Cover not available
Part of
Atypical predicate-argument relations
Edited by Thierry Ruchot and Pascale Van Praet
[Lingvisticæ Investigationes Supplementa 33] 2016
► pp. 243–264

Geographic variation in a non-canonical infinitive structure with the modal verb brauchen

| Université de Normandie UNICAEN, CRISCO, EA 4255
| Lille 3, CeLiSo Paris-Sorbonne, EA 4084
The objective of the present paper is to demonstrate that it is possible to measure and situate an atypical construction. The focus will be on a “satellite” modal verb in modern German: the verb brauchen followed by an infinitive construction, and therefore marked or not marked as an infinitive complementation. Referring to descriptive grammars, the first part will summarize the typical construction of modal verbs in German and of the verb brauchen + infinitive and diverging opinions on the structure (nicht) brauchen + infinitive verb without any marker. The second part presents a corpus-based analysis of European newspapers in German-speaking regions over the last ten years areas. Observations and quantifications will show that there are important differences between Northern and Southern Germany, Southern Germany and Austria, Austria and Switzerland. The third part is a contextual study of non-marked infinitive constructions following brauchen which leads to syntactic, semantic and pragmatic analyses of the occurrences. In the pragmatic study we will consider the context of the occurrences so that written and oral conception will be discussed. The pragmatic study will show some recurrent speech acts. The last part reflects upon the semantics of brauchen inside the modality as one of the means to express necessity, similarities and differences with müssen, and at least the geographic factors that could explain the phenomenon of variation.
Published online: 8 December 2016
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/lis.33.10van
References (23)
References
Adamzik, Kirsten. 2004. Textlinguistik. Eine einführende Darstellung. Tübingen: Max Niemeyer Verlag. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ammon, Ulrich, Hans Bickel & Jakob Ebner, et al. 2004. Variantenwörterbuch des Deutschen. Berlin / New York: Walter de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Brinkmann, Hennig. 21971, 1962. Die deutsche Sprache. Gestalt und Leistung. Düsseldorf: 
Pädagogischer Verlag Schwann.Google Scholar
Chapusot, Sonia. 2002. Les verbes de modalité et leur élargissement. Mémoire de maîtrise (prepared under the direction of Prof. André Rousseau). Université de Lille 3 – Charles-de-Gaulle, 86 pages.Google Scholar
Duffley, P. & P. Larrivée. 1998. Need, Dare, and Negative Polarity. Linguistic Analysis 28(1–2). 89–107.Google Scholar
Duden 9. 62007. Richtiges und gutes Deutsch. Mannheim / Leipzig / Wien / Zürich: Dudenverlag.Google Scholar
Fried, Mirjam, Jan-Ola Östman & Jef Verschueren. 2010. Variation and Change. Pragmatic perspectives. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Frawley, William. 2006. The expression of modality. Berlin, New York: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Le Querler, Nicole. 1996. Typologie des modalités. Caen: Presses Universitaires de Caen.Google Scholar
. 2001. La place du verbe modal pouvoir dans le système des modalités en français. In P. Dendale & J. van der Auwera (eds.), Les Verbes modaux, Cahiers Chronos 8, 17–32. Amsterdam: Rodopi.Google Scholar
Koch, Peter & Wulf Österreicher. 1985. Sprache der Nähe – Sprache der Distanz. Mündlichkeit und Schriftlichkeit im Spannungsfeld von Sprachtheorie und Sprachgeschichte. In Romanistisches Jahrbuch 36. 15–43.Google Scholar
Krier, Fernande. 2010. Les dialectes et leurs valeurs. In M. Kauffer & G. Magnus (eds.), Langues et dialectes dans tous leurs états. Hommage à Marthe Philipp, 61–74. Nancy: Presses Universitaires de Nancy.Google Scholar
Lampert, Günther & Martina Lampert. 2000. The conceptual structures(s) of modality: Essences and ideologies. Frankfurt/Main: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
Magnus, Gilbert. 2003. Aperçu sur les modalités en allemand. In Revue belge de philologie et d’histoire 81/3. Bruxelles, 791–796. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Palmer, F.R. 1986, 22001. Mood and modality. Cambridge: University Press.Google Scholar
Portner, Paul. 2010. Modality. Oxford: University Press.Google Scholar
Raynaud, Franziska. 1975. Les verbes de modalité en allemand contemporain. Thèse d’État, Université de Paris-Sorbonne (Paris IV). Lille 3: Atelier national de reproduction des thèses.Google Scholar
Rousseau, André. 2003. La question des verbes de modalité en allemand moderne. In Revue belge de philologie et d’histoire 81/3. Bruxelles, 611–616 and 797–823.Google Scholar
Schanen, François, & Jean-Paul Confais. 21989, 1986. Grammaire de l’allemand: formes et fonctions. Paris: Nathan.Google Scholar
Schiewe, Jürgen. 1998. Die Macht der Sprache. Eine Geschichte der Sprachkritik von der Antike bis zur Gegenwart. München: C. H. Beck.Google Scholar
Van der Auwera, Johan & Vladimir A. Plungian. 1998. Modality’s semantic map. In Linguistic Typologie 2. 79–124.Google Scholar
Weinrich, Harald. 1993. Textgrammatik der deutschen Sprache. Mannheim / Leipzig / Wien / Zürich: Dudenverlag.Google Scholar
Zifonun, Gisela, Hoffmann, Ludger & Strecker, Bruno. 1997. Grammatik der deutschen Sprache. Berlin / New York: Walter de Gruyter [= Schriften des Instituts für deutsche Sprache]. DOI logoGoogle Scholar