TYPE GRAMMAR MEETS GERMAN WORD ORDER

J. LAMBEK

doi:10.1515/thli.2000.26.1-2.19

Constructional change in Germanic

10.1093/oso/9780198865391.003.0008 ◽

2021 ◽

pp. 197-224

Author(s):

Peter W. Culicover

Keyword(s):

Word Order ◽

Initial Position ◽

West Germanic ◽

German Word ◽

Case Marking ◽

Verb Clusters

This chapter tracks several of the major changes in English and German word order and accounts for them in terms of constructional change as formulated in Chapter 3. It argues that the changes are relatively simple in constructional terms, although the superficial results are quite dramatic. Topics include clause-initial position, V2, VP-initial and VP-final verb position, the loss of V2 and case marking in English, and verb clusters in Continental West Germanic.

Download Full-text

UG or not UG, that is the question: a reply to Clahsen and Muysken

Interlanguage studies bulletin (Utrecht) ◽

10.1177/026765838700300105 ◽

1987 ◽

Vol 3 (1) ◽

pp. 56-75 ◽

Cited By ~ 18

Author(s):

Jean duPlessis ◽

Doreen Solin ◽

Lisa Travis ◽

Lydia White

Keyword(s):

Adult Learners ◽

Learning Strategies ◽

Word Order ◽

Ad Hoc ◽

Additional Data ◽

Universal Grammar ◽

L2 Acquisition ◽

Natural Languages ◽

German Word ◽

Germanic Languages

In a recent paper, Clahsen and Muysken (1986) argue that adult second lan guage (L2) learners no longer have access to Universal Grammar (UG) and acquire the L2 by means of learning strategies and ad hoc rules. They use evidence from adult L2 acquisition of German word order to argue that the rules that adults use are not natural language rules. In this paper, we argue that this is not the case. We explain properties of Germanic word order in terms of three parameters (to do with head position, proper government and adjunc tion). We reanalyse Clahsen and Muysken's data in terms of these parameters and show that the stages that adult learners go through, the errors that they make and the rules that they adopt are perfectly consistent with a UG incor porating such parameters. We suggest that errors are the result of some of the parameters being set inappropriately for German. The settings chosen are nevertheless those of existing natural languages. We also discuss additional data, from our own research on the acquisition of German and Afrikaans, which support our analysis of adult L2 acquisition of Germanic languages.

Download Full-text

Sentence matching and processing in L2 development

Second language Research ◽

10.1177/026765839300900303 ◽

1993 ◽

Vol 9 (3) ◽

pp. 253-280 ◽

Cited By ~ 11

Author(s):

Lynn Eubank

Keyword(s):

Experimental Work ◽

Word Order ◽

Native Speakers ◽

Response Times ◽

Target Language ◽

German Word ◽

Processing Strategies ◽

L2 Development ◽

Sentence Matching ◽

Surprising Finding

The processing strategies described in Clahsen (1984) to explain the develop ment of German word order make predictions that can be tested ex perimentally. Clahsen's Initialization/Finalization Strategy (IFS) in particular predicts that uninverted, ADV-SVO sentences will exact less cost in terms of processing than inverted, ADV-VSO sentences, even though inverted sent ences are grammatical in the target language and uninverted sentences are ungrammatical. The experimental means employed to test this prediction is the Sentence Matching (SM) procedure described originally in Freedman and Forster (1985). In the SM procedure, response times are elicited for particular types of sentences by measuring the time (in msec.) it takes for subjects to determine whether two sentences presented by computer are identical or different. The results of one of the experiments reported here show that inverted sentences result in significantly shorter response times than uninverted sentences for non-native speakers. This finding directly contradicts the IFS-derived prediction. However, further experimental work reported here indicates that native speakers do not respond at all to the inverted-uninverted contrast. The rest of the article thus seeks to explain this somewhat surprising finding. The proposed explanation also suggests that natives and non-natives may process sentences in the SM task in rather different ways.

Download Full-text

The acquisition of word order in Dutch and German as L1 and L2

Interlanguage studies bulletin (Utrecht) ◽

10.1177/026765838800400103 ◽

1988 ◽

Vol 4 (1) ◽

pp. 41-65 ◽

Cited By ~ 5

Author(s):

Peter Jordens

Keyword(s):

Simple Model ◽

Adult Learners ◽

Word Order ◽

Universal Grammar ◽

First Language ◽

Linguistic Theory ◽

L2 Acquisition ◽

German Word ◽

L2 Learners ◽

L1 And L2

In a recent paper, Clahsen and Muysken (1986) argue that children acquiring German as their first language have access to the 'move alpha' matrix when constructing a grammar for German. This should explain why children have SOV base order and the rule of verb-fronting from the very beginning. In this paper, it is argued that children's OV utterances cannot be related trans formationally to VO utterances. Initially, children acquire OV and VO with different sets of verbs.Clahsen and Muysken (1986) also claim that interlanguage rules of adult L2 learners are not definable in linguistic theory. Du Plessis et al. (1987) reply to this in arguing that the interlanguage rules of adults acquiring L2 German word order fall within the range of systems permitted by the Headedness parameter, the Proper Government parameter, and the Adjunction parameter. Therefore, these adult learners should have access to Universal Grammar (UG). It is argued here that it is not necessary to make this assumption. The L2-acquisition data can be easily accounted for within a simple model of L1-structural transfer.

Download Full-text

Shortcuts in German Grammar: A Percentage Approach Phase 1: Adjective endings

Linguistik Online ◽

10.13092/lo.54.280 ◽

2012 ◽

Vol 54 (4) ◽

Author(s):

John Partridge ◽

Susanne Krauß

Keyword(s):

Word Order ◽

Phase 1 ◽

Past Tense ◽

German Word ◽

Subordinate Clauses ◽

Pilot Scheme ◽

And Gender ◽

High Level ◽

The University ◽

Approach Phase

German grammar is constantly perceived as difficult, a strong disincentive to learning the language, yet the underlying principles are basically simple. If applied consistently, using uncomplicated techniques based on the concept of markedness, German of a high level of accuracy can be produced. Starting with the unjustifiably much-feared adjective endings, this pilot scheme, funded with the help of the Challenge Fund of the University of Kent, demonstrates the principles of German word-order and the marking of case and gender and how, with some minor adjustment, the easily learnable der/die/das paradigm and the awareness that once this has been mastered and case and gender have already been marked, only one of the two unmarked endings -e or -en is required to give all the necessary patterns for producing correctly inflected adjective endings. If case and gender are not marked by an article the endings of der/ die/ das can with some slight modifications be added to the adjective. So with this easily acquired knowledge, adjective endings can be handled with confidence. On this basis the program, still a work in progress, offers a theoretical grounding couched in understandable terms, a terminological glossary and an easily accessible expandable set of technologically based exercises with extensive linked help functions. These can be used serially as an entire learning unit or selectively to enable students to put their knowledge into practice and improve their skill and success in German. Following this pilot, the approach is to be extended to other common grammatical problems, e. g. word order, passive (Zustands- vs. Vorgangspassiv), indirect speech, subordinate clauses, prepositions of movement and location, past tense forms and subjunctive use.

Download Full-text