The Assignment of Grammatical Gender in German: Testing Optimal Gender Assignment Theory Emma Charlotte Corteen Trinity Hall September 2018 This dissertation is submitted for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy The Assignment of Grammatical Gender in German: Testing Optimal Gender Assignment Theory Emma Charlotte Corteen Abstract The assignment of grammatical gender in German is a notoriously problematic phenomenon due to the apparent opacity of the gender assignment system (e.g. Comrie 1999: 461). Various models of German gender assignment have been proposed (e.g. Spitz 1965, Köpcke 1982, Corbett 1991, Wegener 1995), but none of these is able to account for all of the German data. This thesis investigates a relatively under-explored, recent approach to German gender assignment in the form of Optimal Gender Assignment Theory (OGAT), proposed by Rice (2006). Using the framework of Optimality Theory, OGAT claims that the form and meaning of a noun are of equal importance with respect to its gender. This is formally represented by the crucial equal ranking of all gender assignment constraints in a block of GENDER FEATURES, which is in turn ranked above a default markedness hierarchy *NEUTER » *FEMININE » *MASCULINE, which is based on category size. A key weakness of OGAT is that it does not specify what constitutes a valid GENDER FEATURES constraint. This means that, in theory, any constraint can be proposed ad hoc to ensure that an OGAT analysis yields the correct result. In order to prevent any constraints based on ‘postfactum rationalisations’ (Comrie 1999: 461) from being included in the investigation, the GENDER FEATURES constraints which have been proposed in the literature for German are assessed according to six criteria suggested by Enger (2009), which seek to determine whether there is independent evidence for a GENDER FEATURES constraint. Using an independently-verified constraint set, OGAT is then tested on a sample of 592 nouns systematically selected from the Duden Rechtschreibung. The results indicate that OGAT is relatively successful in its predictions when compared to other approaches but that it cannot account fully for the sample data. Accordingly, a revised version of the theory is proposed (OGAT II), which involves the ranking of certain GENDER FEATURES constraints. It is found that OGAT II is able to account for the genders of around 95% of nouns in the sample. A number of specific aspects of OGAT II are then tested by means of an experiment in which native German speakers are required to assign genders to 26 pseudo-nouns. The results suggest that OGAT II comes the closest of the systems discussed in the literature to modelling how native speakers assign gender in German. i Declaration This dissertation is the result of my own work and includes nothing which is the outcome of work done in collaboration except as declared in the Preface and specified in the text. It is not substantially the same as any that I have submitted, or, is being concurrently submitted for a degree or diploma or other qualification at the University of Cambridge or any other University or similar institution except as declared in the Preface and specified in the text. I further state that no substantial part of my dissertation has already been submitted, or, is being concurrently submitted for any such degree, diploma or other qualification at the University of Cambridge or any other University or similar institution except as declared in the Preface and specified in the text. This dissertation does not exceed the prescribed word limit for the Degree Committee of the Faculty of Modern and Medieval Languages. ii Acknowledgements Firstly, I would like to thank the Arts and Humanities Research Council for funding this project. I would also like to thank the Cambridge Trust and the Pigott Scholars Programme for their offers of funding, and the Vice Chancellor for my Honorary Vice Chancellor’s Award. My greatest thanks go to my supervisor, Dr Sheila Watts, for her continual support and guidance throughout this project. I am extremely grateful not only for her invaluable academic insight, but also for her never-ending patience, positivity and encouragement. I am also grateful to all of the other members of the Department of German and Dutch and the Department of Theoretical and Applied Linguistics at Cambridge University who provided me with advice and support throughout my time at Cambridge. Particular thanks go to Dr Bert Vaux, Dr Napoleon Katsos, Dr David Willis, Dr Jim Blevins, Professor Sarah Colvin and Dr Simon Pickl. I would also like to thank the Cambridge Statistics Clinic at the Centre for Mathematical Sciences for their assistance with my statistical queries. My thanks also go to the many native German speakers who I consulted throughout the project, and particularly the 100 who took part in my experiment. Additionally, I would like to thank members of staff at the Schools of Modern Languages and English Literature, Language and Linguistics at Newcastle University, where my studies of Linguistics began. In particular, I would like to thank Dr Carol Fehringer and Andrea Wilczynski for nurturing my interest in German linguistics and encouraging me to apply for postgraduate study. I would also like to thank my friends and family for their support throughout the PhD writing process. Thank you to those of you who at least sometimes pretended to be interested in German grammar. Last but by no means least, my thanks go to Eve, without whom I would not have been able to complete this project. iii Contents Chapter 1: Introduction ............................................................................................................... 1 1.1 Grammatical gender in German ......................................................................................... 1 1.2 Gender assignment in German ........................................................................................... 2 1.3 Gender assignment principles ............................................................................................ 7 1.3.1 Morphological principles .................................................................................... 7 1.3.1.1 Derivation via affixation ...................................................................... 8 1.3.1.2 Implicit derivation ............................................................................... 9 1.3.1.3 Conversion .......................................................................................... 9 1.3.1.4 Compounds ....................................................................................... 10 1.3.1.5 Reductions ........................................................................................ 10 1.3.1.6 Inflection ........................................................................................... 11 1.3.1.7 Evidence for morphological principles .............................................. 14 1.3.2 Phonological principles ..................................................................................... 15 1.3.2.1 Word ending ..................................................................................... 15 1.3.2.2 Other phonological factors ............................................................... 16 1.3.2.3 Evidence for phonological principles ................................................ 17 1.3.3 Semantic principles ........................................................................................... 18 1.3.3.1 The Natural Gender Principle (NGP) ................................................. 18 1.3.3.2 Other semantic classes .................................................................... 19 1.3.3.3 Levels of abstraction ........................................................................ 20 1.3.3.4 Evidence for semantic principles ..................................................... 22 1.4 Interaction of gender assignment principles .................................................................... 23 1.4.1 Semantics » form .............................................................................................. 24 1.4.2 Form » semantics .............................................................................................. 26 1.4.3 Morphology » semantics » phonology ............................................................. 27 1.4.4 Hierarchy of individual principles ..................................................................... 28 1.4.5 Optimal Gender Assignment Theory (OGAT) .................................................... 29 1.4.5.1 Theory outline .................................................................................. 29 1.4.5.2 Strengths of OGAT ........................................................................... 34 1.4.5.3 Weaknesses and aspects of OGAT for further investigation ............ 37 1.4.5.4 Previous testing of OGAT .................................................................. 45 1.4.5.4.1 OGAT and German ............................................................ 45 1.4.5.4.2 OGAT and other languages ............................................... 49 1.5 Summary and plan for investigation ................................................................................. 52 Chapter 2: Evaluating GENDER FEATURES constraints ...................................................................... 55 2.1 Introduction ..................................................................................................................... 55 2.2 The noun