Cover not available
Part of
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?

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.
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Prehistory of inflectional classes in Germanic languages
    • 2.1Prehistory of declensions
    • 2.2Prehistory of conjugations
      • 2.2.1Grammaticalization
      • 2.2.2Reanalysis
      • 2.2.3Semantic conditioning: traces in Old High German
  • 3.Reorganization of inflectional classes in four Germanic languages
    • 3.1Number of classes
      • 3.1.1Number of declensions
      • 3.1.2Number of conjugations
      • 3.1.3Number of inflectional classes in contrast
    • 3.2Exponence of inflectional classes
      • 3.2.1Exponence of declension classes
      • 3.2.2Exponence of conjugation classes
      • 3.2.3Exponence of inflectional classes: comparison
    • 3.3Conditioning of class membership
      • 3.3.1Conditioning of declension classes
      • 3.3.2Conditioning of conjugation classes
      • 3.3.3Conditioning of inflectional classes: comparison
  • 4.General discussion
    • 4.1Declensions versus conjugations
    • 4.2Refunctionalization
  • 5.Conclusions
  • Notes
  • References
Published online: 14 May 2018
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/cilt.342.10dam
References (56)
References
Aikhenvald, Alexandra Y. & R. M. W. Dixon. 1998. “Dependencies between Grammatical Systems”. Language 74.56–80. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Albright, Adam & Bruce Hayes. 2003. “Rules vs. Analogy in English Past Tenses: A computational/experimental study”. Cognition 90.119–161. DOI logoGoogle 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. [URL]. (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. DOI logoGoogle 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. DOI logoGoogle 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. DOI logoGoogle 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. DOI logoGoogle 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. [URL]. (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. [URL]. (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. DOI logoGoogle 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. DOI logoGoogle 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. DOI logoGoogle 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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kürschner, Sebastian & Damaris Nübling. 2011. “The Interaction of Gender and Declension in Germanic Languages”. Folia Linguistica 45:2.355–388. DOI logoGoogle 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. DOI logoGoogle 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. DOI logoGoogle 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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2007b. The Germanic Strong Verbs: Foundations and developments of a new system (=Trends in Linguistics, 183). Berlin: de Gruyter Mouton. DOI logoGoogle 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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
McGregor, William B. 2002. Verb Classification in Australian languages (=Empirical Approaches to Language Typology, 25). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle 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. DOI logoGoogle 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. DOI logoGoogle 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.DOI logoGoogle 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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Wegener, Heide. 2003. “Normprobleme bei der Pluralbildung fremder und nativer Substantive”. Linguistik online 16:4. [URL]. (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 (1)

Cited by one other publication

Sims-Williams, Helen & Hans-Olav Enger
2021. The loss of inflection as grammar complication. Diachronica 38:1 ► pp. 111 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 27 july 2024. 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.