Cover not available
Part of
Constructions in Contact: Constructional perspectives on contact phenomena in Germanic languages
Edited by Hans C. Boas and Steffen Höder
[Constructional Approaches to Language 24] 2018
► pp. 211–249

Texas German and English word order constructions in contact

After reviewing previous accounts of Texas German (TxG) syntax, I define the basic word order constructions of English and German and identify which are identical across the languages (i.e. diaconstructions). Next, I analyze 300 TxG utterances and determine whether their syntax corresponds more closely to German, English, or German-English diaconstructions. Finally, I discuss sentences exhibiting unusual word order and how they demonstrate the need for a (Diasystematic) Construction Grammar approach.

Keywords: word order, Texas German, code-switching, Diasystematic Construction Grammar
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Previous accounts of Texas German word order
    • 2.1Texas German(s)
    • 2.2German word order
    • 2.3Word order in TxG
  • 3.Word order in (Diasystematic) Construction Grammar
  • 4.German word order constructions and German-English diaconstructions
    • 4.1.German word order constructions
    • 4.2English-German word order diaconstructions
      • (A)Subject precedes verb
      • (B)All verbs occur together
      • (C)Finite verbs precede non-finite verb forms
      • (D)Polar questions require do support
  • 5.Analysis of TxG word order
    • 5.1Data selection and limitations
    • 5.2.TxG clauses with German-origin verbs
      • Müssen (‘to have to’)
      • Dass (‘that’)
      • Weil (‘because’)
      • Because
    • 5.3TxG utterances with English verbs
      • Infinitival clauses
      • Polar questions
      • Subordinate clauses
      • Main clauses
    • 5.4.Summary of TxG word order
    • 5.5.(Diasystematic) constructional account of divergent TxG syntax
      • Multiple lexical transference
      • (Inaccurate) complex German structures
      • Transferring complex verb constructions with lexicogrammatical interference
      • Loan Translation of more general and ‘central’ constructions
      • Multiple transference and interference in a single clause
  • 6.Conclusion
  • Notes
  • References
Published online: 12 December 2018
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/cal.24.07dux
References
Backus, A., & Dorleijn, M.
(2009) Loan translations versus code-switching. In B. Bullock, & A. Toribio (Eds.), The Cambridge Handbook of Linguistic Code-Switching (pp. 75–94). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Barðdal, J., Smirnova, E., Sommerer, L., & Gildea, S.
(Eds.) (2015) Diachronic Construction Grammar. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Berman, C.
(2003) Clausal Syntax of German. Stanford: CSLI Publications. Google Scholar
Boas, H. C.
(2003) A Constructional Approach to Resultatives. Stanford: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
(2009a) The Life and Death of Texas German. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.Google Scholar
(2009b) Case loss in Texas German: The influence of semantic and pragmatic factors. In J. Barðdal, & S. Chelliah (Eds.), The Role of Semantics and Pragmatics in the Development of Case (pp. 347–373). Amsterdam/ Philadelphia: Benjamins.Google Scholar
Boas, H. C., & Sag, I.
(Eds.) (2012) Sign-based Construction Grammar. Stanford: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
Boas, H. C., & Pierce, M.
(2011) Lexical developments in Texas German. In M. Putnam (Ed.), Studies on German Language Islands (pp. 129–150). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Boas, H. C., Ewing, K., Moran, C., & Thompson, J.
(2004) Towards determining the influence of internal and external factors on recent developments in Texas German phonology. Penn Working Papers in Linguistics, 10(1), 47–59.Google Scholar
Boas, H. C., Pierce, M., & Brown, C. L.
(2014) On the variability of Texas German wo as a complementizer. STUF – Language Typology and Universals, 67(4), 589–611.Google Scholar
Burridge, K.
(1992) Creating Grammar: examples from Pennsylvania German. In K. Burridge, & W. Enninger (Eds.), Diachronic Studies on the Languages of the Anabaptists (pp. 199–242). Bochum: Universitätsverlag Brockmeyer.Google Scholar
Clyne, M.
(1994) What can we learn from Sprachinseln?: Some observations on Australian German. In K. Mattheier, & N. Berend (Eds.), Sprachinseln (pp. 105–122). Frankfurt: Lang.Google Scholar
(2003) Dynamics of Language Contact. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Croft, W.
(2001) Radical Construction Grammar. Oxford: Oxford University Press.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Den Besten, H.
(1983) On the interaction of root transformations and lexical deletive rules. In W. Abraham (Ed.), On the Formal Syntax of the Westgermania: Papers from the 3rd Groningen Grammar Talks (pp. 47–131). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dryer, M. S.
(2013 ) Order of subject, object, and verb. In M. Dryer, & M. Haspelmath (Eds.), The World Atlas of Language Structures Online. Leipzig: Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology (Retrieved from [URL], Accessed on 2017–07–28.)Google Scholar
Duden
(2006) Duden: Die Grammatik. Dudenredaktion (Ed.). Mannheim: Dudenverlag.Google Scholar
Dux, R.
2017). Classifying language contact phenomena: English verbs in Texas German. Journal of Germanic Linguistics, 29(4), 379–430. DOI logo
Eisenberg, P., & Gallmann, P.
(2016) Der Duden in 12 Bänden: 4 – Die Grammatik. Mannheim, Germany: Bibliographisches Institut & FA Brockhaus AG.Google Scholar
Eisenberg, P.
(2006) Grundriss der deutschen Grammatik: Band 2: Der Satz. Stuttgart: Metzler.Google Scholar
Fanselow, G.
(1989) Coherent infinitives in German: Restructuring vs. IP-Complementation. In C. Bhatt, E. Loebel, & C. Schmidt (Eds.), Syntactic Phrase Structure Phenomena in Noun Phrase and Sentences (pp. 1–16). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Fillmore, C. J., Kay, P., & O’Connor, M. C.
(1988) Regularity and idiomaticity in grammatical constructions: The case of let alone. Language, 64(3), 501–538.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Fuchs, K.
(2018) Word order in dependent clauses in Texas German. Zeitschrift für Dialektologie und Linguistik 84, 1-19.Google Scholar
Fuller, J.
(1997) Pennsylvania Dutch with a Southern touch: a theoretical model of language contact and change (PhD dissertation). University of South Carolina –Columbia.Google Scholar
Gilbert, Glenn
(1972) Linguistic Atlas of Texas German. Austin, TX: University of Texas Press.Google Scholar
Goldberg, A.
(1995) Constructions: A Construction Grammar Approach to Argument Structure. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
(2006) Constructions at Work. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Grewendorf, G.
(1989) Ergativity in German. Dordrecht: Foris.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Haider, H.
(1986) Fehlende Argumente: Vom Passiv zu kohärenten Infinitiven. Linguistische Berichte, 101, 3–33.Google Scholar
(1990) Topicalization and other puzzles of German syntax. In G. Grewendorf, & W. Sternefeld (Eds.), Scrambling and Barriers (pp. 93–112). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: Benjamins.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Höder, S.
(2012) Multilingual constructions: a diasystematic approach to common structures. In K. Braunmüller, & C. Gabriel (Eds.), Multilingual Individuals and Multilingual Societies (Hamburg Studies on Multilingualism 13) (pp. 241–257). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: Benjamins.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2014) Constructing diasystems. Grammatical organisation in bilingual groups. In T. A. Åfarli, & B. Mæhlum (Eds.), The Sociolinguistics of Grammar (Studies in language companion series 154) (pp. 137–152 ). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: Benjamins.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
This volume). Grammar is community-specific: Background and basic concepts of Diasystematic Construction Grammar.
Hoffmann, T., & Trousdale, G.
(Eds.) (2013) The Oxford Handbook of Construction Grammar. Oxford: Oxford University Press.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hopp, H., & Putnam, M. T.
(2015) Syntactic restructuring in heritage grammars: Word order variation in Moundridge Schweitzer German. Linguistic Approaches to Bilingualism, 5(2), 180–214.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hopper, P., & Traugott, E. C.
(1993) Grammaticalization. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Imo, W.
(2016) Grammatik: Eine Einführung. Stuttgart: Metzler.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Jacobs, J.
(1986) The syntax of focus and adverbials in German. In W. Abraham, & S. De Meij (Eds.), Topic, Focus, and Configurationality. Papers from the 6th Groningen Grammar Talks, Groningen 1984 (pp. 103–127). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kathol, A.
(2000) Linear Syntax. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Kay, P.
(2005) Argument structure constructions and the argument-adjunct distinction. In H. C. Boas, & M. Fried (Eds.), Grammatical Constructions: Back to the Roots Constructional Approaches to Language (pp. 71–98). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: Benjamins.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Keel, W. D.
(2014) German settlement varieties in Kansas. In A. W. Farris-Trimble, & J. A. Barlow (Eds.), Perspectives on Phonological Theory and Development : In Honor of Daniel A. Dinnsen (pp. 155–172). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kloss, H.
(1977) Die deutsche Schriftsprache bei den Amischen. In L. Auberger, H. Kloss, & H. Rupp (Eds.), Deutsch als Muttersprache in Kanada: Berichte zur Gegenwartslage (pp. 97–98). Wiesbaden: Steiner.Google Scholar
Kuningas, J., & Leino, J.
(2006) Word orders and Construction Grammar. In M. Suominen, A. Arppe, A. Airola, O. Heinämäki, M. Miestamo, U. Määttä, J. Niemi, K. K. Pitkänen, & K. Sinnemäki (Eds.), A Man of Measure; Festschrift in Honour of Fred Karlsson on his 60th Birthday (pp. 301–309). Turku, Finland: The Linguistic Association of Finland.Google Scholar
Louden, M.
(1992) German as an object-verb language: A unification of typological and generative approaches. In I. Rauch, G. F. Carr, & R. L. Kyes (Eds.), On Germanic Linguistics: Issues and Methods (pp. 217–231). Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Meurers, W. D.
(2000) Lexical generalizations in the syntax of German non-finite constructions. Arbeitspapiere des SFB 340 (p. 145). Eberhard-Karls-Universität Tübingen.Google Scholar
Müller, S.
(2005) German: A grammatical sketch. In A. Alexiadou, & T. Kiss (Eds.), Syntax – ein internationales Handbuch zeitgenössischer Forschung, 2nd Edition. Berlin: de GruyterGoogle Scholar
Nützel, D.
(1998) Morphosyntactic variation and change in Haysville (Indiana) East Franconian. (PhD dissertation) Purdue University.Google Scholar
Pierce, M., Boas, H. C., & Roesch, K.
(2015) The history of front rounded vowels in New Braunfels German. In J. Bondi Johannessen, & J. C. Salmons (Eds.), Germanic Heritage Languages in North America (pp. 118–131). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Reis, M
(1980) On justifying topological frames: ‘positional field’ and the order of non-verbal constituents in Berman. Documentation et Recherche en Linguistique Allemande Contemporaire, 22/23, 59–85.Google Scholar
Riehl, C. M.
(2004) Sprachkontaktforschung Tübingen: Narr.Google Scholar
van Rimsdijk, H.
(1985) Zum Rattenfängereffekt bei Infinitiven in deutschen Relativsätzen. In W. Abraham (Ed.), Erklärende Syntax des Deutschen. Tübingen: Narr.Google Scholar
Uszkoreit, H.
(1987) Word order and Constituent Structure in German. Stanford: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
Webelhuth, G.
(1992) Principles and Parameters of Syntactic Saturation. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Wöllstein-Leisten, A., Heilmann, A., Stepan, P., & Vikner, S.
(1997) Deutsche Satzstruktur – Grundlagen der syntaktischen Analyse. Tübingen: Stauffenburg.Google Scholar
Ziem, A., & Boas, H. C.
(2017) Towards a constructicon for German. In Proceedings of the AAAI 2017 Spring Symposium on Computational Construction Grammar and Natural Language Understanding (Technical Report SS-17–02) (pp. 274–277). Stanford University.Google Scholar
Cited by

Cited by 1 other publications

Dux, Ryan
2020. Code-switching and loan translation in German-American. Belgian Journal of Linguistics 34 ► pp. 52 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 9 may 2023. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers. Any errors therein should be reported to them.