte lesen mftssen? what K. will a story read must Nein! Ich habe gesagt, dass Klaus U:o.: einen Roman

schreiben] milssen wird.

d.

'What? Klaus will have to read a story?' 'No! I said that Klaus will have to write a novel: Was? Klaus wird einen Roman lesen mftssen? what K. will a novel read must Nein! Ich habe gesagt, dass Klaus einen Roman

e.

'What? Klaus will have to read a novel?' 'No! I said that Klaus will have to write a novel: Was? Klaus wird einen Roman schreiben Mnnen? will a novel write can what K. Nein! Ich habe gesagt, dass Klaus einen Roman

lFocschreiben] milssen wird.

schreiben

[Foe milssen]

wird.

'What? Klaus will be able to write a novel?' 'No! I said that Klaus will have to write a novel:

so. Here, the focus conditions are illustrated using only one word order and one set oflexical items. In the experiment, the sentences varied in word order and lexical items used, and they appeared in standard orthography and punctuation.

155

1S6

The Verbal Complex in Subordinate Clauses from Medieval to Modern German

Each focus condition was tested twice for the three word orders that were expected to be fully to partially grammatical (3-2-1, 1-3-2, and 3-1-2) and just once for the word order expected to be ungrammatical (1-2-3). The result was 35 experimental sentences. There were five filler sentences (for a total of 40 sentences). The fillers were based on five fillers frequently used in magnitude estimation experiments on syntax at the University of Tubingen, but modified to fit the correction format of the experimental sentences: (90) a.

Was? In der Mensa essen wenige Studenten zu Mittag? what in the cafeteria eat few students at lunch Nein! In der Mensa essen viele Studenten zu Mittag. no in the cafeteria eat many students at lunch -what? Few students eat lunch in the cafeteria?' 'No! Many students eat lunch in the cafeteria: b. Was? Beim Stammtisch die drei Freunde spielen mit what atthe regular.table the three friends play with Vorliebe Poker? preference poker Nein! Beim Stammtisch die drei Freunde spielen mit no at. the regular.table the three friends play with Vorliebe Skat preference skat -what? At the regulars' table. the three friends prefer to play poker?' 'No! At the regulars' table, the three friends prefer to play skat:

The filler sentences have received consistent judgments in other experiments, ranging from completely grammatical (90a) to completely ungrammatical (90b), with the other sentences in between.sl Thus the fillers not only serve as distracters, but also allow the judgments of the experimental sentences to be placed on a five-point scale of grammaticality. The reference sentence, against which all experimental and filler sentences are judged, also used the correction format: (91) Was? Richard tanzt gern Tango? what R. dances gladly tango Nein! Ich babe gesagt, dass Edith gem Walzer tanzt. no I have said that E. gladly waltz dances 'What? Richard likes to dance Tango?' 'No! I said, that Edith likes to dance waltz: 51. The latter sentence violates the verb-second constraint

Chapter 4. Verbal complexes in contemporary German

Using the correction format for the reference and filler sentences was intended to result in better comparison with the experimental sentences. Note, however, that neither the fillers nor the reference sentence contained VCs and that that the focus condition in the reference sentence (multiple focus on the subject and object) was not tested in the experiment Thus despite the similar format, these sentences should not have any effect on the judgments of the word orders under consideration. The experiment followed the standard procedures for psycholinguistic experiments. First, there were 20 different sets of lexical items, such that no participant saw any set oflexical items more than twice, and the lexical items were balanced for frequency and word length.s2 Secondly, there were 20 versions of the experiment, with the 20 combinations of focus and word order represented by different sets oflexical items in each experiment. Third, the order of the sentences was randomized. Finally, although the researcher was present when most of the surveys were completed, the only instructions were written and there was almost no interaction between the researcher and the participants during the completion of the survey. The experiment was conducted on paper. The first two pages consisted of the instructions and a practice activity, and the experiment itself occupied the remaining two pages. The main part of the experiment began with the reference sentence, which participants were instructed to judge with a number of their own choosing. Then, they were to give subsequent sentences (the experimental and filler sentences) a score, higher if better than the reference sentence, lower if worse. There were a total of 20 participants in the experiment, 17 women and three men, with a mean age of 23.6. All were Austrians, native speakers of German, and 13 were from Vienna and its suburbs. Thirteen of the surveys were administered in an introductory course on German grammar at the University of Vienna. The seven remaining surveys were completed by acquaintances of the researcher.s3

52. Subjects were ten male and ten female first names, 4-8 characters long and with a mean frequencyof2.9 million hits on www.google.de (German-language sites only). The objects were 4-11 characters long with a mean frequency of 468.6 in the CELEX corpus (Baayen et al. 1995), and the verbs were 5-10 characters with a mean frequency of 1081.88 in CELEX.

53· The course on German grammar had not discussed subordinate-clause word order or focus up to that point, and none of the participants were professional linguists.

157

158

The Verbal Complex in Subordinate Clauses from Medieval to Modern German

4-4-3·3 Results Figure 3 illustrates the overall results for this experiment, including the filler sentences.54 The more grammatical structures are higher on the graph. First, the word orders that should be grammatical (3-2-1 and 1-3-2) score in about the same range as filler sentences B (not perfect but grammatical) and C (marginal). The fact that they are not judged as highly as the fully grammatical filler A could be due to the fact that many speakers dislike the future tense with werden, preferring to use the present tense instead. Secondly, note that the marginal word order 3-1-2 scores below the two grammatical orders (and lower than the marginally grammatical filler C). Finally, the 1-2-3 order is as expected fully ungrammaticaL worse than even the ungrammatical fillers D and E.

~

2

~ ~

..... T

T

LLJ

= 0 u

"

Vl

N

u

0

..Ly

'#. a-

-1

f

-2 Fillers

I

!r :~ a -•r

9...

Ll1

1

T

aI

6

.I

&

Object

T Ill

&~

I I

VP

I

.II

'"'

B

c D-E

3-2-1

T

• 1-3-2

T

I

Subject

li -

1

T

..

~

T

T

1

IT

A

I

a

I

Verb

I &

T

T

I

'3-1-2

a ...

..

Modal

T

aI 1-2-3

...

FOCUS

Figure 3. Grammaticality of werden + modal VCs, including fillers

Figure 4 presents the same results as Figure 3, but with the filler sentences and the clearly ungrammatical1-2-3 sentences removed. 55 Several observations can

S4· 95% confidence interval of the normalized z-scores of the grammaticality judgments calculated with the program SPSS. Outliers were removed using the box-plot test.

ss.

Clark (1973) establishes that two separate tests are necessary for determining whether a linguistic phenomenon is significant The first is to ensure that the phenomenon can be generalized across the population, so significance should be tested between participants (Fl). The second is

Chapter 4. Verbal complexes in contemporary German 159

be made about these results. First of alL the 3-2-1 order is better than the 1-3-2 order in almost every focus condition, and 1-3-2 is better than 3-1-2 in every condition. Secondly, with focus on the VP, the 3-2-1 order is considerably better than the 1-3-2 order (the mean judgment for 1-3-2 is lower than the bottom of the range for 3-2-1); however, under object focus, 3-2-1 and 1-3-2 are scored about equal. I interpret this to mean that 1-3-2 is improved under object focus vis-a-vis 3-2-1. The improved acceptability of the 1-3-2 order appears to confirm the favoring effect of object focus on this order in Modern Standard German as well as in ENHG. Finally, the 3-1-2 is judged more acceptable under focus on the modal than in other conditions, with a very similar score to the other two orders. 1.0

.

.8

• .6 LLJ

=

8

A

"' N

u

. .

.2

'#.

-.0

-.2 -.4 -.6

,. I I I

~ ,.

I I ,. I I I I ~ I I I I

g,,

:~

.J.~ I I

'T' I

... I I

t

J:r ..I.J ..... II

.

I I

Q

I

.....

9 ....

I II

.

I I I

I

I

I I

I I

a

I I

,.

I

,.

..1. I

•

11'1 0\

,.

.

.

Subject

Object

,.,.

t,· I I

T

I I •r• I I

i

.J., I I

I ·rI I -·I I

'

1 I I I I I -·I

T ~

-··

.J.

.

.

VP

Verb

1-3-2

I

"T .!.

.

3-2-1

I ~

I I

.!..

I

a

~,,

I

I I I

....

ORDER

I

3-1-2

l

Modal

FOCUS

Figure 4. Grammaticality of werden + modal VCs, without fillers or 1-2-3

to make certain that the phenomenon holds for the whole lexicon of a language, so significance should be tested between the lexical variants used in the experiment (F2). Repeated measures ANOVAs yielded significance for across-participant variation (Fl p = O.Qll), but only when the number of focus conditions was reduced from five to three (object, VP, and modal focus). The failure to show statistical significance is probably due to the similar resuhs of subject and object focus and of VP and verb focus. However, no combination resulted in significance for variation across the lexicon; the best resuh was with the same three focus conditions (F2 p = 0.157). Thus, although the following discussion mainly hinges on the distinction between object and VP focus, that distinction is significant by only one ofthe tests, so the results here are tentative.

160

The Verbal Complex in Subordinate Clauses from Medieval to Modern German

4-4-4 Discussion Let us compare the results of the second magnitude estimation study with the results reported by Schmid & Vogel (2004). Some of the latter's conclusions are confirmed by this study, but others are not. First of all, recall from Table 13 that with stress on the subject or object, Schmid & Vogel (2004) found that 3-2-1 and 1-3-2 are both grammatical but 3-1-2 is marginal. The data in Figure 4 confirm that these results also hold for focus, rather than just stress, on the subject or object. Secondly, they claim that with stress on the lexical verb, the three orders should be equally grammatical (Table 13). However, Figure 4 shows that with focus on the verb, there is a preference for 3-2-1, followed by 1-3-2, with 3-1-2 the least preferred, as in most other conditions. Finally, Schmid & Vogel found that with stress on the modal, the 1-3-2 and 3-1-2 orders are grammatical, while 3-2-1 is marginal (see Table 13). Figure 4, shows a similar result, in that the acceptance of3-2-1 is lower than in other focus conditions (although it is not any worse than the other two orders). Despite very different methodologies, these observations by Schmid & Vogel (2004) are similar to mine; therefore, Schmid & Vogefs (2004) claims about this construction in Standard German cannot be dismissed as the product of idiosyncratic judgments by a few speakers. As a final note, recall that Schmid & Vogel (2004) test stress, and that object stress is compatible with a number of focus interpretations, including object focus and VP focus. Thus if stress were the most important factor in determining word order in the werden + modal construction, we would expect to find that object focus and VP focus show similar word-order preferences. However, Figure 4 shows that object focus and VP focus show differing preferences, especially with respect to the 1-3-2 order. Therefore, this experiment suggests that stress alone cannot account for the word orders in this construction. Finally, let us compare these results to those from my historical and dialectal studies above. Recall that in MHG, ENHG, and Zurich German, focus on the object has a favoring eftect on the 1-2 order and in ENHG on the 1-3-2 order as well. In this experiment, with focus on the VP, the 3-2-1 order is considerably better than the 1-3-2 order; however, under object focus, 3-2-1 and 1-3-2 are scored about equal. The improved acceptability of the 1-3-2 order under object focus perhaps indicates a favoring effect of object focus on the 1-3-2 order in Modern Standard German. In the 1-3-2 order and the 1-2 order, the object is not adjacent to the lexical verb. Thus in the varieties discussed here, the non-adjacency of the object and lexical verb seems to be favored under object focus. To sum up this section, in the Modern Standard German werden +modal+ infinitive construction, focus has an effect on word order within the VC. Generally

Chapter 4. Verbal complexes in contemporary German

speaking, this supports a finding from historical stages of the language and some dialects: that object focus favors the orders in which the lexical verb and object are not adjacent. More specifically, however, the Standard German data cannot be directly compared to those other varieties, because the werden +modal construction is rarely found in earlier stages of German, and I did not examine its use in Zurich German.

4·5

Conclusion

4·5-1 Summary of findings In complexes of two verbs in subordinate clauses, previous scholarship has found that most contemporary dialects of German, with Swiss German the notable exception, strongly prefer the 2-1 order, which is the only possible order in the standard language (Section 4.2.2 above). This was also the result of my studies of Swabian and Austrian dialects (Section 4.3 above). However, in both Austrian German and Swabian, the acceptability of the 1-2 order is improved with a nonscrambled object, suggesting an effect of prosody or focus. A study of Zurich German found that 1-2, while not the preferred order, is still fairly robust in the modal-infinitive syntagm, and the acceptability of the 2-1 and 1-2 orders is conditioned to some degree by focus. In three-verb complexes, the word-order possibilities are largely restricted by syntagm. The only possible orders in Modern Standard German are 3-2-1 and 1-3-2, with only the werden +modal+ infinitive construction allowing both orders. Many contemporary dialects additionally allow the orders 3-1-2 and 1-2-3 (Section 4.2.3 above). Schmid & Vogel (2004) demonstrate that the choice of word orders within werden-modal-infinitive complexes is sensitive to stress in both Standard and dialectal German. My magnitude estimation experiment (Section 4.4) largely confirms Schmid & Vogel's results for Standard German and suggests that there is perhaps an independent effect of focus, since object focus and VP focus have differing effects on verb order. Finally. contemporary dialects of German allow a constituent to appear within the VC (1-x-2, 1-x-3-2, etc.), and Standard German allows this in the syntagms that have the 1-3-2 order (Section 4.2.5). One Austrian speaker maintained that the 1-x-2 order is associated with focus; however, the study of Zurich German was unable to definitively establish an efiect of focus on that order.

161

162

The Verbal Complex in Subordinate Clauses from Medieval to Modern German

4.5.2 From ENHG to Modern German A number of changes in subordinate-clause word order over time have come to light in this study. The most dramatic differences are between ENHG, with its great variation in word order, and Modern Standard German, in which the position of the verb varies very little. In MSG, the orders 1-2 and 1-2-3 (with or without intervening constituents) are ungrammatical, 3-1-2 is found only in colloquial varieties of the standard language, and 1-3-2 (along with 1-x-3-2) is restricted to the IPP and werden-modal-infinitive syntagms. Although many dialects appear to have the same kind of word-order variation as in ENHG, there have also been some important historical developments. Most of these dialects now follow Standard German in preferring the 2-1 order. In some of those dialects, as in ENHG, the 1-2 order is better with the modalinfinitive syntagm than with the perfect tense; however, other dialects, namely Swabian and Eastern Austrian, have reversed that preference. With respect to three-verb complexes, most modern dialects agree with MSG in allowing only 3-2-1 for most syntagms, with more variation in the IPP and werden-modal-infinitive constructions. The ENHG state of affairs is best preserved in Swiss German, which allows both the 1-2 and 2-1 orders and has great variety in three-verb complexes. In fact, Swiss German has carried the effect of the modal + infinitive syntagm on the 1-2 order even further than in ENHG, with that word order now being preferred for that syntagm (according to Lotscher 1978). On the other hand, although Swiss German and ENHG are similar with respect to the possible verb orders, Swiss dialects, just like most other contemporary varieties of German, have lost argument extraposition, which was very frequent in ENHG. Despite the numerous differences between ENHG and most contemporary varieties of German, there are several aspects that have remained constant These generalizations will be important in the following chapter, as any analysis of German verb order needs to take them into account. First of all, the word orders 2-1-3 and 2-3-1 are unattested in my ENHG corpus and ungrammatical in nearly every variety of German today. Secondly, it is possible for a constituent to break up the VC only when the verbs are in the right-governing order: orders such as 2-x-1 or 3-2-x-1 are unattested in ENHG and ungrammatical in contemporary German, including the dialects surveyed here. Thirdly, focus or prosody has some effect on verb order in MHG, ENHG, MSG (in the wet·den-modal-infinitive syntagm), and at least the three modern dialects of German, namely Swabian, Austrian German, and Zurich German. Fourthly, the favoring effect of extraposition on the 1-2 order seen in ENHG continues in Bavarian (see Section 4.2.2.4), although not in other dialects.

Chapter 4. Verbal complexes in contemporary German

As a final note, this chapter has shown the usefulness of examining data from modern varieties of a language when attempting to analyze the syntax of its earlier stages. 1his is especially true when the issue involved is not easily accessible in texts, as is the case with prosody. Since direct evidence for prosody is not available in ENHG, such evidence was found in modern dialectal and standard German. On the other hand, unrelated changes in the language can make this task difficult: for example, only the werden-modal-infinitive syntagm allows verb-order variation in Modern Standard German, but this is the least frequent three-verb syntagm in ENHG, probably due to the fact that the future with werden was a late development (Hartweg & Wegera 1989: 138).

163

CHAPTER

5

German clause structure and the prosody-syntax interface

5-1

Introduction

The previous chapters provide a detailed description of subordinate-clause word order in Middle High German (MHG), Early New High German (ENHG), Modern Standard German (MSG), and several contemporary dialects of German. A number of generalizations have emerged, many of which involve the effect of focus and/or prosody on word order. However, up until this point the discussion has been purely descriptive, neither discussing the formal derivation of German subordinate-clause word orders nor attempting to explain the effect of focus and prosody on those word orders. Addressing those two issues is the aim of this chapter. In the next section, I will review the scholarship on the basic clause structure of German, with special attention to the question of whether German is an SOV or SVO language. Since MHG and ENHG have largely been ignored in that debate, each hypothesis will be evaluated in terms of its ability to account for the empirical findings of Chapters 2 and 3. The conclusion will be that the conventional OV account has a slight empirical advantage over the newer VO hypothesis. Section 5.3 examines the relationship between focus, prosody, and word order. First, we will see that current formal approaches to focus and word order do not adequately account for the complex facts presented here. Then, I will attempt to account for the focus data using a prosodic principle, Selkirk's (1984) Principle of Rhythmic Alternation. Because these syntactic constructions are sensitive to prosody, I will argue that the best account involves syntactic movement spelling out multiple copies to PF, which chooses the copy that best matches prosodic structure. The chapter is concluded in Section 5.4.

5.2

The structure of Gennan subordinate clauses

5.2.1 Introduction In this section, I will discuss some of the previous scholarship on word order in German subordinate clauses. Section 5.2.2 discusses two of the non-generative

166

The Verbal Complex in Subordinate Clauses from Medieval to Modern German

attempts to account for the alternation between the 2-1 and 1-2 orders, which are primarily concerned with language change and variation. Section 5.2.3 presents the classic generative SOV approach to German clause structure and shows how the Verb (Projection) Raising analysis can account for the various orders in the verbal complex. A more recent line of analysis, which assumes that the base order in German is SVO, is discussed in Section 5.2.4. Section 5.2.5 compares the OV and VO approaches, concluding that both require about the same number of stipulations in order to account for the data discussed in previous chapters; however, the classic OV analysis maintains a slight empirical advantage with respect to possible verb orders.

5.2.2

Diachronic approaches

5.2.2.1

Lehmann (1971)

The first of the diachronic approaches to be discussed here is in the typological tradition of}oseph Greenberg. Greenberg's (1963:85) Universal16 states that "[i]n languages with dominant order SOY, an inflected auxiliary always follows the main verb." There is an obvious syntactic reason for this universal: since verbs in these languages govern their objects to the left (OV), auxiliary verbs should also left-govern dependent verbs and thus yield the 2-1 order. Following Greenberg (1963), Lehmann (1971) believes that the competition between the 2-1 and 1-2 orders in the history of German is a result of the competition between SOV and SVO orders. Based on the high frequency of extraposition in earlier stages of German, Lehmann (1971: 19) claims that medieval German was an SVO language. Modern German, however, which consistently has SOV order in subordinate clauses, is according to Lehmann (1971: 23) gaining more and more SOV features, such as postpositions and the 2-1 order. Thus for Lehmann the fixing of the 2-1 order in subordinate clauses at the end of the ENHG period is a direct result of the fixing of the SOV order. There are a number of problems with Lehmann's account. First of all, it is not really clear that German has undergone a shift from SVO to SOV; in fact, Venneman (1974) makes the opposite claim. Secondly, Lehmann ignores data that go against his typological generalization: ENHG had the order genitive-noun meines Vaters Haus 'my father's house: an SOV feature in Greenberg's framework, but Modern Standard German is noun -genitive das Ha.us meines Vaters 'the house of my father, an SVO feature in Greenberg's framework. Thirdly, as Krach and Taylor (2000) argue, the 2-1 vs. 1-2 distinction can be independent of SOV vs. SVO order and must be diagnosed separately, calling into question the reliability of typological arguments in general. In fact, contemporary Swiss German and

Chapter 5. German clause structure and the prosody-syntax interface

Modern Dutch are clearly SOV languages, yet both allow the 1-2 order. Finally, it is possible to maintain that German has always been underlyingly SOV, with apparently SVO orders accounted for by rightward movement, as discussed in Section 5.2.3 below. If the underlying structure of German has not changed, the competition between the 2-1 and 1-2 orders cannot be accounted for by a typological shift. 5.2.2.2 Ebert (1981) Ebert shows that there is indeed a correlation between the SOV and 2-1 orders, since the two show "great similarities in social stratification and time curves" (1981: 234). Both SOV and 2-1 declined from the 14th to 15th centuries and then increased in the 16th century.! Moreover, the sharpest rise in the SOV order in the 16th century preceded the sharpest rise in the 2-1 order, which lends some support to Lehmann's hypothesis that the 2-1 order follows from the fixing of SOV order. However, Ebert stops short of claiming that the increase in the frequency of verb-final orders was the cause of the increase in the frequency of the 2-1 order, and he indicates in a footnote that he is critical of Lehmann's approach (Ebert 1981:234, fn. 14). Rather than explaining the variation in verb order as a change in linguistic typology, Ebert's account is a variationist one. (Ebert's findings are discussed in detail in Chapter 1). Ebert demonstrates that the variation between verb orders is not only syntactically but also sociolinguistically conditioned, with the 2-1 order eventually winning out because it was preferred in the prestigious chancery style. However, Ebert does not discuss this variation in structural terms, leaving open the question of how the word orders are derived.

5.2.3 The OV approach to German clause structure 5.2.3.1 The classic account: den Besten (1983) The previous section discussed some approaches that take the alternation between 1-2 and 2-1 orders at face value. However, in generative syntax, two word orders may reflect a single underlying structure, with one order being derived from the other via a movement operation. This section discusses some generative accounts of subordinate-clause word order in German (and other continental West Germanic languages) that are based on the assumption that the underlying order of the object and verb is OV. First, I will outline the classic account by den

1.

Burridge finds very similar trends in Early Modern Dutch (1993: 115).

167

168 The Verbal Complex in Subordinate Clauses from Medieval to Modern German

Besten (1983). Following that, the derivation of the 1-2 order from an underlying SOV structure is discussed, with Haegeman's (1992) Verb Raising/Verb Projection Raising analysis reviewed in detail. Finally, I will discuss how these accounts can be extended to account for all of the ENHG word orders, maintaining that German has been OV throughout its history, as in Bies (1996). The classic generative approach to German word order is laid out in den Besten (1983). According to this account, German is an OV language, with subordinate clauses reflecting the underlying order, as in (1a). Den Besten (1983: 24) derives main clause word order from the OV structure by two transformations or movement rules.2 The first involves movement of the finite verb to the second position of the clause, resulting in the word order found in verb-initial structures, such as interrogatives (1b) and conditionals (1c). Declarative main clauses have that transformation plus a second transformation that moves either the subject (1d) or some other constituent (1e) to the left of the finite verb. (1) a.

b. c. d. e.

. .. dass Klaus seinem Sohn ein Buch kaufen will. that K. his-dat. son a book buy wants '... that Klaus wants to buy a book for his son: Willi Klaus seinem Sohn ein Buch kaufen ti? 'Does Klaus want to buy a book for his son?' Willi Klaus seinem Sohn ein Buch kaufen ti ... 'If Klaus wants to buy a book for his son .. .' Klaus; willi t; seinem Sohn ein Buch kaufen ti. 'Klaus wants to buy a book for his son: Seinem Sohn; will;. Klaus t; ein Buch kaufen ti. 'For his son, Klaus wants to buy a book:

Den Besten (1983: 24) maintains that the position of the finite verb in main clauses- whether verb-initial, subject-initial, or non-subject-initial- is C, the position of the complementizer in subordinate clauses. Thus the verb-final word order of subordinate clauses can be seen as the result of the finite verb remaining in its underlying position, its potential landing site being occupied by the complementizer. Regarding the second transformation, den Besten maintains that it is similar to topicalization or wh-movement, which is uncontroversial for non-subject-initial declaratives such as (1e). However, den Besten's account is innovative in claiming that even subjects move into the initial position by

2. Den Besten (1983) illustrates these transformations with Dutch examples, but describes them as applying to both Dutch and German. Examples in (1) are my own.

Chapter 5. German clause structure and the prosody-syntax interface 169

topicalization (1d), a claim supported by the distribution of strong and weak subject pronouns in Dutch (den Besten 1983: 25-27).3 5.2.3.2 Verb Raising/Verb Projection Raising (Haegeman 1992) Although the OV analysis outlined above applies to both German and Dutch, there is a substantial difference between the two languages regarding the order of the verbs within the verb-final position. Whereas Modern Standard German allows only the 2-1 order (2a), Modern Standard Dutch allows both the 2-1 and the 1-2 orders (2b): (2) a.

b.

. .. dass er nicht kommen kann I* kann kommen. that he not come 2 can1 can1 com~ '... that he can't come: . .. dat ie niet komen kan I kan komen. that he not come2 can1 can1 come2 '... that he can't come:

Beginning with Evers (1975), the Dutch 1-2 construction has been analyzed as Verb Raising. This section reviews the most extensive discussion of this construction using the Verb Raising analysis, that of Haegeman (1992). Haegeman (1992) concentrates on the West Flemish dialect of Dutch. She treats the 1-2 and 1-x-2 orders in West Flemish as instances of Verb Raising (VR) and Verb Projection Raising (VPR), respectively. In both cases, a constituent moves to the right of the finite verb and adjoins: in the case of VPR, it is the VP that moves rightward, whereas VR is an instance of head incorporation. Haegeman (1992: 181) adopts Den Besten and Webelhuth's (1987) scrambling-and-adjunction analysis ofVP-topicalization and applies it to West Flemish VPR. From the underlying order in (3), all examples of VPR in (4) are derived by right-adjoining the VP to the higher VP that contains the finite verb. The difference between the three VPR sentences in (4) is that while in (4a) the VP is adjoined with all arguments intact, in (4b) and (4c) some argument has scrambled out of the VP first. After scrambling, the remainder of the VP moves to the right.

3· However, see navis (1991) for an SOV-based analysis of German with one subject position (Spec-IP). For Travis, non-subject-initial main clauses are CPs with movement of the verb to C plus topicalization (as in den Besten 1983), but subject-initial main clauses are bare IPs. See Schwartz & Vlkner (1996) for some arguments against Travis (1991) using additional data from German.

170

The Verbal Complex in Subordinate Clauses from Medieval to Modern German

(3) da Jan [vp vuor Marie da boek kuopen] wilt that Jan for Marie that book buy wants (4) a. b.

da Jan tvp wil (yp vuor Marie da boek kuopen] that Jan wants for Marie that book buy da Jan [pp vuor Marie] tvp wil lvP tpp da boek kuopen] that Jan for Marie wants that book buy da Jan INP da boek] typ wil [vp vuor Marie tNP kuopen] that Jan that book wants for Marie buy 'that Jan wants to buy the book for Marie' (Haegeman 1992: 181-184)

One could attempt to account for VR as an instance ofVPR in which all elements except the verb have scrambled out. The difierence between West Flemish and Standard Dutch (which allows 1-2 but not 1-x-2) would then be that in Standard Dutch all elements must obligatorily scramble before the VP can raise. But Haegeman (1992: 192) points out a problem with this explanation: in Standard Dutch, there are elements such as the predicate phrase of small clauses that do not scramble (Sb) but allow VR (6). dat zij waarschijnlijk Is.: Max heel lief] vond. that she probably Max very nice found b. *dat zij [heellief]i waarschijnlijk Max ti vond. that she very nice probably Max found 'that she probably thought Max very nice: (Haegeman 1992: 192)

(5) a.

(6) dat zij Max heel lief ti zal vindellj. that she Max very nice will find 'that she will find Max very nice:

(Haegeman 1992: 192)

Since scrambling these elements is ungrammatical, the VR-as-VPR hypothesis would predict that VR should not be possible. Thus according to Haegeman, VR, at least in Standard Dutch, requires an analysis other than VPR with scrambling. Haegeman's (1992: 193) analysis for VR is that the non-finite V adjoins to the higher, finite V; thus VR is head-to-head movement In the WF example (7), geven adjoins to the higher verb willen by head movement, forming a complex predicate: (7) dat Jan Marie da boek ti wil-gevellj that Jan Marie that book wants give 'that Jan wants to give Marie that book' Haegeman (1992: 196) argues that VR must be head-to-head adjunction not only in Standard Dutch, but also in West Flemish. She finds empirical support for this argument from data with the West Flemish doubling verb goan:

Chapter 5. German clause structure and the prosody-syntax interface

(8) a.

dan-ze in den lak goan/willen ti goan visse11;. that-they in the lake go/want go fish b. dan-ze goan/willen in den lak ti goan visseni that-they go/want in the lake go fish c. *dan-ze goan/willen ti goan [vP in den lak vis senh that-they go/want go in the lake fish 'that they (want to) go fishing in the lake' (Haegeman 1992: 196)

Since goan triggers VR but disallows VPR, this suggests that VR and VPR instantiate distinct kinds of movement.4 5.2.3.3 Early German as an OV language Thus far, we have seen that Modern German and Dutch can be analyzed as SOV languages. and that the 1-2 order can be derived from an OV base via VR/VPR. We now turn to earlier stages of these languages. Recall from Section 5.2.2 that the high frequency of non -verb-final clauses in earlier stages of German has led some scholars to propose that German has changed its basic clause structure. However, if one assumes that varying word orders may be derived from a single basic word order via movement, then it is possible to maintain that German has been underlyingly OV throughout its attested history. This is the conclusion drawn by Lenerz (1985: 105), who claims that any non-OV orders represent "stylistic reorderings." Bies (1996: 14) also follows this line of reasoning in her analysis of ENHG, accounting for extraposition as right-adjunction of the extra posed phrase to IP, similar to Heavy NP Shift in English. Using a large corpus of personal and business letters and other prose texts, she demonstrates that in ENHG, NPs and PPs to the right ofV tend to be either heavy (9a) or focused (9b): (9) a.

b.

Also hat die himelisch kayserin bekant die almechtil-ait deS vaters. thus has the heavenly empress known the omnipotence of.the father 'Thus the heavenly empress has known the omnipotence of the Father: (Bies 1996: 19) do gieng ein grosse menig ... nit allein von Ihe sus wegen, then went a great crowd not only for ]. sake, sunder daz sie auch sehen Lazarum... but that they also see L. 'Then a great crowd went not just for Jesus' sake, but also to see Lazarus: (Bies 1996: 7)

4· However, other West Germanic dialects may behave differently: based on data from Swiss German doubling verbs, Schonenberger & Penner (1995) argue that both VR and VPR are derived via scrambling and adjunction of the VP in Swiss German

171

172

The Verbal Complex in Subordinate Clauses from Medieval to Modern German

According to Bies, the apparent rise of the OV order at the end of the ENHG period is merely the loss of the possibility to shift heavy and focused complements to the right. My studyofMHG and ENHG subordinate clauses provides additional evidence for the OV analysis of earlier German. According to Kroch & Taylor's (2000: 145) work on the diachronic syntax of English, a VO language should have both heavy and light elements to the right of V. Since light elements (pronouns and verbal partides)5 cannot move rightward, their presence there would unambiguously indicate VO. In my MHG database, although the rate of extraposition (surface VO orders) is quite high at 19.7% (clauses with two verbs), there are no extraposed verbal particles or pronouns. Likewise, in my ENHG corpus, there is not a single instance of a verbal particle occurring to the right of its verb. Of the three extraposed pronouns in ENHG, two of them head a relative clause as in (lOa), which would classify them as heavy. This leaves only one true case of an extraposed, light pronoun in ENHG (lOb), which does not seem to be emphasized in any way. ( 10) a.

b.

dy dv 1'orborgen hast den, di dich vorchten REL you hidden2 have 1 them REL you fear (Psalter Dresden 68) 'which you have hidden for those who fear you' als vor gemelt ist vns. as before saidz is 1 us as was said to us before: (Pillenreuth 155)

If we add adverbs to Kroch & Taylor's list oflight elements that can serve as diagnostics for SVO, we add only a handful of examples. There are two extraposed adverbs in my MHG data, both of which are light, consisting of just two syllables and referring to previous discourse. ( 11) a.

b.

alfi hie bifcribin is vorl. as here described2 is 1 before 'as has been described above' alfo wir gefprochen haben hiute. as we spoken2 have 1 today 'as we have said today'

(Milhlhituser R. 08v)

(Speculum EccL 14r)

However, in ENHG, there are no instances of extraposed light adverbs. There are only three extra posed adverbs in my ENHG database, and all are relatively heavy, containing the derivational suffix -lich:franstrechlychen 'obstinatelY, liplich 'physically: and gotlich 'godlY:

5· The third kind of light element in Kroch & Taylor (2000) is stranded prepositions, but preposition stranding is very rare in ENHG.

Chapter 5. German clause structure and the prosody-syntax interface

Thus out of both databases, there are only three extraposed light elements: two adverbs in MHG and one pronoun in ENHG. With so few exceptions to the tendency for only heavy elements occur to the right of V, it is very unlikely that MHG or ENHG is underlyingly VO, by Krach & Taylor's (2000) criterion. If these earlier stages of German are SOY languages, as I claim, then the basic order within the VC should be 2-1, under the assumption that all of a verb's complements (including dependent verbs) appear on the same side of the head. If this is correct, then other orders in the verbal complex can be derived from the underlying 2-1 order by VR and VPR, as first proposed for ENHG by Bies (1996:40). 5.2.3.4 Subordinate clauses in earlier German under the SOV approach Let us conclude this section by illustrating how the MHG and ENHG subordinate-clause word orders may be derived under the OV analysis outlined above.6 The verb-final, 2-1 order represents the underlying order, with no additional movement assumed: ( 12) das er in kainer sund verczweiffeln sol that he in no sin despair2 shalh 'that he shall not despair in any sin'

(Pillenreuth 161)

From that underlying structure, illustrated in ( 13a), the verb-final, 1-2 order ( 13b) is derived by Verb Raising (regardless of whether that involves movement of only V or of a remnant VP): (13) a. *das der mensch alle sein lebttag nicht anders thun scholt that the person all his life.days nothing else do 2 should1 b. das der mensch alle sein lebttag nicht anders t; scholt thu.ni 'that man should do nothing else all the days of his life' (Pillem-euth 206) The 1-x-2 order (14b) is derived from the underlying order by VPR, i.e. the rightward movement of the VP: (14) a. *das der mensche nicht sein rew spa.ren scholt that the person not his regret save2 should 1 b. das der mensche nicht ti scholt [sein rew sparen h 'that one should not hold back his repentance on his deathbed' (Pillenreuth 212)

In this discussion, asterisks are used not to indicate ungrammatical surface patterns, but rather underlying structures that are unattested (but presumably grammatical) sentences.

6.

173

174

The Verbal Complex in Subordinate Clauses from Medieval to Modern German

The non-verb-final, 1-2 order (15c), although appearing to be an SVO clause, can be derived from the OV structure in two steps, VR followed by extraposition: mein sund pussen sol (15) a. *daz ich damit that I therewith my sin aton~ shall1 b. *daz ich damit mein sund ti sol pusseni c. daz ich damit ti ti sol pusseni [mein sund]i (Pillenreuth 163) 'that I should atone for my sin with that' Although such an analysis of (15c) may appear more complex than assuming that it is underlyingly VO, note first of all that it cannot be an SVO clause, as there is a constituent (damit) between the subject and finite verb. Secondly, the two steps are independently needed: VR for clauses like (13b) and extraposition for clauses like (16b). (16) a. *Wye man dy krancken fingen sol how one the sick ask2 shall1 b. Wye man ti fingen sol [dy kranckenh 'how one should ask the sick'

(Pillenreuth 166)

One advantage of the OV/VR analysis is that it nicely accounts for the fact that the 2-x-1 order is virtually unattested in ENHG; moreover, according to Bobaljik (2004: 139) the order is ungrammatical in all of West Germanic and Hungarian. Under the approach outlined here, the two verbs are underlyingly adjacent, with no potential landing site between them. Thus the only possible derivation of this order would require that the intervening constituent be head-adjoined to one of the verbs, ruling out the possibility that a phrase such as an NP could occur there. Recall from Chapter 3 that there are only three instances of the 2-x-1 order in my ENHG corpus; crucially, all of these involve a single lexical item, the negative adverb:7 (17) daz sie mit missetroste virloren nit inwerde that she with talse.comfort lost2 not NEG- be 1 'that she not be lost because of false comfort'

(Benedictinerregel16)

Finally, the ENHG data discussed here support Haegeman's (1992) contention that VR involves head adjunction of the verb, rather than scrambling of all nonverbal elements followed by adjunction of the remnant VP as Schonenberger & Penner (1995) maintain for Swiss German. Clauses such as (15c), repeated here as (18d), would be difficult to account for under the remnant-VP-adjunction

7. I do not want to make any claims about the proper analysis of this construction: because it is found in only one text, it is possible that it is an idiosyncrasy of that text.

Chapter 5. German clause structure and the prosody-syntax interface

analysis. One would have to assume that the extraposed constituent moves first leftward (via scrambling), then rightward (via adjunction). If, as Haider & Rosengren (2003) maintain, scrambling is a defocusing operation, it is unclear why the scrambled object then undergoes extraposition, which can mark focus in ENHG (Bies 1996: 14). (18) a. b. c. d.

*daz ich *daz ich *daz ich daz ich

... [yp mein sund pussen] ... [mein sund]dVP tipussen] ... [mein sund]i ti ... tk t;

sol sol sol [yp tipussen]; sol [yp tipussen]i [mein sund]k

Haegeman's (1992) analysis that the raised verb is a head allows for a much more elegant derivation of the clause, with the object moving only once, as in (15c). 5.2.4 The VO approach to German clause structure (Zwart 1996) According to Kayne's (1994) Anti-symmetry Hypothesis, there is a universal order for phrase structure, specifier-head-complement, and thus all languages are underlyingly VO. In addition, the only possible direction for movement is leftward. Zwart (1996) demonstrates how Dutch syntax (and by extension, German), with its surface OV order in subordinate clauses, can be made compatible with Kayne's approach. According to Zwart's account, the underlying order for subordinate clauses should be SVO, as in (19a). In both Dutch and German, Zwart (1996: 239) derives surface OV order by movement of the object to the left of the verb (19b). At this step in the derivation, the verbs are in the 1-2 or "Verb Raising order, which under Zwart's approach is a misnomer, since no verbs have moved at all (1996: 241). Finally, to yield the 2-1 order which is possible in Dutch and required in German, the participle moves to the left and adjoins to the finite verb (19c) (Zwart 1996:241). (19) a. b. c.

. .. dat Jan heeft gelezen [het boek] that John has 1 read2 the book . .. dat Jan [het boek]; heeft gelezen ~ that John the book has 1 read 2 . .. dat Jan [het boek]; geleze~- heeft if~ that John the book read2 has 1 'that John has read the book'

(Zwart 1996:239, 242)

Thus the order in (19c), which is considered the underlying order in the OV approach, is derived by two movement operations in Zwart's approach.

175

176

The Verbal Complex in Subordinate Clauses from Medieval to Modern German

So-called VPR or 1-x-2 can also be accounted for under Zwart's assumptions. In addition to moving all the way to the left as in (19b), Zwart claims that the complement may move to a position between the non-finite and finite verbs (1996: 240). Taking a previous West Flemish example, the derivation would be as follows, with one complement moving to a position between the verbs and the other moving further left: [da boek)i kuopen y ~ (20) da Jan [vuor Marie]i wil that Jan for Marie wants 1 that book buy2 'that Jan want to buy that book for Marie'

(cf. (4b))

Zwart (1996: 240) claims that such an approach dispenses with the need to assume V and VP movement to account for "VR" and "VPR': In addition, it eliminates the motivation for positing rightward movement (extraposition) of NPs and PPs in earlier stages of German, since sentences with "extraposition" would represent the underlying position of the object:

pussen mein sund (21) daz ich damit sol that I thereby shall1 repent2 my sin 'that I shall repent my sin with that'

(Pillenreuth 163)

In fact, the VO approach to West Germanic word order seems even more appropriate for medieval German than for modern German and Dutch, since the underlying order in this analysis may appear as a possible surface order in MHG andENHG.

5.2.5 The OV and VO approaches compared It is, however, still not clear whether a more traditional OV approach like Haegeman (1992) or a Kaynean VO approach such as Zwart (1996) is to be preferred. Wurmbrand (2006) makes a detailed comparison of the OV and VO approaches with respect to West Germanic VCs. Rather than repeating Wurmbrand's comparison, which involves the derivations of three-verb complexes, I will illustrate her point by making a similar comparison of the derivation of the word order possibilities in earlier stages of German from the two base orders. The MHG and ENHG orders that need to be accounted for (for ENHG examples, see (12)-(16) above) are: (22) a. b. c. d. e.

so so

V2 V 1 V1 V2 S Vz V1 0 s V1 Vz 0 S V1 0 Vz

Chapter 5. German clause structure and the prosody-syntax interface

Moreover, the non-occurrence of*S V2 0 V 1 needs to be explained. Under the OV approach, S 0 V2 V 1 represents the underlying order (23a). S 0 V 1 V2 or 1-2 is derived by VR (23b), S V2 V 1 0 by extraposition (23c), S V1 V2 0 by the combination of VR and extraposition (23d), and S V 1 0 V2 or 1-x-2 by VPR (23e): (23) a. b. c.

d. e.

s

0 v2 v1 S 0 tv V1-V2 s t0 V 2 V 1

o

S t0 tv V1-V2 0 S typ V1 [ypOV2)

Under this analysis, three different operations (extra position, VR, and VPR) and a total of five instances of movement are required to account for all orders. Under the VO approach, S V 1 V2 0 represents the underlying order (24a). S V1 0 V2 (traditionally "VPRj involves the movement of the object to the specifier of one functional projection (FP 1) (24b). S 0 V 1 V2 (traditionally"VR") moves the object to a second, higher FP (24c). S V2 V1 0 (so-called extraposition) has the object in situ with left-adjunction of the V2 to V 1 (24d). Finally, S 0 V2 V1 (the base order under the SOV analysis) combines the two latter movements (24e). (24) a.

b. c. d. e.

s s s s s

v1 V1 0 v1 Vz-V1 0 Vz-V1

V2 0

o V 2 t0 Vz to tv 0

tv to

Just like the OV approach, this analysis requires three operations (movement of 0 to two different landing sites and V-adjunction) and five instances of movement to account for the above orders. Therefore, neither the OV nor the VO analysis offers a simpler account of the attested medieval German word orders. The only advantage of the OV assumption is that it can easily account for the non-occurrence of the 2-x-1 (S V2 0 V 1) order: there is no potential landing site between V2 and V 1. Under the VO analysis, this order can be blocked only by an additional stipulation that VP (or whatever functional projection contains V2 and 0 in clauses with surfaceS V1 V2 0 order) may not move across V 1:

(25) *S [vp V2 O] V 1 typ Based on her comparison of potential derivations of VCs with three verbs, Wurmbrand (2006) concludes that neither approach has any real empirical advantages over the other. Both approaches require a number of construction- and

177

178

The Verbal Complex in Subordinate Clauses from Medieval to Modern German

language-specific stipulations. In Wurmbrand's (2006: 308) view, all that Zwart (1996) demonstrates is that if one is committed to Kayne's (1994) hypothesis about the universal structure of language, one can still derive Dutch word order; Zwart does not actually demonstrate that this approach is empirically more adequate. The discussion of the MHG and ENHG data presented here leads to the same conclusion. Besides requiring an equal number of steps to derive the word orders in question, both the OV and VO approaches to word order within the VC have the disadvantage that the movements required are not well motivated. One of Zwart's criticisms of the OV approach to VR is that "it is not clear what triggers the various movements" (1996: 6). In Zwart's analysis, the motivation for movement is stated in terms of a need to check abstract features. However, Wurmbrand (2006: 310) points out that this is not much of an explanation: "If the features triggering movement are not motivated by any other syntactic or semantic property and are only postulated for the constructions or languages they are needed for, they boil down to simple 'word order' features, which can hardly be claimed to be motivated': Therefore, the motivation for movement is not a criterion that lends support to either base order. There is another problem besides the motivation for movement, which is that movement within the VC seems to be optional in many cases. According to current syntactic theory (e.g. Chomsky 1995), there should be no optional movement. However, the variation between 2-1 and 1-2 in languages such as Dutch and ENHG appears to be truly optional. There have essentially been three ways proposed to account for this optionality. First, Zwart (1996: 12) stipulates that the non-finite verb always moves, but it may move to one of two positions: in front of the finite verb or following it. This seems to solve the optionality problem, since movement always occurs, but it introduces a new problem, since the landing site of the movement is optional. Secondly, it is possible that the movement is well motivated, but the motivation has not yet been discovered. This was the case with Yiddish, which has both OV and VO word orders, until Diesing (1997: 377) established that the language is underlyingly VO, with the OV order derived by scrambling certain kinds of objects. Thirdly, one could see variation between different word orders not as derivations from a single underlying order, but as a result of competition between two grammars within the same language, as Pintzuk (1999) argues for Old English. Indeed, Zwart (1996: 233) notes that the alternation between 2-1 and 1-2 in Standard Dutch exists because some dialects prefer 1-2 and others 2-1. Finally, Wurmbrand ( 2004a: 287) suggests that the reordering of verbs within the VC is not syntactic movement at all, but is rather a post-syntactic, phonological operation.

Chapter 5. German clause structure and the prosody-syntax interface

In conclusion, neither the OV nor the VO approach to German clause structure has any major empirical advantage with respect to the word-order facts discussed in this study, aside from the tact that the ungrammaticality of S V2 0 V 1 follows more straightforwardly from the assumption of an OV base. Moreover, both approaches suffer from the theory-internal problems of unmotivated and optional movement The next section considers whether focus can provide the motivation for these movements. illtimately, we will see that the structures in question cannot be entirely derived by movement in narrow syntax, instead requiring an appeal to the interface between syntax and prosody.

5·3

Focus, prosody, and verb order

5.3.1 Observations that need to be accounted for

This section addresses the issue of how the relationship between focus, prosody, and verb order is to be best analyzed. In previous chapters, a number of findings regarding the relationship between focus, certain "rhythmic" or prosodic factors, and word order have been made. These turn out to be the most important factors in determining word order within the VC: nearly all of the instances of the 1-2 order in my ENHG and MHG databases can be attributed to one or more of the prosodic and focus-related factors. The data from modern varieties of German, while showing some focus effects, do not lead to the firm conclusion that the word orders in question are directly affected by focus but instead leave open the possibility that prosody is the determining factor. The observations about focus and prosody made in previous chapters, which should be taken into account if the variable word orders in the verbal complex are to be fully understood, are reiterated below as (Fl)-(F8). (Fl) In MHG, ENHG, and ZG, the 1-2 order is favored if the object is part of focus. In MHG, narrow object focus most strongly favors 1-2, and there is also some effect ofVP and clause focus (Chapter 2.2.2.4). In ENHG, contrastive focus more strongly favors 1-2 than new information focus (Chapter 3.2.3.4). In Zurich German (ZG), the 1-2 order is favored by narrow object focus and VP focus (Chapter 4.3.3). Data for complexes of three verbs are less clear in the historical studies, due to the low number of tokens; however, in the Modern Standard German werden-modal-infinitive syntagm, object focus favors the 1-3-2 order relative to the 3-2-1 and 3-1-2 orders. (F2) Focus on different members of the verbal complex may result in different ordet-s within the VC. There was no such effect in MHG or ENHG (probably

179

180

The Verbal Complex in Subordinate Clauses from Medieval to Modern German

because these types offocus are too rare), but this was tested in the Modern Standard German werden-modal-infinitive construction (Chapter 4.4), with the results largely confirming Schmid & Vogel (2004). The questionnaire of ZG also showed differing word-order preferences with focus on the lexical or modal verb, with a tendency to place the focused verb last (Chapter 4.3.3).

(F3) The 1-x-2 order (VPR) may indicate focus on the object and main verb (VP). In MHG, nearly half of the instances of this order involve focus on the intervening object plus the verb, although there are more cases in which the intervening constituent is defocused. Some scholars have claimed that VPR orders are used to focus the VP in Standard German (Kefer & Lejeune 1974) and Swiss German (Lotscher 1978). The data from my ZG questionnaire are inconclusive: this is not the preferred order for VP focus, although it is an acceptable order. (F4) Extrapositionfavors the 1-2 order. This is true in MHG and ENHG, where extra position probably helps to mar kfocus (Chapter 2.2. 2.4 ), as well as in contemporary Bavarian (Chapter 4.2.2.4). In MHG, the correlation between extraposition and 1-2 is strongest with VP focus. However, most contemporary varieties of German do not allow extraposition to the same extent as the medieval language, and thus the correlation between extraposition and 1-2 has been lost. (FS) Scrambling disfavors the 1-2 order. This is true in both ENHG (Chapter 3.2.3.4) and contemporary Austrian and Swabian (Chapter 4.3.2); however, in MHG no such result obtained, perhaps due to the small number of tokens.

(F6) MHG and ENHG have perhaps three different ways of marking object focus by word order: extraposition, the 1-2 order alone, and extraposition plus 1-2. In addition to using stress alone to mark focus, these word orders are strongly associated with object focus: this is certainly the case for extraposition in MHG (Sapp 2010; Chapter 2.2.2.4) and ENHG (Bies 1996). This study has also shown that object focus favors 1-2 in several varieties. It is unclear, however, whether extraposition plus 1-2 should be considered a method of marking focus, or whether the 1-2 order is merely a consequence of extraposition.

(F7) In MHG, dialects ofENHG, and perhaps some modern dialects, the weight of the word preceding the verbal complex influences the order within the complex. Non-pronominal NPs preceding the VC favor the 1-2 order, while pronouns favor 2-1 in MHG (Chapter 2.2.2.2) and some dialects of ENHG (Chapter 3.4.1). In ENHG, contrastive focus more strongly favors 1-2 than new-information focus (Chapter 3.2.3.4), perhaps due to the stronger stress of contrastive focus. Although my surveys of Austrian German and Swabian were unable to elicit a favoring effect on 1-2 under new information focus, some speakers did report a favoring effect with a heavily stressed object (Chapter 4.3.2). (FB) In MHG and ENHG, verbs with a stressed prefix favor the 1-2 order. The effect has also been described for Dutch (see Section 5.3.3.1 below).

Chapter 5. German clause structure and the prosody-syntax interface

De Sutter (2009: 228) points out that word-order variation in the VC is unlike other types of alternations that are better understood, namely inten;onstituent phenomena such as the dative alternation or extraposition. He argues that intraconstituent variation such as that within the VC is difficult to account for either in structural, pragmatic, or semantic terms, especially in the case of the VC because of the semantic emptiness of the auxiliary (2009: 229). For this reason, we will find that it is difficult to associate particular orders in the VC with specific meanings or pragmatic effects. In the next section, we will examine some formal analyses of focus and subordinate clause word order. Schwabe & Winkler (2007:5) note that there are currently two major approaches to analyzing focus in formal syntax: a prosodicbased account and a feature-based account. The former approach is represented here by Cinque (1993) and the latter by Koopman & Szabolcsi (2000). It will be demonstrated that neither of these allows a straightforward account of the complex empirical data reviewed above, regardless of whether one assumes an OV or VO base. Section 5.3.3 presents evidence that the findings in (F1)-(F8) are less a result of focus than of prosody, to a great degree conditioned by Selkirk's ( 1984) Principle of Rhythmic Alternation. In Section 5.3.4, I will adopt Bi.iring's (2006) purely prosodic approach to focus marking and give an outline of how such an account can be made compatible with a derivational model of syntax. 5.3.2 Formal syntactic analyses of focus and verb order 5.3.2.1 OV: Focus on most deeply embedded word Cinque (1993) provides an interesting hypothesis on the relationship between syntactic structure and sentential accent, which has proven to be a fruitful analysis for exploring the relationship between focus and word order. Cinque (1993:45) argues that language-specific rules for the assignment of sentential stress may be dispensed with by assuming that the most deeply embedded word in a clause will receive the nuclear stress accent, i.e. the strongest accent in the sentence. This accounts for the fact that in German under normal intonation, the stress is on the object when pre-verbal (26a), since the head noun of the object NP is the deepest constituent in the VP, but on the verb if there is no pre-verbal object (26b ), since in that case the verb is the most deeply embedded:

(26) a.

b.

[cp Hansi [c hattt liP 4 (yp k.ein BUCH gelesen] itt]]].

Hans has no book read 'Hans has read no book~ [epDeDt[c haq_[w Hans[vP4 GELESEN] lj.]]]. that has Hans read 'Hans has read that one~

(Cinque 1993:254)

181

182

The Verbal Complex in Subordinate Clauses from Medieval to Modern German

When the focus of the sentence contains the most deeply-embedded constituent, there are numerous possibilities for focus interpretation (Cinque 1993: 259).8 This can be illustrated for German using the example in Stechow & Sterneteld (1988:461). In their example, the possible focus interpretations of the sentence Gestem hat Karl dem Kind das Buch geschenkt 'yesterday Karl gave the book to the chilcf, with the sentential accent on Buch 'book: are indicated by posing a background question: (27) a.

Was hat K. dem Kind gestem geschenkt? 'What did Karl give the child yesterday?' Gestern hat Karl dem Kind [poe das BUCH] geschenkt yesterday has Karl the child the book given b. Was hat K. dem Kind gestem getan? 'What did Karl do to the child yesterday?' Gestern hat Karl dem Kind [poe das BUCH geschenkt] Was hat Karl gestem getan? 'What did Karl do yesterday?' Gestern hat Karl [Foedem Kind das BUCH geschenkt] d. Was hat das Kind gestern erlebt? 'What did the child experience yesterday?' Gestern hat [Foe Karl] dem Kind [Foe das BUCH geschenkt] e. Was ist gestem geschehen? 'What happened yesterday?' Gestern hat [Foe Karl dem Kind das BUCH geschenkt] (Stechow & Sternefeld 1988:461)9

If the most deeply embedded constituent is not a part of the focus, that constituent may be de-accented and the focus accented (Cinque 1993: 261). This shifting of the accent, with no change in word order, is the normal way of moving the focus in English and is also possible in German (28a). However, as Reinhart (1995) points out, in German it is more natural to scramble the deepest constituent, leaving the focused constituent in the most deeply-embedded position (28b):Io (28) a. b.

Gestern hat Karl dem KIND das Buch geschenkt. Gestern hat Karl das Buchi dem KIND ti geschenkt.

8. In Selkirk's (1995: 555) formulation, if a head is accented (thus focus-marked), its phrase can also be focus- marked. In this way, focus can "project" from the stressed word up the tree. 9· These data are first discussed in Hoble (1982: 120-121).

Because Reinhart (1995) is mainly concerned with Dutch scrambling, which may change the order ofthe objects with respect to adverbs but not with respect to each other, her examples involve cases where scrambling an object results in focus on the verb.

10.

Chapter 5. German clause structure and the prosody-syntax interface

Thus in this expansion of Cinque's system (also adopted by Haider & Rosengren 2003), movement can displace a constituent that is not a part of the focus, allowing the focused constituent to become the most deeply embedded constituent and thus receive the sentential stress in the usual manner.ll Having introduced Reinhart's application of Cinque's system, let us see if something like it can account for the relationship between focus and verb order in ENHG subordinate clauses. We will assume that the base order is OV (29a), and that 1-2, 1-x-2, and extra position are derived by rightward movement as discussed in Section 5.2.3 above.12 (29) a.

s

IIPIVP ~pO] liP lVP ~pO] sliP liP IVP tNP sliP liP lVP tNP tvp s liP liP

b. s c. d. e.

V2 ] Vd tv] V 1-V 2 ] V2 ] Vd tv] V 1-V 2 ] Vd

INP 0 ]] lNP 0 ]) IVP ~pO] V 2)]

(VR) (extraposition) (VR, extrap.) (VPR)

A system like this is not very well equipped to account for the facts presented in 5.3.1. There is no obvious reason why the 1-2 order should be associated with object focus (F1), since the object is the deepest constituent and thus stressed, regardless of the order of the verbs, compare (29a) and (29b). Likewise there is no reason under this system that an in situ (not scrambled) object should be associated with 1-2 (F5), illustrated in (29b). Furthermore, moving a focused element to the right is not compatible with the most-deeply-embedded principle of stress assignment: under this analysis, the 1-2 order should not indicate focus on the verb (F2), extraposition should not indicate focus on the extraposed constituent (F4), and VPR should not indicate focus on the VP (F3), since in every case the focused element has moved up the tree (29b-e). There is no reason under this system that up to three different word orders should be used to mark focus in MHG and ENHG (F6). Finally, this kind of account addresses focus only, not phonological weight (F7). 5.3.2.2 The feature-based account: Focus to the left The second type of formal approach to focus is to assume that there is a syntactic feature (Focus) that must be checked by movement to a Focus Phrase. Koopman & Szabolcsi (2000) propose just such an analysis for Dutch and German, following

See Abraham (2007) for a similar approach that does not rely on movement: focused DPs are merged into the lower position, where they will receive sentential stress.

11.

12. For ease of exposition, the projection containing the finite verb is labeled "IP" (disregarding the questions whether the finite verb is generated there and whether Jo is head-initial or headfinal). Nothing hinges on the choice of "IP" versus "TP':

183

184 The Verbal Complex in Subordinate Clauses from Medieval to Modern German

Kayne's (1994) assumption of the universal VO base order. Koopman & Szabolcsi (2000: 127-128) posit a much more complex structure than Zwart's (1996), given their assumptions that every morpho-syntactic feature is associated with a head and that each verb in the verbal complex projects a CP. Most importantly for this discussion, Koopman & Szabolcsi (2000: 137) posit three positions for object NPs between C (the complementizer position) and AgrsP (the position of the finite verb in subordinate clauses), in the following hierarchy: C > RefP > DistP > NegP > FP > NegP > AgrsP. Focused NPs move to F(ocus)P, quantified ones to DistP, and specific ("scrambled") ones to RefP. Let us see how one can account for the focus and word order data presented above under such an analysis. First of all, take the situation where an object is focused and pre-verbal, and the verbs are in the 1-2 order. This object would be in the focus position (FP), with the finite verb moving to its usual position (AgrsP) and the non-finite verb below that in its own CP (30a). If, on the other hand, there is a focused, pre-verbal object and the verbs are in the 2-1 order, one must assume that the non-finite V has moved to the left of the Aux, and that the phrase containing the two verbs moves to AgrsP (30b). Since (30a) and (30b) are both equally good structures (the former being equivalent to the usual order in Standard Dutch and the latter to Standard German), there is no obvious reason for object focus to favor 1-2 in ENHG (30a); thus F1 is not accounted for. Nor is there any obvious reason why a scrambled object (i.e. an object that has moved further up to DistP) should be associated with the verbal positions in (30b), leaving FS unaccounted for. (30) a.

(ppO [AgrsP V1 ... (ep ... V2 ... (pp 0 [AgrsP [ V2 V1] ... (cp ... tv ... s loistP [AgrsP vl···v2···l (ppO tAgrsP ... S lnistP [AgrsP [ V 2 V1l ... ] (pp 0 tAgrsP ·· ·

S loistP

b. S lmstP c. d.

The other word orders are even more difficult to account for under these assumptions. For a focused, extraposed object, one would either need to assume that there is a lower FP to the right of AgrsP (not illustrated),13 or that some phrase containing the verbs (perhaps Agr 5P) has moved to some position above the focused object (30c-d). Again, there is no obvious reason why object focus should favor moving a phrase containing the VC in the 1-2 order to the left of FP (30c) over moving a phrase containing the VC in the 2-1 order there (30d); thus F4 is not explained.

13. HinterMI.zl. (20 10: 296) proposes something like this for Old High German: new-information focus is assigned in a position to the right of the non-finite verb, while contrastive focus is

assigned immediately to its left. However, I have found no evidence for such a division in MHG orENHG.

Chapter 5. German clause structure and the prosody-syntax interface

Finally, it is unclear how focus on verbs or larger constituents is to be treated under Koopman & Szabolcsi's (2000) assumptions. They do not indicate whether FP is available to constituents other than NPs. Therefore, it is unclear whether the assumption of a pre-verbal focus position can explain word order within the VC under different focus conditions (F2) or the association between VP focus and the 1-x-2 order (F3). In conclusion, although Koopman & Szabolcsi's (2000) system neatly accounts for the simplest focus facts (those concerning scrambling), much work needs to be done to rectify the assumption of a pre-verbal focus position with more complex focus data. However, as Molmirfi (2007: 161) argues, focused phrases in German may appear in virtually any position, thus the search for a specific structural position for focus is unlikely to yield results. 5.3.2.3 The feature-based account: Focus position to the right Although no one has attempted to work this out formally, let us see whether the feature-based account is more explanatory assuming that the focus position in German is not to the left, in the CP system, but to the right of the verbal complex. Recall that Bies (1996: 14) suggests that extraposition in ENHG moves the constituent to a focus position on the right edge of the clause. Let us consider whether all of the focus effects of the various ENHG word orders (and similar effects in modern varieties of German) may be derived by assuming a focus position to the right.14 Assuming that there is a focus position at the right edge of the clause allows an account for two other correlations between focus and word order, in addition to the association between extraposition and focus. The association between a changed order in the VC and focus on a particular part of the VC (F2) derives from the movement of V to the right edge of the clause.lS Likewise, under the VPR analysis, the VP moves to the right. so the correlation between VPR and focus on the VP (F3) is straightforwardly derived. On the other hand, such an analysis is unable to account for the favoring effect of a focused object (Fl) or a non-scrambled object (FS) on the 1-2 order. There is no reason that the verb should move rightward into a focus position when the object is focused in situ. Likewise, if the object is focused and thereby extraposed, there is no obvious reason why the order in the VC should change (F4). Therefore such an analysis is only able to account for one of the three word orders that mark object focus in ENHG (F6). Finally, such an approach cannot easily account for

14. We leave aside the issue of whether this focus position is a functional projection (FocusP) or merely adjunction to IP (as in the previous section). 15. See also Schmid & Vogel (2004), where focused verbs tend to appear at the edge of the VC.

185

186

The Verbal Complex in Subordinate Clauses from Medieval to Modern German

instances where the focused constituents are not adjacent, such as under VP focus with the verbs in the 1-2 order: (31) dass d~ Martin [Foe en Roman] mues that the Martin a novel must

[Foe

schriibe] write

5.3.2.4 Discussion None of the analyses discussed above has any clear empirical advantages over the others in explaining the desired facts summarized in Section 5.3.1. Each approach is able to account for at most two of the facts, but none of them even approximates being able to account for all of the data. Most problematically, no approach can explain the correlation between object focus and verb order (Fl). Thus it appears that it is not possible to maintain that the word orders discussed here are motivated by syntactic features related to focus. The focus-related word orders continue to be syntactically unmotivated and optionaL Therefore, the account to be proposed below treats the relationship between focus and word order not as a formal syntactic mechanism, but rather as a side-effect of the prosodic realization of focus. As a final note, since neither approach to focus offers a straightforward explanation of the facts discussed here under either the OV or the VO approach, the focus and word order facts do not provide any additional evidence for either approach to German clause structure. Thus the conclusion of Section 5.2.5, that the OV approach to German has only a slight empirical advantage, still holds. In the discussion that follows, I will assume the more traditional OV approach: this is in part due to the empirical reason just mentioned, and in part because the orders are simpler to illustrate graphically assuming an OV base. Because my account is a post-syntactic one, in the following section the precise derivation of the basic OV word order of German (whether it represents the underlying order or is derived from a universal VO order) is moot.

5·3·3 Accounting for prosodic factors 5·3·3·1 Behaghels hypothesis and the Dutch verbal complex In addition to focus, some of the factors that affect word order in the MHG and ENHG verbal complex have less to do with focus than with prosody, which earlier scholarship calls "rhythmic" factors. This is certainly the case for the effect of the weight of the word preceding the verbal complex (F7), and perhaps also for the effect of prefix type (F8). Recall that the effect of the preceding word in MHG is reducible to stress but not to definiteness (Chapter 2.2.2.2): thus it is a genuine prosodic effect, rather than a semantic or syntactic one. Moreover, because focus is manifested in Germanic languages primarily through prosody, we will see that

Chapter 5. German clause structure and the prosody-syntax interface

most of the focus effects discussed above can be reduced to a single prosodic principle: the alternation of stressed and unstressed words. This principle was first discussed by Behaghel (1932: IV, 87), who claimed that a heavy word immediately before the verbal complex favors 1-2 because it results in the alternation of stressed and unstressed words, which can be illustrated as OBJECT-verb 1- VERB2 • This is dependent on the assumption that auxiliary verbs receive less stress than lexical verbs, which is at least the case in English according to Selkirk (1984: 335). A heavy word followed by the non-finite, lexical verb would result in a less euphonious sequence of stressed words: OBJECT-VERBr verb 1• On the other hand, a light word such as a pronoun can be followed by the more heavily stressed non-finite verb, as there would be no adjacent heavy words: object- VERBrverb 1. Such a principle has been found not only to operate in MHG and ENHG, but also in Modern Dutch. In Standard Dutch, both the 1-2 and 2-1 orders are possible in both the modal-infinitive and the present perfect syntagm (den Besten & Broekhuis 1989:81). However, den Besten & Broekhuis (1989: 119) find that the 2-1 order is not possible if the object is non-specific (32b). They attribute this to a prosodic filter that rules out 2-1 unless the non-finite verb carries the nuclear stress of the sentence; non -specific objects are thus incompatible with 2-1 because they must bear sentential stress:16 dat hij de panters (altijd) AAIEN wil. wants 1 that he the panthers always pet2 'that he always wants to pet the panthers' (specific) b. !!dat hij (altijd) PANTERS AAIEN wil. that he always panthers pet2 wants 1 'that he always wants to pet panthers' (non-specific) (den Besten & Broekhuis 1989: 120)

(32) a.

This prosodic filter accounts for another fact about the 2-1 order in Dutch: according to den Besten & Broekhuis (1989: 120), the order is possible with verbs that have an unstressed prefix (33a) but not those with a stressed prefix (33b). They assume that the so-called prefix is a separate word, thus the 2-1 order is not felicitous in (33b) because the prefix. not the verb, bears sentential stress: (33) a.

dat hij die cursus doorWPEN zal. that he the course through-go 2 wilh 'that he will go through the course'

16. When relevant, I use all caps to indicate the primary stress accent of a clause, and small

caps to indicate other accented words. (To avoid confusion, I will no longer put verbs in italics.) Den Besten & Broekhuis use somewhat different diacritics, so these examples are adapted to my system.

187

188

The Verbal Complex in Subordinate Clauses from Medieval to Modern German

b. !dat hij DOORLOPEN zal. that he continue2 will1 'that he will continue'

(den Besten & Broekhuis 1989: 120)

Although den Besten & Broekhuis do not formulate the generalization this way, the same data can be captured with the principle discovered by Behaghel: (32b) and (33b) may be less acceptable than their 1-2 counterparts because there are two adjacent stressed words. Concentrating on Dutch auxiliary+participle syntagms (the perfect tenses and the passive voice), de Schutter also considers "rhythmic euphony" to be a determining factor in the choice of word orders ( 1996: 208). Drawing in part on earlier studies of written and spoken corpora, de Schutter notes that the following factors (among others) favor the 1-2 order: separable prefix verbs, a complement PP or AP or an indefinite NP immediately preceding the VC, a heavily stressed word immediately before the VC, and lack of extraposition (i.e. extraposition favors 2-1, the opposite of medieval German). De Schutter's generalization of this data is that if sentential stress immediately precedes the VC, there is a tendency toward 1-2, but if the stress is on the verb itself or elsewhere in the sentence (including on an extraposed constituent), 2-1 is more frequent (1996: 214). For de Schutter, this generalization results from the interplay of two factors in Dutch: the preference for the "flat hat" intonation (rising, level, then falling) and the avoidance of two consecutive stressed words (1996:215). The 2-1 order results in the preferred contour if the participle is stressed, with the intonational peak on the participle and falling intonation on the unstressed auxiliary (34a). If the word preceding the VC is stressed, in order to avoid two adjacent strongly stressed words, the 1-2 order can be used, with the peak coinciding with primary sentential stress and falling intonation on the verbal complex, with secondary stress on the participle (34b) (de Schutter 1996: 215):17 (34) a.

b.

(dat) ik toen al VERNOMEN had that I then all heard 2 had 1 'that I had heard everything then' (dat) ik mijn vriendje naar HUIS heb geBRACHT that I my friend to house have 1 brought2 'that I have brought my friend home'

On the other hand, if the distance between the pre-verbal stressed word and the participle is too great, resulting in a long sequence of unstressed syllables (35a), de Schutter (1996: 215) claims that the 2-1 order is more felicitous (35b).

and secondary sentential stress, but I have adapted the sentences to my method of marking stress for consistencfs sake.

17. I follow de Schutter's indications of primary

Chapter 5. German clause structure and the prosody-syntax interface 189

(35) a.

(dat) we daar toen een onbeKENde hebben geZIEN that we there then a stranger have 1 seen2 b. (dat) we daar toen een onbeKENde geziEN hebben that we there then a stranger seen2 have 1 'that we had seen a stranger there then'

Swerts & van Wijk (2005) carry out two studies of Dutch auxi.liary+participle syntagms to test these prosodic accounts: an analysis of a corpus of spontaneous speech and a perception experiment in which participants chose between sentences with different word orders and stress patterns. The corpus analysis indeed found that a stressed word before the VC favored the 1-2 order; however, this interacted with another factor, namely whether the participle itself was stressed (Swerts & van Wijk 2005: 251). In the second study, where the interactions of the various factors could be controlled for, only stress on the participle had a statistically significant effect on verb order, with stressed participles favoring 2-1 (Swerts & van Wijk 2005: 257). However, this effect only held for the "short" participle verkocht 'bought'; the participle with a stressed prefix, afgesproken 'agreed upoO: did not show any significant preferences for 2-1 or 1-2 (Swerts & van Wijk 2005: 257). Swerts & van Wijk speculate that this is because the verb is long enough to instantiate the appropriate pitch contour after the peak on the prefix: AFgesproken (2005: 257). Thus Swerts & van Wijk's results largely support de Schutter's hypothesis that prosody is the most important factor determining verb order, although the prosody of the verb turns out to be more important than that of the word preceding the VC. De Sutter (2009) addresses the same construction as the two previous studies, but he conducts a multivariate analysis of the influence of ten linguistic variables in a corpus of journalistic Dutch from Belgium. Eight of the variables have a significant effect: syntagm, prefix type, word preceding the VC, fixed verbal expressions, length of the middle field, extraposition, syntactic persistence, and frequency of the participle (de Sutter 2009: 248).18 The two strictly prosodic factors -the distance (in terms of unstressed syllables) between the stressed syllables of the participle and the preceding word and the distance between the stressed syllables of the participle and the extraposed word - are not significant in his study, although a previous study (de Sutter et al. 2008) found that the prosody

18. De Sutter (2009) uses different terms for the variables; I have adjusted them somewhat to

bring them in line with the terms used in my studies. The word preceding the VC was coded differently than in my studies, being classified into one of three groups - highly informational (nouns, verbs, and numerals), intermediate (adjectives and adverbs), and low informational (pronouns, conjunctions, and prepositions). Syntactic persistence refers to the tendency of an individual writer to use a particular order if that order was used in the preceding context.

190

The Verbal Complex in Subordinate Clauses from Medieval to Modern German

of extraposition had some effect when no other factors are present. De Sutter concludes that word order in the Dutch VC is "multivariate in nature~ i.e. it is affected by all eight variables, although some have a stronger influence than others (2009: 250). Although de Sutter claims that the prosodic factors are redundant, this may be a result of the way he operationalizes these factors.19 Recall that in Behaghel's formulation, two adjacent stressed words are avoided (regardless of syllable structure), and this may actually be supported by de Sutter's data, in that "highly informationaf' words such as nouns preceding the VC favor 1-2, while lighter words such as pronouns have no effect (de Sutter 2009: 247). In conclusion, Behaghel's observation that prosody plays a role in the 2-1/1-2 alternation in the history of German finds support from several studies of modern Dutch, including a perceptual study and corpus studies of both the written and spoken language. However, it is clear from all of these studies that prosody is not the only factor, and if de Sutter (2009) is correct, prosody may be secondary to other linguistic factors. Nevertheless, the next section presents a general prosodic principle concerning the alternation of word stresses and syllable stresses, followed by the application of this principle to the German data in Section 5.3.3.3. 5·3·3·2 A formalization: Selkirk's Prindple of Rhythmic Alternation Although Behaghel's hypothesis is somewhat informal and would only apply to verbal complexes in medieval German, a more sophisticated and general formulation is found in Selkirk's (1984) Principle of Rhythmic Alternation (PRA). Unlike Behaghel's principle, which deals with word stress, or de Schutter's (1996) explanation, which relies on the number of unstressed syllables between word stresses, the PRA operates on multiple levels, including the level of stressed syllables (within words) and stressed words (within phrases or sentences).

(36) Principle of Rhythmic Alternation (Selkirk 1984:48) Between two successive strong beats on a metrical level n there must intervene at least one (and at most two) weak beat(s) of the metrical level n.

De Sutter (2009) counts the number of unstressed syllables between stressed words, conflating tiers two and three in Selkirk's (1984) system. As a result, a sequence like onbeKENde geZIEN ('stranger seen'), with two unstressed syllables between the main word stresses, is treated differently from a case like HUIS geZIEN ('house seen') with only one intervening unstressed syllable, even though both involve a dash of adjacent word stresses at the third tier. De Sutter (2009), therefore, does not disprove the effect of the Principle of Rhythmic Alternation as formulated by Selkirk or Behaghel 19.

Chapter 5. German clause structure and the prosody-syntax interface

On the one hand, the PRA ensures that there will not be a clash at either the syllable or the word level. On the other hand, this principle ensures that there will not be a lapse, i.e. more than two adjacent unstressed syllables or words. The result is a pattern like (37). The first tier represents syllables (or "demibeats"): those which are dominated by an x at the next level are strong and thus stressed, while those that are not dominated are weak and thus unstressed. The second tier is made up of the stressed syllables (or "beats"): again, those that are dominated by an x at the third level are strong (primary stresses) while the others are weak (secondary stresses). Finally, the third tier is "main word stress." Of these two words, the main word stress in gesticulated is dominated by an x, while the main stress of Abernathy is not, thus gesticulated is the strongest stress in the sentence.

+- sentential stress +- main word stress +- beats (primary and second. stress) +- demi-beats (syllables)

X

X

X

X X

X X

X X

X

X

X

XXX X

(37) Abernathy gesticulated

(Selkirk 1984: 44)

Note that for Selkirk ( 1984: 335) function words, including determiners, pronouns, prepositions, and auxiliary verbs, do not align with the third tier, instead associating with an adjacent main word stress. Additionally. mono-syllabic function words tend to be destressed altogether, aligning only with a demi-beat (1984:337). According to Selkirk (1984: 55-56), violations of the PRA are resolved by one of three mechanisms: Beat Addition, which adds a strong word! syllable in the case of too many consecutive weak positions, Beat Deletion, which resolves a clash by downgrading one of two adjacent stressed words/syllables, and Beat Movement, which shifts stress from a strong position to one that is normally weak. Beat Movement is illustrated in (38), where the usual stress pattern of achromatic is changed to achromatic to preceding a noun, in order to resolve the dashing adjacent main word stresses.2o X

X X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X X X

(38) achromaticlens

20.

X

X

~

X

X

X

X

XX

X

achromaticlens

(Selkirk 1984: 47)

Throughout this section, I indicate the clashing strong position with a boldface x.

191

192

The Verbal Complex in Subordinate Clauses from Medieval to Modern German

Let us see how the PRA might apply in a verbal complex, beginning with Modern Standard German. If a stressed object precedes the VC in the 2-1 order (the only possible order in MSG), there will be a clash of the two adjacent stressed positions at the third tier, i.e. main word stress (and in this example, also at the second tier) (39a). Perhaps this is resolved by Beat Movement (39b) or Beat Deletion (not shown): 21 X X

X

X

X

X

X

XXXXXXX

(39) a.

X

X

XX

X

dass MARTIN einen ROMAN SCHRIDBEN muss. must1 that Martin a novel write2 X X

X

X X

b.

X

X

X

XX

X

X

X

X

X

X

X X

X

dass MARTIN einen ROMAN schreiben Muss.

Besides Beat Movement and Beat Deletion, varieties that allow word-order variation in the VC may have an additional strategy at their disposal: the PRA can be preserved by changing word order. This can be illustrated using a Dutch example from den Besten & Broekhuis (1989: 120). The 2-1 order results in the clash of adjacent stressed words (40a). Den Besten & Broekhuis do not indicate whether Beat Movement is possible in this case, i.e. whether the acceptability of the sentence improves if the stress in the VC is shifted to the modal verb, and I will not speculate on this as a possible strategy in Dutch. Regardless of that possibility, the preferred strategy in Dutch seems to be to change word order in the VC: with the non-finite verb no longer adjacent to the stressed, pre-verbal word, the sentence is acceptable (40b ). X

X X

X

X

X

XX

X

X X

X

X

X X

X

(40) a. !!dat hij (altijd) PANTERS AAIEN wil that he the panthers always pet2 wants 1

21. Selkirk (1984: 173) argues that Beat Deletion and Beat Movement only operate at the level of main word stress and cannot move or delete a "basic beat". Thus (39b) resolves the clash at the third tier, but the clash at the second tier is unresolved I recorded a native speaker reading the sentence in (39), which yielded mixed results: muss tends to have lower volume, but higher pitch, than schreiben.

Chapter 5. German clause structure and the prosody-syntax interface

X X

X

b.

X

X

XXX

X

X X

X

XX

X

dat hij (altijd) PANTERS wil AAIEN.

I propose that in "Verb Raising" varieties of West Germanic, the 1-2 order is the preferred strategy for resolving the anti-clash provision of the PRA. Perhaps the preference for 1-2 can be attributed to the notion of economy: as Reinhart (1995) argues concerning scrambling, given word-order optionality, it may be less costly to change word order than to shift stress. In these cases, the 1-2 order allows the preservation of the dominant prosodic patterns of the language (PRA) and maintains the prominence of the lexical verb vis-a-vis the modal or auxiliary. 5·3·3·3 Accounting for the desired data with the PRA In the previous section, I proposed that a clash of two adjacent stressed words, namely a non-finite verb and its argument, may be resolved in some West Germanic varieties by using the 1-2 order. Let us see how this proposal applies to the data in the previous chapters. In the discussion that follows, I only illustrate the third tier (main word stress) and above, unless the lower tiers are relevant to a particular case. A non-pronominal object adjacent to the lexical verb violates the PRA at the level of main word stress, because two strong words are adjacent (41a). This can be repaired by Beat Movement (41b) as in Standard German or, as argued above by re-ordering the VC in dialects that allow that (41c). This is illustrated using sentences from Zurich German: X X

X

X

(41) a. !I ha gsrut, dass dii.MARTIN en ROMAN SCHRIIBE mues. I have said that the Martin a novel write2 must1 X X

b.

X

X

I ha gsrut, dass dil. MARTIN en ROMAN schriibe MUES. X

X

c.

X

X

I ha gsrut. dass dil. MARTIN en ROMAN mues SCHRIIBE.

The optionality of word order in the VC in MHG, ZG, and Dutch can thus be attributed to the interplay of syntax and prosody.

193

194 The Verbal Complex in Subordinate Clauses from Medieval to Modern German

Having laid out the general account, let us see how this prosodic approach can be used to explain the focus-related findings (Fl-F8). Beginning with the purely phonological findings, this stress-based approach obviously explains (F7), the effect of the weight of the immediately pre-verbal word on VC word order in MHG. Non-pronominal NPs and other heavy words preceding the VC favor the 1-2 order because that order resolves the clash of adjacent stressed words. When a pronoun or adverb precedes the VC, the 2-1 order is favored, perhaps because 2-1 is the default order. Alternatively, the preference for the 2-1 order after a light word may be because it satisfies the anti-lapse part of the PRA, i.e. pronoun-VERBrverb 1, with its alternating stresses, is preferred to the two adjacent unstressed words in pronoun-verbrVERB2 • Likewise, the stress-based analysis can easily account for (FS), the disfavoring effect of scrambling on the 1-2 order in ENHG and some contemporary dialects. Most examples of scrambling examined in the corpora represent so-called Dutch scrambling, where an object appears to the left of an adverb or negator, as in (32a) above and (42) below. Because this kind of scrambling results in a light word between the object and the VC, there will be no clash of adjacent stressed words, thus no need for the 1-2 order: X X

X

X

(42) so der TEUFEL den MENSCHEN nit VBERWINDEN mag if the devil the person not overcome2 can1

'if the devil cannot overcome that person'

(Pillenreuth 163)

Slightly more complex is the differing effect of stressed versus unstressed prefixes in MHG and ENHG (F8), which also plays a role in Dutch (see (33) above). In MHG, verbs with stressed prefixes pattern with those with no prefix in favoring 1-2, while in ENHG the effect of stressed-prefix verbs is stronger. At both stages, verbs with unstressed prefixes favor 2-1. To explain this, it is useful to examine not just adjacent main word stresses, but also syllable stress (the second tier of the PRA). In the case of a stressed, pre-verbal word followed by a stressed prefix, the PRA may be violated at two levels: in the made-up ENHG example (43a), the subject sel and the verb a.bschaiden clash as adjacent words, and because abschaiden is stressed on the initial prefix. there are clashing adjacent syllables as well. In the attested sentence (43b ), the syllable and word clashes have been resolved by using the 1-2 order instead. One could argue that when the PRA is violated at both levels, the motivation for shifting word order is even stronger.

Chapter 5. German clause structure and the prosody-syntax interface

X

X

X X

X X

X

X

X X XX

X

X

X

X

X

(43) a. *wan sich dy SEL ABschaiden sol von dem LEIB when REFL the soul away.part2 shall1 from the body X X

X

X

X

XX

XX

X

X XX

X

X X

X

b. wan sich dy SEL sol ABschaiden von dem LEIB 'when the soul shall depart the body'

(Pillenreu.th 161)

However, if the verb has an unstressed prefix, the PRA is satisfied at the second tier even if it is violated by adjacent stressed words (44); one could argue here that the unstressed prefix breaks up the clash. Although this does not technically satisfy the PRA, it somehow renders the 1-2 order less necessary. How this is to be implemented formally is left to future work. X

X X

X

X

X

X

XX

X X

X

(44) daz GOT geSEGent het REL God blessed2 had 1 'that God had blessed'

(Buch der KCJnige 04va)

Turning to the factors which are less obviously prosodic, let us begin with (F1), perhaps the most interesting of these findings. This is the favoring effect in MHG, ENHG, and ZG on the 1-2 order when the object is part of the focus: either the object is narrowly focused, or there is focus on a wider constituent (such as the VR and in MHG also the whole clause). If focus per se were the reason for the effect on the VC, one would not predict object focus to pattern with wider focus projections. However, this results quite naturally from the PRA, if one assumes that focus projection in these varieties works as it does in Modern Standard German. In German, sentential stress on the direct object is compatible with a number of focus interpretations, as shown in (27) above (repeated here in part): GesternhatKarldem Kind lFoc das BUCH] geschenkl yesterday has Karl the child the book given 'Karl gave the book to the child yesterday: b. Gestern hat Karl dem Kind lFoc das BUCH geschenkt]. c. Gestern hat [Foe Karl dem Kind das BUCH geschenkt].

(45) a.

195

196 The Verbal Complex in Subordinate Clauses from Medieval to Modern German

Assuming that stress assignment in the varieties discussed here is similar to MSG, these three types of focus would result in a stress clash if the object precedes a VC in the 2-1 order, because in each case the object would bear sentential stress. This can be illustrated using ZG: (46) a. b. c.

· ... dass d~MARTIN U:ocen ROMAN] SCHRIIBE mues. · ... dass d~ MARTIN U:oc en ROMAN SCHRIIBE] mues. · ... dass [Foe d~ MARTIN en ROMAN SCHRIIBE mues].

Thus the effect of these three focus types on VC order can be reduced to the fact that they result in a stress clash in the 2-1 order, which can be repaired by reordering the VC to 1-2. Under this analysis, these associations between focus and word order are effects of the PRA. However, this account leaves a few minor details of (F1) unresolved: the stronger effect of contrastive focus in ENHG, the stronger effect of narrow object focus in MHG, the stronger effect of VP focus in ZG, and the failure of clausal focus to favor 1-2 in ZG. With respect to contrastive focus, Selkirk (2002) argues that contrastive focus and new-information focus have substantially different phonological manifestations, with contrastive focus more prosodically prominent. Assuming that contrastive stress also bore a heavier accent in ENHG can explain its stronger effect on verb order: perhaps the stronger the stress on the pre-verbal constituent, the stronger the clash, making reordering to 1-2 even more felicitous. The effect of narrow object focus, which more strongly favors 1-2 in MHG than VP or clausal focus, and which favors 1-3-2 over 3-2-1 in Modern Standard German, can be explained similarly: according to Molnarfi (2007: 159), narrow object focus, especially of definite NPs, is signaled by contrastive stress, whereas wide focus is signaled by sentential stress. If this is true, then these cases involve contrastive (thus heavier) stress, making them more favorable to displace the non-finite verbs. Why then does VP focus in ZG more strongly favor 1-2 than object focus? One possibility is that in the case ofVP focus, shifting to 1-2 (47a) is preferable to Beat Movement (4 7b ), because only in the 1-2 order can the discourse-new lexical verb retain stress: (47) a. b.

. .. dass da MARTIN [Foe en ROMAN] mues lFocSCHRIIBE ]. . .. dass dl! MARTIN [Foe en ROMAN schriibe ] MUES.

A second possibility is that because of the format of the questionnaire, multiple foci were elicited (i.e. the object and verb each focused), rather than a single focused predicate. With two separate foci, each focus would be associated with its own stress, resulting in a stress clash if the two foci are adjacent Finally, why does ZG not prefer 1-2 for clausal focus? Again, this could be a result of the format of the questionnaire, or, as suggested in Chapter 4, the 2-1 order could be the default order in ZG, thus associated with the maximal focus projection.

Chapter 5. German clause structure and the prosody-syntax interface

Having examined how stress on an object interacts with focus and word order, we turn to (F2), the effect on word order offocus/stress on a verb. While empirical work is needed to determine exactly how such VCs are accented, let us see how a PRA-based analysis might account for the data. Consider first of all that focus on the modal verb is one of the most favorable environments for 2-1 in ZG, while focus on the lexical verb is the least favorable condition (Chapter 4, Table 10). Assuming that the object still maintains some stress while the non-focused verb loses its word stress as a member of the verbal complex, the PRA can explain the fact that the focused verb must be the rightmost member of the complex. When the lexical verb is focused, it clashes in the 2-1 order (48a) but not if the order is changed to 1-2 (48b). Likewise, if the modal is focused, there is no clash in the 2-1 order (49a), but a clash results with 1-2 (49b). X X

X

X

(48) a. !I ha gsll.it, dass dll. MARTIN en RoMAN SCHRIIBE mues. X X

b.

X

X

I ha gsll.it, dass dll. MARTIN en ROMAN mues SCHRIIBE. X

X

(49) a.

X

X

I ha gsll.it, dass dll. MARTIN en ROMAN schriibe MUES. X

X

X

X

b. !I ha gsll.it, dass dll. MARTIN en RoMAN MUES schriibe. A similar analysis may be able to account for the effect in MSG discussed by Schmid & Vogel (2004), that the focused member of the verbal complex tends to occur on the right edge of the VC (see Chapter 4, Table 13). More problematic is (F3 ), the association between VP focus and the 1-x-2 order (VPR) in MHG. In this order, if both the intervening constituent and the lexical verb have word stress, a clash will result (SOa). One could assume that in these cases there is Beat Deletion (SOb), but this may be difficult to reconcile with the high degree of information carried by the lexical verb. Perhaps this is the reason for the fact that this word order is acceptable with VP focus in ZG but not the preferred order. X X

(SO) a.

![

X

X

ha gsll.it, dass dll. MARTIN mues en ROMAN SCHRIIBE. X

X

b.

X

I ha gsll.it. dass dll. MARTIN mues en ROMAN schriibe.

197

198 The Verbal Complex in Subordinate Clauses from Medieval to Modern German

However, recall that both Kefer &Lejeune (1974: 329) and Duden (1995:787) find that VPR-type orders occurs most often when there is a dose semantic connection between the object and verbs, e.g. in idioms. In these cases, it is possible that the semantic closeness of the object and verb allows the word accent of verb to be lost, making a structure like (SOb) more favorable. The favoring effect of extra position on the 1-2 order in MHG and ENHG (F4) may be best explained by the anti-lapse provision of the PRA. Very few instances of extraposition in these corpora involve a single word,22 thus extraposition is unlikely to cause a clash with a preceding verb, regardless of the order in the VC. However, if a constituent with two or more words is extraposed, there can be too many consecutive unstressed words in the 2-1 order, illustrated in (Sla) with a made-up ENHG example. In many instances. this can be resolved in the 1-2 order, as in the attested sentence (51 b). X

X

X

(51) a. *daz ich damit PUSSEN sol mein SUND that I therewith atone2shall1 my sin X

X

b.

X

daz ich damit sol PUSSEN mein SUND 'that I should atone for my sin with that'

(Pillenreuth 163)

Finally, let us consider the fact that object focus in MHG and ENHG can be expressed by four different word orders (F6): the arguably unmarked SOV order with 2-1, the SOV order with 1-2, extra position of the focused object with 2-1, and extraposition of the focused object with 1-2. These facts become much easier to explain by assuming that some orders (such as extraposition) are driven by focus, while others may occur for purely prosodic preferences. The word order in the verbal complex does not necessarily contribute to focus marking but may be rearranged to produce the most felicitous accent pattern. To conclude this section, all of the desired facts can be explained to some degree by assuming that the choice of word orders in the verbal complex is sensitive to the PRA. Thus the PRA has proven to be a very useful mechanism for explaining this kind of variation. However, as most of the data is based on historical corpora and only a small-scale grammaticality judgment survey in ZG, more empirical work is necessary to determine exactly what role the PRA plays

22.

Sapp (2010) finds only six extraposed single words out of207 instances of extraposition in

a MHG corpus.

Chapter 5. German clause structure and the prosody-syntax interface 199

in modern dialects. Specifically, more work needs to be done on the prosody of the right edge of the clause, taking into account focus, the syllable structure of the words involved, etc. 5·3·4 Focus marking and its prosodic and syntactic effects

5·341 Bitring's (2006) approach to focus and word order In Section 5.3.2, I argued that formal syntactic accounts do not adequately explain the relationship between focus and word order in the varieties of German in question, and in Section 5.3.3, I found that this relationship is better explained as a result of prosodic effects of focus. How, then, can such an account be reconciled with a formal syntactic derivation within the generative framework? In this section, I will present a possible solution, taking as a point of departure Biiring's (2006) non-syntactic approach to the effect offocus on word order. Biiring (2006) takes an extremely simple approach to focus marking. Schwabe & Winkler (2007: 12) classify Biiring's account as the interpretive view, or more precisely the semantic-phonology view (as opposed to the formal syntactic view). Biiring (2006: 335) dispenses with focus projection rules, instead claiming that every individual word that is discourse-new is F-mark.ed. However, F-marking does not have any immediate syntactic consequences, but is instead carried over into prosodic structure. Following Truck.enbrodt (1995), Biiring (2006: 338) argues that an F-mark.ed word must be prominent within its prosodic unit (prosodic word, accent domain, and intonational phrase). This prominence rule interacts with the default prosodic structure of the language in question through a system of ranked constraints (Bi.iring 2006: 339). As a brief illustration (without going into the details of the constraints), consider the following examples: in (52), the direct object is new and thus F-marked, so it will be the more prominent prosodic word (indicated by an asterisk) within the accent domain (AD). The accent domain containing the F-marked word will be prominent in the intonation phrase (iP), so umbrella receives the pitch accent. In (53), umbrella is also accented, even though the verb and the object are both F-marked. This is because only one of the F-marked words must be prominent within the accent domain, and the default prosodic rules of English assign prominence to the object. In (54), on the other hand, only the verb is F-mark.ed, thus it must be prominent, overriding the default prosody within the accent domain. (52) Q: What did Lesley sell?

A: (

)w )AD ( )AD (Lesley)Pwd (sold)Pwd ([my umbrella]p )pwd

( *

(Buring 2006: 338)

200

The Verbal Complex in Subordinate Clauses from Medieval to Modern German

(53) Q: What did Lesley do?

A: ( ( *

)iP

)AD ( )AD (Lesley)pwd (sold p)pwd ([my umbrella]p )Pwd

(54) Q: What did Lesley do to your umbrella? A: ( * )iP ( * )AD ( * )AD (Lesley)pwd (sold p)pwd (my umbrella)pwd

(BUring 2006: 339)

(Bilring 2006: 339)

Thus far, we have seen examples where focus does not affect syntax, but there are obviously instances in which focus influences word order. Btiring (2007) addresses this, giving several examples, including those involving German scrambling. Recall that a focused/stressed indirect object may remain in its canonical position (55a) or switch places with the direct object (55b ). (55) a. b.

Gestern hat Karl dem KINDp das Buch geschenkt Gestern hat Karl das Buch dem KINDp geschenkt (cf. (28a-b) above)

According to Bilring (2007:467), if the objects are in their canonical positions, the prosodic structure can be altered, resulting in the pattern illustrated in (55a). The preferred strategy; though, is to alter word order, thereby preserving the default prosodic structure of German, as in (55b).23 Bilring's system has some clear advantages for the purpose of this study. First, because the analysis is not dependent on syntactic structure, it can be applied regardless of one's assumptions about the underlying structure of German (OV or VO) and the derivations of the various orders in the VC. Secondly; it dispenses with the assumption of particular syntactic positions for focus, which is unable to account for the historical and dialectal data presented in this work as argued in Section 5.3.2 above. Thirdly, the effects of focus on word order are indirect: focus is expressed through prosody and prosody may afiect word order. This is the view of the relationship between focus and word order that most closely matches my findings, as discussed in Section 5.3.3 above. However, Bilring's claim that word order may be amended to achieve a certain prosodic effect raises questions about how to derive that order in formal syntax. As Bilring (2007: 468) notes, this requires some refinement of the derivational

23. BUring's (2007) account differs from the formal approach by Cinque (1993), in that Cinque sees prosody as directly based on syntactic structure, while for BUring prosodic structure is a separate component.

Chapter 5. German clause structure and the prosody-syntax interface

model of syntax: one must either assume that the syntax can anticipate prosodic effects or that there is optional movement that is filtered out at the syntax-prosody interface. These possibilities are the topic of the next section.

5·3-4-2 Accounting for prosodic effects itt derivational syntax In this section, we will explore how a derivational model of syntax can be reconciled with the claim that syntax can be influenced by prosody. In generative grammar, a sentence is derived according to the following model. Words are drawn from the lexicon and combined into D-structure (previously known as "Deep Structure). Overt syntactic movement operates on D-structure, until the derivation is "spelled out" to PF (Phonetic Form), which determines the phonetic representation of the sentence. (Other, covert syntactic movements may occur on the way to Logical Form, the semantic representation of the sentence, but these are not relevant for the current discussion.) Following Carnie (2008: 362), this may be illustrated this as follows: (56) D-structure

"'

+-(overt syntactic movement happens here)

spellout ~

PF

~

LF

The claim that syntactic movement can be sensitive to prosody presents a challenge to this model because prosodic structure is mapped onto the PF of the sentence. Under the standard model in (56), overt syntactic movement should not be able to react to the phonetic realization of the sentence, because the movement occurs before the sentence is spelled out to PF. There are at least three ways of resolving this challenge: assume PF-movement, assume optional movement that can be exploited or filtered at the interface, and assume that multiple copies of movement may be filtered at the interface. Each of these possibilities will be discussed in turn and evaluated based on their ability to account for two phenomena in West Germanic syntax involving prosody and word order variation: the 1-2 order in the VC and scrambling. The first possibility is to assume that what appears to be prosodically-driven movement is not syntactic movement in the narrow sense, but rather an operation that alters word order at PF. Wurmbrand (2004a) makes precisely this claim for the derivation of the various word order options in the German and Dutch VC. Assuming an SVO base, she proposes that 1-2 is the basic order and that 2-1 is derived by a simple, post-syntactic mechanism called "Flip~ which inverts two sister nodes, as in (57):

201

202

The Verbal Complex in Subordinate Clauses from Medieval to Modern German

(57) Syntax/semantics ModP

PF ModP

~

~

Mod'

Mod'

~

Mod 1

~

VP 2

VP2

Mod 1

(simplified from Wunnbrand 2004a:287) Wurmbrand's Flip is an arbitrary, language- and construction-specific mechanism, but by placing it in the PF component she eliminates the need for arbitrary. languagespecific features to motivate syntactic movement(2004a: 287). Wurmbrand supports this claim with two arguments. First. because the IPP construction is a morphological phenomenon that feeds reordering in the VC, reordering must occur after morpho-phonology and thus after syntax (2004a: 288-289). Second, Wunnbrand (2004a: 293-294) shows that almost all VC orders can be derived by Flip and show no semantic effects; the two orders that cannot be derived this way and thus must involve syntactic movement, 3-1-2 and 2-1-3, are purported to express semantic differences, namely focus. Let us test Wurmbrand's (2004a) claim on another West Germanic wordorder phenomenon that is arguably driven by prosodic structure, scrambling. Although scrambling also involves the inversion of two constituents like the two objects in (55), this does not conform to Wurmbrand's Flip, because the objects are not sister nodes. Moreover, as pointed out by Haider & Rosengren (2003: 215), scrambling changes the c-command relationship between the two constituents, as evidenced by scope and binding relations; therefore, scrambling must be treated as genuine syntactic movement. In conclusion, while PF movement can explain nearly all of the word order possibilities in the VC, it may not be sufficient to account for other prosody-sensitive word order phenomena. The second possible treatment of prosodic effects on syntax is to assume optional syntactic movement that takes place due to its interface effects, as in Haider & Rosengren's (2003) treatment of scrambling. For Haider & Rosengren (2003: 210), scrambling is a truly optional movement operation, which takes an argument and adjoins it to VP. Similarly to Reinhart (1995), Haider & Rosengren (2003: 223) maintain that since the nuclear stress accent will then fall on the next deepest argument, that argument will be focused, rather than the scrambled one. They claim that scrambling is not triggered by any syntactic feature, but is "exploited at the interface between syntax and semantics/pragmatics" (Haider & Rosengren 2003: 215). This claim is problematic if one rules out optional movement, as in Chomsky (1995); however, more recently Chomsky (2001: 34) suggests that some syntactic operations may indeed be optional, if they result in a "new outcome~

Chapter 5. German clause structure and the prosody-syntax interface 203

such as a different focus interpretation. Bi.iring (2007: 28) formulates this more precisely; suggesting that optional movement may be triggered by formal features, "and the match between prosody and IS [information structure]-interpretation is checked, or even created, at the syntax-prosody interface (where mismatching representations are filtered out)." Let us see how this approach can apply to VC word order, which like Haider & Rosengren's treatment of scrambling, seems motivated by prosodic rather than narrow syntactic concerns. One of the two VC orders would be derived by optional movement (for the sake of argument, let us assume that 2-1 is basic and 1-2 is derived by adjunction to the right). If the derivation is spelled out without the movement (in the 2-1 order) and this results in a clash of adjacent stressed words, there will be a mismatch at the syntax-prosody interface and the representation will be filtered out, causing the derivation to crash; however, if there is no stress clash, the representation will survive the filter, resulting in a grammatical utterance. If the derivation is spelled out with the optional right adjunction (i.e. 1-2), the derivation will also survive the filter. How, then, is the syntactic component to correctly predict which option should be spelled out? It seems that this approach, too, requires a syntactic component that can anticipate the prosodic effects of movement, unless we assume that both derivations are accessible at the interface. This would seem to require an Optimality-Theory-type metric to evaluate multiple outcomes and select the best one. In conclusion, the optional-movement approach poses two problems for the derivational account: the movement is unmotivated by syntactic features and may require the simultaneous spell out of multiple derivations. There is a simpler and perhaps more theoretically elegant solution to this problem, proposed for scrambling by HinterhOlzl (2004). According to HinterhOlzl the movement that derives scrambling is non-optional. being driven by a feature familiarity that must be checked (2004: 149). Following Chomsky's (1995) copy theory of movement, HinterhOlzl aruges that this movement leaves a lower copy in its base position and a higher copy at the target of movement, either of which may be spelled out. Reusing a previous example (55) rather than Hinterholzfs, a non-focused (i.e. "familiar") object, in this case das Buch, must scrambled, or moved to the left of dem Kind to check the familiarity feature. Spelling out the lower copy of das Buch results in a sentence like (58), while spelling out the higher one results in (59). Both versions are grammatical, but (59) is preferred because it results in the default prosodic pattern. (58) Gestern hat Karl das Bueh dem KINDp das Buch geschenkt (59) Gestern hat Karl das Buch dem KINDp das Bueh geschenkt

204

The Verbal Complex in Subordinate Clauses from Medieval to Modern German

I will formulate HinterhOlzfs insight slightly differently: both copies are spelled out in the technical sense, meaning both are sent to the PF component, but only one copy may be pronounced. The determination of which copy to pronounce is determined (at least in part) by interface conditions, specifically prosodic structure. The optional-copy approach can easily account for the word-order variation in the VC. Again for the sake of argument, let us assume that 1-2 is derived by the obligatory rightward movement of the non-finite verb to check some (as yet unspecified) syntactic feature. Both copies will be visible at PF. If pronouncing the moved copy results in a less felicitous prosodic pattern, as in (60a) where the focused modal clashes with the word stress of the object, the moved copy will be deleted and the base copy pronounced (60b). On the other hand, if pronouncing the base copy would produce a clash (61a), the moved copy will be pronounced, yielding the preferred prosodic pattern (61b). (60) a. b.

! ...

dass dil. MARTIN en RoMAN sehriibe MUES schriibe. . .. dass dil. MARTIN en RoMAN schriibe MUES sehriibe.

(61) a. b.

· ... dass dil. MARTIN en ROMAN SCHRIIBE mues SCHRIIBB. . .. dass dil. MARTIN en ROMAN SCHRUI!K mues SCHRIIBE.

To sum up, the optional-copy approach seems best equipped to explain both scrambling and the alternations in the VC. By confining movement operations to the narrow syntax and locating prosodic effects at PF (the interface between syntax and phonology), there is no need to assume a syntax that can look ahead to phonology. Unlike the PF-movement account, it allows for the c-command effects of scrambling, and unlike the optional movement account, it avoids the theoretically fraught assumption of parallel derivations. A disadvantage, however, is that some explanation is necessary to constrain the movement operations that allow multiple copies to be spelled out, so that the spell out of the lower copy is ruled out in non-optional phenomena such as verb-second.

5·3·5 Summary In this section, we have seen that a formal syntactic approach to focus, i.e. the assumption that focus is associated with specific structural positions. does not adequately account for the effects of focus on VC word order (Section 5.3.2). Moreover, many effects on the VC involve prosody more than focus. Therefore, I proposed that the prosodic and focus effects can be best understood as the influence of Selkirk's (1984) Principle of Rhythmic Alternation on word order in the VC (Section 5.3.3). A purely prosodic account of focus (BUring 2006) was

Chapter 5. German clause structure and the prosody-syntax interface

adopted; however, this account necessitated the assumption that some syntactic movements can result in word order options at PF, allowing the prosody-syntax interface to choose the most felicitous option (Section 5.3.4).

5·4

Conclusion

This chapter began by reviewing previous scholarship on the basic architecture of the German clause. In Section 5.2 we found that the history of German exhibits periods in which the set of permitted surface word order patterns has varied. Nevertheless, the most plausible hypothesis appears to be that the underlying word order in German has been OV throughout its attested history, as in the classic account of the syntax of Modern German. Moreover, assuming the basic OV structure, there is evidence from ENHG supporting Haegeman's (1992) contention that VR involves head adjunction while VPR is phrasal adjunction. However, the alternative VO approach is also feasible if one is drawn to it for theoretical reasons, with the more traditional OV approach maintaining a slight empirical advantage. In Section 5.3, I argued that order within the VC is afiected by prosody, specifically the alternation of stressed and unstressed words. This explains the preference for particular VC orders following certain constituent types, with stressed prefixes, with extraposed constituents, and under certain focus conditions. In a derivational model of syntax, one has to assume in these cases that the word order is ultimately determined at the interface with phonology, and I have argued that multiple copies of some movement operations are available at PF. We will see in the next chapter that placing VC reorderings at the interface, rather that in narrow syntax, has a number of further empirical advantages regarding the diachronic and sociolinguistic distribution of these constructions.

205

CHAPTER6

Conclusions

6.1

Summary of findings

This final chapter begins with a brief summary of the main results of the previous chapters. Following that, some implications of these findings will be discussed. Chapter 2 presents a corpus study of verbal complexes in MHG subordinate clauses. Several factor groups have a significant effect on word order in complexes of two verbs: syntagm., the category and weight of the word preceding the VC, focus, extraposition, prefix type, dialect, genre, occupation of the author, and time. Specifically, the factors that favor the 1-2 order are syntagms with an infinitive, preceding heavy words, preceding non-pronominal NPs, object focus, stressed prefixes, and extraposed arguments. The overwhelming majority (93.4%) of the clauses with the 1-2 order have at least one of the prosodic-related factors. The texts most likely to show high rates of the 1-2 order are sermons, texts from the dialects along the Rhine, and those written by clerics. However, there are no conclusive results for three-verb complexes. Chapter 3 analyzes a database of verbal complexes in subordinate clauses in ENHG. The following factor groups have a statistically significant effect on verb order in two-verb complexes (and some factors are also significant for complexes of three verbs): syntagm, the category of the preceding word, focus, extraposition, prefix type, dialect, genre, author's occupation, and time. Other than the weight of the preceding word, which only affects the VC in some dialects, these are the same factors that influence verb order in MHG, with prosodic factors accounting for the bulk of occurrences of the 1-2 order. However, the frequency of the 1-2 order declines sharply over the course of the ENHG period, and by the 16th century the effect of some of these factors is weakened. In Chapter 4, the word-order possibilities in Modern Standard German and some contemporary dialects of German are examined. Although much of the ENHG variation has been lost in todays standard language, word orders within the VCs may still vary in some dialects and continue to be influenced by syntagm and in some cases extraposition. Because both focus and prosody have been claimed to influence the verbal complex in some varieties, this chapter also attempts to test the effect of focus independently of prosody. The results are inconelusive: Swabian and Austrian only show an interaction between scrambling and

208

The Verbal Complex in Subordinate Clauses from Medieval to Modern German

verb order, in Zurich German object focus and VP focus both favor 1-2 (suggesting stress on the object is the key influence), and the focus environment has only a minor influence on three-verb complexes in MSG. Chapter 5 discusses possible analyses for subordinate-clause word order in ENHG and modern varieties of German. The most adequate analysis turns out to be that German throughout its history has been underlyingly SOV with the finite verb last, so that VC orders other than 2-1 and 3-2-1 derived by Verb Raising or Verb Projection Raising. Because word order in the VC is sensitive to prosody, I argue that although these re-orderings may be derived by syntactic movement, one must assume that movement options are filtered at the interface between syntax and phonology.

6.2

Implications

6.2.1 The origin of Standard German Unlike the histories of English and French, where the speech of the capital became the model for the standard languages (Burke 2004:99-100), Standard German did not develop straightforwardly from any particular dialect. Rather, Modern Standard German represents a compromise between phonological and morphological forms from different dialects, with some Middle German and some Upper German features. Hartweg & Wegera (1989: 38-48) summarize the three most influential approaches of the last century to the development of Standard German. First, Burdach (1925) maintains that the variety of German used in Prague in the 14th century became the model for the standard language, since Prague at that time was the site of the chancery of the Holy Roman Empire and an important cultural center, e.g. for the reception of the Italian Renaissance. According to Burdach's hypothesis, scribal practices from the prestigious Prague chancery spread to other chanceries, eventually reaching influential authors such as Martin Luther. The blend of Upper and Middle German features in Modern Standard German is in this view a result of the fact that Prague is in neither dialect region, being in the center of Czech-speaking Bohemia. Critics of this hypothesis, however, have pointed out that the chancery writings from Prague are far less uniform than writings from other chanceries. The second approach comes from Frings (1936), who claims that written German is based on the early-modern speech of the East Middle German (EMG) region. The EMG region was colonized in the 11th to 13th centuries by speakers of different German dialects, and Frings maintains that the spoken language of the region reflected the mixture of dialect features which characterizes Standard

Chapter 6. Conclusions 209

German. For Frings, the language used in the Saxon chancery at Meissen was directly based on the local dialect. However, later studies find that both Frings' characterization ofEMG as a blend of Middle and Upper German and his emphasis on the Saxon chancery are overstated. Finally, more recent studies on the origins of Standard German have emphasized its supra-regional character, rather than attempting to associate it with particular dialects. Besch (1968) maintains that the standard language has its origin in the 16th century as a compromise between EMG, East Franconian, and Bavarian. Many studies, such as those by Ebert (1980, 1981), have paid attention to the sociolinguistic variation in ENHG. Based on syntactic evidence, Ebert concludes that chancery usage had a top-down effect in Nuremberg, with the writers most exposed to chancery documents most quickly adopting features that eventually became part of the standard language. What does the research on verb order presented in the previous chapters tell us about the likelihood of these hypotheses? Since my historical corpora do not include texts from Prague, this study offers no additional evidence for or against Burdach's (1925) Prague hypothesis. However, Swinburne's (1953) investigation of word order in the Ackerma.nn aus Bohmen, written in Bohemia in the early 15th century, may provide an argument against Burdach's theory. According to Swinburne (1953: 415-416), over half of the auxiliary-participle complexes in the Ackermann are in the 1-2 order (27, vs. 21 in the 2-1 order) and the 1-2 order is also robust for modal-infinitive complexes (12, vs. 44 examples of2-1). Thus the preference for 2-1 in later Standard German is not likely based on early-modern usage in Bohemia. As for the EMG theory of Frings (1936), it appears unlikely that the spoken dialect of this region is the source for the overwhelming preference for 2-1 in chancery writings and later authors such as Luther. First of all, recall from Chapter 1 that Maurer (1926) finds a dramatic split in EMG between what he terms "written language" texts, with very low rates of 1-2, and "dialect" texts, with the 1-2 order as frequent as 60%. Secondly, my ENHG study shows that the frequency of 1-2 declines over time in EMG just as in other regions, and in fact declines more slowly than in other regions (see Chapter 3, Table 20). Finally, in the 16thcentury text from Saxony, which happens to be a sermon, the 1-2 order is still relatively high at 13%. All of this suggests that Standard German preference for the 2-1 order must come from somewhere other than the spoken language of early-modern Saxony. The hypothesis on the origin of Standard German that is most in line with the findings of this study is that of Besch (1968). Chapter 3 (Table 20) shows that the 1-2 order declined in all of the dialects surveyed here, suggesting that the rise of the 2-1 order was a supra-regional phenomenon. VC word order in both MHG

210

The Verbal Complex in Subordinate Clauses from Medieval to Modern German

and ENHG was subject to the genre of the text and the social status of the author, confirming Ebert's (1981) findings that the 2-1 order spread from the chancery style downward through society. Moreover, the fact that contemporary varieties such as Swiss German, which allow the 1-2 order today, had a low rate of 1-2 in the 16th century suggests that at the end of the ENHG period writers were beginning to adopt syntactic patterns that corresponded to the supra-regional norm but were at odds with their native dialects. In conclusion, the development of the exclusive use of the 2-1 order was not a result of its dominance in a particular dialect but rather resulted from its adoption as the norm in the supra-regional chancery style.

6.2.2

The clause structure of German

Chapter 5 argues that the traditional SOV analysis of German clause structure has a slight empirical advantage over a Kayne-inspired SVO approach. There is an additional argument to be made for the SOV approach to German, based on the diachronic developments from MHG to present-dayvarieties. Under the SOV analysis adopted in Chapter 5, the word-order difterence between medieval stages of German and Modern Standard German is that the former variety allows three types of optional, rightward movement, whereas in the latter these orders are very restricted. These three movement types are extraposition, Verb Raising (1-2), and Verb Projection Raising (1-x-2). Under this approach, the decline of the ENHG orders can be straightforwardly accounted for: movement of constituents to the right of the finite verb becomes increasingly restricted due at least in part to sociolinguistic pressure. Moreover, the correlation between the decline of the 1-2 order and the decline of extra position during the ENHG period can be accounted for, since these are both rightward movements. Under the VO analysis, the diachronic developments are not nearly as neat. The decline of the "extraposition" order has to be seen as the increasingly obligatory movement of the object to the left of the verbs. Likewise, the decline of 1-2 represents the increasing tendency of the non-finite verb to move to the left. In a framework where movement has to be motivated by feature checking, these developments would have to be seen as the strengthening of some feature of the landing sites of these movements. Since the morpho-syntax of German is virtually unchanged from ENHG to the present, it is unclear whether the changes in feature strength would correlate to other linguistic changes. Wurmbrand (2006: 310) criticized the feature-checking approach for stipulating "word order features"; viewed diachronically, the stipulative nature of such features becomes even clearer.

Chapter 6. Conclusions

6.2.3 The peripheral nature of verbal complex phenomena Word order alternations in the VC turn out to be superficial, rather than resulting from deeper principles of grammar. VC word order is sensitive to prosodic patterns, is affected by morphological considerations such as verbal prefixes and syntagm type, varies across dialects and diachronically, and is subject to sociolinguistic pressure. Perhaps these surface-like properties are a consequence of, or even evidence for, the idea that VC reorderings take place at the interface, rather than in the syntactic component. Before discussing the interface, I would like to introduce an approach to the VC that I discuss in more detail in Sapp (submitted): the verbal complex in the periphery of the grammatical system. In a paper on the development of word order in Basque, Uriagereka (2006) discusses the core vs. periphery distinction and its implications for diachronic syntax. Uriagereka (2006) postulates that there are core and subset parameters, which are complex, set during the acquisition process, not subject to conscious manipulation by adults, and thus not (directly) subject to language change. In contrast to these parameters is the "peripher"f, whose features are formally simpler (e.g. inversion), learned rather than acquired, subject to adult manipulation, and characteristic of formal registers. Uriagereka hypothesizes that syntactic change begins in the periphery, where extra-linguistic factors may cause adults to learn and use syntactic patterns that were not in the input when they acquired the language as children (2006: 960). If this manipulation of syntax is successful, it may provide input for the next generation of children, resulting in linguistic change at the periphery. Uriagereka notes that some changes in the periphery have no further effect on the grammar, but under certain circumstances a peripheral change can lead to the resetting of a deeper parameter (2006: 960). There are a number of good reasons to believe that the 2-1 vs. 1-2 distinction is peripheral. First of all, unlike the OVNO parameter, which depends on hierarchical structure, the difierence between 2-1 and 1-2 is a simple inversion. Secondly, there is evidence that word order in the VC is subject to conscious manipulation by adults, as shown by Ebert's (1998) study of the letters of several individuals in early-modern Nuremberg. Thirdly, as discussed in Chapters 2 and 3, the choice between 2-1 and 1-2 was dependent on sociolinguistic factors such as genre and the class of the author, and the 2-1 order becomes fixed for written German as "change from above" (Ebert 1981). Fourth, the micro-parametric nature of VC word orders is evident in cross- and intra-linguistic variation: as seen in Chapter 4, the continental West Germanic dialects are a prime example of microvariation, displaying a bewildering number of possibilities in verb orders (especially when three or more verbs are involved), varying from dialect to dialect

211

212

The Verbal Complex in Subordinate Clauses from Medieval to Modern German

and construction to construction. If it is true that VC reorderings are peripheral this may explain why the diachronic changes in the VC do not correlate with other changes in the grammatical system. Recall that in the previous chapter, I argued that VC reorderings take place not in the syntactic component, but rather at the interface between PF and prosodic structure. I proposed that some movements may spell out two copies of a constituent (in the underlying and target positions) to PF. One problem with such an approach is constraining which movements send two visible copies to PF (as with the VC) and which spell out only one copy, as would be the case where there is no word-order optionality. A possible solution is that it is the peripheral aspects of grammar that make two copies available at PF, i.e. peripheral grammar is that which is located at the interface. Perhaps the restrictions on the phenomena that spell out two copies to PF can be formulated in terms of feature strength, or perhaps phase theory; exactly how this is to be implemented is left to future research. 6.2.4 Syntactic change in German The loss of the 1-2 order in German (as well as the fixing of orders in three-verb complexes) provides an interesting case of syntactic change, because it does not seem to have any one linguistic trigger. Rather, VC order is subject to numerous structural and sociolinguistic factors, and the loss of this variation is characterized by the interplay of these factors. The complex development discussed in this work is an argument against overly simplistic models of syntactic change: it is hard to see the developments discussed here as parametric change. Applying Uriagereka's (2006) core vs. periphery distinction to subordinate-clause word order in the history of German, the headedness ofVP would be a core parameter, while the variation between 2-1 and 1-2 is at the periphery as argued above. Word order alternations in the German VC turn out to be an instance of peripheral variation with no efiect on the core grammar. Of course, the high frequency of subordinate clauses with 1-2 (and 1-x-2) could have led to re-analysis of German as an Infl-mediallanguage. This would have resulted in a grammar like that attested in Early Middle English, which according to Kroch & Taylor (2000) has clauses that are Infl-medial and V-final. So why did this reanalysis not occur? There are ambiguous clauses, such as (1a), which could be interpreted as an example ofVR with extraposition or as leftward movement of the finite verb into a clause-medial embedded V2 position (Infl). However, such clauses represent only a small minority of the 1-2 clauses even in MHG: of the 317 clauses with 1-2 or 1-x-2 order, only 48 (less than 13% of

Chapter 6. Conclusions

1-2 clauses, or about 4% of all clauses in the database) are ambiguous with a V2 analysis. The remainder cannot be analyzed as embedded Infl-mediaL as there are at least two constituents between the complementizer and the finite verb (lb-c). Thus the majority of clauses, even those with 1-2 and 1-x-2, provide clear evidence for V-final grammar, and a reanalysis to Infl-medial grammar was never triggered in German. Do Darivf waz gewefen fehf iar kvnic. when D. was 1 been2 six years king 'When Darius had been king for six years .. : b. den got gewalt uft geriht hat verlihen. REL God power and rule has 1 granted2 'whom God has granted power and rule: c. swaz wir vbelf heten an dir getan. REL we evil had1 to you done2 'whatever evil we have done to you:

(1) a.

(Buch der Kiinige 09va)

(Buch der Kiinige OSra)

(Buch der Kiinige 03va)

In conclusion, German has remained underlyingly V-final (and Infl-final) throughout its attested history because the core parameters of the language have remained constant. There has been considerable variation in the periphery of the grammar; however, this variation has not resulted in reanalysis that could have triggered parametric change. Instead, as argued by Ebert (1981), sociolinguistic pressure led to the suppression of some peripheral syntactic patterns (namely the 1-2 order) in the written language. Because reordering in the VC is at the periphery, it is subject to conscious manipulation; therefore, this feature of written Standard German eventually was able to spread to the spoken language, including even dialectal speech by the turn of the 21st century.

6.3

Outlook

Word-order variation in the German verb cluster has proven to be a complex phenomenon that defies a simple explanation. The word orders in question do not correspond to particular changes in meaning, nor is there any one factor that definitively determines which order will be used. Syntagm plays a key role in virtually every West Germanic variety, even in Modern Standard German, where some three-verb syntagms require the 3-2-1 order and others 1-3-2. However, if there is variation within a given syntagm, prosodic factors have a strong influence on the choice of word orders. Moreover, there are sociolinguistic factors at play. As Lotscher (1978: 11) notes, the VC is subject to the interaction of grammatical, performance, and functional rules. Therefore, as de Sutter (2009: 251) concludes

213

214

The Verbal Complex in Subordinate Clauses from Medieval to Modern German

for Dutch, a multivariate approach is required to fully understand VC word order in German. The current study has made some progress toward understanding the causes of word-order variation in the VC in several historical and modern varieties of German. However, the study was necessarily limited to the environment where VCs occur most often: in subordinate clauses. A further limitation has to do with the methodologies involved: the corpus studies establish the frequencies of particular constructions in earlier stages of German, but it is not dear whether lowfrequency or non-occurring constructions are simply rare or actually ungrammatical. Moreover, written corpora do not provide information about prosody, so some crucial information is unavailable. The questionnaire-based studies of modern varieties indicate speakers' relative preferences for certain word orders but make no claims about usage. In conclusion, more work on the West Germanic verbal complexes, including those in main clauses, is needed. Such research must examine the simultaneous influence of multiple factors, including prosodic ones. In addition to introspective judgments and corpus studies, psycholinguistic experiments should be employed to this end, including studies of aural perception (like that by Swerts & van Wijk 2005). Finally, because word order in the VC (as well as scrambling) is determined at least in part by prosody, other examples of prosodically driven word order should be sought. Teasing apart the effects on word order of prosody, focus, definiteness, etc., could shed more light on the phonology-syntax interface.

Bibliography Primary sources from the Bochumer Mittelhochdeutschkorpus Buch der K(jnige. Karlsruhe, Badische Landesbibliothek. Cod Donaueschingen 739. Frankfurter Predigtfragmente. Frankfurt, Stadt- und Universitittsbibliothek, Fragm. germ. 1.1. Die Lilie. Wiesbaden, Hessische Landesbibliothek. Cod 68. Mitteldeutsche Predigten. Frankfurt. Stadt- und Universit!itsbibliothek. Fragm. germ. II.2. MUhlhauser R£ichsrechtsbuch. Nordhausen, Stadtarchiv, Ms. II Na 6. Physilogus. Vienna, Osterreichische Nationalbibliothek, Cod 2721. Predigtsammlung 'Speculum ecdesia deutsch' etc. Munich, Bayrische Staatsbibliothek. Cgm. 39. Satzungsbuch NUrnberg. Nuremberg, Staatsarchiv, Amts- und Standbu.cher Nr. 228. Schwarzwalder Predigten. Freiburg, Universitlitsbibliothek. Cod 460. Stadtbuch Augsburg. Munich, Bayrisches Hauptstaatsarchiv, RL Augsburg 32. Wiener Notker. Vienna, Osterreichische Nationalbibliothek, Cod 2681. Williram. Wroclaw, Biblioteka Uniwersytecka, cod R 347. ZUricher Predigten. Zurich, Zentralbibliothek, Cod C 58.

Primary sources from the Botmer Fruh,euhochdeutschkorpus Altdeutsche Predigten. 1886. Ed by Anton E. Schonbach. Graz: Styria Altvater = Hie vahet an das bu•ch von den hailigen Altva•tern (...). Stuttgart, WUrttembergische Landesbibliothek, Cod theol et phil. 4° 74. Bange Chronik = 1hUringische Chronick oder Geschichtbuch (...) anfenglich auss einem alten geschriebenen (...) Exemplar colligirt (...) vnd Jerner durch weiland Ern Friderichen Schmidt Pfarherrn zu Grossen Beruingen reuidiert vnd vermehret I dann (...) von andern (...) continuirt Ietzo aber (. ..) in Druck geben I durch Johan Bangen. 1599. MUhlliausen: Andreas Hantzsch. Benedictinerregel = Oxforder Benedictinerregel. 1887. Ed by Eduard Sievers. 'Ittbingen: Fues. Beschreibung = Leonharti Rauwolfen I der Artzney Doc torn I vnd bestelten Medici zuu• Augspurg. Aigentliche Beschreibung der RaifJ I so er (...) inn die Morgenla•nder (...) selbs volbracht. 1582. Lauingen: Leonhart Reinmichel. Buch KDln = Dat nuwe Boych. Ztlnfte und Bruderschaften: Quellen zur Geschichte der Stadt KDln, Bd. I. 1860. Ed by Leonard Ennen & Gottfried Eckertz. Koln: DuMont-Schauberg. Chirurgie = Das Buch der Cirurgia des Hieronymus Brunschwig. Begleittext von Gustav Klein (Alte Meister der Medizin und Naturkunde in Facsimile-Ausgaben und Neudrucken des 15.-18. Jahrhunderts, Bd 3). 1911. MUnchen: Kuhn. Die Denkwurdigkeiten der Helene Kottanerin. 1971. Ed by Karl Mollay. Vienna: Wiener Neudrucke.

216

The Verbal Complex in Subordinate Clauses from Medieval to Modern German

Edlibach Chr. = Gerold Edlibach~ Chronik mit Sorgfalt nach dem Original copirt und mit einer gleichzeitig verfortigten Abschrift genau verglichen und aus derselben vermehrt und ergtinzt von Joh. Martin. 1847. Ed by Johannes Martin. Zurich. Eunuchus = Der Eunuchus des Threnz. Uebersetzt von Hans Neidhart 1486. 1915. Ed by Hermann Fischer. Thbingen: Litterarischer Verein. Gegenwartigkeit = Vonn warer I t+-esenlicher I vnd pleibeder Gegenwertigkeit des Leybs und Blu•ts Christi (...). durch Johannem Gropperum d. Archidiaco der h. Kirchen zu Co•llen. 1556. Cologne: Jaspar Gennep. Gespenster = Von Genspa•nsten Vnghuren I Fa•len I vn anderen wunderbare Dingen (...) kurtzer vnd einfaltiger Bericht I gestelt durch Ludwigen Lauater Diener der Kirchen zu• Zurych. 1578. Zurich: Christoph Froschauer the younger. Hortus Santitatis *Deutsch *des Johann Wonnecke von Cube (.). 1485. Mainz: Peter Schoffer. Koelhoff Chronik = Die Cronica van der hilliger Stat va Coelle. 1499. Cologne: Johann Koelhoff. Mannen = Des Gottesfreundes im Oberland (= Rulmann Mersy,•in~) Buch von den Zt+'ei Mannen. Nach der llltesten Strassburger Handschrift. 1896. Ed by Friedrich Lauchert Bonn. Moscouia der Hauptstat der Reissen I durch Herrn Sigmunden Freyherrn zu Herberstein (~ ..) zusamengetragen (. ..). 1557. Vienna: Michael Zimmermann. Nachbarn =Georg Wickram, Von gu•ten vnd boesen Nachbaurn. (Georg Wickram, S!tmtliche Werke, Bd 4). 1969. Ed by Hans-Gert Roloff. Berlin: ADL Nachtmahl = Kurtzer vnd einfaeltiger Bericht I von des Herren Nachtmal (...) durch Jacobum Andree (...) der Hayligen Schrifft Doctor I vnnd Prediger zuo Goeppingen. 1557. Augsburg: Hans Gegler. Namen = MCJnch von Heilsbronn, Von den sechs Namen des Fronleichnams. Manuscript Cent. IV. 38 of the Stadtbibliothek NUrnberg. Naturlehre =Die sogenanntf! "Mainauer Naturlehre" der Basler HS. B. VIII 27. Abbildung, Transkription, Kommentar (Litterae - Goppinger Beitrlige zur Textgeschichte, Bd. 18). 1972. Ed by H. R Plant, M. Rowlands & R Burkhart. Goppingen: KUmmerle. Passionale Mathesij, das ist I christliche vnd andechtige Erklerung vnd AujJlegung des zwey und zwantzigstf!n Psalms I vnd drey vnd funffzigstf!n Capirels des Propheren Esait:E (...) geprediget durch (...) M. Johannem Mathe.sium I weyland Pforrer inS. Joachimsthal. 1587. Leipzig: Johann Beyer. Pillenreuth = Eine neue Quelle fUr die Kenntnis des mystischen Lebens im Kloster Pillenreuth. (Untersuchungen und Texte). 1960. Ed by Elvira Langen. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Heidelberg. Psalter Dresden = Zwei Psalter aus dem 14. Jahrhundert (Dresden MS. 287 und Hamburg in SCR. 142) und drei verwandte BruchstUcke aus Schleiz, Bre.slau und DUsseldorf. 1962. Ed by Hans Eggers. Berlin: Akademie-Verlag. Rationale = Durandus' Rationale in spatmitrelhochdeutscher Obersetzung. Das viertf! Buch nach der HS. CVP 2765. 1966. Ed by G. H. Buijssen. Ass en: van Gorcum. Rothe Chronik = DUringische Chronik des Johann Rothe. 1859. Jena: Frommann. Sermon des grosz gelartf!n, in Gnade erlauchre Doctoris Johannis 1hauleri Predigerr Ordens (...). 1498. Leipzig: Konrad Kachelofen Summaria vber die gantze Bibel (...). Durch M. Vi tum Dieterich I myland Prediger zu Nuernberg (... ). 1578. Nurnberg: Katharina Gerlach and the heirs ofJohann von Berg. Troja = Das "Buch von Troja· von Hans Mair. Kritische Thxtausgabe und Untersuchung. 1970. Ed byHans-JosefDreckmann. Munich: Fink.

Bibliography

Vita

=

Das Buoch von dem Leben und Sitten der heydnischen Maister. 1490. Augsburg: Anton

Sorg.

Walter Ralegh = America achter Theil I in welchem erstiich beschrieben wirt das maechtige vnd goldtreiche Ko•nigreich Guiana (...) durch (...) Walthern Ralegh Rittern und Hauptmann vber jrer ko•n. mayest. auft Engellandt Leibs Guardi (~ ..). Alles erstlich in engellamdischer sprach auftgangen I jetzt aber auft der ollandischen 'ltanslation in die hochteutsche sprache gebracht I durch Avgvstinum Cassiodorvm Reinivm (...) an Tag gegeben durch Dieterschen von Bryseligen hinderlassenen Erben. 1599. Frankfurt: Matthii.US Becker.

Secondary sources Abraham, Werner. 2007. Topic, focus and defaultvs. contrastive accent: Typological differences with respect to discourse prominence. In On Information Structure, Meaning and Form [Linguistik Aktuell!Linguistics Today 100], Kerstin Schwabe & Susanne Winkler (eds), 183-203. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Admoni, Wladimir. 1990. Historische Syntax des Deutschen. 1\ibingen: Niemeyer. Axel, Katrin 2007. Studies on Old High German Syntax: Left Sentence Periphery, Verb Placement and Verb-second [Linguistik Aktuell!Linguistics Today 112]. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Baayen. R. Harald, Piepenbrock. Richard & Gulikers, Leon. 1995. The CELEX Lexical Database (Release 2). Philadelphia PA: Linguistic Data Consortium, University of Pennsylvania. Bader, Markus & Schmid, Tanja. 2009. Verb dusters in colloquial German. The Journal of Comparative Germanic Linguistics 12: 175-228. Bard, Ellen Gurman, Robertson, Dan & Sorace, Antonella. 1996. Magnitude estimation of linguistic acceptability. Language 72: 32-68. Behaghel, Otto. 1932. Deutsche Syntax: Eine geschichtiiche Darstellung. Vols I-IV. Heidelberg: Wmter. Besch, Werner. 1968. Zur Entstehung der neuhochdeutschen Schriftsprache. Zeitschrift fUr deutsche Philologie 87: 405-426. den Besten. Hans. 1983. On the interaction of root transformations and lexical deletive rules. In On the Formal Syntax ofWest Germania [Linguistik.Aktuell/Linguistics Today 3], Werner Abraham (ed.), 47-131. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. den Besten, Hans & Broekhuis, Hans. 1989. Woordvolgorde in de werkwoordelijke eindreeks. GLOT 12:79-137. den Besten. Hans & Edmondson, Jerold A. 1983. The verbal complex in continental West Germanic. In On the Formal Syntax of We.st Germania [Linguistik Aktuell/Linguistics Today 3], Werner Abraham (ed.), 155-216. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. den Besten, Hans & Webelhuth, Gert. 1987. Remnant topicalization and the constituent structure ofVP in the Germanic SOV languages. Paper presented at 1Oth Generative Linguistics in the Old Word colloquium, Venice. Bies, Ann. 1996. Syntax and Discourse Factors in Early New High German: Evidence for Verbfinal Word Order. MA dissertation, University of Pennsylvania. Bobaljik, Jonathan David. 2004. Clustering theories. In Verb Clusters: A Study of Hungarian, German, and Dutch [Linguistik.Aktuell/Linguistics Today 69], Katalin ~.Kiss & Henk van Riemsdijk (eds), 121-145. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

217

::us The Verbal Complex in Subordinate Clauses from Medieval to Modern German

BFnhdK = Das Bonner FrUhneuhochdeutschkorpus. 2007. lnstitut ft1r Kommunikations-forschung und Phonetik, Universitltt Bonn. 0 April2010). Bruch, Robert. 1973. Luxemberger Grammatik in volkstumlichen Abriss. Luxembourg: Editions de la Section de Linguistique de 1'1 nstitut g.t:-d Bucheli, Claudia & Glaser, Elvira 2002. The Syntactic Atlas of Swiss German Dialects: Empirical and methodological problems. In Syntactic Micro-variation, Sjef Barbiers, Leonie Cor nips & Susanne van der Kleij (eds ), 41-74. Amsterdam: Meertens Instituut Burdach, Konrad 1925. Vorspiel: Gesammelte Schriften zur Geschichte des deutschen Geistes, Vol1.2: Reformation und Renaissance. Halle: Niemeyer. Buring, DanieL 2006. Focus projection and default prominence. In The Architecture of Focus, Valeria Molnar & Susanne Winkler (eds), 321-346. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Buring, Daniel. 2007. Intonation, semantics and information structure. In The Oxford Handbook of Linguistic Interfaces, Gillian Ramchand & Charles Reiss (eds), 445-473. Oxford: OUP. Burke, Peter. 2004. Languages and Communities in Early Modern Europe. Cambridge: CUP. Burridge, Kate. 1993. Syntactic Change in Germanic: Aspects ofLanguage Change in Germanic with Particular Reference to Middle Dutch. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Carnie, Andrew. 2008. Syntax: A Generative Introduction. 2nd edn. Oxford: mackwell Chomsky, Noam. 1995. The Minimalist Program. Cambridge MA: The MIT Press. Chomsky, Noam. 2001. Derivation by phase. In Ken Hale: A Life in Language, Michael Kenstowicz (ed), 1-52. Cambridge MA: The MIT Press. Cinque, Guglielmo. 1993. A null theory of phrase and compound stress. Linguistic Inquiry 24: 239-297. Clark. Herbert 1973. The language-as-fixed-effect fallacy: A critique of language statistics in psychological research. journal of Verbal Learning & Verbal Behavior 12: 335- 359. Cowart, Wayne. 1997. Experimental Syntax: Applying Objective Methods to Sentence Judgments. Thousand Oaks CA: Sage. Diesing, Molly. 1997. Yiddish VP order and the typology of object movement in Germanic. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 15: 369-427. Duden - Grammatik der deutschen Gegenwartsprache. Der Duden in zw(jlfBanden, Vol4. 1995. Gtinther Drosdowski, Kathrin Razum & Peter Eisenberg (eds). Mannheim: Bibliographisches Institut. Ebert, Robert Peter. 1980. Social and stylistic variation in Early New High German word order: The sentence frame (Satzrahmen). BeitTage zur Geschichte der deutschen Sprache und Literatur 102: 357-398. Ebert, Robert Peter. 1981. Social and stylistic variation in the order of auxiliary and non-finite verb in dependent clauses in Early New High German. BeitTage zur Geschichte der deutschen Sprache undLiteratur 103: 204-237. Ebert, Robert Peter. 1986. H'tstorische Syntax des Deutschen II: 1300-1750. Bern: Peter Lang. Ebert, Robert Peter. 1992. Word order change in the usage of adolescents and young adults in 16th-century Nuremberg: The position of auxiliary and verb in dependent clauses. Ms. Princeton University. Ebert, Robert Peter. 1998. Verbstellungswandel bei Jugendlichen, Frauen und Mannern im 16. Jahrhundert. 1\ibingen: Niemeyer. Evers, Arnold 197 5. The Transformational Cycle of Dutch and German. PhD dissertation, University of Utrecht. Frings, Theodor. 1936. Die Grundlagen des MeifJnischen Deutsch. Halle: Niemeyer.

Bibliography 219

Greenberg, Joseph. 1963. Some universals of grammar with particular reference to the order of meaningful elements. In Universals ofLanguage, Joseph Greenberg (ed), 73-113. Cambridge MA: The MIT Press. GrubaCic, Emilija 1965. Untersuchungen zur Frage der Wortstellung in der deutschen Prosadichtung der letzt:en Jahrzehnte. PhD dissertation, University of Zagreb. Haegeman, Liliane. 1992. Theory and Description in Generative Syntax: A Case Study in West Flemish. Cambridge: CUP. Haegeman, Liliane &van Riemsdijk. Henk. 1986. Verb projection raising, scope, and the typology of rules affecting verbs. Linguistic Inquiry 17: 417-466. Hammarstrom, Emil. 1923. Zur Stellung des Verbums in der Deutschen Sprache: Studien in Volkstumlicher Literatur und Urkundensprache der Obergangszeit vom Mittelhochdeutschen zum Neuhochdeutschen. Lund: Ohlsson Haider, Hubert & Rosengren, Inger. 2003. Scrambling: Nontriggered chain formation in OV languages. Journal of Germanic Linguistics 15: 203-267. Hard, John E. 1981. Studien zur Struktur mehrgliedriger deutscher Nebensatzpritdikate. Goteborg: Acta Universitatis Gothoburgensis. Hartweg, Frederic & Wegera, Klaus-Peter. 1989. Fruhneuhochdeutsch: Eine EinfUhrung in die deutsche sprache des Spittmittelalters und der jruhen Neuzeit. Thbingen: Niemeyer. Heitzler, Pierre. 1975. ~tudes syntaxiques du dialecte de Kaysersberg. PhD dissertation, Paris. Hinterholzl., Roland 2004. Language change versus grammar change: What diachronic data reveal about the distinction between core grammar and periphery. In Diachronic Clues to Synchronic Grammar [Linguistik Aktuell/Linguistics Today 72], Eric FilE & Carola Trips (eds), 131-160. Hinterholzl., Roland 2010. Information structure and unmarked word order in (older) Germanic. In Information Structure: Theoretical, 'I;vpological, and E:~.perimental Perspectives, Malte Zimmermann & Caroline Fery (eds), 282-303. Oxford: OUP. Hodler, Werner. 1969. Berndeutsche Syntax. Bern: Francke. HOhle, Tilman. 1982. Explication fitr "normale Betonung" und "normale Wortstel.lung': In Satzglieder im Deutschen, Werner Abraham (ed..), 75-153. 1Ubingen: Narr. Kayne, RichardS. 1994. The Antisymmetry ofSyntax. Cambridge MA: The MIT Press. Kefer, Michel & Lejeune, Joseph. 1974. Satzglieder innerhalb eines Verbalkomplexes. Deutsche sprache 2: 322-334. Klein, Thomas, Solms, Hans-Joachim & Wegera, Klaus-Peter. forthcoming. Mittelhochdeutsche Grammatik, Vol 4: Syntax. 1Ubingen: Niemeyer. KOnig, Wener. 1994. dtv-Atlas zur deutschen sprache: Tafeln und Texte, lOth edn Munich: DTV. Koopman, Hilda & Szabolcsi, Anna 2000. Verbal complexes. Cambridge MA: The MIT Press. Kroch, Anothy & Taylor, Anne. 2000. Verb-object order in early Middle English. In Diachronic Synta:~.~ Models and Mechanisms, Susan Pintzuk. George Tsoulas & Anthony Warner (eds ), 132-163. Oxford: OUP. Lambert, Pamela Jean. 1976. Ausklammerung in Modern Standard German. Hamburg: Helmut Buske. Lehmann, Winfred. 1971. One the rise ofSOV patterns in New High German In Grammatik, Kybernetik, Kommunikation: Festschrift fUr Alfred Hoppe, Klaus GUnther Schweisthal (ed.), 19-24. Bonn: DUmmler.

220

The Verbal Complex in Subordinate Clauses from Medieval to Modern German

Lenerz, JUrgen. 1985. Diachronic syntax: Verb position and COMP in German. In Studie.s in German Grammar, Jindfich Toman (ed..), 103-132. Dordrecht: Foris. Lotscher, Andreas. 1978. Zur Verbstellung im Zurichdeutschen und in anderen Varianten des Deutschen. Zeitschrift fUr Dialektologie und Linguistik 45: 1-29. Lotscher, Andreas. 2000. Verbstellungsprobleme in der schweizerischen Schreibsprache des 16. Jahrhunderts: Die Abfolge der Elemente in zweiteiligen Verbalkomplexen. In Bausteine

zur sprachgeschichte: Referate der 13. Arbeitstagung zur alemannischen Dialektologie in Augsburg (29.9.-3.10.1999), Edith Funk. Werner Konig & Manfred Renn (eds), 199-215. Heidelberg: Wmter. Matras, Yaron & Reershemius, Gertrud. 2003. Low German (East Frisian Dialect). Munich: Lincom. Maurer, Friedrich. 1926. Untersuchungen uber die deutsche Verbstellung in ihrer geschichtlichen Entwicklung. Heidelberg: Winter. MoJ.narfi, Laszlo. 2007. On the discourse configurationality of Germanic. In On Information Structure, Meaning and Form [Linguistik AktuelULinguistics Today 100], Kerstin Schwabe & Susanne Winkler (eds), 155-181. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. MUller, Stefan. 2002. Complex Predicates: Verbal Complexes, Resultative Constructions, and Partide Verbs in German. Stanford CA: CSLI. Patocka, Franz. 1997. Satzgliedstellung in den bairischen Dialekten Osterreichs. Frankfurt: Peter Lang. Paul, Hermann. 1920. Deutsche Grammatik. Vol. 4. Halle: Niemeyer. Paul, Hermann. 1966. Mittelhochdeutsche Grammatik, 15th edn. Thbingen: Niemeyer. Paul. Hermann. 2007. Mittellwchdeutsche Grammatik, 25th edn. 1ttbingen: Niemeyer. Pintzuk. Susan. 1999. Phrase Structures in Competition: Variation and ChangE in Old English Word Order. New York NY: Garland. Prell, Heinz-Peter. 2001. Der mittelhochdeutsche Flementarsatz: Eine syntaktische Untersuchung an Prosatexten des 11. bis 14.]ahrhunderts. Oslo: University of Oslo Faculty of Arts. Reichmann, Oskar & Wegera, Klaus-Peter (eds). 1993. FrUhneuhochdeutsche Grammatik. Thbingen: Niemeyer. Reifsnyder, Kristen. 2003. Vernacular versus Emerging Standard: An Examination of Dialect Usage in Early Modern Augsburg (1500-1650). PhD dissertation, University of Wisconsin. Reinhart, Tanya. 1995. Interface strategies. OTS Working Papers in Linguistics. Utrecht University. Robinson, John, Lawrence, Helen & Tagliamonte, Sali. 2001. GoldVarb 2001: A Multivariate

Anao/sis Application for Windows. Sanko:ff, David. Tagliamonte, Sali & Smith, Eric. 2005. Goldvarb X: A Variable Rule Application for Macintosh and Windows. Department of Linguistics, University of Toronto. (18 November 2010). Sapp. Christopher D. 2005. Factors favoring Aux- V order in 15th-century German subordinate clauses. In Syntax and Beyond. Indiana University Working Papers in Linguistics, vol. 5, Dorian Roehrs, Ock-Hwan Kim & Yoshihisa Kitagawa (eds), 149-169. Bloomington IN: Indiana University Linguistics Club. Sapp, Christopher D. 2006. Verb Order in Subordiate Clauses from Early New High German to Modern German. PhD dissertation, Indiana University. Sapp, Christopher D. 2010. Extraposition in Middle High German. Paper presented at 77th Southeastern Conference of Linguistics, University of Mississippi.

Bibliography

Sapp, Christopher D. submitted. Micro-parameters in the verbal complex: Middle High German and some modern varieties. Diachronic Syntax: Parameter Theory and Dynamics of Change (proceedings of the 11th Diachronic Generative Syntax conference, Campinas). Schmid, Tanja & Vogel Ralf 2004. Dialectal variation in German 3-verb dusters: A surfaceoriented optimality theoretic account. Journal of Comparative Germanic Linguistics 7: 235-274. Schmidt, Wilhelm. 1996. Geschichte der deutschen Sprache: Ein Lehrbuch fUr das germanistische Studium, 7th edn. Stuttgart: S. Hirzel Schonenberger, Manuela & Penner, Zvi. 1995. Cross dialectical variation in Swiss German: Doubling verbs, verb-projection raising, barrierhood, and LF movement. In Studies in Comparative Germanic Syntax, Hubert Haider, Susan Olsen &Sten Vtkner (eds), 285-305. Dordrecht: Kluwer. de Schutter, George. 1996. De volgorde in tweeledige werkwoordelijke eindgroepen met voltooid deelwoord in spreek- en schrijftaal. Nederlandse Taalkunde 1: 207-220. Schwabe, Kerstin & Winkler, Susanne. 2007. On information structure, meaning and form: Generalizations across languages. In On Information Structure, Meaning and Form [Linguistik Aktuell/Linguistics Today 100], Kerstin Schwabe & Susanne Wlllkler (eds), 1-29. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Schwartz, Bonnie D. & Vtkner, Sten. 1996. The verb always leaves IP in V2 clauses. In Parameters and Functional Heads: Essays in Comparative Syntax, Adriana Belletti & Luigi Rizzi (eds), 11-62. Oxford: OUP. Selkirk. Elizabeth 0. 1984. Phonology and Synta.r:: 1he Relation between Sound and Structure. Cambridge MA: The MIT Press. Selkirk. Elisabeth. 2002. Contrastive FOCUS vs. presentational focus: Prosodic evidence from right node raising in English. In Speech Prosody 2002: Proceedings of the First International Speech Prosody Conference, B. Bel & I. Marlin (eds), 643-646. Aix-en-Provence: Laboratoire Parole et Langage. Spangenberg, KarL 1993. Laut- und Formeninventar thUringischer Dialekte: Beiband zum 1hUringischen W(jrterbuch. Berline: Akademie. von Stechow, Arnim & Sternefeld, Wolfgang. 1988. Bausteine syntaktischen Wissens. Opladen: Westdeutscher Verlag. Steil Claudia. 1989. Untersuchungen zum Verbalkomplex im Schwlibischen. MA thesis, Eberhard-Karls- Universitlit 'Il.ibingen. de Sutter, Gert. 2009. Towards a multivariate model of grammar: The case of word order variation in Dutch clause final verb dusters. In Describing and Modeling Variation in Grammar, Andreas Dufter, Jurg Fleischer & Guido Seiler (eds). Berlin: Mouton. de Sutter, Gert, Speelman, Dirk & Geeraerts, Dirk. 2008. Prosodic and syntactic-pragmatic mechanisms of grammatical variation: The impact of a postverbal constituent on the word order in Dutch clause final verb dusters. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics 13: 194-224. Swerts, Marc & van Wijk. Carel 2005. Prosodic, lexico-syntactic and regional influences on word order in Dutch verbal endgroups. Journal ofPhonetics 33: 243-262. Swinburne, Hilda. 1953. Word order and rhythm in ~ckermann aus Bohmen'. Modern Language Review 48: 413-420. Tagliamonte, Sali A 2006. Analysing Sociolinguistic Variation. Cambridge: CUP.

221

222

The Verbal Complex in Subordinate Clauses from Medieval to Modern German

Travis, Lisa deMena. 1991. Parameters of phrase structure and verb-second phenomena. In Principles and Parameters in Comparative Grammar, Robert Freidin (ed..), 339-364. Cambridge MA: The MIT Press. Truckenbrodt, Hubert. 1995. Phonological Phrases: Their Relation to Syntax, Focus, and Prominence. PhD dissertation, MIT. Uriagereka, Juan 2006. Towards a syntax of Proto-Basque. In Studies in Basque and Historical Linguistics in Memory of R. L. Trask, Joseba A. Lakarra & Jose Ignacio Hualde (eds), 949-968. Bilbao: University of the Basque Country. Vennem.ann. Theo. 1974. Zur Theorie der Wortstellungsvelil.nderung: Von SXV zu SVX Uber TVX. In Zur Theorie der sprachverltnderung, G. Dinser (ed ), 265-313. Kronberg: Scriptor. Weber, Albert 1964. Zurichdeutsche Grammatik: Bin Weg~+•eiser zur guten Mundart. ZUrich: Schweizer Spiegel Verlag. Wegera, Klaus-Peter. 2000. Grundlagenprobleme einer mittelhochdeutschen Grammatik. In

sprachgeschichte. Ein Handbuch zur Geschichte der deutschen sprache und ihrer Erforschung, Vol. 2, 2nd edn, Werner Besch, A.nne Betten, Oskar Reichmann & Stefan Sonderegger (eds), 1304-1320. Berlin: de Gruyter. Weifi, Helmut. 1998. Syntax des Bairischen: Studien zur Grammatik einer naturlichen sprache. Thbingen: Niemeyer. Wenker, Georg. 1888-1923. Sprachatias des Deutschen Reichs. see Schmidt, JUrgen Erich & Joachim Herrgen (eds). 2009. Digitaler Wenker-Atias (DiWA). (1 June 2010). Wollstein-Leisten, Angelika, Heilmann. Axel, Stepan, Peter & Vtkner, Sten. 1997. Deutsche Satzstruktur. Grundlagen der syntaktischen Analyse. Thbingen: Stauffenburg. Wurmbrand, Susi. 2004a. Syntactic vs. post-syntactic movement In Proceedings of the 2003 Annual Meeting of the Canadian Linguistic Association (CLA), Sophie Burelle & Stanca Somesfalean (eds), 284-295. Montreal: Universite du Quebec. Wurmbrand, SusL 2004b. West Germanic verb dusters: The empirical domain. In Verb au~ ters: A Study of Hungarian, German, and Dutch [LinguistikAktuell/Linguistics Today 69], Katalin :t Kiss & Henk van Riemsdijk (eds), 43-85. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Wurmbrand, Susi. 2006. Verb dusters, verb raising, and restructuring. In The Blackwell Companion to Syntax, Vol5, Martin Everaert & Henk van Riemsdijk (eds), 229-343. Oxford: Blackwell Zwart, Jan-Wouter. 1996. Verb dusters in continental West Germanic dialects. In Microparametric Syntax and Dialect Variation [Current Issues in Linguistic Theory 139], James IDack & Virginia Motapanyane (eds), 229-258. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Zwart, Jan- Wouter. 2005. Untangling IPP word order restrictions. Paper presented at 20th Comparative Germanic Syntax Workshop, Tilburg. < http://www.let.rug.nl/-zwart/docs/ ho05cgsw.pdf> (6 June 2006).

Index

A accent. see stress ACI 79-80, 111 adjective 2.2., 58-59. 7;1 125 adjunction 169-171, 174-1;75. 17',; 205

adverb 22., 40, 58-59. 77> 12.512.6, 131, 135> 172-173> 194

c causative 38, 50. 79-So, 81.

chancery documents 6-;; 35-36, 43> 74 influence of chanceries

complementizer

118-120, 12.2., U5> 134-136, 149> 15)1 161-162., 180, 1.07

auxiliary 138-139. 151-152., 166, 18)1 191, 193

see also syntagm

172-173> 175-176. 188 2, 4. 18, 32., 52., 59> 68, 103> 143-144. 168, 213

conjunct 59 conjunction 18, 52 subordinating conjunction, see complementizer construction,seesy.nnqpn CP 168-169. 184-185

104-105> 108-109> 114> 118119. U5> 180, 209 Bernese 10;1 118, 151-151.

Bochumer Mittelhochdeutschkorpus 6, 1;1 96 Bohemia, see Prague chancery hypothesis Bonner Frii.hneuhochdeutschkorpus 50, 53> 70, 73> 96, 109

28, 40, 45> 6o-61, 64> 78, 91-93> 96-99> 106, 132., 135> 188-190, 198

F factor, see Go ld.Varb group, see GoldVarb weight, see GoldVarb feature 178, 183-186, 202-2.04. 211-2U

Flemish, see West Flemish Flip 201-1.02 focus u, 24-25> 36, 142., 171-172., 175> 199-200

D da-compound 22., 58-59 defauh order 83> 148-149. 152., 194,

effect on verb order 25-1.9, 41, 45. 61-64> 82, 91,

96, 98-99. 125> uS -130, 133-140. 145-162., 179-18)1 195-198, 1.02-204

196

prosody 199-200, 203 definiteness 23> 2;1 63> 186 defocusing 1.7-28, uS, 149, 175> 180

B Bavarian 7-8, 18, 33-34. 42., 71-72., 87-88, 93-94. 96.

effect on verb order 2.4.

71-72., 86-88, 91-94. 96, 109

131.134 Alsatian ;; 50-51, 69. 71-72., 86-88, 91-94, 96. 104, 106,

71-72., 87-88, 92.-94. 96, 104-105> 108-109, 112-113>

171-17)1 18o, 183-185> 2.10, 2.12

Cologne 33-34. 50-51. 69. complement 48-49. 145-14;1

loS -109. 11;h 119. 127

48, 50, 130-131. 162, 166,

10, 16)1 2.08-2.10

Afrikaans 108, 118 Alemannic ;; 18, 33> 42., 93>

anacoluthon 59 Augsburg 12-13> 50-51, 69-72., 8;; 91-93, 96 Ausklammerung, see extraposition Austrian German 50-51, 69.

Ersatzinfinitiv, see IPP extraposition 2-6, 11-14. 16-1;;

demonstrative 18, 2;;; 51 Dutch 4. 56, 108, 125> 167-171, 175-176, 178, 180, 183-184. 186-190, 192-194, 201, 214

F-marking 199 projection 195-196, 199 four-verb complexes 1;1 50. 76, 12.0-U4, 12.9

Franconian ;;; 18, 33-34. 42, 93> 96, 102., 104. 2.09.

see also

Cologne, Nuremberg future tense 21, 5:h 79-80, 111, 150, 158, 163

E East Middle Gennan (EMG) 7-8, 71-72., 87-88, 93-94. 208-209

Einklammerung, see intervening constituent in the VC English 182., 18;1199 Middle English 2u Old English 5> 178

G generative grammar 167-168, 199.1.01

Gesetz der wachsenden Glieder 66

GoldVarb 19. 37-38

224

The Verbal Complex in Subordinate Clauses from Medieval to Modern German

H heaviness, see stress Heavy NP Shift u, 171-173 Hessian 18, 33-34. 42, 50-51, 66, 69. 71-71, 87-88, 91-94. 96.

0

stress 24-25. 116-u;; 128, 148,

old English, see English High German 2, 5 information, see focus

151-153> 16o--161, 180-183> 190-191, 198. 200, 202-204

ahernating stressed syllables 8, 10, 54-56, 66, see also Principle of Rhythmic Aherna:tion on word preceding the VC

104. 106, 109, 115

Hungarian 174

indefinite 23- 2.;7; 29. 63> 125- 188 infinitive, see syntagm Infl 212.-213 intervening constituent in the VC 15-16. 2;7; 32, 48-49. 68-69, 76, 124-128, 131-132, 135> 149. 162, 174> 180, 197

intonation, see stress

IP 169. 171, 183- 185 IPP ;; 9> 39. 50. 79-81, 86, 96. 110-124, 153> 162, 202

L Latin s. 7-8, 10, 13 Logical Form (LF) 201 Luthet; Martin 4;7; 208-2.09 M Meissen 209 Middle English, see English German (Mitteldeutsch) 7a. see also East Middle German modal 138, 145-14;7; 158-163192.-193- 19;h 204

see also syntagm movement 201-204.2.10,2.12 of verbs 6, 168, 175-178. 184. see also Verb Raising of NPs, see extraposition, scrambling

p parameter 211-213 participle, see syntagm passive, see syntagm Phonetic: Form (PF) 201-202,

s. 9. 11-12, 21-2.3> 39-40. 45. 58-6o, n-78. 91-93> 96-99. 136. 180, 187-19Q, 192-196

204,212

Prague chancery hypothesis 208-209 prefix. see stressed separable prefix preposition stranding 22, 58-60, 172 PP, see extraposition, stress on word preceding the VC present perfect 36, 103- see also syntagm preterit 36. 103, 114 Principle of Rhythmic Alternation (PRA) 5> 190-198 progressive tense 20-21, 56-57 pronoun 172.-173- see also demonstrative, relative pronoun, stress on word precedingVC

stressed separable prefix (SSP) 6, 8, 10-11, 29-30. 41, 45> 64-66, 83-84. 91, 96-99. 125. 180, 187-189. 194-195

subordinating conjunction, see complementizer subjunctive 11, 15 Swabian ;; 18, 33-34. 42, 50-51, 6!), 71-72, 87-88, 91-94, 96. 104. 106-109, 115-119. 122-124, 126-12;7; 129-136, 149> 161-162, 180

Swiss German ;; 18, 33-34. 42, 5Q-51, 6!), 71-72, 86-88, 92-94, 96, 107-110, 117-120, 122-124. 12.7-128, 137-15Q, 152, 161-162, 166, 179-180, 193> 195-198. 210

syllable, see Principle of Rhythmic: Alternation, stress syntagm effect on verb order 5-11, 20-21, 30. 38-39. 45. 56-58. 6s, 79-84. 86, 91, 96-99. 104-124, 12ji; 132-135> 142-144, 15Q, 162, 2.09, 211, 213 werden +modal 101, 112,

R recode, see GoldVarb relative pronoun 18, 2.;7; 51 rhytlun, see Principle ofRhytlunic Aherna:tion, stress

n6, 150, 153-154. 160-161,

s

179-180

Saxon 5o-51, 69. 71-72, 87-88,

N NP, see definitlmess, extraposition, Heavy NP Shift. scrambling, stress on word preceding the VC Nuremberg :; 9-11, 13, 42, 50-51, 69, 71-72, 74. 87-88. 91-94. 96.209,211

91-93> 96. 209

scrambling 45> 63-64. 91, 98-99> 131-132, 135-136. 169-171, 174-175. 180, 182-185. 193-194. 200-204

sermon 35-36. 43> 75, 209 step- up/step-down, see GoldVarb

T tense, see future, present perfect. preterit. progressive, syntagm Thuringia 18, 32-34. 50-51, 69. 71-72, 87-88, 91-93> 96. 101

topicaliza:tion 168-169 typology 24.166-167

Index

u Wiiversa.l 166, 175> 1;78. 184. 186 Upper German 70. 2.08-2.09

second (V2)

2,

4. 15> 18, 32.

49> 51-51., 59> 68-69, 104> 131-132, 143- J.44, 2.12-2.13

Vienna, see Austrian German

v verb Projection Raising (VPR), see intervening constituent in the VC, Verb Raising Raising (VR) 14. 16, 169-178, 183, 193. :no, 212

y Yiddish 178

z Zurich, see Swiss German

W West Central German, see Hessian Flemish 108, 12.5> 169-170

225

Linguistik Aktuell/Linguistics Today A complete list of titles in this series can be found on the publishers' website. www.benjamins.wm 178 GALANI, Alenndn, Glyn lllCKS and George TSOULAS (eds.): Morphology and its Interfaces. Expected May 2011 177 WSKUP,Petr: Adverbials and the Phase ModeL Expected April2o11 176 YUASA,Etsnyo, Tista BAG em and Katharine P. BEALS (eds.): Pragmatics and Autolexical Grammar. Jn honor of Jerry Sadock xxv. 335 pp. + index. Expected April 2011 175 MEIBAUER, )llrg and Markus STEINBACH (eds.): Experimental Pragmatics/Semantics. Expected April 2011

174 LOMASHVIT.I, Lela: Complex Predicates. The syntax-morphology interfac.e. xi, 187 pp. + index. E:~.pected March2o11 173 SAPP, Christopher D.: The Verbal Complex in Subordinate Clauses from Medieval to Modem Gem1an 2011. ix, 225 pp. 172 JUNG,Hakynng: The Syntax of the BE-Possessive. Parametric variation and surface diversities. x~ 264 pp. + index. Expected March 2011 171 SLEEMAN,Petn and Harry PERRIDON (eds.): The Noun Phrase in Romance and Gem1anic. Structure, variation, and change. vii, 280 pp. + index. Expected February 2011 170 HUNTER, Tim: Synta.."':ic Effects of Conjunctivist Semantics. Unifying movement and adjunction. xi, 179 pp. + index. Expected February• 2011 169 SANCHEZ,Llliana: The Morphology and Syntax of Topic and Pocus. Minimalist inquiries in the Quechua periphery. 2010. xiii, 242 pp. 168 FELDHAUSBN, Ingo: Sentential Form and Prosodic Structure of Calalan 2010. xiii, 285 pp. 167 MERCADO,Raphaei,EricPOTSDAM and Lisa deMena TRAVIS (eds.): Austronesian and Theoretical Linguistics. 2010. vii, 379 pp. 166 BRANDT, Patrick and Marco GARdA GARdA (eds. ): Transitivity. Form, Meaning. Ac-quisition, and Processing. 2010. vii, 308 pp. 165 BREUL, Cantea and Edward GOBBEL (eds.): Comparative and Contrastive Studies of Information Structure. 2010. xi~ 306 pp. 164 ZWART, Jan-Wo1tter and Mark de VRIES (eds.): Structure Preserved. Studies in syntax for Jan Kostet 201 o. xxiii, 395 pp. 163 KIZIAK, Tanja: Emaction Asymmetries. Experimental evidence from German. 2010. xvi, 27 3 pp. 162 BOTT,Oliver: The Processing of Events. 201o.xvii, 383 pp. 161 HAAN, Germen J. de: Studies in West Frisian Grammar. Edited by Jarich Hoekstra, Willem Visser and Golfe Jensma. 2010. x, 384 pp. 160 MAVROGIORGOS, Marlos: Clitics in Greek A minimalist aro>unt of proclisis and enclisis. 2010. x. 294 PP· 159 BREITBARTif, Anne, Christopher LUCAS, Shela WATTS and David WILLIS (eds.): Continuity and Change in Grammar. 2010. viii, 359 pp. 158 DUGUINE, Maia, Susana HUIDOBRO and Nerea MADARIAGA (eds.): Argument Structure and Syntactic Relations. A cross-linguistic perspective. 2010. v~ 348 pp. 157 FISCHER, Snsann: Word-Order Change as a Source of Grammaticalisation. 2010. ix, 200 pp. 156 DI SCIULLO, Anna Maria and Virginia lllLL (eds.): Edges, Heads, and Projections. Interface properties. 2010. vii, 265 pp. 155 SATO, Yosuke: Minimalist Interfaces. Evidenc.e from Indonesian and Javanese. 2010. xiii, 159 pp. 154 HORNSTEIN, Norbert and Marla POLINSKY (eds.): Movement Theory of Control. 2010. vii, 330 pp. 153 CABREDO HOFHERR,Patricia and Ora MATUSHANSKY (eds.): Adjectives. Fom1al analyses in syntax and semantics. 2010. vii, 335 pp. 152 GALLEGO, Angel J.: Phase Theory. 2010. xii, 365 pp. 151 SUDHOFF, Stefan: Focus Particles in Gem1an Syntax, prosody, and infom1ation structure. 2010. xiii, 335 pp. 150 EVERAERT, Martin, Thm LENTZ, Hannah de MULDER, 0ystein NILSEN and Arjen ZONDERVAN (eds.): The Linguistics Enterprise. From knowledge of language to knowledge in linguistics. 2010. i:r, 379 pp. 149 AELBRECHT, LobJre: The Syntactic Licensing of Ellipsis. 2010. xii, 2 30 pp.

148 HOGEWEG, Lotte,IW.eo de HOOP and Andrej MALCHUKOV (eds.): Cross-linguistic Semantics of Tense. Aspect. and Modality. 2009. vii. 406 pp. 147 GHOMESHI, Jila,Deaaa PAUL and Martina WILTSCHKO (eds.): Determiners. Universals and variation. 2009. vii, 247 pp. 146 GEIDEREN,FJiyvan (ed.): Cyclical Change. 2009. viii, 329 pp. 145 WESTERGAARD, Marit: The Acquisition ofWord Orde& Micro-cues, information structure, and economy. 2009. .xii, 245 pp. 144 PUTNAM, Michael T. (eel.): Towards a Derivational Syntax. Survive-minimalism. 2009. .1, 269 pp. 143 ROTHMAYR,Antonia: The Structure of Stative Vems. 2009. xv, 216 pp. 142 NUNES, Jaim (eel.): Mininlalist Essays on Brazilian Portuguese Syntax. 2009. vi, 243 pp. 141 ALEXIADOU, Artemis, Jorge HANKAMER, Thomas McFADDEN, Justin NUGER and Florian SCHAFER (eds.): Advances in Comparative Germanic Syntax. 2009. xv, 395 pp. 140 ROEHRS, Dorian: Demonstratives and Definite Articles as Nominal Auxiliaries. 2009. .xii, 196 pp. 139 HICKS. Glyn: The Derivation of Anaphoric Relations. 2009. .xii, 309 pp. 138 SIDDIQI, Daniel: Syntax within the Word. Economy, allomorphy, and argument selection in Distributed Morphology. 2009. xii, 138 pp. 137 PFAU, Roland: Grammar as Processor. A Distributed Morphology account of spontaneous speech errors. 2009. .xiii, 372 pp. 136 KANDYBOWICZ, Jason: The Gran1mar of Repetition. Nupe grammar at the syntax-phonology interface. 2oo8. .xiii, 168 pp. 135 LEWIS, William D., Slmin KARIMI,Heidi HARLEY and Scott 0. FARRAR (eds.): Tinle and Again. Theoretical perspectives on formal linguistics. In honor of D. Terence Langendoen. 2009 . .xiv, 265 pp. 134 ARMON-LOTEM, Sharon, Gabi DANON and Susan D. ROTHSTEIN (eds.): Current Issues in Generative Hebrew Linguistics. 2008. vii, 39 3 pp. 133 MACDONALD, Jonathan E.: The Syntactic Nature of Inner Aspect A mininlalist perspective. 2008. xv. 241 pp. 132 WBERAUER, Theresa (ed.): The Limits of Syntactic Variation. 2008. vii, 521 pp. 131 DE CAT,
113 EYTH6RSSON, 1b6rballur (eeL): Grammatical Change and Linguistic Theory. The Rosendal papers. 2008. v~ 441 pp. 112 AXEL, Katrin: Studies on Old High German Syntax. Left sentence periphery, verb placement and verbsecond 2007• .xii, 364 pp. 111

110 109 1 o8 1 07 106 105 1 04 103 102 101 100 99 98 97 96 95 94 93 92 91 90 89 88 87 86 85 84 83 82 81 8o 79

EGUREN, Luis and Olga FERNANDEZ-sORIANO (eds.): Coreference, Modality, and Focus. Studies on the syntax-semantics interface. 2007 . .xii, 239 pp. ROTHSTEIN, Susan D. (ed.): Theoretical and Crosslinguistic Approacl!es to the Semantics of Aspect 2008. viii, 453 pp. CHOCANO, Gem a: Narrow Syntax and Phonological Form. Scrambling in the Germanic languages. 2007. X, 333 pp. REULAND, Eric, Tanmoy BHATTACHARYA and Giorgos SPATHAS (eds.): Argument Structure. 2007. xviii. 24 3 pp. CORVER, Norbert and Jalro NUNES (eds.): The Copy Theory of Movement 2007. vi. 388 pp. Dmffi,Nicole andYordanka KAVALOVA (eds.): Parentheticals. 2007. xii, 314 pp. HAUMANN,Dagmar: Adverb Licensing and Clause Structure in English. 2007. ix, 438 pp. JEONG, Yoangmi: Applicatives. Structure and interpretation from a mininlalist perspective. 2007. vii, 144 pp. WURFF, Wim van der (eeL): Imperative Clauses in Generative Grammar. Studies in honour of Frits Beukema. 2007. viii, 352 pp. BAYER, Josef, Tanmoy BHATTACHARYA and M. T. Hany BABU (eds.): Linguistic Theory and South Asian Languages. Essays in honour of K. A. Jayaseelan. 2007. x. 282 pp. KARIMI, Simin, Vida SAMHAN and Wendy K. WILKINS (eds.): Phrasal and Clausal Architecture. Syntactic derivation and interpretation. In honor of Joseph E. Emonds. 2007. vi, 424 pp. SCHWABE, Kerstin and Susanne WINKLER (eds.): On Information Structure, Meaning and Form. Generalizations across languages. 2007. vii, 570 pp. MARTINEZ-GIL,Femando and Sonia COLINA (eds.): Optimality-Theoretic Studies in Spanish Phonology. 2007. viii, 564 pp. PIRES,Acrisio: The Mininlalisl Syntax of Defective Domains. Gerunds and infinitives. 2006•.xiv, 188 pp. HARTMANN, Ju.tta M. and Uszl6 MOLNARFI (eds.): Comparative Studies in Germanic Syntax. From Afrikaans to Zurich German. 2006. vi, 332 pp. LYNGFELT,Benjamin and Thrgrim SOLSTAD (eds.): Demoting the Agent Passive, middle and other voice phenomena. 2006. x. 333 pp. VOGEI.EER, Swtlana and Liliane TASMOWSKI (eds.): Non-definiteness and Pluralily. 2006. vi, 358 pp. ARCHE, Maria J.: Individuals in Time. Tense, aspect and the individual!stage distinction. 2006 . .xiv, 281 pp. PROGOVAC, Ljijana, Kate PAESANI, Eugenia CASIELLES and FJlen BARTON (eds.): The Syntax of Nonsententials. Multidisciplinary perspectives. 2006. x. 372 pp. BOECKX, Cedric (ed.): Agreement Systems. 2006. ix, 346 pp. BOECKX, Cedric (ed.): Minimalist Essays. 2006. xvi, 399 pp. DALMI, GNte: The Role of Agreement in Non-Finite Predication. 2005. xv~ 222 pp. VELDE, Joha R. te: Deriving Coordinate Symmetries. A phase-based approaclJ integrating Select, Merge, Copy and Match. 2006. x, 385 pp. MOHR, Sabine: Clausal Architecture and Subject Positions. Impersonal constructions in the Germanic languages. 2005. viii, 207 pp. JULIEN, Marit: Nominal Phrases from a Scandinavian Perspective. 2005. xvi, 348 pp. COSTA, Joio and Maria Cristiaa FIGUEIREDO SILVA (eds.): Studies on Agreement 2006. vi, 285 pp. MIKKELSEN, Liae: Copular Clauses. Specification, predication and equation. 2005. viii, 210 pp. PAFEL, Jllrgen: Quantifier Scope in German. 2006. xvi, 312 pp. SCHWEIKERT, Walter: The Order of Prepositional Phrases in the Structure of the Clause. 2005. xii, 338 PP· QUINN, Heidi: The Distribution of Pronoun Case Forms in English. 2005 •.xii, 409 pp. FUSS, Eric: The Rise of Agreement A formal approaclJ to the syntax and grammaticalization of verbal inflection. 200 5· .xii, 336 pp. BURKHARDT SCHUMACHER, Petra: The Syntax-Discourse Interface. Representing and interpreting dependency. 2005. xi~ 259 pp. SCHMID, Tanja: Infinitival Syntax. Infinitivus Pro Participio as a repair strategy. 2005 . .xiv, 251 pp.

78 DIKKEN,Marcel den and O!ristina TORTORA (eels.): The Function of Function Words and Functional Categories. 200 5- vii. 292 pp. 77 OZTCRK, Ballaz: Case. Referentiality and Phrase Structure. 2005. x. 268 pp. 76 STAVROU, Melita and Arbon to TERZI (eels.): Advances in Greek Generative Syntax. In honor of Dimitra Theophanopoulou-Kontou. 2005. viii, 366 pp. 75 DI SCIULLO, Anna Maria (eel.): UG and External Systems. Language, brain and romputation. 2005. xviii, 398 pp. 74 HEGGIE,Lorie and Francisco ORD61ffiz (eds.): Clitic and Affix Combinations. Theoretical perspectives. 2005- viii, 390 pp. 73 CARNIE, Andrew, Heidi HARLEY and Sbela Ann DOOLEY (eds.): Verb First On the syntax of verbinitial languages. 200 5- xiv, 434 pp. 72 FUSS, Eric and Carola TRIPS (eds.): Diachronic Clues to Synchronic Grammar. 2004- viii. 228 pp. 71 GEIDEREN,FJlyvan: Gran1maticalization as Economy. 2004- xvi, 320 pp. 70 AUSTIN, Jennifer R., Stefan ENGELBERG and Gisa RAUH (eds.): Advel.'bials. The interplay between meaning, context, and syntactic structure. 2004- :x, 346 pp. 69 KISS, Katalin 1t and Henk 'Vlln RIEMSDIJK (eds.): Verb Clusters. A study of Hungarian, German and Dukh. 2004 vi, 514 pp. 68 BREUL, Canten: Focus Structure in Generative Gran1mar. An integrated syntactic, semantic and intonational approach. 2004. x. 432 pp. 67 MISESKA TOMIC, Olga (eel.): Balkan Syntax and Semantics. 2004- xvi, 499 pp. 66 GROHMANN, Kleanthes K.: Prolific Domains. On the Anti-Locality of movement dependencies. 2003. xvi. 372 pp. 65 MANNINEN, Salu IW.ena: Small Phrase Layers. A study of Finnish Manner Adverbials. 2003. .Iii, 275 pp. 64 BOECKX, Cedric and Kleanthes I<. GROHMANN (eels.): Multiple Wh-Fronting. 2003. x, 292 pp. 63 BOECKX, Cedric: Islands and Chains. Resumption as stranding. 2003. :xii, 224 pp. 62 CARNIE, Andrew, Heidi HARLEY and MaryAnn WILIJE (eels.): Formal Approw:hes to Function in Gran1ma1: In honor of Eloise Jelinek. 2003. .Iii, 378 pp. 61 SCHWABE, Kentin and Susanne WINKLER (eds.): The Interfaces. Deriving and interpreting omitted structures. 2003. v~ 403 pp. 6o TRIPS, Carola: From OV to VO in Early Middle English. 2002. xiv. 359 pp. 59 Dmffi, Nicole: Particle Verbs in English. Syntax, information structure and intonation. 2002. .Iii, 305 pp. 58 DI SCIULLO, Anna Maria (eel.): Asymmetry in Gran1ma1: Volume 2: Morphology. phonology, acquisition. 200 3· vi, 309 pp. 57 DI SCIULLO, Anna Maria (eel.): Asymmetry in Gran1ma1: Volume 1: Syntax and semantics. 2003. vi, 405 pp. 56 COENE, Martine and fie& D'HULST (eds.): From NP to DP. Volume 2: The expression of possession in noun phrases. 2003. x, 295 pp. 55 COENE, Martine and Yves D'HULST (eds.): From NP to DP. Volume 1: The syntax and semantics of noun phrases. 2003. vi, 362 pp. 54 BAPTISTA, Madr-e; The Syntax of Cape Verdean Creole. The Sotavento varieties. 2003. x.xii, 294 pp. (incl. CD-rom). 53 ZWART, Jan-Wouter and Werner ABRAHAM (eds.): Studies in Comparative Germanic Syntax. Proceedings from the 15th Workshop on Comparative Germanic Syntax (Groningen, May 26-27, 2ooo). 2002. .xiv, 407 pp. 52 SIMON, Hont J. and Heike WIESE (eds.): Pronouns - Gran1mar and Representation. 2002 . .xii, 294 pp. 51 GERLACH, Birgit: Clitics between Syntax and Le:xic.on. 2002. .xii, 282 pp. 5o STEINBACH, Markus: Middle Voice. A comparative study in the syntax-semantics interfu:.e of German. 2002. .xii, 340 pp. 49 ALEXIADOU, Ademis (ed.): Theoretical Approaches to Universals. 2002. viii, 319 pp. 48 ALEXIADOU,Ademis,Elena ANAGNOSTOPOULOU, SjefBARBIERS and Hans-Martin GARTNER (eds.): Dimensions of Movement From features to remnants. 2002. vi. 345 pp. 47 BARBIERS, Sjef,Frits BEUKEMA and Wim van derWURFF (eds.): Modality and its Interaction with the Vel.'bal System. 2002. x. 290 pp. 46 PANAGIOTIDIS, E. Pboevos: Pronouns, Clitics and Empty Nouns. 'Pronominality' and licensing in syntax. 2002. :x. 214 pp.