Chapter published in:
Germanic GenitivesEdited by Tanja Ackermann, Horst J. Simon and Christian Zimmer
[Studies in Language Companion Series 193] 2018
► pp. 65–89
On the motivation of genitive‑s omission in Contemporary German
Christian Zimmer | FU Berlin
In Contemporary German strong, masculine and neuter nouns in genitive phrases either take a suffix (‑s or -es) or remain uninflected for case (e.g. Nutzung d-es Internet‑s vs. Nutzung d-es Internet-Ø, ‘use of the-gen.sg internet-gen.sg/Ø’). This paper is concerned with a corpus-based description of this variation on the basis of which an explanation of the phenomenon is given. Using data taken from synchronic and diachronic corpora (
DECOW2012
and Deutsches Textarchiv) and psycholinguistic evidence from a self-paced reading task it is shown that there is a functional motivation for the fact that a well-delimited group of nouns (i.e. peripheral nouns, such as loan words, abbreviations and proper names) tend to remain uninflected for case whilst prototypical German nouns are almost always inflected for genitive case. This variation results from the competition between two motivations: syntactic agreement on the one hand and a hitherto not very well described factor called morphological schema constancy on the other hand. The latter refers to the maintenance of word form stability e.g. through the avoidance of inflectional suffixes. However, these motivations are weighted differently depending on the nature of the noun in question: Since syntactic agreement is still important for the grammatical system, prototypical nouns are unaffected by ‑s omission. Thus, in general, the genitive singular resists the general German(ic) tendency towards a reduction of nominal case markers so far.
Published online: 26 April 2018
https://doi.org/10.1075/slcs.193.04zim
https://doi.org/10.1075/slcs.193.04zim
References
Corpora
DECOW2012
Sources
Baumstark, Eduard
Schmoller, Gustav
References
Ackerman, Tanja
Ackermann, Tanja & Zimmer, Christian
Ahlsson, Lars-Erik
Bortz, Jürgen & Schuster, Christof
Bubenhofer, Noah, Hansen-Morath, Sandra & Konopka, Marek
Dammel, Antje & Gillmann, Melitta
Dressler, Wolfgang U., Mayerthaler, Willi, Panagl, Oswald & Wurzel, Wolfgang Ullrich
Eichinger, Ludwig M.
Fries, Norbert
Gottsched, Johann Christoph
Kern, Peter Christoph & Zutt, Herta
Köpcke, Klaus-Michael
Mayerthaler, Willi
Mugdan, Joachim
Nübling, Damaris
Nübling, Damaris, Fabian Fahlbusch & Rita Heuser
Pfeifer, Wolfgang
Primus, Beatrice
1993 Syntactic relations. In Syntax: Ein internationales Handbuch zeitgenössischer Forschung/An International Handbook of Contemporary Research [Handbücher zur Sprach- und Kommunikationswissenschaft/Handbooks of Linguistics and Communication Science 9/1], Joachim Jacobs, Arnim von Stechow, Wolfgang Sternefeld & Theo Vennemann (eds), 686–705. Berlin: De Gruyter.
Ronneberger-Sibold, Elke
Schäfer, Roland
In press. Prototype-driven alternations: The case of German weak nouns. Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory.
Schäfer, Roland & Bildhauer, Felix
Schottel, Justus Georg
Scott, Alan K.
Szczepaniak, Renata
Wegener, Heide
Wegera, Klaus-Peter & Sandra Waldenberger
Wiedenmann, Nora
Wurzel, Wolfgang Ullrich
Zimmer, Christian
In press. Die Markierung des Genitiv(s). Empirie und theoretische Implikationen von morphologischer Variation [Reihe Germanistische Linguistik]. Berlin: De Gruyter
Cited by
Cited by other publications
Ackermann, Tanja
Döhmer, Caroline
Gallmann, Peter
Schlücker, Barbara
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.