No CrossRef data available.
Article contents
Beyond Do-Support and Tun-Periphrasis: The Case of Finite Verb Doubling in Karrharde North Frisian
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 11 November 2016
Abstract
All West Germanic languages possess periphrastic verb constructions in which a finite dummy auxiliary ‘do’ combines with an infinitival thematic verb (compare do-support in English and tun-periphrasis in German). In Frisian, periphrastic verb constructions are not very common. It is all the more surprising, therefore, to find a general periphrastic verb construction in Karrharde North Frisian that seems to go beyond the typology of these constructions in West Germanic to some extent: The construction is rather unconstrained, it features a mysterious dummy auxiliary wer- and, most strikingly, both the dummy auxiliary and the thematic verb are finite. In this article, the basic data on finite verb doubling in Karrharde North Frisian is presented, and the origin of the dummy auxiliary wer- is tracked down. A synchronic analysis of the construction is proposed that relates it to the periphrastic verb constructions in other West Germanic languages. It is shown that finite verb doubling is in most respects a garden variety periphrastic verb construction, and that its special properties can be traced back to the fact that the dummy auxiliary developed from the complementizer wer ‘if, whether’ (possibly under language contact with Danish).
- Type
- Articles
- Information
- Journal of Germanic Linguistics , Volume 28 , Special Issue 4: New Directions in Comparative Germanic Linguistics , December 2016 , pp. 317 - 348
- Copyright
- Copyright © Society for Germanic Linguistics 2016
References
REFERENCES
Andersen, Hayo, & Petersen, Adeline. 1997. Kleine Friesische Sprachlehre. Bräist/Bredstedt: Nordfriisk Instituut.Google Scholar
van der Auwera, Johan. 1999. Periphrastic ‘do’: Typological prolegomena. Thinking English grammar: To honour Xavier Dekeyser, professor emeritus, ed. by Tops, Guy A. J., Devriendt, Betty, & Geukens, Steven, 457–470. Leuven: Peeters.Google Scholar
Bayer, Josef. 1996. Directionality of government and logical form: A study of focusing particles and wh-scope. Dordrecht: Kluwer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bayer, Josef. 2008. What is verb second. Unpublished manuscript, University of Konstanz. Available at http://ling.uni-konstanz.de/pages/home/bayer/pdf/Verb-Second.pdf, accessed on January 11, 2016.Google Scholar
Besten, Hans den. 1983. On the interaction of root transformations and lexical deletive rules. On the formal syntax of the West Germania, ed. by Abraham, Werner, 47–131. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bianchi, Valentina. 2003. On finiteness as logophoric anchoring.
Temps et Point de Vue [Tense and Point of View], ed. by Guéron, Jacqueline & Tasmovski, Liliane, 213–246. Paris: Université Paris X.Google Scholar
Blom, Elma, van de Craats, Ineke, & Verhagen, Josje (eds.). 2013. Dummy auxiliaries in first and second language acquisition. Boston: De Gryuter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bock, Karl Nielsen. 1933. Niederdeutsch auf dänischem Substrat. Studien zur Dialektgeographie Südostschleswigs. Kopenhagen: Levin & Munksgaard/Marburg: Elwert'sche Verlagsbuchhandlung.Google Scholar
Bock, Karl Nielsen. 1969. Forschung und Kritik zum Sprachwechsel in Angeln und Mittelschleswig. Peter J⊘rgensen anläßlich seines 70. Geburtstages, ed. by Hyldgaard-Jensen, Karl & Steffensen, Steffen, 85–99. Kopenhagen: Akademisk Forlag.Google Scholar
Ellegård, Alvar. 1953. The auxiliary do: The establishment and regulation of its use in English. Stockholm: Almqvist & Wiksell.Google Scholar
Erb, Marie Christine. 1995. Eine Theorie expletiver Verben: Die tun-Periphrase im Deutschen. Frankfurt am Main, Germany: Universität Frankfurt am Main MA thesis.Google Scholar
Erb, Marie Christine. 2001. Finite auxiliaries in German. Tilburg, The Netherlands: Katholieke Universiteit Brabant dissertation.Google Scholar
Erteschick-Shir, Nomi. 2010. The phonology of adverb placement, OS and V-2: The case of Danish ‘MON’. The sound patterns of syntax, ed. by Erteschik-Shir, Nomi & Rochman, Lisa, 33–53. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Evans, Nicholas. 2007. Insubordination and its uses. Finiteness: Theoretical and empirical foundations, ed. by Nikolaeva, Irina, 366–431. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Feddersen, Friedrich. ca. 1820. Friesisch-Deutsches Wörterbuch in der Stedesander Mundart (Copy by Lorenz Fr. M. Mechlenburg, Amrum, Dec. 1849/Jan. 1850). Ms. Staats- und Universitätsbibliothek Hamburg, NLFM 6.Google Scholar
Feilberg, Henning Frederik. 1894–1904. Bidrag til en Orbog over jyske Almuemål. K⊘benhavn: Thieles Bogtrykkeri.Google Scholar
Garrett, Andrew. 1998. On the origin of auxiliary do
. English Language and Linguistics
2. 283–330.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Haan, Germen de. 1994. Inflection and cliticization in Frisian, -sto, -ste, -st'. NOWELE
23. 75–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Haegeman, Liliane. 1992. Theory and description in generative syntax. A case study in West Flemish. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Haider, Hubert, & Prinzhorn, Martin (eds.). 1986. Verb second phenomena in Germanic languages. Dordrecht: Foris Publications.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Haider, Hubert. 1988. Matching projections. Annali di ca’ Foscari 27: Constituent structure. Papers from the 1987 GLOW conference, ed. by Anna, Cardinaletti, Cinque, Guglielmo, & Guisti, Giuliana, 101–121. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Hallman, Peter. 2006. On a categorial distinction between stative and eventive verbs. Proceedings of the Thirty-Sixth Annual Meeting of the North Eastern Linguistics Society, ed. by Christopher, Davis, Rose Deal, Amy, & Zabbal, Youri. Amherst, MA: GLSA.Google Scholar
Hattori, Ryoko. 2003. Why do children say did you went?: The role of do-support.
BUCLD (Boston University Conference on Language Development) Online Proceedings Supplement, ed. by Alejn, Brugos, Micciulla, Linnea, & Smith, Christine E. Available at http://www.bu.edu/bucld/proceedings/supplement/vol28, accessed on January 11, 2016.Google Scholar
Hoekstra, Jarich. 1987. ‘Verb Second’ en de ‘imperativus pro infinitivo’ in het Fries. TABU
17. 96–121.Google Scholar
Hoekstra, Jarich. 2009. The AND + infinitive construction in the North Frisian-Low German-Danish language contact area. Low Saxon dialects across borders-Niedersächsische Dialekte über Grenzen hinweg (ZDL-Beiheft 138)
, ed. by Lenz, Alexandra N., Gooskens, Charlotte, & Reker, Siemon, 245–272. Stuttgart: Franz Steiner Verlag.Google Scholar
Hollebrandse, Bart, & Roeper, Tom. 1996. The concept of do-insertion and the theory of infl in acquisition. Proceeding of the Groningen Assembly on Language Acquisition held at the University of Groningen, September 7–9, 1995, ed. by Koster, Charlotte & Wijnenen, Frank, 261–271. Groningen: Centre for Language and Cognition.Google Scholar
Holmberg, Anders. 2016. Verb second. To appear in: Syntax: An international handbook of contemporary syntactic research, Volume 2, ed. by Kiss, Tibor & Alexiadou, Artemis. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter Verlag. Available at ling.auf.net/lingbuzz/001087/current.pdf, accessed on January 11, 2016.Google Scholar
Houser, Michael, Mikkelsen, Lene, & Toosarvandani, Maziar. 2011. A defective auxiliary in Danish. Journal of Germanic Linguistics
23. 245–298.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jabben, Oltmann Tjardes. 1931. Die friesische Sprache der Karrharde. Lautlehre. Breslau: Hirt.Google Scholar
Jäger, Andreas. 2006. Typology of periphrastic do-constructions (Diversitas Linguarum 12). Bochum: Brockmeyer.Google Scholar
Jäger, Andreas. 2007. Grammaticalization paths of periphrastic do-constructions. Studies van de BKL/Travaux du CBL/Papers of the LSB
2. Available at http://webh01.ua.ac.be/linguist/online/sbkl2007/jag2007.pdf, accessed on January 11, 2016.Google Scholar
Källgren, Gunnel, & Prince, Ellen F.
1989. Swedish VP-topicalization and Yiddish verb-topicalization. Nordic Journal of Linguistics
12. 47–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
van Kampen, Jacqueline. 1997. First steps in wh-movement. Utrecht, The Netherlands: Utrecht University dissertation.Google Scholar
Keseling, Gisbert. 1968. Periphrastische Verbformen im Niederdeutschen. Niederdeutsches Jahrbuch
91. 139–151.Google Scholar
Klamer, Marian. 2000. How report verbs become quote markers and complementizers. Lingua
110. 69–98.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Klemola, Juhani. 1998. Semantics of do in South-Western dialects of English. Do in English, Dutch and German. History and present-day variation, ed. by Tieken-Boon van Ostade, Ingrid, van der Wal, Marijke, & van Leuvensteijn, Arjan, 25–51. Amsterdam: Stichting Neerlandistiek & Nodus Publikationen.Google Scholar
van Koppen, Marjo. 2005. One probe-two goals: Aspects of agreement in Dutch dialects. Utrecht: LOT.Google Scholar
Kroch, Anthony. 1989a. Function and grammar in the history of English periphrastic do
. Language Variation and Change, ed. by Ralph, W. Fasold & Deborah Schiffrin, 133–172. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Kroch, Anthony. 1989b. Reflexes of grammar in patterns of language change. Language Variation and Change
1. 199–244.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Langer, Nils. 2001. Linguistic purism in action: How auxiliary tun was stigmatized in Early New High German. Berlin: De Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
L⊘drup, Helge. 1990. VP-topicalization and the verb gj⊘re in Norwegian. Working Papers in Scandinavian Syntax
45. 3–12.Google Scholar
ODS (Ordbog over det Danske Sprog [Dictionary of the Danish Language]). 1918–1956. K⊘benhavn: Gyldendal. Available at http://ordnet.dk/ods, accessed on January 11, 2016.Google Scholar
Platzack, Christer. 2012. Cross Germanic variation in the realm of support verbs. Comparative Germanic syntax: The state of the art, ed. by Peter, Ackema, Alcorn, Rhona, Heycock, Caroline, Jaspers, Dany, Van Craenenbroeck, Jeroen, & Vanden Wyngaerd, Guido, 279–310. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Riecken, Claas. 1994. Wörterbuch im Dornröschenschlaf. Zur Entstehung und Anlage des “Nordfrisischen Wörterbuchs” von Moritz Momme Nissen (Co-Frisica XV, Fach Friesische Philologie). Kiel: Christian-Albrechts-Universität zu Kiel.Google Scholar
Rizzi, Luigi. 1997. The fine structure of the left periphery. Elements of Grammar, ed. by Haegeman, Liliane, 281–337. Dordrecht: Kluwer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Roberts, Ian. 1985. Agreement parameters and the development of English modal auxiliaries. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory
3. 21–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schütze, Carson T.
2004. Synchronic and diachronic microvariation in English do
. Lingua
14. 389–542.Google Scholar
Schütze, Carson T.
2013. Superfluous do and comparison of spell-outs. Dummy auxiliaries in first and second language acquisition, ed. by Elma, Blom, Verhagen, Josje, & van de Craats, Ineke, 13–38. Berlin: De Gruyter.Google Scholar
Schwabe, Kerstin. 2007. Semantic properties of German solitaires. Journal of Germanic Linguistics and Semiotic Analysis
12. 233–254.Google Scholar
Schwarz, Christian. 2004.
Die tun-periphrase im Deutschen. Munich, Germany: Ludwigs-Maximilians-Universität München MA thesis. Available at http://www.freidok.uni-freiburg.de/volltexte/1759/pdf/tun-Periphrase.pdf, accessed on January 11, 2016.Google Scholar
Stroik, Thomas. 2001. On the light verb hypothesis. Linguistic Inquiry
32. 362–369.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
van Ostade, Tieken-Boon, Ingrid, , van der Wal, Marije, & Leuvensteijn, Arjan (eds.). 1998. DO in English, Dutch and German. History and present-day variation. Amsterdam: Stichting Neerlandistiek/Münster: Nodus Publikationen.Google Scholar
Truckenbrot, Hubert. 2013. Selbständige Verb-Letzt-Sätze. Satztypen des Deutschen, ed. by Jörg, Meibauer, Steinbach, Markus, & Altmann, Hans, 232–246. Berlin: De Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Walker, Alastair, & Wilts, Ommo. 2001. Die nordfriesischen Mundarten. Handbuch des Friesischen [Handbook of Frisian Studies], ed. by Haider Munske, Horst, 284–304. Tübingen: Niemeyer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Weerman, Fred. 1989. The V2 conspiracy. A synchronic and a diachronic analysis of verbal positions in Germanic languages. Dordrecht: Foris Publications.Google Scholar
Wiklund, Anna-Lena. 2007. The syntax of tenselessness. Tense/mood/aspect-agreeing infinitivals. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zwart, Jan Wouter. 2005. Syntactic and phonological verb movement. Syntax
4. 34–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Data Sources
Nissen, findling = Nissen, Moritz Momme. 1873–1883. De frėske Findling. Im Selbstverlag des Verfassers, Stedesand.Google Scholar
Nissen, Wb. = Nissen, Moritz Momme. 1889. Nordfrisiches Wörterbuch in mehreren Dialekten Nordfrislands. Manuscript, UB Kiel.Google Scholar
Nissen, makker I = Nissen, Moritz Momme. 1889. De Makker tu de frėske Sjemstin. Manuscript, UB Kiel.Google Scholar
Nissen, makker II = Nissen, Moritz Momme. 1892. De Makker sin lēther bouk tu de frėske Sjemstin. Manuscript. UB Kiel.Google Scholar
Nissen, hengist = Nissen, Moritz Momme. Undated. Hengist, de fraske Puttentat (Fürst), de anno 449 de Grünn lied het tu Engellön. En poetsk Ferteeling üt at frask Alerdum. Ms. Nordseemuseum, Husum.Google Scholar