skip to content
Linguistic purism in action : how auxiliary tun was stigmatized in Early New High German Preview this item
ClosePreview this item
Checking...

Linguistic purism in action : how auxiliary tun was stigmatized in Early New High German

Author: Nils Langer
Publisher: Berlin ; New York : Walter de Gruyter, 2001.
Series: Studia linguistica Germanica, 60.
Edition/Format:   eBook : Document : EnglishView all editions and formats
Summary:
The auxiliary do (tun) is one of the most-discussed constructions in West Germanic. In German, there is a striking opposition between modern standard German, where the construction is virtually ungrammatical and considered to be "sub-standard" by most speakers, whilst, as this book shows, the construction is attested in all modern dialects as well as historic stages since 1350. In answering why auxiliary tun is  Read more...
Rating:

(not yet rated) 0 with reviews - Be the first.

Subjects
More like this

Find a copy in the library

&AllPage.SpinnerRetrieving; Finding libraries that hold this item...

Details

Genre/Form: Electronic books
History
Additional Physical Format: Print version:
Langer, Nils,1969-
Linguistic purism in action : how auxiliary tun was stigmatized in Early New High German.
Berlin ; New York : Walter de Gruyter, 2001
(DLC) 2001042249
(OCoLC)47254249
Material Type: Document, Internet resource
Document Type: Internet Resource, Computer File
All Authors / Contributors: Nils Langer
ISBN: 9783110881103 3110881101
OCLC Number: 868970058
Language Note: In English.
Notes: Originally presented as the author's thesis (doctoral)--University of Newcastle upon Tyne, 2000.
Reproduction Notes: Electronic reproduction. [Place of publication not identified] : HathiTrust Digital Library, 2010. MiAaHDL
Description: 1 online resource (324 pages)
Details: Master and use copy. Digital master created according to Benchmark for Faithful Digital Reproductions of Monographs and Serials, Version 1. Digital Library Federation, December 2002.
Contents: Table of Content --
Acknowledgements --
Abbreviations --
1. Introduction --
1.1 The Problem --
1.2 Grammarians --
1.3 Tun in Standard German --
1.4 Thesis --
1.5 Method --
2. Part I: The Distribution of Auxiliary Tun --
2.0 Auxiliary Tun in Other Languages --
2.1 The Origin of Tun --
2.2 Tun in Frisian --
2.3 Tun in Dutch --
2.4 Tun in English --
2.5 Tun in Low German --
2.6 Tun in Older Stages of German --
2.7 Tun in Early New High German --
2.8 Tun in Modern German Dialects --
2.9 Tun in ENHG --
a New Analysis --
2.10 Conclusion of Part I 3. Part II: The Stigmatization of Auxiliary Tun3.1 The Emergence of Standard German � Early Approaches and Current Thinking --
3.2 The Emergence of Standard German and the Influence of Grammarians --
3.3 Polynegation and Double Perfect --
3.4 Syntactic Stigmatization by Prescriptive Grammarians --
3.5 The Stigmatization of Polynegation and Double Perfect --
3.6 Prescriptive Grammarians and the Stigmatization of Auxiliary Tun --
3.7 Conclusion of Part II --
4. Conclusion --
5. Appendix: Data and Bibliographies --
5.1 Primary Data --
5.2 Bibliographies
Series Title: Studia linguistica Germanica, 60.
Responsibility: Nils Langer.
More information:

Abstract:

The auxiliary do (tun) is one of the most-discussed constructions in West Germanic. In German, there is a striking opposition between modern standard German, where the construction is virtually ungrammatical and considered to be "sub-standard" by most speakers, whilst, as this book shows, the construction is attested in all modern dialects as well as historic stages since 1350. In answering why auxiliary tun is ungrammatical in modern standard German, it is shown that the stigmatization of tun was caused by prescriptive grammarians in the 16th-18th century. Furthermore it is shown that the stigmatization of tun as "bad" German occurred in clearly discernible stages, from bad poetry (1550-1680), to bad written German (1680-1740) and finally to "bad" German in general (after 1740), thus providing evidence that the history of the standardization of German needs to take into account direct metalinguistic comments from prescriptive grammarians. The effectiveness of linguistic purism is also shown by evidence from two other constructions, namely polynegation and double perfect

Reviews

User-contributed reviews
Retrieving GoodReads reviews...
Retrieving DOGObooks reviews...

Tags

Be the first.
Confirm this request

You may have already requested this item. Please select Ok if you would like to proceed with this request anyway.

Close Window

Please sign in to WorldCat 

Don't have an account? You can easily create a free account.