Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-jkksz Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-27T05:46:37.989Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

A (Very) Imperfect Sandwich: English Should, German Sollte, Dutch Mocht/Moest as Grammaticalizing Markers of Conditionality

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  11 November 2016

Anne Breitbarth ,
Sara Delva  and
Torsten Leuschner
Anne Breitbarth*
Affiliation:
Ghent University
Sara Delva*
Affiliation:
Ghent University
Torsten Leuschner*
Affiliation:
Ghent University
*
Ghent University (UGent), Linguistics Department—German, Blandijnberg 2, 9000 Ghent, Belgium, [anne.breitbarth@ugent.be]
Eikvarenweg 10, 9031 Drongen, Belgium, [sara.delva93@gmail.com]
Ghent University (UGent), Linguistics Deptartment—German, Blandijnberg 2, 9000 Ghent, Belgium, [torsten.leuschner@ugent.be]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Based on a comparative corpus study, the present paper contrasts conditionals containing the modal verbs sollte in German, should in English, and mocht/moest in Dutch. The conditionals are examined with respect to the linkage levels between protasis and apodosis, the tense/mood patterns in the two clauses, and the degree of syntactic integration of the protasis into the apodosis. We argue that sollte, should, mocht, and moest are undergoing a process of grammaticalization as markers of conditionality, understood as upwards reanalysis in the hierarchy of functional projections. We show that this grammaticalization process is at different stages in the different languages, not showing any “sandwich”-like pattern.

Type
Articles
Information
Journal of Germanic Linguistics , Volume 28 , Special Issue 4: New Directions in Comparative Germanic Linguistics , December 2016 , pp. 282 - 316
Copyright
Copyright © Society for Germanic Linguistics 2016 

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

Athanasiadou, Angeliki, & Dirven, René. 1997. Conditionality, hypotheticality, counterfactuality. On conditionals again, ed. by Athanasiadou, Angeliki & Dirven, René, 61–97. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
van der Auwera, Johan, & Plungian, Vladimir. 1998. Modality's semantic map. Linguistic Typology 2. 79–124.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Axel, Katrin, & Wöllstein, Angelika. 2009. German verb-first conditionals as unintegrated clauses: A case study in converging synchronic and diachronic evidence, The fruits of empirical linguistics, vol. 2, ed. by Winkler, Susanne & Featherston, Sam, 1–36. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Bhatt, Rajesh, & Pancheva, Roumyana. 2006. Conditionals. The Blackwell companion to syntax, vol. 1, ed. by Everaert, Martin & van Riemsdijk, Henk, 638–687. Oxford: Blackwell.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Boogaart, Ronny. 2007. Conditionele constructies met moest(en) en mocht(en) in Belgisch-Nederlands en Nederlands-Nederlands. Neerlandistiek.nl 07.05. Available at http://dspace.library.uu.nl/handle/1874/28470, accessed on July 8, 2016.Google Scholar
Breitbarth, Anne. 2012. The development of conditional sollte in German. Paper presented at the Fourteenth Diachronic Generative Syntax conference (DiGS) held at the Centre of Linguistics of the University of Lisbon, July 4–6, 2012, available at http://www.gist.ugent.be/file/452, accessed on July 8, 2016.Google Scholar
Breitbarth, Anne. 2014. ‘Conditional’ sollte and should. Paper presented at the Twenty-Ninth Comparative Germanic Syntax Workshop (CGSW) held at the University of York, September 25–27, 2014, available at http://www.gist.ugent.be/file/453, accessed on July 8, 2016.Google Scholar
Breitbarth, Anne. 2015. The development of conditional should in English. Language change at the syntax-semantics interface, ed. by Chiara, Gianollo, Jäger, Agnes, & Penka, Doris, 293–322. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bybee, Joan. 1998. “Irrealis” as a grammatical category. Anthropological Linguistics 40. 257–271.Google Scholar
Cinque, Guglielmo. 1999. Adverbs and functional heads. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Copley, Bridget. 2006. What should should mean? Paper presented at the Language Under Uncertainty Workshop held at Kyoto University, January 21–23, 2005, available at https://halshs.archives-ouvertes.fr/halshs-00093569/, accessed on June 2, 2016.Google Scholar
Dancygier, Barbara, & Sweetser, Eve. 2005. Mental spaces in grammar: Conditional constructions. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Delva, Sara. 2014. Deutsche und französische Bedingungsgefüge mit sollen bzw. devoir. Eine sprachvergleichende Analyse. Ghent, Belgium: Universiteit Gent undergraduate thesis.Google Scholar
Demol, Jan. 1973. Moest. Album Willem Pée, de jubilaris aangeboden bij zijn zeventigste verjaardag. 95–100. Tongeren: Michiels.Google Scholar
Diewald, Gabriele. 1999. Die Modalverben im Deutschen: Grammatikalisierung und Polyfunktionalität. Tübingen: Niemeyer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Evans, Nicolas. 2007. Insubordination and its uses. Finiteness: Theoretical and empirical foundations, ed. by Nikolaeva, Irina, 366–431. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fabricius-Hansen, Cathrine. 1980. Sogenannte ergänzende wenn-Sätze. Ein Beispiel syntaktisch-semantischer Argumentation. Kopenhagener Beiträge zur germanistischen Linguistik. Sonderband 1: Festschrift für Gunnar Bech zum, 60. Geburtstag am 23. März 1980, ed. by Mogens, Dhyr, Hyldgaard-Jensen, Karl, & Olsen, J⊘rgen, 160–188. K⊘benhavn: K⊘benhavns Universitet, Institut for Germansk Filologi.Google Scholar
Fritz, Gerd. 1997a. Historische Semantik der Modalverben. Problemskizze-exemplarische Analysen-Forschungsüberblick. Fritz & Gloning 1997, 1–157.Google Scholar
Fritz, Gerd. 1997b. Deutsche Modalverben 1609. Nicht-epistemische Verwendungsweisen. Fritz & Gloning 1997, 249–305.Google Scholar
Fritz, Gerd, & Gloning, Thomas (eds.). 1997. Untersuchungen zur semantischen Entwicklungsgeschichte der Modalverben im Deutschen (Reihe Germanistische Linguistik 187). Tübingen: Niemeyer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Glas, Reinhold. 1984. Sollen im heutigen Deutsch. Bedeutung und Gebrauch in der Schriftsprache. Tübingen: Narr.Google Scholar
Goossens, Louis. 1961. Moeten in de Zuidnederlandse hypothetische zin: een gallicisme? Taal en Tongval 13. 5–12.Google Scholar
Goubert, Linde. 2014. Das modale Verb sollen in konditionalen Sätzen. Eine diachrone Untersuchung. Ghent, Belgium: Universiteit Gent MA thesis.Google Scholar
Haegeman, Liliane. 1981. Modal shall and speaker's control. Journal of English Linguistics 15. 4–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Haegeman, Liliane. 2003. Conditional clauses: External and internal syntax. Mind and Language 18. 317–339.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Haegeman, Liliane. 2010. The movement derivation of conditional clauses. Linguistic Inquiry 41. 595–621.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hopper, Paul J. 1991. On some principles of grammaticization. Approaches to grammaticalization, vol. 1: Focus on theoretical and methodological issues, ed. by Closs Traugott, Elizabeth & Heine, Bernd, 17–35. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kempchinsky, Paula. 2009. What can the subjunctive disjoint reference effect tell us about the subjunctive? Lingua 119. 1788–1810.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
König, Ekkehard, & van der Auwera, Johan. 1988. Clause integration in German and Dutch conditionals, concessive conditionals, and concessives. Clause combining in grammar and discourse, ed. by Haiman, John & Thompson, Sandra, 101–133. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Leech, Geoffrey. 2004. Meaning and the English verb. 3rd edn. Harlow: Pearson Longman.Google Scholar
Leirbukt, Oddleif. 1997. Über Wahrscheinlichkeitsgradierung und Illokutionen bei Konditionalgefügen. Studien zu Deutsch als Fremdsprache III. Aspekte der Modalität im Deutschen—auch in kontrastiver Sicht, ed. by Debus, Friedhelm & Leirbukt, Oddleif, 77–101. Hildesheim: Olms.Google Scholar
Leuschner, Torsten, & Van den Nest, Daan. 2015. Asynchronous grammaticalization: V1 conditionals in present-day English and German. Languages in Contrast 15. 34–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nieuwint, Pieter. 1987. Modaal mocht in bijzinnen. De nieuwe taalgids 80. 303–315.Google Scholar
Nieuwint, Pieter. 1989. Should in conditional protases. Linguistics 27. 305–318.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nuyts, Jan, Byloo, Peter, & Diepeveen, Janneke. 2005. On deontic modality, directivity, and mood: A case study of Dutch mogen and moeten (Antwerp Papers in Linguistics 110). Wilrijk: University of Antwerp Department of Linguistics.Google Scholar
Quirk, Randolph, Greenbaum, Sidney, Leech, Geoffrey, & Svartvik, Jan. 1985. A comprehensive grammar of the English language. Harlow: Longman.Google Scholar
Reis, Marga, & Wöllstein, Angelika. 2010. Zur Grammatik (vor allem) konditionaler V1-Gefüge im Deutschen. Zeitschrift für Sprachwissenschaft 29. 111–179.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Renmans, Bram, & van Belle, William. 2003. The use of the particle dan in Dutch conditional sentences. Leuvense Bijdragen 92. 141–157.Google Scholar
Roberts, Ian. 2010. Grammaticalization, the clausal hierarchy and semantic bleaching. Gradience, gradualness, and grammaticalization, ed. by Closs Traugott, Elizabeth & Trousdale, Graeme, 45–73. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Roberts, Ian. 2012. Diachrony and cartography: Paths of grammaticalization and the clausal hierarchy. Functional heads, ed. by Brugé, Laura, Cardinaletti, Anna, Giusti, Giuliana, Munaro, Nicola, & Poletto, Cecilia, 351–367. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Roberts, Ian, & Roussou, Anna. 2003. Syntactic change: A minimalist approach to grammaticalization. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stevens, Christopher M. 1995. On the grammaticalization of German können, dürfen, sollen, mögen, müssen and wollen . American Journal of Germanic Linguistics and Literature 7. 179–206.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sweetser, Eve. 1990. From etymology to pragmatics: Metaphorical and cultural aspects of semantic structure. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Trousdale, Graeme. 2012. Grammaticalization, constructions and the grammaticalization of constructions. Grammaticalization and language change: New reflections, ed. by Kristin, Davidse, Breban, Tine, Brems, Lieselotte, & Mortelmans, Tanja, 167–198. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Van den Nest, Daan. 2010. Emergenz und Grammatikalisierung von V1-Konditionalen: ein Rekonstruktionsversuch am Beispiel des Deutschen und Englischen. Ghent, Belgium: Universiteit Gent dissertation.Google Scholar
Welke, Klaus. 1965. Untersuchungen zum System der Modalverben in der deutschen Sprache der Gegenwart. Ein Beitrag zur Erforschung funktionaler und syntaktischer Beziehungen. Berlin: Akademie-Verlag.Google Scholar

Corpora and Other Data Sources

BNC (British National Corpus). Available at http://www.natcorp.ox.ac.uk/. Colibri-webcorpus NLCOW14. Available at http://corporafromtheweb.org/nlcow14/.Google Scholar
DeReKo (the Deutsches Referenzkorpus). Available at http://www.ids-mannheim.de/cosmas2/web-app/.Google Scholar
Kroch, Anthony, & Taylor, Ann. 2000. The Penn-Helsinki Parsed Corpus of Middle English (PPCME2). 2nd edn., release 4. Department of Linguistics, University of Pennsylvania. CD-ROM. Available at http://www.ling.upenn.edu/ppche/ppche-release-2016/PPCME2-RELEASE-4.Google Scholar
MED (Middle English Dictionary). Available at: http://quod.lib.umich.edu/m/med/lookup.html.Google Scholar
Fuchs, Reinhart. 1984. Der Reinhart Fuchs des Elsässers Heinrich. Unter Mitarbeit von Katharina von Goetz, Frank Henrichvark und Sigrid Krause herausgegeben von Klaus Düwel. Tübingen: Niemeyer. www.tagesschau.de Google Scholar