Linguistic Purism in Action : : How auxiliary tun was stigmatized in Early New High German / / Nils Langer.

• Superior document: Title is part of eBook package: De Gruyter DGBA Backlist Complete English Language 2000-2014 PART1
• VerfasserIn: Langer, Nils,
• Place / Publishing House: Berlin ;, Boston : : De Gruyter, , [2013]; ©2001
• Year of Publication: 2013
• Edition: Reprint 2013
• Language: English
• Series: Studia Linguistica Germanica , 60
• Physical Description: 1 online resource (312 p.) :; Zahlr. Abb.
• Other title: Frontmatter --; Table of Content --; Acknowledgements --; Abbreviations --; 1. Introduction --; 2. Part I. The Distribution of Auxiliary Tun --; 3. Part II. The Stigmatization of Auxiliary Tun --; 4. Conclusion --; 5. Appendix: Data and Bibliographies
• Format: Mode of access: Internet via World Wide Web.
• ISBN: 9783110881103; 9783110238570; 9783110238457; 9783110636970
• ISSN: 1861-5651
• DOI: 10.1515/9783110881103
• Access: restricted access
• Hierarchical level: Monograph
• Statement of Responsibility: Nils Langer.

Anhand der Geschichte des Hilfsverbs tun (Susanne tut gern Kuchen essen) seit 1350 wird gezeigt, dass präskriptive Grammatiker im 16. und 17. Jahrhundert aktiv in den Standardisierungesprozess eingegriffen haben, um gewisse morphosyntaktische Konstruktionen von der Prestigesprache "Standarddeutsch" fernzuhalten. 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.