CARROLL E. REED VERB CONJUGATION IN MODERN STANDARD GERMAN

G enerative-transform ational gram m arians have repeatedly stated th a t a gram m atical theory m ust be c o n s i s t e n t , a d e q u a t e , and s i m p l e . 1 It m ust also be f o r m a l , e x p l i c i t , and c o m p l e t e . 2 Its task is to explicate thoroughly th e m eans by w hich sem antic structures are related to phonological structures.3 Chom sky makes it clear th a t th e criterion o f adequacy has several aspects: a gram m ar is “descriptively adequate to th e ex ten t th a t it correctly describes the intrinsic com petence o f th e idealized native speaker, ... th e problem of internal justification — o f explanatory adequacy — is essentially the problem o f constructing a theory of language acquisition, an account o f specific innate abilities th a t m ake this achievem ent possible.” 4 According to these statem ents then, a linguist is chiefly concerned with the so-called “ deep stru ctu re” o f a language, even though he can analyze it only through th e phonological o u tp u t, the “ surface stru ctu re” . Tacitly acknowledging this troublesom e necessity, Chom sky and Halle recognize at least tw o levels o f surface structure, one com prising strings o f formatives th a t are syntactically m otivated, the other a phonological represen­ tatio n arrived at through a series o f readjustm ent rules. Thus, th e lexical elem ents constituting features o f m orphology are com bined or concatenated according to certain fixed principles and reflected ultim ately in th e process of phonation. These ideas have been summ arized as follows: ... inflectional rules are essentially p art o f a com ponent of gram m ar which — as Chom sky and Halle have recently proposed fo r entirely independent reasons — is to intervene betw een th e operation of the syntactic transform ations and the phonological rules, thereby mapping the surface structure o f a sentence o n to its system atic phonem ic representation.5 The rules o f th e phonological com ponent are ordered, and apply in sequence to a string o f form atives (utilizing, w hen this is relevant, the associated syntactic inform ation) until ultim ately a representation is reached in term s o f a universal phonetic alphabet.” Although th e principles o f linguistic analysis thus clearly involve a m orphological level and its incum bent structures, th e treatm en t of

163

m orphology by generative gramm arians has thusfar received short shrift.7 One o f th e m ore com prehensive w orks now available is Wolf­ gang W urzel’s “ Studien zur deutschen L au tstru k tu r” , published in Studia Grammatica VIII, although several other, m ore restricted studies have appeared in th e same m onograph series. Here the phonetic resources of German are summ arized in relation to their functions in various m or­ phem es or am ong the allom orphs o f certain m orphem es. Im portant among these functions are the derivative qualities of um laut, a ph o n o ­ logical device w hich perm eates particularly the German nom inal and verbal systems. So intriguing, in fact, is this phenom enon th a t Jo h n Ross attem pted its explication already in 19678, dealing there with the German verbal system and its to tal inflectional resources. To be sure, these same m atters had been treated thoroughly by Halle as early as 1953 9, b u t th e descriptive m odel he em ployed was th a t o f traditional structural analysis (including process-grammar “ derivations” from “base form s” ) — a m ethod to be com m ended for its com pleteness and simpli­ city, b u t entirely inadequate in the light o f the m ore recent theories m entioned above. While it has been said th a t norm ative gram m ar is n ot th e concern of a descriptive linguist10, it is still necessary to define the u n i v e r s e o f d i s c o u r s e in order to insure th a t generative rules are valid in relation to th e com petence o f some reasonable num ber o f language speakers. In recent editions o f the D uden-G ram m atik, for example, the authors are principally concerned w ith the structu re o f th e H o c h ­ s p r a c h e , “ die oberste, als Ideal angestrebte Schicht der G em ein­ sprache11” — a norm form erly p r e scribed but now d e scribed. Nevertheless, the descriptions th a t follow are som etim es expressed in term s o f m ajor or m inor alternatives, so th a t a prescriptive inference can be draw n from a reported frequency o f use. Most o f the published analyses o f the G erm an verb-system, therefore, seem to accept this type o f data-selection, and the resulting form ula­ tions o f rules perm it no alternatives at all. Thus, Bechert and his coauthors say: “ Die hier vorgeführte Analyse geht von einem Standard aus, in dem du reißt, reizt, reist (nicht reißest, reizest, reisest) und im Präteritum du ließt, last, botst (nicht ließest, lasest, botest) gespro­ chen w ird.” 12 O thers m ake an arbitrary choice betw een ändere/ändre, sammele /sam m le, or du wäschst/wäscht. Obviously, such decisions w ill'

greatly facilitate adherence to criteria o f adequacy and sim p licity .13 On the o th e r hand, structures are seldom s e l e c t e d solely for the justification o f analysis; it w ould be simpler, for exam ple, to have a single phonological rule describing the inflections o f fin d e st and *fa n ­ dest, rather than the required com bination o f phonological and m or­ phological rules needed to describe those o f fin d e st and fandst. Traditionally, and also in generative gramm ar, G erm an verbs are designated as w e a k and s t r o n g . Weak verbs are those whose preterite and perfect participle form s em ploy the suffix / e t / t / (arbei­ ten, lieben, etc.). Strong verbs always have vocalic alternation for past tense, and their perfect participle suffix is / e n / n / (seben, tun, e tc .).14 In an incom plete analysis o f the German verb system, Bechert et al. (designating simple w eak verbs as V j and strong verbs as V 2 ) form ulate rules for generating th e inflectional endings o f verbs such as arbeiten, lieben, singen, and finden, b u t they fail to consider either th e irregular weak verbs or those corresponding in type to atm en, ändern, sammeln, halten, laden, heißen, or w aschen.15 In th e surface structure o f standard German there are three sets of verbal inflections, each w ith phonologically determ ined allom orphs. The sets are em ployed according to syntactic criteria: I.

Forms:

Uses: singular

1. person

e

plural e n /n

present tense of

2. person

e s t/s t/t

e t/t

all verbs except

3. person

e t/t/0

e n /n

sein and th e modals.

II. 1. person

0

2. person

s t/t

e t/t

3. person

0

en

en

past tense of strong verbs and present tense o f modals.

165

III.

Forms:

Uses: singular

plural

1. person

e

en

2. person

est

et

3. person

e

en

past tense of weak verbs and o f werden; subjunctive of all verbs except sein.

Set I: The 2nd pers. sing, has / e s t / if (1) the verb stem ends in / m / n / preceeded by any consonant except / l / o r / r / , or (2) if it ends in / d / t / and the stem vowel is the same as th a t o f the infinitive, or / t / if the stem ends i n / s / ; otherw ise it has / s t / . T he 3rd pers. sing, has / e t / if the above conditions (1) or (2) prevail, and / t / if the stem vowel is unchanged, b u t if the stem vowel changes the ending is 0. The 2nd pers. pi. has / e t / under the above conditions (1) or (2); otherw ise it has / t / . The 1st and 2nd pers. pi. have / n / if th e stem ends in unstressed / e l / or / e r / , otherw ise they have / e n / . 16 (Examples: a t­ men, arbeiten, lieben, laden, sammeln, ändern.) Set II: The 2nd pers. sing, has / t / if th e stem ends in / s / ; otherw ise it has / s t / . The 2nd pers. pi. has / e t / i f th e stem ends in / d / t / ; otherw ise it has / t / . In Set I th e inflectional allom orph for th e 3rd pers. sing. pres, indie, of halten and laden presents some difficulty in analysis: a form /le :d + 0 / can be posited in th e surface structure w ith th e knowledge th a t / d / is realized as / t / before 0. A deeper perspective, however, perm its us to assume underlying form s * /le :d + t/ or * /h e lt + t / and a phonological readjustm ent rule according to which * / d t / or * / t t / are realized as / t / . The same conditions hold, m oreover, in th e preterite form s o f senden and wenden. T here,rather than positing a doubly irregular set o f allom orphs ( / z a n / and / v a n / 17) , we m ay assume th a t th e underlying form s are * /z a n d + t/ and */\a.nd+t/. The selection o f / e t / o r / t / as a preterite or perfect participle m arker fo r w eak verbs th en follow s the same rule as for th a t o f / e t / or / t / in the 3rd pers. sing. pres, indie. The specialized preterites sendete and w endete, as well as th e p reterite subjunctive form s o f the same, have / e t / by regular rule, w hile sandte and wandte have only * / t / in the underlying form s (i.e., * /-d + t/) w here * /d t / -* / t / . 18

166

In the contextual rules required for selection o f alternants / e s t / s t / t / in th e 2nd pers. sing, and / e t / t / 0 / in th e 3rd pers. sing., it is custom ary to posit base form s / s t / a n d / t / , respectively, w ith an insertion rule for / e s t / and / e t / , and a deletion rule for 2nd pers. / t / . T he subjunc­ tive endings are som etim es said to be characterized by the m arker / e / , which is placed before the personal endings. If, as Wurzel has suggested, the subjunctive and indicative endings are generated by ^-epenthesis, edeletion, and th e sim plification o f gem inate e-e 19, n either sim plicity nor adequacy is thus achieved, and th e 3rd pers. sing. pres, indie, and subj. form s still differ (i.e., / e t / vs. / e / ) . Subjunctive inflections for all verbs may, however, be generated from Set III above. Incum bent rules for stem vowel alternation in strong verbs and irregular weak verbs have been adequately explicated by Ross and thus need n o t be illustrated here (the irregular form sei can be derived, by a special deletion rule, from */sei+e/). For the purpose o f form ulating phrase-structure and transform ational rules, we m ay sym bolize th e verbs according to inflectional types, e.g., V j = w eak verbs, V 2 = strong verbs; V x = verbs w ith stems ending in / s / (heißen, reisen, reizen, etc.); V y = verbs w ith stems ending in / m / or / n / preceded by any consonant except / l / or / r / ; V a = verbs ending in / d / t / and having no vowel alternation in the present stem s (reden, bitten, etc.); V ^ = verbs ending in / d / t / and having vowel alternation in th e present stem (laden, halten, fe ch te n , etc.). The rules w ould then be ordered as follows: (1) present indicative, (a) personal inflections; (2) preterite indicative, (a) personal inflections; (3) present subjunctive, (a) personal inflections; (4) past subjunctive, (a) personal inflections; (5) perfect participle, (a) inflections. Steps (2) and (4) set up transfor­ m ational equivalents for V j and V 2 , in which suffixes / e t / t / or / 0 / are applied to the stem, while stem vowel m utatio n is generated occasio­ nally for V j, b u t always for V 2 . Inflections representing m orphological features20 may then be applied in sets, w ith underlying stages as indicated above. In the determ ination of allom orphs by contextual rules, it is im portant, from th e standpoint o f sim plicity as well as adequacy, th a t m axim um structural generalization be preserved. Thus, stem endings / d / t / m i g h t be characterized as [+anterior, + coronal, -nasal, -continuant] or simply [+ dental, + stop]; all other features are redundant. These then require

167

^-insertion in appropriate inflections or, as th e case may be, in the past tense and perfect participle m arkers / e t / . Stems ending in a nasal preceeded by a consonant (thus, / m / o r / n / , since / g / can only follow a vowel) also require such e-insertion if th e preceeding conso­ nant is n o t [+anterior, +coronal, +continuant, -obstruant] or [+liquid]2 1 ; o th e r features are redundant. T hat is to say: the structure of German provides rules for existing, as well as for potential verbs, for ebnen, w idm en, regnen, wappnen, atm en, trocknen, bew affnen, rechnen, and also th e possible verbs *gleißnen, *gleisnen, *rauschnen, *tropfnen, *trutznen, *hym nen, etc. D uden gives the rule quite simply as “ ... auf ausgesprochenen K onsonant + m , n ” ; here th e w ord a u s ­ g e s p r o c h e n com pensates for th e am biguities found in th e w ritten w ord, b u t th e rule fails to m ake exceptions for / l / and / r / . 22 Wahrig generalizes w ith th e phrase “ V erschlußlaut oder R eiblaut und Nasal” 23, b u t excludes the possibility o f successive nasals. Rules for 2nd pers. sing. pres, indie, / t / a p p l y to stem s w ith sibilate endings ( / s / t s / ) . Rules for 1st and 3rd pers. pi. pres, indie, / n / apply when th e stem ends in unstressed / e l / or /e r / , as stated above, or in the verb tun. Maximum generalization, therefore, aims for the specification of gram m aticalness — a m atter o f com petence — while th e actualization of rules thus derived is lim ited in the area o f perform ance — a m atter of acceptability.24 In pedagogical grammars, fo r bo th native and non-native speakers of German, the ability to pronounce is frequently taken as a governing criterion. While non-native speakers norm ally encounter a great deal o f difficulty in pronunciation anyw ay at th e beginning, they may well puzzle over the required ^-insertion in redest, while w ords like hältst and fa n d st are passed over lightly. Y et the so-called redundancy rules25 do provide certain phonological lim its fo r native speakers, limits which, in the course o f history, may tend to dissipate. Thus, even the native speaker has difficulty w ith /d u :/e :r z o ifst/ and /d u : v esst/, the pronunciations recom m ended by D uden, and by negative perform ance, creates new readjustm ent rules. A chievem ent o f an adequate description, therefore, in both scientific and pedagogical grammars, requires com plete­ ness before sim plicity, and com pleteness m eans accounting for the generative history o f to tal perform ance.

168

Footnotes 1

Anon., Studia G ram m atica I, p. 9.

2

Bach, An Introduction to Transform ational Grammars, p. 10.

3

Bechert et al., Einführung in die generative T ransform ationsgram m atik, p. 22.

4

Chomsky, Aspects o f the T heory o f Syntax, p. 24 and p. 27.

5

Bierwisch, Syntactic Features in M orphology: General Problem s o f SoCalled Pronom inal Inflections in German, p. 241.

6

Chomsky, C urrent Issues in Linguistic T heory, p. 85. An im portant difference is to be no ted here in the term s s y s t e m a t i c p h o n e m i c r e p r e s e n t a t i o n and u n i v e r s a l p h o n e t i c a l p h a b e t ; only the first o f these is significant for linguistic o u tp u t and its subsequent interpretation. Very few speakers o f a language com m unicate with one another by m eans o f a universal phonetic alphabet. M ost o f them do so by m eans o f significant sound-features which they produce in the course of phonation or through a (secondary) graphem ic representation of the same.

7

Bechert et al., Einführung, p. 137.

8

Ross, Der A blaut bei den deutschen starken Verben.

9

Halle, The Germ an Conjugation.

10

Linguistik I, p. 104.

11

Duden 4, p. 25.

12

Bechert et al., p. 139.

13

Linguistik I, p. 104.

14

Ross, Der A blaut, p. 76-77; Wurzel, Studien zur deutschen L autstruktur, pp. 65-66.

15

Bechert et al., Einführung, pp. 137-145.

16

The verb tun is a single exception.

17

Halle, The German Conjugation, p. 49.

18

The verb werden, with its irregular preterite singular form s, causes no problem , since this is a strong verb and, therefore, lacks the past tense m arker / e t / t / .

19

Wurzel, Studien, p. 67.

169

20

Wurzel, Studien, p. 68.

21

Alternative features are given to illustrate the possible econom y of traditional feature assignments.

22

Duden 4, § 1125.

23

Wahrig, D eutsches W örterbuch, p. 152.

24

Chom sky, Aspects o f the T heory o f Syntax, p. 11.

25

Bierwisch, Skizze der generativen Phonologie, p. 22 et passim.

B i b l i o g r a p h y

Bach, Em m on: An Introduction to Transform ational Grammars. New York 1964. Bechert, Johannes, Daniele Clem ent, Wolf Thiimmel, Karl Heinz Wegner: Ein­ führung in die generative Transform ationsgram m atik = Linguistische Reihe 2. München 1971. Bierwisch, Manfred: Syntactic Features in M orphology: General Problems of So-Called Pronom inal Inflections in Germ an. -In: To H onor Rom an Jakobson. Essays on the Occasion o f his 70th Birthday, The Hague 1966, pp. 239-270. : Skizze der generativen Phonologie. -In: Studia G ram m atica VI, Berlin 1967, pp. 7-33. Chom sky, Noam: C urrent Issues in Linguistic T heory. -In: The S tructure of Language, Englewood Cliffs/New Jersey 1964, pp. 50-118. : Aspects of the T heory o f Syntax. Cambridge/Mass. 1965. Halle, Morris: The Germ an Conjugation. -In: Word 9, 1953, pp. 45-53. Ross, John: Der A blaut bei den deutschen starken Verben. -In: Studia Gram ma­ tica VI, Berlin 1967, pp. 47-118. Wahrig, Gerhard: D eutsches W örterbuch. Gütersloh 1968. Wurzel, Wolfgang: Studien zur deutschen L autstruktur. -In: Studia Gram m atica VIII, Berlin 1970, pp. xi+291. (Duden): G ram m atik der deutschen Gegenwartssprache = Der Große Duden 4, M annheim 2 1966. Linguistik I: Lehr- und Übungsbuch zur Einführung in die Sprachwissenschaft = Germ anische A rbeitshefte 5, Tübingen 1970. Studia Gram m atica 1, Berlin 1962.

170