Negative constructions in the history of German: the case of multiple negation

Размещено на http://www.allbest.ru/

Negative constructions in the history of German: the case of multiple negation

T.M. Horodilova



Abstract

This paper discusses the evolutionary path of sentence negation development in the history of the German language. The peculiarities of means of multiple negation realization in the studied periods of the language development have been analyzed, taking into account changes in the paradigm of negative markers of Old, Middle, and Early New High German. In terms of polynegation, the attention has been focused on the negative concord, accompanied by a preverbal marker and an additional negative adverb or pronoun. It has been found that the implementation of the negative concord involves a single semantic core of negation. The reasons for the transition from double to single negation in the appropriate period of the German language development have been highlighted. The study of the mechanisms of grammaticalization made it possible to trace the development of negative grammatical constructions, namely the loss of syntactic independence and morphological diversity of elements in the syntactic paradigm. The gradual nature of sentence negation has been presented according to Jespersen's cycle, which reflects the weakening of the mononegative proclitic with its subsequent strengthening with the help of an additional negative pronoun, and, as a result, the return to the mononegative model in which the second negative element was implemented. A particular attention has been paid to the phenomenon of grammatical redundancy and its manifestations in the transformation of the negative model in diachrony. In linguistic studies, grammatical redundancy is characterized as a property or language behavior when the same function is realized by two or more means. The gradual elimination of the additional negative element contributed to the isolation of the mononegative model inherited by Modern German. It has been also shown that structural changes in negative sentences are closely related to a relatively free or limited word order.

Keywords: multiple negation, negative concord, grammatical redundancy, grammaticalization, word order.



Postgraduate Student (Philology), Lecturer at the Department of Germanic Philology (Borys Grinchenko Kyiv University)

Заперечні конструкції в історії німецької мови: випадок множинного заперечення

Городілова Т.М.

Анотація

sentence negation german language

У статті розглянуто еволюційний шлях розвитку реченнєвого заперечення в історії німецької мови. Проаналізовано особливості засобів реалізації множинного заперечення досліджуваних періодів мовного розвитку з урахуванням змін у парадигмі заперечних маркерів давньо-, середньо- і ранньонововерхньонімецької мови. У розрізі полінегації увагу зосереджено на заперечному узгодженні, що супроводжується превербальним заперечним маркером і додатковим заперечним прислівником чи займенником. З'ясовано, що реалізація заперечного узгодження передбачає одне семантичне ядро заперечення. Висвітлено причини переходу від подвійного заперечення до одиночного у відповідний період розвитку німецької мови. Вивчення механізмів граматикалізації дало змогу простежити розвиток заперечних граматичних конструкцій, зокрема втрату синтаксичної незалежності та морфологічну різнооформленість елементів у синтаксичній парадигмі. Поступовий характер розвитку реченнєвого заперечення представлено згідно з циклом О. Єсперсена, де відображено ослаблення мононегативного проклітика з подальшим його посиленням за допомогою додаткового заперечного займенника та, як результат, повернення до мононегативної моделі, у якій було реалізовано другий заперечний елемент. Окрему увагу приділено явищу граматичної надлишковості, яку в лінгвістичних студіях характеризують як властивість або поведінку мови, коли одну й ту саму функцію реалізовано за допомогою двох або більше засобів, та її проявів у трансформації заперечної моделі з позиціії діахронії. Поступове усунення додаткового заперечного елемента сприяло виокремленню мононегативної моделі заперечення, успадкованої сучасною німецькою мовою. Також засвідчено, що структурні зміни в заперечних реченнях були тісно пов'язані з відносно вільним або обмеженим порядком слів.

Ключові слова: множинне заперечення, заперечне узгодження, граматична надлишковість, граматикалізація, порядок слів.



Introduction

The negative sentence in the German language underwent a number of morphological and syntactical changes before it acquired mononegation in its modern form. Polynegative constructions predominated at the beginning of the Middle High German (12th century), when their number increased due to the polynegative way of expression of verbal negation represented by the clitic ne/ en- and a negative word niht simultaneously. However, during two centuries of the Middle High German period there was almost a complete change from polynegation to mononegation. Formally, it relates to the gradual loss of the negative clitic ne/ en- due to its grammatical weakening. In my view, the reason for these changes lies much deeper and is explained by the processes of grammaticalization, the principle of linguistic redundancy, as evidenced by syntax of negative sentence formations.

Proceeding from the above, the nature of the relationship between the elements of negative constructions and possibility of their movement within a sentence deserves our special scientific attention.



Analyses of the previous research

According to the classical grammar tradition, negation as a universal grammatical category has been thoroughly analyzed in the Germanic historical studies, namely in the research of Behaghel O., Delbruck B., Wackernagel J., Jespersen O. The phenomenon of multiple negation is widely represented in both synchronic and diachronic aspects. In historical linguistics, the phenomenon of multiple negation has been considered in the works of Jespersen O., Klima E., Labov W., who highlighted the processes of double attraction, neg-incorporation, negative attraction rule etc. The multiple sentence negation in the Germanic languages, involving negative concord feature (NC) has been studied by different authors cf. ElpaЯ S., Langer N., Aitchinson J., Jдger A., Donhauser K., Breitbarth A., Ebert R., Cheshire J. et al. The issues of grammatical transformations from double negation to mononegation involving grammaticalization processes have been covered in diachronic studies by Lass R., Lehmann C., Traugott E. C., Rosenbach E., Haspelmath M., Givцn T., Fischer O., Heine B., Diewald G., Hopper R.J., Gelderen van, E., Auwera van der, J. The linguistic redundancy as a trigger for restructuring of negative sentence has been studied at all levels of language system - phonological, morphological, syntactic - in the works of Campbell J., Hunnicutt S., Harris M., Pinker S., Witt E-J. C., Gillette M. Based on the theoretical stances mentioned above, and considering the mechanisms of synchronic and diachronic changes, we analyze the causes and ways of elimination of multiple negation and reasons for grammaticalization in negative constructions.

The aim of the article

The study maintains structural characteristics of negative sentence formations in the evolutionary retrospective. The aim of the paper is to establish the structural changes which take place in the way of grammaticalization of negative elements. According to the aim of the research the following tasks were established: 1) to present the evolutionary path of sentence negation development in the history of the German language; 1) to outline the phenomenon of polynegation in the syntax of German; 2) to characterize the phenomenon of grammatical redundancy in linguistics and its manifestation in German negative sentences; 3) to single out structural changes of the negative sentence, including the word order, during the three studied periods; 4) to find out the mechanisms of structural changes in the negative constructions of German. The material of the study consolidates a range of negative clauses, selected by the method of sampling from different genres of literary manuscripts in the three periods of the German language development.

An outline of the negation system in Present-Day German

The outset of the description should be an overview of the negation system in modern German. In traditional German grammar the means for expression of negation are divided according to lexical and grammatical classes. Thus, negation is expressed by adverbs (nie, niemals, nirgends, nirgendwo, nirgendwohin, nirgendwoher), substantivized pronouns (keiner, niemand, nichts), article words (kein, keinerlei), conjunctions (weder...noch), modals (keinerfalls, keinerwegs), a negative word nein which is sentence equivalent 8: 905-917; 13: 544-560]. Since the present work focuses on the case of multiple negation and negative concord, we discuss the case of sentence negation, realized in clauses with the help a negative particle. The modern German language belongs to mononegative languages with one negative marker (exceptions are some Low and High German dialects, e.g., Bavarian, which uses more than one negation [7: 203]. In the standard German sentence, negation is marked by only one negative particle nicht [8: 905917], as compared to the earlier stages of the language development. The pattern for sentential negation in German is V NOT, where the negative particle nicht is placed after the finite verb, e.g.:

Er arbeitet heute nicht.

He works today NEG

He doesn't work today

Es regnet nicht.

It rains NEG

It doesn't rain

Diachronically the German negative sentence underwent a number of morphological and syntactical changes before it came to its mononegative structure. These changes are explained by processes of grammaticalization [18; 10] and principles of uniformity [17] that reflect syntactic changes which took place in the course of time. First, we intend to give a picture of sentence negation development in the early periods of the German language development.

Old High German (500-1050 AD)

In the Old Germanic languages, the negation was expressed by a particle ne/ni of the Indo-European origin [2: 205]. The same particle was used in Old High German. The overview of research concerning Old High German morphology and syntax [24: 231-236; 5: 254-255, 272-273] shows that negation was also implemented by pronouns nihein ('not a...', 'nobody', 'no one'), nioman ('no one', 'nobody'), nio-with ('nothing'), adverbials, adjectives, conjunctions ni...noh ('not. neither. nor'). A thorough analysis of morphological means for expressing negation is not the subject of the present discussion. Let us highlight the sentence negation strategies in this period.

The use of negatives in Old High German sentence is characterized by some peculiarities. First, the negation was realized through the usage of the negative particles ne/ ni, usually placed before the negated verbs:

hurolob ni habe du zi holce ni fluc

du [19]

vacation NEG have you to forest NEG fly you

You do not have vacation; you do not fly into the forest

. noh mano ni liuhta-... [27]

. yet moon NEG shone

... yet the moon did not shine

Another means of the negation developed from the merge of the unstressed negative particle ni with the previous or the next word in the structure of the sentence. Provided that the negative particle is joined to the next word, it is called a proclitic negation::

selida ano sorgun: dar nist

neoman siuh [20]

dwelling without worries: here NEG-is

nobody sick

Dwelling is without worries, nobody is ill here

so man mir at burc enigeru banun

nigifasta... [14]

so man me to city anybrought NEG-

died

and in no city, yet I died

One more negation strategy that played a significant role in negative constructions development was the use of negation nieht (niht), which was a shortened form of the pronoun niowiht ('nothing'). Initially, this negative pronoun was used as an object to the verb. Then, its desemantization took place: niht began to serve as a formal means for negation strengthening within a sentence, and later it became the sole means of expressing negation. Herewith, the position of the negative pronoun remained unchanged: it was situated after the verb as the former direct object.

In the texts of the late Old High German (app. 1100 AD) the proclitic negation marker ni/ ne is still the only negative element , but we also observe the combinatorial negation, as the proclitic itself is too weak to carry a communicative aspect of negation, cf.:

neirkebet ubel mit ubile [21: A3, 25]

NEG-repay evil with evil

do not repay with evil for evil

tdaz er in nieth zi erist nigab that he them NOT the first NEG-gave unte in auh nieth mera nigab [22: B2, 67-69]

and them also NOT more NEG-gave

that he did not give them first, did not give them more As it is shown in (7) and (8), in the transitive period from the late Old High German to Early Middle High German there is a combination of the particle ni with the supportive element nicht represented in different spellings nicht, niht, nith, nieht, nieth alongside with the proclitic negation. That is, in the texts of the 11th century there exists a type of negation which becomes typical for Middle High German [24: 231-232]: there is a gradual movement from the combinatorial negation to the usage of the negation word nicht, which acts not only as a support for the weak proclitic ni/ne/en, but also tends to be a full negative word. This is the case of grammaticalization that took place in the negative sentences in the late Old High German period. Traditionally, grammaticalization is defined as a unidirectional movement, the result of which is and formation of a grammatical operator [18: 207-227]. The range of changes caused by grammaticalization includes generalization, abstraction, removal of a specific lexical meaning (grammaticalization of a syntactic structure), loss of lexical independence in words. In the negation system of the German language, grammaticalization took place as the loss of syntactic independence and morphological diversity of elements in the syntactic paradigm. Under such conditions, the phenomena of agglutination, clitization, fusion are realized in the language through the phonological assimilation of a linguistic unit.



In grammatical terms, the transition from mononegation to polynegation and back to mononegation is exemplified with the mechanism of Jespersen's Cycle: from the weakening of mononegative proclitic or enclitic in the sentence, which is the initial cycle, to the strengthening of this element by additional negation and, as a result, to displacement of the weak element by the new one [16], cf.:

According to O. Jespersen [16], we observe a transition from a mononegative construction in Old High German with a negative preverbal particle ni to double negation in Middle High German, in which the particle is strengthened by a negative pronoun niwiht (transformed into niht), and eventually to the mononegative model back. As a result, the second negative word functions as a marker of negation inherited by modern German. Another example of grammaticalization is the desemantized pronoun niowiht ('nothing'), which originally serves as a means of strengthening negation, and later is transformed into the negative marker nieht. So, the negative OHG model is gradually transformed into the model with the negative word nicht, which serves not only to "support" the weak clitics ni/en- or -n, but also tends to be a complete negative word, and is placed postpositionally to the verb.



Middle High German (1050-1350 AD)

As it was mentioned in the previous paragraph, in Middle High German the negative clitic ne which is placed immediately next to the verb, is still used for negation. However, cases in which ne (or en-) alone serves as means of expressing negation became rare in Middle High German. In contrast to Early Old High German, the negative clitic in Middle High German usually needs support and reinforcement by another negative element. These are indefinite pronouns and adverbs that already merged with the negation particle [25: 341-342]. Gradually, the weight within the combinatorial negation shifts to the negative word nicht, which no longer functions as a support for the weak proclitic ni-/en- or the enclitic -n, andadvances to the negation word itself [24: 232]. Middle High German knew both patterns - mononegation and double negation. Sometimes the same author uses them in the same text, cf.:

... man die eht anders niht enmalet wan

... one who really differently NOT NEG-paints than

als ein kint von fьnf jaren... [3] than a child of five years . one who paints no differently than a child of five...

... aber die ungelerten mьgent sin

niht versten. [ibidem]

... but the unlearned may his NOT understand

...but the unlearned may not understand

In Middle High German double negation is almost the norm: in

cooperation with the former particle ni, which is used in MHG enclitically or proclitically, the new particle niht negates the sentence. Two linguistic historical tendencies overlap: ne, which becomes even weaker, is still used, and at the same time there is the predominance of the new strong negation [4: 1355-1356], as in (11), (12) and (13):

wan da enzwifel ich niht an ...

[11: 43]

than that NEG-doubt I NOT.

because of that I do not doubt

daz anegenges niht enhat und ouch niemer zegat. [ibidem, 33-34]

that beginning NOT NEG-has and also never pass

that has no beginning and that will never end

nu enmac niht langer hie bi mir

besten [28: 1, 9]

now NEG-can NOT longer hier with me stay

now can no longer stand here

with me

In contrast to New High German, however, the negations in the sentence do not cancel each other out. Most importantly, negative elements are structurally separate classes of words, each of them has a separate lexical and grammatical meanings, as in the case of cliticized indefinite pronouns, adverbs, and adjectives. Thus, in the double negation sentences with the model of negative concord, the elements of negation are combined. Whereas in the case of OHG and MHG multiple negation we are dealing with structural redundancy, and not with the semantic one, because all the negative elements are combined into one semantic core. This type of redundancy should be considered as textually bound [6: 100101]. In the study of changes in the paradigm of negative markers, the issue of negative concord remains relevant. In the history of the Germanic languages, negative concord is represented by two or three structural elements which form the semantic core [6: 97-107; 29: 2-5]. In this case, it makes sense to talk about the structural rather than semantic redundancy of these elements.

It is to be noted that polynegative structure in the negative sentence corelates with relative freedom of its structural elements. It is realized through a free word order and relative independence of negative constituents within a sentence. Therefore, each of the constituents could have received an independent negative status in the negative sentence [2]. In terms of traditional grammar, the superficial structure of the Old Germanic sentence shows relative freedom in the position of the verb [1: 265]. Moreover, similar to negative sentence structure in the Slavic languages [6: 101], we observe a similar freedom in the German sentence structure by the end of the Old High German period. The relatively free word order of the Old High German sentence with independence of its constituents corresponds to polynegative constructions. However, in the general amorphousness of the grammatical context there are a few syntactic constants that are characteristic of the Old German sentence, namely, the final position of the verb in subordinate clauses (V-final), SOV- or SVO word order in affirmative sentences [1: 117120].

On the other hand, in MHG, the tendency towards a two-part structure of the sentence takes place. Disposition towards a strict word order clearly emerges, although it did not reach its completion yet. According to W. Schmidt [25: 340-341], all types of complex sentences developed significantly in this period. Comparing to the OHG with its one-part sentences, in the MHG two-part sentences are formed. Moreover, the differentiation between the word order in a declarative sentence, on the one hand, and in an interrogative and imperative one, on the other hand, is established.

The Early New High German (13501650 AD)

It is remarkable that in the Early New High German the double negation gradually gives way to the simple negation. These changes were caused by the progressive weakening of the old negative particles [5: 73]. In the period of the Early New High German simple negation finally becomes the norm in the written language, although it can also be found in Middle High German [24: 234]. In the 16th century the sentence negation with the negative particle nicht/ niht is in use, whereas double negation comes out of use. Thus, two models of negative sentences, specific for modern German, are formed: (i) the sentences with a negative particle nicht, and (ii) the sentences with a negative pronoun or an adverb [25: 437], e.g.:

Dann jch on nutz vil bыcher han Die jch nit lyfi

Than I in use many books had which I

NEG read

vnd nyt verstan [23]

and NEG understood

because I had a lot of books around me that I didn't read

and didn't understand

Doch moht der Chnotz beleiben

niht... [12]

but wants the Shnotz stay NEG

but Schnotz doesn't want to stay

Do vand man nieman auf dem

plan. [ibidem]

but found man nobody on the

battlefield

but nobody came to the battlefield

Ist, daz uns niemant gtar bestan

[ibidem]

ist that us noboby against stand is that nobody dares to compete against us The multiple negation starts losing its position with the development of the negative particle nicht. As it was already mentioned, in the Middle High German this particle was used to strengthen negation in combination with negative adverbs and pronouns, and in the course of time it becomes the sole negative marker without any additional negative elements. Thus, in Early New High German the consolidation of a qualitatively new model of negation - mononegation - is testified, but with differences in the structure of negative constructions, where the word order plays an important role. The latter is reflected in the structural and formal means of realization of negation, taking into consideration the processes of grammaticalization and the phenomenon of grammatical redundancy as a trigger for language changes in diachrony.

Proceeding from the above, in OHG the negative particles are placed before the finite verb, but by the end of MHG negation nicht functions as a single negation in any position in the sentence, e. g. before the negated word or distantly to it, or , e. g.:

niht verre sie von ir sazen [26]

NEG far they from her sat

they sat not far from her

er war doch niht ungerne da

[ibidem]

He was but NEG unwilling here he was not unwilling to be there

niht in der muoter lande alein, in

ir selber lande alsam... [ibidem]

NEG in the mother land sole, in their own land also

not only in her mother's country, but also in her own homeland High German transformation from polynegation to mononegation Analyzing the structural changes in the negative sentence of the Middle High German, we indicate that after the disappearance of negative clitic ne in preverbal position the negative word nicht occupies postverbal position, which is usually provided for the object. It is also to be noted that if any other negative pronoun or adverb was used simultaneously with the clitic ne, then the negative word nicht was not present in the sentence.

Considering the structural orientation of the transition process from polynegation to mononegation, it should be mentioned that it is on a par with the changes in the Middle High German syntactic system known as the formation of a framework structure. The tendency towards a clear formal organization of the sentence led to the new development of mononegation, and its formation is completed by the end of the Early New High German period (about 17th century). However, the loss of multiple negation during this period first takes place in the written language. It is important to specify that systematical changes do not occur in oral speech. As a result, the changes concerning negation system in the written sources do not coincide with the oral ones [9: 274-292]. So, sentence negation demonstrates the redundancy of structural elements and its gradual elimination, which points in favor of an evolutionary explanation of the changes that take place in the history of the German language.



Conclusions

This paper provides the synopsis of negation system in the history of the German language with the emphasis on multiple negation and negative concord within three periods of the language development - Old High German, Middle High German, and Early New High German.

The analysis of empirical data allows us to conclude that the development of the German sentence negation demonstrates the phenomenon of grammaticalization and unfolds in the structural changes, namely the elimination of redundant negative elements in the sentence with negative concord. It should be noted that formal changes that take place in the German negative sentence do not cause semantic changes, as all elements of negation form a coherent semantic core. The significant role in the restructuring of the negative model played redundancy from the diachronic perspective.

On the grounds of the results above, I conclude that diachronic changes within the system of the German sentence negation suggest ways to explain the formation of the sentence structure in the German language. The results of restructuring the forms for expressing negation testify to the tendency of the formal grammatical unification of the sentence. The transition from polynegation to mononegation leads to more monolithic construction of the sentence, in which its negative character is realized through one of the sentence constituents.

In further scientific research, the structural changes of sentence negation in the generative paradigm will be investigated.



Список використаних джерел та літератури

1. Буніятова І.Р. Еволюція гіпотаксису в германських мовах (IV-XIII ст.): монографія. Київ: Київ. нац. лінгв. ун-т, 2003. 328 с.

2. A Comparative Grammar of the Early Germanic Languages. Edited by R.D. Fulk. Amsterdam-Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company, 2017. 438 p.

3. Berthold von Regensburg. Predigten. TITUS. URL: http://titus.fkidg1.uni-frankfurt.de/(last accessed: 12.06.2022).

4. Besch W., Betten A., Reichmann O., Sonderegger S. Sprachgeschichte: Ein Handbuch zur Geschichte der deutschen Sprache und ihrer Erforschung. 2. Teilband. Berlin-New York: Walter de Gruyter, 2000. 2190 S.

5. Braune W. Althochdeutsche Grammatik I.15. Auflage, bearbeitet von Ingo Reiffenstein. Tьbingen: Max Nimeyer Verlag GmbH, 2004. 412 S.

6. Buniyatova I. Elimination of grammatical redundancy in the history of English: The case of negative constructions. Studies in Linguistics, Anglophone Literature and Cultures: Studies in the Evolution of the English Language. Berlin, Bern, Bruxelles, New York, Oxford, Warszawa, Wien: Peter Lang, 2021. Vol. 32. P. 97-109.

7. Donhauser K. Negationssyntax in der deutschen Sprachgeschichte: Grammatikalisierung oder Degrammatikalisierung? / Lang Ewald, Gisela Zifonun (eds.). Deutsch - typologisch. Berlin, New York: de Gruyter, 1996. S. 201-217. https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110622522-010.

8. Duden. Die Grammatik. Band 4.

9. Herausgegeben von den Dudenredaktion. Mannheim-Wien-Zьrich: Dudenverlag, 2009. 1352 S.

10. ElpaЯ S., Langer N. Jespersen's Cycle and the History of German Negation - Challenges from a Sociolinguistic Perspective. In Neuphilologische Mitteilungen, January 2012. P. 274-292. URL: https://www.researchgate.net/publicati on/291165735 (zuletzt aufgerufen: 12.06.2022).

11. Fischer O. Morphosyntactic Change. Functional and Formal Perspectives. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2007. 378 p.

12. Hartmann von Aue. Gregorius.

13. Bibliotheca Augustana. URL: https://www.hs-augsburg.de/~harsch/germanica/Chronologie/12Jh/Hartmann/har_greg.html (zuletzt aufgerufen: 12.06.2022).

14. Heinrich Wittenwiler. Der Ring. Biblioteca Augustana. URL: http://www.fh-augsburg.de/~harsch/germanica/Chronologie/15Jh/Wittenwiler/wit_rin1.html (zuletzt aufgerufen: 14.06.2022).

15. Helbig G., Buscha J. Deutsche Grammatik. Ein Handbuch fьr den Auslдnderunterricht. Berlin: Langenscheidt, 2005. 654 S.

16. Hildebrandslied. URL: https: //norse.ulver.com/src/other/hildebrand/bp.html (zuletzt aufgerufen: 12.06.2022).

17. Jдger A. History of German Negation. Amsterdam-Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company, 2008. 350 p.

18. Jespersen O. Negation in English and other languages. K0benhavn: A.F. H0st, 1917. 151 p.

19. Lass R. Historical Linguistics and Language Change. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1997. 449 p.

20. Lass R. Remarks on (UN)idirectionality. In Pathways of Change. Grammaticalization in English / edited by Olga Fisher, Anette Rosenbach, and Dieter Stein. Amsterdam, Philadelphia: John Benjamins Press, 2000. P. 207-227.

21. Lorscher Bienensegen. URL: http://www.hiltibrant.de/home.html (Zuletzt aufgerufen: 12.06.2022).

22. Muspilli. URL: http://www.hs-augsburg.de/~harsch/germanica/Chron ologie/09Jh/Muspilli/mus_frag.html (zuletzt aufgerufen: 12.06.2022).

23. Predigtsammlung A., Section 3, Line 25. TITUS. URL: https://titus.uni-frankfurt.de/texte/etcs/germ/ahd/klahddkm/klahd.htm?klahd041.htm (zuletzt aufgerufen: 12.06.2022).

24. Predigtsammlung B, Section 2, Line 67-69. TITUS. URL: https: //titus.uni-frankfurt.de/texte/etcs/germ/ahd/klahddkm/klahd.htm?klahd041.htm (zuletzt aufgerufen: 12.06.2022).

25. Sebastian Brant. Das Narrenschiff. URL: http://www.fh-augsburg.de/~harsch/germanica/Chron ologie/15Jh/Brant/bra_n000.html (zuletz aufgerufen: 14.06.2022).

26. Schmid H.U. Einfьhrung in die deutsche Sprachgeschichte. 3., aktualisierte und ьberarbeitete Auflage. Stuttgart: J.B. Metzler Verlag, 2017. 321 S.

27. Schmidt W. Geschichte der deutschen Sprache. Ein Lehrbuch fьr das germanistische Studium. Stuttgart: Hirzel S. Verlag, 2014. 514 S.

28. Ulrich von Etzenbach. Wilhalm von Wenden: Text, Ьbersetzung, Kommentar. (Hrsg. Mathias Herweg). Berlin-Boston: Walter de Gruyter, 2017. 262 p.

29. Wessobrunner Schцpfungsgedicht. URL: http://www.fh-augsburg.de/~harsch/germanica/Chronologie/08Jh/Wessobrunn/wes_text.html (zuletzt aufgerufen: 12.06.2022).

30. Wolfram von Eschenbach. Lieder. URL: https://www.hs-augsburg.de/~harsch/germanica/Chronologie/13Jh/Wolfram/wol_lied.html (zuletzt aufgerufen: 12.06.2022).

31. Zeijlstra H.H. Sentential Negation and Negative Concord. Utrecht: Academisch Proefschrift, 2004. 329 p.



References (translated & transliterated)

1. Buniiatova I.R. (2003). Evoliutsiia hipotaksysu v hermanskykh movakh (IV-XIII st.) [Evolution of hypotaxis in the Germanic languages (IV-XIII): monohrafiia. Kyiv: Kyiv. nats. linhv. un-t, 328 p. [in Ukrainian].

2. A Comparative Grammar of the Early Germanic Languages (2018). Edited by R.D. Fulk. AmsterdamPhiladelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company, 438 p. [in English].

3. Berthold von Regensburg. Predigten. TITUS. URL: http://titus.fkidg1.uni-frankfurt.de/(reference date: 12.06.2022). [in German].

4. Besch W., Betten A., Reichmann O., Sonderegger S. (2000). Sprachgeschichte: Ein Handbuch zur Geschichte der deutschen Sprache und ihrer Erforschung. 2. Teilband. Berlin- New York: Walter de Gruyter, 2190 S. [in German].

5. Braune W. (2004). Althochdeutsche Grammatik I.15. Auflage, bearbeitet von Ingo Reiffenstein. Tьbingen: Max Nimeyer Verlag GmbH, 412 S. [in German].

6. Buniyatova I. (2021). Elimination of grammatical redundancy in the history of English: The case of negative constructions. Studies in Linguistics, Anglophone Literature and Cultures: Studies in the Evolution of the English Language. Berlin, Bern, Bruxelles, New York, Oxford, Warszawa, Wien: Peter Lang, Vol. 32. P. 97-109. [in English].

7. Donhauser K. (1996). Negationssyntax in der deutschen Sprachgeschichte: Grammatikalisierung oder Degrammatikalisierung? / Lang Ewald, Gisela Zifonun (eds.). Deutsch - typologisch. Berlin, New York: de Gruyter, S. 201-217. DOI: https: //doi.org/10.1515/978311062252 2-010. [in German].

8. Duden (2009). Die Grammatik. Band 4. Herausgegeben von den Dudenredaktion. Mannheim-Wien Zьrich: Dudenverlag, 1352 S. [in German].

9. ElpaЯ S., Langer N. (2012). Jespersen's Cycle and the History of German Negation - Challenges from a Sociolinguistic Perspective. In Neuphilologische Mitteilungen, January 2012. P. 274-292. URL: https://www.researchgate.net/publicati on/291165735 (reference date: 12.06.2022). [in English].

10. Fischer O. (2007). Morphosyntactic Change. Functional and Formal Perspectives. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 378 p. [in English].

11. Hartmann von Aue. Gregorius. Bibliotheca Augustana. URL: https://www.hs-augsburg.de/~harsch/germanica/Chronologie/12Jh/Hartmann/har_greg.html (reference date: 12.06.2022). [in German].

12. Heinrich Wittenwiler. Der Ring. Biblioteca Augustana. URL: http://www.fh-augsburg.de/~harsch/germanica/Chronologie/15Jh/Wittenwiler/wit_rin1.html (reference date: 14.06.2022). [in German].

13. Helbig G., Buscha J. (2005). Deutsche Grammatik. Ein Handbuch fьr den Auslдnderunterricht. Berlin: Langenscheidt, 654 S. [in German].

14. Hildebrandslied. URL: https: //norse.ulver.com/src/other/hilde brand/bp.html (zuletzt aufgerufen: 12.06.2022). [in German].

15. Jдger A. (2008). History of German Negation. Amsterdam-Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company, 350 p. [in English].

16. Jespersen O. (1917). Negation in English and other languages. K0benhavn: A.F. H0st, 151 p. [in English].

17. Lass R. (1997). Historical Linguistics and Language Change. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 449 p. [in English].

18. Lass R. (2000). Remarks on (UN)idirectionality. In Pathways of Change. Grammaticalization in English / edited by Olga Fisher, Anette Rosenbach, and Dieter Stein. Amsterdam, Philadelphia: John Benjamins Press, P. 207-227. [in English].

19. Lorscher Bienensegen. URL: http://www.hiltibrant.de/home.html (reference date: 12.06.2022). [in German].

20. Muspilli. http://www.hs-augsburg.de/~harsch/germanica/Chron ologie/09Jh/Muspilli/mus_frag.html (reference date: 12.06.2022). [in German].

21. Predigtsammlung A, Section 3, Line 25. TITUS. URL: https://titus.uni-frankfurt.de/texte/etcs/germ/ahd/klahd dkm/klahd.htm?klahd041.htm (reference date: 12.06.2022). [in German].

22. Predigtsammlung B, Section 2, Line 67-69. TITUS. URL: https: //titus.uni-frankfurt.de/texte / etcs/germ /ahd/klahd dkm/klahd.htm?klahd041.htm (reference date: 12.06.2022). [in German].

23. Sebastian Brant. Das Narrenschiff. URL: http://www.fh-augsburg.de/~harsch/germanica/Chron ologie/15Jh/Brant/bra_n000.html (reference date: 14.06.2022). [in German].

24. Schmid H.U. (2017). Einfьhrung in die deutsche Sprachgeschichte. 3., aktualisierte und ьberarbeitete Auflage. Stuttgart: J.B. Metzler Verlag, 321 S. [in German].

25. Schmidt W. (2014). Geschichte der deutschen Sprache. Ein Lehrbuch fьr das germanistische Studium. Stuttgart: Hirzel S. Verlag, 514 S. [in German].

26. Ulrich von Etzenbach. (2017). Wilhalm von Wenden: Text, Ьbersetzung, Kommentar. (Hrsg. Mathias Herweg). Berlin-Boston: Walter de Gruyter, 2017. 262 p. [in German].

27. Wessobrunner Schцpfungsgedicht. URL: http://www.fh-augsburg.de/~harsch/germanica/Chronologie/08Jh/Wessobrunn/wes_text.html (reference date: 12.06.2022). [in German].

28. Wolfram von Eschenbach. Lieder. URL: https://www.hs-augsburg.de/~harsch/germanica/Chronologie/13Jh/Wolfram/wol_lied.html (reference date: 12.06.2022). [in German].

29. Zeijlstra, H.H. (2004). Sentential Negation and Negative Concord. Academisch Proefschrift. 329 p. [in English].

Размещено на Allbest.ru