variation and the history of german negation evidence from

Variation and the history of German negation

Evidence from medieval sermons

Simon PicklUniversität Salzburg

Colloquium on Historical Sociolinguistics: Dispelling Myths about the Past

Sociolinguistics Symposium 21

17 June 2016, University of Murcia

Sentential negation in the history of German

Three main types of sentential negation in the history of German:

• Type I: preverbal negative particle ne

… neV …

• Type II: bipartite negation ne + nicht

… neV … nicht …

• Type III: negative particle nicht

… V … nicht …

Old High German

(OHG, c. 750–1050)

Middle High German

(MHG, c. 1050–1350)

New High German

(NHG, c. 1650–today)

Stage I: NEG1

Stage II: NEG1 + NEG2

Stage III: NEG2Jespersen’s Cycle

Stage I

Stage IIStage III

NEG1

NEG1 + NEG2NEG2

Jespersen’s Cycle(Jespersen 1917)


e.g. French

Stage I: ne

Stage II: ne + pas

Stage III: pasJespersen’s Cycle

Stage I

Stage IIStage III

NEG1

NEG1 + NEG2NEG2


e.g. German

Stage I: ne

Stage II: ne + nicht

Stage III: nichtJespersen’s Cycle

Stage I

Stage IIStage III

NEG1

NEG1 + NEG2NEG2


Chronology

Stage I: ne + Vfin (OHG)

ne + Vfin + (nicht) (late OHG)

Stage II: ne + Vfin + nicht (MHG)

(ne) + Vfin + nicht (ENHG)

Stage III: Vfin + nicht (NHG)

(adapted from Donhauser 1996: 202; cf. also Nübling et al. 2010: 106)

~~


Chronology in Middle High German (MHG)

Based on Behaghel 1918; 1924; Pensel 1981; Donhauser 1996; Szczepaniak 2011 and others

0%

100%

Problems and approaches

(Over)simplifications regarding negation in MHG are reiterated in textbooks and handbooks, thereby becoming ‘knowledge’:

“In MHG, bipartite negation is virtually the norm”(my translation; Wolf 2000: 1356)

Problem: textbook knowledge on the history of German negation potentially unreliable

Approach: challenge textbook knowledge and the ‘received’ history of negation in German


Editions of MHG texts are often normalised towards bipartite negation (cf. Paul 2007, 388; Fleischer/Schallert 2011: 231):

Manuscript: Jr _seÿt nicht weÿse leůte (Cod. vondob. ser. nova 2663, 30r,c)

Edition: ir ensît niht wîse liute (Erec 88, ed. Gärtner 2006)

(Fleischer/Schallert 2011: 65)

Problem: misleading picture of negation due to altered texts

Approach: study original manuscripts or faithful transcriptions


Traditional studies of MHG grammar are mostly based on literary texts, and textbook portrayals of negation in MHG is tailored to suit the needs of students, leading to a literary bias

Problem: genre-bias towards literary texts (especially verse)

Approach: include other, non-literary genres

Recent research

Study by Agnes Jäger (2008): History of German Negation

The majority variant in Jäger’s MHG texts is the ‘modern’ Stage-III form (nicht) and not the Stage-II form (ne + nicht)

Bipartite negation ne + nicht (Stage II) is not “virtually the norm” in MHG

“There is no evidence for a stable stage II period in terms of Jespersen’s cycle” (Jäger 2008: 324)

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

Prosa-Lancelot Nibelungenlied Berthold's sermons

ne ne + nicht nicht (Jäger 2008: 144)

Recent research

Study by Agnes Jäger (2008): History of German Negation

There appears to be a certain degree of genre variation: The sermons show a much more pronounced preference for the ‘modern’ form nicht than the literary texts

The sermons seem to be more ‘progressive’ than the literary texts

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

Prosa-Lancelot Nibelungenlied Berthold's sermons

ne ne + nicht nicht (Jäger 2008: 144)

Sermons as an ‘oral’ source

Is the sermons’ ‘progressiveness’ regarding negation due to their ‘oral’ nature?

‘Conceptual orality’ (Koch/Oesterreicher 2012) due to imitation of face-to-face communication

Written sermons are “the ‘written relic’ of an oral process” (my translation;

de Reu 1993)

“intended virtual orality” (my translation; Mertens 1991: 83)

Sermons as an ‘oral’ source

Restrictions of Jäger 2008:

Jäger’s texts are from the 13th century

Sermons by Berthold von Regensburg (Bavarian)

Self-compiled corpus of MHG sermons with a wider temporal and geographical scope:

Part of a larger corpus project of sermons covering OHG–NHG

(So far) only Upper German (Bavarian + Alemannic) texts due to availability and feasibility

45 texts (1050–1400) with a total of 974 instances of sentential negation

Divided into seven 50-year time periods

Results

Overall

75% nicht, 17% ne + nicht, 8% ne

732

168

74

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

nicht ne + nicht ne

Results

Diachronic

Only 1050–1100, ne + nicht is the dominant form (by a small margin)

From 1100 onwards, nicht is clearly the dominant form

5

27137

119205 141

99

28

22 49

2224

23

24

223 8 8 9

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

nicht ne + nicht ne

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

nicht ne + nicht ne

Results

Diachronic

Only 1050–1100, ne + nicht is the dominant form (by a small margin)

From 1100 onwards, nicht is clearly the dominant form

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

nicht ne + nicht ne

VO

OV

1

1262

49

11782

56

10

22 43

21

1620

20

123

8 8 9

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

nicht ne + nicht ne

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

nicht ne + nicht ne

4

15 8070

88 59 4318

6 8 34

1

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

nicht ne + nicht ne

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

nicht ne + nicht ne

Results

Also with the diachronic data, “There is no evidence for a stable stage II period in terms of Jespersen’s cycle” (Jäger 2008: 324)

But since there are no sermons surviving from between 850 and 1050, we cannot rule out a Stage-II period before 1050

Was there a Stage II in the history of German before 1050?

Take into account texts from other genres from before 1050

Broaden the view to include other types of negation

Was there a Stage II in the history of German?

The two earliest German texts that have nicht as a sentential negator:

Notker’s Psalms (c. 1020)

Williram von Ebersberg’s Song of Songs (c. 1060)

We find mostly Stage-I (Notker) or Stage-II type negation (Williram) in these texts, but in both cases also already the ‘modern’ Stage-III type:

(1) zidiu daz ir nieht irteilet _uuerdet (Notker; cf. Heinzel/Scherer 1876: 220)

(2) uuánte ímo niet durft _íst (Williram; cf. Schützeichel/Meineke 2001: 171)

No evidence for Stage-II forms before Stage-III forms

Grammaticalisation of nicht

Source: OHG n-indefinite nicht meaning ‘nothing’

Subject to negative concord (used in combination with preverbal ne)

Result: ne + nicht as ‘extended’ version of sentential negation with bare ne

But: Negative concord was not categorical when nicht was grammaticalised

Variation regarding negative particle ne in the source of grammaticalision

Results

Numbers for n-indefinites from various OHG and MHG texts (cf. Behaghel 1918; Jäger 2008).

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

n-indefinites (incl. nicht) with ne

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%


sentential negator nicht with ne

Results

VO

OV

Numbers for n-indefinites from various OHG and MHG texts (cf. Behaghel 1918; Jäger 2008).

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%


0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%



0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%


0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%



Consequences

ne + nicht and nicht came about simultaneously, reflecting the variation in negative concord at the time and resuming it

Stage-II forms and Stage-III forms developed at the same time out of the n-indefinite (ne +) nicht

(ne +) nicht was grammaticalised including the variation regarding ne in its original n-indefinite usage

Stage-III forms did not develop out of Stage-II forms

Jespersen’s Cycle not applicable

Grammaticalisation with variation

sentential negation nominal n-indefinite(‘nothing’)

ne (ne +) nicht

ne ~ (ne +) nicht

nicht nicht

Consequences

Jespersen’s Cycle

Stage I: ne

Stage II: ne + nicht

Stage III: nicht

Conclusion

Looking at the ‘oral’ genre of sermons,

the chronology of sentential negation in MHG is updated;

modern type negation with nicht was established much faster than usually assumed;

a ‘Stage-II’ period cannot be confirmed.

A comparison of sentential negation with negative concord variation shows that

the newly grammaticalised negator nicht resumed ne-variation already present with n-indefinites;

‘Stage-III’ forms are not subsequent to ‘Stage-II’ forms;

Jespersen’s Cycle is not the right model for the history of German negation

Behaghel, Otto (1918). “Die Verneinung in der deutschen Sprache”. In: Wissenschaftliche Beihefte zur Zeitschrift des Allgemeinen Deutschen Sprachvereins 5(38/40), 225–252.

Behaghel, Otto (1924). Deutsche Syntax. Eine geschichtliche Darstellung. Band II: Die Wortklassen und Wortformen. Heidelberg: Winter.

Breitbarth, Anne (2009). “A hybrid approach to Jespersen’s cycle in West Germanic”. In: Journal of Comparative Germanic Linguistics 12(2), 81–114.

de Reu, Martine (1993). “Divers chemins pour étudier un sermon”. In: Hamesse, Jacqueline / Xavier Hermand (eds): De l’homélie au sermon. Histoire de la prédication médiévale. Actes du Colloque international de Louvain-la-Neuve 1992. Louvain-la-Neuve: Institut d’Études Médiévales, 331–340.

Donhauser, Karin (1996). “Negationssyntax in der deutschen Sprachgeschichte. Grammatikalisierung oder Degrammatikalisierung?”In: Lang, Ewald / Gisela Zifonun (eds): Deutsch – typologisch. Berlin/New York: de Gruyter, 201–217.

Elspaß, Stephan / Nils Langer (2012). “Jespersen’s Cycle and the History of German Negation – Challenges from a Sociolinguistic Perspective”. In: Neuphilologische Mitteilungen 113(3), 275–292.

Fleischer, Jürg / Oliver Schallert (2011). Historische Syntax des Deutschen. Eine Einführung. Tübingen: Narr.

Jäger, Agnes (2008). History of German Negation. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: Benjamins.

Jespersen, Otto (1917). Negation in English and Other Languages. Kopenhagen: Lunos.

Koch, Peter / Wulf Oesterreicher (2012). “Language of Immediacy — Language of Distance: Orality and Literacy from the Perspective of Language Theory and Linguistic History”. In: Lange, Claudia / Beatrix Weber / Göran Wolf (eds): Communicative Spaces. Variation, Contact, and Change. Frankfurt a.M. et al.: Peter Lang, 441–473.

Mertens, Volker (1991). “‚Texte unterwegs‘. Zu Funktions- und Textdynamik mittelalterlicher Predigten und den Konsequenzen für ihre Edition”. In: Buschinger, Danielle / Wolfgang Spiewok (eds): Mittelalterforschung und Edition. Amiens: Publications du Centre dʼétudes médiévales, 75–85.

Nübling, Damaris / Antje Dammel / Janet Duke / Renata Szczepaniak (2006). Historische Sprachwissenschaft des Deutschen. Eine Einführung in die Prinzipien des Sprachwandels. Tübingen: Narr.

Pensel, Franzjosef (1981). “Die Satznegation”. In: Kettmann, Gerhard / Joachim Schildt (eds): Zur Ausbildung der Norm der deutschen Literatursprache auf der syntaktischen Ebene (1470–1730). Der Einfachsatz. Berlin: Akademie-Verlag, 287–326.

Szczepaniak, Renata (2011). “Zum Stand des Jespersen-Zyklus im Nibelungenlied (HS A): Starke und schwache negativ-polare Elemente”. In: Jahrbuch für germanistische Sprachgeschichte 2, 284–293.

Wolf, Norbert Richard (2000). “Syntax des Mittelhochdeutschen”. In: Besch, Werner / Anne Betten / Oskar Reichmann / Stefan Sonderegger (eds): Sprachgeschichte. Ein Handbuch zur Geschichte der deutschen Sprache und ihrer Erforschung. 2. Teilband. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, 1351–1358.

Thank you

variation and the history of german negation evidence from

Documents