christopher d. sapp indiana university / universität wien 2 february, 2006

Christopher D. SappIndiana University / Universität Wien

2 February, 2006

Focus and verb order in Early New High German:

Historical and contemporary evidence

2 February, 2006 Christopher D. Sapp, Focus and verb order in Early New High German

Outline

1. Introduction2. Focus and verb order in Early New High German3. Supporting evidence: Modern Standard German4. Supporting evidence: contemporary dialects5. Conclusions


1. Introduction Standard German sub. clause word order

Only one possible order with two verbs:(1) dass Klaus heute das Buch lesen will.

that K. today the book read2 wants1

‘that Klaus wants to read the book today.’

According to Greenberg (1966), this 2-1 order is characteristic of SOV languages.


1. Introduction Standard German sub. clause word order

Two possible orders with three-verb clusters, depending on the construction.

3-2-1 (for several constructions):(2) weil es gekauft werden muss because it bought3 aux2

must1 ‘because it must be bought’ Only 1-3-2 with the infinitivus pro participio:(3) weil er es hat kaufen müssen because

he it has1 buy3 must-inf2 ‘because he had to buy it’

Both 3-2-1 and 1-3-2 with future werden + modal + inf.:(4) a. weil er es kaufen können wird

because he it buy3 can2 will1 ‘because he will be able to buy it’ b. weil er es wird1 kaufen3 können2


Outline

1. Introduction2. Focus and verb order in Early New High

German3. Focus and verb order in Modern Standard

German4. Focus and verb order in contemporary dialects5. Conclusions


2. Early New High German2.1. Basic Facts

Early New High German (1350-1650) is a period of great variation in word order:

(5) das er in kainer sund verczweiffeln sol 2-1 that he in no sin despair2 shall1

‘that he shall not despair in any sin’ (PM 161)

(6) das der mensch alle sein lebttag nicht anders scholt thun 1-2 that the person all his life-days nothing else should1 do2 ‘that man should do nothing else all the days of his life’

(PM 206)


2. Early New High German2.1. Basic Facts

For 3-verb clusters, four of the six possible orders are attested (with 2-1-3 and 2-3-1 unattested):

(7) das so darvorgesetzt ist in fragweis verstanden werden soll. 3-2-1 that rel. before.set is in question understood3 be2 should1

‘that what is set before should be understood as a question’ (Eunuch. 14)(8) als er des tages scholt begraben werden 1-3-2

as he the day should1 buried3 become2 ‘when he should be buried on that day’ (PM 212)

(9) so er dan den menschen nicht hat mugen vberwinden 1-2-3 when he then the person not has1 can2 overcome3 ‘when he has not been able to overcome the person’ (PM 158)

(10) dy er ... getan solt haben 3-1-2 rel. he done3 should1 have2 ‘that he should have done’ (PM 159)


2. Early New High German2.2. The corpus and methods

Bonner Frühneuhochdeutsch-Korpus 30 texts (3 centuries x 10 dialects) 2,921 subordinate clauses (approx. 100 per text) 2,752 clauses with 2 verbs and 169 with 3 verbs.

GoldVarb 2001 Statistics package for sociolinguistic studies Determines effect of independent variables (linguistic &

sociolinguist factors) on dependent variable (verb order). Factor weight: the further from 0.5, the greater the factor’s

effect on the dependent variable


2. Early New High German2.2. The corpus and methods

Methods for determining focus Clauses tagged ‘old’ if argument is pronominal or mentioned

in the section of the text. Tagged ‘new’ if new within section:(17) das ich alles durch die mensch hab gethan. that I

all for the person have done ‘that I have done all of that for the sake of man.’ (PM 220)

Some obviously ‘contrastive’ cases:(18) das der mensch alle sein lebttag nicht anders scholt thun, dann lernen …

that the person all his life-days nothing else should1 do2 than learn ‘that man should do nothing else all the days of his life, but learn …’ (PM 206)


2. Early New High German2.3. The effect of focus

Focus, especially contrastive focus, favors the 1-2 order:

But, potential problem of researcher bias in determining focus.

Corroborating evidence: Scrambling Extraposition

Focus 2-1 1-2 Factor weight

contrastive focus 15 (46%) 17 (53%) 0.263

new information 816 (68%) 369 (31%) 0.397

old information 1237 (44%) 288 (18%) 0.586

Total 2068 (75%) 674 (24%) p < 0.001



Additional evidence: scrambling and verb order Correlation between scrambling and focus:

unscrambled object tends to be focused (Haider & Rosengren 2005).

In ENHG, clause with unscrambled NP (thus likely to be focused) favors 1-2 order:

Scrambled object? 2-1 1-2 Factor weight

object not scrambled 45 (61%) 28 (38%) 0.371

object is scrambled 115 (71%) 46 (28%) 0.568

cannot tell 1908 (76%) 600 (23%) 0.499

Total 2068 (75%) 674 (24%) p = 0.014



Additional evidence: extraposition(20) daz ich damit sol pussen mein sund that I therewith shall1

atone2 my sin ‘that I should atone for my sin with that’

Ebert (1981): correlation between extraposition and 1-2. Also holds for my corpus:

Extraposition is related to focus in ENHG (Bies 1996), thus supporting my hypothesis about focus and 1-2.

NP/PP extraposition in ENHG 2-1 1-2 Factor weight

extraposed constituent 163 (63%) 93 (36%) 0.359

nothing extraposed 1751 (77%) 523 (22%) 0.521

extraposed adjunct PP 153 (72%) 58 (27%) 0.451

Total 2067 (75%) 674 (24%) p < 0.001



Effect on three-verb clusters: focus disfavors 3-2-1 and slightly favors the other orders.

Not surprising, since focus disfavors 2-1 and favors 1-2.

Focus 3-2-1 1-3-2 / 1-2-3 / 3-1-2 Factor weight

new info. / contrastive 11 (12%) 80 (87%) 0.387

old information 19 (24%) 59 (75%) 0.681

Total 30 (17%) 139 (82%) p < 0.040

Focus 3-2-1 1-3-2 1-2-3 3-1-2

new info. / contrastive 11 (12%) 40 (43%) 17 (18%) 23 (25%)

old information 19 (24%) 30 (38%) 13 (16%) 16 (20%)

Total 30 (17%) 70 (41%) 30 (17%) 39 (23%)


Outline

1. Introduction2. Focus and verb order in Early New High German3. Supporting evidence: Modern Standard

German4. Supporting evidence: contemporary dialects5. Conclusions


3. Evidence from Standard German3.1. Schmid & Vogel (2004)

Recall that in Standard German, only werden + modal + infinitive allows word order variation.

Schmid & Vogel (2004): that variation is dependent upon where the emphasis lies:

(19) dass KLAUS das Buch lesen können wird / wird lesen können / (lesen wird können) that Klaus the book read3 can2 will1 will1 read3 can2 read3 will1 can2 ‘that Klaus will be able to read the book.’

(20) dass Klaus das BUCH lesen können wird / wird lesen können / (lesen wird können)

(21) dass Klaus das Buch LESEN können wird / wird LESEN können / LESEN wird können

(22) dass Klaus das Buch (lesen KÖNNEN wird) / wird lesen KÖNNEN / lesen wird KÖNNEN

(23) dass Klaus das Buch lesen können WIRD / (WIRD lesen können) / (lesen WIRD können)


3. Evidence from Standard German3.1. Schmid & Vogel (2004)

Criticism: Based on face-to-face interviews; difficult to elicit

non-standard orders even for dialects (Schmid, p.c.). Orders are not ranked by grammaticality; they are

either grammatical or marginal. Stress, rather than focus, was tested:(24)a. dass Klaus das BUCH lesen können wird

b. dass Klaus das BUCH lesen können wirdc. dass Klaus das BUCH lesen können wirdd. dass Klaus das BUCH lesen können wird


3. Evidence from Standard German3.2. My magnitude estimation study

Magnitude estimation (Bard et al. 1996): Often used in psychological experiments. Allows for fine-grained grammaticality judgments. Multiple subjects judge multiple sentences, minimizing

variation by idiolect and idiom. Subjects score the sentences on their own scale, relative to

a reference sentence:(25) Der Polizist hat eine Jacke dem Verletzten gegeben. 20 (26) Der Polizist hat dem Verletzten eine Jacke gegeben. 25(27) Der Polizist hat dem Verletzten sie gegeben. 15



Set-up 20 subjects: students in an introductory class on German

grammar at Univ. Vienna, all native speakers of Austrian German.

Questionnaire distributed in class and collected immediately. Five focus structures were tested: focus on subject, object, VP,

lexical verb, and modal. 3-2-1, 1-3-2, and 3-1-2 each tested twice per focus condition;

1-2-3 only once; so 35 sentences tested plus 5 fillers. Sentences were randomized, 20 different surveys, and lexical

items were used max. 2x per survey and were balanced for frequency and length.



Correction format was used; subjects were to judge only SC. Reference sentence:(28) Was? Richard tanzt gern Tango? Nein!

Ich habe gesagt, dass Edith gern Walzer tanzt.

Tested focus structures: (note: originals were not formatted)

(29) Was? Maria wird einen Roman schreiben müssen? Nein! Ich habe gesagt, dass Klaus einen Roman schreiben müssen wird.

(30) Was? Klaus wird eine Geschichte schreiben müssen? Nein! Ich habe gesagt, dass Klaus einen Roman schreiben müssen wird.

(31) Was? Klaus wird eine Geschichte lesen müssen? Nein! Ich habe gesagt, dass Klaus einen Roman schreiben müssen wird.

(32) Was? Klaus wird einen Roman lesen müssen? Nein! Ich habe gesagt, dass Klaus einen Roman schreiben müssen wird.

(33) Was? Klaus wird einen Roman schreiben können? Nein! Ich habe gesagt, dass Klaus einen Roman schreiben müssen wird.


FOCUS

ModalVerbVPObjectSubjectFillers

95%

CI Z

SC

OR

E

3

2

1

0

-1

-2

3-2-1

1-3-2

3-1-2

1-2-3

A

B

C

D

E


Overall results: Standard orders

(3-2-1 and 1-3-2) are within range of grammatical fillers.

3-1-2 is a bit worse than other two.

1-2-3 is worse than even the worst filler.


4040404040 4040384039 4040394040N =

FOCUS

ModalVerbVPObjectSubject

95%

CI Z

SC

OR

E

1.0

.8

.6

.4

.2

-.0

-.2

-.4

-.6

ORDER

3-2-1

1-3-2

3-1-2


Comparison to ENHG:

Under object focus, 1-3-2 = 3-2-1; under VP focus, 1-3-2 is relatively worse. May confirm that object focus favors 1-3-2.

Both 3-2-1 and 3-1-2 improve under VP focus. [Focus O V ]

p = 0.011 when only three focus structures tested


4040404040 4040384039 4040394040N =

FOCUS

ModalVerbVPObjectSubject

95%

CI Z

SC

OR

E

1.0

.8

.6

.4

.2

-.0

-.2

-.4

-.6

ORDER

3-2-1

1-3-2

3-1-2


Comparison to Schmid/Vogel:

Subject & object focus: 3-2-1 = 1-3-2 > ?3-1-2 confirmed.

Focus on verb: 3-2-1 = 1-3-2 = 3-1-2 not confirmed.

Focus on modal: 1-3-2 = 3-1-2 > ?3-2-1 ± confirmed.

But, difference between object and VP focus suggests that stress is not everything.


Outline



4. Evidence from contemporary dialects 4.1. Previous studies

In Standard German, only one possible order with 2 verbs:(34) Ich glaube, dass Klaus gestern das Buch gelesen hat. I

believe that K. yesterday the book read2 has1 ‘I think that Klaus (has) read the book yesterday.’

Many dialects allow variation, as in ENHG. Swabian:(35)a. I glaub, dass der Glaus geschdern des Buach glese had. I

think that the Klaus yesterday the book read2 has1

b. I glaub, dass der Glaus geschdern des Buach had glese. I think that the Klaus yesterday the book has1 read2

However, these dialects usually prefer the Standard order (see Steil 1989).


4. Evidence from contemporary dialects 4.2. My Swabian study

Set-up Interviews conducted with 2 students at Univ. of Tübingen

(1 from Stuttgart, 1 from Tübingen). First interviewee translated sentences from Standard

German to Swabian, then Swabian sentences in various orders were presented on computer screen and judged.

Second interviewee judged first interviewee’s translations, presented on paper.

Judgments were on a 5-point scale. Two tasks:

judge several word orders without context judge pairs of sentences (2-1 and 1-2) within

focus context



Task one:

(36)a. I glaub, dass Glaus geschdern des Buach glese had. 2-1 no scrambling I think that Klaus yesterday the book read2 has1

‘I think that Klaus read the book yesterday.’

b. I glaub, dass Glaus des Buach geschdern glese had. 2-1 with scrambling

c. ?I glaub, dass Glaus geschdern des Buach had glese. ?1-2 no scrambling

d. ?I glaub, dass Glaus des Buach geschdern had glese. ?1-2 w/ scrambling

e. ??I glaub, dass Glaus had geschdern des Buach glese. ??V2

g. ?*I glaub, dass Glaus geschdern had des Buach glese. ?*1-obj-2

i. *I glaub, dass Glaus geschdern glese des Buach had. *2-obj-1

k. ??I glaub, dass Glaus geschdern glese had des Buach. ??extrapos. obj, 2-1

l. ?*I glaub, dass Glaus geschdern had glese des Buach. ?*extrapos. obj, 1-2



Task two:

(37) Was had Glaus geschdern glese? ‘What did Klaus read yesterday?’a. I glaub, dass Glaus des BUACH glese had. I think that Klaus the book read2 has1

b. ?I glaub, dass Glaus des BUACH had glese. I think that Klaus the book has1 read2

(38) Was had Glaus geschdern gmacht? ‘What did Klaus do yesterday?’

a. I glaub, dass Glaus des BUACH glese had.b. ??I glaub, dass Glaus des BUACH had glese.

(39) Was isch geschdern bassierd? ‘What happened yesterday?’

a. I glaub, dass Glaus des BUACH glese had.b. ??I glaub, dass Glaus des BUACH had glese.

The 1-2 order seems to be more restricted w.r.t. focus


4. Evidence from contemporary dialects 4.3. My Austrian study

Set-up Interviews conducted with 2 speakers (1 southern Lower

Austria, 1 Styria) Same method as in Swabian study. Speaker from Lower Austria rejected all clauses with 1-2

(contrary to Patocka 1997), so only results from Styria reported here.



Task one:

(40)a. I glaub, dos da Klaus gestan dees Buach glesn hot. 2-1 no scrambling I think that Klaus yesterday the book read2 has1‘I think that Klaus read the book yesterday.’

b. I glaub, dos da Klaus dees Buach gestan glesn hot. 2-1 with scrambling

c. ??I glaub, dos da Klaus gestan dees Buach hot glesn. ??1-2 no scrambling

d. *I glaub, dos da Klaus dees Buach gestan hot glesn. *1-2 w/ scrambling

e. *I glaub, dos da Klaus hot gestan dees Buach glesn. *V2

g. ??I glaub, dos da Klaus gestan hot dees Buach glesn. ??1-obj-2

i. *I glaub, dos da Klaus gestan glesn dees Buach hot. *2-obj-1

k. ?I glaub, dos da Klaus gestan glesn hot dees Buach. ?extrapos. obj, 2-1

l. *I glaub, dos da Klaus gestan hot glesn dees Buach. *extrapos. obj, 1-2



Task two:

No differences by focus context could be determined.

But, the 1-2 order does sound better when the object is more strongly stressed:

(40)c. ??I glaub, dos da Klaus gestan dees Buach hot glesn. ??1-2 unscramb. obj.

c'. ?I glaub, dos da Klaus gestan dees BUACH hot glesn. ?1-2 stressed obj.


Outline



Conclusions Establishing the effect of focus in historical texts requires

the comparison of several types of evidence. There is corpus evidence that verb order in ENHG is

sensitive to focus, supported by the effects of scrambling and extraposition.

The effect of focus on verb order in Mod. German is difficult to confirm, given fixed verb order and problems of eliciting nuanced judgments on rare constructions. However, there is at least some influence of stress.

Focus does have an effect on verb order in Swabian, showing similar effects to those found in ENHG. Some Austrian dialects may behave the same.

ReferencesBard, E., D. Robertson, & A. Sorace. 1996. Magnitude estimation of linguistic acceptability.

Language 72: 32–68.Bies, A. 1996. Syntax and Discourse Factors in Early New High German: Evidence for

Verb-final Word Order. M.A. Thesis, U. Penn., Philadelphia. Haider, H. & I. Rosengren. 2003. Scrambling: Nontriggered Chain Formation in OV

Languages. Journal of Germanic Linguistics 15: 203-267.Das Bonner Frühneuhochdeutsch-Korpus, Institut für Kommunikationsforschung und

Phonetik/ Universität Bonn. www.ikp.uni-bonn.de/dt/forsch/fnhd/Ebert, R.P. 1981. Social and stylistic variation in the order of auxiliary and non-finite verb in

dependent clauses in Early New High German. Beiträge zur Geschichte der deutschen Sprache und Literatur 103: 204-237.

Patocka, F. 1997. Satzgliedstellung in den bairischen Dialekten Österreichs. Frankfurt am Main: Lang.

Robinson, J., H. Lawrence & S. Tagliamonte. GoldVarb 2001: A multivariate analysis application for windows. www.york.ac.uk/depts/lang/webstuff/goldvarb

Schmid, T. & R. Vogel. 2004. Dialectal Variation in German 3-Verb Clusters: A Surface-Oriented Optimality Theoretic Account. Journal of Comparative Germanic Linguistics 7: 235-274.

Steil, C. 1989. Untersuchungen zum Verbalkomplex im Schwäbischen. M.A. Thesis, Eberhard-Karls-Universität Tübingen.

christopher d. sapp indiana university / universität wien 2 february, 2006

Documents