Cover not available
Article published In:
Written Language & Literacy
Vol. 19:2 (2016) ► pp.212–245

Punctuation and syntactic structure in obwohl and weil clauses in nonstandard written German

| Freie Universität Berlin
In this paper, we analyze written sentences containing the German particles obwohl (“although”) and weil (“because”). In standard written German, these particles embed clauses in verb-last constituent order, which is characteristic of subordinated clauses. In spoken and – as we show – nonstandard written German, they embed clauses in verb-second constituent order, which is characteristic of independent sentences. Our usage-based approach to the syntax – graphemics interface includes a large-scale corpus analysis of the patterns of punctuation in the nonstandard variants that provides clues to the syntactic structure and degree of sentential independence of the nonstandard variants. Our corpus study confirms and refines hypotheses from existing theoretical approaches by clearly showing that writers mark obwohl clauses with verb-second order systematically as independent sentences, whereas weil clauses with verb-second order are much less strongly marked as independent. This work suggests that similar corpus studies could provide deeper insight into the interplay between syntax and graphemics.
Keywords: syntax x graphemics interface, punctuation, connectors, independent sentences, Prototype Theory, nonstandard writing, discourse markers, German, usage-based linguistics
Published online: 1 June 2017
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/wll.19.2.04sch
References (88)
Antomo, Mailin & Markus Steinbach (2010). Desintegration und Interpretation: Weil-V2-Sätze an der Schnittstelle zwischen Syntax, Semantik und Pragmatik. Zeitschrift für Sprachwissenschaft 29(1): 1–37. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2013). Zur Semantik von Konzessivsätzen mit “obwohl.” Linguistische Berichte 2361: 427–453.Google Scholar
Auer, Peter & Susanne Günthner (2005). Die Entstehung von Diskursmarkern im Deutschen – ein Fall von Grammatikalisierung. In Torsten Leuschner & Tanja Mortelsmans (eds.), Grammatikalisierung im Deutschen, 335–362. Berlin, New York: De Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Augst, Gerhard, Karl Blüml, Dieter Nerius & Horst Sitta (eds.) (1997). Zur Neuregelung der deutschen Orthographie. Begründung und Kritik. Tübingen: Niemeyer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Baayen, R. Harald (2008). Analyzing linguistic data. A practical introduction to statistics using R. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Baroni, Marco, Silvia Bernardini, Adriano Ferraresi & Eros Zanchetta (2009). The WaCky Wide Web: A collection of very large linguistically processed web-crawled corpora. Language Resources and Evaluation 43(3): 209–226. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Barth, Danielle & Vsevolod Kapatsinski (2014, ahead of print). A multimodel inference approach to categorical variant choice: construction, priming and frequency effects on the choice between full and contracted forms of “am,” “are” and “is.” Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Baudusch, Renate (1997). Zur Reform der Zeichensetzung – Begründung und Kommentar. In Gerhard Augst, Karl Blüml, Dieter Nerius & Horst Sitta (eds.), Zur Neuregelung der deutschen Orthographie. Begründung und Kritik, 243–258. Tübingen: Niemeyer.Google Scholar
Behrens, Ulrike (1989). Wenn nicht alle Zeichen trügen. Interpunktion als Markierung syntaktischer Konstruktionen. Frankfurt am Main: Lang.Google Scholar
Biemann, Chris, Felix Bildhauer, Stefan Evert, Dirk Goldhahn, Uwe Quasthoff, Roland Schäfer, Johannes Simon, Leonard Swiezinski & Torsten Zesch (2013). Scalable construction of high-quality web corpora. Journal for Language Technology and Computational Linguistics 28(2): 23–60.Google Scholar
Blühdorn, Hardarik (2008). Epistemische Lesarten von Satzkonnektoren – wie sie zustande kommen und wie man sie erkennt. In Inge Pohl (ed.), Semantik und Pragmatik – Schnittstellen, 271–251. Frankfurt am Main: Lang.Google Scholar
Bredel, Ursula (2008). Die Interpunktion des Deutschen. Ein kompositionelles System zur Online-Steuerung des Lesens. Tübingen: Niemeyer.Google Scholar
(2011). Interpunktion. Heidelberg: Winter.Google Scholar
Breindl, Eva (2009). Fehler mit System und Fehler im System. Topologische Varianten bei Konnektoren. In Marek Konopka & Bruno Strecker (eds.), Deutsche Grammatik – Regeln, Normen, Sprachgebrauch. Jahrbuch des IDS Mannheim 2008, 274–308. Berlin, New York: De Gruyter.Google Scholar
Bresnan, Joan (2007). Is syntactic knowledge probabilistic? Experiments with the English dative alternation. In Sam Featherston & Wolfgang Sternefeld (eds.), Roots: Linguistics in search of its evidential base, 77–96. Berlin, New York: De Gruyter.Google Scholar
Burnham, Kenneth P. & David R. Anderson (2002). Model selection and multimodel inference: A practical information-theoretic approach, 2nd edition. New York: Springer.Google Scholar
Bybee, Joan L. & Clay Beckner (2009). Usage-based theory. In Bernd Heine & Heiko Narrog (eds.), The Oxford handbook of linguistic analysis, 827–856. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Canty, Angelo & Brian Ripley (2013). Boot: Bootstrap R (S-Plus) functions. R package version 1.3-9. [URL]
Croft, William (2001). Radical construction grammar. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2004). Syntactic theories and syntactic methodology: A reply to Seuren. Journal of Linguistics 401: 637–654. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Davison, Anthony Chr. & David V. Hinkley (1997). Bootstrap methods and their applications. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Divjak, Dagmar & Antti Arppe (2013). Extracting prototypes from exemplars: What can corpus data tell us about concept representation? Cognitive Linguistics 24(2): 221–274. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dobrić, Nikola (2015). Three-factor prototypicality evaluation and the verb “look.” Language Sciences 501: 1–11. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dürscheid, Christa (2006). Einführung in die Schriftlinguistik, 3rd edition. Göttingen: Vandenhoek & Ruprecht.Google Scholar
Fabricius-Hansen, Cathrine (2011). Was wird verknüpft, mit welchen Mitteln – und wozu? Zur Mehrdimensionalität der Satzverknüpfung. In Eva Breindl, Gisella Ferraresi & Anna Volodina (eds.), Satzverknüpfungen. Zur Interaktion von Form, Bedeutung und Diskursfunktion, 15–40. Berlin, New York: De Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Fahrländer, Sarah (2013). Zur Syntax und Semantik der konzessiven Satzkonnektoren “obwohl” und “trotzdem.” Mannheim: IDS.Google Scholar
Fahrmeir, Ludwig, Thomas Kneib, Stefan Lang & Brian Marx (2013). Regression – models, methods, and applications. Berlin: Springer.Google Scholar
Fox, John & Georges Monette (1992). Generalized collinearity diagnostics. Journal of the American Statistics Association 871: 178–183. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Fox, John & Sanford Weisberg (2011). An R companion to applied regression, 2nd edition. Thousand Oaks: Sage.Google Scholar
Frazier, Lyn & Keith Rayner (1988). Parametrizing language processing system: Left vs. right-branching within across languages. In John A. Hawkins (ed.), Explaining language universals, 247–279. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Freywald, Ulrike (2008). Zur Syntax und Funktion von dass-Sätzen mit V2-Stellung. Deutsche Sprache 361: 246–285.Google Scholar
(2010). Obwohl vielleicht war es ganz anders. Vorüberlegungen zum Alter der Verbzweitstellung nach subordinierenden Konjunktionen. In Arne Ziegler (ed.), Historische Textgrammatik und Historische Syntax des Deutschen, 45–84. Berlin, New York: De Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2016). V2-Nebensätze – ein eigener Satztyp. In Rita Finkbeiner & Jörg Meibauer (eds.), Satztypen und Konstruktionen, 326–373. Berlin, New York: De Gruyter.Google Scholar
Gallmann, Peter (1996). Interpunktion (Syngrapheme). In Hartmut Günther & Otto Ludwig (eds.), Writing and its use. An interdisciplinary handbook of international research, vol. 21, 1456–1467. Berlin, New York: De Gruyter.Google Scholar
Gaumann, Ulrike (1983). “Weil die machen jetzt bald zu.” Angabe- und Junktivsatz in der deutschen Gegenwartssprache. Göppingen: Göppinger Arbeiten zur Germanistik.Google Scholar
Gohl, Christine & Susanne Günthner (1999). Grammatikalisierung von “weil” als Diskursmarker in der gesprochenen Sprache. Zeitschrift für Sprachwissenschaft 18(1): 39–75. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gries, Stefan Th. (2003). Towards a corpus-based identification of prototypical instances of constructions. Annual Review of Cognitive Linguistics 11: 1–27. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2013). Statistics for linguistics with R: A practical introduction, 2nd edition. Berlin, New York: De Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Günthner, Susanne (1993). “… weil – man kann es ja wissenschaftlich untersuchen” – Diskurspragmatische Aspekte der Wortstellung in WEIL-Sätzen. Linguistische Berichte 1431: 37–59.Google Scholar
(2000). From concessive connector to discourse marker: The use of obwohl in everyday German interaction. In Elizabeth Couper-Kuhlen & Bernd Kortmann (eds.), Cause – condition – concession – contrast. Cognitive discourse perspectives, 439–468. Berlin, New York: De Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2003). Lexical-grammatical variation and development. The use of conjunction as discourse markers in everyday spoken German. In Regine Eckhardt, Klaus von Heusinger & Christoph Schwarze (eds.), Words in time. Diachronic semantics from different points of view, 375–403. Berlin, New York: De Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hay, Jennifer B. & R. Harald Baayen (2005). Shifting paradigms: Gradient structure in morphology. Trends in Cognitive Linguistics 9(7): 342–348. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hintzman, Douglas L. (1986). Schema abstraction in a multiple-trace memory model. Psychological Review 93(4): 411–428. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Holler, Anke (2009). Informationsreliefs in komplexen Sätzen: Eine diskursrelationale Analyse. Linguistische Berichte Sonderheft 161: 135–158.Google Scholar
Imo, Wolfgang (2012). Wortart Diskursmarker? In Björn Rothstein (ed.), Nicht-flektierende Wortarten, 48–88. Berlin, New York: De Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Johnson, Keith (2008). Quantitative methods in linguistics. Hoboken: Wiley-Blackwell.Google Scholar
Kapatsinski, Vsevolod (2014). What is grammar like? A usage-based constructionist perspective. Linguistic Issues in Language Technology 111: 1–41.Google Scholar
Kirchhoff, Frank & Beatrice Primus (2014). The architecture of punctuation systems: a historical case study of the comma in German. Written Language and Literacy 17(2): 195–224. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kuperman, Victor & Joan Bresnan (2012). The effects of construction probability on word durations during spontaneous incremental sentence production. Journal of Memory and Language 661: 588–611. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Langacker, Ronald W. (2000). A dynamic usage-based model. In Michael Barlow & Suzanne Kemmer (eds.), Usage-based models of language, 1–63. Stanford: CSLI.Google Scholar
(2008). Cognitive grammar. A basic introduction. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Levine, Robert D. & Thomas E. Hukari (2006). The unity of unbounded dependency constructions. Stanford: CSLI.Google Scholar
Manning, Christopher D. (2003). Probabilistic syntax. In Rens Bod, Jennifer Hay & Stefanie Jannedy (eds.), Probabilistic linguistics, 289–342. Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Mazuka, Reiko & Barbara Lust (1990). On parameter setting and parsing: predictions for cross-linguistic differences in adult and child processing. In Lyn Frazier & Jill de Villiers (eds.), Language processing and language acquisition, 163–206. Dordrecht: Kluwer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Medin, Douglas L. & Marguerite M. Schaffer (1978). Context theory of classification learning. Psychological Review 85(3): 207–238. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Mentrup, Wolfgang (1983). Zur Zeichensetzung im Deutschen – Die Regeln und ihre Reform. Oder: Müssen Duden-Regeln so sein, wie sie sind? Tübingen: Narr.Google Scholar
Müller, Sonja (2014). Zur Anordnung der Modalpartikeln ja und doch: (In)stabile Kontexte und (non)kanonische Assertionen. Linguistische Berichte 2381: 165–208.Google Scholar
Nakazawa, Minato (2014). fmsb: Functions for medical statistics book with some demographic data. R package version 0.4.4. [URL]
Nerius, Dieter (ed.) (2007). Deutsche Orthographie. Hildesheim: Olms.Google Scholar
Panther, Klaus-Uwe & Klaus-Michael Köpcke (2008). A prototype approach to sentences and sentence types. Annual Review of Cognitive Linguistics 6(1): 83–112. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Pasch, Renate (1983). Die Kausalkonjunktionen “‘da,” “denn” und “weil”: Drei Konjunktionen – drei lexikalische Klassen. Deutsch als Fremdsprache 20(6): 332–337.Google Scholar
(1997). “Weil” mit Hauptsatz – Kuckucksei im “denn”-Nest. Deutsche Sprache 25(3): 75–85.Google Scholar
Pasch, Renate, Ursula Brauße, Eva Breindl & Ulrich Hermann Waßner (2003). Handbuch der deutschen Konnektoren. Linguistische Grundlagen der Beschreibung und syntaktische Merkmale der deutschen Satzverknüpfer (Konjunktionen, Satzadverbien, Partikel). Berlin, New York: De Gruyter.Google Scholar
Paschke, Peter (2010). Die Interpunktion des Deutschen. Ein kompositionelles System zur Online-Steuerung des Lesens (review). InfoDAF 37(2/3): 144–148.Google Scholar
Pollard, Carl & Ivan A. Sag (1994). Head-driven phrase structure grammar. Stanford: CSLI.Google Scholar
Primus, Beatrice (1993). Sprachnorm und Sprachregularität: Das Komma im Deutschen. Deutsche Sprache 31: 244–263.Google Scholar
(2010). Strukturelle Grundlagen des deutschen Schriftsystems. In Ursula Bredel, Astrid Müller & Gabriele Hinney (eds.), Schriftsystem und Schrifterwerb: Linguistisch – didaktisch – empirisch. Berlin, New York: De Gruyter.Google Scholar
R Core Team (2013). R: A language and environment for statistical computing. Vienna: R Foundation for Statistical Computing. [URL]
Reich, Ingo & Marga Reis (2012). Koordination und Subordination. In Jörg Meibauer, Markus Steinbach & Hans Altmann (eds.), Satztypen des Deutschen, 536–569. Berlin, New York: De Gruyter.Google Scholar
Reis, Marga (2013). Weil-V2-Sätze und (k)ein Ende? Anmerkungen zur Analyse von Antomo & Steinbach. Zeitschrift für Sprachwissenschaft 32(2): 221–262. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Rosch, Eleanor (1973). Natural categories. Cognitive Psychology 41: 328–350. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(1978). Principles of categorization. In Eleanor Rosch & Barbara B. Lloyd (eds.), Cognition and categorization, 27–48. Hillsdale: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Rosch, Eleanor, Carolyn B. Mervis, Wayne D. Gray, David M. Johnson & Penny Boyes-Braem (1976). Basic objects in natural categories. Cognitive Psychology 81: 382–439. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Schäfer, Roland (2016, ahead of print). Prototype-driven alternations: The case of German weak nouns. Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory. DOI logo.Google Scholar
Schäfer, Roland, Adrien Barbaresi & Felix Bildhauer (2013). The good, the bad, and the hazy: Design decisions in web corpus construction. In Stefan Evert, Egon Stemle & Paul Rayson (eds.), Proceedings of the 8th Web as Corpus Workshop (WAC-8), 7–15. Lancaster: SIGWAC.Google Scholar
Schäfer, Roland & Felix Bildhauer (2012). Building large corpora from the web using a new efficient tool chain. In Nicoletta Calzolari, Khalid Choukri, Thierry Declerck, Mehmet Uğur Doğan, Bente Maegaard, Joseph Mariani, Jan Odijk & Stelios Piperidis (eds.), Proceedings of the Eighth International Conference on Language Resources and Evaluation, 486–493. Istanbul: ELRA.Google Scholar
(2013). Web corpus construction. San Francisco: Morgan & Claypool. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Schäfer, Roland & Ulrike Sayatz (2014). Die Kurzformen des Indefinitartikels im Deutschen. Zeitschrift für Sprachwissenschaft 33(2): 215–250. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Schwitalla, Johannes (2012). Gesprochenes Deutsch, 4th edition. Berlin: Schmidt.Google Scholar
Stefanowitsch, Anatol & Stefan T. Gries (2003). Collostructions: Investigating the interaction between words and constructions. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics 8(2): 209–243. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Uehara, Satoshi (2003). A diachronic perspective on prototypicality: the case of nominal adjectives in Japanese. In Hubert Cuyckens, René Dirven & John Taylor (eds.), Cognitive approaches to lexical semantics, 363–391. Berlin, New York: De Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Uhmann, Susanne (1998). Verbstellungsvariation in weil-Sätzen: Lexikalische Differenzierung mit grammatischen Folgen. Zeitschrift für Sprachwissenschaft 17(1): 92–139. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Van Goethem, Kristel & Philippe Hiligsmann (2014). When two paths converge: debonding and clipping of Dutch “reuze.” Journal of Germanic Linguistics 26(1): 31–64. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Volodina, Anna (2011). Konditionalität und Kausalität im Diskurs. Eine korpuslinguistische Studie zum Einfluss von Syntax und Prosodie auf die Interpretation komplexer Äußerungen. Tübingen: Narr.Google Scholar
Wegener, Heide (2000). Da, denn und weil – der Kampf der Konjunktionen. Zur Grammatikalisierung im kausalen Bereich. In Rolf Thieroff, Matthias Tamrat, Nanna Fuhrhop & Oliver Teuber (eds.), Deutsche Grammatik in Theorie und Praxis, 69–81. Tübingen: Niemeyer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Zeschel, Arne (2008). Introduction: Usage-based approaches to language representation and processing. Cognitive Linguistics 19(3): 1–7. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Zuur, Alain F., Elena N. Ieno, Neil Walker, Anatoly A. Saveliev & Graham M. Smith (2009). Mixed effects models and extensions in ecology with R. Berlin: Springer.. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cited by (3)

Cited by three other publications

Schäfer, Roland & Ulrike Sayatz
2024. Between syntax and morphology: German noun+verb units. Glossa: a journal of general linguistics 9:1 DOI logo
Freywald, Ulrike
2023. Wortstellung im Satz. In Deutsche Sprache der Gegenwart, ► pp. 141 ff. DOI logo
Kempen, Gerard & Karin Harbusch
2018. A competitive mechanism selecting verb-second versus verb-final word order in causative and argumentative clauses of spoken Dutch: A corpus-linguistic study. Language Sciences 69 ► pp. 30 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 21 july 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.