Article In:
Diachronica: Online-First Articles

Word order change in German infinitival complementation

The role of processing factors

ORCID logo | Universität Potsdam
ORCID logo | Universität Potsdam
ORCID logo | Universität Potsdam
ORCID logo | Universität Potsdam
The present article discusses whether processing factors might play a role in the reduction of word order variability in German infinitival complements of control verbs, connecting evidence from a diachronic corpus study to processing considerations and psycholinguistic findings. We show that intraposition, a linearization pattern that has been claimed to be costly in comprehension due to both center-embedding and temporary ambiguity, became less frequent in language use over time. Findings from language production experiments show that present-day German speakers avoid producing intraposition patterns even following repeated exposure to this pattern. Taken together, our findings are consistent with the hypothesis that processing factors can influence the distribution of word order variants. Looking at the diachronic dimension, however, reveals that the effect of processing factors can be modulated by sociolinguistic factors and the impact of language modality.
Keywords: word order change, German, Early New High German, language processing, language change, temporary ambiguity, center-embedding
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Structural properties of German infinitival complements
  • 3.Sources of processing difficulty arising with intraposed infinitives
  • 4.Intraposed infinitives over time: A corpus study
    • 4.1Data and analysis
    • 4.2Results
    • 4.3Interim discussion
  • 5.Evidence from language production experiments
    • 5.1Elicited production
    • 5.2Can intraposition be primed?
  • 6.Discussion
  • 7.Conclusion
  • Notes
  • Author queries
  • Primary sources
  • References
This content is being prepared for publication; it may be subject to changes.
References (61)
Primary sources
[Baumbank.UP] Demske, Ulrike. 2019. Referenzkorpus Frühneuhochdeutsch: Baumbank.UP. Universität Potsdam: Institut für Germanistik. [URL]
[DTA] Deutsches Textarchiv. Grundlage für ein Referenzkorpus der neuhochdeutschen Sprache. Herausgegeben von der Berlin-Brandenburgischen Akademie der Wissenschaften, Berlin 2022. [URL]
[DeReKo] Leibniz-Institut für Deutsche Sprache. Das Deutsche Referenzkorpus DeReKo. [URL]
[DWDS20] DWDS Kernkorpus 20. Textkorpus bereitgestellt durch das Digitale Wörterbuch der deutschen Sprache. [URL]
[DWDS21] DWDS Kernkorpus 21. Textkorpus bereitgestellt durch das Digitale Wörterbuch der deutschen Sprache. [URL]
[Twitter] Scheffler, Tatjana. 2014. A German Twitter Snapshot. In Proceedings of the Ninth International Conference on Language Resources and Evaluation (LREC’14). Reykjavik. [URL]
[Am] Ralegh, Walter. Americæ achter Theil / in welchem erstlich beschrieben wirt das maechtige vnd goldtreiche Koenigreich Guiana (…) durch (…) Walthern Ralegh Rittern und Hauptmann vber jrer koen. mayest. auß Engellandt Leibs Guardi (…). Alles erstlich in engellændischer Sprach außgangen / jetzt aber auß der ollændischen Translation in die hochteutsche Sprache gebracht / durch Avgvstinum Cassiodorvm Reinivm (…) an Tag gegeben durch Dieterschen von Bryseligen hinderlassenen Erben. Frankfurt, 1599.Google Scholar
[Aviso] Aviso. Relation oder Zeitung. hg. v. Walter Schöne, Julius Adolph von Söhne: Wolfenbüttel, 1609.Google Scholar
[Cont] CONTINVATIO I/II. Der Zehenjaerigen Relation/ oder Calendarii Historici decennalis. Warhafftige Beschreibung aller gedenkwuerdigen Historien/ so sich seidhero des Leipzigischen Newen Tages Marckt Anno 1609. (…) Leipzig/ in vorlegung Abraham Lambergo/ Anno 1609.Google Scholar
[Fortunatus] Fortunatus. Nach der Editio Princeps von 1509. hg. v. H.-G. Roloff. Stuttgart: Reclam, 1981.Google Scholar
[Lalebuch] Das Lalebuch. Nach dem Druck von 1597, hg. v. S. Ertz. Stuttgart: Reclam, 1982.Google Scholar
[PZ] Wochentliche Ordentliche Postzeitung, 1667.Google Scholar
[Rel09] Die Relation des Jahres 1609, hg. v. Walter Schöne, Faksimiledruck. Leipzig: Harrassowitz, 1940.Google Scholar
[Rel67] Relation Aller Fürnemmen vnd gedenckwürdigen Historien. Jahrgang 1667.Google Scholar
[Rollwagenbüchlein] Wickram, Georg. Sämtliche Werke, hg. v. H.-G. Roloff. Bd. 71: Das Rollwagenbüchlein. Berlin: De Gruyter, 1973.Google Scholar
[Tristrant und Isalde] Tristrant und Isalde. Prosaroman. Nach dem ältesten Druck aus Augsburg vom Jahre 1484, versehen mit den Lesarten des zweiten Augsburger Druckes aus dem Jahre 1498 und eines Wormser Druckes unbekannten Datums, hg. v. A. Brandstetter. Tübingen: Niemeyer, 1966.Google Scholar
[Ulenspiegel] Ein kurtzweilig Lesen von Dil Ulenspiegel. Nach dem Druck von 1515, hg. v. W. Lindo, Stuttgart: Reclam, 1966.Google Scholar
References
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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Baayen, R. Harald. 2008. Analyzing linguistic data: A practical introduction to statistics using R. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bader, Markus & Tanja Schmid. 2009. Minimality in verb-cluster formation. Lingua 119(10). 1458–1481. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bates, Douglas, Martin Mächler, Ben Bolker & Steve Walker. 2015. Fitting linear mixed-effects models using lme4. Journal of Statistical Software 67(1). 1–48. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bayer, Josef, Tanja Schmid & Markus Bader. 2005. Clause union and clausal position. In Marcel den Dikken & Christina Tortora (eds.), The function of function words and functional categ-ories (Linguistik Aktuell/Linguistics Today 78). 79–113. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bosch, Sina, Ilaria De Cesare, Claudia Felser & Ulrike Demske. 2022. A multi-methodological approach to word order variation in German infinitival complementation. In Robin Hörnig, Sophie von Wietersheim, Andreas Konietzko & Sam Featherston (eds.), Proceedings of Linguistic Evidence 2020: Linguistic theory enriched by experimental data. Tübingen: University of Tübingen. 281–298. [URL]
Bosch, Sina, Ilaria De Cesare, Ulrike Demske & Claudia Felser. 2023. Word-order variation and coherence in German infinitival complementation. Journal of Comparative Germanic Linguistics 26(1). DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bosch, Sina & Claudia Felser. 2023. The role of L1 influence on L2 word order behaviour in German infinitival complementation. Ms. University of Potsdam.Google Scholar
De Cesare, Ilaria. 2021. Word order variability and change in German infinitival complements. A multi-causal approach. Potsdam, University of Potsdam dissertation. DOI logo
Demske, Ulrike. 2015. Towards coherent infinitival patterns in the history of German. Journal of Historical Linguistics 5(1). 6–40. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2016. Zur Komplexität des Frühneuhochdeutschen. In Sarah Kwekkeboom & Sandra Waldenberger (eds.), PerspektivWechsel oder: Die Wiederentdeckung der Philologie, vol. 11, 437–454. Berlin: Erich Schmidt Verlag.Google Scholar
. 2019. Referenzkorpus Frühneuhochdeutsch: Baumbank.UP. Universität Potsdam, Institut für Germanistik. [URL]
Ebert, Robert Peter. 1980. Social and stylistic variation in Early New High German word order: The sentence frame (Satztrahmen). Beiträge zur Geschichte der deutschen Sprache 1021. 357–398. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Fanselow, Gisbert & Stefan Frisch. 2006. Effects of processing difficulty on judgements of acceptability. In Gisbert Fanselow, Caroline Fery & Matthias Schlesewsky (eds.), Gradience in grammar: Generative perspectives, 291–316. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Felser, Claudia & Sina Bosch. 2024. Processing factors constrain word order variation in German: The trouble with third constructions. Journal of Germanic Linguistics 36(1). 47–75. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ferreira, Victor S. 2019. A mechanistic framework for explaining audience design in language production. Annual Review of Psychology 70(1). 29–51. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ferreira, Victor S. & Gary S. Dell. 2000. Effect of ambiguity and lexical availability on syntactic and lexical production. Cognitive Psychology 401. 296–340. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Frazier, Lyn. 1979. On comprehending sentences: Syntactic parsing strategies. Storrs, CT: University of Connecticut dissertation (reproduced by the Indiana University Linguistics Club).
. 1985. Syntactic complexity. In David R. Dowty, Lauri Karttunen & Arnold M. Zwicky (eds.), Natural language parsing, 129–189. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Frazier, Lyn & Keith Rayner. 1982. Making and correcting errors during sentence comprehension: Eye movements in the analysis of structurally ambiguous sentences. Cognitive Psychology 141. 178–210. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gambi, Chiara & Martin J. Pickering. 2017. Models linking production and comprehension. In Eva M. Fernández & Helen Smith Cairns (eds.), The handbook of psycholinguistics, 157–181. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gibson, Edward. 1998. Linguistic complexity: Locality of syntactic dependencies. Cognition 68(1). 1–76. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2000. The dependency locality theory: A distance-based theory of linguistic complexity. In Alec Marantz, Yasushi Miyashita & Wayne O’Neil (eds.), Image, language, brain: Papers from the first mind articulation project symposium, 94–126. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Haider, Hubert. 2010. The syntax of German. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hawkins, John A. 1994. A performance theory of order and constituency. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Haywood, Sarah L., Martin J. Pickering & Holly P. Branigan. 2005. Do speakers avoid ambiguities during dialogue? Psychological Science 16(5). 362–366. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Jaeger, T. Florian & Neal E. Snider. 2013. Alignment as a consequence of expectation adaptation: Syntactic priming is affected by the prime’s prediction error given both prior and recent experience. Cognition 127(1). 57–83. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Labov, William. 1972. Some principles of linguistic methodology. Language in Society 1(1). 97–120. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lötscher, Andreas. 1995. Syntaktische Prestigesignale in der literarischen Prosa des 16. Jahrhunderts. Daphnis 24(2). 17–53.Google Scholar
von Polenz, Peter. 2000. Deutsche Sprachgeschichte vom Spätmittelalter bis zur Gegenwart (vol. 11), 2nd edn. Berlin, New York: De Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
R Core Team. 2021. R: A language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for statistical computing. Vienna, Austria. [URL]
Sapp, Christopher D. 2014. Extraposition in Middle and New High German. The Journal of Comparative Germanic Linguistics 17(2). 129–156. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Scheffler, Tatjana. 2014. A German Twitter snapshot. In Nicoletta Calzolari, Khalid Choukri, Thierry Declerck, Hrafn Loftsson, Bente Maegaard, inter alia & Stelios Piperidis (eds.), Proceedings of the Ninth International Conference on Language Resources and Evaluation (LREC’14). Reykjavik: European Language Resources Association (ELRA).Google Scholar
Schildt, Joachim. 1976. Zur Ausbildung des Satzrahmens. In Gerhard Kettmann & Joachim Schildt (eds.), Zur Ausbildung der Norm der deutschen Literatursprache auf der syntaktischen Ebene (1470–1730): Der Einfachsatz (Bausteine zur Sprachgeschichte des Neuhochdeutschen 56), 235–284. Berlin: Akademie Verlag.Google Scholar
Schmid, Tanja, Markus Bader & Josef Bayer. 2005. Coherence: An experimental approach. In Stephan v. Kepser & Marga Reis (eds.), Linguistic Evidence. Empirical, Theoretical and Computational Perspectives (Studies in Generative Grammar 85), 435–456. Berlin, New York: De Gruyter Mouton. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Scontras, Gregory, William Badecker, Lisa Shank, Eunice Lim & Evelina Fedorenko. 2015. Syntactic complexity effects in sentence production. Cognitive Science 39(3). 559–583. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sternefeld, Wolfgang. 2006. Syntax. Eine morphologisch motivierte generative Beschreibung des Deutschen, 1st edn. Tübingen: Stauffenburg.Google Scholar
Trudgill, Peter. 2020. Millennia of language change: Sociolinguistic studies in deep historical linguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Voigtmann, Sophia & Augustin Speyer. 2021. Information density and the extraposition of German relative clauses. Frontiers of Psychology 121. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Wallenberg, Joel C., Rachael Bailes, Christine Cuskley & Anton Karl Ingason. 2021. Smooth signals and syntactic change. Languages 6(2). 60. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Wasow, Thomas. 2015. Ambiguity avoidance is overrated. In Susanne Winkler (ed.), Ambiguity: Language and communication, 29–47. Berlin, Munich, Boston: De Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Weiß, Helmut. 2005. Von den vier Lebensaltern einer Standardsprache: Zur Rolle von Spracherwerb und Medialität. Deutsche Sprache 331. 289–307. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Wurmbrand, Susi. 2001. Infinitives: Restructuring and clause structure (Studies in Generative Grammar 55). Berlin, Boston: De Gruyter Mouton. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Yadav, Himanshu, Samar Husain & Richard Futrell. 2021. Do dependency lengths explain constraints on crossing dependencies? Linguistics Vanguard 7(s3). 20190070. DOI logoGoogle Scholar