Cover not available
Part of
Reorganising Grammatical Variation: Diachronic studies in the retention, redistribution and refunctionalisation of linguistic variants
Edited by Antje Dammel, Matthias Eitelmann and Mirjam Schmuck
[Studies in Language Companion Series 203] 2018
► pp. 231–268

Manner of motion and semantic transitivity

A usage-based perspective on change and continuity in the system of the German perfect auxiliaries haben and sein

| University of Hamburg
Based on a corpus of the major Old High German texts and a corpus of contemporary German newspapers, the paper shows that the German auxiliary system is characterised by both continuity and change. While transitivity proves to be a stable predictor of haben selection throughout German language history, auxiliary selection of intransitive verbs has been partly reorganised. At the expense of telicity, the sein perfect became productive within the intransitive group of manner of motion verbs. This reorganisation of the distributional contexts will be explained in terms of entrenchment. Based on several highly frequent motion verbs such as gehen ‘go’, an abstract schema has evolved which systematically connects manner of motion semantics and sein selection. However, semantic transitivity proves to be an antagonist to this recently entrenched manner of motion schema. Highly transitive manner of motion verbs disallow sein selection. The incidence of the haben perfect rises with increasing transitivity. Here, the patienthood of the direct object turns out to be crucial, with individuation being particularly important.
Keywords: auxiliary selection, semantic transitivity, entrenchment, usage-based approach
Article outline
  • 1.Entrenchment, productivity, and reorganisation
  • 2.Cross-linguistic accounts of auxiliary selection: Prototype Approach and Auxiliary Selection Hierarchy
  • 3.Auxiliary selection in German language history
    • 3.1Corpus study of have and be + V-PP in Old Germanic texts
    • 3.2The role of telicity in the auxiliary selection of Early New High German manner of motion verbs
  • 4.Corpus study on auxiliary selection in contemporary German
    • 4.1Auxiliary selection of intransitive manner of motion verbs: Entrenchment due to high token frequency
    • 4.2Productivity of manner of motion semantics and entrenchment of an abstract schema
    • 4.3 Haben selection and high transitivity
      • 4.3.1 Clear haben selection in highly transitive sentences
      • 4.3.2Varying auxiliaries with objects ambiguous between patient and incorporation
      • 4.3.3Abstract nouns: Sein selection due to intransitivity
      • 4.3.4Path accusatives: Strongest sein preference in the corpus
  • 5.Summary: Manner of motion semantics and transitivity in contemporary German
  • Notes
  • Corpora
  • References
Published online: 24 October 2018
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/slcs.203.09gil
References (57)
Corpora
German Reference Corpus ( Deutsches Referenzkorpus DeReKo): <[URL]> (20 July 2014).
Heliand and Genesis = Taeger, Burkhard. 1996. Der Heliand. Studienausgabe in Auswahl. Tübingen: Niemeyer.Google Scholar
Isidor = Eggers, Hans (ed.). 1964. Der althochdeutsche Isidor. Nach der Pariser Handschrift und den Monseer Fragmenten [Altdeutsche Textbibliothek Tübingen ATB]. Tübingen: Niemeyer.Google Scholar
Otfrid = Haubrichs, Wolfgang, Heuser, Rita & Kleiber, Wolfgang (eds). 2004–2010. Otfrid. Evangelienbuch, 2 Vols. Tübingen: Niemeyer.Google Scholar
Tatian = Masser, Achim (ed.). 1994. Die lateinisch-althochdeutsche Tatianbilingue Stiftsbibliothek St. Gallen Cod. 56 [Studien zum Althochdeutschen 25]. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck und Ruprecht.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
References
Abbot-Smith, Kirsten & Tomasello, Michael. 2006. Exemplar-learning and schematization in a usage-based account of syntactic acquisition. The Linguistic Review 23: 275–290.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Blumenthal-Dramé, Alice. 2012. Entrenchment in Usage-Based Theories. What Corpus Data do and do not Reveal about the Mind. Berlin: De Gruyter.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2017. Entrenchment from a psycholinguistic and neurolinguistic perspective. In Entrenchment and the Psychology of Language Learning, Hans-Jörg Schmid (ed.), 129–152. Boston, MA: APA and Walter de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Booij, Geert. 2010. Construction Morphology. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
Bybee, Joan. 2010. Language, Usage and Cognition. Cambridge: CUP.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2013. Usage-based theory and exemplar representation. In The Oxford Handbook of Construction Grammar, Thomas Hoffmann & Graeme Trousdale (eds), 49–69. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
Comrie, Bernard. 1989. Language Universals and Linguistic Typology: Syntax and Morphology, 2nd ed. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Croft, William A. 2001. Radical Construction Grammar. Syntactic Theory in Typological Perspective. Oxford: OUP.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dentler, Sigrid. 1997. Zur Perfekterneuerung im Mittelhochdeutschen. Die Erweiterung des zeitreferentiellen Funktionsbereichs von Perfektfügungen. Göteborg: Acta Universitatis Gothoburgensis.Google Scholar
Eggers, Hans. 1987. Uuard quhoman und das System der zusammengesetzten Verbformen im althochdeutschen Isidor. In Althochdeutsch, Bd. 1: Grammatik, Glossen und Texte, Rolf Bergmann, Heinrich Tiefenbach & Lothar Voetz (eds), 239–252. Heidelberg: Winter.Google Scholar
Eroms, Hans-Werner. 1997. Verbale Paarigkeit im Althochdeutschen und das “Tempussystem” im Isidor. Zeitschrift für deutsches Altertum und Literatur 126: 1–31.Google Scholar
Gillmann, Melitta. 2015. Auxiliary selection in closely related languages. The case of German and Dutch. In Auxiliary Selection Revisited. Gradience and Gradualness, Malte Rosemeyer & Rolf Kailuweit (eds), 333–358. Berlin: De Gruyter.Google Scholar
. 2016. Die Perfektkonstruktionen haben + V-PP und sein + V-PP aus gebrauchsbasierter Perspektive. Eine Korpusuntersuchung im Althochdeutschen, Altsächsischen und Neuhochdeutschen. Berlin: De Gruyter.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Goldberg, Adele E. 1995. Constructions. A Construction Grammar Approach to Argument Structure. Chicago IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Goldberg, Adele. 2006. Constructions at Work. The Nature of Generalization in Language. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
. 2009. The nature of generalization in language. Cognitive Linguistics 20(2): 93–127.Google Scholar
Grønvik, Ottar. 1986. Über den Ursprung und die Entwicklung der aktiven Perfekt- und Plusquamperfektkonstruktionen des Hochdeutschen und ihre Eigenart innerhalb des germanischen Sprachraumes. Oslo: Solo Forlag.Google Scholar
Hopper, Paul J. & Thompson, Sandra. 1980. Transitivity in grammar and discourse. Language 56(2): 251–299.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hilpert, Martin. 2013. Constructional Change in English. Developments in Allomorphy, Word Formation, and Syntax. Cambridge: CUP.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hilpert, Martin & Diessel, Holger. 2017. Entrenchment in Construction Grammar. In Entrenchment and the Psychology of Language Learning, Hans-Jörg Schmid (ed.), 57–74. Boston MA: APA and Walter de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Köpcke, Klaus-Michael. 1999. Prototypisch starke und schwache Verben in der deutschen Gegenwartssprache. In Variation und Stabilität in der Wortstruktur. Untersuchungen zu Entwicklung, Erwerb und Varietäten des Deutschen und anderer Sprachen, Matthias Butt & Nanna Fuhrhop (eds), 45–60. Hildesheim: Olms.Google Scholar
Kotin, Michail L. 1999. Die ‘Basisrelationen’ des Deutschen und die Auxiliarisierung von Haben, Sein und Werden. Zeitschrift für Deutsche Philologie (ZfdPh) 1999(3): 391–419.Google Scholar
2014. Sein. Eine genealogisch-typologische Fallstudie über das Verbum substantivum. Zeitschrift für Sprachwissenschaft (ZS) 39(1): 1–52.Google Scholar
Kratzer, Angelika. 2000. Building statives. In Proceedings of the Twenty-Sixth Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society. General Session and Parasession on Aspect (2000), Lisa J. Conathan, Jeff Good, Darya Kavitskaya, Alyssa B. Wulf & Alan C. L. Yu (eds), 385–399. Berkeley CA: BLS.Google Scholar
Kuroda, Susumu. 1997. Zum System der Partizip-II-Konstruktion im Althochdeutschen. Sprachwissenschaft 22: 287–307.Google Scholar
. 1999. Die historische Entwicklung der Perfektkonstruktionen im Deutschen. Hamburg: Buske.Google Scholar
Langacker, Ronald W. 1987. Foundations of Cognitive Grammar, Vol. 1: Theoretical Prerequisites. Stanford CA: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
2009. Cognitive Grammar: A Basic Introduction. Oxford: OUP.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lieven, Elena V. & Tomasello, Michael. 2008. Children’s first language acquisition from a usage-based perspective. In Handbook of Cognitive Linguistics and Second Language Acquisition, Peter Robinson & Nick C. Ellis (eds), 168–196. New York NY: Routledge.Google Scholar
Lindgren, Kaj. 1957. Über den oberdeutschen Präteritumsschwund. Helsinki: Suomalaisen Tiedeakatemia.Google Scholar
Leiss, Elisabeth. 1992. Die Verbalkategorien des Deutschen. Ein Beitrag zur Theorie der sprachlichen Kategorisierung. Berlin: De Gruyter.Google Scholar
Matthews, Danielle, Lieven, Elena, Theakston, Anna & Tomasello, Michael. 2005. The role of frequency in the acquisition of English word order. Cognitive Development 20(1): 121–136.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
McCawley, James D. 1971. Tense and time reference in English. In Studies in Linguistic Semantics, Charles J. Fillmore & Terence Langendoen (eds), 96–113. New York NY: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.Google Scholar
1981. Notes on the English present perfect. Australian Journal of Linguistics 1: 81–90.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Oubouzar, Erika. 1974. Über die Ausbildung der zusammengesetzten Verbformen im deutschen Verbalsystem. Beiträge zur Geschichte der deutschen Sprache und Literatur 95: 5–96.Google Scholar
Paul, Hermann. 1902. Die Umschreibung des Perfektums im Deutschen mit haben und sein. Abhandlungen der Bayerischen Akademie der Wissenschaften: 161–210.Google Scholar
Parsons, Terence. 1990. Events in the Semantics of English. A Study in Subatomic Semantics. Cambridge MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
Randall, Janet, van Hout, Angeliek, Weissenborn, Jürgen & Baayen, Harald. 2004. Acquiring unaccusativity. A cross-linguistic look. In The Unaccusativity Puzzle. Explorations of the Syntax-Lexicon Interface, Artemis Alexiadou, Elena Anagnostopoulou & Martin Everaert (eds), 332–353. Oxford: OUP.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Rosemeyer, Malte. 2014. Auxiliary Selection in Spanish. Gradience, Gradualness, and Conservation [Studies in Language Companion Series 155]. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sapp, Christopher. 2011. Auxiliary selection in the Early New High German perfect tenses. Groninger Arbeiten zur Germanistischen Linguistik 53(2): 29–43.Google Scholar
Schmid, Hans-Jörg. 2017. A framework for understanding linguistic entrenchment and its psychological foundations in memory and automatization. In Entrenchment and the Psychology of Language Learning, Hans-Jörg Schmid (ed.), 9–35. Boston MA: APA and Walter de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Shannon, Thomas. 1990. The unaccusative hypothesis and the history of the perfect auxiliary in Germanic and Romance. In Historical Linguistics 1987. Papers from the 8th International Conference on Historical Linguistics (8. ICHL): Lille, 31 August-4 September 1987 [Current Issues in Linguistic Theory 66] Henning Andersen & Konrad Koerner (eds), 461–488. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 1993. To be or not to be in Dutch. A cognitive account of some puzzling perfect auxiliary phenomena. In The Low Countries and Beyond, Robert Kirsner (ed.), 85–96. Lanham MD: University Press of America.Google Scholar
. 1995. Toward a cognitive explanation of perfect auxiliary variation. Some modal and aspectual effects in the history of Germanic. American Journal of Germanic Linguistics & Literatures 7(2): 129–163.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Smith, Aaron. 2007. Language use and auxiliary selection in the perfect. In Split Auxiliary Systems. A Cross-Linguistic Perspective [Typological Studies in Language 69], Raúl Aranovich (ed.), 255–270. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sorace, Antonella. 2000. Gradients in auxiliary selection with intransitive verbs. Language 76(4): 859–890.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2004. Gradience at the lexicon-syntax interface. Evidence from auxiliary selection. In The Unaccusativity Puzzle. Explorations of the Syntax-Lexicon Interface, Artemis Alexiadou, Eleba Anagnostopoulou, Martin Everaert (eds), 243–268. Oxford: OUP.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2011. Gradience in split intransitivity. The end of the unaccusative hypothesis? Archivio Glottologico Italiano (AGI) 96(1): 67–86.Google Scholar
Traugott, Elisabeth Closs & Trousdale, Graeme. 2013. Constructionalization and Constructional Change. Oxford: OUP.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Tomasello, Michael. 2003. Constructing a Language: A Usage-Based Theory of Language Acquisition. Cambridge MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Zeman, Sonja. 2010. Tempus und ‘Mündlichkeit’ im Mittelhochdeutschen. Zur Interdependenz grammatischer Perspektivensetzung und ‘Historischer Mündlichkeit’ im mittelhochdeutschen Tempussystem. Berlin: De Gruyter.DOI logoGoogle Scholar