In this paper, we investigate the properties of Old High German relative clauses. A striking fact is that the finite verb in these constructions may either precede or follow its object(s). We survey different possible factors proposed in the literature that could determine the relative order of the verb and its objects (VO/OV order), such as type, time, and place of origin of the text, information-structural properties of the object of the relative clause, presence of a relative particle, definiteness of the antecedent, specificity of the referent, and type of the relative clause (restrictive or appositive). Our investigation is based on a corpus of nontranslated texts. It reveals that the only factors that have statistically significant influence on word order are the type of the relative clause and some information-structural properties of the object of the relative clause.*

This paper seeks to find the best linguistic analysis of the German semispecified, productive pattern N hin, N her (for example, Krieg hin, Krieg her, es muss eine gute Show werden ‘War or no war, it must be a good show’). The basic question is whether the properties of N hin, N her can be accounted for in a rule-based approach or whether they are to be regarded as idiosyncratic properties of this construction. One of the characteristic features of N hin, N her is the identity of the nouns. This raises the question of whether or not N hin, N her is an instance of syntactic reduplication. It is shown that rule-based copying accounts fail when they are applied to the case of N hin, N her. The paper argues for an alternative, constructionist account of N hin, N her, which is able to cover both regular and idiosyncratic aspects of the construction in a systematic fashion. However, the paper goes beyond a standard constructionist account by also arguing that the idiosyncratic features of the construction can be further explained if one takes into account general pragmatic principles. This requires a theory that incorporates a systematic interface with pragmatics.*

Southern varieties of Dutch use the 1st person plural form of the possessive pronoun ons as a marker of consanguinity with proper names, as in ons Emma ‘Emma, our consanguineous family member’. This use of ons ‘our’ has some remarkable properties: It is incompatible with adjectival modification and contrastive stress. These properties are shared with a construction from Standard Dutch: complex prenominal s- possessors consisting of the 1st person singular form of the possessive pronoun and a kinship term as in mijn vaders fiets ‘my father's bike’. We propose that both these constructions are constructional idioms (Booij 2002), a lexical template with a variable part. This offers a straightforward account of the properties of these constructions.*

Given the common ancestry of Dutch and Afrikaans, it is not surprising that they use similar periphrastic constructions to express progressive meaning: aan het (Dutch) and aan die/’t (Afrikaans) lit. ‘at the’; bezig met/(om) te (Dutch) lit. ‘busy with/to’ and besig om te lit. ‘busy to’ (Afrikaans); and so-called cardinal posture verb constructions (zitten/sit ‘sit’, staan ‘stand’, liggen/lê ‘lie’ and lopen/loop ‘walk’), CPV te (‘to’ Dutch) and CPV en (‘and’ Afrikaans). However, these cognate constructions have grammaticalized to different extents. To assess the exact nature of these differences, we analyzed the constructions with respect to overall frequency, collocational range, and transitivity (compatibility with transitive predicates and passivizability). We used two corpora that are equal in size (both about 57 million words) and contain roughly the same types of written text. It turns out that the use of periphrastic progressives is generally more widespread in Afrikaans than in Dutch. As far as grammaticalization is concerned, we found that the Afrikaans aan die- and CPV-constructions, as well as the Dutch bezig- and CPV-constructions, are semantically restricted. In addition, only the Afrikaans besig- and CPV en-constructions allow passivization, which is remarkable for such periphrastic expressions.*

The name of the Old English s-rune, sigil, as found in various medieval manuscripts, is puzzling, as it is the only Anglo-Saxon rune name that is etymologically a loan word. This article examines the variant spelling <sygil> found only in MS Codex Vindobonensis 795, arguing that the spelling with <y> is a scribal interpolation. In addressing how an Old High German-speaking scribe might have come to make such an interpolation it is argued that the word sugil found in Continental runica abecedaria ought to be considered an Old High German lexeme relevant to this discussion. A novel etymology for words for ‘sun’ in Germanic is presented, particularly for forms derived from the l-stem variants of the Proto-Indo-European heteroclite.

While the transfer of English nouns into Texas German has received substantial scholarly attention, there currently exist no detailed studies on the transfer of English verbs into Texas German in particular and German-American dialects in general. This paper therefore discusses English verbs that are code-switched and loan-translated into Texas German from both a synchronic and diachronic perspective, using data collected by the Texas German Dialect Project since 2001. The analysis serves two purposes. The first is to provide an overview of English verbs used by Texas German speakers: how these verbs are integrated into German structures, and whether they have become established in the Texas German lexicon. The second goal is to show how analyzing verbal transfers in contact situations underscores the dynamic, interactive nature of language contact and structure. This part of the analysis is motivated by Backus & Dorleijn’s (2009) discussion of loan translation, which emphasizes that existing classifications of language contact phenomena must be rethought, as many instances of transference are not clearly captured by existing categories. Thus, this study goes beyond a lexical analysis of English verbs in Texas German by discussing how lexical transfer interacts with morphology, semantics, and syntax.*

This paper presents the results of a corpus study of pronominal gender agreement in Middle Dutch. In present-day Dutch and in several other Germanic varieties, pronouns show semantic gender agreement that is based on the degree of individuation of the referent. Dutch pronouns show variation between this type of agreement and lexical gender agreement. This study investigates how old semantic agreement based on individuation is. In particular, it aims to answer the question of whether semantic agreement has developed in response to the change from the Germanic three-gender system to a two-gender system or dates back to before this change. The results show that agreement based on individuation already existed in Middle Dutch, when the original three-gender system was still in place. This shows that this type of agreement did not develop in response to the change from three to two nominal genders. The semantic interpretation of the genders along the lines of individuation apparently existed already and could be an old Germanic, possibly Indo-European, feature. What seems to have changed over time is the proportion of semantic to lexical agreement, as semantic agreement appears to occur more frequently in present-day Dutch than in Middle Dutch. This shift in agreement preference may be due to the loss of adnominal gender marking and the resulting reduced visibility of lexical gender in the noun phrase.

This investigation of certain verb-second structures found in the German dialects Kiezdeutsch, Yiddish (both Eastern and Western), Bavarian, and Cimbrian, and to a more limited extent in colloquial German, leads to the hypothesis that Phonological Form, via the interface with the narrow syntax, provides three strategies for compliance with the verb-second restriction on main clauses. These are i) the remapping of two syntactic constituents into a single prosodic phrase, ii) the reduction and remapping of two or more words into a single prosodic word, and iii) the prosodic marking of the syntactic edge of a main clause where a restart of the clause occurs. The investigation, using minimalist tools, underscores the central role of the syntax-phonology interface without eliminating the need for the semantic interface in the derivation of German verb-second structures.*

Three-position (catalectic) verses in fornyrðislag are fully integrated with their regular, four-position counterparts, and accordingly composed in strict conformity to the four-position principle through alignment of the verse-final drop with null linguistic material. However, they are produced only exceptionally in violation of the same principle in Beowulf and Genesis A. With maximal fidelity to the principle, Beowulf almost categorically disallows such short verses, whereas Genesis A, constrained by the principle to a lesser extent, is more liberal in accepting them, as with other metrical operations controlled by the canon, such as anacrusis. Far from random accidents, however, these anomalous verses are most likely to arise under a cluster of syntagmatic conditions: i) The missing element constitutes a verse-final drop; ii) it is preceded by two consecutive lifts. Given the two forces working in optimal combination, the configuration PPx occurs with the highest incidence among the variants of three-position verses in these two Old English poems.*