Hostname: page-component-7b7567c8c-2n9c9 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-11-15T17:08:50.739Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Biblical Gothic and the configurationality parameter

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  05 December 2008

Stephen A. Berard
Stephen A. Berard
Affiliation:
Wenatchee Valley CollegeWenatchee, WA 98801
Get accessRights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This article proposes a configurationality parameter based solely on the issue of criteriality for fulfillment of the fundamental function of syntax, which is the establishment of linkage between lexemes and their grammatical relations. The two alternative linking systems discussed here are structural and morphological (S-systems and M-systems). S-systems are found in all language, whereas M-systems are found only in certain languages, and there only in isolated pockets which co-occur with specificity gaps in the respective S-system. In the past, observations about the authenticity and idiomaticness of the language of the Gothic Bible have been based on the examination of very limited phenomena as well as on subjective impressions. A general methodology is suggested here for thorough comparison of the Gothic with the Greek original. Application of this methodology to four sample chapters reveals significant and consistent variation in certain areas, although very little variation is found in the area of word order. The latter fact, along with some other considerations, suggests that Gothic had an M-system somewhat comparable to that of Koine Greek.

Information

Type
Articles
Information
Journal of Germanic Linguistics , Volume 5 , Issue 2 , July 1993, pp. 111 - 162
Copyright
Copyright © Society for Germanic Linguistics 1993

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.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

WORKS CITED

Abraham, Werner. 1986. “Word order in the Middle Field of the German sentence.” Topic, focus and configurationality. Eds. Abraham, Werner and de Mey, S.. Amsterdam: Benjamins. Pp. 15–38.Google Scholar
Anderson, S. R. 1984. “On representations in morphology: Case, agreement and inversion in Georgian.” Natural language and linguistic theory 2: 571–612.Google Scholar
Aoun, J. 1979. “On government, case-marking and clitic placement.”Mimeographed. Cambridge MA: MIT.Google Scholar
Apelt, Otto. 1864. “Über den Accusativus cum Infinitivo im Gothischen.” Germania 19: 280–297.Google Scholar
Bean, Marian C. 1983. The development of word order patterns in Old English. Totowa NJ: Barnes and Noble.Google Scholar
Bennis, H. and Hoekstra, T.. 1984. “Gaps and parasitic gaps.” Linguistic review 4: 29–87.Google Scholar
Blake, Barry J. 1990. Relational grammar. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Blass, F. and Debrunner, A.. 1961. A Greek grammar of the New Testament and other early Christian literature. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Bouchard, Denis. 1984. On the content of empty categories. Dordrecht: Foris Publications.Google Scholar
Braune, Wilhelm. 1966. Gotische Grammatik. 17th ed. Ed. Ebbinghaus, Ernst A.. Tübingen: Max Niemeyer.Google Scholar
Charpin, F. 1977. L'idee de phrase grammaticale et son expression en latin. Paris: Lille.Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam. 1988. Lectures on Government and Binding. 5th ed.Dordrecht: Foris Publications.Google Scholar
den Besten, H. 1985. “The ergative hypothesis and free word order in Dutch and German.” Studies in German grammar. Ed. Toman, J.. Dordrecht: Foris Publications. Pp. 23–64.Google Scholar
Curme, George O. 1911. “Is the Gothic Bible Gothic?” Journal of English and Germanic philology 10: 151–190.Google Scholar
Denison, David. 1987. “On word order in Old English.” One hundred years of English studies in Dutch universities. Eds. Bunt, G. H. V., Kooper, E. S., Mackenzie, J. L. and Wilkinson, D. R. M.. Amsterdam: Rodopi. Pp. 139–155.Google Scholar
Dunn, Graham. 1988. “Syntactic word order in Herodotean Greek.” Glotta 66: 63–79.Google Scholar
Enç, Mürvet. 1988. “The syntax-semantics interface.” Linguistics: The Cambridge survey. Vol. I: Linguistic theory: Foundations. Ed. Newmeyer, Frederick J.. Cambridge: Cambridge Univ. Press. Pp. 239–254.Google Scholar
Evers, A. 1975. The transformational cycle in Dutch and German. Bloomington: Indiana University Linguistics Club.Google Scholar
Falk, Y. N. 1983. “Constituency, word order and phrase structure rules.” Linguistic analysis 11: 331–360.Google Scholar
Farmer, A. 1980. “On the interaction of morphology and syntax.” Diss. MIT.Google Scholar
Farmer, A.. 1989. “Configurationality and anaphora: Evidence from English and Japanese.” Configurationality: The typology of asymmetries. Eds. Marácz, László and Muyksen, Pieter. Dordrecht: Foris Publications. Pp. 249–266.Google Scholar
Gazdar, G. and Pullum, G. K.. 1982. “Subcategorization, constituent order and the notion ‘Head’.” The scope of lexical rules. Eds. Moortgat, M., Hulst, D. v. d. and Hoekstra, T.. Dordrecht: Foris Publications. Pp. 107–123.Google Scholar
Greenberg, J. H. 1966. “Some universals of grammar with particular reference to the order of meaningful elements.” Universals of language. 2nd ed. Ed. Greenberg, J. H.. Cambridge MA: MIT Press. Pp.73–113.Google Scholar
Griesbach, Heinz and Schulz, Dora. 1967. Grammatik der deutschen Sprache. München: Max Hueber Verlag.Google Scholar
Guiraud, Ch. 1983. “L'importance du verbe dans la phrase latine.” Latin linguistics and linguistic theory. Ed. Pinkster, H.. Amsterdam: Benjamins. Pp. 117–122.Google Scholar
Haegeman, Liliane. 1991. Introduction to Government and Binding theory. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Haider, Hubert. 1986. “Configurationality in disguise: Word order and the V-2 property.” Topic, focus and configurationality. Eds. Abraham, Werner and de Mey, S.. Amsterdam: Benjamins. Pp. 37–64.Google Scholar
Haider, Hubert. 1987. “Nicht-sententiale Infinitive.” Groninger Arbeiten zur germanistischen Linguistik 28: 73–114.Google Scholar
Haider, Hubert. 1989. “θ-tracking systems – evidence from German.” Configurationality: The typology of asymmetries. Eds. Marácz, László and Muyksen, Pieter. Dordrecht: Foris Publications. Pp. 85–116.Google Scholar
Hale, Ken. 1981. “On the position of Warlpiri in a typology of the base.” Bloomington: Indiana University Linguistics Club.Google Scholar
Hale, Ken. 1983. “Warlpiri and the grammar of non-configurational languages.” Natural language and linguistic theory 1: 5–47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hale, Ken. 1989. “On nonconfigurational structures.” Configurationality: The typology of asymmetries. Eds. Marácz, László and Muyksen, Pieter. Dordrecht: Foris Publications. Pp. 293–300.Google Scholar
Harbert, Wayne E. 1978. “Gothic syntax: A relational grammar.” Diss. University of Illinois.Google Scholar
Horvath, Julia. 1989. “Remarks on the configurationality-issue.” Topic, focus and Configurationality. Eds. Abraham, Werner and de Mey, S.. Amsterdam: Benjamins. Pp. 65–87.Google Scholar
Hudson, R. 1984. Word grammar. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
É. Kiss, K. 1981. “Structural relations in Hungarian, a ‘free’ word order language.” Linguistic inquiry 12: 38–52.Google Scholar
Köhler, Artur. 1864. “Der syntaktische Gebrauch des Infinitivs im Gothischen.” Germania 12: 421–462.Google Scholar
Koster, J. 1978. Locality principles in syntax. Dordrecht: Foris Publications.Google Scholar
Lakoff, R. T. 1968. Abstract syntax and Latin complementation. Cambridge MA: MIT.Google Scholar
Mallinson, G. and Blake, B. J.. 1981. Language typology: Cross-linguistic studies in syntax. Amsterdam: North Holland.Google Scholar
McLaughlin, John. 1983. Old English syntax. Tübingen: Max Niemeyer Verlag.Google Scholar
Metlen, Michael. 1932. “Does the Gothic Bible represent idiomatic Gothic?” Diss. Abst. Evanston IL: Northwestern University.Google Scholar
Marácz, László and Muyksen, Pieter, eds. 1989. Configurationality: The typology of asymmetries. Dordrecht: Foris Publications.Google Scholar
Nova Vulgata bibliorum sacrorum editio. 1986. 2nd ed. Rome: Libreria Editrice Vaticana.Google Scholar
Ostafin, David Mark. 1986. “Studies in Latin word order: A transformational approach.” Diss. University of Connecticut.Google Scholar
Perlmutter, David M. and Postal, P. 1983. “The relational sucession law.” Ed. Perlmutter, David. Studies in relational grammar 1. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Pp. 30–80.Google Scholar
Rebuschi, Georges. 1989. “Is there a VP in Basque?” Configurationality: The typology of asymmetries. Eds. Marácz, László and Muyksen, Pieter. Dordrecht: Foris Publications. Pp. 85–116.Google Scholar
Reszkiewicz, Alfred. 1966. Ordering of elements in Late Old English prose in terms of their size and structural complexity. Wroclaw: Ossolinskich.Google Scholar
Richards, Jack, Platt, John and Weber, Heidi. 1985. Longman dictionary of applied linguistics. Harlow, England: Longman.Google Scholar
Rouveret, Alain and Vergnaud, Jean-Roger. 1980. “Specifying reference to the subject.” Linguistic inquiry 11.1: 96–202.Google Scholar
Sabbatier, D. P. 1987. Bibliorum sacrorum latinae versiones antiquae seu vetus italica et caeterae quaecunque in codicibus mss. & antiquorum libri reperiri potuerunt: Quae cum Vulgata Latina, & cum textu Graeco comparantur. Vol 3. Turnhout, Belgium: Brepols. Rpt. of 1st ed. Reims: Reginald Florentain, 1743.Google Scholar
Sigurðsson, Halldór A. 1991. “Icelandic case-marked PRO and the licensing of lexical A-positions.” Natural language and linguistic theory 9: 327–363.Google Scholar
Smyth, H.W. 1984. Greek grammar. 20th ed.Cambridge MA: Harvard Univ. Press.Google Scholar
Staal, F. 1968. Word order in Sanskrit and in Universal Grammar. Dordrecht: Reidel.Google Scholar
Sternefeld, W. 1985. “On case and binding theory.” Studies in German grammar. Ed. Toman, J.. Dordrecht: Foris Publications. Pp. 231–285.Google Scholar
Stowell, T. 1981. “Origins of phrase structure.” Diss. MIT.Google Scholar
Strang, Barbara M. H. 1970. A history of English. London: Methuen.Google Scholar
Streitberg, Wilhelm. 1920. Gothisches Elementarbuch. Heidelberg: Carl Winters Universitätsbuchhandlung.Google Scholar
Streitberg, Wilhelm., ed. 1950. Die gothische Bibel. Heidelberg: Carl Winter.Google Scholar
Szabolcsi, A. 1983. “The possessor that ran away from home.” Linguistic review 3:1.Google Scholar
Tappe, H. T. 1982. “VP and coherent infinitives in German.” MS. Göttingen University. Cited in Marácz, , ed. 1989: 22.Google Scholar
Tarvainen, Kalevi. 1981. Einführung in die Dependenzgrammatik. Tübingen: Max Niemeyer Verlag.Google Scholar
Turk, Milton Haight. 1927. An Anglo-Saxon reader. New York: Charles Scribner's Sons.Google Scholar
Webelhuth, G. 1985. “German is configurational.” Linguistic review 4: 203–246.Google Scholar
ZaenenA., J. Maling A., J. Maling and Thrainsson, H.. 1985. “Case and grammatical functions: The Icelandic passive.” Natural language and linguistic theory 3: 441–483.Google Scholar