Exploring syntactic variation by means of "Language Production Experiments": Methods from and analyses on German in Austria - Exploring ...
←
→
Page content transcription
If your browser does not render page correctly, please read the page content below
Journal of Linguistic Geography (2019), 7, 63–81
doi:10.1017/jlg.2019.7
Article
Exploring syntactic variation by means of “Language
Production Experiments”: Methods from and analyses on
German in Austria
Alexandra N. Lenz, Ludwig Maximilian Breuer, Matthias Fingerhuth, Anja Wittibschlager and Melanie E.-H. Seltmann
University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria
Abstract
This article presents computer supported “language production experiments” (LPEs) as a method for the investigation of syntactic variation. It
describes the setup for the investigation of numerous syntactic phenomena and provides a sample study of the German GET passive across
Austria. It also suggests that LPEs offer possibilities for the targeted investigation of linguistic variation in various ways. They may be used to
explore speakers’ individual linguistic repertoires and an according corpus setup can be used to examine e.g., interspeaker patterns of variation.
LPEs also enable researchers to investigate which linguistic factors control or influence syntactic variation.
Keywords: syntax; variation; language production; experiments; GET passive; German in Austria
(Received 16 August 2018; accepted 2 February 2019)
1. Content and goals “language production experiments” (LPEs), which aim to evoke
syntactic constructions and uncover the linguistic, as well as
While variationist linguistics has focused primarily on phonetics/
sociolinguistic, factors that control or influence variation.2
phonology since its inception, variationist research is slowly but
Our paper attempts to illustrate the potential and the limitations of
increasingly starting to focus on syntactic variation. This research
LPEs when eliciting data on syntactic variation within a large-scale
requires modifications and expansions of theoretical and meth-
project, namely project part 03 “Between dialects and standard
odological approaches of variationist linguistics (cf. Cheshire,
varieties: Speech repertoires and varietal spectra” of the Special
2005; Labov, 1978; Lavandera, 1978). This contribution primarily
Research Programme (Spezialforschungsbereich SFB) “German in
aims to provide a methodological enrichment of the discussion by
Austria. Variation–Contact–Perception” (subsequently referred to as
adding an experimental approach to the previously predominant
“SFB DiÖ” (Spezialforschungsbereich ‘Deutsch in Österreich’)).3 In
empirical approaches. Additionally, the syntactic “language pro-
the context of the SFB DiÖ, the LPEs are used to elicit language data
duction experiments” (cf. Section 3) attempt to seize a “syntactic
from the (more or less dialectal) non-standard and the (more or less)
variable” in an empirical manner.
standard spectrum of individuals’ German language repertoires. The
Over the years, a broad spectrum of innovative projects on the
experiments facilitate the systematic investigation of syntactic varia-
variation of syntax has emerged, focusing particularly on the varia-
tion, regarding the inter-individual variation across speakers in various
tion of dialect syntax.1 This research has broadened the empirical
regions of Austria, as well as the intra-individual variation on the “ver-
basis of modern linguistics and has shown that syntactic variation
tically” conceptualized “dialect-standard-axis” (cf. Auer, 2005) within
provides valuable insights into various linguistic disciplines.
one and the same speaker. As well as taking a methodological focus,
Regarding the survey methods, many of these projects use oral
this article presents comprehensive linguistic and sociolinguistic analy-
questionnaires, in which speakers are required to make judgements
ses of one selected syntactic phenomenon (the so called “GET passive”
about grammaticality, acceptability and preference of syntactic
in German). The contribution is structured as follows: In the overview
variants. Research rarely relies upon “uncontrolled” conversational
section (Section 2), the current state of areal-linguistic research into the
data, as this can be problematic when regarding syntactic variation
syntactic level, with a focus on Europe and the German-speaking area,
(particularly when concerning quantity). This article presents an
is summarized. Section 3 focuses on methodological aspects of the
alternative and effective research method that offers solutions to
LPEs used in the SFB DiÖ project. Section 4 provides an exemplary
the quantitative and qualitative problems of many other methodo-
analysis of one selected linguistic phenomenon to illustrate the produc-
logical approaches. This approach consists of computer supported
tivity and validity of LPEs for the analysis of syntactic variation. The
article closes with a summary in Section 5.
Author for correspondence: Alexandra N. Lenz, Email: alexandra.lenz@univie.ac.at
Cite this article: Lenz AN, Breuer LM, Fingerhuth M, Wittibschlager A, and 2. Syntactic variation—research overview
Seltmann MEH. (2019) Exploring syntactic variation by means of “Language
Production Experiments”: Methods from and analyses on German in Austria. Journal Taking Kayne’s (1996) theory of microvariation as a starting point,
of Linguistic Geography 7: 63–81, https://doi.org/10.1017/jlg.2019.7 a broad spectrum of studies and projects on dialect syntax have
© The Author(s), 2019. Published by Cambridge University Press. This is an Open Access article, distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution licence (http://
creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted re-use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. IP address: 46.4.80.155, on 07 Oct 2021 at 12:10:02, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms.
https://doi.org/10.1017/jlg.2019.7
64 Alexandra N. Lenz et al.
emerged in Europe over the past 30 years, primarily with theoreti- worker or in the context of oral interviews. In these written or oral
cal interests and goals. Besides numerous individual studies (cf., questionnaires, different types of questions or tasks are employed.
e.g., Poletto, 2000), there are also several dialect syntax (atlas) pro- Of these, translation and assessment tasks (acceptability tests) have
jects taking place across Europe. Most of these projects are the- the longest tradition and are most commonly used.11 Other types
matically and methodologically connected within the network of tasks used include puzzle tasks, image description, sequences of
European Dialect Syntax (Edisyn) (). images description and completion tasks, as well as combinations
Their thematic integration primarily manifests in a shared empha- of these tasks (cf., e.g., Lenz, 2016 for SyHD). The SyHD project is
sis on doubling phenomena in all European syntax projects. Their the first project to employ LPEs in the context of local face-to-face
methodological integration is based, in part, on overlapping and surveys, in addition to written questionnaires (cf. Fleischer,
standardized methods of data collection, facilitating the compari- Kasper & Lenz, 2012; Fleischer, Lenz & Weiß, 2015; Lenz, 2016,
son of data across the individual studies. In this respect, the 2017). In the SFB DiÖ study, more traditional survey methods
Syntactische Atlas van de Nederlandse Dialecten (SAND) for collecting data on syntactic variation are supplemented by com-
(‘Syntactic Atlas of Dutch Dialects’) has set standards that have puter supported LPEs (with experiment software) and with a
become well established (cf. Barbiers, 2005; Barbiers, van der pseudo-randomized order of the tasks.
Auwera, Bennis, Boef, de Vogelaer & van der Ham, 2008).
Regarding the current state of research on German variation,
research on the areal-social dimensions of syntactic variation pre- 3. Language Production Experiments (LPEs)—in general
viously focused almost exclusively on the syntax of dialects. and in particular for the SFB DiÖ
Research of dialect syntax in the German-speaking area emerged As previously mentioned, large-scale projects have used LPEs in a
at the end of the 19th century, when important studies, such as broad sense in the past (e.g., SyHD). However, there is little liter-
Schiepek (1899, 1908) appeared. However, it is only since the ature on the details of this method, e.g., the experimental software
1980s that research on German dialect syntax came back into used in the projects, the underlying conceptions on which the tasks
focus, first concerning methodological considerations of its prac- are based and the exact kind of presentation (described for example
ticability (Patocka, 1989; Tatzreiter, 1989) and later mainly as the in Breuer, 2017a; Kallenborn, 2016; Lenz, 2009). This article dis-
object of theoretical linguistic research (cf., e.g., Abraham & Bayer, cusses the fundamental aspects of the experiments: While LPEs
1993; Bayer, 1984; Grewendorf & Weiß, 2014; Haider, 1993; Weiß, can differ in both appearances and in the details of the setting, their
1998). In addition to syntactic theory, German dialectology has standardization is a shared characteristic. As described explicitly
started to address questions regarding syntactic structure. in, for example, Cornips & Poletto (2005: 949) and Kallenborn
Around the beginning of the new millennium, a veritable “boom” (2016: 64–65), the use of written questionnaires constitutes a
in research on dialect syntax can be observed (cf., e.g., Fleischer, standardized procedure, but it does not provide oral language pro-
2002; Schallert, 2014; Seiler, 2003; among many others). duction data and has less controllable contextual or situational
Besides phenomenon-oriented studies, large-scale investigations parameters. Traditional oral questionnaires, however, are strongly
of dialect syntax in the form of atlases have also emerged. Here, the manipulated by the field worker, have less standardized sequences,
Syntaktischer Atlas der Deutschen Schweiz (SADS) (‘Syntactic Atlas and work with a minimum of media (images, if at all). Therefore,
of Swiss German Dialects’) serves as a model for atlases of German we define “Language Production Experiments” in the context
dialect syntax.4 Additionally, syntactic data collected in the context of the SFB DiÖ, as a quasi-experimental test setting in which
of the Bayerische Sprachatlanten (‘Bavarian Language Atlases’) standardized multimodal stimuli are presented in standardized
should be mentioned (cf., e.g., Eroms & Spannbauer-Pollmann, sequences to evoke spoken language data and to test the influence
2006 for Low Bavarian). Over the past two decades, additional pro- factors on specific linguistic phenomena (cf. Breuer & Bülow,
jects on dialect syntax in the German-speaking area have been devel- 2019: 256).12 However, this definition contains some restrictions:
oped: the project Syntax Hessischer Dialekte (SyHD) (‘Syntax of Because it is a standardized method, it should be replicable and
Hessian Dialects’),5 and the project Syntax des Alemannischen some (linguistic) influence factors should be effectively controlled
(SynAlm) (‘Syntax of Alemannic’).6 Furthermore, the Siegerländer in the test design. There is an advantage which comes from the
Sprachatlas (SiSal) (‘Language Atlas of the Siegerland’) conducted restrictions of this method: Because several factors are controlled,
widespread dialect syntactic surveys by using the SyHD questions.7 researchers can use LPEs to elicit linguistic data that is comparable
Regarding ‘higher’ varietal sections in the vertical dialect-standard between different projects. Kallenborn (2016: 69) emphasizes the
spectrum of variation, two important and innovative projects should high inter- and intra-individual comparability. Therefore, an
be mentioned: Firstly, the Atlas zur deutschen Alltagssprache LPE can be used to compare data between different speakers, or
(AdA) (‘Atlas of Colloquial German’),8 which also surveys at least different linguistic reactions of the same person to the same lin-
some syntactic phenomena of ‘intermediate varieties’ (regiolects; cf. guistic influence factor or similar stimuli. Thus, LPEs are a suitable
Lenz 2010) of the dialect-standard-axis. Secondly, the project method for variationist linguistic surveys, especially for projects
Variantengrammatik des Deutschen (‘Regional Variation in the that focus on more than one linguistic variety (e.g., standard versus
Grammar of Standard German’),9 which focuses on national and dialect). As previously mentioned, an LPE can be comprised of any
regional differences in the grammar of the (written) German stan- number of different experimental settings in terms of the media
dard language in German speaking countries and areas. While these used (images, sounds or videos) and are characterized by the
two projects concentrate on “intermediate” respectively “higher/ presentation method (digital or computer supported) and the
highest” varieties, they neglect the “lower/lowest pole” of vertical low influence of the investigator, and therefore the level of stand-
variation, i.e., the dialects. ardization of the LPEs.
To date, the detailed research methods of large-scale areal- The following sections focus on the LPEs used in the SFB DiÖ:
linguistic projects in Europe, with a focus on nonstandard syntax, These LPEs are employed within the framework of a multidimen-
have contained many similarities. The methodical standards often sional research project, which attempts to survey and analyze the
include questionnaire-based surveys, deployed either in written complex spectrum of variation and varieties of German in Austria
form (by post or online10) and without the presence of a field (cf. map 1–4 below), the predominant part of which falls into the
Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. IP address: 46.4.80.155, on 07 Oct 2021 at 12:10:02, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms.
https://doi.org/10.1017/jlg.2019.7
Journal of Linguistic Geography 65
Bavarian dialect area which belongs to the “East Upper German” that same variable. OpenSesame documents the chronological
dialect area. Beyond Austria, the Bavarian dialect area also order of a given LPE run in a file, which can easily be imported
extends far into South-Eastern Germany and into Northern into the analysis tool. This way, the speaker’s response to a specific
Italy (South Tyrol) (cf. Wiesinger, 1983). The far West of task can be located in the audio recording. However, using
Austria—Vorarlberg and parts of Tyrol—is part of the OpenSesame requires that all LPE tasks are presented using a
Alemannic (“West Upper German”) dialect area. notebook computer. All tasks of the SFB DiÖ LPEs use audio
The LPEs are an integral part of the complex methodology of stimuli and most also use visual stimuli, such as images or videos.
data elicitation used by one of the nine project parts of the SFB In general, the tasks avoid written text in the visual stimuli.
DiÖ, project part 03, which investigates language repertoires Avoiding written text is intended to enhance the “oral character”
and variation spectra in rural regions in Austria (https://dioe.at/ of the tasks, as the LPEs aim at eliciting oral language production.
en/projects/task-cluster-b-variation/pp03/). In contrast to pre- In total, each LPE run consists of 109 tasks that target 13 distinct
vious variationist linguistic research on German, which focused syntactic phenomena. The tasks are organized into sets that target a
primarily on (segmental) phonetics/phonology, project part 03 particular syntactic phenomenon according to their structure.
additionally considers morphological and syntactic variation. Each task within a set has the same formulation, the same kind
Besides more open and natural conversational settings (namely of media used as stimuli, and the same sequence of stimuli to target
interviews and “conversations among friends”) in which the speak- the same syntactic phenomenon. One task aims to evoke different
ers are recorded, standardized elicitation methods (like LPEs) are syntactic variants or to evaluate different syntactic control factors
also used (cf. Lenz, 2018b). Putting the methodological approaches simultaneously. The entire SFB DiÖ LPE consists of 218 tasks
in a comprehensive context, a classification of the “task sets” (cf. grouped in 50 task sets. The general characteristics of the LPEs
below, Table 1) used in the LPE of the SFB DiÖ is suggested. (cf. Table 1) applies to all tasks. However, the tasks differ in their
This experimental setting consists of two runs (e.g., Breuer, details. This includes the media used, the type (completion or
2017a; Kallenborn, 2016): one aiming to evoke variants in the question), whether a (narrative) context is given, the level of
(intended) standard (LPE-S) and another aiming to evoke variants ‘suggestion’, (e.g., by specifying given words in the stimulus)
in the (intended) dialect (LPE-D). Between these runs there is a and if a task is more open or closed.15
short break and another test setting that uses translation tasks Table 1 shows a classification of the task sets that target eight
to target phonological and grammatical (mainly morphological) exemplary syntactic phenomena in the SFB DiÖ LPEs. The table
phenomena, some which overlap with the phenomena elicited provides an overview of the tasks and their essential methodical
through the LPEs (for a comparison of speaker behavior across set- characteristics. The order of appearance mirrors different syntactic
tings, cf. Fingerhuth & Breuer, accepted). However, because they fields. Firstly, phenomena of complex noun or determiner phrases
are designed to complement each other, these two runs can be (NPs, or DPs, depending on the theoretical perspective), specifi-
considered as one single LPE: For each task targeting a syntactic cally the use of indefinite articles with mass nouns, determiner
variable in the standard, there is a corresponding task targeting doubling, and the use of alternative constructions for the expres-
the same variable in the dialect. These complementary tasks differ sion of adnominal possession. The second group contains
in the varieties represented within the audio stimuli. For example, phenomena of subordinate clause introduction: variation in the
the tasks targeting standard use recordings of an Austrian news- C-Domain in the form of doubly-filled COMP and inflected com-
caster differ from those targeting dialect recordings of a competent plementizers, and variation in the introduction of relative clauses.
speaker from the investigated locations’ local dialect. Furthermore, The last group concerns verbal syntax and addresses progressive
the complementary tasks can differ depending on the image or constructions, final infinitival constructions, and German GET
video presented,13 but only in ways that are unlikely to influence passives. To provide deeper insights into the various types of task
the syntactic variable under consideration, thereby reducing the sets differentiated in Table 1, we illustrate at least one concrete LPE
repetition effect (e.g., Breuer, 2017a: 99; Breuer & Bülow, 2019: for each syntactic field. A short description of the syntactic phe-
261). The tasks of both runs (LPE-S and LPE-D) occur in a nomenon is followed by a summary of the state of research with
pseudo-random order. a focus on variationist linguistics aspects relevant for the SFB
Within this project, the LPE is embedded in a whole survey set- DiÖ and therefore for the analyses of the data. The third section
ting, which can be described as a face-to-face survey. A field worker portrays the design of the tasks created for the phenomena. In
is present throughout the entire LPE to control the progress of the every instance, concrete language examples will be taken from
tasks. If necessary, the field worker can repeat a task (using the the SFB DiÖ LPE. These SFB DiÖ language examples will come
computer, see below) or ask further questions, thereby influencing from either the experiment tasks targeting dialect (LPE-D) or those
the answer and behavior of the speaker. It is important to note that targeting standard (LPE-S). In addition to the intended variety, the
any additional inquiries or “influence” from the interviewer are Austrian location of the survey, as well as the generational category
marked as such during data processing. This allows researchers of the speakers (“old” versus “young”), will be given.
to distinguish spontaneous answers from “influenced” second or
third answers in their analyses. Vice versa, the speakers can consult
Example I: LPE on “determiner doubling”
the field worker if they encounter any problems responding to a
task. The LPE in the SFB DiÖ is “computer supported” (Breuer LPE-type: Closed completion tasks with image and video stimuli,
& Bülow, 2019: 257) and uses OpenSesame as experimental with written text, without narrative context and with a high level of
software.14 An important feature of the software is the possibility suggestion. Short description: Determiner doubling refers to the
for pseudo-randomization of the tasks in each run of the LPE (e.g., phenomenon of a noun phrase (NP) with an adjectival attribute
Breuer, 2017a: 97). This randomization helps to avoid the effects of that is preceded by an intensifying element (particle) and occurs
task serialization across the data of different speakers. It is pseudo- with “two articles.” (1.1) provides an example of the phenomenon.
randomized to prevent tasks from targeting a particular syntactic This is different from the patterns in (1.2) and (1.3), which feature
variable and from being followed by another task which is aimed at only one article, placed either in a preceding or intermediate
Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. IP address: 46.4.80.155, on 07 Oct 2021 at 12:10:02, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms.
https://doi.org/10.1017/jlg.2019.7
66 Alexandra N. Lenz et al.
position (cf. Kallulli & Rothmayer, 2008; Lenz, Ahlers & Werner, comparison suggests (cf. Lenz et al., 2015). Determiner doubling
2015; Strobel & Weiß, 2017). has been further explored in Swiss German (a West Upper
German area): Steiner (2005) focused primarily on regional and
(1) Examples for Determiner Doubling (and alternative sociodemographic factors regarding doubling in the context of ganz
constructions) from the SFB DiÖ (‘completely’). Her results indicate various degrees of acceptability
(1.1) Determiner doubling across German-speaking Switzerland, with high acceptability
a gonz a liaber Hund (LPE-D, Neckenmarkt- appearing in northern Switzerland. Steiner’s findings also indicate
young) a particularly high degree of acceptability among younger speakers
a. ART completely a.ART lovely dog in comparison to older Swiss German speakers.
‘a very lovely dog’ As described in regard to Bavarian, there also appear to be marked
(1.2) Single determiner in preceding position differences in acceptability of determiner doubling when in combi-
a gonz liaber Hund (LPE-D, Neumarkt/ nation with different particles in Switzerland (cf. Richner-Steiner,
Ybbs-old) 2011). Notably, Kallulli & Rothmayr (2008: 105) state that definite
a. ART completely lovely dog determiner doubling in Swiss German is not limited to ganz (‘com-
‘a very lovely dog’
pletely’), as described for Bavarian, but also appears with viel
(1.3) Single determiner in intermediate position (‘much’), although the acceptability appears to be rather low. In addi-
ganz en liaber Hund (LPE-D, Raggal-young) tion to these empirical studies on the phenomenon in the German
completely a. ART lovely dog language area, there are various approaches to the theoretical inter-
‘a very lovely dog’
pretation of determiner doubling. Kallulli & Rothmayr (2008) classify
State of Research: Determiner doubling has seen considerable the phenomenon as the parallel presence of a quantifier and a deter-
research over the past decades. Occurrence of the phenomenon is miner rather than the actual doubling of a determiner. Alternative
documented primarily in Bavarian and Alemannic (both Upper work has suggested there may be a semantic distinction between
German areas) and less frequently in Rhine Franconian (a West the different variants of determiner placement and doubling exem-
Central German area) and the Westphalian (a West Northern plified in (1), including the possibility that duplication indicates
German area) dialects of German (cf. Henn-Memmesheimer, emphasis. However, the sparse empirical evidence on the different
1986). Research suggests that the occurrence of determiner doubling theoretical interpretations has so far remained inconclusive.
is dependent on the accompanying intensifying particle. Regarding In the SFB DiÖ LPE: Based on existing research, the experi-
Bavarian, Merkle (1975: 89) describes doubling of indefinite deter- ments aim to test the production of determiner doubling (and
miners as being possible with so (‘such’), ganz (‘completely’), recht its constructional variants) in three sets consisting of two prompts
(‘quite’), viel (‘much’), bisschen (‘some’), and wenig (‘little’), as well each. The sets aim to elicit the intensifiers ganz (‘completely’), sehr
as sehr (‘very’) in urban varieties, although Merkle states that sehr (‘very’), and so (‘such’) in combination with attributive adjectives.
(‘very’) is not traditionally part of Bavarian varieties. East Upper In each set, one prompt targets the adjective böse (‘bad’), the other
German data elicited with written questionnaires requesting the lieb (‘lovely’). The prompts for the LPE combine an audio record-
acceptability of determiner doubling with ganz (‘completely’) ing with an image of a dog and two moving words (Fig. 1). In each
indicate that it is a common phenomenon throughout the entire prompt, a drawing of a dog that suggests either a bad or an adorable
Bavarian dialect area that may be gaining use as intergenerational animal appears on the centre of the screen. The drawings were
Table 1. Task sets (types) used during the SFB DiÖ LPE for the elicitation of syntactic phenomena
stimulus
given completion open degree of
syntactic phenomenon written image video context task task suggestion16
nominal syntax
indef. article before mass nouns − þ − − þ − 2
−/þ þ − − þ þ/− 2
determiner doubling þ þ þ − þ − 2
adnominal possession − þ − þ þ − 3
clause linkage phenomena
variation in the C-domain þ þ − þ þ − 3
introduction of relative clauses − − þ þ þ − 3
− þ − þ þ − 3
verbal syntax phenomena
progressive constructions − − þ − − þ 1
− − þ þ þ − 3
final infinitival constructions − þ þ − þ − 2
GET passives − − þ − − þ 1
Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. IP address: 46.4.80.155, on 07 Oct 2021 at 12:10:02, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms.
https://doi.org/10.1017/jlg.2019.7
Journal of Linguistic Geography 67
(2) Examples for variation in the C-domain from the SFB DiÖ
(2.1) Complementizer agreement (CA 2PL)
ob=s eß morgen orbeiten werdts
(LPE-D, Neckenmarkt-young)
if=CA.2PL you tomorrow work.INF will.2PL
‘if you will work tomorrow’
(2.2) Complementizer agreement (CA 2SG)
bis wann=st morgen die Hausübung fertig host
(LPE-D, Neckenmarkt-young)
until when=CA.2SG tomorrow the homework done have.2SG
‘until when you will have done your homework tomorrow’
(2.3) Doubly-filled COMP (without CA)
wia viel Leit dass du nächste Wochen in der Kirchen
sehng wirst
Figure 1. Example of the visual stimulus depicting the phenomenon group of the (LPE-D, Steyrling-young)
“determiner doubling.” It is accompanied by an auditive stimulus Oh, das ist aber how many people that you next week in the church
: : : (‘Oh, this is really : : : ‘). The intensifying particle plus adjective (in this example: see.INF will.2SG
so ‘such’ and lieb ‘lovely’) appear in a circular motion. ‘how many people you will see in church next week’
(2.4) Doubly-filled COMP (with CA 2PL)
selected with the goal of potentially triggering an emphatic wia viel Schulde dass=ets habets (LPE-D, Tarrenz-young)
how much debt that=CA.2PL have.2PL
response. Beneath the drawing, a combination of an intensifying ‘how deep you are in debt’
particle and adjective corresponding to the dog’s character appears.
To reduce the suggestion of a particular word order, the two
words appear in a video clip with a constant circular rotation.
State of Research: Both phenomena have been extensively dis-
Additionally, a recording is played that begins a sentence with
cussed over the past decades. While research has focused less on
Oh, das ist aber : : : (‘Oh, this is really . . .’), prompting the partici-
areal distribution and more on the implications of the phenome-
pant to complete the sentence using the displayed combination of
non for theories of grammar, there is considerable documentation
adjective and intensifying particle, as well as an indefinite
of its regional spread. Weiß (2005) describes CA as a phenomenon
determiner.
that appears in most Continental West Germanic dialects,
although he emphasizes that there is considerable variation
Example II: LPE on “variation in the C-domain” between different dialects. While some dialects have a minimal sys-
LPE Type: Closed completion tasks with image stimuli, with written tem, where only the 2SG shows CA, other dialects show agreement
text, with narrative context and a high level of suggestion. for all persons. Regarding Austria, the phenomenon appears pre-
Short Description: Subordinate clauses in Upper German dialects dominantly in the Central Bavarian dialect area and here in the
(especially in Bavarian) may be introduced by patterns that are dif- 2SG and 2PL (cf. Fingerhuth & Lenz, accepted). In the 2PL,
ferent from standard German. One of these patterns is commonly Central Bavarian varieties predominantly show the morpheme -s,
referred to as either “inflected complementizer” or “complementizer but the morpheme -ts, common in Northern Bavarian, has also
agreement” (subsequently referred to as CA; cf. Weiß, 2005), been documented (cf. Lenz et al., 2015: 13–15). In varieties that
another as “doubly-filled COMP” (subsequently referred to as demonstrate the morpheme -ts, it is phonologically mostly identi-
cal to the corresponding verb ending. This is more generally the
DFC; cf. Bayer & Brandner, 2008; Fingerhuth & Lenz, accepted;
case with the 2SG, where the CA-morpheme -st is phonologically
Weiß, 2017). The LPEs in the SFB DiÖ target both phenomena,
identical to the 2SG verbal inflection (cf. (2.2)). The exact nature of
which have been rarely investigated in connection with each other
the CA is debatable (cf. Bayer, 1984; Fuß, 2008; Gruber, 2008).
(for exceptions, cf. Fingerhuth & Breuer, accepted; Fingerhuth &
Weiß (2005, 2017) interprets the historic origin of CA in the rean-
Lenz, accepted; Weiß & Strobel, 2018). They are illustrated in (2)
alysis of subject clitics as inflectional morphemes. Regarding DFC,
by means of SFB DiÖ examples from the Austrian Bavarian dialect
a wider distribution can be assumed, extending from mainland and
areas. Regarding Bavarian, elements that are in the complementizer insular Scandinavian (cf. Larsson, 2014) over West Flemish to
position (COMP) may show agreement with the sentence subject, Alemannic and Bavarian dialects (Penner, 1993; Schallert, Dröge
particularly in the second person (2PL or 2SG). The examples in & Pheiff, accepted). Different factors influencing the occurrence
(2.1) and (2.2) illustrate this. Ob (‘if’) and bis wann (‘until when’) of DFC have been discussed, including a frequent co-occurrence
appear in immediate proximity of the suffixes -s (2PL) and -st with stressed interrogative pronouns, as well as the occurrence
(2SG). While traditional grammar does not consider subjunctions in dependence on the complexity of wh-words, and animacy
such as ob (‘if’) and wh-words (such as wann ‘when’) to be inflecting, (Bayer & Brandner, 2008; Fingerhuth & Lenz, accepted; Schallert
the occurrence of these morphemes in dependence of the verbal et al., accepted).
inflexion of the sentence suggests otherwise and therefore inspires In the SFB DiÖ LPE: Existing research suggests that the
the term “complementizer agreement.” (2.3) illustrates a case of appearance of CA and DFC is connected to at least two linguistic
DFC: The subordinate clause is first introduced by the complex factors: the grammatical features of the verbal inflection and the
wh-phrase wia viel Leit (standard German: wie viele Leute ‘how type and complexity of the element(s) in the C-domain. Our
many people’), and additionally by the subordinating conjunction LPE therefore attempts to elicit subordinate clauses in four sets
dass ‘that’ which appears as a second element in the C-domain moti- of three tasks each. Each set aims to elicit a different subordinating
vating the label “doubly-filled COMP.” CA is also possible in cases of element: wann (‘when’) as a simplex wh-adverb; wie viele Leute
DFC, as illustrated in (2.4). (‘how many people’) as a complex NP with an interrogative
Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. IP address: 46.4.80.155, on 07 Oct 2021 at 12:10:02, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms.
https://doi.org/10.1017/jlg.2019.7
68 Alexandra N. Lenz et al.
(3) Examples for final infinitival constructions from the
SFB DiÖ
(3.1) Construction with um zu ‘in order to’
um zu schlafen (LPE-S, Steyrling-young)
in order to sleep.INF
‘in order to sleep’
(3.2) zum construction with incorporation of a generic object
zu-m Rosen mahen (LPE-D, Allentsteig-young)
to-the.DAT lawn mow.INF
‘for the mowing of the lawn/in order to mow the lawn’
(3.3) zum construction with prepositional attribute of the
nominalized infinitive
Figure 2. Example of the visual stimulus depicting the phenomenon group of the “varia-
tion in the complementizer domain.” It is accompanied by an auditive stimulus (e.g. ‘You zu-m an-nahen von an Knopf auf a Hosen (LPE-D,
didn’t do your homework yesterday (gestern). You haven’t done it today (heute).’) that Weißbriach-young)
ends with the statement Ich frage mich, : : : (‘I wonder, : : : ’) for completion by the to-the.DAT on-sew.INF of a button onto a trouser
participant. ‘for the sewing of a button [. . .]/in order to sew a button onto
a pair of trousers’
(3.4) zum construction with a complex incorporated direct
object
wh-determiner; ob ‘if ’ as a simplex subordinating conjunction; and zu-m an Nagel in-s Holz ihi-schlogen (LPE-D,
bis wann ‘until when’ with a wh-element within a PP. Within these Raggal-young)
four sets, three prompts attempt to elicit sentences with specific to-the.DAT a nail in-the wood in-hammer.INF
verbal inflection (2SG, 2PL, and 1PL). The experiment uses ‘for the hammering of a nail [ : : : ]/in order to hammer a nail
audio-visual prompts with an embedded written context (single into the piece of wood‘
words) that correspond to a series of events narrated by a recorded (3.5) Final clause introduced by damit ‘so that’
voice (cf. Fig. 2). The first two events provide a context of past and damit ma wandern kann geh (LPE-D, Neckenmarkt-old)
present events (e.g., Letztes Jahr habt ihr 3 Leuten auf dem Hof so that one hike.INF can go.INF
‘so that one can go hiking’
geholfen. Dieses Jahr habt ihr 5 Leuten auf dem Hof geholfen.
‘Last year you helped 3 people on the farm. This year you helped (3.6) Final clause introduced by dass ‘that’
5 people on the farm.’). The third event is placed in the future by dass man den Nagel in das Holz schlagen kann
(LPE-S, Oberwölz-old)
the text in the visual stimulus (e.g., nächstes Jahr ‘next year’) and that one the nail into the wood hammer.INF can
marked with a question mark. The narrator stops after uttering Ich ‘so that one can hammer a nail into the piece of wood’
frage mich, . . . (‘I wonder, . . .’), leaving the completion of the sen-
tence to the participant, e.g., with wie vielen Leuten ihr nächstes State of Research: Until now, few publications have addressed
Jahr auf dem Hof helft (‘how many people you will help on the farm infinitival constructions in German. Regarding the areal
next year’). The prompts aim to elicit sentences as follows: 1.) with distribution of the variants, Donhauser (1989) and Weiß (1998)
the subordinating element wann (‘when’): Fabian/Martin treffen observe the occurrence of the infinitival construction with zum
(‘meet Fabian/Martin’, 2SG), Bernhard/Karl besuchen (‘visit ‘to-the.DAT’ in Bavarian, Kallenborn (2016) in Western Central
Bernhard/Karl’, 1PL), Paul/Michael helfen (‘help Paul/Michael’, German varieties, and Seiler (2005) in German-speaking
2PL); 2.) with the introducing phrase wie viele þ NP (‘how many Switzerland. The question whether the construction with zum
þ NP’): Leute sehen (‘see people’, 2SG), Freunde treffen (‘meet ‘to-the.DAT’ in Bavarian Dialects is verbal or nominal is a large
friends’, 1PL), Leuten helfen (‘help people’, 2PL); 3.) with the issue in literature on infinitival constructions17. In Alemannic dia-
subordinating element ob (‘if’): zur Schule gehen (‘go to school’, lects, the infinitival construction with zum is interpreted as verbal,
2SG), in die Stadt fahren (‘go to town’, 1PL), arbeiten (‘work’, since any number of complements can be put between zum and the
2PL); 4.) with the introducing PP bis wann (‘until when’): infinitive, and even a complex direct object is permissible in the
Hausaufgaben fertig haben (‘have finished homework’, 2SG), construction (cf. Schallert, 2013; Seiler, 2005). Such constructions
arbeiten (‘work’, 1PL), schlafen (‘sleep’, 2PL). (cf. (3.4) for Alemannic Raggal) are uncommon in Bavarian, where
the strategy to deal with complements is to incorporate generic
Example III: LPE on “final infinitival constructions” objects only (cf. (3.2)) or the complements are added in the form
of a prepositional attribute (cf. (3.3)). While Bayer (1993) and
LPE Type: Closed completion tasks with image and video stimuli, Zehetner (1985) interpret the Bavarian infinitive as nominal,
without written text, with no narrative context and a medium level Weiß (1998) concludes that there are two types of constructions
of suggestion. Short description: In German, there are different with zum ‘to-the.DAT’ in Bavarian, phrases with a nominal infini-
infinitival constructions to express intention, purpose, and goal: tive and phrases with a verbal infinitive (cf. Weiß, 1998: 242ff.). As
While the construction consisting of um zu (‘in order to’) þ infini- the the map for “um/für zu kaufen” (‘in order to’ / ‘for to buy’) of
tive (cf. (3.1)) is accorded the status of standard language (cf. the ‘Atlas of Colloquial German’ (AdA) reveals, the für zu(m) ‘for
Zifonun, Hoffmann & Strecker, 1997: 829), the variants with für to’ construction seems to be predominant in ‘intermediate’
zu(m) (‘for to’) or zum (‘to=the.DAT’) þ infinitive (cf. (3.2)/ colloquial varieties of Western Central and Western Upper
(3.3)/(3.4)) are considered non-standard (cf. Demske, 2011: 38). German. In addition, few occurrences can be found in the
Final clauses introduced by dass (‘that’) (cf. (3.6)) or damit (‘so Bavarian area in the Southeast of Germany and in Austria
that’) (cf. (3.5)) are alternatives to final infinitival constructions. (cf. ).
Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. IP address: 46.4.80.155, on 07 Oct 2021 at 12:10:02, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms.
https://doi.org/10.1017/jlg.2019.7
Journal of Linguistic Geography 69
Figure 3. Example of the visual stimulus depicting the phenomenon group of the “Final infinitival constructions.” This is parallel to the auditive stimulus Das braucht man, : : :
(‘This is required, : : : ’).
In the SFB DiÖ LPE: Within the framework of the SFB DiÖ and sociolinguistic—in complex interaction (cf. Lenz, 2013a).
experiments, a total of 14 tasks (7 in the dialect and 7 in the stan- Except for a few areas, kriegen serves as the auxiliary in dialect
dard run of the LPE) are used to study the usage frequencies and varieties of German. Only in some (predominantly Western)
syntactic-semantic selection parameters of the final infinitival con- Upper German dialects (e.g., Swiss German varieties), bekom-
structions. As concrete linguistic control factors, the valency of men is the equivalent auxiliary. However, even where the dia-
verbs is tested by presenting actions intending to evoke: intransi- lectal GET passive appears with bekommen, it is restricted to
tive verbs (wandern ‘to hike’ and schlafen ‘to sleep’), transitive specific syntactic-semantic contexts that indicate a presently
verbs ((den Rasen) mähen ‘to mow (the lawn)’ and (Geldscheine low degree of grammaticalization of the bekommen passive.
in Stücke) schneiden ‘to cut (banknotes into pieces)’), and ditran- When considering areal varieties with greater coverage than
sitive verbs ((einen Nagel in ein Stück Holz) schlagen ‘to hammer (a the base dialects (i.e., regiolects, cf. Lenz, 2010), kriegen and
nail into a piece of wood)’ and (einen Knopf an eine Hose) nähen ‘to bekommen co-occur more frequently as auxiliaries. bekom-
sew (a button onto trousers)’). men generally appears more frequently in contexts closer to
The design of Kallenborn’s (2016) speech production experiment standard language than kriegen, which bears stronger associa-
is used in extended form in the SFB DiÖ; it exposes the speakers to a tions of non-standard varieties. The auxiliary erhalten, however,
complex stimulus consisting of a video clip, a picture and an audio appears neither in dialects nor regiolects but only in the context of
recording (cf. Fig. 3). To ensure that the function of the intended standard language, particularly in writing with a rather high
object (e.g., hiking boots or a lawnmower) is in the focus of the degree of formality.19 In these contexts, erhalten functions as
speaker’s description, a picture of these objects is explicitly shown an auxiliary that is stylistically marked as a “higher” variant,
beside the video. The purpose of the video clip is to portray the spe- while bekommen appears as a rather unmarked, neutral auxiliary
cific action for which the object is required. The speakers must com- (cf. Eroms, 2000: 396; Lenz, 2013a).
plete the sentence Das braucht man, : : : (‘This is required, : : : ’). 2. Dative passive: While the subject of the German werden passive
(Vorgangspassiv ‘event passive’) is equivalent to the direct
object (accusative) of the corresponding active sentence (cf.
4. Case study: LPE on German GET passives
(4.3) versus (4.4)), the subject of a dative passive is (usually)
The following section provides a detailed case study of one selected equal to the indirect dative ‘object’ (either required by the pred-
linguistic phenomenon to illustrate the productivity and validity of icate’s valence structure or as a free attribute) of the corre-
LPEs for the analysis of syntactic variation. At the same time, this sponding active sentence (cf. (4.1)/(4.2) versus (4.4)). For the
section reflects on potential problems inherent to the method. For Bavarian dialect area, the term dative passive is to some extent
several reasons, described in more detail below, the analysis focuses misleading, because many non-standard varieties exhibit syn-
on the German GET passive. Section 4.1 describes the phenome- cretism of dative and accusative in a single oblique case.
non in general and reviews previous research. Section 4.2 provides 3. Recipient passive, addressee passive, beneficiary passive: These
a (predominantly methodological) discussion of the data gathered alternative terms for the construction capture the prototypical
by the SFB DiÖ by LPEs. semantic roles of the subjects that occur most frequently (and
historically first; cf. Lenz, 2012) in German GET-passive con-
structions.
4.1 General remarks on the German GET passives
The phenomenon chosen to illustrate methodology and applica- (4) Examples for GET-passive and alternative constructions
tion of the LPEs has been referenced with different terms in pre- from the SFB DiÖ
vious research:18
(4.1) GET passive (with kriegen ‘to get’ auxiliary)
1. GET passive (or, in German literature, “kriegen/bekommen/ Der Moo kriagt d=Hoa gschnitten. (LPE-D,
erhalten passive”). This term refers to the pattern used in Allentsteig-young)
[the man].NOM. gets the=hair.ACC cut.PASTPART
German. This non-canonical type of passive uses an auxiliary ‘He is getting his hair cut.’
verb from the semantic network of transfer verbs (cf. Lenz,
(4.2) GET passive (with bekommen ‘to get/receive’ auxiliary)
2013b) (usually kriegen ‘to get’ or bekommen ‘to get/receive’,
Der Mann bekommt seine Haare geschnitten. (LPE-S,
less frequently erhalten ‘to obtain’) that combines with a past Allentsteig-young)
participle (cf. (4.1) and (4.2)). Selection of the auxiliary [the man].NOM gets [his hair].ACC cut.PASTPART
depends on numerous factors—semantic, syntactic, stylistic, ‘He is getting his hair cut.’
Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. IP address: 46.4.80.155, on 07 Oct 2021 at 12:10:02, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms.
https://doi.org/10.1017/jlg.2019.770 Alexandra N. Lenz et al.
(4.3) Event passive (with werden ‘to become’ auxiliary) Lay-linguistic relevance: Passive constructions are not the most
Dem Maa werden d=Hoar gschnitte. (LPE-D, salient object to inspire lay-linguistic discourse. Nonetheless,
Raggal-young) the use of the passive auxiliaries or their lexical origin are a
[the man].DAT becomes [the=hair].NOM cut.PASTPART
frequent topic of meta-communicative discourse.20
‘The hair is being cut (for him).’
(4.4) Active construction with “recipient” (beneficiary) as
dative complement 4.2 SFB DiÖ LPEs on the analysis of the GET passive in
Jemand schniedet ihm d=Hoar. (LPE-D, Raggal-young) Austria
someone.NOM cuts he.DAT [the=hair].ACC
‘Someone is cutting his hair.’
The LPE on German GET passives in Austria consists of five tasks
that are used in a setting that aims to elicit the standard language
Over the past two decades, few other syntactic constructions have (within the LPE-S) and the dialect (within the LPE-D), thus expos-
drawn more attention from both areal variationist linguistics and ing every participant to 10 prompts. Within the framework of the
non-variationist theoretical linguistics. This interest highlights the complex surveys of project part 03, at least 130 speakers in 13 loca-
phenomenon’s value for different linguistic approaches and allows tions in rural areas of Austria took part in the surveys. To ensure a
the researcher to access a wide range of findings from previous uniform frame of reference, strict selection criteria were analyzed
analyses. Based on this previous research on the dative passive from and defined for the survey locations: locations were selected which
areal-linguistic work, the construction’s grammaticalization has pro- a) are small villages in rural areas and b) have enough speakers who
gressed with considerable regional differences within the Germanic fulfil the requisite socio-demographic criteria. Comparable to the
language area. Grammaticalization appears to have progressed the SyHD project (in Hesse) and the SynBai (Syntax bairischer
farthest in Luxembourg and the West Central and West Low Dialekte ‘Syntax of Bavarian Dialects’) pilot study21, the research
German areas (Lenz, 2007, 2008, 2009, 2018a). This regional pattern locations have populations of between 500 and 2,000 inhabitants.
can (to a varying degree) be found in all layers of vertical variation in These locations are distributed across Austria (considering both
the German language area, ranging from dialects to the written stan- the various federal states as well as the dialect geography of
dard language (Lenz, 2013a). Regarding Upper German areas Austria; see Maps 1–4 below). The selection of speakers is directly
(which includes Austria), a degree of grammaticalization for the linked to the central aim of the SFB DiÖ project part 03, namely
GET passive appears only with ditransitive verbs in combination gathering data on the variation and dynamics of the entire vertical
with subject referents that have the semantic role of beneficiary or spectrum of spoken German in each location, as well as of the
recipient. Mono- and intransitive lexical verbs that appear with individual spectra of linguistic possibility of its inhabitants.
dative passives in (especially the Western parts of) Central and Consequently, the types of “autochthonous” speakers represented
Low German areas (e.g., Er kriegt/bekommt/*erhält geholfen. ‘He is are as varied as possible, reflecting a broad range of variety compe-
getting helped.’), or constructions where the subject referent appears tences and variation behavior (i.e., the most divergent “communities
in the semantic role of “maleficiary” or “loser” of a transfer (e.g., of practice,” Eckert & Rickford, 2001), which, when drawn together,
Er kriegt/bekommt/*erhält etwas gestohlen. ‘He is getting something in the inter-individual summary will portray the local variety spec-
stolen./Something is stolen from him.’) appear not to be possible in trum of each location as authentically as possible. Because the
Upper German varieties at this point in time (Lenz, 2009, 2013b, hypothesis that language behavior and extralinguistic criteria in
2018a). The following aspects make the GET passive a particularly Austria are interconnected in a complex and regionally specific
suitable phenomenon to reflect upon the potential as well as the lim- manner, the selection of speakers is based on extralinguistic
itations of LPEs as a method of data collection: criteria.22 In the project, the social variables of age, gender, level
of education, and—closely related to the latter—type of occupation
Substantial previous research: The GET passive has inspired con- (manual or communication-oriented), as well as “regional mobility”
siderable research from different linguistic subdisciplines. This (depending on the commute between home and place of work) are
alone speaks to the phenomenon’s relevance to a broad linguis- applied and examined as selection criteria.23 One group of speakers
tic audience. The different theoretical and methodological (NORMs and NORFs) consists of individuals aged 60 and older who
approaches taken in previous work provide a rich pool for have spent their entire lives in the investigated location, most of
the investigation of research methodology. From this perspec- them spent their working life either in said location or the immediate
tive, the phenomenon itself functions as a means to an end. proximity in a manual profession, and are retired at the time of
Complex areal and social distribution: Areal-linguistic research the interview. A second group of younger speakers, aged 18 to 35,
indicates that grammaticalization of the GET passive (presently) displays more variation in terms of formal education, (regional)
has progressed to differing degrees in the German-speaking mobility and type of profession. For reasons of research practicabil-
area. The Upper German area (which includes Austria) is an ity, the number of speakers has been restricted to 10 persons per
area in which the construction is in a comparatively early stage location (2 older NORMs, 8 younger speakers, 4 with lower and
of grammaticalization. The regional differences appear (to dif- 4 with higher level of formal education). In an ideal scenario, each
ferent extent) on all varieties of the ‘vertical’ dialect-standard- of the 130 or more participants provides at least one relevant
axis, ranging from dialects over ‘intermediate’ varieties up to response to the experiment, providing a minimum of 1300 instances
(written) standard varieties. for a type-token analysis of the GET passive or other competing
Linguistic complexity: The complex linguistic (syntactic-semantic) variants (650 each in LPE-S and LPE-D). The results presented in
factors that influence the use of a GET passive show variation in this article rely on data of 92 “autochthonous” participants from
(areal and social) space and thus make it possible to investigate its eight locations in Austria that represent five different dialect subareas
spreading grammaticalization synchronically. (see Maps 1–4 below): East Central Bavarian (Allentsteig and
High degree of dynamics: The indicated linguistic and extra- Neumarkt/Ybbs, both Lower Austria, as well as Steyrling, Upper
linguistic dynamics of the phenomenon is reflected in the Austria), the Central-South Bavarian transition area (Neckenmarkt,
changes that can be documented over short periods of time. Burgenland), South Bavarian (Tux, Tyrol, and Weißbriach,
Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. IP address: 46.4.80.155, on 07 Oct 2021 at 12:10:02, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms.
https://doi.org/10.1017/jlg.2019.7Journal of Linguistic Geography 71
Map 1. Frequencies (in %) of constructions in the LPE eliciting LPE-D by location, video stimulus “putting on glasses” (Allentsteig: n = 10; Neckenmarkt: n = 13; Neumarkt/Ybbs:
n = 17; Steyrling: n = 19; Tarrenz: n = 17; Tux: n = 21; Weißbriach: n = 12; Raggal: n = 14)
Map 2. Frequencies (in %) of constructions in the LPE eliciting LPE-S by location, video stimulus “putting on glasses” (Allentsteig: n = 10; Neckenmarkt: n = 13; Neumarkt/Ybbs:
n = 14; Steyrling: n = 15; Tarrenz: n = 17; Tux: n = 19; Weißbriach: n = 13; Raggal: n = 13)
Map 3. Frequencies (in %) of constructions in the LPE eliciting LPE-D by location, video stimulus “pulling tooth” (Allentsteig: n = 11; Neckenmarkt: n = 20; Neumarkt/Ybbs: n = 14;
Steyrling: n = 14; Tarrenz: n = 14; Tux: n = 18; Weißbriach: n = 12; Raggal: n = 13)
Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. IP address: 46.4.80.155, on 07 Oct 2021 at 12:10:02, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms.
https://doi.org/10.1017/jlg.2019.7You can also read
