Klar – klärer – am klärsten? Umlaut comparison as a doubtful case in contemporary German

J. Nowak
{"title":"Klar – klärer – am klärsten? Umlaut comparison as a doubtful case in contemporary German","authors":"J. Nowak","doi":"10.1515/yplm-2017-0004","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Abstract The present paper addresses doubtful cases concerning the use of umlaut in the adjectival comparison of contemporary German: bang ‘anxious’ - banger/bänger - am bangsten/ bängsten. It aims to shed light on the concrete distribution of this variation, i.e. the preference for one of the variants. Corpus-based analyses will show that the adjectives under discussion are not equally affected by umlaut variation: some are (surprisingly) stable (e.g., gesund ‘healthy’), whereas many others have a clear preference (i.e. > 70%) for non-umlauting forms (e.g., blass ‘pale’, nass ‘wet’). Interestingly, a few of the supposedly stable cases appear to have at least some non-umlauting forms (e.g., krank ‘ill’, nah ‘near’, grob ‘rough’). Even more interesting (but still comparatively rare) is the use of umlaut in conceptual orality contexts with adjectives that exhibit no umlaut comparison in Standard German, e.g., klar ‘clear’, falsch ‘wrong’, doof ‘stupid’. As will be demonstrated, these doubtful cases reflect a centuries-old and still ongoing reorganization process within umlaut comparison. It will turn out that a complex network of interacting factors such as token frequency, phonological schemas, and morphological complexity is at work.","PeriodicalId":431433,"journal":{"name":"Yearbook of the Poznan Linguistic Meeting","volume":"1 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2017-09-26","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Yearbook of the Poznan Linguistic Meeting","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1515/yplm-2017-0004","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Abstract The present paper addresses doubtful cases concerning the use of umlaut in the adjectival comparison of contemporary German: bang ‘anxious’ - banger/bänger - am bangsten/ bängsten. It aims to shed light on the concrete distribution of this variation, i.e. the preference for one of the variants. Corpus-based analyses will show that the adjectives under discussion are not equally affected by umlaut variation: some are (surprisingly) stable (e.g., gesund ‘healthy’), whereas many others have a clear preference (i.e. > 70%) for non-umlauting forms (e.g., blass ‘pale’, nass ‘wet’). Interestingly, a few of the supposedly stable cases appear to have at least some non-umlauting forms (e.g., krank ‘ill’, nah ‘near’, grob ‘rough’). Even more interesting (but still comparatively rare) is the use of umlaut in conceptual orality contexts with adjectives that exhibit no umlaut comparison in Standard German, e.g., klar ‘clear’, falsch ‘wrong’, doof ‘stupid’. As will be demonstrated, these doubtful cases reflect a centuries-old and still ongoing reorganization process within umlaut comparison. It will turn out that a complex network of interacting factors such as token frequency, phonological schemas, and morphological complexity is at work.
Klar - klärer - am klärsten?当代德语中的Umlaut比较问题
摘要:本文讨论了在当代德语形容词比较中使用变音符的可疑情况:bang ' anxious ' - banger/bänger - am bangsten/ bängsten。它旨在阐明这种变异的具体分布,即对其中一种变体的偏好。基于语料库的分析将表明,所讨论的形容词受到变音符变化的影响并不相同:有些(令人惊讶地)稳定(例如,gesund ' healthy '),而许多其他形容词则明显偏爱非变音符形式(例如,glass ' pale ', nass ' wet ')。有趣的是,一些被认为是稳定的案例似乎至少有一些非变音形式(例如,krank表示“ill”,nah表示“near”,grob表示“rough”)。更有趣的是(但仍然相对罕见),在标准德语中,在概念口语语境中,对形容词使用变音符,而这些形容词在标准德语中没有变音符比较,例如,klar表示“清楚”,falsch表示“错误”,doof表示“愚蠢”。正如将证明的那样,这些可疑的案例反映了在变音比较中一个有数世纪历史且仍在进行的重组过程。事实证明,一个复杂的相互作用因素网络,如符号频率、语音模式和形态复杂性在起作用。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信