Morphological Change Up Close: Two and a Half Centuries of Verbal Inflection in Nuremberg [Reprint 2017 ed.] 9783110929904, 9783484304222

Table of contents :
Acknowledgments
Contents
1. Introduction
2. Texts, database and methodology
3. Morphological change
4. Inflectional endings
5. Stem alternations
6. Inflectional-class transfer
7. The ge- participle prefix
8. Sociolinguistic variation and its relation to change
Appendix A: Verb frequency list
Appendix B: Sample lines from data tables
Appendix C: Text sources
References

Citation preview

Linguistische Arbeiten

422

Herausgegeben von Hans Altmann, Peter Blumenthal, Hans Jürgen Heringer, Ingo Plag, Heinz Vater und Richard Wiese

David Fertig

Morphological Change Up Close Two and a Half Centuries of Verbal Inflection in Nuremberg

Max Niemeyer Verlag Tübingen 2000

Die Deutsche Bibliothek - CIP-Einheitsaufnahme Fertig, David Longley : Morphological change up close : two and a half centuries of verbal inflection in Nuremberg / David Fertig. - Tübingen : Niemeyer, 2000 (Linguistische Arbeiten ; 422) ISBN 3-484-30422-7

ISSN 0344-6727

© Max Niemeyer Verlag G m b H , Tübingen 2000 Das Werk einschließlich aller seiner Teile ist urheberrechtlich geschützt. Jede Verwertung außerhalb der engen Grenzen des Urheberrechtsgesetzes ist ohne Zustimmung des Verlages unzulässig und strafbar. Das gilt insbesondere für Vervielfältigungen, Übersetzungen, Mikroverfilmungen und die Einspeicherung und Verarbeitung in elektronischen Systemen. Printed in Germany. Gedruckt auf alterungsbeständigem Papier. Druck: Weihert-Druck G m b H , Darmstadt Einband: Industriebuchbinderei Nadele, Nehren

Acknowledgments

Many people have contributed to this project. I am grateful to my colleagues in Buffalo for their feedback and encouragement, especially to Michael Metzger and Bob Hoeing f o r — among many other things—always making sure that I had time for this kind of work. I would also like to thank all the people who have attended the talks I have given at various forums, in particular at the Germanic Linguistics Annual Conferences, for their contagious enthusiasm and for comments and suggestions on papers which contained the seeds of many of the ideas that have been developed here. Special thanks to Joe Salmons, who has helped me and inspired me in so many ways. Thanks also to all the editors and referees who have read my work and offered criticism that has been, without exception, constructive and valuable. Renewed thanks are also due to the many people in Ann Arbor and elsewhere who helped me with my dissertation, which provided much of the empirical foundation for this book. The final thanks are reserved for my wife, Sigrid, and my kids, Elisabeth, Alexander, and Benjamin, without whom this kind of work would be neither possible nor meaningful. Lis and Alex also helped with the proofreading.

Contents

1 Introduction

1

2 Texts, database and methodology 2.1 The texts 2.1.1 The writers 2.2 The database 2.3 Analysis of the data

5 5 6 10 13

3 Morphological change 3.0 Introduction 3.1 Language change 3.2 Morphological theory 3.2.1 Wurzel 3.2.2 Iconicity 3.2.3 Bybee 3.2.4 Reanalysis and abduction 3.2.5 Morphological Economy 3.2.6 Analogy 3.2.6.1 Analogy and rules 3.2.7 Analogical leveling 3.2.7.1 Accounting for leveling 3.2.7.2 The direction of leveling 3.2.8 Traditional typologies of morphological change 3.3 Conclusion

14 14 15 16 19 23 24 25 25 26 28 31 32 35 36 37

4 Inflectional endings 4.0 Introduction 4.1 1st singular 4.2 2nd singular 4.2.1 Discussion 4.3 2nd and 3rd plural 4.4 1st and 3rd plural present oisein 4.5 1st plural with immediately following pronominal subject 4.6 Chapter summary

38 38 38 39 41 41 43 47 49

5 Stem alternations 5.0 Introduction 5.1 Stem-vowel alternations 5.1.1 Strong verbs - present tense 5.1.1.1 Class II 5.1.1.2 Classes Illb, IV, and V 5.1.1.2.1 Preliminary discussion

51 51 51 51 51 53 53

VIII

5.2

5.3 5.4

5.5

5.1.1.2.2 The Nuremberg findings 5.1.1.2.3 Discussion of the findings 5.1.1.3 Stem vowels of kommen and genommen 5.1.1.4 Classes VI and VII 5.1.1.5 Summary of present-tense stem-vowel alternations 5.1.2 Strong verbs - preterite 5.1.2.1 Class 1 5.1.2.2 Class II 5.1.2.3 Class III 5.1.2.4 Summary of preterite stem-vowel alternations 5.1.3 Weak verbs (Ruckumlaut) 5.1.3.1 Background 5.1.3.2 The Nuremberg findings 5.1.3.3 Summary of Ruckumlaut alternations 5.1.4 Modals 5.1.4.1 Preliminary discussion 5.1.4.2 The Nuremberg findings 5.1.4.3 Remarks on wellen 5.1.5 Preterite and preterite participle of wissen 5.1.5.1 Background 5.1.5.2 The Nuremberg findings 5.1.5.3 Discussion 5.1.6 tun 5.1.6.1 Preterite indicative 5.1.6.2 Preterite participle and infinitive 5.1.7 Present tense of gehen and stehen Stem-final consonant alternations 5.2.1 Verner's-Law alternations 5.2.2 Other stem-final consonant alternations Changes in etymologically suppletive alternations 5.3.1 Discussion The directionality of leveling 5.4.1 Summary of findings on paradigm leveling 5.4.2 Accounting for the direction of leveling Chapter summary

6 Inflectional-class transfer 6.0 Introduction 6.1 Movement from one strong class to another 6.2 Movement from weak to strong 6.3 Movement from strong to weak 6.3.1 gewest-gewesen 6.4 Movement from preterite-present to weak 6.5 Discussion 6.6 Chapter summary

54 55 55 59 59 60 60 62 63 65 65 65 66 68 69 69 77 85 86 86 86 87 88 88 89 91 92 92 97 99 100 105 105 106 110 111 111 Ill 113 114 118 121 121 126

IX 7 The 7.0 7.1 7.2

ge- participle prefix Introduction Verbs with non-initial primary stress Verbs with initial stress 7.2.1 Verbs which had lacked the prefix in MHG 7.2.2 Lexical effects among verbs with initial velar stops 7.2.3 Accounting for the prefixless participles in the g-/k- verbs 7.2.4 Syncope-induced loss of ge7.3 Chapter summary

128 128 128 129 129 130 133 140 142

8 Sociolinguistic variation and its relation to change 8.1 Variation in the Nuremberg texts 8.2 The relationship between variation and change

144 144 147

Appendix A: Verb frequency list

149

Appendix B: Sample lines from data tables

159

Appendix C: Text sources

161

References

163

1 Introduction

This study aims to build a theoretical investigation of morphological change on a solid empirical foundation. It starts with the quantitative analysis of a large and well-defined body of data and then explores the implications of these empirical findings for a number of theoretical questions. This approach is indirectly inspired by the example of Bybee 1985a, but in sharp contrast to Bybee's maximally diverse cross-linguistic database, my data are drawn from a single local variety of a single language, covering about two and a half centuries of that variety's history. Specifically, all the texts used were written by natives of Nuremberg between 1356 and 1619. The database includes every token of every verb that occurs in this collection of nearly one-half million words, about 86,000 tokens in all (see Chapter 2 below for details). The first stage of this project, which culminated in my 1994 dissertation, was exploratory, in Milroy's (1992:62, 78) sense. In other words, well-formed hypotheses about morphological change and variation were the goal rather than the starting point of that stage. Exploratory studies are appropriate and necessary when the complexity and subtlety of the phenomena under investigation and/or the sheer size of the database make it impossible to detect patterns in the data through simple observation. There is certainly no doubt that by these criteria modern social dialectology is an excellent example of an exploratory science. Milroy (1992:54) explicitly contrasts social dialectology in this respect, however, with the more conventional kind of historical linguistics that deals with written texts from past stages of a language. He argues that the kind of exploratory, quantitative study that is so essential to the investigation of modern speech communities is not possible in the study of surviving written texts because the fine-grained detail that we discover when we study present-day linguistic variation has simply not been preserved in the historical data. As Labov (1972:100) puts it, "The great art of the historical linguist is to make the best of [...] bad data—'bad' in the sense that it may be fragmentary, corrupted, or many times removed from the actual productions of native speakers." For most past stages of most languages, this assessment is entirely accurate. The raw data available to us are usually deficient in a number of ways. Most obviously, the amount of textual material in existence is often very small (e.g. Old Saxon, Gothic). Secondly, the texts that we do have often show relatively little change over time and an extremely limited range of linguistic variation because some kind of semi-standardized written language was in widespread use (e.g. Old English, Middle High German). Thirdly, we generally know very little about the people who wrote down the texts that have survived. We seldom have much more than a name, and we often do not even have that. Finally, and most crucially for a diachronic study, the available texts can often not be dated with any precision. In the common case of texts that were recopied and altered many times, it is not even possible in principle to assign a single date to a text. The forms and spellings typically represent a mixture of those used by every scribe involved in the transmission down to the surviving copy. For the many important texts that have their origins in oral traditions, the question of date can be even more problematic. The debate over the date of Beowulf is illustrative of some of these issues (see the papers in Chase 1981).

2 Occasionally, however, the historical linguist comes across a situation where these problems are partially overcome. Nowhere is this more true than in Nuremberg during the Early New High German (ENHG) period. The number of autograph, dated manuscripts available from late medieval and early modern Nuremberg is extraordinary. Even if one limits oneself to manuscripts that have been edited and published by later scholars, as I have for the most part, there is more than enough material for a study of this type. Furthermore, this was a period in which there was no generally accepted and well-established standard form of written German, even within a single city. We therefore find an enormous amount of change in the two and a half centuries covered by our texts, and variation is pervasive. Finally, we have a relatively large amount of biographical information about many of the writers, and we also know quite a bit about the society in which they lived. Ironically, historical linguists have often shied away from situations like this, precisely because conventional approaches cannot do justice to the quantity and complexity of the data (Milroy 1992:132). With modern technology, however, databases that would have been completely unmanageable a few decades ago can now be manipulated and analyzed with ease. The investigator can quickly test one hypothesis after another in the search for patterns and correlations of interest. Methodological advances in other branches of linguistics, especially variationist sociolinguistics, show how the new technology can be applied to the empirical study of language change. A number of recent studies have already applied modern methodologies to the study of some aspects of variation and change in late medieval and early modern Nuremberg, using many of the same texts that I use here. Ebert (1980; 1981; 1988; 1998; and elsewhere) and Lanouette (1998) have explored a number of syntactic issues; M. Dressier (1993) has looked at variation in relativization strategies; and LippiGreen (1994) has dealt with social and stylistic variation in the consonants. Other scholars have tried at least a partial application of similar principles and methods to the study of historical texts from other times and places, but these studies, although important and successful in many ways, often suffer from the types of problems outlined above. A general issue with most studies is that they include texts from different locations, and the databases used are not large enough to distinguish the effects of geographical variation from those of social variation and change over time. In studies with a primary diachronic focus, large numbers of precisely datable texts are an essential ingredient that is usually missing. It is largely for these reasons that previous studies dealing with change in verbal inflection in ENHG do not uncover the kind of detail that emerges from my findings (e.g. Chirita 1988; Dammers et al. 1988; Giessmann 1981). In attempts to detect patterns of social variation, the most common problem is a lack of even the most basic biographical knowledge about the writers (e.g. Devitt 1989; Romaine 1982; Toon 1983; Kyto 1992; 1997; Wright 1999). I know of one previous attempt (Gerth 1987) to find social variation in ENHG verbal inflection. It is not surprising that this attempt was unsuccessful (Gerth 1987:148), in light of the fact that the study was based on printed works from just a handful of writers and looked mainly at relatively low-frequency phenomena for which the present study did not find any social variation either, such as the preterite stem-vowel alternations in strong verbs of Classes I-III (cf. §5.1.2 below) and -ent in the 3rd plural present indicative (cf. §4.3 below). Fertig 1994 was the first study to deal with morphological change and variation in the Nuremberg material. I originally chose to look at morphology, and more specifically at verbal inflection, for a number of purely practical reasons. Rather than limiting myself to a

3 small number of phenomena from the outset, as many quantitative studies of change and variation do, I collected and analyzed data on all of the verb tokens that occur in the Nuremberg texts. The investigations presented in the following chapters take some of the empirical findings of Fertig 1994 as a starting point and explore the implications of those findings for a number of questions in contemporary morphological and diachronic theory. The sociolinguistic focus of my dissertation is much less prominent in the present study. Although I do still briefly discuss many interesting patterns of variation and address some general socio-historical issues in Chapter 8, the main emphasis in this work is on change rather than variation. The Early New High German period has been characterized as "die wesentliche Epoche der strukturellen Umgestaltung des deutschen Verbsystems" (Hoffmann and Solms 1987:38; Dammers et al. 1988:524). The changes that are generally cited as part of this "Umgestaltung", however, represent only a small portion of the developments discussed in the chapters below. Unlike many studies of linguistic change in the ENHG period, the pres??ent investigation gives no special priority to changes that play (or at least appear to play) a role in the formation of the modern standard language. Focusing on such changes may be justifiable from a number of perspectives, but they contribute no more to our understanding of the mechanisms and causes of grammatical change than do any other diachronic developments (cf. Milroy 1992). This study will therefore pay just as much attention to developments whose effects can only be seen today in non-standard dialects and even to incipient changes that were later reversed—a surprisingly common phenomenon. Before turning to the analysis and discussion of the changes themselves in Chapters 4-8, I first deal with a number of preliminary issues in Chapters 2 and 3. Chapter 2 offers a detailed overview of the collection of texts and the database, including some basic biographical information about the writers. Chapter 3 introduces the theoretical issues that are of greatest importance for the discussion in later chapters. Chapter 4 deals with developments in the system of inflectional endings. This is an area where there is surprisingly little change in the Nuremberg texts, for reasons that will be explained in the chapter. Nevertheless, there are a few interesting issues to consider. Chapter 5 deals with stem alternations. This is the longest chapter in the book. In addition to presenting data on the leveling of a number of different alternations, including the stem-vowel alternations in the present and in the preterite of several classes of strong verbs, Riickumlaut alternations, and Verner's Law and other stem-final consonant alternations, it includes discussions of a variety of theoretical questions. Section 5.1.4 examines an apparent instance of leveling in the stem-vowels of the modals and the significance of a correct analysis of these changes for some contemporary theories of morphological change. Section 5.3 deals with suppletion, further developing a theme that appears in some other recent work of mine (Fertig 1998a; b) which challenges the common view of suppletion as nothing but an historical artifact resulting from resistance to analogical change among high-frequency word forms. Section 5.4 deals with the directionality of paradigm leveling. The topic of Chapter 6 is inflectional-class transfer, the movement of verbs from one conjugation to another. I explore the implications of the Nuremberg findings here for current controversies concerning: 1) the connection between inflectional-class membership and extra-morphological properties; and 2) whether there is a need for distinct mechanisms to handle regular and irregular inflection.

4 Chapter 7 is devoted entirely to the ge- participle prefix. The longest section draws heavily on data from the modern dialects which, together with the analysis of the Nuremberg data, forces us to reconsider the standard explanation for the common absence of the prefix on a number of verbs in ENHG. I show that this absence is in fact an instance of morphological haplology and discuss the implications of this particular case for several recent theories of haplology. Chapter 8 discusses some of the observed patterns of sociolinguistic variation and the general question of the relationship between variation and change.

2 Texts, database and methodology

2.1 The texts This study is based on a collection of texts comprising nearly a half-million words from fifty-one different writers. The earliest text is dated 1356 and the latest 1619. This span of more than two and a half centuries can be broken down into three periods—1356-1470; 1471-1543; and 1544-1619—in such a way that the texts of almost every individual writer fall entirely within a single period.1 Approximately 13% of the material in the collection (60,113 words) was written during the first of these three periods. More that half of the collection (251,637 words) comes from the second period, while the remaining 35% (167,791 words) comes from the final period. This chronological breakdown will be used throughout this study whenever variation is discussed. The collection of texts is based exclusively on original manuscript material. No printed works of the period have been included. Several texts were transcribed directly from facsimiles of the original manuscripts, but in most cases nineteenth and twentieth century editions were used. Appendix C gives full details of the source of all the material. An edition had to meet several criteria to be included in the collection: 1. Editorial practices had to be either explicitly described by the editor or reconstructable by means such as comparison with facsimile pages or comments in other sources. 2. Editorial emendation could not go beyond certain common practices, which include elimination of Konsonantenhäufung, omission of diacritics which the editor deemed to be of no phonological significance, and modernization of the distribution of u/v, i/j and in some cases u/w and i/y. Even these practices are of course regrettable. They make it impossible to address certain questions of morphological interest, such as those involving leveling of geminate/simplex alternations or umlaut of vowels other than a and au (cf. Wegera 1993:97-8). Many morphological issues can be studied using editions of this type, however, and stricter selection criteria would have reduced the size and diversity of the collection severely. 3. The hand in which a manuscript was written had to be clearly identified. The only true exception to this rule is the chancery material. Most of the other material in the collection is autograph, with the exception of most of Caritas Pirckheimer's Denkwürdigkeiten (Pfanner 1962), which, aside from a few brief passages in her own hand, were apparently dictated by Caritas to nuns serving as scribes in her convent. Fortunately, the editor tells exactly which parts of the manuscript were written by each hand. 4. The manuscript had to be datable within a couple of years. Almost all of the texts are in fact precisely dated. Letters almost always include day, month and year, as do chancery texts and diaries. Household records and chronicles usually have at least the year clearly indicated. In only a few cases was it necessary to rely on external evidence to establish a 1

The only exception (apart from the chancery, whose writings span the entire period under investigation) is Hieronymus Paumgartner. Most of the material that we have for him comes from the beginning of the third period, but there are also two short letters from 1541.

6 date, and even for most of these texts the exact year in which the manuscript was written could be determined with certainty. The work of converting all of these texts into electronic form was carried out in the Department of Germanic Languages and Literatures at the University of Michigan over a period of several years. Extensive use was made of a scanner and optical-character-recognition software, although not everything could be scanned, and a great deal of material was typed into the computer. Parts of this collection, along with some material that was excluded from this study, were used in M. Dressier 1993 and Lippi-Green 1994. The collection overlaps greatly with that put together (but not put into electronic form) by Ebert (1980, 1981; 1986; 1998), although some texts have been added, and I have excluded some material used by Ebert. In most cases, this was necessary either because the texts in question were not in the author's own hand or because the editor engaged in too much orthographic modernizing. Such issues are obviously less crucial in Ebert's syntactic work than in a study of inflectional morphology. Table 2-1 shows the breakdown of the collection by text type. Although stylistic diversity was regarded as highly desirable, what might be called "paradigmatic diversity" is even more important for a study of verbal inflection. Certain kinds of texts, such as chronicles, council protocols, and especially bookkeeping records, tend to use the same verb forms over and over again, whereas personal letters generally include a much wider range of lexical items and of tense, mood, and person/number forms and are thus better suited for a study of this type. Text type Letters journals/diaries reports/treatises Bookkeeping Protocols Other Total

# of words 208,163 104,411 102,042 44,177 17,419 3,329 479,541

% of total 43% 22% 21% 9% 4% 1% 100%

Table 2-1 : Amount of material by text type

2.1.1 The writers Table 2-2 gives a breakdown of the text collection by writer. 2 As the final column shows, there are a few writers for whom we have less than a page of material, but for the majority

2

Further biographical information on many of the writers can be found in a number of sources. In many cases, the best source is the introduction to the edition of the person's writings (see Appendix C). Very brief summaries can be found in Ebert 1980:389-93. Ebert 1998 gives considerably more information on several of the writers, along with very useful accounts of some of the family relationships. More in-depth information of particular sociolinguistic relevance on Willibald Pirckheimer, Albrecht Dttrer, Hans Sachs, Christoph Scheurl and Lazarus Spengler appears in Lippi-Green 1994:31-6. Short biographies of many writers can be found in Imhoff 1984. Booklength biographies exist for a few of the more famous writers, especially DOrer, Sachs, Spengler

7 there are at least several thousand words in the collection. The only criterion that a writer had to meet in order to be included, besides the availability of usable material in his/her hand, was that s/he be a native Nuremberger. 3 For several of the writers, much more material was available than could be included in the collection. In these cases, the main factor influencing sample selection was the wish to maximize stylistic and paradigmatic diversity. 4 The degree of social diversity among the writers could be regarded as disappointing. The lower classes (laborers, servants, peasants) who made up the majority of Nuremberg's population are completely unrepresented. The only writers from artisan backgrounds are Albrecht Diirer and Hans Sachs, who are certainly anything but typical artisans. DUrer was already an extremely famous artist in his own lifetime, and he was a close friend of some very highly educated and powerful men of his day, such as Willibald Pirckheimer. Similarly, Sachs moved away from his shoemaker origins early in life and became an important and well-known literary figure. Aside from these two, all of the writers are from families that were well established in the top two social groups in Nuremberg: the patricians and the 'honorables' (Ehrbare). 5 This undoubtedly means that the data presented here do not reflect the full range of sociolinguistic variation in the written language of late medieval and early modem Nuremberg. Of course any study of change and variation in the written language must be restricted to literate informants, and many Nurembergers from the lower classes were not literate. We know, however, that there were members of all classes who did write, and it is unfortunate that with few exceptions the texts that have been preserved and edited come only from the top two groups.

3

4

5

and Willibald Pirckheimer. Ozment has published accounts (in English) of the lives of Michael Behaim (Ozment 1990:11-92) and of Magdalena and Balthasar Paumgartner (Ozment 1986). This criterion was relaxed slightly in the case of Willibald Pirckheimer and his sisters Caritas (I) and Clara. They were actually born and raised in Eichstätt, but their parents were both Nurembergers, from old patrician families, and they were educated primarily at home by their father. They returned to Nuremberg as children or young adults and remained there throughout the rest of their lives. In the case of the anonymous women scribes of the Klarakloster, we cannot of course be absolutely sure that they were from the city, but we do know that most of the nuns in the Klarakloster were native Nurembergers (Pickel 1913:193). Judging from the many names of nuns mentioned in the Denkwürdigkeiten and in Picket's history, the convent was primarily populated by daughters of prominent patrician families. I see little point in Devitt's (1989:101-2 note 2.1) painstaking efforts to arrive at a random sample of available published material. The texts that have been preserved certainly do not represent a random sample of everything that was written down in the period, and what has been published is not a random sample of what was preserved. Devitt has carefully avoided introducing her own biases into the sampling procedure, but in so doing she has merely accepted the biases of generations of heirs, collectors, archivists and editors. All writers other than Dürer, Sachs, and those identified as 'honorable' in the third column of Table 2-2 are known or assumed to have been from patrician families.

8 Writer Behaim, Appolonia Behaim, Hans Behaim, Klara Behaim, M a g d a l e n a Behaim, Margareta I Behaim, Margareta II Behaim, Michael Behaim, Paulus (II) City chancery Deichsler, Heinrich Dürer, Albrecht Grundherr, Feizitas Haller, Christoph Haller, Felizitas Haller, Hieronymus Hand 2 Hand A Hand B Hand C Hand D Holzschuer, Brigitta Imhoff, Andreas Imhoff, Hans Imhoff, Willibald Koberger, Anton Kreß, Christoph Kreß, Hieronymus Lemlin, Katharina Letscher, Lucia Muffel, Nicolaus Ölhafen, Hans Örtel, Sebald Paumgartner, Balthasar Paumgartner, Balt. II Paumgartner, Hieron. Paumgartner, Jörg Paumgartner, Magdal. Pfintzing, Jörg Pirckheimer, Caritas I Pirckheimer, Caritas II Pirckheimer, Clara Pirckheimer, Willibald Praun, Stephan Sachs, Hans Scheurl, Christoph Spengler, Lazarus Steinlinger, Lutz Stromer, Ulman Tetzel, Jobst Tucher, Anton Welser, Sebald TOTAL

YOB 1523 1525 1521 1506 1517 1510 1557

Biographical information merchant daughter merchant son merchant daughter merchant wife merchant daughter merchant daughter young merchant university student

1410 1520 1494 1551 1584 1498 ca. 1560 1555 ca. 1400 1466 1503 1480 1470 1544 1494 1481 1479 ca. 1400 1329

brewer, honorable artist, goldsmith's son Klarakloster nun merchant merchant daughter merchant Klarakloster nun Klarakloster nun Klarakloster nun Klarakloster nun Klarakloster nun Pillenreut nun merchant merchant merchant printer, honorable university student military merch. wife then nun merchant wife administrator administrator merchant, honorable merchant merchant son administrator merchant merchant wife merchant nun, humanist nun, humanist nun, humanist humanist merch. family misfit Meistersinger, shoemaker council advisor, hon. chancery head, honorable Baumeister merch./administrator

1458 1557

merchant university student

1430 1471 1490 ca. 1500 1520

1491 1488 1519 1440 1541 1546 1466

??

T a b l e 2 - 2 : O v e r v i e w of the N u r e m b e r g texts by writer

Text descriptions letters to brother letter to brother letter to brother household rec., letter letters to cousin letters to brother letters to cousin letters to mother letters, reports personal chronicle letters, tech. treatises letters to father letters to cousin note on a letter letter to friend chronicle chronicle, letters chronicle chronicle chronicle, letters letter to guardian letters to ward letters to father-in-law diary, household rec. business letters letters to father travel journal letters to cousins letters to nephew personal chronicle diary travel journal letters to wife, father letters to father official report, letters letter to sister-in-law letters to husband travel journal letters, notes letter to father letters to brother letters, speech travel journal poems, manual diary, official reports reports, letters semi-official records chronicle, letter official report household records diary

words 270 214 225 6578 5734 5713 10,007 13,896 57,695 21,172 13,448 4556 494 72 185 5523 13,638 2355 15,416 7163 450 2214 672 15,432 16,566 18,758 8407 20,961 1676 2859 4461 5529 26,223 119 8504 482 26,499 2466 1875 396 5105 17,128 9575 2446 13,579 14,966 7211 20,181 497 29,204 10,746 479,541

9 Thirty-one of the writers are men and nineteen are women. All the material from the city chancery was presumably also written down by men. Every effort was made to include as much material from women as possible, but nevertheless 74% of the collection (355,336 words) is from the male writers. Beyond the obvious category of gender, a number of other characteristics could be used to classify writers. Education and profession are obvious candidates, but exactly how these categories should be conceived and how they should be quantified is an extremely complex question. Ebert (1980) and Lippi-Green (1994) offer two very different approaches. I have dealt with social categories in an informal way. Our knowledge of the relevant biographical details is extremely limited for some writers. This is especially true in the crucial area of education. Although we sometimes have considerable information concerning university studies, we seldom know anything about a writer's primary education. Typical is the following brief paragraph from Kamann (1899:251) concerning Katharina Lemlin: Ueber die Jugend Katharinas ist uns wenig bekannt; sie hatte ohne Zweifel einen für jene Zeit guten Schulunterricht erhalten, welcher den Mädchen Alt-Nürnbergs von einer Reihe von Privatlehrern, den sog. Schreib- und Rechenmeistern, von "Lehrfrauen" 6 und wohl auch von Nonnen in den Klöstern erteilt wurde.

A great deal of research has been done in recent years into issues of schools and literacy in early modern times (cf. Beer 1990:314-42; Ebert 1998), but when it comes to specific individuals, we can still usually do no better than guess how they learned to read and write based on general knowledge, and it is obviously problematic to base precise quantification on such guesses. After examining the findings, I arrived at a very loose classification of the writers in the second (1471-1543) and third (1544-1619) periods. 7 The classifications are based on a combination of obvious categories such as gender and factors that consistently proved their relevance in the linguistic analysis. This classification is only intended to make the observed social patterns of variation more apparent. It is certainly not meant to exhaust the possibilities of linguistically relevant social categories in early modern Nuremberg. In the second period, the university-educated administrators who were involved in the writing of official texts for the city council, Lazarus Spengler, Christoph Scheurl and Willibald Pirckheimer, are listed—along with the city chancery—under the heading 'Administrators'. We will see that there are a number of variables where these writers contrast clearly with most of the other men. Among the women in the second period, the nuns and abbesses are separated from the lay women. All women actually group together on most variables, but the lay/convent distinction does appear to play a role in a couple of cases. 8 In the third period, the results of the analysis do not suggest any clear groups. The only classification that I have undertaken other than gender is a separation of the three university students from the other men. This distinction does appear to be relevant for a number of 6

According to Kamann (1888:122 note 4), a Lehrfrau was a woman "welche die Mädchen in den

7

In the first period ( 1 3 5 6 - 1 4 7 0 ) , there are too few writers for grouping to be useful.

8

Katharina Lemlin the material used the death of her woman (Kamann

Elementarfächern und in weiblichen Handarbeiten unterrichtete." (cf. also Müller 1882:320) is classified as a lay woman even though she was in a convent when she wrote in this study. This is because she entered the convent late in life (age 50) after merchant husband, so that her education and background were that o f a lay 1899).

10 variables, although the variation within each group is often so great that it is difficult to generalize about a group.

2.2 T h e database

The database for this study consists of a number of tables which can be joined using relational database management software. A table is simply a two-dimensional structure with a record for each entity about which data is recorded and a field for each piece of data collected for each entity. A few sample records from each table and a complete description of the fields can be found in Appendix B. The data tables include: 1. a table of biographical/social data, with a record for each writer and fields including date of birth, gender and occupation; 2. a table of text-specific data, with a record for each text in the collection and fields including year written, text type, author's capacity (personal, official, etc.) and audience gender; 3. a number of linguistic data tables with information about the verb forms that occur in the texts. These include: a) A table of token-specific data, with a record for each token. b) A table of form-specific data, with a record for each distinct form (including orthographic variants) of each verb. The fields in this table include several which allow the form to be broken down into its (potentially) morphologically significant parts. For example, a form like gehoben would be broken down into inflectional prefix ge- + stem-initial consonant h + stem vowel o + stem-final consonant b + inflectional suffix -en. c) A table of data for each stem, with fields including class (strong 1-7, weak, preteritepresent, special), subclass, and etymological source (German or foreign). d) A table of data for each basic lexeme. Separate tables for stem and lexeme made it possible to deal adequately with suppletive verbs like sein. The collecting of biographical and text-specific data was carried out by studying the texts themselves and the relevant secondary literature. 9 The linguistic data was collected using a program that I wrote in the Objective-C language to run under the NeXTSTEP graphical operating system. The program can be used in a number of ways. Typically, verbs are selected by double clicking in a text window. The program then searches through a table of previously processed verb forms looking for an exact match. If a match is found, it is displayed, and the

9

Some of this work, especially the collecting of social data for many writers and the design of the biographical/social data table, was carried out by Rosina Lippi-Green and Monika Dressier before I began work on this project (cf. Lippi-Green 1994; Dressier 1993).

11 user has the option of accepting or rejecting it.10 If s/he accepts it, then only the tokenspecific data need be entered for the current token. If no acceptable match is found, then the program guesses how the form should be broken down into parts and displays this information. The user can accept these guesses or modify them. Any time the user modifies a value, the program uses this information to recalculate the guesses that it has made for other values, thus maximizing the probability that the remaining guesses are correct. A special key combination allows the user to bypass the verification and modification processes entirely for a given token by telling the program to automatically accept the first match that it finds and use its own educated guesses for the token-specific data. The user of course must know exactly what guesses the program will make, which admittedly might be difficult if the user were not also the programmer. After a few thousand tokens have been processed and the more common forms are in the data tables, most tokens can be processed automatically in this way. This greatly accelerates the collection of the linguistic data. Under ideal conditions, approximately 500 tokens per hour can be processed, with near-perfect accuracy. When the processing of a token is complete, the program inserts an identifying number into the text, which allows the researcher to locate tokens quickly in their full context later. The program produces ASCII output that can be read directly by a data-analysis package or imported into a relational database-management application. The program could easily be adapted to deal with virtually any kind of linguistic data. It could also be rewritten to run on platforms other than NeXTSTEP, although this would involve considerably more work. This program made it possible to include every verb token in the texts in my database: 86,281 tokens in all. The question of what should be counted as a verb is not always straightforward. Finite forms present no problem, nor do infinitives and participles that are used as main verbs with auxiliaries: es ist nichts, wie ich von anderen vernimm, daz die Wilibaldti[n] keiner nichts darff heraus schreiben. (Loose 1880:1)

Imhoff zu dir gesagt hatt, daz

In this study, I have followed Dammers et al. (1988:56) in also including participles in adverbial and adjectival use (whether predicate or attributive) and infinitives used as nouns: Awch schickjch

hy mit zwey getruckte crewczle,

Als nach abreyten herrn (Caselmann 1865:105)

Jeronimusen

sindjn golt geschtochen, (Rupprich 1956:87)

Holtzschuers

Hr. Erasmus

Ebner

gen Speyr

kumen,

In some cases, it is debatable whether an adjectival participle should still be considered a form of the verb from which it is derived or whether it has become lexically autonomous. Verwandt and bekannt, for example, must clearly be regarded as autonomous in modern German on semantic grounds. Whether they were autonomous in ENHG is another ques-

10

A match might be rejected if forms of two different verbs happen to have the same spelling. In the texts, the form wer, for example, occurs as preterite subjunctive of sein (modern standard wäre), present subjunctive of werden (modern standard werde), and present indicative of wehren and währen. When one match is rejected, the program continues searching through the data table for others.

12 tion. When in doubt, I included such forms in the database, but I was very careful to consider them separately when they might have an effect on the results. Tables 2-3 through 2-6 show how the tokens in the database are distributed over the various inflectional classes and paradigmatic positions. Appendix A contains a complete verb frequency list. Inflectional type Weak Strong Special preterite-present Total

# of tokens 32,277 31,802 14,237 7,249 85,565

% of total 38% 37% 17% 8% 100%

Table 2-3: Number of tokens by inflectional type. The special verbs include all forms of wollen and tun and the present tense forms oigehen, stehen and sein. Excluded are 716 tokens of verbs that show evidence of class transfer in the texts (see Chapter 6). Strong verb class I II III IV V VI VII Total

#of tokens 3,755 1,410 6,536 4,421 8,114 1,996 5,570 31,802

% of all strong verbs 12% 4% 21% 14% 26% 6% 18%

Table 2-4: Number of tokens of strong verbs by class Tense and mood present indicative present subjunctive preterite indicative preterite subjunctive Infinitive present participle preterite participle Total

# of tokens 24,109 4,693 7,782 5,298 18,842 428 19,741 80,893

% of total 30% 6% 10% 7% 23% 1% 24%

Table 2-5: Number of tokens by tense and mood. Excluded are 3961 tokens for which either tense or mood (or both) could not be determined unambiguously. person/number 1st singular 2nd singular 3rd singular 1st plural 2 nd plural 3rd plural Total

# of tokens 8,757 3,082 23,401 3,691 1,334 6,598 46,863

% of total 19% 7% 50% 8% 3% 14%

Table 2-6: Number of tokens of finite forms by person/number

13 2.3 Analysis of the data

The data was initially analyzed using the SAS package on a NeXT computer. Later analysis was conducted using Microsoft Access and Excel on a Windows machine. For the most part, only simple, descriptive statistical techniques were used in the analysis. The main technique consisted of producing and studying contingency tables to look for relationships between dependent linguistic variables and a variety of independent variables, which could be either linguistic or extra-linguistic. For the present study, with its diachronic focus, the most important independent variable was obviously the date of composition.

3 Morphological change

3.0 Introduction

Following Lightfoot (1979), Andersen (1980:2-3), and many others, I treat a theory of morphology and a theory of change as two distinct desiderata. Morphological change arises from the interaction of the principles of these two domains (cf. Becker 1990:33). This amounts to a qualified endorsement of the traditional distinction between synchrony and diachrony, where synchrony is concerned with the grammatical systems in the minds of speakers, and diachrony mainly with the (indirect and thus inevitably imperfect) transmission of such systems between speakers and especially from speakers to learners across generations (cf. Joseph and Janda 1988; Lightfoot 1999:18-9). The synchrony-diachrony dichotomy has been challenged from a number of perspectives (cf. Bailey 1972; Dasgupta 1996). All of these challenges have some validity, but we must also recognize their limitations. Some linguists argue for a "dynamic" approach that treats change as an integral aspect of the way language functions, and therefore as inseparable from synchrony (Anttila 1989:401-2; Coseriu 1974; Wurzel 1984:20). The most convincing evidence in support of such a view comes from certain kinds of semantic change, especially where phenomena such as metaphor, euphemism, or semantic erosion (Abnutzung) are involved (Bybee et al. 1994; Lehmann 1985). Attempts to extend such an approach to the kind of grammatical change discussed in this book are much less successful, however, as when Lehmann (1985:316-7) tries to attribute the regularization and irregularization of English verbs to speakers' desire to be creative. Another challenge to the synchrony-diachrony dichotomy argues that the psychological reality of synchronic grammar is largely a myth of modern linguistic theory. According to this view, much of what passes as grammatical structure is in fact just the accumulated detritus of millennia of change (Lass 1997:9-16, 382-3; Bybee et al. 1994:22, 106-7), and it is, for the most part at least, only linguists, not speakers or child-learners, who discern patterns in and make sense of these alluvial deposits. I discuss this view further in §3.2.3 below. Among those who accept a more or less strict distinction between synchrony and diachrony, it is widely recognized that a coherent theory of synchronic morphology is a crucial ingredient for the understanding of many types of morphological change (Anderson 1992:365; Joseph and Janda 1988:195). Beyond this, we need a least a simple model of change, a model of how a system as complex as a grammar is passed on from generation to generation with no direct (mind-to-mind) transmission and little if any explicit teaching of structures. Many of the factors that determine linguistic change are of a general cognitive or social nature, related to language acquisition and use, and many aspects of the theory of change are thus not "linguistic" in the narrow sense (cf. Kiparsky 1978). Whether an adequate model of change can be "impoverished" as Lightfoot (1979:149) argues, or indeed whether accounts of change can be largely "ahistorical", with "no real theory of change" at all (Lightfoot 1991 :x; cf. 1999:xi), depends entirely on the aspects of change that one is

15 interested in. If one even begins to consider how social factors help determine the course of change, then the model quickly becomes enormously complex (Milroy 1992; Joseph 1998:363-4).

3.1 L a n g u a g e change

The well-known model shown in Figure 3-1, familiar from Andersen (1973:767) and many other sources, can serve as a starting point for a theory of change.

Grammar 1

\/

Out put 1

V

Grammar 2

V

Output 2

Figure 3-1: Simple model of the transmission of language across generations

This model is important in that it emphasizes the obvious but often overlooked fact that each learner must construct his/her grammar based on the output of other speakers, without any direct access to their grammars. As discussed below in §3.2.4, the kinds of reanalysis that are inevitable in this abductive acquisition process undoubtedly play a central role in language change (cf. Koefoed 1974:290; Lightfoot 1979:147-9, 348-61, 375; Kiparsky 1992:57).' As Andersen (1980:8) is clearly aware, however, this model is incomplete in a number of ways. First of all, acquisition is not instantaneous. "Grammar 2" is continually being revised by the learner, based on ongoing exposure to "Output 1" (Kiparsky 1972:193; 1974:272-3, 274 note 4; 1978; Chomsky and Halle 1968:331-2). Thus, we would expect many innovations to occur commonly in early stages of acquisition and then disappear before the acquisition process is complete. More generally, we might expect to find different kinds of

I use the term "reanalysis" in the very general sense found, for example, in Langacker (1977), Kiparsky (1992:57), and Harris and Campbell (1995), where it is more or less synonymous with Andersen's "abductive innovation" (cf. Hopper and Traugott 1993:38-62). For a discussion of the various more specialized senses in which the term "reanalysis" has been used in linguistics, see Heine (1993:116-9).

16

grammatical innovations at different stages of the acquisition process, including some for which the more complex and complete grammars of adult speakers are a prerequisite. All of these expectations are confirmed by observation of child and adult language (Bybee and Slobin 1982a, b). As Bybee and Slobin (1982b) show, it is the innovations made by adults that matter most for language change, whether these innovations begin in childhood and survive into adulthood or first appear when the acquisition process is (nearly) complete. Secondly, the usual object of study of historical linguistics is not the sporadic innovations produced by individual learners or speakers but rather changes in the mature grammars of individuals and changes in the norms of speech communities. This latter type of change must involve the spread of a new form from speaker to speaker and presumably the acceptance of the new form by speakers who had previously acquired the older form. Many linguists stress the importance of the distinction between the sporadic production of neologisms by individuals, on the one hand, and their acceptance and adoption by a speech community, on the other (Saussure 1962:231-2; Bloomfield 1933:405, 408; Andersen 1973:772-3, 786; 1974:22-3, 54 note 2; 1980:8; Kiparsky 1974:262, 264; 1978; 1992:59; Samuels 1972:138-44; Milroy 1992:164-205; 1999:23; Coseriu 1974:67-70; Becker 1990:32-3; Joseph 1998:363^1; Labov 1994:45 note 2). Many others, however, overlook this distinction or assume that it is of little consequence. I maintain that certain kinds of morphological change can only be understood if we recognize constraints, both grammatical and extra-grammatical, on the acceptance and adoption of new forms which are in some cases quite different from the constraints on the initial production of the same new forms by learners or speakers (cf. Kiparsky 1978:87-8, 93). This distinction is discussed further in §3.2.6 below. It plays a crucial role in the account of the direction of analogical leveling in §5.4 and, in a somewhat different form, in the discussion of movement between inflectional classes in Chapter 6. A final important fact that is not captured by Andersen's simple model is that speakers' output is not determined solely by their grammar. A variety of extra-grammatical factors can, for example, lead speakers to avoid producing certain forms and constructions even though they would regard them as perfectly grammatical. Considerations of ambiguity and politeness are examples of such factors. Such pragmatically motivated non-use of forms and constructions is subject to grammaticalization by later generations (cf. Bever and Langendoen 1972).

3.2 Morphological theory

No attempt will be made here to outline a complete theory of morphology. The remarks in this section are limited to those points that are crucial for the discussion in later chapters. Of fundamental importance to this work is the separation hypothesis, according to which the side of morphology that deals with the phonological shapes of words and the side(s) that deal with grammatical relations and functions are separated in the grammar. Thus, indirect, conditional, non-one-to-one mapping between function (or meaning) and form is regarded as normal and expected in morphology. Many linguists subscribe to this principle for inflectional morphology (e.g. Anderson 1982; 1988b; 1992; Chomsky 1965:170-84; Spencer

17 1991; cf. Aronoff 1976:17; Spencer and Zwicky 1998:3—4; Spencer 1998:124), and it is implicit in a great deal of other work on complex inflectional systems. I assume, with Beard (1995; 1998) and Aronoff (1994) that the separation hypothesis applies to derivational morphology as well (cf. also Jackendoff 1975; Becker 1990; Halle and Marantz 1993; Noyer 1997; Yip 1998), although nothing in this book depends on this assumption since I am dealing only with inflection. Acceptance of the separation hypothesis raises questions about the status of the "oneform-one-function" slogan which, explicitly or tacitly, is treated as a fundamental principle of morphology in many different approaches (e.g. Mayerthaler 1981; 1987; Vennemann 1972b; Langacker 1977:109-16; Vincent 1974). 2 From a separationist perspective, violation of this principle, at least as it is usually understood, is the very essence of morphology (cf. Wurzel 1984:178-80; Anttila 1977:56-7; 1989:100; Noyer 1997). In other words, treating one-form-one-function as the fundamental principle of linguistic naturalness is equivalent to Aronoff s (1998:413) view that "morphology is inherently unnatural", a view that is implicit in much of modern linguistics. Thus, while one-form-one-function is undoubtedly a universal principle of something, perhaps of some aspects of human language (see §3.2.7.1 below), certainly of semiotics, it is a contradiction to regard it as a principle of morphology. I do not subscribe to the view that morphology is simply unnatural, and I argue below for the validity of certain more complex kinds of naturalness in morphology, such as those proposed by Wurzel and by Bybee. There are even some appealing approaches to morphological naturalness that involve a more nuanced interpretation of the "no synonymy" part of the one-form-one-function principle (Carstairs-McCarthy 1994). In any case, as Aronoff (1994:165-6) points out, whether there is anything natural to morphology or not, those of us who cannot suppress our parochial fascination with complex morphological systems must study them on their own terms. The separation hypothesis is the starting point for the study of morphology on its own terms. One cannot help wondering how anyone interested in morphology could have arrived at a basic principle as antithetical to the nature of their object of study as "one-form-onefunction". We find an answer when we look at the way in which some scholars approach the

2

Waugh and Newfield (1995:211 note 16) and Anttila ( 1 9 7 7 : 5 5 - 6 ) give long lists o f the many different names by which this principle has been known (cf. also Shapiro 1991:10-1; Haiman 1985:14). Slobin's (1985) "Unifunctionality" is one that they miss (cf. Slobin 1973; Clark 1987:24-5). To these lists must now also be added several terms from Optimality Theory, which capture at least one aspect o f the principle (see below). These terms include "Uniform Exponence" (Kenstowicz 1996; 1997), and "anti-allomorphy" (Burzio 1994; cf. also Benua 1997 on the general theory of "transderivational faithfulness" and "output-to-output correspondence constraints"). Aronoff ( 1 9 9 4 : 8 - 9 ) has a very brief overview of the history of the one-form-one-function concept. Croft ( 1 9 9 0 : 1 6 4 - 5 ) and Newmeyer (1992:760 note 8) rightly criticize the widespread use of the term "isomorphism" in this sense (cf. Fertig 1998a: 1084 note 5). Mayerthaler identifies the one-form-one-function principle only with his principle of uniform encoding, but it is clear that his principle of transparency captures the syntagmatic side of one-form-one-function, while uniform encoding captures its paradigmatic side (Dressier et al. 1987:7; Wurzel 1984:178; 1987:92; 1992:231-2; Bittner 1996:10; Bybee 1996:253). I am using the term "transparency" in the sense of Mayerthaler (1987:49). On Mayerthaler's confusing use of this term with different meanings, see Fertig 1998a: 1084 note 6.

18

important question, "What constitutes naturalness/simplicity/optimality in grammar?" They begin by considering the properties of the simplest conceivable system of communication (e.g. Vennemann 1972b:183; Langacker 1977:110). One-form-one-function would indeed be one of these properties. There are two fallacies implicit in this approach, however. One is the belief that the fundamental principles of markedness in human language can necessarily be deduced from general semiotic considerations. This might be a reasonable initial hypothesis, but we already have sufficient grounds for rejecting it. Bybee and Slobin (1982b:37), for example, discuss a "universal principle which allows zero-affixation in case a base already contains the phonetic material of the affix." There is substantial evidence for the universality of this principle (Stemberger 1981; Menn and MacWhinney 1984; Yip 1998, de Lacy 1999), which will play an important role in my treatment of prefixless participles in Chapter 7. I will refer to it here, following Stemberger 1981, as "morphological haplology". Bybee and Slobin show that in the earliest stages of child acquisition of English, morphological haplology overrules the "principle that clear segmentation of markers should be maximized." This latter principle is of course none other than Mayerthaler's principle of morphotactic transparency, which is part of the one-form-one-function principle (see note 2). Bybee and Slobin interpret this to mean that morphological haplology has priority over morphotactic transparency as a principle of universal morphological naturalness. Morphological haplology, however, is clearly a phenomenon that is highly specific to human language, or at least to human cognition (cf. Stemberger 1981), and it was only discovered through empirical investigation. It certainly does not follow from any obvious semiotic principles, as one-form-one-function does. As Menn and MacWhinney (1984:537) put it, "the intuitive aesthetic sense of simplicity does not correctly predict what is developmentally simplest for the child." Beard (1995:70) puts it more succinctly, "what is logically simpler is not psychologically simpler". The second fallacy is in the assumption that since one-form-one-function is a key property of the simplest conceivable system, it must also play a central role in determining the relative simplicity/naturalness of much more complex systems. As Lightfoot (1979:78) points out, however, when one is dealing with complex systems it really only makes sense to talk about markedness of entire systems or subsystems, not of individual elements within a system. This is essentially Wurzel's (1984; 1987; 1989) position as well, and he argues that naturalness in inflectional morphology can be equated with system-internal consistency. Elements that are in line with the general characteristics of the system as a whole and of local subsystems add little or nothing to the complexity/markedness of the system, whereas aberrant elements make the system less natural/more marked. Thus, an element in a complex system might be "marked" in some universal sense, but this fact is largely overshadowed by the much more important question of how well the element fits in with the global and local properties of the system. In other words, as the complexity of a system increases, the relative significance of context-independent principles such as one-form-onefunction diminishes (cf. Lightfoot 1979:346). In terms of acquisition, this means that it is only in early childhood that universal principles play a major role in shaping the grammar and determining the relative likelihood of different kinds of morphological innovations. In later childhood and adulthood, the dominant properties of the system itself largely take over, and these are consequently the most important factors in determining the course of grammatical change (Bybee and Slobin 1982b).

19 In terms of Optimality Theory (OT), we could legitimately posit a universal ONEFORMONEFUNC or NOMORPHOLOGY constraint, but this would obviously have to be ranked extremely low in languages with elaborate morphological systems. According to the OT model of constraint interaction, a constraint ranked so low is bound to be largely irrelevant since it is only the highest ranking violations that count in determining wellformedness. Wurzel (1987:93) argues for the same type of interaction among the various system-dependent and system-independent naturalness principles, including the low-ranked one-form-one-function principle. Those who believe that principles like one-form-onefunction play an important role in determining morphological preferences in all languages need to develop an explicit theory of constraint interaction that would allow for low-ranking constraints to be potentially relevant even when higher ranking constraints are violated. One could imagine a model, for example, where multiple violations (or an especially bad violation) of a lower-ranking constraint could outweigh a single violation (or a relatively mild violation) of a higher constraint. I am not aware of any empirical evidence, however, that would support such a model over the simpler OT/Wurzel model. The one-form-one-function principle will be discussed again at several points in the following sections and chapters, but for now I turn to the next question: If the mapping between form and morphosyntactic function in inflection is not primarily constrained by a one-to-one principle, then how is it constrained? This is the question which implicitly underlies a great deal of morphological investigation conducted in a wide range of theoretical frameworks. I will only discuss a few of the many kinds of answers that linguists have offered to this question, restricting myself to the issues that are relevant to the analyses in the following chapters. For a brief overview of several of the most interesting issues that I do not address, see Carstairs-McCarthy 1998.

3.2.1 Wurzel Some of the basic features of Wurzel's (1984; 1987; 1989) theory of system-dependent naturalness have already been mentioned above. His fundamental premise concerning markedness/naturalness is similar to Lightfoot's (1979:78) position: "It makes sense to regard markedness of the whole grammar or sections of the grammar, but not of individual segments or rules." Since Wurzel equates naturalness/optimality of an inflectional system with internal consistency, a preliminary prediction about morphological change is that a perfectly uniform system, if such a thing existed, should be perfectly stable, with no possibility for morphologically motivated change, while all other systems, in other words all actually occurring inflectional systems, should show a tendency to eliminate their internal inconsistencies. This prediction by itself tells us very little, however, because we do not yet have any way of determining, for a non-uniform system, which features count as system-defining and which ones count as deviant. Wurzel's answer to this question is a simple and familiar one. The system-defining features are those that are quantitatively dominant, i.e. the patterns that turn up most often in the system and the morphological classes and markers with the highest type frequency (cf. Bybee 1995; 1996; Bybee and Newman 1995). Wurzel extends the use of the terms "natural" and "unmarked" to refer to these dominant features of a system.

20 Wurzel sees the naturalness of internal consistency and of quantitative dominance operating on two levels. He coins the terms inflectional-class stability (along with marker stability) and system congruity to refer to naturalness on the level of concrete, specific inflectional markers and on the level of more abstract patterns, respectively. The superstable marker is one manifestation of marker-stability that is independent of inflectional-class stability (Wurzel 1984:139-42; 1989:135-7). It will be discussed below in §4.2. Inflectional-class stability says that: 1) ideally inflectional class membership should correlate perfectly with extra-morphological properties, and there should thus be no competition among inflectional classes; and 2) when this ideal is not realized, the largest (in terms of number of lexical items belonging to it) of any set of inflectional classes that are competing for the same lexical items will be the dominant one and will thus define the normal set of forms for words with the extra-morphological features in question. Parallel to this, the principle of system congruity says that 1) ideally all inflectional classes, subclasses, and certain broader patterns of a given inflectional system or subsystem should exhibit the same structural features on a number of parameters; 2) when this ideal is not realized, the most widespread (within the system or subsystem) of the competing structural features on a given parameter will be the dominant one and will thus define the natural or "system congruous" structural property on that parameter for the system or subsystem in question. Wurzel coins the term "system-defining structural properties (SDSPs)" to refer to the set of structural properties that are dominant on their respective parameters within a given inflectional system. The parameters that Wurzel has identified as being relevant to system congruity, with an illustration of each from Modern Standard German verbal inflection, are the following: 1) The grammatical categories and properties that occur for a given word class. Example: The categories of the finite verb in German are: 1) tense, with the properties present and preterite', 2) mood, with the properties indicative, subjunctive, and imperative; 3) voice, with the properties active and passive; 4) person, with the properties 1st, 2nd, and 3rd\ and 5) number, with the properties singular and plural. 2) base-form vs. stem inflection, where base-form inflection means that the form that occurs in the maximally unmarked position in the paradigm is used "as is" as the base for the other forms, whereas stem inflection means that the base form itself includes some kind of inflection so that one must abstract out a stem to serve as the base for other forms (cf. Wurzel 1990b). Example: The German verb shows stem inflection (in the present) since—at least according to Wurzel (1984:54)—the infinitive serves as the base form, and the infinitive itself has an ending which must be dropped before adding the endings for the other forms. 3 3

The arguments of Bybee (1991:74) and Becker (1990:56) against regarding the infinitive as the basic form in the verb paradigm are not convincing because they draw their main evidence from the German modals. It should be clear that the infinitive has a different status among the modals than among other verbs. This is of course especially obvious in English, where the modals do not have an infinitive. In German, modal infinitives do exist, but they are used differently from the infinitives of other verbs. The modals are among a very small set of auxiliary verbs, for example, that do not normally appear in the otherwise extremely common wtirde + infinitive conditional construction. Furthermore, the evidence Bybee cites is child-language innovations, and it is conceivable that modal infinitives are even much rarer in the language to which children are exposed than in normal colloquial speech.

21 3) separate vs. combined expression (cumulative exponence) of the various grammatical categories. Example: Person and number always show combined expression in German verbs; one can never identify a part of a verb that just means "2nd person" and another part that just means "singular" for example. The expression of tense, on the other hand, is usually separate from that of person/number, with the dental suffix marking preterite in the weak verbs and stem-vowel alternations marking it in the strong verbs. 4) the number and location of distinctions and identities among the forms of a paradigm. Example: There are four or five distinct forms in the present indicative in Modern Standard German, with the 1st and 3rd plural always identical to each other, the 3rd singular and the 2nd plural sometimes identical, and all other forms distinct. Wurzel symbolizes such a pattern as follows (for the situation with five distinct forms): Is f 2s # 3s f lp = 3p f 2p. 5) the types of formal markers (e.g. suffixes, reduplication, stem alternations) that occur and the categories that each type is associated with. Example: German verbal inflection makes use of suffixes, stem-vowel alternations, compound forms with auxiliaries, one prefix (preterite participle ge-), and marginally some stem-final consonant alternations (e.g. ziehen-zogen\ schneiden-schnitten; sitzen-safien) and suppletive alternations. The suffixes are most typically associated with person/number and, in the weak verbs, with tense. A secondary association between a suffix and tense is found in the 3rd singular, where there are distinct endings in the two tenses. Stem-vowel alternations are generally associated with tense in the strong verbs and a small subset of the weak verbs. Some strong verbs show a secondary association between stem-vowel alternations and person/number in the present (e.g. gebe, gibst, gibt, geben). 6) the presence vs. absence of inflectional classes. Example: The German verb does have inflectional classes: weak verbs, the various subclasses of strong verbs, modals, etc. Change plays a central role in Wurzel's theory. As mentioned above, Wurzel's key diachronic hypothesis is that morphologically motivated change will always tend to increase the internal consistency (uniformity) of the inflectional system by favoring the spread of the most stable inflectional classes and the SDSPs at the expense of recessive classes and patterns. Wurzel has little to say about the mechanism responsible for this pattern of development, but if we consider the model of change introduced in §3.1 above, it is easy to see how this mechanism could work. From the point of view of the language learner, non-dominant structural features represent local complexities that must be mastered above and beyond the "overall design" (Andersen 1980:18) and productive rules of the inflectional system (Wurzel 1984:87). The learner must either memorize individual forms or acquire an extra mark in the lexicon entry of each lexical item that does not belong to the dominant, and thus default, inflectional class for words of its type (Wurzel 1984:131-3, 151-2). 4 These nondominant features and lexical marks will tend to be mastered very late in the acquisition process and thus be relatively vulnerable to loss. Innovations involving extension of dominant paradigms and structural features will be extremely common and persistent in child language. From the point of view of the adult who has mastered the complete inflectional system with all its quirks and inconsistencies, the system-defining properties and dominant

4

The question of whether default status of an inflectional class can necessarily be equated with numerical dominance (high type frequency) has been the subject of considerable controversy in the past few years (see e.g. Bybee 1996; Marcus et al. 1995; Clahsen 1999). Further relevant references can be found in §6.5 below.

22 paradigms still have a special status in the grammar (Wurzel 1984:89). Innovative forms that are in agreement with these dominant features will thus be much more readily accepted and adopted by the adult speaker than forms that are at odds with them (Wurzel 1984:73, 126; Andersen 1973). By enumerating specific parameters on which the significant structural features of an inflectional system can be defined, and by suggesting that the unmarked features of a system are simply those that occur most often, Wurzel has given us explicit, testable hypotheses about morphological change. I will refer to these hypotheses often in the discussion of the Nuremberg findings. System congruity will be especially important in the discussion of changes in the systems of inflectional endings and stem-vowel alternations in Chapters 4 and 5, while inflectional-class stability will take center stage in Chapter 6. Wurzel is aware that the correlation between inflectional-class membership and phonological shape is not entirely captured by his strict principle of class stability/motivation. He discusses the phenomenon of words being attracted into an inflectional class by existing members with which they rhyme and regards this as just one example of "highly specific phonological properties" serving as the basis for "very small subclasses" (1989:132; 1984:136). As demonstrated convincingly by Bybee and Moder (1983) and Pinker and Prince (1988:114-23; 1994:323-4), however, some aspects of the structure of complex systems of small inflectional classes, such as the strong verb systems of German and English, are better captured by a prototype-based approach that looks for "somewhat disjunctive 'family resemblances'" (Pinker and Prince 1988:116), rather than by breaking down inflectional classes into discrete subclasses. In their analysis of the English class with [u] as past-tense vowel, for example, Pinker and Prince show that the prototypical shape of the present tense is [CRo] (where R stands for any sonorant). Of the seven members of this class (eight if one counts withdraw as distinct from draw), three are perfectly prototypical (blow, grow, throw). The rest diverge from the prototype in various minimal ways: know has only a single initial consonant (in the modern standard); while draw (along with withdraw), slay, and fly fit the prototype in their onsets but have a different stem vowel. In the participle, the prototypical members again have [o], but this could either be interpreted as meaning that it is prototypical to have [o] in the participle, or that it is prototypical for the participle vowel to be the same as the present vowel. Members with a non-prototypical vowel in the present can have either of these properties but not both. Thus, fly has [o] in the participle while draw and slay have the vowel of the present. With Wurzel's approach, we could do no better than break this class down into discrete subclasses, which would fail to capture the subtle structure revealed by Pinker and Prince's analysis. This kind of analysis also raises questions about Wurzel's position that it is always the base form whose phonological properties are relevant for inflectional-class motivation. Bybee and her collaborators present extensive evidence of "product-oriented schemas" (Bybee and Moder 1983; Bybee and Slobin 1982a; Bybee 1995), where an inflectional class is defined by the phonological shape of one or more derived forms in the paradigm rather than by that of the base form. I will discuss these issues further in Chapter 6.

23 3.2.2 Iconicity Most linguists would agree that the mapping between meaning and form in language is not entirely arbitrary, that there is some degree of isomorphism of one sort or another. Not all linguists regard this as an especially interesting fact about language, but among those who do, many have adopted the terminology of the American semiotician Charles Sanders Peirce for the classification of different types of simple and complex signs (cf. Liszka 1996). Of Peirce's three basic sign types, the symbol corresponds to the familiar arbitrary pairing of signifier and signified, while the index and the icon are both motivated in different ways. An index involves some kind of (physical or conceptual) contiguity between signifier and signified, while an icon involves some kind of similarity between the two. The distinction between index and icon is thus parallel to that between metonymy and metaphor. A number of linguists, Andersen and Dressier for example, see indices playing an important role in morphology, and I will mention indices briefly in the discussion of the direction of analogical leveling in §5.4 below. Linguists have devoted far more attention, however, to icons, and in particular to one of Peirce's three types of icon: the diagram. A diagram differs from an image icon in that the signifier and the signified in a diagram resemble each other only in the relationship among their parts. Grammatical diagrams can be either paradigmatic or syntagmatic or both. Syntactic diagrams are typically syntagmatic, as when linear word order reflects the chronological order of events (Veni, vidi, vici). Morphological diagrams are typically primarily paradigmatic, although some also have a syntagmatic dimension. In the view of many linguists, the most basic kind of paradigmatic diagram is captured in the "oneform-one-function" slogan discussed above: sameness of meaning/function is diagrammed by sameness of form, difference of meaning/function by difference of form. 5 Another widely recognized kind of morphological diagram is seen in the tendency for the morphosyntactically marked members of grammatical categories to have more phonological substance than the unmarked members, so that, for example, plural forms tend to have an affix that the corresponding singulars lack, rather than vice versa. Mayerthaler (1981; 1987) refers to this tendency as "constructional iconicity". Some linguists regard diagrammatic iconicity as the most fundamental organizing principle of grammar (Jakobson 1990 [1966]; Andersen 1980:36; Anttila 1989:16). While I do not wholly subscribe to this view, a type of diagrammaticity does play an important role in my account of suppletion in §5.3 (cf. Fertig 1998a). Specifically, my account is an extension of Bybee's (1985a:36-7; 1985b:26-8; 1988:129-31) well-known analysis o f t h e distribution of stem allomorphy in inflectional paradigms, to which I now turn.

5

Newmeyer (1992:760 note 8) "doubt[s] that Peirce would have regarded isomorphism [i.e. oneform-one-function] as a species of iconicity." Dressier (1995:35 note 1) says that biuniqueness (the term that he uses for the paradigmatic dimension of one-form-one-function) "is related to, but not identical with, the parameter of iconicity." Unfortunately, neither explains the reasoning behind these views.

24 3.2.3 Bybee Wurzel's response to the inadequacy of simple diagrammatic principles such as o n e - f o r m one-function and constructional iconicity is to conclude that the naturalness of complex inflectional systems must reside primarily in the relationships among forms, rather than in any kind of isomorphic relationship between form and function (1984:87). He does not consider the possibility that there may be more complex kinds of diagrammatic relations between form and function that lend an additional dimension of non-arbitrariness to inflectional systems. The most interesting work along these lines is that of Bybee (1985a; 1985b; 1988; 1991). For my purposes, Bybee's most important hypothesis is that the degree of fusion between a stem and an inflectional affix—and consequently the extent to which the shape of a stem changes across the various dimensions of a paradigm—diagrams the degree of "semantic relevance" of each grammatical category to the meaning of the lexical item represented by the stem (1985a:36-7; 1985b:26-8; 1988:129-31). A portion of Bybee's (1985a:24) semantic-relevance hierarchy for verbal categories is shown in (1). (1) aspect > tense > mood > number agreement > person agreement

In Bybee's theory, diagrammatic iconicity thus plays a central role in the organization of paradigms. It makes predictions about where stem alternations are most likely to occur in a paradigm, and diachronically it allows us to predict the relative likelihood of stem alternations being eliminated through analogical leveling. Bybee's concept of iconicity would predict, for example, that among the German strong verbs stem-vowel alternations associated with tense will be much more widespread and much more stable than those occurring among the forms within a tense (cf. Becker 1990:62). Like Wurzel's theory, Bybee's makes predictions about morphological change that are sufficiently general and explicit to be of real interest in an empirical study such as this one. In addition to its significance for my treatment of suppletion, her work will be very important in the discussion of analogical leveling in Chapter 5. In more recent work, as mentioned above in §3.0, Bybee has come to view iconicity and grammatical structure in general as nothing but an epiphenomenal artifact of language use and change (Bybee et al. 1994:22, 106-7). I have argued elsewhere (Fertig 1998a) that we may agree with Bybee that "language use is the primary determinant of structure" (1996:247) but still see an important role for a grammar-formation process whereby learners make diagrammatic sense of the by-products of language use. This view is reminiscent of Lass's (1990; 1997:309-24) notion of exaptation, but Lass is another linguist who believes that learners mostly just absorb "the garbage left behind by historical change" (1997:12 note 10). Exaptation, where learners or speakers make some new kind of sense of a small piece of this garbage, is, in Lass's view, a rare occurrence. I am arguing, on the other hand, that this is what learners do all the time, and more importantly, that this abductive sense-making process can itself shape the language in subtle ways, and we can therefore not understand language change completely if we view diagrammatic structure as purely epiphenomenal. I do not deny, however, that there is a great deal of truth in Bybee's view, and adopting it as a working hypothesis may lead to significant breakthroughs in our understanding of grammatical change.

25 3.2.4 Reanalysis and abduction Approaches to language change that emphasize some notion of naturalness or isomorphism shed light primarily on the causes or conditioning factors—to the extent that these are system-internal—rather than on the mechanisms of change (cf. Lightfoot 1979:359, 363-5; Harris and Campbell 1995:53-4, 314-43). To explain the elimination of a pattern by showing that it is not system-congruous or to predict the leveling of one stem alternation and the survival of another in accordance with Bybee's semantic relevance hierarchy tells us absolutely nothing about how the innovative forms arise and eventually replace the older forms. These questions have been addressed from a number of different perspectives. For our purposes, the most relevant is the notion of reanalysis, which occurs as part of the abductive acquisition process. Abduction refers to the type of reasoning which allows a learner to construct a grammar based solely on exposure to the output of other speakers, without any direct access to anyone else's grammar. The nature of this process makes it virtually inevitable that the grammar that a learner constructs will differ in at least some details from the grammars underlying the output to which that learner is exposed. When such differences arise, one speaks of a "reanalysis", or in Andersen's (1973; 1980) terms an "abductive innovation". A crucial point about abductive reanalyses is that they may initially be entirely covert. In other words, they may not immediately result in any observable differences in output whatsoever. Eventually, however, some speakers whose grammars contain the innovation will extend it to new forms, in what Andersen calls a "deductive innovation". Many linguists regard these deductive extensions as inherently much less interesting than abductive reanalyses. The deductive innovations are of course crucial because they produce the only observable evidence that a reanalysis has occurred. Some historical linguists make the mistake, however, of focusing their attention almost exclusively on the observable deductive innovations, without inquiring into the underlying grammatical reanalyses.

3.2.5 Morphological Economy "Economy" has become one of the major buzz-words in linguistics in the 1990s (e.g. Chomsky 1995). The approach that I refer to here as "Morphological Economy", however, has nothing to do with the notion of economy in minimalist syntax and other branches of generative linguistics. Rather, I am referring to the approach developed especially by Werner and by Ronneberger-Sibold which emphasizes the role of communicative-functional efficiency in accounting for morphological phenomena. This approach has received considerable attention, especially in the German-speaking world but also to some extent among English-speaking morphologists (e.g. Carstairs-McCarthy 1992:240-4; Kiparsky 1992). The approach is often applauded for recognizing the obviously important role of systemexternal factors of language use, in particular token frequency, in accounting for morphological structure. The "economists" have focused a great deal of attention on suppletion, and it is here that many other linguists feel their approach is most successful and persuasive. I therefore present a careful critique of Morphological Economy as part of my discussion of suppletion in §5.3. There, I show that the proponents of this approach see the connection between use and structure in teleological terms, treating the desirability of a phenomenon for communicative efficiency as a sufficient causal explanation for its development. Other

26 theories that emphasize the role of token frequency and other aspects of language use in shaping structure (e.g. Bybee 1985a; 1988; 1995; MacWhinney 1987; 1989; Stemberger 1994; Pinker and Prince 1994; Skousen 1989; Anshen and Aronoff 1988; Aronoff and Anshen 1998:240) account for the same phenomena much more convincingly without invoking any "teleology of purpose" (Andersen 1973:789).

3.2.6 Analogy Most of the types of change discussed in this work are treated in traditional accounts under the heading "analogy". There has been much debate in the past few decades concerning this term and concept. This debate is often confused and confusing, largely because different linguists have very different understandings of what analogy is. Some of the confusion can be cleared up fairly easily. As Kiparsky (1978:93-4 note 2) points out, the term "analogy" is often used simply as a label for an attested kind of linguistic change, or more accurately, for an attested kind of diachronic correspondence. Some argue that it is a potentially misleading label that should be avoided because it implies something about the mechanism or the causes of the change in question (Andersen 1980:45-6), but many linguists who use the term intend to imply nothing more than that they believe the change in question to be grammatically (as opposed to phonetically) motivated. For many linguists, however, analogy is much more than a label for grammatically motivated change. In much pre-generative work, analogy served as a synchronic theory of grammar, a theory of language production, a theory of acquisition, and an account of the mechanisms and causes of grammatically motivated change (Paul 1960[ 1920]: 106—20; Bloomfield 1933:275-6, 404-24; Saussure 1962:221-37). In its most general form, this analogist approach to language simply amounts to a view of acquisition, use, and change as involving generalization from observed surface patterns and productive application of these generalizations to new cases. The objection to this concept of analogy is not that it is false but rather that it begs all the interesting questions. As Chomsky (1964[1959]:575 note 46) puts it: "No one has ever doubted that in some sense, language is learned by generalization, or that novel utterances and situations are in some way similar to familiar ones. The only matter of serious interest is the specific 'similarity'." The formalism used by analogists to express grammatical relations and their productive application is the proportion, with the general form: A : B :: C : x. From the perspective of those who emphasize the "rule-governed" nature of language, the inadequacy of this notation as a theory of morphology is immediately apparent. The juxtaposition of A and B implies a (potential) morphological relation between them, but no means are provided for an explicit formulation of this relation (Kiparsky 1992:56). Some might counter that the nature of these relations is typically so obvious as to require no explicit formulation, but even if one accepts this argument, there is a more serious shortcoming in the proportional notation. It provides no means at all to express conditions on relations/rules. In most contemporary theories, the formulation of conditions on the application of rules is just as important as the formulation of the rules themselves (e.g. Aronoff 1976:46-86). This is also the source of the biggest problems with proportional analogy as a theory of the causes of grammatical change. If one cannot express (strict or tendential) conditions on

27 the application of a rule (or on membership in an inflectional class), then one cannot say anything about the likelihood of a given rule or class being extended to some new lexical item (Joseph 1998:365). The implication of the proportional model is that any pattern found anywhere in a system can be extended arbitrarily to any other item or class (but cf. Morpurgo Davies 1978:55). As Jeffers (1974:233) puts it:6 It explains little to say, for example, that some morpheme (or other structural entity) has been extended analogically from one class of forms (A) to a second class of forms (B). The simple fact that the element which has replaced the etymologically expected formative of Class B is to be observed elsewhere in the grammar does not of itself explain the extension. Important questions remain unanswered. For example: Why is X generalized at the expense of the expected reflex of a formative which must have had a similar function? Moreover, assuming that there are more than two classes which comprise the particular grammatical category involved, why has X been extended only to B and not to other classes as well.

The failure of analogical theory to address these questions systematically is not the result of an oversight. Proponents of analogy insist that there is an element of "caprice" in the analogical process that renders the questions raised by Jeffers unanswerable in principle (Saussure 1962:222; cf. Bloomfield 1933:409; Esper 1973:176-7). In passing, the analogists frequently make observations concerning factors that affect the likelihood of different analogical extensions. Bloomfield, for example, notes that, "The extension of a form [...] is probably favored by its earlier occurrence with phonetically or semantically related forms", and that "regular form-classes increase at the cost of smaller groups" (1933:409; cf. Paul 1877:329; 1960[1920]: 109, 114; Hockett 1968:94-5). Such tendencies remain peripheral, however, to the analogists' theory of morphological change, in contrast to many contemporary approaches where they are absolutely central (e.g. Wurzel 1984; Bybee and Moder 1983). Related to this issue is Andersen's (1980:18) view that speakers' linguistic knowledge includes, in addition to specific rules, a grasp of the "overall design" of their grammar. This is precisely what Wurzel is addressing with his notion of system congruity. This sense of the overall design of one's grammar undoubtedly plays a key role in determining the likelihood of various extensions of existing morphological patterns. In Kiparsky's (1992:57) words, "analogical change can be channeled by the structure of the language as a whole." There is obviously no place for "the structure of the language as a whole" in an analogical proportion, although this is admittedly a deficiency of many other theories as well. The notion of analogy also offers no explanation of why a given change occurs when it does. In many cases, the same analogical proportions have been valid for centuries or millennia before a change actually takes place. Even many critics of analogy do not see this as a deficiency, however, because they feel that the "when" of change is truly unpredictable and has more to do with social than with linguistic factors (Becker 1990:16-7). Kurytowicz's (1966[ 1945-1949]: 174) well-known image is frequently cited with approval (e.g. Lightfoot 1979:361; Vincent 1974:437): "Il en est comme de l'eau de pluie qui doit prendre un chemin prévu (gouttières, égouts, conduits) une fois qu 'il pleut. Mais la pluie n'est pas une nécessité. De même les actions prévues de T'analogie' ne sont pas des nécessités." (emphasis in original) Similar sentiments are expressed by Joseph (1998:366). Although there is certainly a great deal of truth in this view, there is also evidence that it is

6

Lightfoot ( 1 9 7 9 : 3 6 0 - 1 ) makes exactly the same points.

28 overly pessimistic. Wurzel (1984) describes a number of cases in which his theory correctly predicts that a given analogical change should take place only after other changes have led to modifications in relevant system-defining structural properties or in the stability of the inflectional classes involved. Similarly, Andersen (1974:24) points out that it is frequently the case that "an abductive innovation can be directly explained by a previous deductive innovation". As we will see, this is true of many of the changes discussed in the following chapters, including: the leveling of the stem-vowel alternations in the preterite of the strong verbs (§5.1.2); the regularization of some strong (§6.3) and preterite-present (§6.4) verbs (cf. Hare and Elman 1995); the transfer of scheiden from strong class VII to class I and the transfer of laufen from class VII to class II (§6.1). The shortcomings of proportional analogy as an account of grammatically motivated change are to some extent related to the failure to distinguish between the spontaneous production of neologisms and the adoption of these new forms into mature grammars and into the norm of the speech community (see §3.1 above). Bloomfield (1933:405) recognizes this potential problem, pointing out, first of all, that, "Ordinarily, linguists use this term [sc. analogic change] to include both the original creation of the new form and its subsequent rivalry with the old form." He then acknowledges that, strictly speaking, proportional analogy only makes sense as an account of "the utterance, by someone who has never heard it, of a new combination, such as cow-s instead of kine." (cf. Joseph 1998:364) From this perspective, one could argue that the unconstrained nature of the proportional model is appropriate. If we are interested in all the possible sporadic grammatical innovations that could ever be produced either by mature speakers or by learners in any stage of the acquisition process, then it may be true, as Becker (1990:17-8) argues, that virtually any innovation for which one can set up a proportional model is possible (cf. Bybee and Slobin 1982b). Where Bloomfield goes wrong is in his explicit assumption that the constraints on grammatical change are essentially the same as the constraints (or lack thereof) on the isolated production of new forms (1933:408; cf. Paul 1877:328). Once we recognize that normal linguistic change depends, among other things, on the acceptability of new forms to speakers with complete or nearly complete grammars, it becomes clear that the customary extrapolation from the sporadic production of neologisms to grammatical change is inadmissible.

3.2.6.1

Analogy and rules

Some well-known criticisms of analogy miss the mark. Anderson (1992:366-7), for example, considers the following famous example of a "preposterous" (McMahon 1994:81) or "silly" (Hockett 1968:94) proportion. (2)

ear : hear :: eye :

X, X =

heye,

meaning 'see' 7

He offers two arguments to account for the alleged impossibility of such proportions. First, he claims that a legitimate proportion cannot be based on a "totally isolated" relation. Hockett offers the same explanation, but it is simply not valid. As Kiparsky (1992:57) 7

With a little imagination, one can come up with many similar examples. One of my favorites (from Kiparsky 1992:57) is: I : my :: you: X, X = myou (meaning 'your').

29 points out, "Even unique patterns may come to be apprehended as linguistic regularities, and may spread by analogy." Many others have made the same point and supported it with a variety of examples (e.g. Anttila 1989:89; Becker 1990:18; Joseph 1998:364). Secondly, Anderson argues that, "A valid analogy is always based on a valid [...] rule of the language. Where no rule relates two forms (as in the case of [(2)] above), they cannot serve as the base of an analogical proportion." (emphasis in original) The crucial point that Anderson is missing here is that proportional analogy actually consists of two distinct processes. The left-hand side of a proportion implicitly reflects an abductive (re)analysis, while the proportion as a whole represents a deductive extension of the relationship that is inferred to hold between the members on the left (Kiparsky 1992:57; Morpurgo Davies 1978:55). In other words (assuming we believe that relations among word forms involve "rules"—see the discussion of connectionism and related approaches below), proportions reflect not only the process by which speakers extend rules, but also the process by which learners infer them. Thus, what Anderson regards as a precondition for the application of a proportional analogy is in fact the product of the first (and theoretically much more interesting) stage of the process. As Kiparsky (1974:259) puts it, a valid proportion "must [...] correspond to a possible or actual rule", "which functions or could function in the language at hand." (emphasis added) Kiparsky's characterization raises two important questions, however. First of all, is there really a categorical distinction between possible and impossible rules, or should we instead think in terms of degrees of probability, with some rules perhaps so unlikely that they approach impossibility but none ruled out in principle (cf. Becker 1990)? Secondly, how do we determine what constitutes a possible (or probable) rule in a given language? If one can identify both a formal and a semantic relationship between two words, as in the case of ear and hear, how do we determine whether learners could potentially recognize this relationship and abduce it as a rule of the language (or how likely they are to do so)? Becker (1990:17-9) and Kiparsky (1992:57) offer some good answers for this and similar examples, and in general these questions are central to much recent work on grammatical change. The real shortcoming of the proportional model that is illustrated by examples such as (2) is thus that, while the left side of a proportion implies that the learner/speaker performs some kind of abductive (re)analysis of the relation between the two terms, the model provides no way to be explicit about the role of this crucial abductive step in grammatical change. Anderson cites Saussure's (1962:223-6) argument that analogical change is really no change at all since the new forms had always been latent in the system as evidence that Saussure agrees with his view that a valid proportion must be based on an existing grammatical rule of the language. In fact, however, Saussure (1962:226-35) is exceptionally explicit in his insistence on the two-step (analysis + extension) interpretation of the proportional model: "Cependant il faut y distinguer deux choses: 1) la compréhension du rapport qui relie entre elles les formes génératrices; 2) le résultat suggéré par la comparaison, la forme improvisée par le sujet parlant pour l'expression de la pensée." (1962:227) He makes it clear that his statement about analogical neologisms being latent in the system only applies to the second step of analogy, the overt extension of an existing rule to new items, and he stresses the distinction between this "fait insignifiant" (227) and the covert reanalyses or "changements d'interprétation" (232, 233) that are implicit in the left-hand side of those

30 proportions that do not reflect previously existing rules of the language. For Saussure, as for many others, these reanalyses represent true changes that are of great theoretical interest. The debate over analogy has taken a new twist in recent years with the appearance of explicit models of cognition that can account for at least some aspects of what had long been regarded as "rule-governed" behavior without positing anything that resembles a rule in the usual sense. Two camps have formed. One, which consists of the "connectionists" (e.g. Rumelhart and McClelland 1986; 1987; MacWhinney and Leinbach 1991; Daugherty and Seidenberg 1994; Stemberger 1994; 1998; Ellis and Schmidt 1998) and certain others (Skousen 1989; 1992; Derwing and Skousen 1994; Bybee 1988; 1995; 1996), argues that there is no need for any morphological rules at all since all morphology can be accounted for in terms of wordforms being stored in some kind of associative memory. The other camp (Pinker and Prince 1988; 1994; Pinker 1991; 1997; Marcus et al. 1992; 1995; Jaeger et al. 1996; Clahsen 1999) agrees that such a model handles irregular morphology extremely well, but presents a variety of evidence in support of a rule-based approach to regular morphology. This debate will figure prominently in the discussion of inflectional-class transfers in Chapter 6, but for present purposes, the most interesting point is that both sides in this debate acknowledge that at least some inflectional morphology is neither rule-governed nor reducible to mere rote memorization of listed forms. Recent work has made it clear that a memory that includes some kind of associative links between memorized items, so that activation of one item also activates others in proportion to the similarity of the latter to the target item, can account very well for the semi-regular patterns and occasional productivity found, for example, among the English and German strong verbs. The only remaining question is whether this is also the best way to account for regular inflection. This kind of associative-memory model is of course precisely what many analogists have been arguing for all along. It is strongly reminiscent of Paul's (1877; 1960[1920]) theory of analogy. Esper (1973:36) summarizes Paul's view as follows: "Paul presents language as a hierarchical system of associatively interrelated—overlapping and intersecting—groups of words". This is very similar to Pinker and Prince's (1994:326, 334) description of their own theory of irregular inflection, and indeed Pinker and his colleagues frequently use the term "analogy" to describe the attractive force of irregulars. Many other contemporary scholars, including generativists, have rediscovered analogy as a process that must exist alongside rule application and rote lexical storage. Anshen and Aronoff (1988:648) characterize analogy in the following terms: "Speakers have the ability to examine their lexicon, find partial similarities, and use these similarities to build new words." Does this mean that the traditional model of proportional analogy has been completely vindicated and that all of the criticisms of that model discussed above are wrong? Not quite. It does mean that the long-held doctrine that all morphological relations should be captured in terms of explicit rules has been called into question, and with it the validity of the argument that the proportional formalism is deficient because it does not express relationships in terms of explicit rules. According to Pinker and Prince (1994:326), all but the most regular and fully productive morphological relations "are not rules at all, but epiphenomena of the way structured lexical entries are partially superimposed in memory." For connectionists and others who believe in a single mechanism for regulars and irregulars, this statement would apply to all morphology, and perhaps even to syntax (Derwing and Skousen 1994:216 note 1). On the other hand, one key criticism of the proportional model is as valid

31 as ever: It implies that analogical extensions are arbitrary, and thus provides no basis for evaluating the relative likelihood of different developments. This is an issue that the neoanalogists are especially concerned with and that their models address very well (Derwing and Skousen 1994:194). Furthermore, if we accept the dual-mechanism theory of Pinker and his colleagues—and I will argue in Chapter 6 that we should—while the analogists were more or less on the right track in accounting for the attractive force of (clusters of) irregular items, they were completely off the mark when it comes to regularization since the regular pattern exerts no attractive force of its own whatsoever but merely functions as a default when no lexically stored inflected form can be found. This is essentially the same as the generative treatment of regularization as loss (due to imperfect learning) of idiosyncratic lexical specifications or listed forms (Anderson 1988a; 1992:368; Kiparsky 1992:57-8; Joseph 1998:363). Since regularization is precisely the process that proportional analogy is so often invoked to account for, this is a very serious issue. Kruszewski's early observation that "we are still—to be completely honest—entirely ignorant of the laws which govern 'analogy'" (1978[1881]:81) continued to be largely true as long as linguists assumed that analogy was essentially arbitrary and capricious. I cannot agree with Lass's (1997:386) recent assessment, however, that "we understand as much (or as little) about analogy as the Neogrammarians did." The advances in recent decades have been real and substantial, including: the recognition of abductive, covert reanalysis and deductive, overt extension as distinct mechanisms of grammatical change that play off of each other but that do not necessarily occur simultaneously (Andersen 1973; 1974; 1980; Lightfoot 1979; Hopper and Traugott 1993:32-62; Harris and Campbell 1995); Wurzel's systematic account of the way in which the dominant patterns of an inflectional system determine the course of change; the greatly increased explicitness with which connectionist and similar models treat the links among wordforms in associative memory; and the suggestion of a fundamental distinction between rule-governed default inflection and associative irregular inflection. The most spirited defenses of analogy (e.g. Anttila 1977) came in reaction to the early generative attempt to replace it entirely with a view of language change as grammar change (rule loss, rule reordering, etc.), where surface patterns were regarded as purely epiphenomenal (e.g. King 1969). Ironically, this attempt had the effect of reviving interest in and respect for the traditional notion of analogy since many linguists recognized that whatever shortcomings the proportional model might have, it was clearly superior to the alternative proposed by the early generativists (Lightfoot 1979:362-5; Joseph 1998:364-5). Since that time, however, it has become clear that we can do better than the traditional analogical approach to grammatical change, as well as doing worse. Modern approaches do not deny that at least some of the mechanisms of grammatical change are in some sense analogical, but they show that it is not by fixating on the analogical nature of these processes that we deepen our understanding of them (cf. Andersen 1980:45—6).

3.2.7 Analogical leveling A very high proportion of the changes in verbal inflection observable in the Nuremberg texts involve what is traditionally referred to as analogical or paradigm(atic) leveling. Dif-

32 ferent linguists have used this term in slightly (and sometimes not so slightly) different ways (cf. Fertig 1999a). As a first approximation to the specific sense intended here, we can define leveling as in (3): (3) Analogical leveling: the elimination of an allomorphic stem alternation within a paradigm.

This definition is not specific enough, however. Stem alternations can be eliminated for many different reasons. Linguists have always, at least tacitly, acknowledged that one must consider the motivation for a change as well as its outcome in determining whether analogical leveling is involved. Thus, the many instances of sound change that just happen to lead to the elimination of stem alternations are never classified as analogical leveling (unless they are simply incorrectly analyzed), even though they would qualify according to a literal reading of definition (3). This condition can be made explicit by amending the definition to: (4) Analogical leveling: the morphologically motivated elimination of an allomorphic stem alternation within a paradigm.

A more subtle issue of motivation is discussed by Bybee (1980) and Hock (1986:179-82). The traditional view implicitly regards leveling as a change that operates entirely inside the paradigm. As Kiparsky puts it (1992:58), leveling "is 'non-proportional' because it does not require a non-alternating model paradigm" (cf. Jeffers 1974:244; Hock 1986:179, 236; Joseph 1998:362). If proportional analogy is defined as the extension of a paradigmatic pattern from one or more lexical items to one or more others, however, then it is clearly just as possible to extend a non-alternating pattern as an alternating one (cf. Saussure 1962:2212). In other words, what appears to be leveling cannot always be attributed to purely paradigm-internal forces, even when it is clearly morphologically motivated. Some instances of "leveling" are driven (partially or entirely) by the extension of a pattern which just happens to be non-alternating. The result is the elimination of a stem alternation, but the motivation is an increase in parallelism between the paradigms of two or more lexical items, as in proportional analogy. We can make this explicit with a final emendation of our definition of leveling: (5) Analogical leveling: the paradigm-internally motivated elimination of an allomorphic stem alternation.

The importance of this careful definition of leveling will become apparent in the discussion of the changes in the stem vowels of the modals in §5.1.4 below. 3.2.7.1 Accounting for leveling Leveling is often cited as evidence for the existence of a universal one-form-one-function principle (Hock 1986:168; Vennemann 1972b:190, 194-5; Langacker 1977:66, 111; Koefoed 1974:290; Anttila 1977:56; 1989:107). 8 The belief that true leveling, by definition (5), supposedly does not involve the extension of a dominant pattern but rather is motivated

8

We are really only interested here in one part—the "no allomorphy" (or "no synonymy") part—of the paradigmatic side of this principle. The "no polysemy/no homonymy" part is not relevant to leveling. Mayerthaler sometimes uses "uniformity" in precisely this narrower sense (e.g. 1981:35). Cf. also the discussion o f Clark's Principle of Contrast below.

33 purely by the preference for a uniform stem shape across a paradigm would seem to suggest that it is indeed a manifestation of a universal anti-allomorphy principle. There are at least two alternatives to this view, however. The first is that leveling could in fact be a manifestation of system congruity. According to this position, one would not expect to find leveling in those (relatively rare) cases where a particular kind of stem alternation is an SDSP on the parameter "marker type" within a system or subsystem and/or where a particular alternation is a feature of the dominant inflectional class for words with a given set of extra-morphological properties. Wurzel's demonstration that the umlaut alternation actually tends to spread among the German masculine nouns with e/0-plurals, a tendency that is much stronger in some dialects than it is in the standard, supports such a view (1984:73-4, 167-8). The fact that stem alternations so rarely become dominant features of a system can easily be accounted for without appealing to any principle of naturalness. Wurzel (1984:92, 169-72) attributes the relative rarity of stem alternations to the fact that they, unlike most affixation processes, necessarily place phonological conditions on the stems that serve as input, while Bybee (1996; cf. Bybee and Newman 1995) argues for a purely diachronic explanation. Even if we assume that at least some cases of leveling are indeed manifestations of the effects of some kind of system-independent naturalness principle, it is not clear that oneform-one-function is a correct characterization of the nature of this principle. Leveling, as most often defined, specifically involves the reduction or elimination of stem allomorphy. The one-form-one-function principle, however, makes no distinction between stems and inflectional affixes. Attributing leveling to one-form-one-function amounts to saying that paradigm leveling is in fact not a distinct phenomenon at all but rather just one manifestation of a general tendency to eliminate allomorphy of all kinds. Whether leveling is best attributed to a general anti-allomorphy principle or to a more restricted principle that applies only to lexical stems and not to grammatical items is an empirical question. Do we find a strong general tendency to reduce allomorphy that applies equally in stems and inflectional affixes? The answer seems to be no. The most common process by which one inflectional allomorph wins out over another is inflectional-class transfer or regularization (see Chapter 6), but this typically only affects one word at a time and thus only results in a redistribution of allomorphs and not in any reduction in their number. Of course a reduction of allomorphy may eventually be achieved when and if the last lexical item transfers out of a class, but it is hard to see how reduction of allomorphy could be the motivation for a type of change that may take hundreds or thousands of years before a single allomorph is eliminated (cf. Wurzel 1984:131). In some cases where linguists have appealed to a one-form-one-function principle to account for inflectional-class transfers (e.g. Vincent 1974:432-5), it is clear that a much more restricted principle, such as Wurzel's notion of inflectional-class stability/motivation, offers a more convincing account for the observed developments and does so without predicting completely unattested types of changes, such as the wholesale elimination of stable inflectional classes (cf. Wurzel 1984:178). Many other well-known instances of reduction of inflectional allomorphy, such as the nearly complete triumph of the -s plural among English nouns, occur in languages where the existence of inflectional classes has become non-system-congruous for the word type in question (see Wurzel's parameter 6 in §3.2.1). Finally, Wurzel's notion of the superstable marker, discussed in §4.2 below, predicts some elimination of inflectional allomorphy, but only under certain well-defined conditions.

34 A number of other arguments can be made against the one-form-one-function account of leveling. Kiparsky (1978:90) calls attempts to account for leveling in this way "fundamentally misguided", pointing out that most leveling innovations can plausibly be attributed to incomplete learning, whereas many other alleged manifestations of one-form-one-function, such as avoidance of homonymy and syncretism, could not possibly have anything to do with incomplete learning, but must instead result from "the purposive selection of speech variants". This argument by itself merely calls for a separation of the antiallomorphy/synonymy side of one-form-one-function from the anti-syncretism/homonymy side (cf. note 8). Clark (1987) also advocates this separation and presents convincing evidence that the former, which she calls the "Principle of Contrast", plays a pervasive role in acquisition while the latter, the "Homonymy Assumption", "may play little or no role in either adult language use or acquisition" except under certain special circumstances (1987:2, cf. 25). More directly relevant to the present discussion is Kiparsky's (1972:206-13) principle of "paradigm coherence", which says that "allomorphy within a paradigm tends to be minimized". This is precisely the kind of restricted no-allomorphy principle I am arguing for here, one that applies to lexical stems but not to grammatical morphemes. Of greater theoretical interest than a stipulated principle such as this, however, are the predictions which follow directly from certain theories of morphology, such as Beard's version of separationist theory. All proponents of the separation hypothesis agree that grammatical items are not signs in the familiar sense of direct, (arbitrary) one-to-one associations between meaning and form (cf. Becker 1990:12).9 While Aronoff (1994:13; 173 note 13) remains agnostic on the question of whether lexemes are signs in this sense (cf. also Halle and Marantz 1993:172 note 10), Beard (1995; 1998:55) answers this question very clearly in the affirmative. Thus, according to Beard, association with a single underlying phonological representation is the normal and expected situation for lexemes in a way that it is not for grammatical morphemes. In other words, one-form-one-function, or more accurately the anti-allomorphy/synonymy side thereof, i.e. Clark's Principle of Contrast, is a principle, not of morphological naturalness, but rather of "lexical naturalness" (cf. Wurzel 1984:49; Beard 1998:63). It follows from this view that the undesirability of allomorphy and the diachronic tendency to eliminate it should apply primarily to lexical stems, while allomorphy, along with other kinds of complex mapping between function and form, should be normal and expected for affixes and other grammatical items (cf. Wurzel 1984:180-1; Becker 1990:107-10). Within Optimality Theory, Benua (1997) argues, against Burzio (1994; 1996) and Kenstowicz (1996; 1997), that output-to-output correspondence constraints, which account for allomorphy-reducing effects, should apply only to lexical stems and not to affixes. Furthermore, while Kenstowicz (1997) argues for a general no-allomorphy constraint, which he calls "Uniform Exponence", he suggests the following psychological explanation for this constraint (based on the assumption that "words are stored in memory in their surface phonetic form"): "To the extent that two instances of a given lexical item share the same phonological structure, the amount of space required to store the words in memory is minimized." As I see it, this explanation would lead us to expect that the constraint should apply primarily to major-class lexemes. In the case of closed-class items, such as inflectional af9

This notion of the sign corresponds roughly to the symbol in Peircean semiotics (cf. §3.2.2 above).

35 fixes (and grammatical function words, see below), allomorphy only adds a handful of ultrahigh-frequency forms, which surely cannot represent a significant burden on memory capacity. Stem allomorphy among open-class items, on the other hand, could mean thousands of additional word forms to memorize (cf. Pike 1965). Some Optimality Theorists have also adopted a view of morphology that is very similar to Beard's version of the separation hypothesis. Yip (1998:223), for example, argues that "[i]nputs consist of morphologically annotated roots, rather than roots with phonologically specified affixes: /kaetPL/, not /kaet-s/". A second problem with the notion of one-form-one-function as an explanation for leveling is that it makes no predictions at all about which words are most likely to undergo leveling. It has often been observed cross-linguistically that stem alternations are more likely to be leveled in certain kinds of words than in others. Those who attribute leveling to a general one-form-one-function principle have to invoke some other mechanism, typically involving token frequency, to account for this. Beard's theory, on the other hand, correctly predicts that highly grammaticalized words will tend to be the most "resistant" to leveling (cf. Fertig 1998b). The much greater prevalence of allomorphy in grammatical items, as compared to major-class lexical items, can also be accounted for in terms of diagrammatic iconicity (Fertig 1998a; cf. Pike 1965; Markey 1985). I return to these issues in the discussion of suppletion in §5.3 below.

3.2.7.2 The direction of leveling Another crucial unresolved question related to analogical leveling concerns the predictability, or lack thereof, of the direction of leveling. Many linguists have pointed out that there is a strong tendency for the variant of the morphosyntactically more basic or unmarked category member to be the one that wins out in leveling (Vennemann 1972a; 1972b: 190; Mayerthaler 1981:41-2; Bybee 1985:51; 1991:72; Bybee and Brewer 1980:203, 223). 10 Discussions of the criteria for determining which morphosyntactic properties are basic can be found in a number of places (e.g. Mayerthaler 1981; Koch 1995; Wurzel 1984:21-2; Bybee 1985:50-4; Tiersma 1982:832; McMahon 1994:80). Although there is no general agreement on objective criteria, most linguists have the same intuitions about which properties should be regarded as unmarked in many cases.

10

Some scholars, on the other hand, stress the unpredictability of the direction of leveling more than this tendency, e.g. Anttila (1989:95); Becker (1990:23-4, 50, 55-7; 1994:12-3); and Hock (1986:213-4), who cites leveling as a prime example of a type of analogical change in which "[t]here is [...] no predetermined directionality". Hock unfortunately chooses a bad example to illustrate leveling in the derived—>basic direction since the Modern Standard German infinitive kiiren is not, as he claims, descended from OHG kiosan but rather represents a denominal derivation from Kur (Kluge 1975). As we will see in Chapter 5, however, there is no scarcity of good examples to support Hock's position.

36 For the purposes of this work, the important grammatical categories are: category

unmarked property

number tense mood person

singular present indicative 3rd (?)

The only category that is at all problematic in this regard is person. Fortunately, this category plays very little role in the levelings that occur in the Nuremberg data. Limiting ourselves to cases where the identification of the basic property is uncontroversial, we can easily test the hypothesis that the stem form associated with this property wins out in leveling. It is immediately clear that this principle, at best, only captures a predominant tendency. Everyone who has discussed this issue is quick to admit that there are counterexamples. We find many instances where leveling has occurred in favor of the form from the derived property, and we also find variation in the direction of leveling between closely related dialects and even within a single dialect. A number of linguists have tried to develop theories that can account for both the general tendency and the exceptions. Usually, however, they only consider a small number of cases and their explanations run into problems as soon as any other data is considered (Hempen 1988:271; Gerth 1987:107-8; Vennemann 1972b:190; Kurylowicz 1966[ 1945-49]: 166-7; Mayerthaler 1981:48-58; Tiersma 1982; Bybee 1988:133^1; 1991:76-7). In §5.4 below, I propose a general solution to the problem of the direction of leveling that can account both for the Nuremberg findings and for much of the data discussed by others.

3.2.8 Traditional typologies of morphological change Earlier linguists identified a number of processes of grammatical and lexical change besides proportional analogy and leveling. Traditional typologies, which amount to nothing more than unstructured lists of different types of phenomena (e.g. Hock 1986:167-209), have been rightly criticized as haphazard and lacking in analytic depth (Andersen 1980:2). Some linguists lump all types of "change due to the influence of one form on another" (Joseph 1998:362) together under the heading "analogy", a practice which has led to the frequent criticism of analogy as a "catchall" term for processes that do not really have anything interesting in common (King 1969:127; Kiparsky 1992:56; Werner 1984:412). This is a valid criticism of typologies that define analogy negatively as whatever is not sound change, semantic change or borrowing (cf. Hock 1986:195), but it is an unfair caricature of some Neogrammarian work, which used the term "analogy" in a very specific sense and emphasized the distinction between proportional, analogical processes and other types of grammatical change (Paul 1960[1920]; Morpurgo Davies 1978). Regardless of the shortcomings of traditional typologies, many of the labels that they use for particular phenomena have stuck. Since a couple of these developments play an important role in the Nuremberg data, I will explain them briefly here. Blending occurs when competition between two items or rules is resolved by simply adopting (parts of) both of the rivals (Hock 1986:189-91). The idiosyncratic plural marker -ren of ModE children (OE cildru), for example, combines the old -r with the -en that

37 originally belonged to other inflectional classes. Dialectal feets is similar (Tiersma 1982:839). T h e most important case of blending in the N u r e m b e r g texts is the f o r m seind for the 1st and 3rd plural present of seiri, which is generally assumed to represent a blend of sein and sind (see § 4 . 4 ) . " Hypercorrection is a kind of analogical development that crucially involves m o r e than one variety of a language (Hock 1986:205-6). Speakers apparently m a k e abductive inferences about the systematic correspondences between their native variety and other varieties in much the same way that they, as learners, make such inferences about the patterns within the g r a m m a r of their own native dialect. In the former case, the evidence on which these inferences are based will frequently be very incomplete. As a result, when speakers try to approximate a non-native variety of their language, they frequently overgeneralize the most obvious correspondences. A c o m m o n grammatical hypercorrection in English is the overuse of interrogative and relative whom, in cases where who would be correct in standard English ( W o l f r a m and Schilling-Estes 1998:221). Several forms which occur occasionally in the N u r e m b e r g texts could be interpreted as instances of hypercorrection. One interesting case involving the vowel of the infinitive of tun is discussed below in §5.1.6. Another e x a m p l e is the occasional appearance of -e in the 1st singular present indicative of preterite-present verbs (Fertig 1994:115).

3.3

Conclusion

M a n y linguists are not optimistic about the prospects for an account of morphological change that is in any way predictive. Joseph (1998:366) is certainly correct when he writes that, "accounts of morphological change are generally retrospective only, looking back over a change that has occurred and attempting to make sense of it." H e is not lamenting this state of affairs but rather implying that it is probably the best we can do. Lightfoot (1991; 1999) shares this view and argues that language change is governed by the principles of chaos theory, which means that the potential for tiny external perturbations to completely alter the course of a language's development makes it impossible in principle to predict change. I am largely in agreement with this assessment, but I would argue for a slightly m o r e optimistic view. I am encouraged by recent advances in our understanding o f issues such as: the basic nature of the mapping between function and form in morphology; the overlapping representation of forms in associative memory; the role of frequency and similarity effects in different kinds of morphological innovations; the relationship between reanalysis and extension (abductive and deductive innovations) in grammatical change; the social factors influencing the spread of an innovation through a speech community. While I certainly have no illusions that we will someday be able to predict exactly what changes will happen when, I do believe that such advances give us good reason to believe that w e will continue to see gradual improvements in the accuracy o f our probabilistic predictions.

11

Some German scholars (e.g. Paul 1960[1920]: 160-73; 1956:270) use the term Kontamination in a broad sense which includes both contamination in the narrower, English sense (cf. Hock 1986:197-9) and blending.

4 Inflectional endings

4.0 Introduction

Although Hoffmann and Solms (1987:38) and Dammers et al. (1988:524) cite the simplification of the system of inflectional endings as one of the three major areas of system-redefining change in verbal morphology in the ENHG period, there is relatively little evidence of this simplification process in the Nuremberg texts. The modern system of person/number endings was largely already in place in much of the eastern half of the German-speaking world by the end of the MHG period, and the ENHG developments in the personal endings primarily involved the geographic spread of this system to more conservative areas such as Alemannic and its adoption into the emerging written standard. Most of the variation and change that we see in inflectional endings in the Nuremberg texts is related to syncope and apocope. I described these phenomena in detail in Fertig 1994, but I have not included them here because the mechanisms and causes responsible for them appear to be largely phonological and prosodic, and they thus have little in common with the morphologically motivated changes that are the main topic of this book (cf. Dammers et al. 1988:70-1, 76; Besch 1967:299-301, 310^1). This chapter thus deals only with the few relatively clear instances of morphologically motivated change and variation in inflectional endings in the Nuremberg texts.

4.1 1st singular

In normalized MHG, the athematic verbs tun, gen, and sten had the ending -n in the 1st singular present indicative (Paul et al. 1989:269-72). In OHG, this ending (or -m in the oldest manuscripts) had occurred in the weak verbs of classes 2 and 3 as well (Braune and Eggers 1975:256-7; Paul et al. 1989:254). In the modern standard, we find this ending only in bin, whereas all other verbs have -e or -0. The Nuremberg texts are largely in agreement with the modern standard on this point, which is what we would expect given Besch's (1967:300) finding that by the 15th century the forms with -n were largely restricted to a narrow strip along the Rhine from Switzerland to Cologne. One early writer does show idiosyncratic usage in the case of the verb haben. Nicholas Muffel has 13 han and 1 hon compared with 3 habe and 1 hab. No other writer ever has this contracted form han, but we do find two scattered tokens of 1st singular present indicative haben. One is in the following passage from Ulman Stromer (1395): ich kawft mein haws am platz umb Fridel Scheffein umb 1825 guldein und zu unterkawff 16 # haller, so haben ich dar auf verpawen uncz auf anno 80 bey 1800 guld. darzu hab ich verpawen uncz auf anno 94 bey 600 guld. (Hegel 1862a:75)

39 Notice that the normal form hab also occurs in the above passage in a similar context. Stromer also has one token of 1st singular present indicative senden. Since the tokens from Muffel and Stromer all occur very early, a reasonable hypothesis would be that they represent relics of a change that was largely complete before the beginning of our period. This hypothesis is strongly supported by Eberl's (1944:56-7) examination of early Nuremberg chancery documents. She found that the earliest documents have only han, with the first occurrence of hab{e) coming in 1351. Georg von Nürnberg's Sprachbuch of 1424 also invariably has han, as well as 1st singular present indicative tun (Pausch 1972).1 The only other two tokens of 1st singular present indicative forms with -(e)n (both haben) occur much later, however, one in 1518 (Clara Pirckheimer) and one in 1588 (Balthasar Paumgartner). These could conceivably reflect sporadic influence from a more conservative dialect. Gebhardt (1907:291) considers the possibility that the form hau, which is in variation with hob in the modem Nuremberg dialect, could be the reflex of han, but he prefers another explanation (cf. Wiesinger 1989:26). Kalau (1984:93) does not mention the form hau, which suggests that it may have died out in the course of the twentieth century.

4.2 2nd singular

Whereas the modern standard and the modern Nuremberg dialect (Gebhardt 1907:286-93; Kalau 1984:50-1, 70-1, 89-92) invariably have -{e)st in the 2nd singular for all tenses, moods and inflectional classes, MHG had a number of different endings, in particular -e ( velar stops > vowels (?) > liquids, glides, nasals > h> / - > sibilants8

This scale shows that syncope before stops and affricates is found in the most restricted area, and the syncopating area grows progressively larger, to the north (northern East Franconian) and south (South Bavarian), as we proceed through the other initial segment types in the scale. 9 Evidence from medieval texts and the modern dialect islands indicates that this geographical pattern of syncope reflects the chronological progression of the sound change, such that ge- first underwent syncope in words with stem-initial sibilants, then in words beginning with / - and so forth (Kranzmayer 1956:85; Wiesinger 1989:66-7). This gives us a very plausible picture of the phonological generalization of the environments for this sound change. If we try to incorporate the loss of the prefix in the g-lk- group of verbs into this picture, however, the chronological development no longer makes sense. Since the area with prefixless participles for the g-lk- group is (by far) the largest of all, we would have to propose that the change began with a small set of g-lk- verbs and then jumped to sibilants and progressed through all other classes of continuants before finally returning to affect the remaining words with initial velar stops and other stops and affricates. The implausibility of such a chronology forces us to conclude that the loss of the prefix in the g-lk- verbs is a separate change from Upper German syncope. If it is not Upper German syncope, then what is it? Bruch (1966:145) points us toward the solution when he refers to the prefixless participle of gehen in Luxembourg as an instance of haplology. Haplology is traditionally defined as the loss of a syllable that is adjacent to a phonetically similar or identical syllable (Hock 1986:109). Stemberger (1981) and others use the term "(morphological) haplology" in a somewhat different though overlapping sense to refer to the non-occurrence of an expected affix that is phonetically similar to an adjacent affix or to the adjacent portion of the stem. As pointed out in §3.2 above, this

8

9

Concerning slight discrepancies among the orders given by different authors, see Fertig 1998c:263 note 20. Recall that it is only before stops and affricates that syncope leads to the complete loss of the geprefix. Before other stem-initial segment types, the prefix is retained as g- or k- (cf. note 1).

137 phenomenon is extremely widespread cross-linguistically (Menn and MacWhinney 1984; Yip 1998; Cardona 1968; de Lacy 1999). The most widely accepted account of the phenomenon involves some version of the idea that "the base already appears to be inflected, and so the speaker does not add an 'additional' inflection" (Stemberger 1998:436). Bybee and Slobin (1982a:271-5) argue that the class of English verbs with a stem-final t or d that take no suffix in the past tense (e.g. hit, hurt, set, shut, put, spread),10 along with experimental evidence from child and adult language showing some degree of productivity for this class, can be best accounted for by positing competition between two strategies of past tense formation: the normal -ed suffixation rule and a "product-oriented schema" strategy (cf. Bybee and Moder 1983; Bybee 1995) which regards any verb form ending in an alveolar stop as a well-formed past tense, regardless of whether an affix has been added to the base. Elsewhere (Bybee and Slobin 1982b:37), they attribute the latter strategy to a "universal principle which allows zero-affixation in case a base already contains the phonetic material of the affix." Yip (1998) sees this principle as one manifestation of a more general cognitive-based tendency to avoid repetition of adjacent material in both phonology and morphology, thus tying it to the well-known Obligatory Contour Principle (OCP) of autosegmental phonology. She offers an account within Optimality Theory, using a *REPEAT constraint. Whether or not haplology occurs in a given instance depends on the relative ranking of ""REPEAT and MORPHDIS. The latter constraint says that each morpheme in a string should be realized by distinct phonological material. De Lacy (1999), however, challenges those who attribute haplology to a generalized OCP. He points out that a specific anti-repetition constraint is actually only necessary if we regard haplology as deletion. Yip and some of the other linguists who propose an OCP-based account, however, in fact regard haplology as coalescence (overlapping) of morphemes rather than deletion, and de Lacy presents empirical evidence in support of the coalescence view (cf. also Haspelmath 1995:13-5). He then points out that haplology as coalescence can be accounted for without positing any special constraints whatsoever. In particular, there is no need for a specific constraint against repetition. Separate constraints barring deletion and coalescence and enforcing featural identity of input and output are required independently of haplology. Given these constraints, haplology will result whenever: 1) the constraints on deletion (MAX) and featural identity (IDENT-F) outrank the constraint against coalescence (UNIFORMITY); 11 and 2) some relevant markedness constraint is ranked below MAX and IDENT-F but above UNIFORMITY, such that this constraint can trigger haplology (coalescence of similar or identical segments in adjacent morphemes) but—since it is outranked by IDENT-F and MAX—could never cause either coalescence of dissimilar strings or deletion of any phonological material. An approach along these lines also works very well for the prefixless participle data under consideration here. In fact, a haplology-based account answers a number of questions that the proponents of the standard syncope-based account rarely address. Most obviously,

10

For a complete list, see Pinker and Prince 1988:185.

11

UNIFORMITY is a general constraint against coalescence ("No segment in the output corresponds to more than one segment in the input."), as opposed to MORPHDIS, which is a more specific prohibition against output segments belonging to more than one morpheme. D e Lacy works with UNIFORMITY but points out (note 3) that his account could be reformulated in terms o f MORPHDIS without any effect on the validity of his arguments.

138 it is now clear why the loss of the ge- prefix occurs in verbs with initial velar stops. 12 Secondly, the lexical idiosyncrasy that characterizes the loss of the prefix is precisely what we expect with morphological haplology (Stemberger 1981:796, 815; Pinker and Prince 1988:120). Furthermore, previous studies have completely overlooked the striking geographical complementarity between the g-/k- prefixless participles and the development of initial g- to j-. The Central German dialects that do not have prefixless participles tend to be precisely those in which initial g- has been weakened to j-, f-, or The conditions for haplology in the g-lk- verbs are eliminated completely in North Hessian and parts of Upper Saxon and Thuringian, where initial g- normally remains a stop but is weakened to j- just in the prefix ge- (Hofmann 1926:27; Schirmunski 1962:307; Spangenberg 1993:199, map 31). In the many dialects where every initial g- is weakened, the conditions for haplology ofje- would still generally be present before stem-initial j-, but before k- the basis for haplology would be lost in all of these dialects, and this appears to have been sufficient to prevent the lexical spread of the prefixless participles for reasons that will be discussed below. A proper analysis of the prefixless participles can also make an important contribution to our understanding of how morphological haplology arises historically. Stemberger (1981:813) identifies three diachronic sources of haplology. The one that interests him most, and the only one that concerns us here, might be called "true haplology". It occurs when: 1) there is an actual diachronic loss of a previously occurring affix in haplological environments; and 2) haplology is a motivation, rather than just a coincidental outcome, of the development. Stemberger is very concerned with explaining psycholinguistically how such a change can happen. He sees the answer in the phenomenon known as memory masking, which, according to Stemberger (1981:814), occurs when "two similar events are not properly distinguished in memory buffers [...], so that only one is 'remembered'". Stemberger suggests that memory masking in child language acquisition may be the principle source of true haplology. If an affix is phonologically similar to the adjacent part of a stem, the child may only perceive one occurrence of the repeated segments rather than two. Haspelmath (1995:13-5) shows, however, how true haplology can also arise historically through reanalysis. One plausible scenario for such a development would be as follows: Stage 1: A group of words lacks a particular affix for reasons that have nothing to do with haplology. The words may, for example, belong to an inflectional class that happens to have a -0 affix in a certain position in the paradigm. Stage 2: The original reason for the absence of the affix in these words becomes obscured. The absence is thus now subject to reanalysis. Stage 3: If the affix that occurs in this position in the paradigm in some other class of words happens to be phonetically similar or identical to the segments at the relevant edge of the stem in some of the words lacking the affix, then the absence of the affix may be reinterpreted as haplology in these words. 12

The fact that ge- haplologizes with steins beginning in both g- and k- and that the next segment in the stem can be any vowel (and perhaps occasionally even another sonorant, although see the discussion of kriegen below) makes this an instance of "partial-identity" as opposed to "total-identity" haplology in de Lacy's typology. De Lacy and others show that partial-identity haplology is cross-linguistically very common.

139 Stage 4: Once such a reanalysis has occurred, lexical items which originally had the affix may lose it as haplology is extended to words that were not among the group that lacked the affix before the reanalysis. The case at hand is a good example of this kind of development. The prefixless participle of the high-frequency verb kommen was clearly a prime candidate for reanalysis as haplology after speakers' feeling for the original connection between the ge- prefix and "perfective" semantics had been lost. The occasional prefixless forms of geben would have strengthened the case for such a reanalysis, and können may have also played a role, not only because of the prefixless Scheininfinitiv, but also because many dialects have regular weak prefixless participles for all the modal verbs (Schirmunski 1962:517; Keller 1961:275). This is another good illustration of Andersen's abductive-deductive (1973; 1980) model of language change (see §3.1 and §3.2.4 above). The covert reanalysis of participial kommen as haplology occurs as part of the abductive acquisition process. This represents a significant change in grammar, as compared to the grammars of previous generations, but it may have no immediate consequences in output. The observable consequences come only after a subsequent deductive extension of haplology to participles that had previously had the prefix. The verb kriegen would appear to be somewhat problematic for this account. As mentioned above, this is the one new verb for which prefixless participles are found in parts of Ripuarian, one of the principal j- regions. It is also, in most dialects, the only prefixless item with another consonant after the stem-initial velar stop, thus increasing the degree of dissimilarity between the prefix and the stem segments with which the prefix supposedly coalesces. These apparent problems are largely cleared up, however, as soon as we look at the history of kriegen. In its modern colloquial sense as a synonym of bekommen, kriegen is a Central German/Low German/Dutch creation of the late Middle Ages (Bach 1978:18-9; DWB). It was virtually unknown in Upper German in ENHG times (Maier 1901:293) and is still foreign to the southern dialects (Kluge 1975). 13 Scholars are in general agreement that kriegen began life with a prefixless participle, although there is some debate over the reason for this. The crucial point for our purposes is that the prefixless participle of kriegen arose independently of those in the other g-/k- verbs. To summarize: Contrary to the standard account, the lexical distribution of prefixless participles in the syncopating Upper German dialects does not resemble the ENHG situation in any way. Reluctance to abandon the standard account might still be understandable if it were the best we could do, but ironically we find an astounding correspondence to the ENHG situation in precisely those dialects that the standard account disregards. Most nonsyncopating dialects (including those that have syncope before some or all continuants but not before stops and affricates) have prefixless participles for a small group of g-/k- verbs. The group of verbs that most often appear without the prefix in much of Central German and northern East Franconian matches the ENHG findings almost word-for-word: gehen, geben, kaufen, kriegen, and sometimes kosten, gelten, and kennen. An account of the loss of

13

Lessiak (1963:33) reports that the verb occurs in its modern sense and with the prefixless participle in Pernegg (Carinthia) but then is quick to add "[kriegen] (und damit auch seine flexion) scheint trotz seiner gegenwärtigen Verbreitung importiert zu sein. Die alten sagen dafür fast durchwegpakhömen bekommen."

140 the prefix in terms of reanalysis of the prefixless participle of the perfective verb kommen, perhaps along with those of geben and können, as morphological haplology answers the questions that the standard account begs. It explains why it is verbs with initial velar stops that lose the ge- prefix. It predicts the observed lexical idiosyncrasy, and it explains the remarkable geographic complementarity between the g-/k- prefixless participles and the development of initial g- to j-.

7.2.4 Syncope-induced loss of geN o w that we have determined which prefixless participles are not attributable to Upper German syncope, we can examine the remaining verbs with initial stops and affricates to determine the extent to which syncope, which we know to have been a feature of the spoken dialect of our writers, is reflected in their writing. Tables 7-8 through 7-10 show the usage of individual writers for this variable. In the earliest period, we see that prefixless forms are quite rare (Table 7-8). All 3 of the prefixless tokens from this period are of zogen (participle of ziehen). Writer

0-

ge-

%0-

Chancery U. Stromer N. Muffel L. Steinlinger J. Pfintzing J. Tetzel

0 2 1 0 0 0

rn 28 7 9 4 1

0% 7% 13% 0% 0% 0%

Total

3

199

1%

Table 7-8: ge- in preterite participle of verbs with initial stops and affricates, excluding bleiben, bringen, gehen, geben, greifen, kaufen, kehren, kommen, kosten, treffen, and zahlen, 1 3 5 6 - 1 4 7 0

In the middle period, the overall frequency of the prefixless forms rises considerably (Table 7-9). There is no clear social pattern. Each of the groups includes writers with relatively high and relatively low percentages of prefixless forms. A couple of numbers are suggestive, however. One is Katharina Lemlin's extraordinarily high proportion of prefixless tokens. We have seen with other variables, such as -0 in the 1st plural with immediately following pronominal subject (§4.5), that Lemlin often stands out with what appears to be extremely dialectal usage. Among the administrators, Christoph Scheurl has a relatively high percentage of prefixless tokens. This is reminiscent of the findings for -e/-0 variation discussed in Fertig 1994. Among the other men (excluding those with 5 or fewer tokens), Dürer and Deichsler have the highest percentage of prefixless tokens, which is again consistent with the hypothesis that the prefixless forms are a sign of strong dialect influence.

141 Writer Administrators: Chancery L. Spengler Ch. Scheurl W. Pirckheimer Other men: Michael Behaim A. Koberger A. Tucher A. Imhoff H. Imhoff Ch. Haller S. Örtel H. Deichsler A. Dürer Nuns and abbesses: Caritas Pirckheimer I Clara Pirckheimer F. Grundherr B. Holzschuer Hand A Hand B Hand C Hand D Hand 2 Lay women: K. Lemlin Margareta Behaim I Margareta Behaim II L. Letscher A. Behaim Total

0-

ge-

%0-

5 2 11 4

il 60 58 113

5% 3% 16% 3%

6 6 3 1 0 2 1 16 14

56 34 61 4 2 1 8 74 66

10% 15% 5% 20% 0% 67% 11% 18% 18%

0 2 1 0 2 0 7 0 2

8 11 11 2 23 9 60 30 15

0% 15% 8% 0% 8% 0% 10% 0% 12%

39 0 5 0 0 129

22 9 13 3 1 841

64% 0% 28% 0% 0% 13%

Table 7-9: ge- in preterite participle of verbs with initial stops and affricates, excluding bleiben, bringen, gehen, geben, greifen, kaufen, kehren, kommen, kosten, treffen, and zahlen, 1471-1543 In the final period, the overall percentage o f prefixless forms has again increased slightly, but it is now even more difficult to see any social pattern (Table 7-10). The extreme individual differences within a group, for example that between Hieronymus Paumgartner and Hieronymus Kreß or between Christoph Kreß and Welser, are remarkable. Magdalena Paumgartner's very high percentage of prefixless tokens, however, adds some further support to the view that this is a sign o f heavy influence from the local dialect.

142 Writer Men: Chancery B. Paumgartner W. Imhoff H. Paumgartner H. Kreß Ölhafen S. Praun H. Sachs J. Paumgartner (students:) P. Behaim Ch. Kreß Welser Women: M. Paumgartner Mag. Behaim Total

0-

ge-

%0-

2 7 4 0 25 1 11 2 0

96 99 70 33 24 36 34 4 2

2% 7% 5% 0% 51% 3% 24% 33% 0%

3 0 24

22 86 77

12% 0% 24%

45 3

89 14

34% 18%

127

686

16%

Table 7-10: ge- in preterite participle o f verbs with initial stops and affricates, excluding bleiben, bringen, gehen, geben, greifen, kaufen, kehren, kommen, kosten, treffen, and zahlen, 1544—1619

In the modern dialect of Nuremberg, as in most Upper German dialects, the prefix ge- is always absent before stops and affricates (Eberl 1944:89-90, map 23).14

7.3 Chapter summary

This chapter has examined a number of issues related to the absence of the ge- prefix on past participles. In §7.1, I show that, while there was already a clear tendency in the Nuremberg texts to follow the modern practice of omitting the prefix on all -ier- verbs, participles of these verbs with ge- do occasionally occur, and the presence of the prefix is phonologically conditioned by the stem-initial segment, just as it is with other verbs. The topic of greatest interest in this chapter is the frequent absence of the prefix in a small group of verbs with stem-initial velar stops. Previous scholars have nearly always attributed this absence to Upper German syncope. In §7.2.2, I present evidence from the Nuremberg texts which shows clearly that this is not a general phonological phenomenon but rather affects only a small number of verbs with initial g- and k-, while all other verbs beginning with these consonants behave just like verbs with initial dental and labial stops. In §7.2.3, I then show that the Nuremberg findings are entirely consistent with data from

14

Gebhardt (1907:121; cf. also Koch 1917:84) claims that the prefix leaves a trace in Nuremberg by causing fortition of an originally lenis stem-initial stop, as it does in some conservative Central Bavarian dialects (Kranzmayer 1956:85-6, map 19; Schirmunski 1962:516, 166-9). Eberl ( 1 9 4 4 : 3 6 - 7 ) points out, however, that this is just another case of Gebhardt hearing a fortis-lenis distinction that is simply not there (cf. notes 1 and 29 in Chapter 5 above).

143 other varieties of ENHG and many modern dialects and that the available evidence leaves no doubt that the absence of the prefix on the participles of verbs such as gehen, geben, kaufen, and kosten in ENHG had nothing to do with Upper German syncope but resulted instead from an earlier development involving morphological haplology. I discuss several existing attempts to account for morphological haplology within a variety of theoretical frameworks. I also show that the haplology of the ge- participle prefix arose historically through reanalysis and propose that this may in fact be a frequent diachronic source of morphological haplology. Finally, in §7.2.4, I present the Nuremberg findings for those cases of prefixless participles which are attributable to Upper German syncope. General absence of the prefix in verbs beginning with oral stops and affricates is a feature of most modern Upper German dialects, including that of Nuremberg, and the findings from the texts suggest that those writers who omit the prefix most often in this environment tend to be those whose usage is closest to the local dialect.

8 Sociolinguistic variation and its relation to change

8.1 Variation in the Nuremberg texts

In a study such as this one, whose primary focus is diachronic change, it is not possible to examine the social distribution of every variable in depth. The data presented here, however, does give us a broad overview of variation in verbal inflection in a large collection of texts. Such an overview is rare in variationist studies, which typically look at a single variable or a small group of related variables. There is often a tacit assumption that any variable can be taken as representative of the general pattern of variation for a given speech community, even though studies have shown that different variables can show very different sociolinguistic patterning (e.g. Milroy 1999). The present study suggests that we should be much more cautious in drawing general conclusions from the patterns observed for any single variable since we see that some variables display quite idiosyncratic social patterns, while other patterns show up repeatedly across a number of variables. Considering only the middle period (1471-1543), where we have the most material and the most social diversity, one pattern—with minor variations—appears again and again. The most constant element in this pattern is the opposition between the chancery and the administrators, on the one hand, and the women, on the other. This opposition can be observed for most of the variables that show any kind of social pattern at all in the middle period, including: sein-sind-sin/sen for the 1st and 3rd plural present of sein (§4.4); the 1st plural ending with immediately following pronominal subject (§4.5); u-o in kommen and genommen (§5.1.1.3); u-o in können and in the present tense of mögen (§5.1.4); and u-a/o in the preterite participle of tun (§5.1.6). In Fertig 1994, I discuss a number of other phenomena that follow exactly the same pattern of social variation, including -el-0 (apocope) in the 1st singular present indicative, present subjunctive and preterite subjunctive; wirdwirdet for the 3rd singular present indicative of werden; and syncope of the connecting vowel in the weak preterite participles. The behavior of the non-administrator males is less predictable from variable to variable. The most consistent writers are, on the one hand, Michael Behaim, who sides with the administrators on all the above-mentioned variables except wird-wirdet and the connecting vowel in the weak preterite participle, and on the other hand, Albrecht Dürer, Heinrich Deichsler and Andreas Imhoff. Dürer and Deichsler side with the women on all variables except the preterite participle of tun, where we saw that their usage may involve hypercorrection, while Imhoff sides with them on all but mögen and können, where he has very few tokens. With the database and the types of analysis used in this study, it is not possible to make any strong claims regarding the social meaning of the patterns summarized above. I will limit myself here to a few relevant observations and some hypotheses. One reasonable hypothesis is that the observed social patterns have a great deal to do with education. Specifically, we could propose that the observed differences in linguistic usage are due to the fact that some writers had extensive training aimed at mastering a vari-

145 ety of written German that was relatively far removed from the local dialect of Nuremberg, while others had no such training. The second part of this hypothesis leaves a question open, however. If a writer's usage is relatively close to the Nuremberg dialect, does this mean that s/he was explicitly taught to write using dialectal forms, or does the dialect simply shine through because s/he had relatively little education and therefore had no choice but to rely heavily on his/her native spoken language in deciding what spellings and forms to use? In other words, were there two traditions of German-language education in Nuremberg, one which used a relatively local-based written model and another which included more non-local features, or was there just one tradition, in which case relatively strong dialectal traits simply reflect a lack of mastery of this model, presumably resulting from a relatively brief education? Arguments can be made in support of both of these positions. In support of the second possibility (that dialectal features indicate a lack of mastery of the target written language), it is undoubtedly true that many of the writers whose usage is closest to the Nuremberg dialect had relatively little schooling. We know, for example, that patrician girls had much less schooling than their brothers, about three to four years less on average (Ebert 1998:112). Beer (1990:341) tells us that the education of girls "beschränkte sich auf Grundkenntnisse im Lesen, Schreiben und Rechnen sowie auf das Erlernen haushälterischer Tätigkeiten." The most obvious difference between the schooling of boys and girls was the fact that girls were excluded from the Latin school, which was the first school attended by most patrician boys. According to Ebert (1998:110), however, the Latin school had no influence on written German usage. Of much greater relevance may have been the fact that the largest, most prestigious German schools also appear to have been restricted to boys, while the girls were forced to attend smaller, less respected schools (Ebert 1998:112). I return to this point below. What little we know about Albrecht Dürer's schooling indicates that it did not go much beyond basic literacy either. Dürer writes in his Familienchronik: Darumb ließ mich mein vater in die schull gehen, und da ich schreiben und lessen gelernet, namb er mich wider aus der schull (Rupprich 1956:30; cf. Koller 1989:24-5).'

As mentioned in §2.1.1, Dürer is the only writer from the middle period who was not from an honorable or patrician family. His father was a goldsmith. Although the possibility of an extensive education was apparently not closed to a boy from such a background (cf. LippiGreen 1994:26-9), it is likely that his father simply saw no need for anything beyond rudimentary training in reading and writing. We unfortunately know nothing whatsoever about Heinrich Deichsler's education (cf. Hegel 1874a:536-40; Kurras 1984). 2 In the case of Andreas Imhoff, however, there is every indication that he was quite well educated (Imhoff 1984). This brings us to the second possibility: that dialectal traits in a person's writing do not necessarily represent a lack of education but rather a different educational tradition, and in particular a different target for the written language. As mentioned above, girls did not attend the most prestigious German

1

The Familienchronik is not included in the collection of texts from which data was taken because the copy that has survived is not in Dürer's hand.

2

Van der Eist (1989:202) writes that Deichsler "hat vermutlich lediglich eine Schriebschule besucht". He offers no source for this information, however, and it is apparently pure speculation.

146 schools, and it seems likely that the same tended to be true of non-patrician males. We know that writing instruction in the most respected schools included the copying of both local and non-local chancery documents (Ebert 1998:111-2). Hieronymus Koler relates in his autobiography that his father sent him to Johannes Neudorffer's Teutsche schule specifically to learn "cantzleischs schreiben" (Amburger 1931:213^1; Beer 1990:329). There is apparently no evidence one way or the other on the use of chancery documents in the lesser schools that were open to girls, but since the pupils at these schools were certainly not being prepared for work in city administration, it is reasonable to assume that the copying of such documents was not part of their education (Ebert 1998:179). Koch (1909:153-4) calls the written language of Magdalena Paumgartner "ein Denkmal Nürnberger Mundart aus alter Zeit", but he argues that the reason she wrote this way was not because she was transferring her native spoken language directly to writing but rather because she had explicitly learned to write this way in school. 3 He offers several pieces of evidence to support this claim. First of all, he points out that her spelling, though strikingly "non-standard", is very consistent. The implication is that more variation would be expected if she was simply writing the way she spoke. Secondly, he argues that since Magdalena was constantly exposed to her husband Balthasar's language in his letters, we might expect her to try to imitate his usage if she saw it as an appropriate model for herself. There is absolutely no sign of his usage having any influence on her, however. Thirdly, and perhaps most importantly, he notes that—especially in the vocalism—Magdalena's spellings do not reflect the Nuremberg dialect of her own day, but rather an earlier stage of that dialect (1909:154, note 11). Another point to consider in this connection is the usage of the nuns and abbesses. Some of these women, such as Caritas and Clara Pirckheimer, were extraordinarily highly educated (Deichstetter 1984; Pickel 1913:206-7; Pfanner 1966:190). Little explicit information is available concerning the education of girls in the Klarakloster, but the anonymous nuns from whom we have so much material were clearly well trained and had a great deal of experience in writing German. The fact that all of the Klarakloster women resemble each other so closely in their forms and spellings is further evidence that they were trained to write using a specific model. It is actually quite surprising that among the variables discussed in this study the usage of the Klarakloster women usually corresponds to that of the lay women, with the only notable

3

We are fortunate to have a little bit of direct information on Magdalena's schooling from the household accounts kept by her father. In an entry for Sept. 25, 1559, when Magdalena would have been four years old, he reports making a payment to a Lehrfrau (see note 6 in Chapter 2 above), "der Schurstabi aufm spittelkirchhof, fur 1 quottemer [quarter year] fur die Madlin [Magdalena] und Sabina [Magdalena's younger sister] zu lernen". Nine months later, on June 12, 1560, an entry relates a payment to "dem schulmaister von meinen zwayen maidlein Madlin und Sabina", indicating that the two girls now had a male teacher. Ebert (1998:83) identifies this teacher as Peter Scherdinger. A similar payment is recorded for September 7, 1563. Finally, on August 20, 1564, Magdalena's father reports that he bought her a "rechenpuchlein". Ebert reports that at this point the two girls spent six months with the arithmetic teacher Adam Strobel, after which their formal education apparently ended when Magdalena was 10 years old and Sabina 9. The entries related to the schooling of Magdalena's younger brother Paulus (Paulus Behaim, whose texts were also used in this study) are much more numerous (cf. Ebert 1998:112; Kamann 1888:122-9; Beer 1990:330-1).

147 exception being the 1st and 3rd plural present of sein (§4.4). There are striking contrasts between them on other linguistic levels. A number of phonological/orthographic features that are characteristic of the lay women's usage, for example, are never to be found in the material from the nuns. The confusion between g and ch discussed in §5.2.1 above is one of the best examples of this. Of course the two possibilities concerning education are not necessarily mutually exclusive. It could be that all children were first taught to write a relatively dialektnahe variety of German and that only those who went on to more advanced schooling were then given training in a less local variety.

8.2 T h e relationship between variation and change

When I first began working with the Nuremberg data, I was firmly convinced that variation and change were two sides of the same coin. I thought I was embarking on a study of variation as "change in progress". Instead, I found that many phenomena show either clear patterns of variation or clear evidence of change over time but not both. In the case of those aspects of verbal inflection that do show some kind of change over time in addition to sociolinguistic variation, the change often involves a shift in the social distribution of the variants, as we saw, for example, in the cases of sein-sind (§4.4) and gewest-gewesen (§6.3.1), rather than the straightforward replacement of an old form with an innovation, which is what we generally see in those cases of change for which no pattern of social variation can be discerned (cf. Milroy 1992:16-8, 136-45). It is true that when a change runs its course in a very short time, we must have a large amount of data from the brief period when the change is in progress in order to be able to detect whatever patterns of variation might have existed. Such data is very hard to come by. With the texts used in this study, it is only possible to detect social variation for variables that are relatively stable over several decades. It is also true, however, that the earlier view equating variation with change in progress is now obsolete. As Labov puts it (1989:87): From the beginning of current sociolinguistic studies, many scholars have sought to add a dynamic dimension to their linguistic descriptions. Changes in progress were actively pursued, and many students of variation found change where there was none to find. Some proposed that every variable represented a change in progress [...]. These ambitions were quickly defeated as it became apparent that stable variables [...] were the normal case: that unstable ones were relatively rare.

When a change does occur, there must of course be some kind of variation associated with it. The only alternative would entail all members of a speech community adopting an innovation simultaneously, which is clearly absurd. That the variation associated with a change must always carry social meaning, however, is not self-evident. It is conceivable that in many cases of relatively rapid change no social significance becomes attached to the competing forms in the brief period during which they co-exist. This may be especially likely in cases of morphological change when analogical forces or factors such as system congruity strongly favor the innovation over the older form.

148 The relationship between sociolinguistic variation and diachronic change is just one of many issues in historical linguistics that calls for further research. I have touched on a number of others in the preceding chapters, and I hope I have convinced the reader of the potential value of studies that start with the exploratory analysis of databases drawn from large collections of historical texts. Milroy (1992:54, 132) and Labov (1972:100-2) are right to point out the inherent difficulties of working with written data from the past, but if our primary interest is understanding language change, there are equally great difficulties with data collected from present-day speech communities. Labov (1994:28-9; 43-112) explains that inferring diachronic change from apparent-time patterns is very problematic, while real-time (longitudinal) data on change is usually unattainable in conventional variationist studies. The quantity and diversity of written material from times and places like early modern Nuremberg, along with modem techniques and technologies for managing and analyzing such large amounts of data, offer us a unique and invaluable perspective on language change.

Appendix A: Verb frequency list

The following list gives the frequency o f occurrence o f the verbs in the Nuremberg texts. All prefixed verbs are included with the basic verb from which they are derived. Thus, the frequency for kommen includes bekommen, entkommen, hinkommen, ankommen, etc. If a verb can only occur in a prefixed form, it is listed in that form. Verbs are normally listed in their Modern Standard German spelling. Those that no longer exist in the modern standard are listed in italics in their MHG or ENHG form. sein haben werden wollen sollen lassen kommen tun schreiben geben nehmen wissen gehen mögen können halten machen sehen sagen schicken stehen zahlen müssen bitten (be, emp)fehlen ziehen bringen fangen hören liegen zeigen kaufen richten bleiben legen (ge-, be)schehen finden nennen

10440 9522 3798 3648 2407 2100 1995 1995 1808 1668 1606 1526 1220 1143 1078 1028 985 940 918 894 894 761 721 687 631 630 603 578 576 548 487 468 465 439 438 428 422 418

sterben reiten denken schlagen grüssen helfen fahren setzen hoffen tragen folgen fuhren fallen meinen stellen schenken sprechen dürfen begehren bieten heißen zehren melden reden leihen antworten wegen lesen senden handeln teilen suchen heben kennen essen langen danken kosten ('cost')

412 403 397 381 367 352 335 335 334 331 319 306 303 301 298 296 296 285 283 282 274 274 273 271 259 254 252 250 245 232 212 200 197 197 177 176 166 165

150 dienen schaffen warten graben beschweren weisen ehren fordern/fördern raten trinken achten laden binden hauen lehren sorgen laufen rechnen schließen treiben ordnen brauchen gewinnen brechen hängen glauben greifen wenden treffen gebären/entbehren leiden sitzen wünschen brennen loben hüten bauen fragen kehren schneiden leben vergolden vergessen mahnen klagen lernen hangen stechen freuen rühren dünken drücken/drucken

160 158 150 148 148 148 141 137 137 137 136 136 134 133 132 131 129 128 126 122 121 118 116 115 115 113 113 113 112 111 111 110 HO 109 108 107 100 100 100 99 98 94 93 93 92 92 91 90 89 89 88 87

merken trauen scheiden gebühren ruhen scheinen gönnen zeichnen bessern singen werfen fügen zählen verlieren schwören strafen predigen schießen messen dingen (be-, entschuldigen decken gelten malen reisen rufen eilen reißen besichtigen arbeiten werben währen harren holen studieren wehren schätzen beten fertigen lösen stoßen springen gestatten zeihen wahren zweifeln fliehen wundern reichen treten trösten leiten/begleiten

87 87 86 85 85 81 80 80 77 76 76 74 74 72 68 68 67 64 62 60 58 55 55 55 55 55 54 54 53 52 52 52 51 51 51 50 49 48 48 48 48 47 46 46 45 45 44 43 42 42 42 41

wählen ändern fassen neigen tränken beichten sparen trüben urteilen lieben schreien wohnen enden noten sperren wachsen verderben (strong) gießen künden säumen dringen mangeln ratschlagen taidingen bergen heiraten erlauben trachten fürchten futtern schmähen spüren schweigen steigen stehlen erbarmen hulden rücken befleißen begegnen irren lauten pflegen üben verursachen bewilligen hindern kiesen entleiben weinen flicken schrecken

41 40 40 40 40 39 39 39 39 37 37 37 36 36 36 36 35 35 35 35 34 34 34 33 32 32 32 32 31 31 31 31 30 30 30 29 29 29 28 28 28 28 28 28 28 28 27 27 27 27 26 26

winden drohen fechten köpfen spielen stecken brinnen kümmern genießen regieren schädigen tanzen advociren leisten vermuten sinnen supplizieren wechseln würken ziemen drängen dulden gründen leinen öffnen schlafen stimmen strecken fehlen kündigen bescheren fegen kriegen regnen schonen warnen zwingen fließen entledigen reuen schmecken ständigen taufen gedeihen gleichen morden nähen genügen/begnügen rauben stiften wunden zeugen

26 25 25 24 24 24 23 23 23 23 23 23 22 22 22 22 22 22 22 22 21 21 21 21 21 21 21 21 20 20 20 19 19 19 19 19 19 18 18 18 18 18 18 17 17 17 17 17 17 17 17 17

152 disputieren schieben streichen weichen zünden büßen verderben (weak) feiern füllen läuten lohnen rinnen rühmen schelten schützen trügen wachen weigern wandern kleiden krönen mehren opfern sehenden sieden sondern willfahren befremden leugnen prozedieren schleifen gewöhnen verargen begaben götzen haften mauern mühen genesen erobern pfänden pflichten purgieren räumen tasten behändigen kochen rüsten schmieren schulden spazieren stören

16 16 16 16 16 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 13 13 13 13 13 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 11 11 11 11 11 11 11

stricken stürzen visieren weihen wüsten anden benedeien blasen deuten herbergen inventieren jagen lügen meiden quittieren reiten (=rechnen) recken regen sammeln schiffen schmelzen segnen siegeln taugen tradieren urlauben walten waschen zechen einen betteln fasten begünstigen handhaben lehnen leuchten liefern neuen nötigen nutzen praktizieren protestieren rechten schaben schauen speisen bestätigen stillen streiten sühnen/versöhnen trennen turren

11 11 11 11 11 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9

weihen würdigen baden beiten borgen korrigieren färben fluchen erinnern löschen lästern begnaden verneinen pflastern plündern besamen schämen scheren ('schear') säen stärken sticken streifen wecken approbieren bleichen verdammen ärgern formen hobeln illuminieren letzen mischen preisen reinigen reitzen referieren retten rundieren scheuchen schwellen seren dauern ('leid tun') wölben werten wischen zanken zürnen absolvieren appellieren blenden erben frieren

11 9 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 6 6 6 6 6

heizen hausen hofen husten küssen lachen lidern plagen rennen schätzen schirmen senken spalten sprießen stracken stürmen sülzen vexieren visitieren vergewissern eischen backen breiten bremen zitieren dichten verdrießen faulen firnisen fliegen fristen giften gurgeln heften hetzen judizieren klauben klecken kürzen längern mustern pfeifen radebrechen rächen berüchtigen schaden Scharmützeln schneien schütten sichern sinken spannen

6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5

154 spinnen streben töten verunglimpfen wagen verwarlosen weissen würgen zagen zerren agieren bilden bürgen communizieren dedizieren dörren glasen hacken hassen instituieren klären knien kreischen laben legem längen belästigen mandiren mindern modeln müßigen bemuttern nahen peinigen probieren prognostizieren rechtfertigen reformieren reuten saufen schmitzen schwitzen sättigen säufen solden spitzen spotten stocken vergewaltigen wesen widern willen

5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4

würzen eignen einigen braten brauen putzen kollationieren konfirmieren dursten/dürsten äugen exequieren fällen befestigen flechten forschen freien fressen frommen gaumen beginnen gleißen glühen greinen grubein heilen beherzigen heulen hofieren inkorporieren juchzen kämpfen kränken kreutzigen kriechen krümmen kuppeln landen linieren losen anmaßen mästen nagen narren netzen erneuern erörtern petschieren reimen repetieren salzen schliefen schmücken

4 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3

schrauben schwingen verspäten sprengen sprossen steuern stützen tilgen trocknen tünchen wandeln weilen weinen ('serve wine') wässern würfeln würzein zimmern beeidigen arguieren arzeneien bankettieren bannen beißen beneßciren betten beuten biegen verbittern blozen brandschatzen buchen burschiren posaunen confederiren consuliren konterfeien kontrahieren datieren deponieren deposiren eindeutschen drosseln drumern dunkeln dutzen empören ernten ätzen ereignen examinieren fischen fretten

3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2

fundieren furiren geißeln glimpfen handlangem harnaschen herrschen erhöhen kapiteln karbaliren erkälten kiefen klopfen ködern kosen kratzen kredenzen kräftigen lagern löschen verleumden leunen gelingen löchern lusten meistern martern mengen musieren nachten nageln nähren ordinieren passieren presentieren publizieren punktieren quellen rappen rasten rezitieren renovieren revidieren ringern rollen sachen säubern schälen schellen schöpfen schärfen schleißen

2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2

156 schleppen schlichten schlottern schnitzen schrepfen schroten schuppen schwatzen schwenken schwärzen sengen sequestrieren siegen staffieren statuieren streifen sudeln Sünden tadeln träumen trauern düngen walzen wappnen bewähren wickeln wirken bewirten zabeln zieren zielen zollen akkordieren ackern affektionieren veralten ahnen apostatiren argwöhnen arrestieren vereinbaren benedizieren blitzein blocken blümen bluten bohren verbriefen bücken kassieren collatiren colligiren

2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

commendiren komponieren concordiren condemniren konsekrieren konsentieren konspirieren kopieren kurieren dachen darben deklarieren dämpfen deputieren derogieren derren desperiren verdauen donnern doppeln dotieren duplizieren eichen verehelichen erzen äugeln äußern exzipieren expedieren befeinden fiedern flehen befleißigen flotzen flügeln formieren befreunden freveln befriedigen fronen begatten ergänzen gerben vergeuden gilben gittern glitzeln vergrössern gürten hadern hageln heiligen

157 halsen härmen hecheln heckein heien hellen heuen höhnen horchen hungern hupfen injungieren inquirieren inscribieren ihrzen jammern jehen jähren jubilieren jucken keimen kitzeln kleinern kleben kleiben klingen knüpfen kolbeln kollern kosten ('taste') kratzein kreißen laugen leiben leimen lähmen lenden lochen locken logieren gelubden gemaheln marken melancolisiren mentiren mildern vermitteln mucken murren muscheln namen nemmen

nibeln vernichtigen nieten nistein numerieren ölen operieren packen permutieren pflanzen pflügen postieren prellen pressen privilegieren prüfen quicken rainen reitein rasen ratifizieren recordiren registrieren regulieren reiben reifen rändeln replizieren reren resolvieren restringieren räuspern rügen rumoren rümpfen rupfen sacken seifen sargen satteln sausen scharen scheißen scheiten schiften schinden schmälern schmarotzen schnauden schneuzen schnüren schnurren

158 schrämen schwächen schwärmen schwindeln schwinden schwürmen säbeln sägen senftern versippen sohlen spiegeln sprenkeln spülen sputzen steinen steppen stinken stopfen streimen strelen strengen streuen stumßren sündigen schwenden tarrassen tauen ('thaw') tauschen taxieren tagen täuschen transfiguriren tripliciren tropfen tummeln tunken turbieren turnen tuschen twahen ungelten erweitern wärmen widmen wipfeln verwirren wittern wüten zadeln zaubern zäumen

zäumen bezichtigen zicken verzinnen verzinsen zittern zucken entzweien zwängen zwinzen

Appendix B: Sample lines from data tables

1 10725 10724 10723 10722 10721 10720 10719 10718

2 2742 8243 8242 27 813 2839 2894 2881

3 4 0 4

4

5 1

6

7 1

7 1

5

1 0

3 4 4

1 0

1 1

Sample entries from the token-specific data table. Key: Column J_=token number; 2=form number (for join with form data table); 3=person/number (l-3=singular, 4-6=plural, O=non-finite); 4=tense (l,2=present, 3=ambiguous, 4,5=preterite); 5=mood (l,2=indicative, 3=ambiguous, 4,5=subjunctive, 6=imperative, 7=infmitive, 9=participle); (3-5 can be blank if form is unambiguous.); 6=attributive? (for participles only, 0=no, l=yes); 7=pronominal subject immediately follows? (for 1st plural only). 1 395 394 383 382 381 378 377 376 375 374

2 59 12 6 93 34 129 2 41 9 128

4 1 2 1 1 2 2 2 1 1 1

3 3 7 2 7 0 0 7 7 2 7

5 1 5 1 5 4 4 5 5 1 5

6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

7 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 1

8 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0

9 s m b tr g w h k n m

10 i o/i y u/i a a e o/i i e

11 h eh b ng g nn mb rck

il ett tt st enn n tt tt en st e

13

M

en u

e u

li sihett mo/ichtten bystu betru/ibenn ergangnen gewagtt hette ko/innen nimbstu vermercke

Sample entries from the form data table. Key: Column !=form number; 2=stem number (for join with stem data table); 3=person/number (same as above, 7=ambiguous); 4=tense (l=present, 2=preterite, 3=ambiguous); 5=mood (Vindicative; 2=subjunctive; 3=imperative; 4=participle; 5=ambiguous, 6=infinitive); 6=separable prefix? (0=no, l=yes); 7=unseparable prefix?; 8=inflectional ge-1 9=steminitial consonant; 10=stem vowel; 1 l=stem-final consonant 12= 1 st inflectional suffix 13=2nd inflectional suffix; 14=enclitic subject pronoun; 15=word as it appear in text. 1 68 67 65 64 63 59 58 57 55

2 64 63 61 60 59 55 54 53 51

3 3 5 7 8 8 5 8 8 9

4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6 0

6 h b 1 m m s r br m

7 e i a e a e i i u

8 lf tt ss ld eh h cht ng ss

9 helf bitt lass meld mach seh rieht bring muss

Sample entries from the stem data table. Key: Column l=stem number; 2=lemma number (for join with lemma data table); 3=class (l-7=strong, 8=weak, 9=preterite present); 4=subclass; 5=etymological source (l=German, 2=foreign); 6=stem-initial consonant; 7=stem vowel; ^ s t e m final consonant; 9=stem.

160 1 64 63 61 60 59 55 54 53 51

2 helfen bitten lassen melden machen sehen richten bringen müssen

Sample entries from the lemma data table. Key: Column I=lemma number; 2=lemma.

1 241 242 243 244 245 246 247 248 249 250 251

009 009 009 009 027 027 055 044 007 037 888

2 009 009 009 009 027 027 055 044 007 037 888

3 1523 1523 1523 1523 1507 1475 1532 1524 1513 1395 1376

4 y y y y y y y y y y y

5 1523 1523 1523 1523 1507 1475 1532 1524 1513 1395 1376

6 y y y y y y y y y n y

1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 3 1 1

7 5 5 2 2 8 3 3 1 1 2 2

2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2

1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

3 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

8 2 2 2 2 1 1 1 1 3 1 3

9 b b b b m m m f m b b

b b b b y y y y y y y

n n n n n n n y y n n

1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

10 RUPP69 RUPP69 RUPP69 RUPP69 LOOS 1877 LOOS1877 MGN1906 PFEIFF68 REICKE5 6 CFSN1 CFSN1

U 166 166 168 197 51 172 96 306 304 25 130

12 I.D.Nrl I.D.Nr2 I.D.Nr3 I.D.Nrl4 1507 1475 1532 Br78 284 I I.Blgll.

Sample entries from sty I istic/text-speci fic data table. Key: Column i=text number; 2=hand number (for join with social/biographical data table); 3=year of composition; 4=year in 3 certain within 5 yrs?; 5=year written down; 6=year in 5 certain within 5 yrs?; 7=text type (l=letter, 2=essay/report, 3=diary, 4=creative, 5=book part, 6=summary, 7=notes, scribbles, 8=bookkeeping records, 12=Ratsverlafi, \3=Urkunde); 8=Capacity in which the author wrote this text (l=personal, 2=professional, 3=official); 9=audience gender; KMsource of material; JJ.=starting page; J_2=text identification. (Unnumbered columns were not used in this study.)

1 Spengler duerer scheurl pirck-w sachs-h paumg-bl

2 007 009 055 005 023 013

3 1479 1471 1481 1470 1494 1551

4 02 04 01 01 07 05

5 06 03 02 12 06 00

6 Spengler, Lazarus Duerer, Albrecht Scheurl, Christoph Pirckheimer, Willibald Sachs, Hans Paumgartner, Balthasar (I)

Sample entries from social/biographical data table. Key: Column i=abbreviated name; 2=hand number; 3=year of birth; 4=primary occupation; 5=secondary occupation; 6=full name.

Appendix C: Text sources

Behaim, Appolonia. Kamann 1881, no. 7, 14. Behaim, Hans. Kamann 1894, no. 6. Behaim, Klara. Kamann 1894, no. 4. Behaim, Magdalena. Kamann 1888, all entries by Magdalena are identified in the footnotes; ms. letter to son Friedrich dated 16 August 1578, Behaim Family Archives, Germanic National Museum. Behaim, Margareta I. Kamann 1881, no. 6, 10, 15, 18, 19, 22, 28, 30, 33, 37, 39, 40, 47, 49, 52, 55, 57, 63. Behaim, Margareta II. Kamann 1881, no. 3, 13, 22, 23, 24, 31, 42, 43, 56, 62, 65, 66; Kamann 1894, no. 5, 7, 9, 12, 14, 17,21,22, 23, 28. Behaim, Michael. Kamann 1881, no. 2, 9, 11, 12, 16, 21, 25, 26, 27, 29, 35, 36, 38, 41, 45, 46, 50, 51, 54, 60, 64, 67, 68. Kamann 1894, no. 1, 8, 10, 11,15, 20, 27. Behaim, Paulus (II). Loose 1880. Chancery. Müller 1968, facsimile on p. X; Hirschmann 1976, no. 5, 46-76; Hampe 1897; Kamann 1880a; 1880b; Mummenhoff 1888a; 1888b; 1888c; 1889; Pfeiffer 1968, Ratschlag 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 7a, 9, 10, 11, 13, 14, letters 39, 42, 43, 51, 85, 107; Dieselhorst 1953, all indented material in main text and all of appendices 1 and 2; Hegel 1862a, Beilage II. 1, 2, Beilage III.2, Beilage IV.A.2, 3, 5-8, 10, 11, 13-15, B . l - 7 , 9 - 1 2 , Beilage VI. 1-3; Hegel 1862b, Beilage V . l - 7 , Beilage VI, Beilage VII. 1-2, Beilage VIII, Beilage X, Beilage XI. 1, Beilage XII, Beilage XIII. 1-3, Beilage XIV. 1-2, Beilage XV; Hegel 1864a, Beilage I, Beilage III. 1-7, Beilage IV; Hegel 1864b, Beilage II, Beilage III; Hegel 1864c, Beilage III.3, Beilage V.2; Hegel 1874b, Beilagen, p. 759, 760, 7 6 1 , 7 6 2 Deichsler, Heinrich. Hegel 1874a, entries for 1488, 1489, 1490, 1492, 1494, 1496, 1498, 1500, 1502, 1504, 1506. Dürer, Albrecht. Rupprich 1956, Gedenkbuch and letters no. 25, 29, 30, 32, 39, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 53; Rupprich 1966, II.B.Nr.11.1 (p. 137), II.B.Nr.11.2 (p. 139), II.B.Nr.13.4 (p. 144), II.C.2.a.2.Nr5.1 (p.295); Rupprich 1969, I.D.Nrl (p.166), I.D.Nr2 (p.166), I.D.Nr3 (p.168), I.D.Nrl4 (p. 197). Grundherr, Felizitas. Grundherr 1859. Haller, Christoph. Kamann 1894, no. 24, 32, 35. Haller, Felizitas. Kamann 1894, note attached to no. 22. Haller, Hieronymus. Wuttke 1989, no. 459. Hand 2. Pfanner 1962, see Pfanner's Einleitung for exact breakdown by hands. Hand A. Pfanner 1962, see Pfanner's Einleitung for exact breakdown by hands; Pfanner 1966, no. 97, 103, 105. Hand B. Pfanner 1962, see Pfanner's Einleitung for exact breakdown by hands. Hand C. Pfanner 1962, see Pfanner's Einleitung for exact breakdown by hands. Hand D. Pfanner 1962, see Pfanner's Einleitung for exact breakdown by hands; Pfanner 1966, no. 95, 96, 99, 100, 101. Holzschuher, Brigitta. Kamann 1880c. Imhoff, Andreas. Kamann 1881, no. 48, 61; Kamann 1894, no. 3, 16, 19, 25, 30, 31, 34. Imhoff, Hans. Wuttke 1989, no. 564, 569. Imhoff, Willibald. Pohl 1992, excerpted. Koberger, Anton. Hase 1885, no. 2, 4, 6, 8, 11, 13, 15, 17, 20, 22, 24, 26, 28, 30, 32, 34, 36, 38, 44, 46, 48, 50, 54, 56, 59, 61, 64, 70, 76, 80, 84, 86, 88, 90, 92, 94, 96, 99, 101, 104. Kreß, Christoph. Kreß 1895. Kreß, Hieronymus. Loose 1881. Lemlin, Katharina. Kamann 1899; Kamann 1900. Letscher, Lucia. Kamann 1881, no. 4, 44, 53, 58; Kamann 1894, no. 13, 45, 47, 51. Muffel, Nicolaus. Hegel 1874b. Ölhafen, Hans. Bösch 1893; Kamann 1884.

162 Örtel, Sebald. Hampe 1896. Paumgartner, Balthasar. Steinhausen 1895, no. la, 1, 2, 3, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 13, 14, 16, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, note of receipt to 23, 25, note of receipt to 26, 27, 28, 31, 32, 35, 36, 38, 40, 41, 43, 47, 49, 51, 53, 55, 56, 60, 61, 66, 69, 70, 71, 73, 74, 76, 77, 79, 81, 82, 89, 92, 154, 155, 156, 158, 160, 161, 162, 164, 166, 169, 171, 172. Paumgartner, Balthasarj u n i o r . Steinhausen 1895, notes attached to 67 and 91. Paumgartner, Hieronymus. Caselmann 1865; Müller 1893, no. I, II, VII, IX. Paumgartner, Jörg. Steinhausen 1895, no. 46a. Paumgartner, Magdalena. Steinhausen 1895, note of receipt to 3, 5, 12, 15, 17, 23, 24, 26, 29, 30, 33, 34, 37, 39, 42, 44, 45, 46 (misnumbered as 45 in edition), 48, 50, 52, 54, 57, 58, 59, 62, 63, 64, 65, 67, 68, 72, 75, note of receipt to 76, 78, note of receipt to 79, 80, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88, 90, 91, 157, 159, 163, 165, 167, 168, 170. Pfintzing, Jörg. Kamann 1880d, only the first part of Pfintzing's travel journal is included because the rest was copied by him from another source. Pirckheimer, Caritas I. Pfanner 1962, insertions and marginalia on pp. IX, 79, 84, 85, 100, 104, 136; Pfanner 1966, no. 51,90, 102. Pirckheimer, Caritas II. Wuttke 1989, no. 513. Pirckheimer, Clara. Pfanner 1966, no. 107, 108, 111, 112, 114, 115, 117, 119, 120, 125, 129, 130, 133, 135, 136, 138. Pirckheimer, Willibald. Hase 1885, no. 115, 118; Rupprich 1956, letters no. 64, 137; Reicke 1940, no. 15; Reicke 1956, no. 310, 324; Wuttke 1968; Wuttke 1989, no. 414, 430, 511, 525, 542, 550, 552, 554. Praun, Stephan. Praun 1916; Praun 1917. Sachs, Hans. Hahn 1986, Schulzettel (facsimile); Drescher 1898, pp. 1-22, excluding lists of names and song titles. Scheurl, Christoph. Heerwagen 1906; Heide 1889, Beilage VIII; Mentz 1912, no. 4a (facsimile with transcription); Pfeiffer 1968, marginal note to Ratschlag 12, Ratschlag 22, letters no. 11, 13, 29; Soden and Knaake 1862 no. 239; Scheurl 1884, Beilage A; Löffelholz von Kolberg 1881. Spengler, Lazarus. Mayer 1830, no. I, II, III, IV, VI, VII, VIII, XXXIV; Pfeiffer 1968, Ratschlag 12, 56; Reicke 1956, no. 257, 279, 283, 284; Oohlau 1963/64, letters on pp. 241^1. Steinlinger, Lutz. Mummenhoff 1880. Stromer, Ulman. Hegel 1862a. Tetzel, Jobst. Hegel 1864c, Beilage III.2. Tucher, Anton. Loose 1877, excerpted. Welser, Sebald. Koenigs-Erffa 1955.

References

Alm, Erik (1936): Der Ausgleich des Ablauts im starken Präteritum der ostmitteldeutschen Schriftdialekte, vol. 1. - Uppsala: Appelberg. Amburger, Hannah S.M. (1931): Die Familiengeschichte der Koeler. - In: Mitteilungen des Vereins für Geschichte der Stadt Nürnberg 30, 153-279. Andersen, Henning (1973): Abductive and Deductive Change. - In: Language 49, 765-93. - (1974): Towards a Typology of Change: Bifurcating Changes and Binary Relations. - In: J.M. Anderson and C. Jones (eds.): Historical Linguistics II, 17-60. New York: American Elsevier (North-Holland Linguistic Series 12b = Proceedings of the First International Conference on Historical Linguistics, Edinburgh). - (1980): Morphological Change: Towards a Typology. - In: Jacek Fisiak (ed.): Historical Morphology, 1-50. New York: Mouton (Trends in Linguistics, Studies and Monographs 17). Anderson, Stephen R. (1982): Where's Morphology? - In: Linguistic Inquiry 13, 571-612. - (1988a): Morphological Change. - In: Frederick J. Newmeyer (ed.): Linguistics: The Cambridge Survey, vol. 1, 324-62. New York: Cambridge Univ. Press. - (1988b): Inflection. - In: Michael Hammond and Michael Noonan (eds.): Theoretical Morphology, 23-43. New York: Academic Press. - (1992): A-Morphous Morphology. - New York: Cambridge Univ. Press (Cambridge Studies in Linguistics 62). Anshen, Frank and Mark Aronoff (1988): Producing Morphologically Complex Words. - In: Linguistics 26, 641-55. Anttila, Raimo (1977): Analogy. - New York: Mouton. - (1985): Dynamics in Morphology. - In: Acta Linguistica Academiae Scientiarum Hungaricae 25, 3-30. - (1989): Historical and Comparative Linguistics, 2nd ed. - Philadelphia: Benjamins (Current Issues in Linguistic Theory 6). Aronoff, Mark (1976): Word Formation in Generative Grammar. - Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press (Linguistic Inquiry Monographs 1). - (1994): Morphology by Itself. - Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press. (Linguistic Inquiry Monographs 22). - (1998): Isomorphism and Monotonicity: Or the Disease Model of Morphology. - In: Steven G. Lapointe, Diane K. Brentari, and Patrick M. Farrell (eds.): Morphology and its Relation to Phonology and Syntax, 411-8. Stanford: CSLI Publications. Aronoff, Mark and Frank Anshen (1998): Morphology and the Lexicon: Lexicalization and Productivity. - In: Andrew Spencer and Arnold M. Zwicky (eds.): The Handbook of Morphology, 2 3 7 47. Maiden, Mass.: Blackwell. Augst, Gerhard (1975): Untersuchungen zum Morpheminventar der deutschen Gegenwartssprache. Tübingen: Narr (Forschungsberichte des Instituts fur deutsche Sprache Mannheim 25). Bach, Heinrich (1974): Handbuch der Luthersprache, vol. 1. - Kopenhagen: Gad. - (1978): Die Vorsilbe ge- im perf. part, bei Luther. - In: Hugo Moser, Heinz Rupp, and Hugo Steger (eds.): Deutsche Sprache: Geschichte und Gegenwart. Festschrift für Friedrich Maurer, 15-20. Bern: Francke. - (1985): Handbuch der Luthersprache, vol. 2. - Kopenhagen: Gad. Bahder, Karl von (1890): Grundlagen des neuhochdeutschen Lautsystems. - Straßburg: Trübner. Bailey, Charles-James N. (1972): The Integration of Linguistic Theory: Internal Reconstruction and the Comparative Method in Descriptive Analysis. - In: Robert P. Stockwell and Ronald K.S. Macaulay (eds.): Linguistic Change and Generative Theory, (Essays from the UCLA Conference on Historical Linguistics in the Perspective of Transformational Theory), 22-31. Bloomington: Indiana Univ. Press. Barba, Katharina (1982): Deutsche Dialekte in Rumänien. - Wiesbaden: Steiner (Zeitschrift fur Dialektologie und Linguistik, Beihefte 35).

164 Bauer, Erika (1957): Dialektgeographie im südlichen Odenwald und Ried. - Marburg: Elwert (Deutsche Dialektgeographie 43). Baur, Gerhard W. (1967): Die Mundarten im nördlichen Schwarzwald, Textband. - Marburg: Elwert (Deutsche Dialektgeographie 55a). Beam, C. Richard (1982): Pennsylvania German Dictionary. - Schaefferstown, Pennsylvania: Historie Schaefferstown, Inc. Beard, Robert (1995): Lexeme-Morpheme Base Morphology. - Albany: State University of New York Press. - (1998): Derivation. - In: Andrew Spencer and Arnold M. Zwicky (eds.): The Handbook of Morphology, 44-65. Maiden, Mass.: Blackwell. Becker, Thomas (1990): Analogie und morphologische Theorie. - Munich: Fink (Studien zur Theoretischen Linguistik 11). - (1994): Back-formation, Cross-formation, and 'Bracketing Paradoxes' in Paradigmatic Morphology. - In: Geert Booij and Jaap van Marie (eds.): Yearbook of Morphology 1993, 1-25. Boston: Kluwer. Beckmann, Werner (1990): Zur Geschichte der deutschen Modalverben. - In: Niederdeutsches Wort 30, 55-81. Beer, Mathias (1990): Eltern und Kinder des späten Mittelalters in ihren Briefen. - Nuremberg: Schriftenreihe des Stadtarchivs (Nürnberger Werkstücke zur Stadt- und Landesgeschichte 44). Behaghel, Otto (1928): Geschichte der deutschen Sprache, 5th ed. - Berlin: de Gruyter. (Grundriß der germanischen Philologie 3). Benua, Laura (1997): Transderivational Identity: Phonological Relations Between Words. - Unpublished doctoral diss., Univ. of Massachsetts, Amherst. (Rutgers Optimality Archive ROA-2590498, ) Beranek, Franz J. (1936): Die Mundart von Südmähren (Lautlehre). - Reichenberg: Anstalt fur Sudetendeutsche Heimatforschung/Sudetendeutscher Verlag Franz Kraus (Beiträge zur Kenntnis Sudetendeutscher Mundarten 7). Bergmann, Gunter (1965): Das Vorerzgebirgische. - Halle: Niemeyer (Mitteldeutsche Studien 27). - (1990): Upper Saxon. - In: Charles V.J. Russ (ed.): The Dialects of Modern German, 290-312. London: Routledge. Besch, Werner (1967): Sprachlandschaften und Sprachausgleich im 15. Jahrhundert. - München: Francke (Bibliotheca Germanica II). Bever, T.G. and D.T. Langendoen (1972): The Interaction of Speech Perception and Grammatical Structure in the Evolution of Language. - In: Robert P. Stockwell and Ronald K.S. Macaulay (eds.): Linguistic Change and Generative Theory, (Essays from the UCLA Conference on Historical Linguistics in the Perspective of Transformational Theory), 32-95. Bloomington: Indiana Univ. Press. Birkmann, Thomas (1987): Präteritopräsentia. - Tübingen: Niemeyer (Linguistische Arbeiten 188). Bittner, Andreas (1988): Reguläre Irregularitäten. - In: Zeitschrift für Phonetik, Sprachwissenschaft und Kommunikationsforschung 41, 416-25. - (1996): Starke 'schwache' Verben - schwache 'starke' Verben. Deutsche Verbflexion und Natürlichkeit. - Tübingen: Stauffenburg (Studien zur deutschen Grammatik 51). Blaschke, Gerhard (1966): Lautgeographie der südlichen Grafschaft Glatz. - Marburg: Elwert (Deutsche Dialektgeographie 69). Bloomfield, Leonard (1933): Language. - N e w York: Holt. Bock, Friedrich (1928): Nürnberger Mundartdichtung bis 1800 (ausser Grübel). - In: Mitteilungen des Vereins für Geschichte der Stadt Nürnberg 29, 335-406. Bock, Gudrun (1965): Die Mundart von Waldau bei Schleusingen. - Köln: Böhlau (Mitteldeutsche Forschungen 35). Bösch, Hans (ed.) (1893): Verlobung und Verehelichung in Nürnberg im 16. Jahrhundert. - In: Mitteilungen aus dem germanischen Nationalmuseum 6, 41-53. Braune, Wilhelm (1975): Althochdeutsche Grammatik, 13th ed., ed. by Hans Eggers. - Tübingen: Niemeyer (Sammlung kurzer Grammatiken germanischer Dialekte, A. 5). Bruch, Robert (1966): Die Mundart von Schäßburg in Siebenbürgen. - In: Karl Kurt Klein (ed.): Luxemburg und Siebenbürgen, 112-61. Köln: Böhlau (Siebenbürgisches Archiv 5).

165 Bubner, Rudolf Helmut (1935): Untersuchungen zur Dialektgeographie des Bergischen Landes zwischen Agger und Dhünn. - Marburg: Elwert (Deutsche Dialektgeographie 24). Bilrgisser, Max (1988): Die Anfänge des frühneuhochdeutschen Schreibdialekts in Altbayern. Wiesbaden: Steiner (Zeitschrift für Dialektologie und Linguistik, Beiheft 57). Burzio, Luigi (1994): Anti-Allomorphy. - Talk presented at the Going Romance Conference, University of Utrecht. - (1996): Surface Constraints Versus Underlying Representations. - In: Jacques Durand and Bernard Laks (eds.): Current Trends in Phonology: Models and Methods, vol. 1, 123—42. University of Salford. Bybee, Joan (1980): Morphophonemic Change from Inside and Outside the Paradigm. - In: Lingua 50, 45-89. - (1985a): Morphology. A Study of the Relation between Meaning and Form. - Philadelphia: Benjamins. - (1985b): Diagrammatic Iconicity in Stem-Inflection Relations. - In: John Haiman (ed.): Iconicity in Syntax, 11-47. Philadelphia: Benjamins (Typological Studies in Language 6). - (1988): Morphology as Lexical Organization. - In: Michael Hammond and Michael Noonan (eds.): Theoretical Morphology, 119—41. New York: Academic Press. - (1991): Natural Morphology: the Organization of Paradigms and Language Acquisition. - In: Thom Huebner and Charles A. Ferguson (eds.): Crosscurrents in Second Language Acquisition and Linguistic Theories, 67-91. Philadelphia: Benjamins (Language Acquisition & Language Disorders 2). - (1994): Morphological Universals and Change. - In: R.E. Asher and J.M.Y. Simpson (eds.): The Encyclopedia of Language and Linguistics, vol. 5, 2557-62. New York: Pergamon. - (1995): Regular Morphology and the Lexicon. - In: Language and Cognitive Processes 10, 4 2 5 55. - (1996): Productivity, Regularity and Fusion: How Language Use Affects the Lexicon. - In: Rajendra Singh (ed.): Trubetzkoy's Orphan, Proceedings of the Montréal Roundtable "Morphonology: Contemporary Responses" (Montréal, September 30—October 2, 1994), 247-69. Philadelphia: Benjamins (Current Issues in Linguistic Theory 144). Bybee, Joan L. and Mary Alexandra Brewer (1980): Explanation in Morphophonemics: Changes in Provençal and Spanish Preterite Forms. - In: Lingua 52, 201—42. Bybee, Joan L. and Dan I. Slobin (1982a): Rules and Schemas in the Development and Use of the English Past Tense. - In: Language 58, 265-89. - (1982b): Why Small Children Cannot Change Language on Their Own: Suggestions from the English Past Tense. - In: Anders Ahlqvist (ed.): Papers from the 5th International Conference on Historical Linguistics, 29-37. Amsterdam: Benjamins (Current Issues in Linguistic Theory 21). Bybee, Joan L. and Carol Lynn Moder (1983): Morphological Classes as Natural Categories. - In: Language 59, 251-70. Bybee, Joan L. and Jean E. Newman (1995): Are Stem Changes as Natural as Affixes? - In: Linguistics 33, 633-54. Bybee, Joan, Revere Perkins, and William Pagliuca (1994): The Evolution of Grammar. - Chicago: Univ. of Chicago Press. Cardona, George (1968): On Haplology in Indo-European. - Philadelphia: Univ. of Pennsylvania Press (Haney Foundation Series 1). Carstairs-McCarthy, Andrew (1992): Current Morphology. - N e w York: Routledge. - (1994): Inflection Classes, Gender, and the Principle of Contrast. - In: Language 70, 737-88. - (1998): Paradigmatic Structure: Inflectional Paradigms and Morphological Classes. - In: Andrew Spencer and Arnold M. Zwicky (eds.): The Handbook of Morphology, 322-34. Maiden, Mass.: Blackwell. Caselmann (ed.) (1865): Eigenhändiger Bericht des Hieronymus Baumgärtner über seine Gefangenschaft bei Albrecht von Rosenberg in den Jahren 1544 und 1545. - In: Jahresberichte des historischen Vereins für Mittelfranken 33, 103-23. Chase, Colin (ed.) (1981): The Dating of Beowulf. - Buffalo: Univ. of Toronto Press (Toronto Old English Series 6).

166 Chirita, Diana (1988): Der Ausgleich des Ablauts im starken Präteritum im Frühneuhochdeutschen. New York: Lang (Wiener Arbeiten zur germanischen Altertunskunde und Philologie 31). Chomsky, Noam (1964): Review of: Verbal Behavior, by B.F. Skinner (New York, 1957). - In: Jerry A. Fodor and Jerrold J. Katz (eds.): The Structure of Language, 547-78. Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice-Hall (Reprinted from Language 35 (1959), 26-58). - (1965): Aspects of the Theory of Syntax. - Cambridge, Mass.: M.I.T. Press. - (1995): The Minimalist Program. - Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press (Current Studies in Linguistics 28). Chomsky, Noam and Morris Halle (1968): The Sound Pattern of English. - New York: Harper and Row (Reprinted 1991, Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press). Christmann, Ernst, Julius Krämer, and Rudolf Post ( 1965—): Pfälzisches Wörterbuch, 6 vols. - Wiesbaden: Steiner. Clahsen, Harald (1999): Lexical Entries and Rules of Language: A Multidisciplinary Study of German Inflection. - In: Behavioral and Brain Sciences 22(6), forthcoming. Clahsen, Harald and Mayella Almazan (1998): Syntax and Morphology in Williams Syndrome. - In: Cognition 68, 167-98. Clahsen, Harald and Monika Rothweiler (1993): Inflectional Rules in Children's Grammars: Evidence from German Participles. - In: Geert Booij and Jaap van Marie (eds.): Yearbook of Morphology 1992, 1-34. Boston: Kluwer. Clark, Eve V. (1987): The Principle of Contrast: A Constraint on Language Acquisition. - In: Brian MacWhinney (ed.): Mechanisms of Language Acquisition, 1-33. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. Cook, Vivian and Mark Newson (1996): Chomsky's Universal Grammar, 2nd ed. - Cambridge, MA: Blackwell. Coseriu, Eugenio (1974): Synchronie, Diachronie und Geschichte, translated by Helga Söhre. München: Fink (International Library of General Linguistics 3). Croft, William (1990): Typology and Universals. - New York: Cambridge Univ. Press. Dama, Hans (1991): Die Mundart von Groß-Sankt-Nikolaus im rumänischen Banat. - Marburg: Elwert (Deutsche Dialektgeographie 89). Dammers, Ulf, Walter Hoffmann, and Hans-Joachim Solms (1988): Grammatik des Frühneuhochdeutschen, vol. 4: Flexion der starken und schwachen Verben. - Heidelberg: Winter. Dasgupta, Probai (1996): On Morphophonology: A View from the Outside. - In: Rajendra Singh (ed.): Trubetzkoy's Orphan, Proceedings of the Montréal Roundtable "Morphonology: Contemporary Responses" (Montréal, September 30—October 2, 1994), 318-31. - Philadelphia: Benjamins (Current Issues in Linguistic Theory 144). Daugherty, Kim G. and Mark S. Seidenberg (1994): Beyond Rules and Exceptions. A Connectionist Approach to Inflectional Morphology. - In: Susan D. Lima, Roberta L. Corrigan, and Gregory K. Iverson (eds.): The Reality of Linguistic Rules, 353-88. - Philadelphia: Benjamins (Studies in Language Companion Series 26). Deichstetter, Georg (1984): Caritas Pirckheimer. - In: Christoph von Imhoff (ed.): Berühmte Nürnberger aus neun Jahrhunderten, 78-9. Nuremberg: Hofmann. de Lacy, Paul (1999): Morphological Haplology and Correspondence. - In: University of Massachusetts Occasional Papers: Papers from the 25th Reunion. Amherst, MA: GLSA, forthcoming. (=Rutgers Optimality Archive, ROA-298-0299, ) Derwing, Bruce L. and Royal Skousen (1994): Productivity and the English Past Tense. Testing Skousen's Analogy Model. - In: Susan D. Lima, Roberta L. Corrigan, and Gregory K. Iverson (eds.): The Reality of Linguistic Rules, 193-218. Philadelphia: Benjamins (Studies in Language Companion Series 26). Devitt, Amy J. (1989): Standardizing Written English. - New York: Cambridge Univ. Press. Dieselhorst, Jürgen (1953): Die Bestrafung der Selbstmörder im Territorium der Reichsstadt Nürnberg. - In: Mitteilungen des Vereins für Geschichte der Stadt Nürnberg 44, 58-230. Drescher, Karl (ed.) (1898): Das Gemerkbüchlein des Hans Sachs (1555-1561) nebst einem Anhange: Die Nürnberger Meistersinger-Protocolle von 1595-1605. - Halle: Niemeyer (Neudrucke deutscher Litteraturwerke des XVI. und XVII. Jahrhunderts 149-52). Dressier, Monika Renee (1993): Relativization Strategies in Early New High German: An Integrated Approach. - Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Univ. of Michigan.

167 Dressler, Wolfgang U. (1985a): Morphonology: the Dynamics of Derivation, ed. by Kenneth C. Hill. - Ann Arbor: Karoma (Linguistica Extranea, Studia 12). - ( 1985b): On the Predictiveness of Natural Morphology. - In: Journal of Linguistics 2 1 , 3 2 1 - 3 7 . - (1985c): Sur le Statut de la suppléance dans la Morphologie Naturelle. - In: Langages 78, 41-56. - (1995): Interactions between Iconicity and Other Semiotic Parameters in Language. - In: Raffaele Simone (ed.): Iconicity in Language, 21-37. Philadelphia: Benjamins (Current Issues in Linguistic Theory 110). Dressier, Wolfgang U., Willi Mayerthaler, Oswald Panagl, and Wolfgang U. Wurzel (1987): Introduction. - In: Wolfgang U. Dressler (ed.): Leitmotifs in Natural Morphology. - Philadelphia: Benjamins (Studies in Language Companion Series 10). DWB = Grimm, Jacob and Wilhelm (1854-1971): Deutsches Wörterbuch, 33 vols. - Leipzig: Hirzel. DWB 2 = Grimm, Jacob and Wilhelm (1965-): Deutsches Wörterbuch, Neubearbeitung. - Leipzig: Hirzel. Eberl, Hildegard (1944): Sprachschichten und Sprachbewegungen im Nürnberger Raum vom Hochmittelalter bis zur Gegenwart. - Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Univ. of Graz. Ebert, Robert Peter (1980): Social and Stylistic Variation in Early New High German Word Order: The Sentence Frame ('Satzrahmen'). - In: Beiträge zur Geschichte der Deutschen Sprache und Literatur 102, 357-98. - (1981): Social and Stylistic Variation in the Order of Auxiliary and Nonfinite Verb in Dependent Clauses in Early New High German. - In: Beiträge zur Geschichte der Deutschen Sprache und Literatur 103, 204-37. - (1988): Variation in the Position of the Attributive Genitive in Sixteenth Century German. - In: Monatshefte für deutschen Unterricht 80, 32—49. - (1998): Verbstellungswandel bei Jugendlichen, Frauen und Männern im 16. Jahrhundert. Tübingen: Niemeyer (Reihe Germanistische Linguistik 190). Ellis, Nick C. and Richard Schmidt (1998): Rules or Associations in the Acquisition of Morphology? The Frequency by Regularity Interaction in Human and PDP Learning of Morphosyntax. - In: Language and Cognitive Processes 13, 307-36. Eist, Gaston van der (1989): In welchem Maße ist das Nürnberger Frühneuhochdeutsch um 1500 auch nürnbergisch? - In: Erwin Koller, Werner Wegstein, and Norbert Richard Wolf (eds.): Bayerisch-österreichische Dialektforschung. Würzburger Arbeitstagung 1986, 194-211. Würzburg: Königshausen & Neumann (Würzburger Beiträge zur deutschen Philologie 1). Esper, Erwin A. (1973): Analogy and Association in Linguistics and Psychology. - Athens: University of Georgia Press. Fertig, David Longley (1994): Variation and Change in Verbal Inflection in Late Medieval and Early Modern Nuremberg. - Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Univ. of Michigan. - (1996): Phonology, Orthography, and the Umlaut Puzzle. - In: Rosina L. Lippi-Green and Joseph C. Salmons (eds.): Germanic Linguistics Syntactic and Diachronic, 169-184. Philadelphia: Benjamins (Current Issues in Linguistic Theory 137). - (1998a): Suppletion, Natural Morphology, and Diagrammaticity. - In: Linguistics 36, 1065-91. - (1998b): Grammaticalization and the Development of Suppletion. - Paper presented at the German Department Roundtable, University of Wisconsin, Madison. - (1998c): The ge- Participle Prefix in Early New High German and the Modern Dialects. - In: American Journal of Germanic Linguistics and Literatures 10, 237-78. - (1999a): Analogical "Leveling" from Outside the Paradigm: Stem-vowel Changes in the German Modals. - In: Diachronica 16(2), forthcoming. - (1999b): Diachronic Evidence for a Dual-mechanism Approach to Inflection, (Commentary on Clahsen 1999). - In: Behavioral and Brain Sciences 22(6), forthcoming. Fleischer, Wolfgang (1970): Untersuchungen zur Geschäftssprache des 16. Jahrhunderts in Dresden. - Berlin: Akademie-Verlag (Deutsche Akademie der Wissenschaften zu Berlin, Veröffentlichungen des Instituts für deutsche Sprache und Literatur, Reihe B 37). Freiling, Paul (1929): Studien zur Dialektgeographie des hessischen Odenwaldes. - Marburg: Elwert (Deutsche Dialektgeographie 12). Friebertshäuser, Hans (1961): Sprache und Geschichte des nordwestlichen Althessen. - Marburg: Elwert (Deutsche Dialektgeographie 46).

168 Frings, Theodor (1956): Sprache und Geschichte, vol. 1. - Halle: Niemeyer (Mitteldeutsche Studien 16). Gebhardt, August (1907): Grammatik der Nürnberger Mundart. - Leipzig: Breitkopf & Härtel (Sammlung kurzer Grammatiken deutscher Mundarten 7; Reprint 1968, Vaduz: Saendig). Gerth, Heike (1987): Zur Verwendung der Formen des Ausgleichs im Paradigma der starken Verben in Leipziger Frühdrucken. - In: Zum Sprachwandel in der deutschen Literatursprache des 16. Jahrhunderts, 101-49. Berlin: Akademie-Verlag (Akademie der Wissenschaften der DDR, Zentralinstitut für Sprachwissenschaft 63). Giessmann, Ulrike (1981): Die Flexion von gehen und stehen im Frühneuhochdeutschen. - Heidelberg: Winter. Gleißner, Käthe (1935): Urkunde und Mundart. - Halle: Niemeyer (Mitteldeutsche Studien 9 [= Teuthonista, Beiheft 12]). Green, W.A.I. (1990): The Dialects of the Palatinate (Das Pfälzische). - In: Charles V.J. Russ (ed.): The Dialects of Modern German, 241-64. London: Routledge. Greenberg, Joseph H. (1966): Language Universals. - The Hague: Mouton (Janua Linguarum, Series Minor 59). Grosse, Rudolf (1988): Zur Wechselflexion im Singular Präsens der starken Verben - Lautwandel oder Analogie? - In: Peter Wiesinger (ed.): Studien zum Frühneuhochdeutschen. Festschrift für Emil Skala, 161-6. Göppingen. GrubaCic, Emilija (1971): Knicanin/Banat. - In: Phonai, Deutsche Reihe 9 (Monographien 3), 7-94. Tübingen: Niemeyer. Grundherr, Felizitas (1859): Briefe der Felicitas Grundherrin. - In: Historisch-politische Blätter für das katholische Deutschland 44(2). 378-95, 441-69. Haag, Earl C. (1982): A Pennsylvania German Reader and Grammar. - University Park, Pennsylvania: Keystone Books, Pennsylvania State Univ. Press. Hahn, Reinhard (ed.) (1986): Das handschriftliche Generalregister des Hans Sachs. Reprintausgabe nach dem Autograph von 1560 des Stadtarchivs Zwickau von Hans Sachs. - Köln: Böhlau. Haiman, John (1985): Natural Syntax. - New York: Cambridge Univ. Press. Halle, Morris and Alec Marantz (1993): Distributed Morphology and the Pieces of Inflection. - In: Kenneth Hale and Samuel Jay Keyser (eds.): The View from Building 20, 111-71. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press. Hampe, Th. (ed.) (1896): Deutsche Pilgerfahrten nach Santiago de Compostella und das Reisetagebuch des Sebald Örtel (1521-22). - In: Mitteilungen aus dem germanischen Nationalmuseum 1896,61-82. - (ed.) (1897): Nürnberger Ratsverlässe Joachim Deschler betreffend. - In: Mitteilungen aus dem germanischen Nationalmuseum 1897, 39-40. Hare, Mary and Jeffrey L. Elman (1995): Learning and Morphological Change. - In: Cognition 56, 61-98. Harnisch, Rüdiger (1990): Morphologische Irregularität - Gebrauchshäufigkeit - psychische Nähe. Ein Zusammenhang im empirischen Befund und in seiner theoretischen Tragweite. - In: Julián Méndez Dosuna and Carmen Pensado (eds.): Naturalists at Krems. Papers from the Workshop on Natural Phonology and Natural Morphology (Krems, 1-7 July ¡988), 53-64. Salamanca: Ediciones Universidad (Acta Salmanticensia, Estudios Filologicos 227). Harris, Alice C. and Lyle Campbell (1995): Historical Syntax in Cross-Linguistic Perspective. - New York: Cambridge Univ. Press (Cambridge Studies in Linguistics 74). Hase, Oskar von (1885): Die Koberger. - Leipzig: Breitkopf & Härtel. Haspelmath, Martin (1995): The Growth of Affixes in Morphological Reanalysis. - In: Geert Booij and Jaap van Marie (eds.): Yearbook of Morphology 1994, 1-29. Boston: Kluwer. Hasselbach, Karlheinz (1971): Die Mundarten des zentralen Vogelsbergs. - Marburg: Elwert (Deutsche Dialektgeographie 76). Hasselberg, Joachim (1979): Differenzgrammatik Mittelhessisch : Hochsprache. - Giessen: Schmitz (Beiträge zur deutschen Philologie 45). Heerwagen, Heinrich (ed.) (1906): Bilder aus d. Kinderleben in den dreißig. Jahren des XVI. Jahrhunderts. - In: Mitteilungen des germanischen Nationalmuseums 1906, 96-115.

169 Hegel, K. (ed.) (1862a): Ulman Stromer's 'Puchel von meim gesiechet und von abentewr'. - In: Die Chroniken der fränkischen Städte. Nürnberg, vol. 1, 1-312. Leipzig: Hirzel (Die Chroniken der deutschen Städte vom 14. bis in's 16. Jahrhundert 1). - (ed.) (1862b): Chronik aus Kaiser Sigmund's Zeit. - In: Die Chroniken der fränkischen Städte. Nürnberg, vol. 1, 313-469. Leipzig: Hirzel (Die Chroniken der deutschen Städte vom 14. bis in's 16. Jahrhundert 1). - (ed.) (1864a): Endres Tucher's Memorial. - In: Die Chroniken der fränkischen Städte. Nürnberg, vol. 2, 1-53. Leipzig: Hirzel (Die Chroniken der deutschen Städte vom 14. bis in's 16. Jahrhundert 2). - (ed.) (1864b): Der Zug nach Lichtenburg, 1444. - In: Die Chroniken der fränkischen Städte. Nürnberg, vol. 2, 55-92. Leipzig: Hirzel (Die Chroniken der deutschen Städte vom 14. bis in's 16. Jahrhundert 2). - (ed.) (1864c): Nürnberg's Krieg gegen den Markgrafen Albrecht (Achilles) von Brandenburg. In: Die Chroniken der fränkischen Städte. Nürnberg, vol. 2, 93-530. Leipzig: Hirzel (Die Chroniken der deutschen Städte vom 14. bis in's 16. Jahrhundert 2). - (ed.) (1874a): Heinrich Deichsler's Chronik 1488-1506. - In: Die Chroniken der fränkischen Städte. Nürnberg, vol. 5, 533-706. Leipzig: Hirzel (Die Chroniken der deutschen Städte vom 14. bis in's 16. Jahrhundert 11). - (ed.) (1874b): Gedenkbuch von Nicolaus Muffel. - In: Die Chroniken der fränkischen Städte. Nürnberg, vol. 5, 735-77. Leipzig: Hirzel (Die Chroniken der deutschen Städte vom 14. bis in's 16. Jahrhundert 11). Heide, Gustav (ed.) (1889): Nürnberg und die Mission des Vizekanzlers Held. - In: Mitteilungen des Vereins für Geschichte der Stadt Nürnberg 8, 161-200. Heine, Bernd (1993): Auxiliaries. New York: Oxford University Press. Hempen, Ute (1988): Die starken Verben im Deutschen und Niederländischen. - Tübingen: Niemeyer (Linguistische Arbeiten 214). Henn, Beate (1978): Mundartinterferenzen am Beispiel des Nordwestpfälzischen. - Wiesbaden: Steiner (Zeitschrift für Dialektologie und Linguistik, Beihefte, neue Folge 24). Forschungen Hirschmann, Gerhard (1976): Archivalische Quellen zu Hans Sachs. - In: Nürnberger 19, 14-54. Hock, Hans Henrich (1986): Principles ofHistorical Linguistics. - New York: Mouton. Hockett, Charles F. (1968): The State ofthe Art. - The Hague: Mouton. Hoffmann, Walter (1988): Vom variablen Usus zur Kodifizierung der Norm: Die Geschichte der "unorganischen participia mit ge-" im Frühneuhochdeutschen. - In: Peter Wiesinger (ed.): Studien zum Frühneuhochdeutschen. Festschrift für Emil Skala, 167-84. Göppingen. Hoffmann, Walter and Hans-Joachim Solms (1987): Zur Flexion der starken und schwachen Verben. - In: Zeitschrift für deutsche Philologie 106 (Sonderheft). 37-59. Hofmann, Fritz (1926): Niederhessisches Wörterbuch. Marburg: Elwert (Deutsche Dialektgeographie 19). Hooper, Joan Bybee (1980): Child Morphology and Morphophonemic Change. - In: Jacek Fisiak (ed.): Historical Morphology, 157-87. New York: Mouton (Trends in Linguistics, Studies and Monographs 17). Hopper, Paul J. and Elizabeth Closs Traugott (1993): Grammaticalization. - New York: Cambridge University Press. Hornung, Maria (1972): Wörterbuch der deutschen Sprachinselmundart von Pladen/Sappada in Karnien (Italien). - Wien: Kommissionsverlag der Österreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften (Studien zur österreichisch-bairischen Dialektkunde 6). Hotzenköcherle, Rudolf (ed.) (1975): Sprachatlas der deutschen Schweiz, vol. 3. - Bern: Francke. Howe, Stephen (1996): The personal pronouns in the Germanic languages. - New York: de Gruyter (Studia Linguistica Germanica 43). Hutterer, Claus Jürgen (1963): Das ungarische Mittelgebirge als Sprachraum. - Halle: Niemeyer (Mitteldeutsche Studien 24). Imhoff, Christoph von (1984): Andreas I. Imhoff. - In: Christoph von Imhoff (ed.): Berühmte Nürnberger aus neun Jahrhunderten, 110-2. Nuremberg: Hofmann.

170 Jackendoff, Ray S. (1975): Morphological and Semantic Regularities in the Lexicon. - In: Language 51,639-71. - (1997): The Architecture of the Language Faculty. - Cambridge, MA: MIT Press (Linguistic Inquiry Monographs 28). Jaeger, Jeri J., Alan H. Lockwood, David L. Kemmerer, Robert D. Van Valin, Brian W. Murphy, and Janif G. Khalak (1996): A Positron Emission Tomographic Study of Regular and Irregular Verb Morphology in English. - In: Language 72, 451-97. Jakobson, Roman (1990): Quest for the Essence of Language. - In: Linda R. Waugh and Monique Monville-Burston (eds.): On Language, 407-21. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Univ. Press (Reprinted from Diogenes 51 (1966)). Jeffers, Robert J. (1974): On the Notion 'Explanation' in Historical Linguistics. - In: J.M. Anderson and C. Jones (eds.): Historical Linguistics II, 231-55. New York: American Elsevier (North-Holland Linguistic Series 12b = Proceedings of the First International Conference on Historical Linguistics, Edinburgh). Joseph, Brian D. (1998): Diachronic Morphology. - In: Andrew Spencer and Arnold M. Zwicky (eds.): The Handbook of Morphology, 351-73. Maiden, Mass.: Blackwell. Joseph, Brian D. and Richard D. Janda (1988): The How and Why of Diachronic Morphologization and Demorphologization. - In: Michael Hammond and Michael Noonan (eds.): Theoretical Morphology, 193-210. New York: Academic Press. und Liechtenstein. - Heidelberg: Winter Jutz, Leo (1925): Die Mundart von Südvorarlberg (=Germanische Bibliothek, I., I., 15). Kalau, Gisela (1984): Die Morphologie der Nürnberger Mundart. - Erlangen: Palm & Enke (Erlanger Studien 52). Kamann, J. (ed.) (1880a): Bestrafung von Bigamie im Jahre 1466. - In: Mitteilungen des Vereins für Geschichte der Stadt Nürnberg 2, 195. - (ed.) (1880b): Nürnberger Ratserlass zur Verhütung von Unfug, besonders während der Faschingstage, 1468. - In: Mitteilungen des Vereins für Geschichte der Stadt Nürnberg 2, 194-5. - (ed.) (1880c): Neujahrsbrief der Nonne Brigitta Holzschuher in Pillenreut an Michel Behaim, Baumeister zu Nürnberg. - In: Mitteilungen des Vereins für Geschichte der Stadt Nürnberg 2, 195-7. - (ed.) (1880d): Die Pilgerfahrten Nürnberger Bürger nach Jerusalem im 15. Jahrhundert. - In: Mitteilungen des Vereins für Geschichte der Stadt Nürnberg 2, 78-163. - (ed.) (1881): Aus Paulus Behaims I. Briefwechsel. - In: Mitteilungen des Vereins für Geschichte der Stadt Nürnberg 3, 73-154. - (ed.) (1884): Aus Hans Ölhafens Reisetagebuch. - In: Mitteilungen des Vereins für Geschichte der Stadt Nürnberg 5, 224-5. - (ed.) (1888): Aus Nürnberger Haushaltungs- und Rechnungsbüchern des 15. und 16. Jahrhunderts, (Schluss). - In: Mitteilungen des Vereins für Geschichte der Stadt Nürnberg 1, 39-168. - (ed.) (1894): Aus dem Briefwechsel eines jungen Nürnberger Kaufmanns im 16. Jahrhundert. - In: Mitteilungen des germanischen Nationalmuseums 1894, 9-22, 45-56. - (ed.) (1899): Briefe aus dem Brigittenkloster Maihingen (Maria-Mai) im Ries 1516-1522, parts 1 and 2. - In: Zeitschrift für Kulturgeschichte [series 4] 6, 249-87, 385^110. - (ed.) (1900): Briefe aus dem Brigittenkloster Maihingen (Maria-Mai) im Ries 1516-1522, part 3. - In: Zeitschrift für Kulturgeschichte [series 4] 7, 170-99. Kawamoto, Alan H. (1994): One System or Two to Handle Regulars and Exceptions. - In: Susan D. Lima, Roberta L. Corrigan, and Gregory K. Iverson (eds.): The Reality of Linguistic Rules, 3 8 9 415. Philadelphia: Benjamins (Studies in Language Companion Series 26). Keller, R.E. (1961): German Dialects. - Manchester: Manchester Univ. Press. Kenstowicz, Michael (1996): Base Identity and Uniform Exponence: Alternatives to Cyclicity. - In: Jacques Durand and Bernard Laks (eds.): Current Trends in Phonology: Models and Methods, vol. 1, 363-93. University of Salford. (Rutgers Optimality Archive ROA-103-0000, ) - (1997): Uniform Exponence: Exemplification and Extension. - In: V. Miglio and B. Moren (eds.): University of Maryland Working Papers in Linguistics, vol. 5, 139-55. (Rutgers Optimality Archive ROA-218-0997, )

171 Kettmann, Gerhard (1967): Die kursächsische Kanzleisprache zwischen 1486 und ¡546. - Berlin: Akademie-Verlag (Deutsche Akademie der Wissenschaften zu Berlin, Veröffentlichungen des Instituts für deutsche Sprache und Literatur, Reihe B 34). Kienle, Richard von (1969): Historische Laut- und Formenlehre des Deutschen, 2nd ed. - Tübingen: Niemeyer (Sammlung kurzer Grammatiken germanischer Dialekte A. 11 ). Kilpiö, Matti (1997): On the Forms and Functions of the Verb be from Old to Modern English. - In: Matti Rissanen, Merja Kytö, and Kirsi Heikkonen (eds.): English in Transition, 87-120. New York: Mouton de Gruyter (Topics in English Linguistics 23). King, Robert D. (1969): Historical Linguistics and Generative Grammar. - Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice-Hall. Kiparsky, Paul (1972): Explanation in Phonology. - In: Stanley Peters (ed.): Goals of Linguistic Theory, 189-227. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall. - (1974): Remarks on Analogical Change. - In: J.M. Anderson and C. Jones (eds.): Historical Linguistics II, 257-75. New York: American Elsevier (North-Holland Linguistic Series 12b = Proceedings of the First International Conference on Historical Linguistics, Edinburgh). - (1978): Analogical Change as a Problem for Linguistic Theory. - In: Braj B. Kachru (ed.): Linguistics in the Seventies: Directions and Prospects, 77-96. Urbana: Dept. of Linguistics, Univ. of Illinois (Special Issue of Studies in the Linguistic Sciences, vol. 8, no. 2). - (1992): Analogy. - In: William Bright (ed.): International Encyclopedia of Linguistics, vol. 1, 5 6 61. New York: Oxford Univ. Press. - (1996): Allomorphy or Morphophonology? - In: Rajendra Singh (ed.): Trubetzkoy's Orphan, Proceedings of the Montréal Roundtable "Morphonology: Contemporary Responses" (Montréal, September 30—October 2, 1994), 13-31. Philadelphia: Benjamins (Current Issues in Linguistic Theory 144). Klein, Karl Kurt and Ludwig Erich Schmitt (1965): Tirolischer Sprachatlas, vol. 1. - Marburg: Elwert (Deutscher Sprachatlas, Regionale Sprachatlanten 2). Kluge, Friedrich (1904): Von Luther bis Lessing, 4th ed. - Straßburg: Trübner. - (1975): Etymologisches Wörterbuch der deutschen Sprache, 21st ed. - N e w York: de Gruyter. Koch, Carl (1909): Die Sprache der Magdalena und des Balthasar Paumgartner in ihrem Briefwechsel. - In: Mitteilungen aus dem Germanischen Nationalmuseum 1909, 151-94. - (1917 [1920]): Die Sprache der Magdalena und des Balthasar Paumgartner in ihrem Briefwechsel, part 2. - In: Mitteilungen aus dem Germanischen Nationalmuseum 1917, 77-93. Koch, Harold (1995): The Creation of Morphological Zeroes. - In: Geert Booij and Jaap van Marie (eds.): Yearbook of Morphology 1994, 31-71. Boston: Kluwer. Koefoed, Geert (1974): On Formal and Functional Explanation: Some Notes on Kiparsky's 'Explanation in Phonology'. - In: J.M. Anderson and C. Jones (eds.): Historical Linguistics II, 276-93. New York: American Elsevier (North-Holland Linguistic Series 12b = Proceedings of the First International Conference on Historical Linguistics, Edinburgh). Koenigs-Erffa, Ursula (ed.) (1955): Das Tagebuch des Sebald Welser aus dem Jahre 1577. - In: Mitteilungen des Vereins für Geschichte der Stadt Nürnberg 46, 262-371. Koller, Gerhard (1989): Der Schreibusus Albrecht Dürers. - Stuttgart: Steiner (Zeitschrift für Dialektologie und Linguistik, Beiheft 62). Kranzmayer, Eberhard (1956): Historische Lautgeographie des gesamtbairischen Dialektraumes. Wien: Österreichische Akademie der Wissenschaften. - (1981): Laut- und Flexionslehre der deutschen zimbrischen Mundart. - Vienna:VWGÖ (Beiträge zur Sprachinselforschung 1). Krauss, Friedrich (1970): Treppener Wörterbuch. - Marburg: Elwert. Kreß, Georg Freiherr von (1895): Briefe eines Nürnberger Studenten aus Leipzig und Bologna. ( 1556-1560.). - In: Mitteilungen des Vereins für Geschichte der Stadt Nürnberg 11, 97-172. Kroh, Wilhelm (1915): Beiträge zur Nassauischen Dialektgeographie. - In: Deutsche Dialektgeographie 4, 65-342. Marburg: Elwert. Kruszewski, Nikolai (1978): On Sound Alternation. - In: Philip Baldi and Ronald N. Werth (eds.): Readings in Historical Phonology: Chapters in the Theory of Sound Change, 64-91. University Park: Pennsylvania State University Press. [Translation by Robert Austerlitz of Über die Lautabwechslung. Kazan, 1881.]

172 Kuntze, Erich (1932): Studien zur Mundart der Stadt Saarbrücken (Lautlehre). - Marburg: Elwert (Deutsche Dialektgeographie 31). Kurras, Lotte (1984): Heinrich Deichsler. - In: Christoph von Imhoff (ed.): Berühmte Nürnberger aus neun Jahrhunderten, 48. Nuremberg: Hofmann. Kurylowicz, Jerzy (1966): La Nature des procès dits "analogiques". - In: Eric P. Hamp, Fred W. Householder, and Robert Austerlitz (eds.): Readings in Linguistics II, 158-74. Chicago Univ. Press (Reprinted from Acta Lingüistica 5(1945-9), 121-38). Kytö, Merja (1992): On sayth vs. says'. The Use of the Third-Person Present Singular Verb Inflection in Early Modern English, British and American. - Paper delivered at NWAVE 21, Ann Arbor, Michigan. - (1997): Be/have + Past Participle: The Choice of the Auxiliary with Intransitives from Late Middle to Modern English. - In: Matti Rissanen, Merja Kytö, and Kirsi Heikkonen (eds.): English in Transition, 17-85. New York: Mouton de Gruyter (Topics in English Linguistics 23). Labov, William (1972): Some Principles of Linguistic Methodology. - In: Language in Society 1, 97-120. - (1989): The Child as Linguistic Historian. - In: Language Variation and Change 1, 85-97. - (1994): Principles of Linguistic Change, vol. 1: Internal Factors. - Cambridge, Mass.: Blackwell (Language in Society 20). Labov, William, Mark Karen, and Corey Miller (1991): Near-mergers and the Suspension of Phonemic Contrast. - In: Language Variation and Change 3, 33-74. Langacker, Ronald W. (1977): Syntactic Reanalysis. - In: Charles N. Li (ed.): Mechanisms of Syntactic Change, 57-139. Austin: University ofTexas Press. Lanouette, Ruth Lunt (1998): The Attributive Genitive in Early New High German: A Semantic Analysis. - In: The American Journal of Germanic Linguistics and Literatures 10, 73-90. Lass, Roger (1990): How to Do Things with Junk: Exaptation in Language Evolution. - In: Journal of Linguistics 26, 79-102. - (1997): Historical Linguistics and Language Change. - New York: Cambridge Univ. Press (Cambridge Studies in Linguistics 81). Lehmann, Christian (1985): Grammaticalization: Synchronic Variation and Diachronic Change. - In: Lingua e stile 20, 303-18. Lessiak, Primus (1933): Beiträge zur Geschichte des deutschen Konsonantismus. Leipzig. - (1959): Die deutsche Mundart von Zarz in Oberkrain. (Deutsche Dialektgeographie 50). - Marburg: Elwert. - (1963): Die Mundart von Pernegg in Kärnten. - Marburg: Elwert (Deutsche Dialektgeographie 61, Reprinted from Beiträge zur Geschichte der Deutschen Sprache und Literatur 28(1903)). Lexer, Matthias (1876): Mittelhochdeutsches Handwörterbuch, vol. 2. - Leipzig: Hirzel. Lightfoot, David W. (1979): Principles of Diachronic Syntax. - New York: Cambridge Univ. Press (Cambridge Studies in Linguistics 23). - (1991): How to Set Parameters: Arguments from Language Change. - Cambridge, MA: MIT Press (Bradford Books). - (1999): The Development of Language. Maiden, MA: Blackwell. Lipoid, Günter (1984): Gottschee in Jugoslawien—System, Stil und Prozeß—Phonologie einer Sprachinselmundart, part 1. - Tübingen: Niemeyer (Phonai, Deutsche Reihe 26, [Monographien 16]). Lippi-Green, Rosina (1994): Language Ideology and Language Change in Early Modern German. Philadelphia: Benjamins (Current Issues in Linguistic Theory 119). Liszka, James Jakób (1996): A General Introduction to the Semeiotic of Charles Sanders Peirce. Bloomington: Indiana Univ. Press. Löffelholz von Kolberg, E. (ed.) (1881): Dr. Christoph II. Scheurls Hochzeit mit Katharina Fütterin am 29. August 1519. - In: Mitteilungen des Vereins für Geschichte der Stadt Nürnberg 3, 155-68. Loose, Wilhelm (ed.) (1877): Anton Tuchers Haushaltbuch (1507 bis 1517). - Tübingen: Laupp (Bibliothek des Litterarischen Vereins in Stuttgart 134). - (ed.) (1880): Briefe eines Leipziger Studenten aus den Jahren 1572 bis 1574. - Meissen: Klinkicht (Beigabe zum Jahres-Bericht der Realschule zu Meissen).

173 -

(ed.) (1881): Des Hieronymus Kress Kriegstagebuch. - In: Mitteilungen des Vereins für Geschichte der Stadt Nürnberg 3, 37—72. Lux, Julius (1961): Wörterbuch der Mundart von Dobschau (Zips). - Marburg: Elwert (Deutsche Dialektgeographie 52). MacWhinney, Brian (1987): The Competition Model. - In: Brian MacWhinney (ed.): Mechanisms of Language Acquisition, 249-308. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. - (1989): Competition and Connectionism. - In: Brain MacWhinney and Elizabeth Bates (eds.): The Crosslinguistic Study of Sentence Processing, 422-57. New York: Cambridge Univ. Press. MacWhinney, Brian and Jared Leinbach (1991): Implementations are Not Conceptualizations: Revising the Verb Learning Model. - In: Cognition 40, 121-57. Maier, G. (1901): Das ge-Partizip im Neuhochdeutschen. - In: Zeitschrift für deutsche Wortforschung 1, 281-318. Marcus, Gary F., Steven Pinker, Michael Ullman, Michelle Hollander, T. John Rosen, and Fei Xu (1992): Overregularization in Language Acquisition. - Chicago: Univ. of Chicago Press (Monographs of the Society for Research in Child Development, serial no. 228, vol. 57, no. 4). Marcus, Gary F., Ursula Brinkmann, Harald Clahsen, Richard Wiese, and Steven Pinker (1995): German Inflection: The Exception that Proves the Rule. - In: Cognitive Psychology 29, 189-256. Markey, T. L. (1985): On Suppletion. - In: Diachronica 2, 51-66. Marslen-Wilson, William D. and Lorraine K. Tyler (1997): Dissociating Types of Mental Computation. - In: Nature 387, 592-^1. Maurer, Friedrich and Rudolf Mulch (1965-): Südhessisches Wörterbuch, 5 vols. - Marburg: Elwert. Mausser, Otto (1932): Mittelhochdeutsche Grammatik, vol. 1. - München: Hueber. - (1933): Mittelhochdeutsche Grammatik, vol. 3. - München: Hueber. Mayer, Moritz Maximilian (ed.) (1830): Spengleriana. - Nuremberg: Druck der Campeschen Officin. Mayerthaler, Willi (1981): Morphologische Natürlichkeit. - Wiesbaden: Athenaion (Linguistische Forschungen 28). - (1987): System-independent Morphological Naturalness. - In: Wolfgang U. Dressler (ed.): Leitmotifs in Natural Morphology, 25-58. Philadelphia: Benjamins (Studies in Language Companion Series 10). - (1988): Morphological Naturalness. - Ann Arbor, MI: Karoma (Linguistica Extranea 17, Translation of Mayerthaler 1981). McClintock, David R. (1961): Die umgelauteten Praeteritopraesentia und der Synkretismus im deutschen Verbalsystem. - In: Beiträge zur Geschichte der deutschen Sprache und Literatur (Tübingen) 83, 271-7. McMahon, April M.S. (1994): Understanding Language Change. - New York: Cambridge Univ. Press. Meineke, Eckhard (1989): 'Natürlichkeit' und 'Ökonomie'. Neuere Auffassungen des Sprachwandels. - In: Sprachwissenschaft 14, 318-56. Mel'öuk, Igor (1994): Suppletion: Toward a Logical Analysis of the Concept. - In: Studies in Language 18,339-410. Menn, Lise and Brian MacWhinney (1984): The Repeated Morph Constraint: Toward an Explanation. - In: Language 60, 519-41. Mentz, Georg (ed.) (1912): Handschriften der Reformationszeit. - Bonn: Marcus und Weber. Michels, Victor (1979): Mittelhochdeutsche Grammatik, 5th ed. of the Mittelhochdeutsches Elementarbuch, ed. by Hugo Stopp. - Heidelberg: Winter. Milroy, James (1992): Linguistic Variation and Change. - Cambridge, Mass.: Blackwell (Language in Society 19). - (1999): Toward a Speaker-based Account of Language Change. - In: Ernst Häkon Jahr (ed.): Language Change. Advances in Historical Sociolinguistics, 21-36. New York: Mouton de Gruyter (Trends in Linguistics, Studies and Monographs 114). Morpurgo Davies, Anna (1978): Analogy, Segmentation, and the Early Neogrammarians. - In: Transactions of the Philological Society 1978, 36-60. Moser, Virgil (1909): Historisch-grammatische Einführung in die frühneuhochdeutschen Schriftdialekte. - Halle: Waisenhaus (Reprinted 1971, Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft).

174 -

(1929): Frühneuhochdeutsche Grammatik, vol. 1.1. - Heidelberg: Winter (Germanische Bibliothek I, I, 17). - (1932): Das Nürnbergische. - In: Beiträge zur Geschichte der deutschen Sprache und Literatur 56, 378-82. Müller, Arnd (1968): Geschichte der Juden in Nürnberg. - Nuremberg: Selbstverlag der Stadtbibliothek. Müller, Johannes (1882): Quellenschriften und Geschichte des deutschsprachlichen Unterrichtes bis zur Mitte des 16. Jahrhunderts. - Gotha: Thienemann (Reprinted 1969, New York: Olms). Müller, Josef (1931): Rheinisches Wörterbuch, vol. 2. - Berlin: Klopp. Müller, Nikolaus (ed.) (1893): Beiträge zum Briefwechsel des älteren Hieronymus Baumgärtner und seiner Familie. - In: Mitteilungen des Vereins für Geschichte der Stadt Nürnberg 10, 241-66. Mummenhoff, Ernst (ed.) (1880): Lutz Steinlingers Baumeisterbuch vom Jahre 1452. - In: Mitteilungen des Vereins für Geschichte der Stadt Nürnberg 2, 15-77. - (ed.) (1888a): Zammacher gleich Zaummacher. - In: Mitteilungen des Vereins für Geschichte der Stadt Nürnberg 1, 270-1. - (ed.) (1888b): Kaiser Rudolph II. begehrt vom Rat die Lautensackschen Tafeln in der Katharinenkirche. - In: Mitteilungen des Vereins für Geschichte der Stadt Nürnberg 7, 272-3. - (ed.) (1888c): Beitrag zur Hoffahrtsordnung. - In: Mitteilungen des Vereins für Geschichte der Stadt Nürnberg 7, 274. - (ed.) (1889): Der Kunstschreiner Hans Wilhelm Beheim will behufs Absatzes künstlicher Schreinerarbeit einen Glückshafen errichten, erfährt indess seitens des Rats Abweisung. - In: Mitteilungen des Vereins für Geschichte der Stadt Nürnberg 8.250-1. Newmeyer, Frederick J. (1992): Iconicity and Generative Grammar. - In: Language 68.756-96. Newton, G. (1990): Central Franconian. - In: Charles V.J. Russ (ed.): The Dialects of Modern German, 136-209. London: Routledge. Nida, Eugene A. (1963): The Identification of Morphemes. - In: Martin Joos (ed.): Readings in Linguistics, 3rd ed., 255-71. New York: American Council of Learned Societies (Reprinted from Language 24 (1948), 414-^1). Noyer, Rolf (1997): Features, Positions, and Affixes in Autonomous Morphological Structure. - New York: Garland. - (1999): Distributed Morphology: Frequently Asked Questions List. (Accessed on Feb. 24, 1999). Obernberger, Alfred (1964): Die Mundart der siebenbürgischen Landler. - Marburg: Elwert (Deutsche Dialektgeographie 67). Oohlau, Jürgen U. (1963/64): Neue Quellen zur Familiengeschichte der Spengler. - In: Mitteilungen des Vereins für Geschichte der Stadt Nürnberg 52, 232-55. Osthoff, Hermann (1899): Vom Suppletivwesen der indogermanischen Sprachen. Akademische Rede zur Feier des Geburtsfestes des höchstseligen Grossherzogs Karl Friedrich. - Heidelberg: Hörning. Ozment, Steven (1986): Magdalena & Balthasar. - New Haven: Yale Univ. Press. - (1990): Three Behaim Boys. - New Haven: Yale Univ. Press. Paul, Hermann (1877): Die Vocale der Flexions- und Ableitungs-Silben in den aeltesten germanischen Dialecten. - In: Beiträge zur Geschichte der deutschen Sprache und Literatur 4, 315— 475. - (1956): Deutsche Grammatik, 3rd ed., vol. 2. - Halle: Niemeyer. - (1958): Deutsche Grammatik, 5th ed., vol. 1. - Halle: Niemeyer. - (1960): Prinzipien der Sprachgeschichte, 6th ed. - Tübingen: Niemeyer (Reprint of the 5th ed., 1920). - (1989): Mittelhochdeutsche Grammatik, 23rd ed. by Peter Wiehl and Siegfried Grosse. Tübingen: Niemeyer (Sammlung kurzer Grammatiken germanischer Dialekte A., 2). Pausch, Oskar (ed.) (1972): Das älteste italienisch-deutsche Sprachbuch. - Vienna: Böhlaus (Österreichische Akademie der Wissenschaften, Philosophisch-historische Klasse, Denkschriften 111). Pfanner, Josef (1954): Die deutsche Schreibsprache in Nürnberg von ihrem ersten Auftreten bis zum Ausgang des 14. Jahrhunderts. - In: Mitteilungen des Vereins für Geschichte der Stadt Nürnberg 45, 148-207.

175 -

(ed.) (1962): Die "Denkwürdigkeiten" der Caritas Pirckheimer (aus den Jahren 1524-1528). Landshut: Solanus Druck (Caritas Pirckheimer—Quellensammlung 2). - (ed.) (1966): Briefe von, an und über Caritas Pirckheimer (aus den Jahren ¡498-1530). — Landshut: Solanus Druck. Pfeifer, Wolfgang (ed.) (1993): Etymologisches Wörterbuch des Deutschen, 2nd ed. - Munich: Deutscher Taschenbuch Verlag. Pfeiffer, Gerhard (ed.) (1968): Quellen zur Nürnberger Reformationsgeschichte. - Nuremberg: Selbstverlag des Vereins für bayerische Kirchengeschichte. - (ed.) (1981): Die ältesten Urbare der Deutschordenskommende Nürnberg. - Neustadt/Aisch: Degener (Veröffentlichung der Gesellschaft für fränkische Geschichte, X. Reihe 10). Pickel, G. (1913): Geschichte des Klaraklosters in Nürnberg. - In: Beiträge zur bayerischen Kirchengeschichte 19, 145-72, 193-211, 241-59. Pike, Kenneth L. (1965): Non-linear Order and Anti-redundancy in German Morphological Matrices. - In: Zeitschrift für Mundartforschung 31,193-221. Pinker, Steven (1984): Language Learnability and Language Development. - Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard Univ. Press. - (1991): Rules of Language. - In: Science 253, 530-5. - (1997): Words and Rules in the Human Brain. - In: Nature 387, 547-8. Pinker, Steven and Alan Prince (1988): On Language and Connectionism: Analysis of a Parallel Distributed Processing Model of Language Acquisition. - In: Cognition 28, 73-194. - (1994): Regular and Irregular Morphology and the Psychological Status of Rules of Grammar. In: Susan D. Lima, Roberta L. Corrigan, and Gregory K. Iverson (eds.): The Reality of Linguistic Rules, 321-351. Philadelphia: Benjamins (Studies in Language Companion Series 26). Pohl, Horst (ed.) (1992): Willibald lmhoff, Enkel und Erbe Willibald Pirckheimers. - Nuremberg: Selbstverlag des Stadtrats zu Nürnberg (Quellen zur Geschichte und Kultur der Stadt Nürnberg 24). Prasada, Sandeep and Steven Pinker (1993): Generalisation of Regular and Irregular Morphological Patterns. - In: Language and Cognitive Processes 8, 1-56. Praun, Friedrich (ed.) (1916): Was sich auf meiner Reise zugetragen, da ich, Stephan Praun von Nürnbergkh, den 20. Jenner bis 31. May, a-o 1569 mit Kaysers Maximillian Pottschafft, dem Herrn Kaspar von Minckwitz von Wien zu Landt nach Constantinoppol mit dem Tribut gezogen, part 1. - In: Mitteilungen aus dem germanischen Nationalmuseum 1916, 45-62. - (ed.) (1917): Was sich auf meiner Reise zugetragen, da ich, Stephan Praun von Nürnbergkh, den 20. Jenner bis 31. May, a-o 1569 mit Kaysers Maximillian Pottschafft, dem Herrn Kaspar von Minckwitz von Wien zu Landt nach Constantinoppol mit dem Tribut gezogen, part 2. - In: Mitteilungen aus dem germanischen Nationalmuseum 1917, 49-58. Prokosch, E. (1939): A Comparative Germanic Grammar. - Philadelphia: Linguistic Society of America. Reicke, Emil (ed.) (1940): Willibald Pirckheimers Briefwechsel, vol. 1. - München: Beck (Veröffentlichungen der Kommission zur Erforschung der Geschichte der Reformation und Gegenreformation, Humanistenbreife IV). - (ed.) (1956): Willibald Pirckheimers Briefwechsel, vol. 2. - München: Beck (Humanistenbriefe V). Roedder, Edwin (1936): Volkssprache und Wortschatz des badischen Frankenlandes. - New York: Modern Language Association of America. Romaine, Suzanne (1982): Socio-historical Linguistics. - New York: Cambridge Univ. Press. - (1988): Historical Sociolinguistics: Problems and Methodology. - In: Ulrich Ammon, Norbert Dittmar, and Klaus J. Mattheier (eds.): Sociolinguistics, vol. 2, 1452-69. New York: de Gruyter (Handbücher zur Sprach- und Kommunikationswissenschaft 3.2). Ronneberger-Sibold, Elke (1980): Sprachverwendung—Sprachsystem. Ökonomie und Wandel. Tübingen: Niemeyer (Linguistische Arbeiten 87). - (1987a): Verschiedene Wege zur Entstehung von suppletiven Flexionsparadigmen, Deutsch gern lieber - am liebsten. - In: Norbert Boretzky, Werner Enninger, and Thomas Stolz (eds.): Beiträge zum 3. Essener Kolloquium über Sprachwandel und seine bestimmenden Faktoren, 243-64. Bochum: Brockmeyer (Bochum—Essener Beiträge zur Sprachwandelforschung IV).

176 -

(1987b): A Performance Model for a Natural Theory of Linguistic Change. - In: Anna Giacalone, Onofrio Carruba, and Giuliano Bernini Ramat (eds.): Papers from the 7th International Conference on Historical Linguistics, 517-33. Philadelphia: Benjamins (Current Issues in Linguistic Theory 48). - (1988): Entstehung von Suppletion und Natürliche Morphologie. - In: Zeitschrift für Phonetik, Sprachwissenschaft und Kommunikationsforschung 41, 453-62. Rowley, Anthony R. (1986): Fersental—Untersuchung einer Sprachinselmundart. - Tübingen: Niemeyer (Phonai 31, [Monographien 18]). - (1990a): East Franconian. - In: Charles V.J. Russ (ed.): The Dialects of Modern German, 3 9 4 416. London: Routledge. - (1990b): North Bavarian. - In: Charles V.J. Russ (ed.): The Dialects of Modern German, 417-37. London: Routledge. Mundarten in ihrer sprach- (1997): Morphologische Systeme der nordostbayerischen geographischen Verflechtung. — Stuttgart: Steiner (Zeitschrift für Dialektologie und Linguistik, Beihefte 93). Rudes, Blair A. (1980): On the Nature of Verbal Suppletion. - In: Linguistics 18, 655-76. Rumelhart, David E. and James L. McClelland (1986): On Learning the Past Tenses of English Verbs. - In: David E. Rumelhart and James L. McClelland (eds.): Parallel Distributed Processing: Explorations in the Microstructure of Cognition, vol. 1, 216-71. Cambridge, MA: Bradford. - (1987): Learning the Past Tenses of English Verbs: Implicit Rules or Parallel Distributed Processing? - In: Brian MacWhinney (ed.): Mechanisms of Language Acquisition, 195-248. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. Rupprich, Hans (ed.) (1956): Dürer. Schriftlicher Nachlaß, vol. 1. - Berlin: Deutscher Verein für Kunstwissenschaft. - (ed.) (1966): Dürer. Schriftlicher Nachlaß, vol. 2. - Berlin: Deutscher Verein für Kunstwissenschaft. - (ed.) (1969): Dürer. Schriftlicher Nachlaß, vol. 3. - Berlin: Deutscher Verein für Kunstwissenschaft. Russ, Charles V.J. (1990): Swabian. - In: Charles V.J. Russ (ed.): The Dialects of Modern German, 337-63. London: Routledge. Samuels, M.L. (1972): Linguistic Evolution. - Cambridge: Cambridge Univ. Press (Cambridge Studies in Linguistics 5). Saussure, Ferdinand de (1962): Cours de Linguistique Générale, 3rd ed. by Charles Bally and Albert Sechehaye. - Paris: Payot. Scheurl, A. v. (1884): Christoph Scheurl, Dr. Christoph Scheurls Vater. - In: Mitteilungen des Vereins für Geschichte der Stadt Nürnberg 5, 13—46. Schirmunski, V.M. (1962): Deutsche Mundartkunde. - Berlin: Akademie-Verlag (Deutsche Akademie der Wissenschaften zu Berlin, Veröffentlichungen des Instituts fur deutsche Sprache und Literatur 25). Schmitt, Ludwig Erich (1936): Die deutsche Urkundensprache in der Kanzlei Kaiser Karls IV. (1346-78). - Halle: Niemeyer (Zeitschrift für Mundartforschung, Beiheft 15 [Mitteldeutsche Studien 11]). Schübel, Georg (1955): Die Ostfränkisch-Bambergische Mundart von Stadtsteinach im ehemaligen Fürstbistum Bamberg. - Giessen: Schmitz (Beiträge zur deutschen Philologie 3). Seibicke, Wilfried (1967): Beiträge zur Mundartkunde des Nordobersächsischen. - Köln: Böhlau (Mitteldeutsche Forschungen 53). Shapiro, Michael (1983): The Sense of Grammar. - Bloomington: Indiana Univ. Press. - (1991): The Sense of Change. - Bloomington: Indiana Univ. Press. Shumway, Daniel Bussier (1894): Das ablautende Verbum bei Hans Sachs. - Einbeck: Schroedter. Skousen, Royal (1989): Analogical Modeling of Language. - Boston: Kluwer. - (1992): Analogy and Structure. - Boston: Kluwer. Slobin, Dan I. (1973): Cognitive Prerequisites for the Development of Grammar. - In: Charles A. Ferguson and Dan Isaac Slobin (eds.): Studies of Child Language Development, 175-208. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.

177 -

(1985): Crosslinguistic Evidence for the Language-Making Capacity. - In: Dan I. Slobin (ed.): The Crosslinguistic Study of Language Acquisition, vol. 2, 1157-260. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. Soden, Franz von and J.K.F. Knaake (eds.) (1962): Christoph Scheurl's Briefbuch, 2 vols. - Aalen: Zeller (Reprint in 1 vol.). Solms, Hans-Joachim (1984): Die morphologischen Veränderungen der Stammvokale der starken Verben im Frühneuhochdeutschen. - Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Univ. of Bonn. Solms, Hans-Joachim and Klaus-Peter Wegera (1993): Flexionsmorphologie. - In: Frühneuhochdeutsche Grammatik, by Robert Peter Ebert, Oskar Reichmann, Hans-Joachim Solms, and KlausPeter Wegera, 164-312. Tübingen: Niemeyer (Sammlung kurzer Grammatiken germanischer Dialekte A., 12). Spangenberg, Karl (1990): Thuringian. - In: Charles V.J. Russ (ed.): The Dialects of Modern German, 265-89. London: Routledge. - (1993): Laut- und Formeninventar thüringischer Dialekte. - Berlin: Akademie Verlag (Beiband zum Thüringischen Wörterbuch). Spencer, Andrew (1991): Morphological Theory. - Cambridge, Mass.: Blackwell. - (1998): Morphophonological Operations. - In: Andrew Spencer and Arnold M. Zwicky (eds.): The Handbook of Morphology, 123—43. Maiden, Mass.: Blackwell. Spencer, Andrew and Arnold M. Zwicky (1998): Introduction. - In: Andrew Spencer and Arnold M. Zwicky (eds.): The Handbook of Morphology, 1-10. Maiden, Mass.: Blackwell. Steinhausen Georg (ed.) (1895): Briefwechsel Balthasar Paumgartners des jüngeren mit seiner Gattin Magdalena, geb. Behaim (1582-1598.). - Tübingen: Laupp (Bibliothek des litterarischen Vereins in Stuttgart 204). Steininger, Reinhold (1994): Beiträge zu einer Grammatik des Bairischen. - Stuttgart: Steiner (Zeitschrift fur Dialektologie und Linguistik, Beihefte 85). Stellmacher, Dieter (1973): Untersuchungen zur Dialektgeographie des mitteldeutsch-niederdeutschen Interferenzraumes östlich der mittleren Elbe. - Köln: Böhlau (Mitteldeutsche Forschungen 75). Stemberger, Joseph Paul (1981): Morphological Haplology. - In: Language 57, 791-817. - (1993): Vowel Dominance in Overregularizations. - In: Journal of Child Language 20, 503-21. - (1994): Rule-Less Morphology at the Phonology-Lexicon Interface. - In: Susan D. Lima, Roberta L. Corrigan, and Gregory K. Iverson (eds.): The Reality of Linguistic Rules, 147-69. Philadelphia: Benjamins (Studies in Language Companion Series 26). - (1998): Morphology in Language Production with Special Reference to Connectionism. - In: Andrew Spencer and Arnold M. Zwicky (eds.): The Handbook of Morphology, 428-52. Maiden, Mass.: Blackwell. Stopp, Hugo (1977): Gewesen - Gesin - Gewest. - In: Zeitschrift für deutsche Philologie 96 (Sonderheft). 1-34. Strömberg, Edvard (1907): Die Ausgleichung des Ablauts im starken Präteritum. - Göteborg: Zachrisson. Tiersma, Peter Meijes (1982): Local and General Markedness. - In: Language 58, 832-49. Toon, Thomas E. (1983): The Politics of Early Old English Sound Change. - New York: Academic Press. Trudgill, Peter ( 1986): Dialects in Contact. - New York: Blackwell. Tschinkel, Walter (1973): Wörterbuch der Gottscheer Mundart, vol. 1. - Vienna: Österreichische Akademie der Wissenschaften (Studien zur österreichisch-bairischen Dialektkunde 7). Varley, Matthew (1993): Class VII Strong Verbs in Germanic and the Old High German RPreterites. - Unpublished ms., Univ. of Michigan. Vennemann, Theo (1972a): Rule Inversion. - In: Lingua 29, 209-42. - (1972b): Phonetic Analogy and Conceptual Analogy. - In: Theo Vennemann and Terence H. Wilbur (eds.): Schuchardt, the Neogrammarians, and the Transformational Theory of Phonological Change, 181-204. Frankfurt: Athenäum (Linguistische Forschungen 26). Vincent, Nigel (1974): Analogy Reconsidered. - In: J.M. Anderson and C. Jones (eds.): Historical Linguistics II, 427-45. New York: American Elsevier (North-Holland Linguistic Series 12b = Proceedings of the First International Conference on Historical Linguistics, Edinburgh).

178 Waugh, Linda R. and Madeleine Newfield (1995): Iconicity in the Lexicon and its Relevance for a Theory of Morphology. - In: Marge E. Landsberg (ed.): Syntactic Iconicity and Linguistic Freezes, 181-221. New York: Mouton de Gruyter (Studies in Anthropological Linguistics 9). Wegera, Klaus-Peter (1977): Kontrastive Grammatik: Osthessisch-Standardsprache. - Marburg: Elwert (Deutsche Dialektographie 103). - (1993): Probleme bei der Ermittlung morphologischer Teilsysteme. Einige methodische Überlegungen. - In: Klaus J. Mattheier, Haruo Nitta, and Mitsuyo Ono (eds.): Methoden zur Erforschung des Frühneuhochdeutschen, 93-8. Munich: judicium. Weinhold, Karl (1967a): Mittelhochdeutsche Grammatik. - Paderborn: Schöningh (Reprint of the 1883 edition). - (1967b): Alemannische Grammatik. - Amsterdam: RODOPI. (Grammatik der deutschen Mundarten 1; reprint of the 1863 Dümmler [Berlin] edition). - (1968): Bairische Grammatik. - Wiesbaden: Sändig (Reprint of the 1867 Dümmler [Berlin] edition). Weidner, Heinrich (1991): Die Mundart von Barchfeld an der Werra. - Stuttgart: Steiner (Zeitschrift für Dialektologie und Linguistik, Beihefte 68). Werner, Otmar (1984): Geschichte der Sprachgeschichtsforschung nach Beschreibungsebenen: Historische Morphologie. - In: Werner Besch, Oskar Reichmann, and Stefan Sonderegger (eds.): Sprachgeschichte, vol. 1, 409-18. New York: de Gruyter (Handbücher zur Sprach- und Kommunikationswissenschaft 2.1). - (1987): Natürlichkeit und Nutzen morphologischer Irregularität. - In: Norbert Boretzky, Werner Enninger, and Thomas Stolz (eds.): Beiträge zum 3. Essener Kolloquium über Sprachwandel und seine bestimmenden Faktoren, 289-316. Bochum: Brockmeyer (Bochum—Essener Beiträge zur Sprachwandelforschung IV). - (1989): Sprachökonomie und Natürlichkeit im Bereich der Morphologie. - In: Zeitschrift für Phonetik, Sprachwissenschaft, und Kommunikationsforschung 42, 34-47. Wiesinger, Peter (1983a): Hebung und Senkung in den deutschen Dialekten. - In: Werner Besch et al. (eds.): Dialektologie, vol. 2, 1106-10. New York: de Gruyter (Handbücher zur Sprach- und Kommunikationswissenschaft 1.2). - (1983b): Rundung und Entrundung, Palatalisierung und Entpalatalisierung, Velarisierung und Entvelarisierung in den deutschen Dialekten. - In: Werner Besch et al. (eds.): Dialektologie, vol. 2, 1101-5. New York: de Gruyter (Handbücher zur Sprach- und Kommunikationswissenschaft 1.2).

-

(1989): Die Flexionsmorphologie des Verbums im Bairischen. - Vienna: Verlag der Osterreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften (Österreichische Akademie der Wissenschaften, Philosophisch-historische Klasse, Sitzungsberichte 523). - (1990): The Central and Southern Bavarian Dialects in Bavaria and Austria. - In: Charles V.J. Russ (ed.): The Dialects of Modern German, 438-519. London: Routledge. Wilmanns, W. (1922): Deutsche Grammatik, 3rd part, 1st half. - Berlin: de Gruyter. Wolfram, Walt and Natalie Schilling-Estes (1998): American English. - Maiden, MA: Blackwell (Language in Society 25). Wrede, Adam (1965): Neuer Kölnischer Sprachschatz, 3 vols. - Cologne: Greven. Wrede, Ferdinand, Walther Mitzka, and Bernhard Martin (1927-1956): Deutscher Sprachatlas auf Grund des Sprachatlas des Deutschen Reichs von Georg Wenker. - Marburg: Elwert. Wright, Laura (1999): Middle English Variation: The London English Guild Certificates of 1388/89. - In: Ernst Häkon Jahr (ed.): Language Change. Advances in Historical Sociolinguistics, 169-96. New York: Mouton de Gruyter (Trends in Linguistics, Studies and Monographs 114). Wurzel, Wolfgang Ullrich (1984): Flexionsmorphologie und Natürlichkeit. - Berlin: Akademie-Verlag (studia grammatica 21). - (1985): Zur Suppletion bei den Dimensionsadjektiven. - In: W.U. Wurzel (ed.): Studien zur Morphologie und Phonologie I, 114-43. - Berlin: Akademie der Wissenschaften der DDR, Zentralinstitut für Sprachwissenschaft (Linguistische Studien, A 126). - (1987): System-dependent Morphological Naturalness in Inflection. - In: Wolfgang U. Dressier (ed.): Leitmotifs in Natural Morphology, 59-96. Philadelphia: Benjamins (Studies in Language Companion Series 10).

179 -

(1989): Inflectional Morphology and Naturalness. - Boston: Kluwer (Translation of Wurzel 1984). - (1990a): Gedanken zu Suppletion und Natürlichkeit. - In: Zeitschrift für Phonetik, Sprachwissenschaft und Kommunikationsforschung 43, 86-91. - (1990b): The Mechanism of Inflection: Lexicon Representations, Rules, and Irregularities. - In: Wolfgang U. Dressler, Hans C. Luschützky, Oskar E. Pfeiffer, and John R. Rennison (eds.): Contemporary Morphology, 203-16. New York: Mouton de Gruyter (Trends in Linguistics, Studies and Monographs 49). - (1992): The Structuralist Heritage in Natural Morphology. - In: Hans-Heinrich Lieb (ed.): Prospects for a New Structuralism, 225-41. Philadelphia: Benjamins (Current Issues in Linguistic Theory 96). Wuttke, Dieter (ed.) (1968): Ein unbekannter Brief Willibald Pirckheimers. - In: Archiv für Kulturgeschichte 50.2, 292-9. - (ed.) (1989): Willibald Pirckhiemers Briefwechsel, vol. 3. - München: Beck. Yip, Moira (1998): Identity Avoidance in Phonology and Morphology. - In: Steven G. Lapointe, Diane K. Brentari, and Patrick M. Farrell (eds.): Morphology and Its Relation to Phonology and Syntax, 216-46. Stanford: CSLI Publications. Zipf, George Kingsley (1935): The Psycho-biology of Language. - Boston: Houghton Mifflin. Zwicky, Arnold M. (1990): Inflectional Morphology as a (Sub)component of Grammar. - In: Wolfgang U. Dressler, Hans C. Luschützky, Oskar E. Pfeiffer, and John R. Rennison (eds.): Contemporary Morphology, 217-36. New York: Mouton de Gruyter (Trends in Linguistics, Studies and Monographs 49).