430 Germanische Sprachen; Deutsch
Refine
Has Fulltext
- no (7)
Year of publication
- 2021 (7) (remove)
Document Type
- Article (4)
- Part of a Book (2)
- Review (1)
Is part of the Bibliography
- yes (7)
Keywords
- Angst (1)
- Copy deletion (1)
- Drama (1)
- E-Learning (1)
- Freezing (1)
- Head movement (1)
- Lehrstück (1)
- Rechtschreibung (1)
- Signifikation (1)
- V-to-C movement (1)
Institute
In the absence of a stranded auxiliary or modal, VP-topicalization in most Germanic languages gives rise to the presence of a dummy verb meaning 'do'. Cross-linguistically, this is a rather uncommon strategy as comparable VP-fronting constructions in other languages, e.g. Hebrew, Polish, and Portuguese, among many others, exhibit verb doubling. A comparison of several recent approaches to verb doubling in VP-fronting reveals that it is the consequence of VP-evacuating head movement of the verb to some higher functional head, which saves the (low copy of the) verb from undergoing copy deletion as part of the low VP copy in the VP-topicalization dependency. Given that almost all Germanic languages have such V-salvaging head movement, namely V-to-C movement, but do not show verb doubling, this paper suggests that V-raising is exceptionally impossible in VP-topicalization clauses and addresses the question of why it is blocked. After discussing and rejecting some conceivable explanations for the lack of verb doubling, I propose that the blocking effect arises from a bleeding interaction between V-to-C movement and VP-to-SpecCP movement. As both operations are triggered by the same head, i.e. C, the VP is always encountered first by a downward search algorithm. Movement of VP then freezes it and its lower copies for subextraction precluding subsequent V-raising. Crucially, this implies that there is no V-to-T raising in most Germanic languages. V2 languages with V-to-T raising, e.g. Yiddish, are correctly predicted to not exhibit the blocking effect.
The rising standard language in Early New High German (1350–1650) provides particularly interesting cases for the question of missing heads on all levels of language structure. A well-known example are subordinate clauses lacking a finite auxiliary verb, traditionally called Afinite Constructions. Based on new data, drawn from two treebanks of Early New High German, the present paper will briefly sketch the distribution of ACs, before establishing that they are in fact a type of ellipsis and do not cluster with other non-finite clauses in German. The remainder of the paper addresses the question what kind of information is missing in ACs and how this information is retrieved. Obviously, auxiliary drop in ENHG represents a type of ellipsis rarely attested in present-day German.
The ability to spell correctly is a fundamental skill for participating in society and engaging in professional work. In the German language, the capitalization of nouns and proper names presents major difficulties for both native and nonnative learners, since the definition of what is a noun varies according to one’s linguistic perspective. In this paper, we hypothesize that learners use different cognitive strategies to identify nouns. To this end, we examine capitalization exercises from more than 30,000 users of an online spelling training platform. The cognitive strategies identified are syntactic, semantic, pragmatic, and morphological approaches. The strategies used by learners overlap widely but differ by individual and evolve with grade level. The results show that even though the pragmatic strategy is not taught systematically in schools, it is the most widespread and most successful strategy used by learners. We therefore suggest that highly granular learning process data can not only provide insights into learners’ capabilities and enable the creation of individualized learning content but also inform curriculum development.