Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-m9kch Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-05-22T02:53:19.128Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

On the Loss of High-Frequency Function Words

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  19 February 2013

Patrizia Noel Aziz Hanna*
Affiliation:
University of Bamberg
*
Germanistische Sprachwissenschaft, Otto-Friedrich-Universität Bamberg, 96047 Bamberg, Germany, [patrizia.noel@uni-bamberg.de]

Abstract

The loss of high-frequency function words is puzzling. Although they form part of core grammar—and, in some cases, have done so for thousands of years—some function words seem to just suddenly disappear. While the grammaticalization of content words into function words correlates with increase in usage, the loss of high-frequency function words cannot simply be explained by decrease in usage because of the indispensable function of these words. This article deals with the loss of the Germanic question particle, of the Germanic coordinating sentence conjunction, and of the Germanic negation particle. It describes their gradual decline as a result of language-specific interactions between phonology, syntax, and information structure: Function words occupy a fixed syntactic position, where they are systematically unstressed. Instead of being strengthened in their old position, they were lost. Instead of linking the loss of elements of core grammar to frequency-based semantic bleaching, it is attributed here to the interaction of linguistic subsystems. It is suggested that this development was unavoidable as the non-Proto-Indo-European structure of Germanic subsystems was eroding old Indo-European lexical material. Germanic prosody was not in harmony with the substance of the inherited Proto-Indo-European lexicon.*

Type
Articles
Copyright
Copyright © Society for Germanic Linguistics 2013

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

Anderson, Stephen R. 1969. An outline of the phonology of Modern Icelandic vowels. Foundations of Language 5. 5372.Google Scholar
Askedal, John Ole. 2008. “Degrammaticalization” versus typology: Reflections on a strained relationship. Grammatical change and linguistic theory, ed. by Thórhallur, Eythórsson, 4577. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Aroui, Jean-Louis, & Andy, Arleo (eds.). 2009. Towards a typology of poetic forms: From language to metrics and beyond. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Auwera, Johan van der. 2011. Standard average European. The languages and linguistics of Europe: A comprehensive guide, ed. by Bernd, Kortmann & van der Auwera, Johan, 291306. Berlin: de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Baldi, Philip. 1999. The foundations of Latin. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Bartsch, Renate. 1972. Adverbialsemantik: Die Konstitution logisch-semantischer Repräsentationen von Adverbialkonstruktionen (Linguistische Forschungen 6). Frankfurt am Main: Athenäum.Google Scholar
Bartsch, Renate, & Theo, Vennemann. 1972. Semantic structures: A study in the relation between semantics and syntax (Athenäum-Skripten Linguistik 9). Frankfurt am Main: Athenäum.Google Scholar
Batts, Michael S. (ed.). 1971. Das Nibelungenlied. Paralleldruck der Handschriften A, B und C nebst Lesarten der übrigen Handschriften. Tübingen: Niemeyer.Google Scholar
Behrens, Heike. 2006. The input–output relationship in first language acquisition. Language and Cognitive Processes 21. 224.Google Scholar
Bergaigne, Abel. 1878. Essai sur la construction grammatical: Considérée dans son développement historique, en sanskrite, en grec, en latin, dans les langues romanes et dans les langues germaniques. Mémoires de la Société de Linguistique 3. 1–51, 124–154, 169–186.Google Scholar
Bolinger, Dwight. 1972. Accent is predictable (if you're a mind reader). Language 48. 633644.Google Scholar
Braune, Wilhelm. 1912. Gotische Grammatik: Mit Lesestückchen und Wörterverzeichnis. 8th edn. Halle: Niemeyer.Google Scholar
Braune, Wilhelm, & Hans, Eggers. 1987. Althochdeutsche Grammatik. 14th edn. Tübingen: Niemeyer.Google Scholar
Braune, Wilhelm, & Frank, Heidermanns. 2004. Gotische Grammatik: Mit Lesestücken und Wörterverzeichnis. 20th edn. Tübingen: Niemeyer.Google Scholar
Bybee, Joan. 2003a. Cognitive processes in grammaticalization. The new psychology of language: Cognitive and functional approaches to language structure, vol. 2, ed. by Tomasello, Michael, 145167. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Bybee, Joan. 2003b. Mechanisms of change in grammaticalization: The role of frequency. The handbook of historical linguistics, ed. by Brian, Joseph & Janda, Richard, 602623. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Catullus, C. Valerius, Sämtliche Gedichte. Translated and edited by von Albrecht, Michael, 2001. Stuttgart: Philipp Reclam.Google Scholar
Donhauser, Karin. 1996. Negationssyntax in der deutschen Sprachgeschichte: Grammatikalisierung oder Degrammatikalisierung?Deutsch—typologisch, ed. by Lang, Ewald & Zifonun, Gisela, 201217. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Dresher, B. Alan, & Aditi, Lahiri. 1991. The Germanic foot: Metrical coherence in Old English. Linguistic Inquiry 22. 251286.Google Scholar
Dryer, Matthew S. 2011a. Polar questions. The world atlas of language structures online, ed. by Dryer, Matthew S. & Haspelmath, Martin. Munich: Max Planck Digital Library, chapter 116. http://wals.info/chapter/116 (March 20, 2012.)Google Scholar
Dryer, Matthew S. 2011b. Position of polar question particles. The world atlas of language structures online, ed. by Dryer, Matthew S. & Haspelmath, Martin. Munich: Max Planck Digital Library, chapter 92. http://wals.info/chapter/92 (March 20, 2012.)Google Scholar
Dufter, Andreas, & Noel Aziz Hanna, Patrizia. 2009. Natural versification in German and French nursery rhymes: Standard languages, dialects, and creoles. Aroui & Arleo, 101–121.Google Scholar
Eisenberg, Peter. 2006. Grundriss der deutschen Grammatik: Das Wort. Stuttgart: Metzler.Google Scholar
Eythórsson, Thórhallur. 1995. Verbal syntax in the Early Germanic languages. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University dissertation.Google Scholar
Eythórsson, Thórhallur. 1996. Functional categories, cliticization, and verb movement in the Early Germanic languages. Studies in comparative Germanic syntax II, ed. by Thráinsson, Höskuldur, Samuel, David Epstein, & Steve, Peter, 109–39. Dordrecht: Kluwer.Google Scholar
Feist, Sigmund. 1939. Vergleichendes Wörterbuch der gotischen Sprache. 3rd edn. Leiden: E.J. Brill.Google Scholar
Firbas, Jan. 1989. Degrees of communicative dynamism and degrees of prosodic prominence (weight). Brno Studies in English 18. 2166.Google Scholar
Fuß, Eric. 1998. Zur Diachronie von Verbzweit: Die Entwicklung von Verbstellungsvarianten im Deutschen und Englischen. Frankfurt am Main: Johann Wolfgang Goethe-Universität MA thesis. http://publikationen.ub.uni-frankfurt.de/volltexte/2005/1958/pdf/MAthesis.pdf (March 20, 2012.)Google Scholar
Gabelentz, Georg von der. 1891. Die Sprachwissenschaft: Ihre Aufgaben, Methoden und bisherigen Ergebnisse. Leipzig: T.O. Weigel Nachfolger.Google Scholar
Greenberg, Joseph H. 1963. Some universals of grammar with particular reference to the order of meaningful elements. Report from a Conference held at Dobbs Ferry on April 13–15, 1961, New York. Universals of language, ed. by Greenberg, Joseph H., 73113. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Haiman, John. 1991. From V/2 to subject clitics: Evidence from Northern Italian. Approaches to grammaticalization, vol. 2, ed. by Traugott, Elizabeth Closs & Heine, Bernd, 135157. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Haspelmath, Martin. 2002. Grammatikalisierung: Von der Performanz zur Kompetenz ohne angeborene Grammatik. Gibt es eine Sprache hinter dem Sprechen? ed. by Krämer, Sybille & König, Ekkehard, 262286. Frankfurt: Suhrkamp.Google Scholar
Hauk, Olaf, Ingrid, Johnsrude, & Friedemann, Pulvermüller. 2004. Somatotopic representation of action words in human motor and premotor cortex. Neuron 41. 301307.Google Scholar
Hirt, Hermann. 1929. Indogermanische Grammatik, vol. 5: Der Akzent. Heidelberg: Carl Winter.Google Scholar
Hopper, Paul J. 1969. An Indo-European “syntagm” in Germanic. Linguistics 54. 3943.Google Scholar
Humboldt, Wilhelm von. 1822[1985]. Ueber das Entstehen der grammatischen Formen, und ihren Einfluss auf die Ideenentwicklung. Wilhelm von Humboldt: Über die Sprache: Ausgewählte Schriften, ed. by Trabant, Jürgen, 4673. Munich: Deutscher Taschenbuch Verlag.Google Scholar
Hyman, Larry. 1977. On the nature of linguistic stress. Studies in stress and accent (Southern California Occasional Papers in Linguistics 4), ed. by Hyman, Larry, 3782. Los Angeles, CA: Department of Linguistics, University of Southern California.Google Scholar
Jackendoff, Ray. 2002. Foundations of language: Brain, meaning, grammar, evolution. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Jespersen, Otto. 1917. Negation in English and other languages (Historisk-filologiske Meddelelser I,5). Kopenhagen: H⊘st.Google Scholar
Kluge, Friedrich, & Elmar, Seebold. 1999. Etymologisches Wörterbuch der deutschen Sprache. 23rd edn., ed by Seebold, Elmar. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Krause, Todd B., & Jonathan, Slocum, (n.d.), Gothic Online. http://www.utexas.edu/cola/centers/lrc/eieol/gotol-1-X.html (May 16, 2011.)Google Scholar
Lehmann, Winfred P. 1972. Proto-Germanic syntax. Toward a grammar of Proto-Germanic, ed. by van Coetsem, Frans & Kufner, Herbert, 239268. Tübingen: Niemeyer.Google Scholar
Lehmann, Winfred P. 1995. Theoretical bases of Indo-European linguistics. London: Routledge. [First published in 1993.]Google Scholar
Lühr, Rosemarie. 2007. Konnektoren im älteren Deutsch. http://ulblin01.thulb.uni-jena.de/indogermanistik/dokumente/PDF/Konnektoren127.pdf (September 1, 2008.)Google Scholar
Mathesius, Vilém J. 1935. Obsahový rozbor současné angličtiny na základě obecně lingvistickém/A functional analysis of present day English on a general linguistic basis. Translated by Libuše Dušková, 1975. Den Haag: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Meier-Brügger, Michael. 2000. Indogermanische Sprachwissenschaft. 7th edn. 1st edn. by Krahe, Hans. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Musan, Renate. 2010. Informationsstruktur. Heidelberg: Winter.Google Scholar
Noël, Dirk. 2007. Diachronic construction grammar and grammaticalization theory. Functions of Language 14. 177202.Google Scholar
Noel Aziz Hanna, Patrizia. 2003. Rhythmus in Metrik und Alltagssprache: Zur Funktion des neuhochdeutschen Nebenakzents (Studien zur Theoretischen Linguistik 15.). Paderborn: Fink.Google Scholar
Noel Aziz Hanna, Patrizia. 2008a. Jespersen's Cycle and the issue of prosodic “weakness.”Advances in comparative Germanic syntax, ed. by Alexiadou, Artemis, Hankamer, Jorge, McFadden, Thomas, Nuger, Justin, & Schäfer, Florian, 197218. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Noel Aziz Hanna, Patrizia. 2008b. Language change and metrics—versification in the Middle High German and Early New High German Nibelungen tradition. Mielz valt mesure que ne fait estultie, Festschrift for Iván Horváth, ed. by Bartók, István, Hegedüs, Béla, Szegedy-Maszák, Mihály, Szentpéteri, Márton, Seláf, Levente, & Veres, András, 237249. Budapest: Krónika Nova.Google Scholar
Noel Aziz Hanna, Patrizia. 2008c. Integrating quantitative meter in non-quantitative metrical systems: The rise and fall of the German hexameter. Sprachwissenschaft 33. 435453.Google Scholar
Noel Aziz Hanna, Patrizia. 2009. Wackernagels Gesetz im Deutschen: Zur Interaktion von Syntax, Phonologie und Informationsstruktur. Munich: University of Munich Habilitationsschrift.Google Scholar
Noel Aziz Hanna, Patrizia. 2010a. What constitutes anacrusis? Clause openings, Kuhn's Law, and the changing shape of Germanic syntax. Formes strophiques simples/Simple strophic forms, ed. by Seláf, Levente, Noel Aziz Hanna, Patrizia, & van Driel, Joost, 3557. Budapest: Akademiai.Google Scholar
Noel Aziz Hanna, Patrizia. 2010b. Layers of versification in Beowulf. Anglia 127. 238260.Google Scholar
Noel Aziz Hanna, Patrizia, & Vetterle, Robert. 2009. Bavarian Zwiefache: Investigating the interface between rhythm, metrics and song. Aroui & Arleo 2009:79–99.Google Scholar
Oxford English Dictionary. 2001. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Otfrid von, Weißenburg, Evangelienbuch, ed. by Erdmann, Oskar. 1973. 6th edn. ed. by Wolff, Ludwig (Altdeutsche Textbibliothek 49). Tübingen: Niemeyer.Google Scholar
Pensel, Franzjosef. 1976. Die Satznegation. Zur Ausbildung der Norm der deutschen Literatursprache auf der syntaktischen Ebene (1470–1730): Der Einfachsatz, ed. by Kettmann, Gerhard & Schildt, Joachim, 285326. Berlin: Akademie Verlag.Google Scholar
Pokorny, Julius. 1959. Indogermanisches etymologisches Wörterbuch. Berne: Francke.Google Scholar
Ross, John Robert. 1986. Infinite syntax. Norwood: Ablex Publishing Corporation.Google Scholar
Saran, Franz. 1907. Deutsche Verslehre. München: Beck.Google Scholar
Teruya, Kazuhiro. 2006. A systemic functional grammar of Japanese, vol. 1. London: Continuum.Google Scholar
Vennemann, Theo. 1974. Topics, subjects, and word order: From SXV to SVX via TVX. Historical Linguistics: Proceedings of the First International Congress of Historical Linguistics, Edinburgh, September 1973, vol. 2, ed. by Anderson, John & Jones, Charles, 339376. Amsterdam: North-Holland.Google Scholar
Vennemann, Theo. 1976. Categorial grammar and the order of meaningful elements. Linguistic studies offered to Joseph Greenberg on the occasion of his sixtieth birthday, vol. 3: Syntax (Studia Linguistica et Philologica 4), ed. by Juilland, Alphonse, 615634. Saratoga: Anma Libri.Google Scholar
Vennemann, Theo. 1986. Neuere Entwicklungen in der Phonologie. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Vennemann, Theo. 1990. Language change as language improvement. Modelli esplicativi della diacronia linguistica: Atti del Convegno della Società Italiana di Glottologia, Pavia, 15–17 settembre 1988, ed. by Orioles, Vincenzo, 1135. Pisa: Giardini Editori e Stampatori.Google Scholar
Vennemann, Theo. 1995. Der Zusammenbruch der Quantität im Spätmittelalter und sein Einfluß auf die Metrik. Quantitätsproblematik und Metrik: Greifswalder Symposion zur germanischen Grammatik (Amsterdamer Beiträge zur älteren Germanistik 42), ed. by Fix, Hans, 185223. Amsterdam: Rodopi.Google Scholar
Vennemann, Theo. 2000. Zur Entstehung des Germanischen. Sprachwissen-schaft 25. 233269.Google Scholar
Werner, Otmar. 1969. Das deutsche Pluralsystem. Sprache, Gegenwart und Geschichte, ed. by Moser, Hugo, 92125. Düsseldorf: Schwann.Google Scholar
Zwicky, Arnold M. 1985. Clitics and particles. Language 61. 283305.Google Scholar