DOCSLIB.ORG

West Germanic IPP-Constructions. an Optimality Theoretic Approach

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
West Germanic IPP-Constructions. an Optimality Theoretic Approach West Germanic IPP-Constructions. An Optimality Theoretic Approach Von der Fakult¨at Philosophie der Universit¨at Stuttgart zur Erlangung der W¨urde einer Doktorin der Philosophie (Dr. Phil.) genehmigte Abhandlung vorgelegt von Tanja Schmid aus Stuttgart Hauptberichter: Prof. Dr. Hans Kamp Mitberichter: 1. Dr. habil. Sten Vikner 2. Prof. Dr. Hubert Haider Tag der m¨undlichen Pr¨ufung: 05. Oktober 2002 Institut f¨ur Linguistik/Germanistik der Universit¨at Stuttgart 2002 Ich erkl¨are hiermit, dass ich, abgesehen von den im Literaturverzeichnis aufgef¨uhrten Quellen und den Ratschl¨agen von den jeweils namentlich aufgef¨uhrten Personen, die Dissertation selbst¨andig verfasst habe. (Tanja Schmid) 2 Acknowledgements First and foremost I would like to thank my supervisor Sten Vikner. It is due to him and his way of teaching that I first became interested in linguistics, and that this interest has never left me since. I thank Sten for the many hours of discussion, for motivating and supporting me over the last years, and most of all for sharing his enthusiasm for language and linguistics with me. I would also like to thank my other academic teachers who deepened my interest in linguistics, in particular Hubert Haider (who suggested that IPP might be an interesting phenomenon to look at), Aditi Lahiri, Gereon M¨uller, and Ian Roberts. Special thanks go to my main native speaker informants for their never ending willingness to answer all my questions: Afrikaans: Sylvia Schlettwein, Bernese German: Ursula Wegm¨uller, Dutch: Jan van Kuppevelt, Noor van Leusen, Sankt Gallen German: Manuela Sch¨onenberger, Z¨urich German: J¨urg Fleischer, West Flemish: Bert Cappelle, and Liliane Haegeman. I would like to thank the audiences at talks given at the OT-Workshops in Stuttgart (1997, 1998) and Potsdam (2001), at the GGS-conference (Salzburg 1998), at ConSOLE 7 (Bergen 1998), at the DGfS-Jahrestagung (Konstanz 1999), at the Joint Student Conference of Rutgers, Johns Hopkins and Maryland (1999), and at the Universities of Stuttgart, D¨usseldorf, and Rutgers. Parts of chapters 6-8 are based on Schmid (1999), Schmid (2000), Schmid (2001), and parts of chapters 7 and 9 are based on Schmid and Vogel (2002). Special thanks to Ralv for a new view on verb clusters, and for reminding me how interesting they are. I would also like to thank all members of the Stuttgart OT-syntax project: Silke Fischer, Fabian Heck, Gunnar Hrafn Hrafnbjargarson, Jonas Kuhn, Gereon M¨uller, Sten Vikner, and Ralf Vogel for their patience when I was talking about IPP-constructions once again. During my stay at Rutgers in March 1999 I had the opportunity to discuss aspects of my work with various people. I would like to thank Mark Baker, Ken Safir, Bruce Tesar, Hubert Truckenbrodt, and especially Jane Grimshaw for fruitful discussions. Special thanks go to Nicole Nelson for organising my stay and to her and Susanne for making it so enjoyable. Many other people contributed to my dissertation. For helpful discussions, valuable comments and support in many other ways I would like to thank Eric Bakovi´c, Judith Berman, Ellen Brandner, Jean Entenmann, Eric Fuß, Piklu Gupta, Robert Hinterh¨olzl, Gunnar Hrafn Hrafnbjargarson, Fabian Heck, Hans Kamp, Anke L¨udeling, Detmar Meurers, Gereon M¨uller, Reimar M¨uller, Peter Ohl,¨ Ian Roberts, Vieri Samek-Lodovici, Wolfgang Sternefeld, Carola Trips, Ralf Vogel, Colin Wilson, Anglika W¨ollstein-Leisten, and Heike Zinsmeister. Thanks also to my ‘non-linguistic’ friends for making me think of other things: in particular D´esir´ee, Martin, Nane, Peer, Peter, and Ulrike, thanks. The research reported in this dissertation was partly supported by the Deutsche 3 Forschungsgemeinschaft as part of the Graduiertenkolleg Linguistische Grund- lagen f¨ur die Sprachverarbeitung, and as part of the Project The Optimality- theoretic Syntax of German from a Comparative Germanic Perspective (Grant MU 1444/2-1, Principal Investigators: Gereon M¨uller, Sten Vikner.) Finally, I wish to thank my parents for their support and for always believing in me, and most of all my husband Wolfgang for his love and encouragement, and for being my ‘Fels in der Brandung’ when everything around me seemed to fall apart. 4 Contents Acknowledgements 3 1 Introduction 9 1.1 The phenomenon: Infinitivus Pro Participio (IPP) ......... 9 1.2TheWestGermanicIPP-languages................. 12 1.3Goalsandorganisation........................ 13 2 The verb form 14 2.1Introduction.............................. 14 2.2Selectionoftheverbform:Thestandardcase........... 14 2.3VerbclassesandIPP......................... 15 2.4 IPP-verbs as past participles ..................... 16 2.4.1 Modals............................. 17 2.4.2 Perceptionverbs....................... 18 2.4.3 Benefactives.......................... 19 2.4.4 Duratives........................... 20 2.4.5 Inchoatives.......................... 21 2.4.6 Controlverbs......................... 22 2.4.7 Raisingverbs......................... 23 2.5TheverbformintheIPP-construction............... 24 2.5.1 Causatives........................... 24 2.5.2 Modals............................. 25 2.5.3 Perceptionverbs....................... 26 2.5.4 Benefactives.......................... 27 2.5.5 Duratives........................... 28 2.5.6 Inchoatives.......................... 29 2.5.7 Controlverbs......................... 30 2.5.8 Raisingverbs......................... 31 2.6OverviewofIPP-verbs........................ 32 2.7Summaryandquestionsresultingfromthedata.......... 37 3 The verb order 39 3.1Introduction.............................. 39 3.2Causatives............................... 40 3.2.1 The present perfect tense, V2: past participle . .... 40 3.2.2 The present perfect tense, V2:IPP............. 41 3.2.3 The future tense, V2: bare infinitive ............. 42 3.3Modals................................. 45 3.3.1 The present perfect tense, V2: past participle . .... 45 3.3.2 The present perfect tense, V2:IPP............. 45 3.3.3 The future tense, V2: bare infinitive ............. 47 5 3.4Perceptionverbs........................... 49 3.4.1 The present perfect tense, V2: past participle . .... 49 3.4.2 The present perfect tense, V2:IPP............. 50 3.4.3 The future tense, V2: bare infinitive ............. 52 3.5Benefactives.............................. 54 3.5.1 The present perfect tense, V2: past participle . .... 54 3.5.2 The present perfect tense, V2:IPP............. 56 3.5.3 The future tense, V2: bare infinitive ............. 57 3.6Duratives............................... 59 3.6.1 The present perfect tense, V2: past participle . .... 59 3.6.2 The present perfect tense, V2:IPP............. 61 3.6.3 The future tense, V2: bare infinitive ............. 62 3.7Inchoatives.............................. 64 3.7.1 The present perfect tense, V2: past participle . .... 64 3.7.2 The present perfect tense, V2:IPP............. 66 3.7.3 The future tense, V2: bare infinitive ............. 67 3.8Controlverbs............................. 69 3.8.1 The present perfect tense, V2: past participle . .... 69 3.8.2 The present perfect tense, V2:IPP............. 71 3.8.3 The future tense, V2: bare infinitive ............. 72 3.9Summaryfromtheperspectiveofthedifferentlanguages..... 73 3.9.1 BerneseGerman....................... 74 3.9.2 StandardGerman....................... 75 3.9.3 SanktGallenGerman..................... 76 3.9.4 Z¨urichGerman........................ 77 3.9.5 Dutch............................. 78 3.9.6 WestFlemish......................... 78 3.9.7 Afrikaans........................... 79 3.10 Summary from the perspective of the different constructions . 80 3.10.1 The present perfect tense, V2: past participle . .... 80 3.10.2 The present perfect tense, V2:IPP............. 81 3.10.3 The future tense, V2: bare infinitive ............. 81 3.11Summary............................... 82 4 Previous accounts of the IPP-construction 83 4.1 The status of the IPP: infinitive or past participle? ........ 84 4.2TriggersandaccountsoftheIPP-construction........... 85 4.3CorrelationswithrespecttoIPP................... 90 4.3.1 The perfect tense prefix ge-andIPP............ 90 4.3.2 VerborderandIPP...................... 91 4.4Summary............................... 93 6 5 Introduction to Optimality Theory (OT) 95 5.1Generalintroduction......................... 95 5.1.1 UniversalGrammarinOptimalityTheory......... 97 5.1.2 The Question of the Input . ............... 97 5.2Lastresort............................... 97 5.2.1 Do-insertion in English (Grimshaw 1997) .......... 98 5.3FixedHierarchies........................... 99 5.3.1 Harmonicalignment..................... 99 6 A case study of German I: The verb form (obligatory IPP versus impossible IPP) 103 6.1Thedatarevisited.......................... 103 6.2Morphologicalselection........................ 108 6.3Examplesofviolationsofmorphologicalselection......... 110 6.3.1 R-pronoun insertion in German, M¨uller (2000a) . .... 110 6.3.2 ‘Imperativus pro Infinitivo’ in West Frisian ........ 111 6.3.3 PPIasacounterpartofIPP................. 112 6.4 Speculations on an ‘unwanted’ configuration: a trigger constraint for non-finite last resort cases .................... 114 6.5Theformoftherepair........................ 121 6.5.1 Why zu-infinitives are different ............... 121 6.5.2 Splitting up morphological selection ............. 123 6.5.3 A markedness solution prohibiting certain verb forms . 125 6.5.4 A connection between ge- andIPP?............. 127 6.5.5 Typologicalconsequencesoftheaccount.......... 132 6.6Theaccountoftheverbform...................
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Zihlmann-Vowel Consonant Length
    Zurich Open Repository and Archive University of Zurich Main Library Strickhofstrasse 39 CH-8057 Zurich www.zora.uzh.ch Year: 2020 Vowel and consonant length in four Alemannic dialects and their influence on the respective varieties of Swiss Standard German Zihlmann, Urban Abstract: Dass die Alemannischen Dialekte (ALM) die Vokalqualität des Schweizerhochdeutschen (SHD) prägt, wurde bereits mehrmals untersucht. Hingegen liegen noch keine systematischen Studien über die dialektale Prägung der Vokal- und Konsonantenquantität im SHD vor. Diese Studie erforscht deshalb bei vier Dialekten, wie sich ALM auf die Länge der Vokale (V) und Konsonanten (K) in den jeweiligen SHD-Varietäten auswirkt. Segmentdaueranalysen zweisilbigerWörter mit kurzen/langen V/K zeigten, dass (1) die vier Dialekte im Prinzip das gleiche V/K-Quantitätssystem aufweisen (trotz z.T. unter- schiedlicher Verteilung der Vokalquantitäten bei bestimmten Wörtern) und dass dieses System auch im SHD angewendet wird. (2) Statistisch signifikante Dauerunterschiede in den regionalen SHD-Varietäten wurden nur bei Wörtern gefunden, bei denen ein phonologischer Quantitätsunterschied zwischen den ALM- und SHD-Äquivalenten vorliegt. Diese Unterschiede sind jedoch nicht dialektspezifisch, sondern können bei allen Dialekten mit diesen Quantitätsunterschieden vorkommen. Other titles: Vowel and consonant length in Alemannic and Swiss Standard German Posted at the Zurich Open Repository and Archive, University of Zurich ZORA URL: https://doi.org/10.5167/uzh-186717 Journal Article Published Version Originally published at: Zihlmann, Urban (2020). Vowel and consonant length in four Alemannic dialects and their influence on the respective varieties of Swiss Standard German. Wiener Linguistische Gazette, 86:1-46. Vowel and consonant length in four Alemannic dialects and their influence on the respective varieties of Swiss Standard German Urban B.
    [Show full text]
  • The Politics and Ideologies of Pluricentric German in L2 Teaching
    Julia Ruck Webster Vienna Private University THE POLITICS AND IDEOLOGIES OF PLURICENTRIC GERMAN IN L2 TEACHING Abstract: Despite a history of rigorous linguistic research on the regional variation of German as well as professional initiatives to promote German, Austrian, and Swiss Standard German as equal varieties, there is still a lack of awareness and systematic incorporation of regional varieties in L2 German teaching. This essay follows two goals: First, it reviews the development of the pluricentric approach in the discourse on L2 German teaching as well as the political and ideological preconditions that form the backdrop of this discussion. Particular emphasis will be given to institutional tri-national collaborations and the standard language ideology. Second, by drawing on sociolinguistic insights on the use and speaker attitudes of (non-)standard varieties, this contribution argues that the pluricentric focus on national standard varieties in L2 German teaching falls short in capturing the complex socioculturally situated practices of language use in both (often dialectally-oriented) everyday and (often standard-oriented) formal and official domains of language use. I argue that the pluricentric approach forms an important step in overcoming the monocentric bias of one correct Standard German; however, for an approach to L2 German teaching that aims at representing linguistic and cultural diversity, it is necessary to incorporate both standard and non-standard varieties into L2 German teaching. Keywords: L2 German w language variation w language ideologies w language politics Ruck, Julia. “The Politics and Ideologies of Pluricentric German in L2 Teaching.” Critical Multilingualism Studies 8:1 (2020): pp. 17–50. ISSN 2325–2871.
    [Show full text]
  • Are Doubly-Filled Comps Governed by Prosody in Swiss German? the Chameleonic Nature of Dass ‘That’1
    Are doubly-filled COMPs governed by prosody in Swiss German? The chameleonic nature of dass ‘that’1 1. Introduction Several decades ago, Chomsky and Lasnik (1977) stipulated the doubly-filled COMP filter according to which the co-occurrence of a wh-constituent and a complementizer is banned. In those days, COMP was a single position that could either contain a wh-constituent or a complementizer, but not both. Nowadays two positions, SpecCP, hosting maximal projections, and C, hosting heads, correspond to what was once labelled as COMP. There is thus no a priori reason why a wh-constituent in SpecCP could not co-occur with a complementizer in C, since these two elements do not compete for the same position. Indeed, many languages exist that violate the doubly-filled COMP filter. In some, doubly-filled COMPs (DFCs) are obligatory, e.g. West Flemish (see Haegeman 1992) and in others, DFCs are optional, at least to a certain extent, e.g. Bavarian and Alemannic (see Bayer and Brandner 2008a, 2008b; Bayer 2015; and Penner and Bader 1995; Penner 1986 for Bernese Swiss German; Schönenberger 2010 for Lucernese Swiss German) and Belfast English (Henry 1995). In yet others, they seem to be banned, e.g. Standard German and Standard English, but this may be due to normative pressure, since earlier stages of these languages allowed them. Zwicky (2002), for instance, lists various examples with DFCs produced by speakers of different varieties of modern English (see [1] and [2]). (1) We asked what sort of health care that they rely on. (2) What a mine of useless information that I am! Based on acceptability judgement data, Bayer and Brandner advance a structural account for DFCs in Alemannic and Bavarian, in which wh-words are generally incompatible with dass ‘that’ while wh-phrases generally require the presence of dass.
    [Show full text]
  • Discourse Markers of Clarification and Causality in Maghrebi and Egyptian Dialects: a Socio-Pragmatic Perspective
    DISCOURSE MARKERS OF CLARIFICATION AND CAUSALITY IN MAGHREBI AND EGYPTIAN DIALECTS: A SOCIO-PRAGMATIC PERSPECTIVE BY ABDELAADIM BIDAOUI DISSERTATION Submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in Linguistics in the Graduate College of the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, 2015 Urbana, Illinois Doctoral Committee: Associate Professor Marina Terkourafi, Chair Professor Elabbas Benmamoun Associate Professor Anna Maria Escobar Associate Professor Zsuzsanna Fagyal ABSTRACT Discourse Markers (DMs) have traditionally been viewed as elements which do not contribute to the truth-conditional meaning of an utterance or to its syntactic and semantic make-up. Contrary to those linguists who found the study of DMs marginal, other researchers have been interested in the study of these expressions. Using a Relevance Theoretic framework (Sperber and Wilson, 1986, 1995; Blakemore, 1987), this dissertation posits that DMs signal pragmatic inferences that are performed by the addressee. Specifically, I argue that the notion of procedural meaning, a set of instructions which guides the inferential phase of utterance interpretation, offered by Relevance Theory (Sperber and Wilson, 1995; Blakemore, 2002) should be at the core of utterance interpretation in general and interpretation of DMs in particular. This dissertation is based on two complementary studies: the main and supplementary study. The main study consists of data collected during face-to-face interactions, while the supplementary study consists of online data taken from the news outlet Al Jazeera. The partcipants in the main study are members of an Arabic diasporic community in the U.S. and represent three dialects of Arabic: Moroccan, Algerian, and Egyptian dialect.
    [Show full text]
  • Introduction to the History of the English Language
    INTRODUCTION TO THE HISTORY OF THE ENGLISH LANGUAGE Written by László Kristó 2 TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION ...................................................................................................................... 4 NOTES ON PHONETIC SYMBOLS USED IN THIS BOOK ................................................. 5 1 Language change and historical linguistics ............................................................................. 6 1.1 Language history and its study ......................................................................................... 6 1.2 Internal and external history ............................................................................................. 6 1.3 The periodization of the history of languages .................................................................. 7 1.4 The chief types of linguistic change at various levels ...................................................... 8 1.4.1 Lexical change ........................................................................................................... 9 1.4.2 Semantic change ...................................................................................................... 11 1.4.3 Morphological change ............................................................................................. 11 1.4.4 Syntactic change ...................................................................................................... 12 1.4.5 Phonological change ..............................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • INTELLIGIBILITY of STANDARD GERMAN and LOW GERMAN to SPEAKERS of DUTCH Charlotte Gooskens1, Sebastian Kürschner2, Renée Van Be
    INTELLIGIBILITY OF STANDARD GERMAN AND LOW GERMAN TO SPEAKERS OF DUTCH Charlotte Gooskens 1, Sebastian Kürschner 2, Renée van Bezooijen 1 1University of Groningen, The Netherlands 2 University of Erlangen-Nürnberg, Germany [email protected], [email protected], [email protected] Abstract This paper reports on the intelligibility of spoken Low German and Standard German for speakers of Dutch. Two aspects are considered. First, the relative potential for intelligibility of the Low German variety of Bremen and the High German variety of Modern Standard German for speakers of Dutch is tested. Second, the question is raised whether Low German is understood more easily by subjects from the Dutch-German border area than subjects from other areas of the Netherlands. This is investigated empirically. The results show that in general Dutch people are better at understanding Standard German than the Low German variety, but that subjects from the border area are better at understanding Low German than subjects from other parts of the country. A larger amount of previous experience with the German standard variety than with Low German dialects could explain the first result, while proximity on the sound level could explain the second result. Key words Intelligibility, German, Low German, Dutch, Levenshtein distance, language contact 1. Introduction Dutch and German originate from the same branch of West Germanic. In the Middle Ages these neighbouring languages constituted a common dialect continuum. Only when linguistic standardisation came about in connection with nation building did the two languages evolve into separate social units. A High German variety spread out over the German language area and constitutes what is regarded as Modern Standard German today.
    [Show full text]
  • CHAPTER FIVE Dialect and Standard Language in the Other German
    CHAPTER FIVE Dialect and Standard Language in the Other German-speaking Countries West Germany (the entity which used to be the Federal Republic of Germany) had the widest range of native dialects of any of the German-speaking countries1. These dialects include Low German, Middle German and Upper German dialects. The German Democratic Republic, now a part of the Federal Republic of Germany, encompassed primarily Low German and East Middle German dialects. Austrian dialects, with the exception of a few Alemannic dialects in Vorarlberg, are exclusively Bavarian (Upper German). In Switzerland the dialects are Alemannic (Upper German), as they are in neighboring Liechtenstein. In Luxemburg the dialects are Moselle Franconian (West Middle German). In the part of Belgium which was part of Germany until the end of World War I there are about 150,000 speakers of West Middle German dialects, and in France there are speakers of Alemannic (Upper German) in Elsaß and Rhine Franconian (West Middle German) in Lothringen. Germany, using the term to include the old Federal Republic (West Germany) and the German Democratic Republic (East Germany) is the only country to have dialects from all of the major dialect groupings, as well as from Frisian, making it all the more obvious why Germany itself needed a standard language. The situation is somewhat different in the other countries. France and Belgium will not be discussed here beyond remarking that German is very much a minority language in both countries and that the German-speaking populations look to neighboring West Germany for their norms, both written and spoken.
    [Show full text]
  • Am-Progressives in Swabian: Some Evidence for Noun Incorporation
    AM-PROGRESSIVES IN SWABIAN: SOME EVIDENCE FOR NOUN INCORPORATION Bettina Spreng University of Saskatchewan 1. Introduction This paper summarizes the initial findings of an investigation into the syntactic and semantic properties of progressive constructions in Swabian, an Alemannic dialect of German. It is spoken in the Southwest of Germany in the state of Baden Württemberg and in parts of Bavaria. The data is elicited from speakers of a variant of Swabian spoken in Upper Swabia, an area surrounding the city of Ravensburg, located north of Lake Constance. Data was elicited from three female speakers of different ages (48, 69, 75) with low mobility. There is very little in-depth work on the syntactic properties of Swabian and, to my knowledge, no work on this particular variant. The construction that is being investigated is found in various dialects and registers of German but tends to be relegated to footnotes or assumed to be restricted to dialects in the Rhineland area, especially Cologne (Duden 2005). It is thus often named the Rhenish Progressive ‘Rheinische Verlaufsform’ in some of the descriptive and theoretical literature (Thieroff 1992, Vater 1994). However, the construction may be found in various variants of German including written German (Gárgyán 2014) despite many descriptive grammars insisting that it is restricted to one or two dialect areas or to the vernacular (Fagan 2009, Duden 2005). It thus deserves a closer look. The construction I am particularly interested in is the AM- progressive that seems to share some properties with the BEIM-progressive. Some work addressing the construction has been done for individual dialects such as Colognian (Bhatt and Schmidt 1993), Standard, Ruhr, and Low German (Andersson 1989), and Hessian (Flick and Kuhmichel 2013).
    [Show full text]
  • Un-Swiss’ Words in German Swiss Literature
    ‘Un-Swiss’ Words in German Swiss Literature Felicity Rash This article takes an informal look at some standard German words that, although they occur in written texts, seem out of place in texts produced in Switzerland. Whereas Standard German vocabulary is obviously unwelcome in spoken Swiss German dialects, and its presence may cause consternation among more traditionally inclined German-speaking Swiss, such words are more difficult to assess in the written language, not least because many German-speaking Swiss consider any form of standard German, even their own Swiss Standard German, to be a ‘foreign’ language. The opinions of native speakers of Swiss German are sought in order to answer the question why some standard German words seem particularly ‘un-Swiss’, while others are accepted without complaint. Introduction In German-speaking (GS) Switzerland a diglossic situation exists in which two varieties of German are used: the Swiss German dialects (SG) are used in everyday oral communication and for a few written purposes, and Swiss Standard German (SSG) is used for certain more formal oral purposes and most written texts. SSG differs on all linguistic levels from the standard German language used in Germany (German Standard German or Binnendeutsch) and Austria. An Alemannic dialect is the first language of all GS Swiss people: it is the language variety closest to the hearts of all germanophone Swiss. Many, perhaps most, GS Swiss consider any form of standard German, even their own version of standard German, to be a ‘foreign’ language learned at school and often used unwillingly, particularly for speech. When germanophone Swiss do write standard German they are encouraged by schools and many publishers to use the morphological, lexical and syntactic resources of SSG, so-called ‘Helvetisms’.
    [Show full text]
  • Strasbourg, 2 April 2004 MIN-LANG/PR (2004) 1 Second
    Strasbourg, 2 April 2004 MIN-LANG/PR (2004) 1 EUROPEAN CHARTER FOR REGIONAL OR MINORITY LANGUAGES Second Periodical Report presented to the Secretary General of the Council of Europe in accordance with Article 15 of the Charter GERMANY SECOND REPORT submitted by the FEDERAL REPUBLIC OF GERMANY under Article 15, paragraph 1, of the EUROPEAN CHARTER FOR REGIONAL OR MINORITY LANGUAGES 2003 SECOND REPORT submitted by the FEDERAL REPUBLIC OF GERMANY under Article 15, paragraph 1, of the EUROPEAN CHARTER FOR REGIONAL OR MINORITY LANGUAGES 2003 2nd State Report Germany: European Charter for Regional or Minority Languages Table of Contents Nos. Part A General Situation and General Framework 1 - 104 Part B Recommendations of the Committee of Ministers 105 - 117 Part C Protection of Regional or Minority Languages under 118 - 207 Part II (Article 7) of the Charter Part D Implementation of the obligations undertaken with 208 - 1385 regard to the various languages D.2.1 Danish Danish in the Danish speech area in Schleswig- 252 - 357 Holstein Art. 8 252 - 278 Art. 9 279 - 282 Art. 10 283 - 302 Art. 11 303 - 337 Art. 12 338 - 347 Art. 13 348 - 353 Art. 14 354 - 357 D.2.2 Sorbian Sorbian (Upper Sorbian and Lower Sorbian 358 - 514 (Wendish)) in the Sorbian speech area in the Länder of Brandenburg and Saxony Art. 8 358 - 424 Art. 9 425 - 432 Art. 10 433 - 457 Art. 11 458 - 482 Art. 12 483 - 505 Art. 13 506 - 514 D.2.3 North North Frisian in the North Frisian speech area in 515 - 625 Frisian Schleswig-Holstein Art.
    [Show full text]
  • Sheena Shah (SOAS University of London) Kroondal German: an Overview of the Language and Its Speakers
    Sheena Shah (SOAS University of London) Kroondal German: An overview of the language and its speakers Kroondal German is a variety of German spoken by a few hundred inhabitants living in the village of Kroondal in rural South Africa. It was established as a Lutheran congregation by German missionaries in 1889 and till today, the religious affiliation to the Lutheran church is an important marker of Kroondal identity, together with the German language. In Kroondal, the German school and the Lutheran church are the main institutions for the promotion of German. Standard German is used as the medium of instruction in the school and the German Lutheran bible is used in the church. Satellite television programmes from Germany add to the exposure of Standard German among Kroondal inhabitants. Nevertheless, speakers of all generations residing in the area use Kroondal German which deviates from Standard German in several respects. While the older generation predominantly had contact with Afrikaans, which they all speak as a second language, the younger generation has slightly more exposure to English than Afrikaans, even though Afrikaans remains a prominent contact language also among them. The presentation opens with a brief historical overview of this community. This is followed by a detailed description of the sociolinguistic situation of the speakers, considering in particular the multilingual situation which the speakers find themselves in and the language attitudes they hold towards Kroondal German. The second half of the talk is dedicated to the presentation of language data, with a focus on the morphosyntactic characteristics of the language. The contact-induced deviations from Standard German can often be traced back to the influence from Afrikaans and/or South African English.
    [Show full text]
  • Receptive Multilingualism Across the Lifespan: Cognitive and Linguistic Factors in Cognate Guessing
    Languages and Literatures \ Multilingualism research Receptive multilingualism across the lifespan Cognitive and linguistic factors in cognate guessing Jan Vanhove Dissertation zur Erlangung der Doktorwürde an der Philosophischen Fakultät der Universität Freiburg in der Schweiz Genehmigt von der philosophischen Fakultät auf Antrag der Professoren Raphael Berthele (1. Gutachter) und Charlotte Gooskens (2. Gutach- terin). Freiburg, den 17. Januar 2014. Prof. Marc-Henry Soulet, Dekan. 2014 Receptive multilingualism across the lifespan Cognitive and linguistic factors in cognate guessing Jan Vanhove Cite as: Vanhove, Jan (2014). Receptive multilingualism across the lifespan. Cognitive and linguistic factors in cognate guessing. PhD thesis. University of Fribourg (Switzerland). Data and computer code available from: http://dx.doi.org/10.6084/m9.figshare.795286. Contents Tables xi Figures xiii Preface xv I Introduction 1 1 Context and aims 3 1.1 Cross-linguistic similarities in language learning . 4 1.2 Receptive multilingualism . 5 1.3 Multilingualism and the age factor . 8 1.4 The present project . 9 1.4.1 The overarching project ‘Multilingualism through the lifespan’ . 9 1.4.2 Aim, scope and terminology . 10 1.5 Overview . 13 II The lifespan development of cognate guess- ing skills 15 2 Inter-individual differences in cognate guessing skills 17 2.1 Linguistic repertoire . 18 2.1.1 Typological relation between the Lx and the L1 . 18 2.1.2 The impact of multilingualism . 19 2.2 Previous exposure . 26 vi Contents 2.3 Attitudes . 28 2.4 Age . 29 3 The lifespan development of cognition 33 3.1 Intelligence . 34 3.1.1 Fluid and crystallised intelligence . 34 3.1.2 Lifespan trajectories .
    [Show full text]