Hostname: page-component-65f69f4695-v4vvv Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-06-27T07:57:45.922Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Syntactically Independent Exclamative zu-Infinitives in Modern Standard German: Diachrony and Cross-linguistic Comparison

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  09 June 2025

Andreas Jäger
Andreas Jäger*
Affiliation:
Universität Bremen
*
Email: anjaeger@uni-bremen.de
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

In Modern Standard German both bare infinitives and those formed with the particle zu are used as independent main clause predicates, where they each have illocutionary force. While the former can be associated with a range of functions, the latter specifically encodes indignation towards a state of affairs on the part of the speaker. Taking a constructionist approach, I argue that the exclamative zu-infinitive has emerged as a schematic construction, which is best described as a conventionalized form–function relation between the structure [X + zu + Inf] and an attitudinal semantic feature that represents speaker indignation. I provide diachronic data as well as a cross-linguistic comparison to support this constructionalization process.

Keywords

constructionexclamativeemergencefree-standingindignationzu-infinitive

Information

Type
Articles
Information
Journal of Germanic Linguistics , Volume 37 , Issue 2 , June 2025 , pp. 221 - 249
Check for updates
Copyright
© The Author(s), 2025. Published by Cambridge University Press on behalf of Society for Germanic Linguistics

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

Al-Bataineh, Hussein. 2023. Exclamative constructions: An overview. L’analisi linguistica letteraria 3, 55–84. www.analisilinguisticaeletteraria.eu/index.php/ojs/article/download/535/451 (accessed January 26, 2024).Google Scholar
Altmann, Hans. 1993. Satzmodus. In Joachim Jacobs, Arnim von Stechow, Wolfgang Sternefeld, & Theo Vennemann (eds.), Syntax. Ein internationales Handbuch zeitgenössischer Forschung, vol. 1 (Handbooks of Linguistics and Communication Science 9), 1006–1029. Berlin and New York: De Gruyter.Google Scholar
Auer, Peter. 2016. “Wie geil ist das denn?” – Eine neue Konstruktion im Netzwerk ihrer Nachbarn. Zeitschrift für germanistische Linguistik 44(1), 69–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bade, Nadine & Beck, Sigrid. 2017. Lyrical texts as a data source for linguistics. Linguistische Berichte 251, 50–89.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Batliner, Anton. 1988. Der Exklamativ: Mehr als Aussage oder doch nur mehr oder weniger Aussage? Experimente zur Rolle von Höhe und Position des F0-Gipfels. In H. Altmann (ed.), Intonationsforschungen, 243–272. Tübingen: Niemeyer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Beijer, Fabian. 2002. The syntax and pragmatics of exclamations and other expressive/emotional utterances. The Department of English in Lund Working Papers in Linguistics. https://lucris.lub.lu.se/ws/files/5340344/624533.pdf (accessed October 10, 2022).Google Scholar
Boas, Hans C. & Ziem, Alexander. 2018. Approaching German syntax from a constructionist perspective. In Boas, Hans C. & Ziem, Alexander (eds.), Constructional approaches to syntactic structures in German. Berlin and Boston: De Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Boogaart, Ronny. 2010. De verzuchtingsinfinitief. Vaktaal 2, 9–10.Google Scholar
Bopp, Sebastian. 2009. Einführung in die Korpuslinguistik mit DeReKo und COSMAS II (Elektronische Ressource). Augsburg. http://www.philhist.uni-augsburg.de/lehrstuehle/germanistik/.../korpuslinguistik_dereko_cosmas2_bopp.pdf (accessed September 15, 2024).Google Scholar
Brandner, Ellen. 2003. Dialekte, Sprachwandel und freie Variation. Brauchen wir eine Theorie der Mikrovariation? Project application, Universität Konstanz. www.yumpu.com/de/document/view/2211036/dialekte-sprachwandel-und-freie-variation-universitat-konstanz (accessed September 26, 2023)Google Scholar
Brandner, Ellen. 2006. Bare infinitives in Alemannic and the categorial status of infinitival complements. Linguistic Variation Yearbook 6, 203–268.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chernilovskaya, Anna. 2014. Exclamativity in discourse: Exploring the exclamative speech act from a discourse perspective. (LOT Dissertation Series 358). Utrecht: LOT Publications. www.lotpublications.nl/Documents/358_fulltext.pdf (accessed January 16, 2024)Google Scholar
D’Avis, Franz. 2013. Exklamativsatz. In Meibauer, Jörg, Steinbach, Markus & Altmann, Hans (eds.), Satztypen des Deutschen, 171–201. Berlin and Boston: De Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Demske, Ulrike. 2001. Zur Distribution von Infinitivkomplementen im Althochdeutschen. In Marga Reis & Reimar Müller (eds.), Modalität und Modalverben im Deutschen (Linguistische Berichte – Sonderhefte 9), 239–262. Hamburg: Buske.Google Scholar
Deppermann, Arnulf. 2006. Deontische Infinitivkonstruktionen: Syntax, Semantik, Pragmatik und interaktionale Verwendung. In Susanne Günthner & Wolfgang Imo (eds.), Konstruktionen in der Interaktion, 239–262. Berlin: De Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
De Smet, Hendrik & Fischer, Olga. 2017. The role of analogy in language change: Supporting constructions. In Marianne Hundt, Sandra Mollin, & Simone E. Pfenninger (eds.), The changing English language – psycholinguistic perspectives, 240–268. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Hendrik, De Smet & Verstraete, Jean Christophe. 2006. Coming to terms with subjectivity. Cognitive Linguistics 17, 365–392.Google Scholar
Diessel, Holger. 2012. New perspectives, theories and methods: Diachronic change and language acquisition. In Bergs, Alexander & Brinton, Laurel J. (eds.), Historical linguistics of English, 1599–1613. Berlin and Boston: De Gruyter.Google Scholar
Evans, Nicholas. 2007. Insubordination and its functions. In Nikolaeva, Irina & Plank, Frans (eds.), Finiteness – theoretical and empirical foundations. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 366–431.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Finkbeiner, Rita & Meibauer, Jörg (eds.). 2016. Satztypen und Konstruktionen im Deutschen (Linguistik – Impulse & Tendenzen 65), 326–372. Berlin and New York: De Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Foolen, Ad. 2012. The importance of emotion for language and linguistics. In Ad Foolen, Ulrike M. Lüdtke, Timothy P. Racine, & Jordan Zlatev (eds.), Moving ourselves, moving others: Motion and emotion in intersubjectivity, consciousness and language, 349–368. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ford, Cecilia E., Fox, Barbara A., & Thompson, Sandra A.. 2002. Constituency and the grammar of turn increments. In Cecilia E. Ford, Barbara A. Fox, & Sandra A. Thompson (eds.), The language of time and sequence, 3–38. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fried, Mirjam. 2013. Principles of constructional change. In Thomas Hoffmann & Graeme Trousdale (eds.), The Oxford handbook of Construction Grammar, 418–437. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fries, Norbert. 1983. Syntaktische und semantische Studien zum frei verwendeten Infinitiv und zu verwandten Erscheinungen im Deutschen. Tübingen: Narr.Google Scholar
Fries, Norbert.1988. Ist Pragmatik schwer! – Über sogenannte <Exklamativsätze> im Deutschen. Sprache und Pragmatik 3, 1–18.Google Scholar
Gärtner, Hans-Martin. 2013. Infinite Hauptsatzstrukturen. In Meibauer, Jörg, Steinbach, Markus & Altmann, Hans (eds.), Satztypen des Deutschen, 202–231. Berlin and Boston: De Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goldberg, Adele E. 1995. Constructions: A Construction Grammar approach to argument structure. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Gras, Pedro & Sansiñena, Maria S.. 2015. An interactional account of discourse-connective que constructions in Spanish. Text & Talk 35, 505–529.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hilpert, Martin & Diessel, Holger. 2017. Entrenchment in construction grammar. In Schmid, Hans-Jörg (ed.), Entrenchment and the psychology of language learning: How we reorganize and adapt linguistic knowledge, 57–74. Berlin: De Gruyter.Google Scholar
Hofmann, Johann B. 1965. Lateinische Grammatik. Zweiter Band – Syntax und Stilistik. Neu bearbeitet von Anton Szantyr. Munich: Beck.Google Scholar
Holl, Daniel. 2010. Modale Infinitive und dispositionelle Modalität im Deutschen (Studia Grammatica 71). Berlin: Akademie Verlag.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
IJbema, Anick. 2001. Grammaticalization and infinitival complements in Dutch. Amsterdam: LOT Publications.Google Scholar
Jacobs, Joachim. 2016. Satztypkonstruktionen und Satztypsensitivität. In R. Finkbeiner & J. Meibauer (eds.), Satztypen und Konstruktionen im Deutschen, 23–71. Berlin and Boston: De Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jäger, Andreas. 2021. Selbständige dass-Sätze als Prohibitivausdruck: eine emergente Konstruktion. In R. Külpmann & R. Finkbeiner (eds.), Neues zur Selbständigkeit von Sätzen. Linguistische Berichte, Sonderheft 30, 105–128.Google Scholar
Kerkhof, Jelle. 1982. Studies in the language of Geoffrey Chaucer. Leiden: E. J. Brill.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
König, Ekkehard & Siemund, Peter. 2013. Satztyp und Typologie. In Meibauer, Jörg, Steinbach, Markus & Altmann, Hans (eds.), Satztypen des Deutschen, 846–73. Berlin and Boston: De Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Labov, William.1972. Some principles of linguistic methodology. Language in Society 1, 97–120.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lindgren, Kaj B. 1967. Syntaktische Probleme beim deutschen Infinitiv II: der Infinitiv außerhalb der Prädikationssphäre. Neuphilologische Mitteilungen 68, 69–86.Google Scholar
Maurice, Florence.1996. Der modale Infinitiv in der modernen russischen Standardsprache. Munich: Mayerthaler.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Margerie, Hélène. 2011. Grammaticalising constructions: To death as a peripheral degree modifier. Folia Linguistica Historica 32, 115–148.Google Scholar
Meibauer, Jörg. 2013. Satztyp und Pragmatik. In Meibauer, Jörg, Steinbach, Markus & Altmann, Hans (eds.), Satztypen des Deutschen, 712–737. Berlin and New York: De Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Michaelis, Laura A. 2001. Exclamative constructions. In Martin Haspelmath, Ekkehard König, Oesterreicher, Wulf & Raible, Wolfgang (eds), Language typology and language universals: An international handbook, 1038–1050. Berlin and Boston: De Gruyter.Google Scholar
Müller, Gereon. 2011. Regeln oder Konstruktionen? Von verblosen Direktiven zur sequenziellen Nominalreduplikation. In S. Engelberg, A. Holler, & K. Proost (eds.), Sprachliches Wissen zwischen Lexikon und Grammatik, 211–250. Berlin and Boston: De Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nikolaeva, Irina. 2014. The Narrative Infinitive Construction in French and Latin. In Hans Boas & Francisco Gonzálvez-García (eds.), Romance perspectives on Construction Grammar, 139–179. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Palmer, Leonhard R. 1954. The Latin language. London: Faber & Faber.Google Scholar
Petré, Peter & Cuyckens, Hubert. 2009. Constructional change in Old and Middle English. Folia Linguistica Historica 43, 311–365.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rapp, Irene & Wöllstein, Angelika. 2009. Infinite Strukturen: selbständig, koordiniert und subordiniert. Linguistische Berichte, Sonderheft 16, 159–179.Google Scholar
Reis, Marga. 1995. Über infinite Nominativkonstruktionen im Deutschen. Sprache und Pragmatik, Sonderheft. Google Scholar
Reis, Marga.1999. On sentence types in German: An enquiry into the relationship between grammar and pragmatics. Interdisciplinary Journal for Germanic Linguistics and Semiotic Analysis 4,195–236.Google Scholar
Repp, Sophie. 2016. Semantic restrictions in verb-second vs. non-verb-second wh- exclamatives. Paper presented at the 38th DGfS Conference in Konstanz. http://idsl1.phil-fak.uni-koeln.de/sites/IDSLI/dozentenseiten/Repp/ReppDGfS2016.pdf (accessed January 8, 2024).Google Scholar
Rosengren, Inger. 1997. Expressive sentence types – contradiction in terms: The case of exclamation. In T. Swan & O. Jansen Westvik (eds.), Modality in Germanic languages, 151–184. Berlin: De Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schallert, Oliver. 2019. Verbstellungsvariation bei Exklamativen aus diachroner Perspektive. Beiträge zur Geschichte der deutschen Sprache und Literatur (PBB) 141(4), 477–506.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schikowski, Robert. 2010. Infinitival subclauses in Chintang. Paper presented at the typological colloquium, Institute for Linguistics, University of Leipzig, October 21, 2010. https://dokumen.tips/documents/1-introduction-uzh.html?page=1 (accessed September 26, 2023).Google Scholar
Schmid, Hans-Jörg. 2017. Linguistic entrenchment and its psychological foundations. In Hans-Jörg Schmid (ed.), Entrenchment and the psychology of language learning: How we reorganize and adapt linguisic knowledge, 435–452. Boston: APA and Walter de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schöbler, Ingeborg. 1969. Syntax. In Hermann Paul (1881), Mittelhochdeutsche Grammatik, 25th edition (2007). Tübingen: Niemeyer,Google Scholar
Searle, John R. 1969. Speech acts. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Smyth, Herbert Weir. 1920. A Greek grammar for colleges. New York: American Book Company.Google Scholar
Spears, Arthur K. 1982. The Black English semi-auxiliary come . Language 58, 850–872.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Spitzer, Leo. 1954. The actor-infinitive-construction in Russian and other Indo-European languages. Word 10, 442–456.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stefanowitsch, Anatol & Gries, Stefan T.. 2003. Collostructions: Investigating the interaction of words and constructions. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics 8, 209–243.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Traugott, Elizabeth C. 1989. On the rise of epistemic meanings in English: An example of subjectification in semantic change. Language 65, 31–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Traugott, Elizabeth C. 2017. “Insubordination” in the light of the uniformitarian principle. English Language and Linguistics 21(2), 289–310.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Truckenbrodt, Hubert. 2013. 26 Satztyp, Prosodie und Intonation. In Jörg Meibauer, Markus Steinbach, & Hans Altmann (eds.), Satztypen des Deutschen, 570–601. Berlin and Boston: De Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Van den Stock, Anouk, Astrid De Wit, Reinhild Vandekerckhove, & Gras, Pedro. 2023. A functional typology of Dutch insubordinate infinitives. Nederlandse Taalkunde 28(1), 72–103.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Verstraete, Jean-Christophe, D’Hertefelt, Sarah, & Van Linden, An. 2012. A typology of complement insubordination in Dutch. Studies in Language 36, 123–153.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Visser, Fredericus T. 1966. An historical syntax of the English language, part II: Syntactical units with one verb. Leiden: E. J. Brill.Google Scholar
Weiß, Helmut. 2005. Von den vier Lebensaltern einer Standardsprache: Zur Rolle von Spracherwerb und Medialität. Deutsche Sprache 33, 289–307.Google Scholar
Wolfram, Walt. 2004. The grammar of urban African American Vernacular English. In Kortmann, Bernd & Schneider, Edgar W. (eds.), Handbook of varieties of English, 111–132. Berlin: De Gruyter.Google Scholar