Volume 1, Issue 2
  • ISSN 2665-9581
  • E-ISSN: 2665-959X
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes



The present article discusses a worrying development, whereby some traditional grammars become less aligned with the findings of linguistics research. The article gives examples of such discrepancies, illustrated here on the basis of the description of German. It also aims to describe a possible cause for this development. On the one hand, it seems that the grammatical descriptions found in school grammars have in some cases ceased to reflect discussions in (and formats of) current theories of grammar. They have also chosen, to a degree, to ignore empirical findings made by linguistic research. However, the article seeks to demonstrate that this may in large part be caused by the nature of the linguistic theories and experimental research approaches themselves, as well as the presentation of these projects in the literature: The granularity of the descriptions (and the objects described) that theoretical and experimental research assess simply does not match the kinds of generalisations that traditional grammars (school grammars, especially) aim for. To illustrate this point, specific issues with linguistic theories, methods and conventions are presented, which may make it difficult for school grammars to react to the results in a principled way.


Article metrics loading...

Loading full text...

Full text loading...


  1. Baker, M. C.
    (2003) Lexical categories: Verbs, nouns, and adjectives. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511615047
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511615047 [Google Scholar]
  2. Bresnan, J.
    (1982) Control and Complementation. Linguistic Inquiry, 13(3), 343–434.
    [Google Scholar]
  3. Bierwisch, M.
    (1989) Event Nominalizations: Proposals and Problems. Linguistische Studien des Zentralinstituts für Sprachwissenschaft194, 1–73.
    [Google Scholar]
  4. Chomsky, N.
    (1957) Syntactic Structures. The Hague: Mouton. 10.1515/9783112316009
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783112316009 [Google Scholar]
  5. (1965) Aspects of the Theory of Syntax. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  6. (1970) Remarks on Nominalization. InR. Jacobs & P. Rosenbaum (Eds.), Readings in English Transformational Grammar. (pp.184–221). Waltham, MA: Ginn.
    [Google Scholar]
  7. (1981) Lectures on Government and Binding. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
    [Google Scholar]
  8. (1995) Minimalist Inquiries: The Framework. MIT Working Papers in Linguistics.
    [Google Scholar]
  9. Dürscheid, C.
    (2012) Syntax. Grundlagen und Theorien (6th ed.). Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht.
    [Google Scholar]
  10. Duden
    Duden (2016) Duden – Die Grammatik – Unentbehrlich für richtiges Deutsch (9th ed.). Mannheim: Dudenverlag.
    [Google Scholar]
  11. Gehrig, A.
    (2014) Wortarten. Ein Vergleich von Schulbuch und Grammatik. Hohengehren: Schneider.
    [Google Scholar]
  12. Givón, T.
    (1979) On understanding grammar. New York: Academic.
    [Google Scholar]
  13. Hinterhölzl, R.
    (2006) Scrambling, Remnant Movement, and Restructuring in West Germanic. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195308211.001.0001
    https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195308211.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  14. Hudson, R.
    (2004) Why Education Needs Linguistics (And Vice Versa). Journal of Linguistics40, 105–130. 10.1017/S0022226703002342
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S0022226703002342 [Google Scholar]
  15. Jackendoff, R.
    (1977) X-bar-Syntax: A Study of Phrase Structure. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  16. Kratz, I.
    (2019) Goethe, Schiller, Chomsky!? Generative Grammatik im Deutschunterricht der gymnasialen Oberstufe am Beispiel des Themas Spracherwerb. InA. Betz & A. Firstein (Eds.), Schülerinnen und Schülern Linguistik näherbringen: Perspektiven einer linguistischen Wissenschaftspropädeutik (pp.148–170). Hohengehren: Schneider.
    [Google Scholar]
  17. Lehmann, C.
    (1991) Predicate classes and PARTICIPATION. InH. Seiler & W. Premper (Eds.), Partizipation: Das sprachliche Erfassen von Sachverhalten (pp.183–239). Tübingen: Narr.
    [Google Scholar]
  18. Meibauer, J., U. Demske, J. Geilfuß-Wolfgang, J. Pafel, K.-H. Ramers, M. Rothweiler & M. Steinbach
    (2015) Einführung in die germanistische Linguistik. Stuttgart: J.B. Metzler.
    [Google Scholar]
  19. Molnarfi, L.
    (2002) Focus and antifocus in modern Afrikaans and West Germanic. Linguistics40. 1107–1160. 10.1515/ling.2002.042
    https://doi.org/10.1515/ling.2002.042 [Google Scholar]
  20. Reis, M.
    (1982) Zum Subjektbegriff im Deutschen. InWerner Abraham (Ed.), Satzglieder im Deutschen: Zu ihrer syntaktischen, semantischen und pragmatischen Fundierung. (pp.171–211) Tübingen: Gunter Narr.
    [Google Scholar]
  21. Ross, J. R.
    (1972) The Category squish: Endstation Hauptwort. InP. Parenteau, J. Levi, G. Phares (Eds.) Papers from the Eighth Regional Meeting of the Chicago Linguistic Society (pp.316–328).
    [Google Scholar]
  22. Rothstein, B.
    (2010) Sprachintegrativer Grammatikunterricht. Tübingen: Stauffenburg.
    [Google Scholar]
  23. (2012) Das Subjekt – grammatikbiographisch betrachtet. Wirkendes Wort62, 479–495.
    [Google Scholar]
  24. Sasse, H.-J.
    (1993) Das Nomen – eine universale Kategorie?STUF, 46, 187–221.
    [Google Scholar]
  25. Schlipphack, I.
    (2012) Generative Grammatik für die Schule. Marburg: Tectum.
    [Google Scholar]
  26. Schülerduden Grammatik
    Schülerduden Grammatik (2017) Die Schulgrammatik zum Lernen, Nachschlagen und Üben. Berlin, Dudenverlag.
    [Google Scholar]
  27. Steinitz, R.
    (1997) Lexikalische Kategorisierung: Ein Vorschlag zur Revision. InE. Löbel & Gisa Rauh (Eds.), Lexikalische Kategorien und Merkmale. (pp.1–26). Tübingen: Niemeyer. 10.1515/9783110959970.1
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110959970.1 [Google Scholar]
  28. Struckmeier, V.
    (2007) Attribute im Deutschen: Zu ihren Eigenschaften und ihrer Position im grammatischen System. Berlin: Akademieverlag. 10.1524/9783050086552
    https://doi.org/10.1524/9783050086552 [Google Scholar]
  29. (2014) Scrambling ohne Informationsstruktur? (Studia Grammatica 77), Berlin: Akademie Verlag.
    [Google Scholar]
  30. (2010) Attributive Constructions, Scrambling in the AP and Referential Types. Lingua120/3, 673–692. 10.1016/j.lingua.2008.05.004
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lingua.2008.05.004 [Google Scholar]
  31. (2017) Against information structure heads: A relational analysis of German scrambling. Glossa, 2(1), 1–29. 10.5334/gjgl.56
    https://doi.org/10.5334/gjgl.56 [Google Scholar]
  32. to appear a. Wortartentheorien und ihr Nutzen: Eine linguistische Quadratur des Kreises?To appear in the proceedings of Ars Grammatica 2017.
    [Google Scholar]
  33. to appear b. Cartography cannot express scrambling restrictions – but interface-driven relational approaches can. InJ. Kremers & G. Kentner Eds. Prosody in Syntactic Encoding. Berlin: deGruyter.
    [Google Scholar]
  34. van Rijt, J. P. de Swart & P.-A. Coppen
    (2019) Linguistic concepts in L1 grammar education: a systematic literature review, Research Papers in Education34, 621–648. 10.1080/02671522.2018.1493742
    https://doi.org/10.1080/02671522.2018.1493742 [Google Scholar]
  35. Wunderlich, D.
    (1996) Lexical Categories. Theoretical Linguistics22, 1–48. 10.1515/thli.1996.22.1‑2.1
    https://doi.org/10.1515/thli.1996.22.1-2.1 [Google Scholar]
  36. Zimmermann, I.
    (1985) Der syntaktische Parallelismus verbaler und adjektivischer Konstruktionen. Linguistische Studien des Zentralinstituts für Sprachwissenschaft127, 159–213.
    [Google Scholar]
  37. (1991) Die Syntax der Substantivgruppe: Weiterentwicklungen der X’-Theorie. InI. Zimmermann (Ed.), Syntax und Semantik der Substantivgruppe. (1–32). Berlin: Akademie Verlag.
    [Google Scholar]
  • Article Type: Research Article
Keyword(s): German; linguistic theory; noun; school grammar; subject; traditional grammar; word class
This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was successful
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error