Refine
Has Fulltext
- no (2)
Year of publication
- 2019 (2) (remove)
Document Type
- Article (2)
Is part of the Bibliography
- yes (2)
Keywords
- Redewiedergabe (1)
- diachron (1)
- indirekte Redewiedergabe (1)
Institute
The point of departure of this paper is the claim by Heyvaert, Maekelberghe & Buyle (2019) that the suffix -ing has no aspectual meaning in English gerunds. Rather, the interpretation of nominal and verbal gerunds depends, so they argue, on situation or viewpoint aspect, a claim that contradicts the wide-spread view that the aspectual meaning of English gerunds is brought about by the nominalizing suffix. The present paper addresses the issue from a comparative perspective, focusing on German ung-nominals: while they share aspectual features with their English counterparts, empirical evidence from productivity, distribution, and argument linking shows (i) that the derivational suffix -ung imposes aspectual restrictions on possible verb bases, and (ii) that with respect to argument linking, the deverbal nominal favors the state component of a complex event predicate over its process component. From the historical record of German, we learn that these aspectual restrictions do not hold for ung-nominals in earlier periods of German. With the rise of aspectual restrictions, the nominalization pattern turns more nominal resulting in a position further towards the nominal end of the deverbalization continuum. It appears, then, that it is only in the historical pariods of German that ung-nominals pattern with English nominals as regards their aspectual features. Currently, German ung-nominals are more noun-like than nominal (and verbal) gerunds in English. (C) 2018 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Regarding verbal mood and complementation patterns of reporting verbs, the distinction between direct and indirect reported speech is well established in present-day German. This paper looks into the history of German: Common knowledge has it that both the use of verbal mood as well as the quality of clause linkage undergo considerable changes giving rise to the question how these changes affect the manifestations of indirect reported speech in earlier stages of German. The historical record of the 16th century (with an outlook on the 17th century) shows that the distinction between direct and indirect reported speech is not yet grammaticalized in historical sources at the time. In particular with respect to dependent (in)direct reported speech, both types prefer V2-complements with only verbal mood differentiating between the types. Although present and past subjunctive have a much wider distribution in earlier stages of German, the occurrence of free indirect speech likewise testifies to its increasing use as a marker of indirect reported speech. The growing conventionalization of patterns of indirect reported speech in the course of Early Modern German may be considered as an example for an increase of subjectification in its development.