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)

References

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.Google 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.Google Scholar
Allen, Cynthia L.
1997The origins of the group genitive in English. Transactions of the Philological Society 95: 111–131.Google Scholar
2003Deflexion and the development of the genitive in English. English Language and Linguistics 7: 1–28.Google Scholar
Anderson, Stephen R.
2005Aspects of the Theory of Clitics. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
2008The English “group genitive” is a special clitic. English Linguistics 25(1): 1–20.Google Scholar
2013The marker of the English “Group Genitive” is a special clitic, not an inflection. In Morphosyntactic Categories and the Expression of Possession [Linguistik Aktuell/Linguistics Today 199], Kersti Börjars, David Denison & Alan K. Scott (eds), 193–217. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google 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 [Linguistik Aktuell/Linguistics Today 113], Thórhallur Eythórsson (ed.), 45–77. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google 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.Google Scholar
Börjars, Kersti, Denison, David, Krajewski, Grzegorz & Alan Scott
2013Expression of possession in English. The significance of the right edge. In Morphosyntactic Categories and the Expression of Possession [Linguistik Aktuell/Linguistics Today 199], Kersti Börjars, David Denison & Alan K. Scott (eds), 123–148. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Börjars, Kersti, Vincent, Nigel & Walkden, George
2015On constructing a theory of grammatical change. Transactions of the Philological Society 113(3): 363–382.Google 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.Google 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.Google Scholar
Dammel, Antje & Nübling, Damaris
2006The superstable marker as an indicator of categorial weakness? Folia Linguistica 40: 97–113.Google Scholar
Demske, Ulrike
2001Merkmale und Relationen. Diachrone Studien zur Nominalphrase im Deutschen [Studia Linguistica Germanica 56]. Berlin: De Gruyter.Google Scholar
Denison, David, Scott, Alan K. & Börjars, Kersti
2010The real distribution of the English “group genitive”. Studies in Language 34(3): 532–564.Google 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.Google 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.Google Scholar
Herslund, Michael
2001The Danish -s genitive: From affix to clitic. Acta Linguistica Hafniensia 33(1): 7–18.Google 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.Google Scholar
Lehmann, Christian
2015[1982] Thoughts on Grammaticalization [Classics in Linguistics 1], 3rd edn. Berlin: Language Science Press.Google Scholar
Lindauer, Thomas
1998Attributive genitive constructions in German. In Possessors, Predicates and Movement in the Determiner Phrase [Linguistik Aktuell/Linguistics Today 22], Artemis Alexiadou & Chris Wilder (eds), 109–140. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Meibauer, Jörg
2007How marginal are phrasal compounds? Generalized insertion, expressivity, and I/Q-interaction. Morphology 17(2): 233–259.Google Scholar
Neef, Martin
2006Die Genitivflexion von artikellos verwendbaren Eigennamen als syntaktisch konditionierte Allomorphie. Zeitschrift für Sprachwissenschaft 25(2): 273–299.Google 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.Google Scholar
2009Degrammaticalization. Oxford: OUP.Google 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.Google 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.Google 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.Google Scholar
O’Connor, Catherine, Joan Maling & 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 [Linguistik Aktuell/Linguistics Today 199], Kersti Börjars, David Denison & Alan Scott (eds), 89–121. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google 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.Google 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.Google 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.Google Scholar
2008Animacy and grammatical variation –Findings from English genitive variation. Lingua 118(2): 151–171.Google 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, Augustin Speyer & Julia Hertel eds Special Issue of Zeitschrift für Dialektologie und Linguistik – Beihefte.
Scherer, Carmen
2010Das Deutsche und seine dräuenden Apostrophe. Zur Verbreitung von ’s im Gegenwartsdeutschen. Zeitschrift für germanistische Linguistik 38: 1–24.Google 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.Google 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.Google 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.Google 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.Google Scholar
Wälchli, Bernhard
2005Co-Compounds and Natural Coordination. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
Wegera, Klaus-Peter & Waldenberger, Sandra
2012Deutsch diachron. Eine Einführung in den Sprachwandel des Deutschen [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.Google 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.Google 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.Google Scholar