Cover not available
Part of
Walking on the Grammaticalization Path of the Definite Article: Functional Main and Side Roads
Edited by Renata Szczepaniak and Johanna Flick
[Studies in Language Variation 23] 2020
► pp. 161–196

Absence as evidence

Determination and coordination ellipsis in conjoined noun phrases in (Early) New High German

In simple noun phrases, the generalization of definiteness marking to all kinds of head nouns was well-advanced by the Early New High German period (ENHG). In conjoined noun phrases, however, coordination ellipsis of determiners was common and subject to fewer restrictions than in Modern Standard German (MSG). A corpus analysis reveals a there-and-back change in the frequency of coordination ellipsis within ENHG and early NHG and a substantial structural change in its conditioning towards MSG. The semantic and pragmatic regularities favouring coordination ellipsis across diverging grammatical features in (E)NHG can be described in terms of natural coordination (the probability of concepts to co-occur). Towards MSG, formal constraints on morphosyntactic feature combinations (gender, number) prevail. A possible explanation combines internal and external factors: grammaticalization and codification. Methodologically, it turns out fruitful to regard not only the spread of a new gram, but also constructions favouring its absence.
Keywords: grammaticalization, determiners, definiteness, noun phrase, coordination, ellipsis, natural coordination, German, (Early) New High German, Modern Standard German
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Corpus analysis
    • 2.1Modern Standard German
    • 2.2(Early) New High German (1350–1800)
  • 3.Natural coordination as a conditioning factor of coordination ellipsis
  • 4.Coordination ellipsis and grammaticalization of determiners
    • 4.1Internal factors: From semantic-pragmatic to morphosyntactic conditioning
    • 4.2Social factors: Obligatorifiation by codification and stigmatization?
  • 5.Conclusion: Mind the gap
  • Acknowledgements
  • Notes
  • References
Published online: 8 April 2020
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/silv.23.06dam
References (74)
References
Ágel, Vilmos. 2000. “Syntax des Neuhochdeutschen bis zur Mitte des 20. Jahrhunderts [Syntax of Early New High German to the mid 20th century].” In Sprachgeschichte. Ein Handbuch zur Geschichte der deutschen Sprache und ihrer Erforschung [Language history. A handbook on the history of the German language and its analysis]. 2. ed., vol. 2 (HSK 2.2), ed. by Werner Besch et al., 1855–1903. Berlin/New York: Walter de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Ágel, Vilmos, and Mathilde Hennig (eds). 2006. Grammatik aus Nähe und Distanz. Theorie und Praxis am Beispiel von Nähetexten 1650–2000 [Grammar from closeness and distance. Theory and practice exemplified by texts of closeness 1650–2000]. Berlin/New York: Walter de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ágel, Vilmos. 2007. “Was ist »grammatische Aufklärung« in einer Schriftkultur? Die Parameter ›Aggregation‹ und ›Integration‹ [What is »grammatical elucidation« in a literate culture? The parametres ›aggregation‹ and ›integration‹].” In Was heißt linguistische Aufklärung? Sprachauffassungen zwischen Systemvertrauen und Benutzerfürsorge [What does linguistic elucidation mean? Language conceptions between reliance on the system and care for users], ed. by Helmuth Feilke, Clemens Knobloch, and Paul-Ludwig Völzing, 39–57. Heidelberg: Synchron.Google Scholar
Auer, Peter. 2014. “Sentences and their Symbiotic Guests. Notes on Analepsis from the Perspective of Online Syntax.” Pragmatics 24 (3): 533–560 (Special Issue: Approaches to Grammar for Interactional Linguistics, ed. by Ritva Laury, Marja Etelämäki, and Elizabeth Couper-Kuhlen). DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bergmann, Rolf. 1999. “Zur Herausbildung der deutschen Substantivgroßschreibung [On the evolution of German noun capitalization].” In Das Frühneuhochdeutsche als sprachgeschichtliche Epoche [Early New High German as a period in language history], ed. by Walter Hoffmann et al., 59–79. Frankfurt a.M. etc.: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
Besch, Werner. 1980. “Frühneuhochdeutsch [Early New High German].” In Lexikon der germanistischen Linguistik [Handbook of German linguistics], ed. by Hans P. Althaus et al., 588–597. Tübingen: Niemeyer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Betten, Anne. 1987. Grundzüge der Prosasyntax. Stilprägende Entwicklungen vom Althochdeutschen zum Neuhochdeutschen [Foundations of prose syntax. Developments shaping style from Old High German to New High German]. Tübingen: Max Niemeyer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Birkenes, Magnus Breder, Kleopatra Chroni, and Jürg Fleischer. 2014. “Genus- und Sexuskongruenz im Neuhochdeutschen. Ergebnisse einer Korpusuntersuchung zur narrativen Prosa des 17. bis 19. Jahrhunderts [Grammatical and natural gender agreement in New High German …].” Deutsche Sprache 42: 1–24.Google Scholar
Bisang, Walter. 2014. “Overt versus hidden complexity – two types of complexity and their implications.” Poznan Studies in Contemporary Linguistics 50 (2): 127–143. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Blatz, Friedrich. 1896. Neuhochdeutsche Grammatik mit Berücksichtigung der historischen Entwickelung der deutschen Sprache. Zweiter Band: Satzlehre (Syntax) [New High German Grammar with regard to the historical development of the German language, vol. 2: syntax]. Karlsruhe: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
Breitbarth, Anne. 2005. Live fast die young. The short life of Early Modern German auxiliary ellipsis. Utrecht: LOT Publications.Google Scholar
Czicza, Dániel, and Mathilde Hennig. 2013. “Aggregation, Integration und Sprachwandel [Aggregation, integration and language change].” In Sprachwandel im Neuhochdeutschen [Language change in New High German], ed. by Petra Maria Vogel, 1–34. Berlin/Boston: Walter de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Dammel, Antje. 2015. “One plus one make(s) – what? Determinants of verb agreement in German NP+NP coordination – A diachronic approach.” In Agreement from a diachronic perspective, ed. by Jürg Fleischer, Elisabeth Rieken, and Paul Widmer, 287–326. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Demske, Ulrike. 2001. Merkmale und Relationen [Features and relations]. Berlin/New York: Walter de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Elspaß, Stefan. 2005. “Language norm and language reality. Effectiveness and limits of prescriptivism in New High German.” In Linguistic Purism in the Germanic languages, ed. by Nils Langer and Winifred V. Davies, 20–45. Berlin/New York: Walter de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Erben, Johannes. 1970. “Frühneuhochdeutsch [Early New High German].” In Kurzer Grundriß der germanischen Philologie bis 1500, Bd. 1: Sprachgeschichte [Short sketch of Germanic philology until 1500, vol. 1: language history], ed. by Ludwig Erich Schmitt, 386–440. Berlin/New York: Walter de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Findreng, Ådne. 1976. Zur Kongruenz in Person und Numerus zwischen Subjekt und finitem Verb im modernen Deutsch [On agreement in person and number between subject and finite verb in Modern German]. Oslo: Universitetsforlaget.Google Scholar
Fleischer, Jürg. 2012. “Grammatische und semantische Kongruenz in der Geschichte des Deutschen: eine diachrone Studie zu den Kongruenzformen von ahd. wīb, nhd. Weib [Grammatical and semantic agreement in the history of German: a diachronic study on the agreement forms of OHG wīb, NHG Weib ‘woman’].” Beiträge zur Geschichte der deutschen Sprache und Literatur 134: 163–203.Google Scholar
Flick, Johanna. 2017. Die Entwicklung des Definitartikels im Althochdeutschen. Eine kognitiv-linguistische Korpusuntersuchung [The development of the definite article in Old High German. A cognitive-linguistic corpus study]. Unpublished PhD thesis: Hamburg University.Google Scholar
Flick, Johanna, and Renata Szczepaniak. this volume. “Walking on the Grammaticalization Path of the Definite Article: Functional Main and Side Roads: Introduction”
Fried, Mirjam. 2010. “Grammaticalization and Lexicalization Effects in Participial Morphology: a Construction Grammar Approach to Language Change.” In Formal Evidence in Grammaticalization Research, ed. by An Van linden, Jean-Christophe Verstraete, and Kristin Davidse, 191–224. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Giesecke, Michael. 1990. “Syntax für die Augen. Strukturen der beschreibenden Fachprosa aus medientheoretischer Sicht [Syntax for the eyes. Structures of descriptive technical prose from a media-theoretical perspective]” In Neuere Forschungen zur historischen Syntax des Deutschen [Recent research on the historical syntax of German], ed. by Anne Betten. Tübingen: Niemeyer, 336–351. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 1992. Sinnenwandel Sprachwandel Kulturwandel. Studien zur Vorgeschichte der Informationsgesellschaft [Sensorial change, language change, cultural change]. Frankfurt a.M.: Suhrkamp.Google Scholar
Givon, Talmy. 1979. On understanding grammar. New York etc.: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Haiman, John. 1983. “Iconic and economic motivation.” Language 59: 781–819. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Haspelmath, Martin. 1994. “Functional categories, X-bar-theory, and grammaticalization theory.” Sprachtypologie und Universalienforschung 47 (1): 3–15.Google Scholar
Hennig, Mathilde. 2009. Nähe und Distanzierung. Verschriftlichung und Reorganisation des Nähebereichs [Closeness and distancing. Scriptualization and reorganization of the domain of closeness]. Kassel: University Press.Google Scholar
. 2010. “Aggregative Koordinationsellipsen im Neuhochdeutschen [Aggregative coordination ellipses in New High German].” In Historische Textgrammatik und historische Syntax des Deutschen. Traditionen, Innovationen, Perspektiven, vol. 2: Frühneuhochdeutsch, Neuhochdeutsch [Historical text grammar and historical syntax of German. Traditions, innovations, perspectives, vol. 2: Early New High German, New High German], ed. by Arne Ziegler, 937–963. Berlin/New York: Walter de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2015. “Ellipsen [Ellipses].” In Satz, Äußerung, Schema. Handbuch Sprachwissen [Sentence, utterance, schema. Handbook linguistic knowledge], ed. by Christa Dürscheid and Jan Georg Schneider, 279–296. Berlin/Boston: Walter de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(ed). 2013. Die Ellipse. Neue Perspektiven auf ein altes Phänomen [Ellipsis. New perspectives on an old phenomenon]. Berlin/Boston: Walter de Gruyter (Linguistik – Impulse & Tendenzen 52). DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Himmelmann, Nikolaus P. 1997. Deiktikon, Artikel, Nominalphrase: zur Emergenz syntaktischer Struktur [Deictic element, article, noun phrase: on the emergence of syntactic structure]. Tübingen: Max Niemeyer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hoffmann, Ludger. 1998. “Ellipse und Analepse [Ellipsis and analepsis].” In Grammatik und mentale Prozesse [Grammar and mental processes], ed. by Angelika Redder and Jochen Rehbein, 69–90. Tübingen: Gunter Narr.Google Scholar
Hopper, Paul J. 1991. “On some principles of grammaticization.” In Approaches to grammaticalization, ed. by Elisabeth Traugott and Bernd Heine, 17–35. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hotzenköcherle, Rudolf. 1962. “Entwicklungsgeschichtliche Grundzüge des Nhd. [Main developments in the evolution of NHG].” Wirkendes Wort 12: 321–331.Google Scholar
Hüpper, Dagmar, Elvira Topalović, and Stephan Elspaß. 2002. “Zur Entstehung und Entwicklung von Paarformeln im Deutschen [On the rise and development of binomials in German].” In Phraseologie in Raum und Zeit. Akten der 10. Tagung des Westfälischen Arbeitskreises “Phraseologie/Parömiologie“ (Münster 2001) [Phraseology in Time and space …], ed. by Elisabeth Piirainen and Ilpo Tapani Piirainen, 77–99. Hohengehren: Schneider.Google Scholar
Imsiepen, Ulrike. 1983. “Die e-Epithese bei starken Verben im Deutschen [e-epithesis in strong verbs in German].” In Exakte Sprachwandelforschung. Theoretische Beiträge, statistische Analysen und Arbeitsberichte [Exact research on language change. Theoretical contributions, statistical analyses, and working papers], ed. by Karl-Heinz Best and Jörg Kohlhase, 119–141. Göttingen: Edition Herodot.Google Scholar
Kempf, Luise. 2010. “In erober: vnd plünderung der Statt: Wie die Ellipse von Wortteilen entstand [In conquer- and pillaging of the town… How ellipsis of word parts developed].” Beiträge zur Geschichte der deutschen Sprache und Literatur 132 (3): 343–365. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
King, Tracy Holloway, and Mary Dalrymple. 2004. “Determiner Agreement and Noun Conjunction.” Journal of Linguistics 40 (1): 69–104. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Klein, Thomas. 2007. “Von der semantischen zur morphologischen Steuerung. Zum Wandel der Adjektivdeklination in althochdeutscher und mittelhochdeutscher Zeit [From semantic to morphological conditioning. Reorganization of adjective declension in Old High German and Middle High German times].” In Beiträge zur Morphologie. Germanisch, Baltisch, Ostseefinnisch [Contributions to morphology. Germanic, Baltic, Fennic], ed. by Hans Fix, 193–225. Odense: University Press of Southern Denmark. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Klein, Wolfgang. 1993. “Ellipse [Ellipsis].” In Syntax. Ein internationales Handbuch zeitgenössischer Forschung [Syntax. An international handbook of contemporary research], vol. 1, ed. by Joachim Jacobs et al., 763–799. Berlin/New York: Walter de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Koch, Peter, and Wulf Oesterreicher. 1985. “Sprache der Nähe – Sprache der Distanz. Mündlichkeit und Schriftlichkeit im Spannungsfeld von Sprachtheorie und Sprachgeschichte [Language of closeness – language of distancy. Orality and literacy in the stress field of language theory and language history].” Romanistisches Jahrbuch 36: 15–43.Google Scholar
Koch, Peter, Wulf Oesterreicher. 1994. “Schriftlichkeit und Sprache [Literacy and language].” In Schrift und Schriftlichkeit: ein interdisziplinäres Handbuch internationaler Forschung [Writing and its Use: an interdisciplinary handbook of international research], ed. by Hartmut Günther and Otto Ludwig, 587–604. Berlin/New York: Walter de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Lehmann, Christian. [1985] 2015. Thoughts on Grammaticalization, 3rd ed. Berlin: Language Science Press.Google Scholar
Maas, Utz. 2010. “Literat und orat. Grundbegriffe der Analyse geschriebener und gesprochener Sprache [Literate and orate. Basic concepts in the analysis of written and spoken language].” In Orat und literat [Orate and literate], ed. by Utz Maas, 21–150. Graz: Institut für Sprachwissenschaft.Google Scholar
Ong, Walter J. [1982] 2002. Orality and Literacy. The Technologizing of the Word. London/New York: Routledge. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Plank, Frans. 1991. “On Determiners. 1. Ellipsis and Inflections. 2. Co-occurrence of Possessives.” Eurotyp Working Paper 11, Theme 7: Noun Phrase Structure: [URL] (10/07/2017)
Polenz, Peter von. 1995. “Sprachsystemwandel und soziopragmatische Sprachgeschichte in der Sprachkultivierungsepoche [Change in the language system and sociopragmatic language history in the era of language cultivation].” In Sprachgeschichte des Neuhochdeutschen: Gegenstände, Methoden, Theorien [Language history of New High German. Subject areas, methods, theories] (RGL 156), ed. by Andreas Gardt, Klaus Mattheier, and Oskar Reichmann, 39–67. Tübingen: Max Niemeyer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ronneberger-Sibold, Elke. 1994. “Konservative Nominalflexion und ‘klammerndes Verfahren’ im Deutschen [Conservative nominal inflection and the ‘framing technique’ in German].” In Funktionale Untersuchungen zur deutschen Nominal- und Verbalmorphologie [Functional investigations on German nominal and verbal morphology], ed. by Klaus-Michael Köpcke, 115–130. Tübingen: Max Niemeyer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2010. “Die deutsche Nominalklammer. Geschichte, Funktion, typologische Bewertung [The German nominal frame. History, function, and typological evaluation].” In Historische Textgrammatik und historische Syntax des Deutschen. Traditionen, Innovationen, Perspektiven, vol. 1: Diachronie, Althochdeutsch, Mittelhochdeutsch [Historical text grammar and historical syntax of German. Traditions, innovations, perspectives. vol. 1: diachrony, Old High German, Middle High German], ed. by Arne Ziegler, 85–120. Berlin/New York: Walter de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. this volume. “The Role of the Definite Article in the Rise of the German Framing Principle: A Comparative Study of Verbal and Nominal Constructions in the Old High German Muspilli and the Old English Dream of the Rood.”
Schrodt, Richard. 2005. “Kongruenzprobleme im Numerus bei Subjekt und Prädikat: Die Termqualität geht vor [Agreement problems in number agreement with subject and predicate: term quality wins out].” In Standardvariation. Wie viel Variation verträgt die deutsche Sprache? [Standard variation. How much variation can the German language bear?], ed. by Ludwig M. Eichinger, and Werner Kallmeyer, 231–246. Berlin/New York: Walter de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Szczepaniak, Renata. 2011. Grammatikalisierung im Deutschen [Grammaticalization in German]. Tübingen: Gunter Narr.Google Scholar
Vater, Heinz. 1993. “Determinantien in koordinierten NPs [Determiners in coordinated NPs].” In Studien zur Syntax und Semantik der Nominalgruppe [Studies on the syntax and semantics of the nominal group], ed. by Marcel Vuillaume, Jean-François Marillier, and Irmtraud Behr, 65–83. Tübingen: Gunter Narr.Google Scholar
Wälchli, Bernhard. 2005. Co-compounds and natural coordination. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Zwicky, Arnold M. 1991. “Systematic vs. accidental phonological identity.” In Paradigms: the economy of inflection, ed. by Frans Plank, 113–131. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Electronic Corpora and other sources
Biblia 1545=Martin Luther. 1545. Biblia: das ist: die gantze heilige Schrifft: Deudsch. Wittenberg. Digital version: Die Luther-Bibel: Originalfassung 1545 und revidierte Fassung 1912 [Luther’s bible. Original version 1545 and revised version 1912]. Berlin: Directmedia Publishing 2000 [Digitale Bibliothek 29].Google Scholar
BonnC=Bonner Frühneuhochdeutschkorpus [Bonn Corpus of Early New High German] [URL] (18/04/2019)
GerManC=Manchester Corpus. A Representative Corpus of German 1650–1800. [URL], [URL] (18/04/2019)
Kafka, Franz. 2008. Sämtliche Werke [Collected works]. Frankfurt a.M.: Suhrkamp.Google Scholar
Prosalancelot I/ Lancelot und Ginover I, according to the Heidelberger Cod. Pal. Germ. 147, ed. by Reinhold Kluge, supplemented by Ms. allem. 8017–8020, Bibliothèque de l’Arsenal Paris, ed. by Hans-Hugo Steinhoff, Frankfurt a.M.: Deutscher Klassiker Verlag, 1995, Stuttgart: Reclam 1993, pp. 1–385. [searched via TITUS, [URL], 28/06/2014]
Grammars and guidebooks
Adelung, Johann Christian. 1782. Umständliches Lehrgebäude der Deutschen Sprache. Zur Erläuterung der Deutschen Sprachlehre für Schulen [Comprehensive teaching edifice of the German language. For explaining German grammar at schools]. 2 Bde. Leipzig: Breitkopf.Google Scholar
Aichinger, Carl Friedrich. 1754. Versuch einer teutschen Sprachlehre [Essay on a German grammar]. Wien. Reprint Hildesheim etc.: Georg Olms 1972.Google Scholar
Bauer, Heinrich. 1828. Vollständige Grammatik der neuhochdeutschen Sprache [Comprehensive Grammar of the New High German Language]. Berlin. Reprint Berlin: Walter de Gruyter 1967.Google Scholar
Blatz, Friedrich. 1896. Neuhochdeutsche Grammatik mit Berücksichtigung der historischen Entwickelung der deutschen Sprache. Zweiter Band: Satzlehre (Syntax) [New High German Grammar in consideration of the historical development of the German language. vol 2: syntax]. Karlsruhe: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
Bödiker, Johann. 1746. Grundsätze der teutschen Sprache [Foundations of the German language]. Berlin. Reprint Leipzig: Zentralantiquariat der DDR 1977.Google Scholar
Duden. Grammatik der deutschen Gegenwartssprache [Duden. Grammar of Contemporary German]. 1959. Ed. by Paul Grebe. Mannheim: Bibliographisches Institut.Google Scholar
Duden. Die Grammatik [Duden. Grammar]. 2016. 9. ed. Mannheim: Duden-Verlag.Google Scholar
Engel, Eduard. 1922. Gutes Deutsch. Ein Führer durch Falsch und Richtig [Good German. A guide through wrong and right]. Leipzig: Hesse & Becker. (accessed using ZweiDat)Google Scholar
Gottsched, Johann Christoph. 1752. Grundlegung einer deutschen Sprachkunst. Nach den Mustern der besten Schriftsteller des vorigen und jetzigen Jahrhunderts abgefasset, und bey dieser dritten Aufl. merklich vermehret [Foundation of a German grammar. Composed according to the model of the best writers of the last and present century and considerably expanded by this third edition]. Leipzig: Breitkopf.Google Scholar
Gueintz, Christian. 1641. Deutscher Sprachlehre Entwurf [Sketch of a German grammar]. Köthen. Reprint Hildesheim/New York: Georg Olms 1978.Google Scholar
Matthias, Theodor. 1929. Sprachleben und Sprachschäden. Ein Führer durch die Schwankungen und Schwierigkeiten des deutschen Sprachgebrauchs. Sechste verbesserte und vermehrte Auflage [Language life and language damages. A guide through the uncertainties and difficulties of German language use. 6th ed]. Leipzig: Brandstetter. (accessed using ZweiDat)Google Scholar
Schottelius, Justus Georg. 1641. Teutsche Sprachkunst [German grammar]. Braunschweig: Grubern.Google Scholar
Wustmann, Gustav. 1903. Allerhand Sprachdummheiten. Kleine deutsche Grammatik des Zweifelhaften, des Falschen und des Häßlichen. Ein Hilfsbuch für alle, die sich öffentlich der deutschen Sprache bedienen [All sorts of language follies. Small German grammar of the dubious, wrong and ugly. A guide for all those who use the German language in public]. 3rd revised and extended ed. Leipzig: Grunow. (accessed using ZweiDat)Google Scholar
ZweiDat=Würzburger Datenbank sprachlicher Zweifelsfälle [Würzburg database of linguistic cases of doubt] ([URL]; last accessed 18/04/2019)
Cited by (2)

Cited by two other publications

Kempf, Luise
2021. German so-relatives. In Lost in Change [Studies in Language Companion Series, 218], ► pp. 291 ff. DOI logo
[no author supplied]
2021. German so-relatives. In Lost in Change [Studies in Language Companion Series, 218], DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 29 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.