Cover not available
Part of
Morphological Variation: Theoretical and empirical perspectives
Edited by Antje Dammel and Oliver Schallert
[Studies in Language Companion Series 207] 2019
► pp. 27–62

Possessive -s in German

Development, variation and theoretical status

| FU Berlin
In several Germanic languages, such as English and Swedish, the former genitive morpheme -s has developed into a possessive marker, which has been described as a special clitic by some scholars. Synchronic and diachronic corpus data as well as a comparison with English and Dutch show that German possessive -s is going through a similar, though less radical change as its Germanic counterparts, resulting in morphosyntactic variation. This high amount of synchronic and diachronic variation makes it hard to categorize -s in German. However, the marker can best be described as a bound element that gradually loses its paradigmaticity. This gradual rather than categorial change in progress on an affix-clitic-continuum challenges both synchronic as well as diachronic morpheme-based theoretical approaches.
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Empirical analysis
    • 2.1The development of the superstable marker -s
      • 2.1.1Paradigmatic deflexion
      • 2.1.2Syntagmatic deflexion
    • 2.2The current occurrences of possessive -s
    • 2.3A contrastive comparison with English and Dutch
  • 3.Theoretical considerations
    • 3.1Morphological status of possessive -s
    • 3.2Consequences for synchronic syntactic modelling
    • 3.3Implications for diachronic modelling
      • 3.3.1Degrammaticalization
      • 3.3.2Constructionalization
      • 3.3.3Exaptation
  • 4.Conclusion
  • Notes
  • Corpora
  • References
Published online: 27 June 2019
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/slcs.207.02ack
References (76)
Corpora
DECOW2012, DECOW2014 <[URL]>
Deutsches Textarchiv (DTA) <[URL]>
References
Ackermann, Tanja. 2018a. From 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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2018b. Grammatik der Namen im Wandel. Diachrone Morphosyntax der Personennamen im Deutschen [Studia Linguistica Germanica 134]. Berlin: De Gruyter.Google Scholar
Ackermann, Tanja & Zimmer, Christian. 2017. Morphologische 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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Allen, Cynthia L. 1997. The origins of the group genitive in English. Transactions of the Philological Society 95: 111–131. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2003. Deflexion and the development of the genitive in English. English Language and Linguistics 7: 1–28. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Anderson, Stephen R. 2005. Aspects of the Theory of Clitics. Oxford: OUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2008. The English “group genitive” is a special clitic. English Linguistics 25(1): 1–20. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2013. The 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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Askedal, John Ole. 2003. Grammaticalization 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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Booij, Geert. 2010. Construction Morphology. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
Börjars, Kersti. 2003. Morphological status and (de)grammaticalisation: The Swedish possessive. Nordic Journal of Linguistics 26(2): 133–163. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Börjars, Kersti, Denison, David, Krajewski, Grzegorz & Scott, Alan. 2013. Expression 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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Börjars, Kersti, Vincent, Nigel & Walkden, George. 2015. On constructing a theory of grammatical change. Transactions of the Philological Society 113(3): 363–382. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bücking, Sebastian. 2012. Kompositional flexibel. Partizipianten und Modifikatoren in der Nominaldomäne [Studien zur Deutschen Grammatik 83]. Tübingen: Stauffenburg.Google Scholar
Campe, Petra. 2013. Word 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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Carstairs, Andrew. 1987. Diachronic 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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dammel, Antje & Nübling, Damaris. 2006. The superstable marker as an indicator of categorial weakness? Folia Linguistica 40: 97–113. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Demske, Ulrike. 2001. Merkmale und Relationen. Diachrone Studien zur Nominalphrase im Deutschen [Studia Linguistica Germanica 56]. Berlin: De Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Denison, David, Scott, Alan K. & Börjars, Kersti. 2010. The real distribution of the English “group genitive”. Studies in Language 34(3): 532–564. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Duden. 2016. Die Grammatik [Duden, Vol. 4]. Berlin: Dudenverlag.Google Scholar
Fuß, Eric. 2011. Eigennamen und adnominaler Genitiv im Deutschen. Linguistische Berichte 225: 19–42.Google Scholar
Gallmann, Peter. 1996. Die Steuerung der Flexion in der DP. Linguistische Berichte 164: 283–314.Google Scholar
Gries, Stefan T. 2014. Frequency 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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Harnisch, Rüdiger. 2001. Grundform- 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. 2003. Syntactic 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. 1994. Entwickeln 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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Herslund, Michael. 2001. The Danish -s genitive: From affix to clitic. Acta Linguistica Hafniensia 33(1): 7–18. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hopper, Paul & Traugott, Elizabeth C. 1993. Grammaticalization. Cambridge: CUP.Google Scholar
Janda, Richard. 1980. On 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. 2015. Linking 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. 2001. Adnominal 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. 1990. How to do things with junk: Exaptation in language evolution. Journal of Linguistics 26: 79–102. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lehmann, Christian. 2015 [1982]. Thoughts on Grammaticalization [Classics in Linguistics 1], 3rd edn. Berlin: Language Science Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lindauer, Thomas. 1998. Attributive 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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Meibauer, Jörg. 2007. How marginal are phrasal compounds? Generalized insertion, expressivity, and I/Q-interaction. Morphology 17(2): 233–259. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Neef, Martin. 2006. Die Genitivflexion von artikellos verwendbaren Eigennamen als syntaktisch konditionierte Allomorphie. Zeitschrift für Sprachwissenschaft 25(2): 273–299. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Norde, Muriel. 1997. The History of the Genitive in Swedish. A Case Study in Degrammaticalization. PhD dissertation, University of Amsterdam.Google Scholar
. 2006. Demarcating degrammaticalization: The Swedish s-genitive revisited. Nordic Journal of Linguistics 29(2): 201–238. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2009. Degrammaticalization. Oxford: OUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2011. Degrammaticalization. In The Oxford Handbook of Grammaticalization, Bernd Heine & Heiko Narrog (eds), 475–487. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
Nowak, Jessica & Nübling, Damaris. 2017. Schwierige 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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Nübling, Damaris. 1992. Klitika im Deutschen. Schriftsprache, Umgangssprache, alemannische Dialekte [Script Oralia 42]. Tübingen: Narr.Google Scholar
. 2012. Auf 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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2014. Sprachverfall? 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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
O’Connor, Catherine, Maling, Joan & Skarabela, Barbora. 2013. Nominal 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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Pafel, Jürgen. 2015. Phrasal compounds are compatible with Lexical Integrity. STUF – Language Typology and Universals 68(3): 263–280.Google Scholar
Paul, Hermann. 1917. Deutsche Grammatik, Band II. Teil III: Flexionslehre . Halle (Saale): Niemeyer.Google Scholar
Rauth, Philipp. 2014. Die 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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Rosenbach, Anette. 2004. The 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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2008. Animacy and grammatical variation – Findings from English genitive variation. Lingua 118(2): 151–171. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Schäfer, Roland & Bildhauer, Felix. 2012. Building 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. 2010. Das Deutsche und seine dräuenden Apostrophe. Zur Verbreitung von ’s im Gegenwartsdeutschen. Zeitschrift für germanistische Linguistik 38: 1–24. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Scott, Alan K. 2014. The 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. 2012. Clitics. An Introduction. Cambridge: CUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Steche, Theodor. 1927. Die neuhochdeutsche Wortbiegung unter besonderer Berücksichtigung der Sprachentwicklung im 19. Jahrhundert. Breslau: Hirt.Google Scholar
Traugott, Elizabeth C. & Trousdale, Graeme. 2013. Constructionalization and Constructional Changes. Oxford: OUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Trousdale, Graeme & Norde, Muriel. 2013. Degrammaticalization 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. 2016. Exaptation. 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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Vezzosi, Letizia. 2000. The 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. 2010. Grammaticalization 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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Wälchli, Bernhard. 2005. Co-Compounds and Natural Coordination. Oxford: OUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Wegera, Klaus-Peter, Waldenberger, Sandra & Lemke, Ilka. 2018. Deutsch diachron. Eine Einführung in den Sprachwandel des Deutschen, 2nd edn. [Grundlagen der Germanistik 52]. Berlin: Erich Schmidt.Google Scholar
Weiß, Helmut. 2008. The 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. 1987. System-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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Zifonun, Gisela. 2001. Eigennamen in der Narrenschlacht. Oder: Wie man Walther von der Vogelweide in den Genitiv setzt. Sprachreport 3: 2–5.Google Scholar
. 2005. Der 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. 1977. On Clitics. Bloomington IA: Indiana University Linguistics Club.Google Scholar
. 1987. Suppressing the Zs. Journal of Linguistics 23: 133–148. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 1988. Direct reference to heads. Folia Linguistica 22(3–4): 397–404.Google Scholar
Zwicky, Arnold & Pullum, Geoffrey K. 1983. Cliticization vs. inflection: English n’t . Language 59(3): 502–513. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cited by (2)

Cited by two other publications

Freywald, Ulrike & Antje Dammel
2023. Morphologie: Das Wort. In Deutsche Sprache der Gegenwart, ► pp. 193 ff. DOI logo
Ackermann, Tanja
2021. Pre- and postnominal onymic genitives in (Early) New High German. Journal of Historical Linguistics 11:3 ► pp. 499 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 28 june 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.