Hostname: page-component-77f85d65b8-5ngxj Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-04-17T18:27:05.925Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Syncope as the Cause of Präteritumschwund: New Data from an Early New High German Corpus

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 December 2009

Christopher D. Sapp
Christopher D. Sapp*
Affiliation:
University of Mississippi
*
Department of Modern Languages, Bondurant Hall C-115, University of Mississippi, University, MS 38677, USA, [csapp@olemiss.edu]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This paper examines the cause of the decline of the preterite tense in favor of the present perfect tense in Early New High German. This development has long been attributed to apocope, which rendered the 3sg. weak preterite suffix -te homophonous with the 3sg. present suffix -t. By analyzing a database of over 20,000 past-tense clauses, this study evaluates the apocope account and more recent hypotheses. The resulting data lead to a new explanation: syncope in the 2sg. and 2pl. of weak verbs yielded dispreferred final clusters (-tst and -tt), resulting in a preference in these contexts for the present perfect, which then spread to other contexts.*

Information

Type
ARTICLES
Information
Journal of Germanic Linguistics , Volume 21 , Issue 4 , December 2009 , pp. 419 - 450
Copyright
Copyright © Society for Germanic Linguistics 2009

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.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

REFERENCES

Abraham, Werner 1999 Präteritumschwund in German: The parsing trigger. Folia Linguistica Europaea 33 39–58Google Scholar
Abraham, Werner 2004 The European demise of the simple past and the emergence of the periphrastic perfect: Areal diffusion or natural, autonomous evolution under parsing facilitation? Focus on Germanic typology, ed. by , WernerAbraham, 241–271BerlinAkademieGoogle Scholar
Abraham, Werner & Jac, Conradie 2001 Präteritumschwund und Diskursgrammatik: Präteritumschwund in gesamteuropäischen Bezügen: Areale Ausbreitung, heterogene Entstehung, Parsing sowie diskursgrammatische Grundlagen und Zusammenhänge. AmsterdamJohn Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Baayen, Rolf HaraldRichard, Piepenbrock & Leon, Gulikers 1995 The CELEX Lexical Database (Release 2). PhiladelphiaLinguistic Data Consortium, University of Pennsylvania.Google Scholar
Behaghel, Otto 1924 Deutsche Syntax: Eine geschichtliche Darstellung. Vol. 2. HeidelbergWinterGoogle Scholar
Das Bonner Frühneuhochdeutsch-Korpus. Institut für Kommunikations-forschung und Phonetik, Universität Bonn. Available at: http://www.ikp.unibonn.de/dt/forsch/fnhd/.Google Scholar
Dal, Ingerid 1960 Zur Frage des süddeutschen Präteritumschwundes. Indogermanica: Festschrift für Wolfgang Krause zum 65. Geburtstag, ed. by , HansHartmann, & Hans, Neumann1–7HeidelbergWinterGoogle Scholar
Dentler, Sigrid 1988Gab es den Präteritumschwund?Historische germanische und deutsche Syntax, ed. by John, Ole Askedal133–147BerlinPeter LangGoogle Scholar
Drinka, Bridget 2004Präteritumschwund: Evidence for areal diffusion.Focus on Germanic typology, ed. by , WernerAbraham, , 211–240BerlinAkademieGoogle Scholar
Ebert, Robert Peter. 1980 Social and stylistic variation in Early New High German word order: The sentence frame (Satzrahmen). Beiträge zur Geschichte der deutschen Sprache und Literatur 102 357–398Google Scholar
Ebert, Robert Peter. 1981 Social and stylistic variation in the order of auxiliary and non-finite verb in dependent clauses in Early New High German. Beiträge zur Geschichte der deutschen Sprache und Literatur 103 204237Google Scholar
Fischer, Annette 1998TUN periphrasis in Early New High German.DO in English, Dutch, and German. History and present-day variation, ed. by Ingrid, Tieken-Boon van OstadeMarijke, van der Wal & Arjan, van Leuvensteijn121–138Amsterdam/MünsterStichting Neerlandistiek/Nodus PublikationenGoogle Scholar
Hartweg, Frédéric & Klaus-Peter, Wegera 1989 Frühneuhochdeutsch: Eine Einführung in die deutsche Sprache des Spätmittelalters und der frühen Neuzeit TübingenNiemeyerCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Helbig, Gerhard & Joachim, Buscha 2001 Deutsche Grammatik: Ein Handbuch für den Ausländerunterricht. 17th ed. LeipzigLangenscheidtGoogle Scholar
König, Werner 1994 dtv-Atlas zur deutschen Sprache. MünchenDTVGoogle Scholar
Lindgren, Kaj B. 1957 Über den Oberdeutschen Präteritumschwund. HelsinkiAcademia Scientiarum Fennicae.Google Scholar
Lindgren, Kaj B. 1963 Über Präteritum und Konjunktiv im Oberdeutschen. Neuphilologische Mitteilungen 64 26483Google Scholar
Reis, Hans 1891 Beiträge zur Syntax der Mainzer Mundart. MainzJ. GottslebenGoogle Scholar
Reis, Hans 1910 Der Untergang der einfachen Vergangenheitsform. Germanisch-Romanische Monatszeitschrift 2 382–392Google Scholar
Sankoff, David, Sali Tagliamonte, & Eric Smith. 2005. Goldvarb X: A variable rule application for Macintosh and Windows. Department of Linguistics, University of Toronto. Available at: http://individual.utoronto.ca/tagliamonte/Goldvarb/GV_index.htm.Google Scholar
Sapp, Christopher D. 2006Verb order in subordinate clauses from Early New High German to Modern German.Doctoral dissertation Bloomington, INIndiana UniversityGoogle Scholar
Schmidt, Jürgen Erich, & Joachim Herrgen (eds.). 2001ff. Digitaler Wenker-Atlas (DiWA). Available at: http://www.diwa.info.Google Scholar
Schmidt, Wilhelm 1996 Geschichte der deutschen Sprache: Ein Lehrbuch für das gemanistische Studium. 7th ed. StuttgartS. HirzelGoogle Scholar
Stein, Dieter 1986 Syntactic variation and change: The case of do in questions in Early Modern English. Folia Linguistica Historica 7 121–149Google Scholar