Chapter published in:
The Diachrony of Classification Systems
Edited by William B. McGregor and Søren Wichmann
[Current Issues in Linguistic Theory 342] 2018
► pp. 283–314

The diachrony of inflectional classes in four Germanic languages

What happens after transparency is lost?

| University of Münster
| Catholic University of Eichstätt-Ingolstadt
Inflectional classes are classification systems lacking a discernible synchronic function. We ask how former functions can be lost and, more importantly, what happens after this loss. In a comparative analysis contrasting four Germanic languages (Swedish, Danish, Dutch and German) and two lexical categories (noun declensions versus verb conjugations), we describe changes in the number of allomorphs, their relation to grammatical category exponence and the conditioning of class membership. Inflectional classes are retained in all four languages but reorganized in several respects. The comparison reveals common principles (allomorphy is retained if tied to relevant categories) and divergences (different degrees of simplification in the conditioning and number of allomorphs). A general discussion relates the findings to grammaticalization and to fundamental differences of the lexical categories concerned, and considers the question of whether inflectional classes can be termed functional or not.
Published online: 14 May 2018
https://doi.org/10.1075/cilt.342.10dam
References

References

Aikhenvald, Alexandra Y. & R. M. W. Dixon
1998 “Dependencies between Grammatical Systems”. Language 74.56–80. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Albright, Adam & Bruce Hayes
2003 “Rules vs. Analogy in English Past Tenses: A computational/experimental study”. Cognition 90.119–161. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Allan, Robin, Philip Holmes & Tom Lundskær-Nielsen
1998 Danish: A comprehensive grammar. 2nd edn. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Allén, Sture
1971 Frequency Dictionary of Present Day Swedish Based on Newspaper Material, Vol. II: Lemmas. Stockholm: Almqvist & Wiksell.Google Scholar
ANS=Haeseryn, W., K. Romijn, G. Geerts, J. de Rooij & M. C. van den Toorn 1997 Algemene Nederlandse Spraakkunst. 2nd edn. Groningen: Martinus Nijhoff uitgevers/Wolters Plantyn. http://​ans​.ruhosting​.nl/. (Accessed: 21 January 2015.)Google Scholar
Augst, Gerhard
1975 “Zum Pluralsystem”. Untersuchungen zum Morpheminventar der deutschen Gegenwartssprache (Forschungsberichte des Instituts für deutsche Sprache, Mannheim, 25), 5–70. Tübingen: Narr.Google Scholar
Bammesberger, Alfred
1990 Die Morphologie des urgermanischen Nomens. Heidelberg: Winter.Google Scholar
Beekes, Robert S. P.
2011 Comparative Indo-European Linguistics: An introduction. 2nd edn. Revised and corrected by de Vaan Michiel. Amsterdam: John Benjamin. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Birkmann, Thomas
1987 Präteritopräsentia. Morphologische Entwicklungen einer Sonderklasse in den altgermanischen Sprachen (=Linguistische Arbeiten, 188). Tübingen: Niemeyer.Google Scholar
Blevins, James P. & Juliette Blevins
2009 Analogy in Grammar: Form and acquisition. Oxford: Oxford University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Booij, Geert
2002 The Morphology of Dutch. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Bybee, Joan L.
1985 Morphology: A study on the relation between meaning and form. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Bybee, Joan L.
1994 “Morphological Universals and Language Change”. The Encyclopedia of Language and Linguistics ed. by R. E. Asher, 2557–2562. Oxford: Pergamon Press.Google Scholar
Bybee, Joan L. & Carol L. Moder
1983 “Morphological Classes as Natural Categories”. Language 59.251–270. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Corbett, Greville G.
2009 “Canonical Inflectional Classes”. Selected Proceedings of the 6th Décembrettes: Morphology in Bordeaux ed. by Montermini abio , Gille Boyé & esse Tseng, 1–11. Sommerville, MA: Cascadilla Proceedings Project. http://​www​.lingref​.com​/cpp​/decemb​/6​/paper2231​.pdf. (Accessed: 25 April 2017.)Google Scholar
Dammel, Antje
2009 “How – and Why – Do Inflectional Classes Arise? A case study on Swedish and Norwegian conjugation”. Selected Proceedings of the 6th Décembrettes: Morphology in Bordeaux ed. by Montermini Fabi, Gille Boyé & Jess Tseng, 12–21. Sommerville, MA: Cascadilla Proceedings Project. http://​www​.lingref​.com​/cpp​/decemb​/6​/paper2232​.pdf. (Accessed: 25 April 2017.)Google Scholar
2011 Konjugationsklassenwandel. Prinzipien des Ab-, Um- und Ausbaus verbalflexivischer Allomorphie in germanischen Sprachen (=Studia Linguistica Germanica, 103). Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Dammel, Antje & Damaris Nübling
2006 “The Superstable Marker as an Indicator of Categorial Weakness?” Folia Linguistica 40:1–2. 97–113. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Dressler, Wolfgang U., Willi Mayerthaler, Oswald Panagl & Wolfgang U. Wurzel
1987 Leitmotifs in Natural Morphology (=Studies in Language Companion Series, 10). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Duden-Grammar
=Duden-Grammatik 1998 Ed. by the Dudenredaktion. [Duden 4]. Mannheim: Dudenverlag.Google Scholar
Fortson, Benjamin W.
2010 Indo-European Language and Culture: An introduction. 2nd edn. Malden: Wiley-Blackwell.Google Scholar
Froschauer, Regine
2003 Genus im Althochdeutschen: Eine funktionale Analyse des Mehrfachgenus althochdeutscher Substantive (=Germanistische Bibliothek, 16). Heidelberg: Winter.Google Scholar
Grinevald, Colette
2002 “Making Sense of Nominal Classification Systems: Noun classifiers and the grammaticalization variable”. New Reflections on Grammaticalization ed. by Ilse Wischer & Gabriele Diewald, 259–275. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Harnisch, Rüdiger
1999 “Zum Zusammenspiel von Auslautkonsonanz und Stammvokalismus beim Verb. Südthüringisch/Hochdeutsch kontrastiv”. Variation in der Wortstruktur ed. by Matthias Butt & Nanna Fuhrhop (=Germanistische Linguistik, 41–42), 61–76. Hildesheim: Olms.Google Scholar
Jansson, Valter
1966 [1947] “Uppkomsten av tredje konjugationen”. Tre uppsatser i språkvetenskap Otto von Friesen, Gösta Franzén & Valter Jansson, 68–87. Stockholm: Almqvist & Wiksell.Google Scholar
Kiparsky, Paul
2009 “The Old High German Weak Preterite”. On Inflection ed. by Patrick O. Steinkrüger & Manfred Krifka (=Trends in Linguistics, 184), 107–124. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Köpcke, Klaus-Michael
2000 “Chaos und Ordnung – Zur semantischen Remotivierung einer Deklinationsklasse im Übergang vom Mittelhochdeutschen zum Neuhochdeutschen”. Angemessene Strukturen: Systemorganisation in Phonologie, Morphologie und Syntax ed. by Andreas Bittner, Dagmar Bittner & Klaus-Michael Köpcke, 107–122. Hildesheim: Olms.Google Scholar
Kürschner, Sebastian
2008 Deklinationsklassen-Wandel: Eine diachron-kontrastive Untersuchung zum Wandel der Pluralallomorphie im Deutschen, Niederländischen, Schwedischen und Dänischen (=Studia Linguistica Germanica, 92). Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.Google Scholar
2009 “Morphological Non-Blocking in Dutch Plural Allomorphy: A contrastive approach”. Language Typology and Universals 62:4.285–306. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Kürschner, Sebastian & Damaris Nübling
2011 “The Interaction of Gender and Declension in Germanic Languages”. Folia Linguistica 45:2.355–388. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Kågerman, Elisabet
1985 Obestämd plural hos neutra med avledningsmorfemet -e mellan omkring 1300 och 1750 (=Lundastudier i Nordisk Språkvetenskap, A 36). Malmö: Liber.Google Scholar
Lass, Roger
1990 “How to Do Things with Junk: Exaptation in language evolution”. Journal of Linguistics 26.79–102. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Mätzig, Simone, Judit Druks, Jackie Masterson & Gabriella Vigliocco
2009 “Noun and Verb Differences in Picture Naming: Past studies and new evidence”. Cortex 45:6.738–758. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Mailhammer, Robert
2007a “Islands of Resilience: The history of the German strong verbs from a systemic point of view”. Morphology 17:1.77–1108. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2007b The Germanic Strong Verbs: Foundations and developments of a new system (=Trends in Linguistics, 183). Berlin: de Gruyter Mouton. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2008 “Ablaut Variation in the Proto-Germanic Noun: The long arm of the strong verbs”. Sprachwissenschaft 33.279–300.Google Scholar
Mańczak, Witold
1980 “Laws of Analogy”. Historical Morphology ed. by Jacek Fisiak, 283–288. The Hague: Mouton. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
McGregor, William B.
2002 Verb Classification in Australian languages (=Empirical Approaches to Language Typology, 25). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Meier-Brügger, Michael
2002 Indogermanische Sprachwissenschaft. 8th edn. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Neef, Martin
2000a “Phonologische Konditionierung”. Morphology: An international handbook on inflection and word-formation, Vol. I (=Handbooks of Linguistics and Communication Science, 17.1) Ed. by Geert Booij, Christian Lehmann & Joachim Mugdan, 463–473. Berlin: de Gruyter Mouton.Google Scholar
2000b “Morphologische und syntaktische Konditionierung”. Morphology: An international handbook on inflection and word-formation, Vol. I (=Handbooks of Linguistics and Communication Science, 17.1) Ed. by Geert Booij, Christian Lehmann & Joachim Mugdan, 473–484. Berlin: de Gruyter Mouton.Google Scholar
Norde, Muriel
1997 The History of the Genitive in Swedish: A case study in degrammaticalization. Amsterdam: Universiteit van Amsterdam.Google Scholar
Nübling, Damaris
2000 Prinzipien der Irregularisierung (=Linguistische Arbeiten, 415). Tübingen: Niemeyer. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2008 “Was tun mit Flexionsklassen? Deklinationsklassen und ihr Wandel im Deutschen und seinen Dialekten”. Zeitschrift für Dialektologie und Linguistik 75:3.282–330.Google Scholar
Philippa, Marlies
1982 “Problematiek rond het s‑meervoud; een diachroon overzicht”. De Nieuwe Taalgids 75.407–417.Google Scholar
Ramat, Paolo
1981 Einführung in das Germanische. Tübingen: Niemeyer. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Ringe, Donald A.
2017 A Linguistic History of English, Vol. I: From Proto-Indo-European to Proto-Germanic. 2nd edn. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Rix, Helmut
2001 Lexikon der indogermanischen Verben. Die Wurzeln und ihre Primärstammbildungen. 2nd edn. Wiesbaden: Ludwig Reichert.Google Scholar
SAG=Teleman, Ulf, Erik Andersson & Staffan Hellberg 1999 Svenska Akademiens Grammatik, Vol. II: Ord. Stockholm: Norstedts Ordbok.Google Scholar
Schwerdt, Judith
2001 “Zur Bedeutung des -nan‑Suffixes der gotischen schwachen Verben”. Beiträge zur Geschichte der deutschen Sprache und Literatur (PBB) 123:175–210.Google Scholar
2008 Morphosemantik der schwachen Verben im Ostgermanischen und Kontinentalwestgermanischen. Frankfurt a.M.: Lang.Google Scholar
Szemerényi, Oswald
1990 Einführung in die vergleichende Sprachwissenschaft. 4th edn. Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft.Google Scholar
van der Hulst, Harry & Jan G. Kooij
1998 “Prosodic Choices and the Dutch Nominal Plural”. Phonology and Morphology of the Germanic Languages ed. by Wolfgang Kehrein & Richard Wiese (=Linguistische Arbeiten, 386), 187–197. Tübingen: Niemeyer. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Wegener, Heide
2003 “Normprobleme bei der Pluralbildung fremder und nativer Substantive”. Linguistik online 16:4. http://​www​.linguistik​-online​.de​/16​_03​/wegener​.html. (Accessed: 8 June 2014.)Google Scholar
Wurzel, Wolfgang U.
1986 “Die wiederholte Klassifikation von Substantiven. Zur Entstehung von Deklinationsklassen”. Zeitschrift für Phonetik, Sprachwissenschaft und Kommunikationsforschung 39:1.76–96.Google Scholar
2001 Flexionsmorphologie und Natürlichkeit: Ein Beitrag zur morphologischen Theoriebildung (=Studia Grammatica, 21). 2nd edn. Berlin: Akademie-VerlagGoogle Scholar
Cited by

Cited by other publications

Sims-Williams, Helen & Hans-Olav Enger
2020. The loss of inflection as grammar complication. Diachronica Crossref logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 01 january 2021. 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.