Chapter published in:
Morphological Variation: Theoretical and empirical perspectives
Edited by Antje Dammel and Oliver Schallert
[Studies in Language Companion Series 207] 2019
► pp. 2762
References

Corpora

Deutsches Textarchiv (DTA)
Ackermann, Tanja
2018aFrom genitive inflection to possessive marker? The development of German possessive -s with personal names. In Germanic Genitives [Studies in Language Companion Series 193], Tanja Ackermann, Horst J. Simon & Christian Zimmer (eds), 189–230. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2018bGrammatik der Namen im Wandel. Diachrone Morphosyntax der Personennamen im Deutschen [Studia Linguistica Germanica 134]. Berlin: De Gruyter.Google Scholar
Ackermann, Tanja & Zimmer, Christian
2017Morphologische Schemakonstanz. Eine empirische Untersuchung zum funktionalen Vorteil nominalmorphologischer Wortschonung im Deutschen. In Sichtbare und hörbare Morphologie [Linguistische Arbeiten 565], Nanna Fuhrhop, Karsten Schmidt & Renata Szczepaniak (eds), 145–176. Berlin: De Gruyter. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Allen, Cynthia L.
1997The origins of the group genitive in English. Transactions of the Philological Society 95: 111–131. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2003Deflexion and the development of the genitive in English. English Language and Linguistics 7: 1–28. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Anderson, Stephen R.
2005Aspects of the Theory of Clitics. Oxford: OUP. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2008The English “group genitive” is a special clitic. English Linguistics 25(1): 1–20. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2013The marker of the English “Group Genitive” is a special clitic, not an inflection. In Morphosyntactic Categories and the Expression of Possession [Linguistics Today 199], Kersti Börjars, David Denison & Alan K. Scott (eds), 193–217. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Askedal, John Ole
2003Grammaticalization and the historical development of the genitive in Mainland Scandinavian. In Papers from the 15th International Conference on Historical Linguistics [Current Issues in Linguistic Theory 237], Barry J. Blake & Kate Burridge (eds), 21–32. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
2008“Degrammaticalization” versus typology: Reflections on a strained relationship. In Grammatical Change and Linguistic Theory: The Rosendal Papers [Linguistics Today 113], Thórhallur Eythórsson (ed.), 45–77. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Booij, Geert
2010Construction Morphology. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
Börjars, Kersti
2003Morphological status and (de)grammaticalisation: The Swedish possessive. Nordic Journal of Linguistics 26(2): 133–163. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Börjars, Kersti, Denison, David, Krajewski, Grzegorz & Scott, Alan
2013Expression of possession in English. The significance of the right edge. In Morphosyntactic Categories and the Expression of Possession [Linguistics Today 199], Kersti Börjars, David Denison & Alan K. Scott (eds), 123–148. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Börjars, Kersti, Vincent, Nigel & Walkden, George
2015On constructing a theory of grammatical change. Transactions of the Philological Society 113(3): 363–382. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Bücking, Sebastian
2012Kompositional flexibel. Partizipianten und Modifikatoren in der Nominaldomäne [Studien zur Deutschen Grammatik 83]. Tübingen: Stauffenburg.Google Scholar
Campe, Petra
2013Word order restrictions in adnominal constructions: the case of the German pre- versus postnominal genitive. In The Genitive [Case and Grammatical Relations Across Languages 5], Anne Carlier & Jean-Christophe Verstraete (eds), 255–297. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Carstairs, Andrew
1987Diachronic evidence and the affix-clitic distinction. In Papers from the 7th International Conference on Historical Linguistics [Current Issues in Linguistic Theory 48], Anna Giacalone Ramat, Onofrio Carruba & Giuliano Bernini (eds), 151–162. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Dammel, Antje & Nübling, Damaris
2006The superstable marker as an indicator of categorial weakness? Folia Linguistica 40: 97–113. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Demske, Ulrike
2001Merkmale und Relationen. Diachrone Studien zur Nominalphrase im Deutschen [Studia Linguistica Germanica 56]. Berlin: De Gruyter. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Denison, David, Scott, Alan K. & Börjars, Kersti
2010The real distribution of the English “group genitive”. Studies in Language 34(3): 532–564. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Duden
2016Die Grammatik [Duden, Vol. 4]. Berlin: Dudenverlag.Google Scholar
Fuß, Eric
2011Eigennamen und adnominaler Genitiv im Deutschen. Linguistische Berichte 225: 19–42.Google Scholar
Gallmann, Peter
1996Die Steuerung der Flexion in der DP. Linguistische Berichte 164: 283–314.Google Scholar
Gries, Stefan T.
2014Frequency tables: Tests, effect sizes, and explorations. In Corpus Methods for Semantics: Quantitative Studies in Polysemy and Synonymy [Human Cognitive Processing 43], Dylan Glynn & Justyna A. Robinson (eds), 365–389. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Harnisch, Rüdiger
2001Grundform- und Stamm-Prinzip in der Substantivmorphologie des Deutschen. Synchronische und diachronische Untersuchung eines typologischen Parameters [Germanistische Bibliothek 10]. Heidelberg: Winter.Google Scholar
Hartmann, Katharina & Zimmermann, Malte
2003Syntactic and semantic adnominal genitive. In (A-)symmetrien – (A)-symmetries. Beiträge zu Ehren von Ewald Lang, Claudia Maienborn (ed.), 171–202. Tübingen: Stauffenburg.Google Scholar
Hentschel, Elke
1994Entwickeln sich im Deutschen Possessiv-Adjektive? Der -s-Genetiv bei Eigennamen. In Satz – Text – Diskurs. Akten des 27. Linguistischen Kolloquiums, Münster 1992 , Vol. 1 [Linguistische Arbeiten 312], Susanne Beckmann & Sabine Frilling (eds), 17–25. Tübingen: Niemeyer. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Herslund, Michael
2001The Danish -s genitive: From affix to clitic. Acta Linguistica Hafniensia 33(1): 7–18. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Hopper, Paul & Traugott, Elizabeth C.
1993Grammaticalization. Cambridge: CUP.Google Scholar
Janda, Richard
1980On the decline of declensional systems: the loss of OE nominal case and the ME reanalysis of -es and his . In Papers from the 4th International Conference on Historical Linguistics [Current Issues in Linguistic Theory 14], Elizabeth Traugott, Rebecca Labrum & Susan C. Shepard (eds), 243–252. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Kasper, Simon
2015Linking syntax and semantics of adnominal possession in the history of German. In Language Change at the Syntax-Semantics Interface [Trends in Linguistics – Studies and Monographs 278], Chiara Gianollo, Agnes Jäger & Doris Penka (eds), 57–99. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.Google Scholar
Koptjevskaja-Tamm, Maria
2001Adnominal possession. In Language Typology and Language Universals, Vol. 2 [Handbook of Linguistics and Communication Science 20.2], Martin Haspelmath, Ekkehard König, Wulff Oesterreicher & Wolfgang Raible (eds), 960–970. Berlin: De Gruyter.Google Scholar
Lass, Roger
1990How to do things with junk: Exaptation in language evolution. Journal of Linguistics 26: 79–102. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Lehmann, Christian
2015 [1982] Thoughts on Grammaticalization [Classics in Linguistics 1], 3rd edn. Berlin: Language Science Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Lindauer, Thomas
1998Attributive genitive constructions in German. In Possessors, Predicates and Movement in the Determiner Phrase [Linguistics Today 22], Artemis Alexiadou & Chris Wilder (eds), 109–140. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Meibauer, Jörg
2007How marginal are phrasal compounds? Generalized insertion, expressivity, and I/Q-interaction. Morphology 17(2): 233–259. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Neef, Martin
2006Die Genitivflexion von artikellos verwendbaren Eigennamen als syntaktisch konditionierte Allomorphie. Zeitschrift für Sprachwissenschaft 25(2): 273–299. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Norde, Muriel
1997The History of the Genitive in Swedish. A Case Study in Degrammaticalization. PhD dissertation, University of Amsterdam.Google Scholar
2006Demarcating degrammaticalization: The Swedish s-genitive revisited. Nordic Journal of Linguistics 29(2): 201–238. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2009Degrammaticalization. Oxford: OUP. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2011Degrammaticalization. In The Oxford Handbook of Grammaticalization, Bernd Heine & Heiko Narrog (eds), 475–487. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
Nowak, Jessica & Nübling, Damaris
2017Schwierige Lexeme und ihre Flexive im Konflikt: Hör- und sichtbare Wortschonungsstrategien. In Sichtbare und hörbare Morphologie [Linguistische Arbeiten 565], Nanna Fuhrhop, Renata Szczepaniak & Karsten Schmidt (eds), 113–144. Berlin: De Gruyter. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Nübling, Damaris
1992Klitika im Deutschen. Schriftsprache, Umgangssprache, alemannische Dialekte [Script Oralia 42]. Tübingen: Narr.Google Scholar
2012Auf dem Weg zu Nicht-Flektierbaren: Die Deflexion der deutschen Eigennamen diachron und synchron. In Nicht-flektierte und nicht-flektierbare Wortarten [Linguistik – Impulse und Tendenzen 47], Björn Rothstein (ed.), 224–246. Berlin: De Gruyter. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2014Sprachverfall? Sprachliche Evolution am Beispiel des diachronen Funktionszuwachses des Apostrophs im Deutschen. In Sprachverfall? Dynamik – Wandel – Variation [Jahrbuch 2013 des Instituts Für Deutsche Sprache], Albrecht Plewnia & Andreas Witt (eds), 99–123. Berlin: De Gruyter. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
O’Connor, Catherine, Maling, Joan & Skarabela, Barbora
2013Nominal categories and the expression of possession. A cross-linguistic study of probabilistic tendencies and categorical constraints. In Morphosyntactic Categories and the Expression of Possession [Linguistics Today 199], Kersti Börjars, David Denison & Alan K. Scott (eds), 89–121. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Pafel, Jürgen
2015Phrasal compounds are compatible with Lexical Integrity. STUF – Language Typology and Universals 68(3): 263–280.Google Scholar
Paul, Hermann
1917Deutsche Grammatik, Band II. Teil III: Flexionslehre . Halle (Saale): Niemeyer.Google Scholar
Plank, Frans
2011Differential time stability in categorial change. Family names from nouns and adjectives, illustrated from German. Journal of Historical Linguistics 1(2): 269–292. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Rauth, Philipp
2014Die Entstehung von s-Plural und “Sächsischem Genitiv”. Familien- und Personennamen als Brückenkonstruktionen. Beiträge zur Geschichte der deutschen Sprache und Literatur (PBB) 136(3): 341–373. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Rosenbach, Anette
2004The Englisch s-genitive: A case of degrammaticalization? In Up and Down the Cline – The Nature of Grammaticalization [Typological Studies in Language 59], Olga Fischer, Muriel Norde & Harry Perridon (eds), 73–96. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2008Animacy and grammatical variation – Findings from English genitive variation. Lingua 118(2): 151–171. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Schäfer, Roland & Bildhauer, Felix
2012Building large corpora from the web using a new efficient tool chain. Proceedings of the LREC 2012 20–27 May 2012, 486–493. Istanbul.Google Scholar
Schallert, Oliver
In press. Portrait of the clitic as a young affix: Infinitivisches zu im Niemandsland zwischen Morphologie und Syntax. In Syntax aus Saarbrücker Sicht 3. Beiträge der SaRDiS-Tagung zur Dialektsyntax [Zeitschrift für Dialektologie und Linguistik - Beihefte], Augustin Speyer & Julia Hertel eds Stuttgart Steiner
Scherer, Carmen
2010Das Deutsche und seine dräuenden Apostrophe. Zur Verbreitung von ’s im Gegenwartsdeutschen. Zeitschrift für germanistische Linguistik 38: 1–24. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Scott, Alan K.
2014The Genitive Case in Dutch and German. A Study of Morphosyntactic Change in Codified Languages [Brill’s Studies in Historical Linguistics 2]. Leiden: Brill.Google Scholar
Simon, Horst J.
2010“Exaptation” in der Sprachwandeltheorie. Eine Begriffspräzisierung. In Prozesse sprachlicher Verstärkung. Typen formaler Resegmentierung und semantischer Remotivierung [Linguistik – Impulse & Tendenzen 37], Rüdiger Harnisch (ed.), 41–57. Berlin: De Gruyter.Google Scholar
Spencer, Andrew & Luís, Ana R.
2012Clitics. An Introduction. Cambridge: CUP. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Steche, Theodor
1927Die neuhochdeutsche Wortbiegung unter besonderer Berücksichtigung der Sprachentwicklung im 19. Jahrhundert. Breslau: Hirt.Google Scholar
Traugott, Elizabeth C. & Trousdale, Graeme
2013Constructionalization and Constructional Changes. Oxford: OUP. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Trousdale, Graeme & Norde, Muriel
2013Degrammaticalization and constructionalization: two case studies. In Current Trends in Grammaticalization Research. Special issue [Language Sciences 36], Muriel Norde, Alexandra Lenz & Karin Beijering (eds), 32–46.Google Scholar
Van de Velde, Freek & Norde, Muriel
2016Exaptation. Taking stock of a controversial notion in linguistics. In Exaptation and Language Change [Current Issues in Linguistic Theory 336], Muriel Norde & Freek Van de Velde (eds), 1–35. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Vezzosi, Letizia
2000The history of the genitive in Dutch: An evidence of the interference between language standardisation and spontaneous drift. Studia Germanica Posnaniensia 26: 115–147.Google Scholar
Vincent, Nigel & Börjars, Kersti
2010Grammaticalization and models of language change. In Gradience, Gradualness and Grammaticalization [Typological Studies in Language 90], Elizabeth Closs Traugott & Graeme Trousdale (eds), 279–299. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Wälchli, Bernhard
2005Co-Compounds and Natural Coordination. Oxford: OUP. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Wegera, Klaus-Peter, Waldenberger, Sandra & Lemke, Ilka
2018Deutsch diachron. Eine Einführung in den Sprachwandel des Deutschen, 2nd edn. [Grundlagen der Germanistik 52]. Berlin: Erich Schmidt.Google Scholar
Weiß, Helmut
2008The possessor that appears twice. Variation, structure and function of possessive doubling in German. In Microvariation in Syntactic Doubling [Syntax and Semantics 36], Sief Barbiers, Olaf Koeneman, Maria Lekakou & Margreet van der Ham (eds), 381–401. Bingley: Emerald.Google Scholar
Wurzel, Wolfgang Ullrich
1987System-dependent morphological naturalness in inflection. In Leitmotifs in Natural Morphology [Studies in Language Companion Series 10], Wolfgang Dressler, Willi Mayerthaler, Oswald Panagl & Wolfgang Ullrich Wurzel (eds), 59–96. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Zifonun, Gisela
2001Eigennamen in der Narrenschlacht. Oder: Wie man Walther von der Vogelweide in den Genitiv setzt. Sprachreport 3: 2–5.Google Scholar
2005Der Dativ ist dem Genitiv sein Tod: zur Analyse des adnominalen possessiven Dativs. In Deutsche Syntax: Empirie und Theorie. Symposium in Göteborg 13.–15. Mai 2004 [Göteborger Germanistische Forschungen 46], Franz Josef d’Avis (ed.), 25–51. Göteborg: Acta Universitatis Gothoburgensis.Google Scholar
Zwicky, Arnold
1977On Clitics. Bloomington IA: Indiana University Linguistics Club.Google Scholar
1987Suppressing the Zs. Journal of Linguistics 23: 133–148. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
1988Direct reference to heads. Folia Linguistica 22(3–4): 397–404.Google Scholar
Zwicky, Arnold & Pullum, Geoffrey K.
1983Cliticization vs. inflection: English n’t . Language 59(3): 502–513. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Cited by

Cited by 1 other publications

Ackermann, Tanja
2021. Pre- and postnominal onymic genitives in (Early) New High German. Journal of Historical Linguistics 11:3  pp. 499 ff. Crossref logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 10 october 2022. 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.