Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

An OT analysis of do-support across varieties of German

  • Original Paper
  • Published:
The Journal of Comparative Germanic Linguistics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Just like most varieties of West Germanic, virtually all varieties of German use a construction in which a cognate of the English verb do (standard German tun) functions as an auxiliary and selects another verb in the bare infinitive, a construction known as do-periphrasis or do-support. The present paper provides an Optimality Theoretic (OT) analysis of this phenomenon. It builds on a previous analysis by Bader and Schmid (An OT-analysis of do-support in Modern German, 2006) but (i) extends it from root clauses to subordinate clauses and (ii) aims to capture all of the major distributional patterns found across (mostly non-standard) varieties of German. In so doing, the data are used as a testing ground for different models of German clause structure. At first sight, the occurrence of do in subordinate clauses, as found in many varieties, appears to support the standard CP-IP-VP analysis of German. In actual fact, however, the full range of data turn out to challenge, rather than support, this model. Instead, I propose an analysis within the IP-less model by Haider (Deutsche Syntax - generativ. Vorstudien zur Theorie einer projektiven Grammatik, Narr, Tübingen, 1993 et seq.). In sum, the do-support data will be shown to have implications not only for the analysis of clause structure but also for the OT constraints commonly assumed to govern the distribution of do, for the theory of non-projecting words (Toivonen in Non-projecting words, Kluwer, Dordrecht, 2003) as well as research on grammaticalization.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Abraham, Werner, and Annette Fischer. 1998. Das grammatische Optimalisierungsszenario von ‘tun’ als Hilfsverb. In Deutsche Grammatik - Thema in Variationen. Festschrift für Werner Eroms zum 60. Geburtstag, ed. Karin Donhauser, and Ludwig Eichinger, 35–47. Heidelberg: Winter.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ackema, Peter, and Ad Neeleman. 2001. Competition between syntax and morphology. In Optimality-theoretic syntax, ed. Geraldine Legendre, Jane Grimshaw, and Sten Vikner, 29–60. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Anttila, Arto. 2002. Variation and phonological theory. In The handbook of language variation and change, ed. Jack K. Chambers, Peter Trudgill, and Natalie Schilling-Estes, 206–243. Malden, MA: Blackwell.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bader, Markus and Tanja Schmid. 2006. An OT-analysis of do-support in Modern German. Manuscript University of Konstanz. Rutgers Optimality Archive 837-0606.

  • Bech, Gunnar. 1955. Studien über das deutsche verbum infinitum. Kopenhagen: Munksgaard.

    Google Scholar 

  • Benincà, Paola, and Cecilia Poletto. 2004. A case of ‘do’-support in Romance. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 22: 51–94.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Berman, Judith. 2003. Clausal syntax of German. Stanford: CSLI Publications.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bernhardt, Johannes. 1903. Zur Syntax der gesprochenen Sprache. Jahrbuch des Vereins für niederdeutsche Sprachforschung 29: 1–25.

    Google Scholar 

  • Boersma, Paul. 1997. How we learn variation, optionality, and probability. Proceedings of the Institute of Phonetic Sciences of the University of Amsterdam 21: 43–58.

    Google Scholar 

  • Borsley, Robert D., and Peter Suchsland. 1997. Syntax-Theorie. Tübingen: Niemeyer.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Bresnan, Joan and Ashwini Deo. 2001. Grammatical constraints on variation: ‘Be’ in the Survey of English Dialects and Stochastic Optimality Theory. Ms. Stanford University.

  • Broekhuis, Hans, and Ellen Woolford. 2013. Minimalism and Optimality Theory. In The Cambridge handbook of generative syntax, ed. Marcel den Dikken, 122–161. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Broekhuis, Hans, and Ralf Vogel (eds.). 2013. Derivation and filtering. London: Equinox Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cardinaletti, Anna, and Michael Starke. 1999. A typology of structural deficiency: A case study of three classes of pronouns. In Clitics in the languages of Europe, ed. Henk van Riemsdijk, 33–82. Berlin: De Gruyter.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chomsky, Noam. 1957. Syntactic structures. Den Haag: Mouton.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chomsky, Noam. 1981. Lectures on governement and binding. Dordrecht: Foris.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chomsky, Noam. 1986. Barriers. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chomsky, Noam. 1991. Some notes on economy of derivation and representation. In Principles and parameters in comparative grammar, ed. Robert Freidin, 417–454. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chomsky, Noam. 1995. Some notes on economy of derivation and representation. In The Minimalist program, ed. Noam Chomsky, 129–166. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cornips, Leonie. 1998. Habitual doen in Heerlen Dutch. In ‘Do’ in English, Dutch and German. History and present-day variation, ed. Ingrid Tieken-Boon van Ostade, Marijke van der Wal, and Arjan van Leuvenstijn, 83–101. Münster: Nodus.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cornips, Leonie. 2009. Empirical syntax: Idiolectal variability in two- and three-verb clusters in regional standard Dutch and Dutch dialects. In Describing and modeling variation in grammar, ed. Andreas Dufter, Jürg Fleischer, and Guido Seiler, 203–224. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.

    Google Scholar 

  • den Besten, Hans. 1983. On the interaction of root transformations and lexical deletive rules. In On the formal syntax of the Westgermania. Papers from the “3rd Groningen Grammar Talks”, ed. Werner Abraham, 47–131. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

    Google Scholar 

  • den Besten, Hans, and Jerold A. Edmondson. 1983. The verbal complex in Continental West Germanic. In On the formal syntax of the Westgermania. Papers from the “3rd Groningen Grammar Talks”, ed. Werner Abraham, 154–216. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

    Google Scholar 

  • Duden. 1997. Richtiges und gutes Deutsch: Wörterbuch der sprachlichen Zweifelsfälle. Mannheim: Dudenverlag.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dubenion-Smith, Shannon A. 2010. Verbal complex phenomena in West Central German. Empirical domain and multi-causal account. Journal of Germanic Linguistics 22: 99–191.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dubenion-Smith, Shannon A. 2011. Der Verbalkomplex im Schlesischen. Zeitschrift für Dialektologie und Linguistik 78 (3): 281–320.

    Google Scholar 

  • Erb, Marie Christine. 2001. Finite auxiliaries in German. Ph.D. thesis, Tilburg.

  • Eroms, Hans-Werner. 1984. Indikativische periphrastische Formen mit ‘doa’ im Bairischen als Beispiel für latente und virulente syntaktische Regeln. In Beiträge zur bairischen und ostfränkischen Dialektologie. Ergebnisse der Zweiten Bayerisch-Österreichischen Dialektologentagung Wien, 27.–30. September, ed. Peter Wiesinger, 123–136. GÖppingen: Kümmerle.

    Google Scholar 

  • Eroms, Hans-Werner. 1998. Periphrastic ‘tun’ in present-day Bavarian and other German dialects. In ‘Do’ in English, Dutch and German. History and present-day variation, ed. Ingrid Tieken-Boon van Ostade, Marijke van der Wal, and Arjan van Leuvenstijn, 139–157. Münster: Nodus.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fleischer, Jürg. 2008. Zur topikalisierenden Infinitivverdoppelung in deutschen Dialekten: Trinken trinkt er nich, aber rauchen raucht er (mit einem Exkurs zum Jiddischen). In Dialektgeographie der Zukunft: Akten des 2. Kongresses der Internationalen Gesellschaft für Dialektologie des Deutschen (IGDD) am Institut für Germanistik der Universität Wien, 20. bis 23. September 2006, ed. Peter Ernst, and Franz Patocka, 243–268. Stuttgart: Steiner.

    Google Scholar 

  • Frey, Werner. 2004a. A medial topic position for German. Linguistische Berichte 198: 153–190.

    Google Scholar 

  • Frey, Werner. 2004b. The grammar-pragmatics interface and the German prefield. Sprache & Pragmatik 52: 1–39.

    Google Scholar 

  • Grewendorf, Günther. 1988. Aspekte der deutschen Syntax. Tübingen: Narr.

    Google Scholar 

  • Grewendorf, Günther. 2002. Minimalistische Syntax. Tübingen: Francke.

    Google Scholar 

  • Grimshaw, Jane. 1997. Projections, heads and optimality. Linguistic Inquiry 28: 373–422.

    Google Scholar 

  • Grimshaw, Jane. 2013. Last resorts: A typology of do-support. In Derivation and filtering, ed. Hans Broekhuis, and Ralf Vogel, 267–295. London: Equinox Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  • Haddican, Bill. 2007. The structural deficiency of verbal proforms. Linguistic Inquiry 38 (3): 539–547.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Haegeman, Liliane. 1991. Introduction to government and binding theory. Oxford: Blackwell.

    Google Scholar 

  • Haegeman, Liliane, and Henk van Riemsdijk. 1986. Verb projection raising, scope, and the typology of rules affecting verbs. Linguistic Inquiry 17 (3): 417–466.

    Google Scholar 

  • Haegeman, Liliane, and Jacqueline Guéron. 1999. English grammar. A Generative perspective. Malden, MA: Blackwell.

    Google Scholar 

  • Haider, Hubert. 1993. Deutsche Syntax - generativ. Vorstudien zur Theorie einer projektiven Grammatik. Tübingen: Narr.

    Google Scholar 

  • Haider, Hubert. 2003. V-clustering and clause union—Causes and effects. In Verb constructions in German and Dutch, ed. Peter Seuren, and Gerard Kempen, 91–126. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Haider, Hubert. 2010. The syntax of German. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Harte, Günter. 1950. Die Umschreibung mit ,,doon‘‘im Niederdeutschen. In über niederdeutsche Sprache und Dichtung. Herrn Prof. Dr. Walther Niekerken zum 50. Geburtstag von seinen 37–42. Hamburg: Schülern.

  • Heck, Fabian, Gereon Müller, Ralf Vogel, Silke Fischer, Sten Vikner, and Tanja Schmid. 2002. On the nature of the input in optimality theory. The Linguistic Review 19: 345–376.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hill, Eugen. 2010. A case study in grammaticalized inflectional morphology. Origin and development of the Germanic weak preterite. Diachronica 27 (3): 411–458.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Höhle, Tilman N. 1991. Projektionsstufen bei V-Projektionen. Manuscript. Universität Tübingen.

  • Hooge, David. 1973. Das Verb in der Parataxe und Hypotaxe statistisch gesehen. Zeitschrift für Phonetik, Sprachwissenschaft und Kommunikationsforschung 26: 328–341.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hooge, David. 1975. Nachtrag zum Artikel: Das Verb in der Parataxe und Hypotaxe statistisch gesehen. Zeitschrift für Phonetik, Sprachwissenschaft und Kommunikations-forschung 28: 610–612.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hopper, Paul, and Elizabeth Traugott. 2003. Grammaticalization. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Horn, Lawrence R. 1984. Toward a new taxonomy for pragmatic inference: Q-based and R-based implicature. In Meaning, form and use in context, ed. Deborah Schiffrin, 11–42. Washington: Georgetown University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kager, René. 1999. Optimality theory. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Keseling, Gisbert. 1968. Periphrastische Verbformen im Niederdeutschen. Jahrbuch des Vereins für niederdeutsche Sprachforschung 91: 139–151.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kiparsky, Paul. 2009. The Germanic weak preterite. In On inflection, ed. Patrick O. Steinkrüger, and Manfred Krifka, 107–127. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kölligan, Daniel. 2004. Zur präteritalen ‘tun’-Periphrase im Ripuarischen. In Morphologie und Syntax deutscher Dialekte und Historische Dialektologie des Deutschen. Beiträge zum 1. Kongress der Internationalen Gesellschaft für Dialektologie des Deutschen, Marburg/Lahn, 5.-8. März 2003, ed. Franz Patocka, and Peter Wiesinger, 429–452. Vienna: Präsens.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kortmann, Bernd. 2004. Do as a tense and aspect marker in varieties of English. In Dialectology meets typology: Dialect grammar from a cross-linguistic perspective, ed. Bernd Kortmann, 245–275. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lambrecht, Knud. 1994. Information structure and sentence form. Topic, focus and the mental representation of discourse referents. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Langer, Nils. 2001. Linguistic Purism in Action. How auxiliary ‘tun’ was stgmatized in Early New High German. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Legendre, Géraldine. 1996. Clitics, Verb (non-)movement, and optimality in Bulgarian. Technical report JHU-CogSci-96-5, Department of Cognitive Science, John Hopkins University.

  • Löhken, Sylvia C. 1997. Deutsche Wortprosodie. Abschwächungs- und Tilgungsvorgänge. Tübingen: Stauffenburg.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lötscher, Andreas. 1978. Zur Verbstellung im Zürichdeutschen und in anderen Varianten des Deutschen. Zeitschrift für Dialektologie und Linguistik 45 (1): 1–29.

    Google Scholar 

  • Molnár, Valéria. 1991. Das Topik im Deutschen und im Ungarischen. Stockholm: Almquist und Wiksell.

    Google Scholar 

  • Müller, Gereon. 2000. Elemente der optimalitätstheoretischen Syntax. Tübingen: Stauffenburg.

    Google Scholar 

  • Niedersächsisches Wörterbuch (1993), ed. Dieter Stellmacher, Institut für Historische Landesforschung at the University of Göttingen. Volume 3. Neumünster: Wachholtz.

  • Nieuweboer, Rogier. 1998. The Altai dialect of Plautdiitsch. West Siberian Mennonite Low German. München: LINCOM.

    Google Scholar 

  • Öhl, Peter. 2010. Formal and functional constraints on constituent order and their universality. In Comparative and contrastive studies of information structure, ed. Carsten Breul, and Edward GÖbbel, 231–275. Amsterdam: Benjamins.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Platzack, Christer, and Anders Holmberg. 1989. The role of AGR and finiteness. Working Papers in Scandinavian Syntax 44: 101–117.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pollock, Jean Yves. 1989. Verb movement, Universal Grammar, and the structure of IP. Linguistic Inquiry 20: 365–424.

    Google Scholar 

  • Prince, Alan und Paul Smolensky. 1993. Optimality theory. Constraint interaction in generative grammar. RuCCS Technical Report 2 (published as Prince and Smolensky 2004).

  • Prince, Alan, and Paul Smolensky. 2002. Optimality: From neural networks to Universal Grammar. In Cognitive modelling, ed. Thad A. Polk, and Colleen M. Seifert, 317–334. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Prince, Alan, and Paul Smolensky. 2004. Optimality theory. Constraint interaction in generative grammar. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Radford, Andrew. 2004. Minimalist syntax. Exploring the structure of English. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Rohdenburg, Günter. 1986. Phonologisch und morphologisch bedingte Variation in der Verbalsyntax des Nordniederdeutschen. Jahrbuch des Vereins für niederdeutsche Sprachforschung 109: 86–117.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rohdenburg, Günter. 2002. Die Umschreibung finiter Verbformen mit ‘doon’ ‘tun’ und die Frikativierung stammauslautender Plosive in nordniederdeutschen Mundarten. NOWELE 40: 85–104.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sabel, Joachim. 2000. Das Verbstellungsproblem im Deutschen: Synchronie und Diachronie. Deutsche Sprache 28: 1–24.

    Google Scholar 

  • Salzmann, Martin. 2013. New arguments for verb cluster formation at PF and a right-branching VP: Evidence from verb doubling and cluster penetrability. Linguistic Variation 13 (1): 81–132.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schallert, Oliver. 2014. Zur Syntax der Ersatzinfinitivkonstruktion. Typologie und Variation. Tübingen: Stauffenburg.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schönenberger, Manuela, and Zvi Penner. 1995. Probing Swiss German clause structure by means of the replacement of verbal expletives: ‘Tun’ ‘do’ insertion and verb doubling. In Topics in Swiss German syntax, ed. Zvi Penner, 291–330. Bern: Lang.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schwarz, Christian. 2004. Die ‘tun’-Periphrase im Deutschen. M.A.thesis, University of Munich.

  • Seiler, Guido. 2003. Präpositionale Dativmarkierung im Oberdeutschen. Stuttgart: Steiner.

    Google Scholar 

  • Seiler, Guido. 2004. On three types of dialect variation, and their implications for linguistic theory: Evidence from verb clusters in Swiss German dialects. In Dialectology meets typology: Dialect grammar from a cross-linguistic perspective, ed. Bernd Kortmann, 367–399. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.

    Google Scholar 

  • Slade, Benjamin. 2003. How to rank constraints: Constraint conflict, grammatical competition, and the rise of periphrastic ‘do’. In Optimality theory and language change, ed. Eric D. Holt, 337–385. Dordrecht: Kluwer.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Sternefeld, Wolfgang. 2006. Syntax - Eine morphologisch motivierte generative Beschreibung des Deutschen. Tübingen: Stauffenberg.

    Google Scholar 

  • Toivonen, Ida. 2003. Non-projecting words. Dordrecht: Kluwer.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Travis, Lisa. 1984. Parameters and effects of word order variation. Ph.D. thesis, MIT.

  • Van Dale, 1992. Groot Woordenboek der Nederlandse Taal, 12th ed. Utrecht, Antwerpen: Van Dale Lexicografie.

    Google Scholar 

  • Vikner, Sten. 2005. Immobile complex verbs in Germanic. Journal of Comparative Germanic Linguistics 8: 83–115.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vogel, Ralf. 2013. The simple generator. In Derivation and filtering, ed. Hans Broekhuis, and Ralf Vogel, 99–136. London: Equinox Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  • Weber, Thilo. 2017. Die ‘TUN’-Periphrase im Niederdeutschen. Funktionale und formale Aspekte. Tübingen: Stauffenburg.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wurmbrand, Susi. 2006. Verb clusters, verb raising, and restructuring. In The Blackwell companion to syntax, ed. Martin Everaert, and Henk van Riemsdijk, 229–343. Oxford: Blackwell.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Wurmbrand, Susi. 2007. How complex are complex predicates? Syntax 10 (3): 243–288.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zwart, Jan-Wouter. 2011. The syntax of Dutch. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department I - Germanistik, Komparatistik, Nordistik, Deutsch als Fremdsprache, Ludwig-Maximilians-Universität München, Deutsche Philologie, Schellingstraße 3 VG, Raum 252, 80799, Munich, Germany

    Thilo Weber

Authors
  1. Thilo Weber
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Thilo Weber.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Weber, T. An OT analysis of do-support across varieties of German. J Comp German Linguistics 21, 75–129 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10828-018-9095-7

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10828-018-9095-7

Keywords

Search

Navigation