Hostname: page-component-7bb8b95d7b-dvmhs Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-09-18T08:12:26.891Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

On the Grammaticalization of German können, dürfen, sollen, mögen, müssen, and wollen

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  05 December 2008

Christopher M. Stevens
Christopher M. Stevens
Affiliation:
University of California, Los AngelesDepartment of Germanic Languages and Literatures405 Hilgard Ave. Los Angeles, CA 90095-1539 [stevens@humnet.ucla.edu]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

In this article the development of German können, dürfen, sollen, mögen, müssen, and wollen is examined in the light of grammaticalization theory. It is assumed that these verbs form a class (or subclass) of modal auxiliaries. Some of the assertions made on the development of modal verbs across languages are examined. For example, do the modal meanings develop from nonmodal meanings? Do the epistemic uses of these auxiliaries evolve from deontic ones? Can such an evolution be described in terms of metaphor and can the development of these verbs be described as following a distinct “path” that is “unidirectional”? Some of these questions are answered in the affirmative, but new question arise in the course of the investigation.

Type
Articles
Information
Journal of Germanic Linguistics , Volume 7 , Issue 2 , Fall 1995 , pp. 179 - 206
Copyright
Copyright © Society for Germanic Linguistics 1995

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

Bech, Gunnar. 1951. Grundzüge der semantischen Entwicklungsgeschichte der hochdeutschen Modalverba. (Det Kongelige Danske Videnskabernes Selskab. Historisk-filologiske Meddelelser 32, 6.) Copenhagen: Munksgaard.Google Scholar
Behaghel, Otto. 1924. Deutsche Syntax: Eine geschichtliche Darstellung. Band 2: Die Wortklassen und Wortformen. Heidelberg: Winter.Google Scholar
Bouma, Lowell. 1973. The semantics of the modal auxiliaries in contemporary German. The Hague and Paris: Mouton.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Braune, Wilhelm. 1987. Althochdeutsche Grammatik. 14th edn. by Eggers, Hans. Tübingen: Niemeyer.Google Scholar
Braune, Wilhelm (ed.). 1979. Althochdeutsches Lesebuch. 16th edn. by Ebbinghaus, Ernst A.. Tübingen: Niemeyer.Google Scholar
Bybee, Joan L. 1985. Morphology: A study of the relation between meaning and form. Amsterdam: Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bybee, Joan L. 1988. Semantic substance vs. contrast in the development of grammatical meaning. Berkeley Linguistics Society 14.247–64.Google Scholar
Coates, Jennifer. 1983. The semantics of the modal auxiliaries. London and Canberra: Croom Helm.Google Scholar
Curme, Geoge O. 1952. A grammar of the German language. 2nd edn.New York: Frederick Ungar.Google Scholar
Duden Grammatik der deutschen Gegenwartssprache. 3rd edn. 1973. Mannheim, Vienna, and Zürich: Dudenverlag.Google Scholar
[DWb.] Grimm, Jacob and Grimm, Wilhelm. [1854–61] 1984. Deutsches Wörterbuch. Reprint of the 1st edn.Munich: Deutscher Taschenbuch Verlag.Google Scholar
Fritz, Gerd. 1991. Deutsche Modalverben 1609—Epistemische Verwendungs-weisen. Ein Beitrag zur Bedeutungsgeschichte der Modalverben im Deutschen. PBB 113.28–52.Google Scholar
Givón, Talmy. 1991. Serial verbs and the mental realtity of ‘event’: Grammatical vs. cognitive packaging. In Traugott and Heine (eds.), 1.81–127.Google Scholar
Heine, Bernd. 1992. Agent-oriented vs. epistemic modality—some observations on German modals. Paper presented at the Symposium on Mood and Modality, University of New Mexico, Albuquerque, May 8–10, 1992.Google Scholar
Heine, Bernd, Claudi, Ulrike, and Hünnemeyer, Friederike. 1991. Grammaticalization: A conceptual framework. Chicago and London: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Hopper, Paul J. 1991. On some principles of grammaticalization. In Traugott and Heine (eds.), 1.17–35.Google Scholar
Hopper, Paul J. and Traugott, Elizabeth Closs. 1993. Grammaticalization. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Jongeboer, H. A. 1985. Im Irrgarten der Modalität: Ein Kapitel aus der deutschen Grammatik. Groningen: Wolters-Noordhoff.Google Scholar
Kluge, Friedrich. 1960. Etymologisches Wörterbuch der deutschen Sprache. 18th edn., by Mitzka, Walther. Berlin: de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kurylowicz, Jerzy. 1964. The inflectional categories of Indo-European. Heidelberg: Winter.Google Scholar
Lehmann, Christian. 1985. Grammaticalization: Synchronic variation and diachronic change. Lingua e Stile 20.303–18.Google Scholar
Lockwood, W. B. 1968. Historical German syntax. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
Lyons, John. 1977. Semantics. 2 vols. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Öhlschläger, Günther. 1989. Zur Syntax und Semantik der Modalverben des Deutschen. (Linguistische Arbeiten, 144.) Tübingen: Niemeyer.Google Scholar
Palmer, F. R. 1986. Mood and modality. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Paul, Hermann. 1982. Mittelhochdeutsche Grammatik. 22nd edn. by Moser, Hugo, Schröbler, Ingeborg, and Grosse, Siegfried. Tübingen: Niemeyer.Google Scholar
Perkins, Michael R. 1983. Modal expressions in English. London: Frances.Google Scholar
Priebsch, R. and Collinson, W. E.. 1952. The German language. London: Faber & Faber.Google Scholar
Prokosch, E. 1938. A comparative Germanic grammar. Baltimore: Linguistic Society of America.Google Scholar
Schützeichel, Rudolf. 1981. Althochdeutsches Wörterbuch. 3rd edn.Tübingen: Niemeyer.Google Scholar
Sehrt, Edward H. 1925. Vollständiges Wörterbuch zum Heliand und zur altsächsichen Genesis. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht.Google Scholar
Steinhausen, Georg (ed.). 1895. Briefwechsel Balthasar Paumgartens, des Jüngeren, mil seiner Gattin Magdalena, geb. Behaim. 1582–1598. (Bibliothek des Litterarischen Vereins in Stuttgart, 204.) Tübingen: Litterarischer Verein in Stuttgart.Google Scholar
Streitberg, W. 1896. Urgermanische Grammatik. Heidelberg: Winter.Google Scholar
Sweetser, Eve. 1990. From etymology to pragmatics: Metaphorical and cultural aspects of semantic change. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tiersma, Peter M. 1982. Local and general markedness. Language 58.832–49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Traugott, Elizabeth Closs. 1985. On regularity in semantic change. Journal of Literary Semantics 14.155–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Traugott, Elizabeth Closs and Heine, Bernd (eds.). 1991. Approaches to grammaticalization. 2 vols. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: Benjamins.Google Scholar
Trübners Deutsches, Wörterbuch, ed. by Götze, Alfred. 1939–1957. Berlin: de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Valentin, Paul. 1984. Zur Geschichte der Modalisation im Deutschen. Deutschfranzösische Germanistik. Mélanges pour Emile Georges Zink, ed. by Hartmann, Sieglinde and Lecouteux, Claude, 185–95. (Göppinger Arbeiten zur Germanistik, 364.) Göppingen: Kümmerle Verlag.Google Scholar
Wells, Christopher. J. 1985. German: A linguistic history to 1945. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar