Content uploaded by Heike Wiese
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Heike Wiese on Apr 07, 2014
Content may be subject to copyright.
A new German particle ‘gib(t)s’ – The dynamics of a successful
cooperation
Heike Wiese and Sibylle Duda
1. Introduction
The work of Rainer Dietrich, whom we honour with this Festschrift, has been character-
ised, and continues to be characterised, by successful cooperations: cooperations that
cross disciplinary boundaries and bring together perspectives and research questions
from different fields in a challenging and productive way. Excellent examples for this
are, for instance, the Ladenburger Collegium “Group interaction in high risk environ-
ments” (Daimler Benz Foundation), where linguists, psychologists, and medical re-
searchers investigated communication in high stress situations together with experts from
the fields of aviation, of surgery, and nuclear reactor safety personnel; or the Special
Research Area (SFB) 245, where linguists and psychologists worked together on
“Speech and comprehension in social context”; or the interdisciplinary Graduate School
275 “Economics and Complexity within Language” (cf. Dietrich/Childress: 2004; Diet-
rich/Egel/Maier-Schicht/Neubauer: 1991).
In this paper, we investigate a phenomenon that can best be understood as the result of
a number of successful cooperations within language, namely the emergence of ‘gib(t)s’
as a new existential marker in German, which draws on cooperations of different linguis-
tic domains and at different grammatical and extragrammatical levels. We see the col-
laboration of phonological/phonetic, semantic, and syntactic subdomains and the interac-
tion of grammatical and pragmatic/information-structural aspects. In addition, we ob-
serve the joint contribution of three domains that feature prominently in Rainer
Dietrich’s work, namely language processing, language acquisition, and language con-
tact (e.g. Dietrich/Perdue/Allwood/Extra: 1984; Dietrich/Klein/Noyau: 1995; Dietrich/
Hanulíková: 2008; Dietrich/Weißenborn: 2008).
We are going to show that this kind of multi-level ‘linguistic cooperation’ supports
the emergence of a new monomorphematic form gibs or gibts from a basis gibt es (liter-
ally ‘gives it’), which is part of a specific construction where geben ‘to give’ is used as
an existential predicate. Our data suggests that gib(t)s as a monomorphematic form can
undergo further change, particularly in multiethnic urban neighbourhoods with their
large proportion of multilingual speakers and the special linguistic dynamics that comes
with this: there is some indication that gib(t)s might currently be on its way to becoming
an existential particle that can take the position of the finite verb.
The linguistic evidence we are going to present for this comes from spontaneous
speech in Berlin-Kreuzberg, a multiethnic and multilingual neighbourhood with a lot of
speakers who speak Turkish next to German. We are going to argue that Turkish, with its
existential particle var (negated: yok), can further support the development of gibs as an
existential particle. However, our data is not restricted to German-Turkish speakers,
though, but also encompasses bilingual speakers with other languages next to German as
40 Heike Wiese and Sibylle Duda
well as monolingual German speakers. Furthermore, we are going to show that the de-
velopment of gibs is strongly supported language-internally in German, resulting in a
more systematic alignment of syntactic and semantic arguments than in the original con-
struction with existential geben. This is hence a development that, first of all, makes a lot
of sense from the point of view of German, but can, on top of this, get a further boost
from the Turkish language competency of some speakers – rather than being triggered
by, say, poor second language acquisition of German.
What we see here, then, is not simply a contact-induced phenomenon, but the result of
a more complex cooperation – a ‘joint effort’ involving another linguistic system, Turk-
ish, as well as different linguistic subdomains within German.
2. The starting point: existential geben
geben in its use as a regular verb has the meaning ‘to give’, referring to a predicate with
three semantic roles, Agent (the giver), Patient (the gift), and Recipient, which, at the
syntactic level, are associated with subject, direct object (accusative), and indirect object
(dative). The verb geben when used for existential statements stands in only a homo-
nymic relationship with this; its constituent frame is reduced and highly specified com-
pared to regular geben.1 Existential geben, unlike geben in the sense of ‘to give’, assigns
only one role, that of the Theme (= the existing entity), which is associated with an accu-
sative object. This has two consequences: First, it means that the highest – that is, in this
case, the only – semantic role is not associated with the subject, making existential geben
exceptional with respect to the organisation of its argument structure. Second, it means
that the subject remains semantically empty and is realised by an expletive pronoun, 3rd
person singular es ‘it’,2 making existential geben exceptional with respect to its morpho-
syntactic paradigm: given this preset subject, it is restricted to 3rd person singular forms
(= for present tense indicative: gibt). If we take verb-final as the basic word order in
German sentences, this gives us the following frame, with a fully specified form es as the
subject and a verb that is specified for person and number (the verbal stem with the spe-
cification “3SG” is meant as a place-holder for the different tense and mood forms):
(1) es[SUBJ] DP[OBJ/ACC] geb-[3SG]
1 This also holds in comparison with two other monotransitive variants of geben, namely geben in
the sense of ‘to result in’ (e.g., “Das gibt Probleme.” – ‘This will result in problems.’) and geben
in the sense of ‘to be on offer’ (e.g., “Sie geben heute Hamlet.” – ‘They have Hamlet on offer
today.’) (cf. Czinglar: 1997).
2 Lenerz (1992) calls this a “subject-es”, which is an obligatory argument of the verb, as opposed
to a “topic-es”, which is used in addition to a full NP subject, is base-generated in the left pe-
riphery, and cannot appear in the base position of the subject (e.g., “Es zogen drei Burschen
über den Rhein.” – ‘There were three fellows passing the Rhine.’, lit. ‘It passed three fellows
over the Rhine.’ vs. *“Drei Burschen zogen es über den Rhein.”) Czinglar (1997) emphasises
that the expletive here is always es: unlike some other expletive subjects, e.g., the subjects of
weather verbs, substitution with das ‘that’ is not possible with existential geben (e.g., “Es gibt
Probleme.” means ‘There are problems.’ with geben in existential use, while “Das gibt Prob-
leme.” means something like ‘This will result in problems.’, with geben used in a different
meaning, namely ‘to result in’; cf. fn.1).
A new German particle ‘gib(t)s’ 41
In main clauses where the finite verb is in second position (V2), full referential subjects
are most often realised in the left-peripheral position, the so-called ‘front-field’ before
the verb. In contrast to this, es as a subject of existential geben tends to remain in the
Wackernagel position immediately behind the finite verb in V2 position. Since it is non-
referential, it cannot be stressed and does not establish anaphoric links with the preced-
ing context, which would support a position in the front-field. Instead, that position is
then often occupied by adverbials that serve as frame-setters at the level of information
structure. In general, frame-setters favour the left-peripheral position in sentences (cf.
Jacobs: 2001; Krifka: 2007), and existential statements often involve a frame-setter since
in natural discourse, existence is typically asserted within a specific frame rather than
globally (cf. Lambrecht: 1995).
This leads to a linearisation where existential geben in its 3rd singular form is typically
followed rather than preceded by es, that is, in the present indicative form of geben, it
leads to a word order ‘gibt – es’. As a weak pronoun, es is regularly cliticised in this
position, in particular in spoken language (cf. e.g., Abraham: 1995), yielding gibt’s.
Evidence for the precedence of the order ‘gibt es’ or ‘gibt’s’ over ‘es gibt’ can be
found, for instance, in the DWDS (‘Digitales Wörterbuch der Deutschen Sprache’) cor-
pora of German language. The core corpus of over 100,000 word tokens from a range of
mostly written texts provides about 13,000 hits for “es gibt”, but about 19,000 hits, that
is nearly 1.5 times as many, for “gibt es” and the cliticised form “gibt’s”/“gibts” (cf.
Wiese: 2011).
3. The vanishing of the subject in gib(t)s
To sum up, the order ‘gibt – es’ is supported by grammatical factors (semantic non-
referentiality and phonological weakness support a position of es behind the verb) as
well as information-structural ones (the position in front of the verb tends to be occupied
by frame-setters in existential statements). On the morphophonological and phonetic
level, this linearisation in turn supports a reduction of gibt es [gIpt !Es] to cliticised gibts
[gIpts] and sometimes on to gibs [gIps] with a coda that is phonologically further re-
duced:
Fig. 1: Derivation of gib(t)s
42 Heike Wiese and Sibylle Duda
The dominance in frequency of the cliticised and phonetically reduced form can lead to a
reinterpretation of gib(t)s as a monomorphematic element where es is not retrievable as a
subject anymore, but has disappeared into the new form. Evidence for this comes from
combinations of gib(t)s with an additional phonologically full pronominal subject es. (2)
gives two examples from German-language internet forums3 (a Google search for “es
gibt’s” / “es gibts” / “es gibs” / “gibt’s es” / “gibts es” / “gibs es” on German websites on
Nov 18th, 2010 yielded about 186,000 hits).
(2a) Es gibts nichts schöneres als mit einem
it gibts [lit.: gives-itCL] nothing nicer than with a
guten Buch mit einem Glas Rotwein vor einem
good book with a glass red wine in.front.of an
offenen Kamin zu sitzen
open fire.place to sit
‘There is nothing nicer than sitting in front of the fireplace with a good book and
a glass of red wine.’
(2b) Es gibts so Wecker die einen nach Schlafphasen wecken ,
It gibts like alarm.clocks which oneACC after sleep phases wake.up
also immer wenn man gerade nicht im Tiefschlaf ist .
that.is always when one currently not in.the deep sleep is
‘There are, like, alarm clocks that wake you up after sleep phases, that is, when-
ever you are not in deep sleep at that moment.’
We interpret this combination of gib(t)s with a full subject es as an indication that the ‘s’
in gib(t)s is not interpreted as a (clitisised) subject anymore, but as part of a monomor-
phematic form, that is, that the subject is vanished from gib(t)s. As Figure 2 shows, such
a combination is not necessarily restricted to the informal context of internet chats, but
can appear in somewhat more formal written language as well, in this case on an adver-
tisement in front of a bakery in Rehau, a small town in South Germany (read: “Sand-
wiches and a smile. Both gibts es here.”).4
3 (2a) is from a discussion forum on IT News,
http://forum.golem.de/read.php?27931,1463768,1464287 (last viewed May 9, 2011), (2b) is a
posting on gutefrage.net, an advice community, http://www.gutefrage.net/frage/es-gibts-so-
wecker-die-einen-nach-schlafphasen-wecken-also-immer-wenn-man-gerade-nicht-im-tiefschlaf-
ist (last viewed May 9, 2011). For the use of so as a focus marker (similar to English like) in
(2b) cf. Wiese (2011).
4 We thank Eva Wittenberg for this photo.
A new German particle ‘gib(t)s’ 43
Fig. 2: A subject vanished from “gibts”
The disappearance of the subject in gib(t)s is supported by its deficient, expletive status:
since es is semantically empty, there is no compositionality at the semantic level even
when -s is still interpreted as a distinct, if clitical, element in gib(t)s.
In the resulting monomorphematic element gib(t)s, univerbation brings together the
verb and its former subject, while leaving out the object complement from the verb
phrase. This pattern can give rise to a further development, whereby the abandoned ob-
ject appropriates the now vacant subject position. We found evidence for this in particu-
lar in language use from multiethnic/multilingual urban speech communities.
4. A further development in multiethnic urban German
Language use in multiethnic urban areas of Germany – and similarly in other European
countries – has been shown to be especially innovative linguistically.5 Due to their
wealth of multilingual speakers, linguistic varieties emerging in such contexts show a
special linguistic dynamic, with linguistic innovations at different levels, drawing on an
interplay of grammatical and extragrammatical domains. In the case of Germany, we
have argued elsewhere that Kiezdeutsch (literally “(neighbour-)hood German”), a youth
language that emerged in such urban areas, constitutes a new, multiethnic German dia-
lect in its own standing: a variety with some characteristics that differ from standard
German, but do not reflect mere grammatical reductions or, say, learner stages of second
language acquisition, but rather occur systematically, constituting new grammatical pat-
terns and elaborating on existing ones.6
While a salient proportion of its speakers are Turkish-German bilinguals, Kiez-
deutsch is not a Turkish ethnolect of German, but is used across ethnic and linguistic
backgrounds, both by bilingual (Turkish-/Kurdish-/Arabic-/…-German) speakers and by
monolingual German speakers, indicating the status of a multiethnolect.7 New patterns in
5 Wiese (2009), Cheshire/Fox/Kerswell/Torgersen (2008) for similar observations in the UK, for
the case of Multicultural London English.
6 Wiese (2006; 2009; 2012).
7 Cf. Clyne/Eiskovits/Tollfree (2002), Quist (2005) on the concept of a multiethnolect; Freywald/
Mayr/Özçelik/Wiese (2011) for the characterisation of Kiezdeutsch as a multiethnolect.
44 Heike Wiese and Sibylle Duda
Kiezdeutsch draw principally on system-internal dynamics of German, but can also get
additional motivation from external sources, namely from linguistic patterns of other
languages that some of its speakers are familiar with (e.g., Turkish). In what follows, we
are going to show that we find evidence for both processes in the development of gib(t)s.
4.1 gib(t)s in youth language: Kiezdeutsch data
For the Kiezdeutsch data, we draw on two sources for language use among young people
in a multiethnic urban neighbourhood of Berlin (Kreuzberg): (1) the KiezDeutsch Korpus
(Wiese/Freywald/Schalowski/Mayr: 2012), a corpus of natural, peer-group conversa-
tions, based on self-recordings (audio files with aligned transcriptions); (2) a collection
of informal interviews (audio files with transcriptions). The main corpus of the Kiez-
Deutsch Korpus, which we used for this study, consists of approximately 48 hours of
recordings; the interview collection encompasses 4 hours.
We found 150 occurrences of geben with an existential meaning in the corpus, of
which 117 had the form gib(t)s, and 155 existential uses of geben in the interview collec-
tion (with its more frequent change of topics), with 95 cases of gib(t)s. Consistent with
our findings in internet chats and forums, our search yielded some combinations of
gib(t)s with es, namely 5 occurrences in the corpus, and 10 in the interview collection,
indicating that in Kiezdeutsch, we find the same phenomenon of a vanished subject in
gib(t)s as in other variants of informal language. (3) illustrates this with an example from
our interview collection (Turkish-German bilingual speaker; in the transcription, capi-
talisation indicates main sentence accent):
(3) es GIBS nich mehr sowas
it gibs not more such.things
es is nich mehr die zeit von FRÜher , von unsre ELtern .
it is not more the time of earlier of our parents.
‘Something like that does not exist/happen anymore. The old days are gone, the
times of our parents.’
In addition to this “es gib(t)s”-combination that we already know from other contexts, a
closer look at the gib(t)s occurrences in our data revealed an additional pattern, one
which might indicate a further step in the development of gib(t)s as a monomorphematic
element. (4) gives some examples: (4a) and (4b) are from the corpus, from conversations
in bilingual Kurdish-German and Turkish-German groups; (4c) is from the interview
collection, with a Turkish-German speaker:
A new German particle ‘gib(t)s’ 45
(4a) GUCK ma was hier alles NOCH gibs .
look PART what here everything yet gibs
‘Look what all there is here.’
[KiezDeutsch Korpus, MuP1MK]
(4b) WEIßte doch , die die in verschiedene FARben gibs ?
Know youCL PART those thatPL in different colours gibs
‘You know them – those that come in different colours?’
[KiezDeutsch Korpus, MuH9WT]
(4c) aber in ihre freizeit KIFfen die , KOKsen die ,
but in their free time smoke.hash they sniff.snow they
weisch nisch WAS , mann ,
know not what man
die machen JEde sünde , was eigentlich gibs .
they make every sin what PART gibs
‘But in their free time, they smoke hash, they sniff snow, don’t know what, man,
they do every sin there is.’
In these examples, gib(t)s appears in subordinate sentences with verb-final word order,
and accordingly, gib(t) stands in final position. The interesting aspect is that the ‘-s’ part
is nevertheless still attached to gib(t), that is, we find the entire element gib(t)s in this
position. If ‘-(e)s’ was still interpreted as a subject, it would have to be in the subject
position further to the left, namely in [Spec, IP] following the subordinating element,
yielding the following, hypothetical counterparts for the examples in (4):
(5a) …was es hier alles noch gibt
…what it here everything yet gives
(5b) …die die es in verschiedene FARben gibt
…those that it in different colours gives
(5c) …was es eigentlich gibt
…what it PART gives
In contrast to these constructed examples, the real sentences in (4) keep the -s together
with gib(t), with no es in subject position. This might mean that the subject position
remains empty. Note, though, that the subordination in these sentences is indicated by
relativisers (relative (wh-) pronouns) which would serve as the accusative object of exis-
tential geben in standard German, but whose form is actually ambiguous between accu-
sative and nominative: both was ‘whatNEUT.SG’ and die ‘thatPL’ would come out the same if
they were nominative; it is only in masculine singular forms that one could see a differ-
46 Heike Wiese and Sibylle Duda
ence. Due to this syncretism, in (4) the subject position might be empty, but it might as
well be occupied by the pronominal elements was or die, respectively. This would, then,
indicate a reanalysis whereby the former accusative object is interpreted as the subject,
while the semantically empty former subject es vanishes and becomes part of the new
particle gib(t)s.
Such a reanalysis makes a lot of sense from the point of view of the grammatical sys-
tem: it fixes the mismatch, mentioned in section 2 above, of syntactic and semantic ar-
guments we find in standard German sentences with existential geben. As a result of
such a reanalysis, the highest semantic role (= the Theme, that is, the entity for which
existence is asserted) is now associated with the subject, rather than with the object, and
there is no expletive subject in the syntax with no semantic counterpart anymore.
In our data, there were only very few clear-cut examples for this pattern, namely 2 oc-
currences in the KiezDeutsch Korpus, and none in the interview collection (which was in
a more formal setting than the peer-group conversations from the Korpus). Note, though,
that we can only unambiguously identify the pattern in verb-final (= subordinate) sen-
tences, since in verb-second word order, the linearisation would usually be the same for
(a) gib(t)s with ‘-s’ a cliticised subject and for (b) reanalysed gib(t)s with ‘-s’ part of a
particle; cf. the illustration in (6) (from the interview collection; bilingual Turkish-
German speaker).
(6) MÄNnerrechte gibs ja AUCH noch hier in deutschland
men’s rights gibs PART also yet here in Germany
‘There are men’s rights, too, here in Germany. / Men have rights as well here in
Germany.’
(6a) ordinary: [CP [NP MÄNnerrechteACC]i [C1 gibj [IP sNOM … [VP … [V1 ti tj ]]]]]
(6b) reanalysed: [CP [NP MÄNnerrechteNOM]i [C1 gibsj [IP ti … [VP … [V1 tj ]]]]]
The new usage of gib(t)s that we can identify in verb-final sentences might not be re-
stricted to youth language, but might persist in older age groups in multiethnic neigh-
bourhoods. (7) gives examples from Turkish-German bilingual speakers in their late 30s
and 40s who live in Berlin-Kreuzberg (from accidental observations; the utterances oc-
curred in private conversations one of us (H.W.) took part in):
(7a) ich such mal RAUS wo das gibs .
I search PART out where thatNEUT.SG gibs
‘I am going to find out where that is available / where one can get that.’
(7b) ich war gestern BAUhaus und habe geguckt welche SORten gibs .
I was yesterday Bauhaus and have looked which sorts gibs
‘I was at Bauhaus [= DIY store] yesterday and looked what sorts there are.’
A new German particle ‘gib(t)s’ 47
(7c) ich gucke mal nach ob auch bezüge für KINdersitze gibs .
I look PART up whether also covers for childrenseats gibs.
‘I check whether there are covers for children seats, too.’ [in a bike shop]
In addition, we found some evidence that this pattern might also be used outside multi-
ethnic/multilingual speech communities; something that does not come as a surprise
given the good fit it is from the point of view of the grammatical system of German. (8)
provides evidence for sentence-final gib(t)s in the speech of a young man (about 15 years
of age) from Berlin-Hellersdorf, a mostly monoethnically German district.8
(8) aids ist eine krankheit die schon IMmer gibts .
AIDS is a disease thatFEM.SG already always gibts
‘AIDS is a disease that has always existed.’
Again, the pronominal arguments of gib(t)s in these cases, “das” (7a), “welche Sorten”
(7b), “Bezüge” (7c), and “die” (8), are ambiguous in form and could be accusatives as
well as nominatives. In order to investigate this pattern further, we had a look at another
age group, namely younger children at kindergarten age. Since the phenomenon is part of
informal spoken language, involving the reanalysis of a clitic occurring in speech, we
expected to find it more prominently in the language use of children between about 4 and
6 years of age. This is a time when the first (or, in some of the cases of bilingual chil-
dren, second) language acquisition of German is already pretty far advanced, but before
schooling sets in and with it the systematic acquisition of written language and of more
formal variants of German.9
4.2 gib(t)s in pre-school child language: Kindergarten data
In order to collect possible occurrences of this new gib(t)s pattern, we worked together
with two daycare centres in multiethnic Berlin neighbourhoods (Kreuzberg and Span-
dau), where we spent observation time in the groups with older children, of 4 to 6 years
of age, sitting at the side in the group room or in the yard/playground while normal day
activities took place, and writing down usages of gib(t)s by the children. Our observation
went over five days, plus an additional 15 minutes in the afternoon on 4 days a week
over a month.
Because of the different play and communication situations, covering structured
group activities as well as free play, outings etc., the observation could not (and was not
meant to) yield a systematic, homogeneous record as a basis for a quantitative analysis,
but rather a collection of examples to be analysed qualitatively. We found ample evi-
dence for the pattern of sentence-final gib(t)s described above, used by children of dif-
ferent linguistic backgrounds, including bilingual German-Turkish, German-Kurdish,
8 From a TV feature, where people were asked about HIV. We thank Sören Schalowski for this
example.
9 Cf. also Cheshire/Kerswill/Fox/Torgersen (2011) on the extended use of linguistic innovations
by children in multiethnic neighbourhoods.
48 Heike Wiese and Sibylle Duda
German-Arabic, German-English, and German-Spanish speakers as well as monolingual
German speakers. (9) gives some examples.
(9a) [speaker: 6 years old, German-English bilingual]
ich WEIß wo die gibs .
I know where they gibs
‘I know where one can get those.’
(9b) [speaker: 5 years old, German-Turkish bilingual]
hast du vergessen dass auch SCHLUMPFeis gibs ?
have you forgotten that also smurf ice.cream gibs
‘Have you forgotten that they have smurf ice cream as well?’
(9c) [speaker: 5 years old, German monolingual]
Aber den BABYcarrier weiß ich nicht wo den gibs .
But the baby carrier know I not where itMASC.SG.ACC gibs
den hat mir meine Oma geschenkt .
itMASC.SG.ACC has me my granny given
‘But for the baby carrier [doll equipment], I do not know where one can get that.
My granny gave it to me.’
Apart from nominative/accusative ambiguous forms as in (9a) and (9b) (feminine rela-
tive pronoun “die”; bare mass noun “Schlumpfeis”), there were also examples that
showed clear accusative case marking for the argument of gib(t)s, such as the masculine
singular “den” in (9c), which would be “der” in its nominative form. An interesting find-
ing is that, alongside these accusatives, we also found some masculine singular argu-
ments with unambiguously nominative forms:
(10a) [speaker: 5 years old, German-Turkish bilingual]
Welche ninjas SIND denn hier ? Zeig mir mal WER
Which Ninjas are PART here show me part whoMASC.SG.NOM
alles gibs .
all gibs
‘Which Ninjas [= “Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles”; toy figures] are here, then?
Show me who all is there.’
A new German particle ‘gib(t)s’ 49
(10b) [speaker: 4 years old, German monolingual]
ich mag BEIde sorten pudding . das is gut
I like both sorts custardMASC that is good
weil wenns nur EIner gibs , mag ich den auf JEden fall
because if.itCL only oneMASC.SG.NOM gibs like I itMASC.SG.ACC on any case
‘I like both kinds of custard. That is good because, if there is only one on offer, I
will like it for sure.’
(10c) [speaker: 5 years old, German-Turkish bilingual]
das is kein geschmack von einer FRUCHT . das is einfach
that is no flavour of a fruit that is simply
ein geschmack , der woanders gar nicht GIBS .
a flavourMASC thatMASC.SG.NOM elsewhere PART not gibs
‘This is not a flavour of some fruit. It is simply a flavour that does not exist else-
where at all.’
In some cases, as illustrated in (10b), there was a full subject es in addition to gib(t)s,
indicating the variability that this pattern (still?) has. What we did not observe at all, is
an occurrence of existential gib(t) without an -s. In fact, two of the kindergarten teachers
stated that most children invariably say gib(t)s, and that they hardly ever hear gibt alone.
This suggests, at least at this stage, a fixed, monomorphematic element gib(t)s; an ele-
ment that is used as a particle in the positition of the finite verb, with an argument that
might be reanalysed as a subject.
While this reanalysis is supported system-internally in German, the use of a nonin-
flected particle in verb position is not. In fact, we found an instance where a repair of this
might have been intended by adding a verbal inflectional ending, namely the 3SG -t
reminiscent of the initial (standard) 3SG form gibt:
(11) [speaker: 3 years 10 months old, German-English bilingual]
kann ich bitte alle farben dies GIBST haben ?
can I please all colours thatPL.itCL gibst have
‘Can I please have all colours [of pens] that there are?’
Some support for the use of gib(t)s in verb position might come from an external source,
namely from Turkish, a language which offers such a pattern for existential statements
and which is part of the linguistic repertoire of a substantial proportion of speakers in
Berlin-Kreuzberg.
50 Heike Wiese and Sibylle Duda
4.3 A possible support from Turkish
Turkish has an element, namely var, that works similar to what we find, tendentially, for
gib(t)s: var is an existential marker that stands in the position of the finite verb and has as
its (only) argument a full lexical subject that refers to the entity whose existence is as-
serted by var, the Theme. (12) gives an example:10
(12) BuzdolabÕnda iki úiúe bira var .
fridge-LOC two bottle beer var
‘There are two bottles of beer in the fridge.’
In addition, var is also used, by itself, as an answer to existential questions, cf. (13):
(13) BuzdolabÕnda bira var mÕ ? – Var .
fridge-LOC beer var question particle – var
‘Is there beer in the fridge? Yes, there is.’
In Turkish, var has a negated counterpart, yok, that is used in the same way as var. In our
data from Berlin-Kreuzberg, we found some indication for the emergence of a similarly
negated form for existential gib(t)s in German, namely occurrences of “gibs kein”, where
gibs is combined with a noninflected form of (usually inflectional) kein ‘none’. (14)
illustrates this: (14a) is from the interview corpus, uttered by a male German-Turkish
bilingual speaker; (14b) is from a conversation overheard in the street, which took place
in front of a kiosk during a street festival, between a boy (A), about 4 years of age, and
the vendor (B), in his mid-30s.
(14a) A: was is dein LIEBlingsboxer ?
what is your favourite boxer
B: GIBS kein .
‘A: What is your favourite boxer?
B: There is none. / I do not have one.’
(14b) A: ich möchte Eine kugel eis .
I would.like one ball ice.cream
B: GIBS kein .
A [looking disappointed]
B: GIBS kein .wir verkaufen heute nur BIER und WASser .
we sell today only beer and water
10 Example from Göksel/Kerslake (2005, 122).
A new German particle ‘gib(t)s’ 51
‘A: I would like a scoop of ice cream.
B: There isn’t any. / We do not have any.
A [looking disappointed]
B: There isn’t any. We sell only beer and water today.’
The availability of the var/yok construction in Turkish might here support a parallel pat-
tern in the German of bilingual speakers. In fact, we found sentence-final gib(t)s for
bilingual Turkish-German speakers in Turkey as well. The following example from
spontaneous speech illustrates this (speaker: Turkish, living in Izmir, speaks German as a
foreign language):
(15) […] weils im deutschen so viele AUSnahmen gibs .
because.itCL in.the German so many exceptions gibs
‘because there are so many exceptions in German’
However, this does not mean that the development of gib(t)s we observe in German is
based on an interference from Turkish that reflects a stage of second language acquisi-
tion. There are several aspects in the use of the new gib(t)s pattern that speak against
such a view: (1) gib(t)s as an existential particle is used in multilingual neighbourhoods
like Berlin-Kreuzberg across ethnic and linguistic backgrounds, that is, not only by bi-
lingual German-Turkish speakers, but also by speakers who do not have Turkish in their
linguistic repertoire; (2) bilingual German-Turkish speakers who use gib(t)s as an exis-
tential particle in Germany are usually born in Germany and have grown up with Ger-
man as a first or an early second language; (3) there is at least some evidence that gib(t)s
might be used as an existential particle in largely monoethnic German speech communi-
ties as well (cf. (8) above).
Taken together, this suggests that, rather than via simple interference, the input that
sentence-final gib(t)s gets from Turkish is more subtle. While Turkish is not a compre-
hensive, dominant L1 for gib(t)s users, it is a significant linguistic source in multilingual
urban speech communities such as that in Berlin-Kreuzberg, as a language that a sub-
stantial proportion of speakers is familiar with. As such, it does not trigger a simple
transfer as known from language contact in second/foreign language acquisition, but is
part of a larger support network that gib(t)s draws on: it can further support and expedite
the development of a new pattern for gib(t)s that is already motivated system-internally
in German.11
5. An emerging new pattern and its network
Taken together, we find evidence for an ongoing development of gib(t)s into an existen-
tial particle in contemporary German that is supported both internally by the grammatical
system of German and externally by similar patterns from Turkish, suggesting a network
of different languages and different grammatical and pragmatic levels in the emergence
of this new pattern.
11 cf. also Poplack/Levey (2010) on direct contact-linguistic influences vs. internal grammatical
change.
52 Heike Wiese and Sibylle Duda
In the remainder of this paper, we are going to sketch an account for this network within
the framework of a Tripartite Parallel Architecture, following Jackendoff (1997; 2002);
Culicover/Jackendoff (2005). This framework allows us to tease apart different gram-
matical levels such as Syntax, Semantics, and Phonology, as independent generative
systems, and to capture their correlation with each other as well as with extragrammati-
cal systems such as Information Structure, via coindexation of representations at differ-
ent derivational stages.12 By doing so, this framework permits a broad approach to the
lexicon, with a unified account of specifications and restrictions below, at, and above the
word level.13
To give an illustration, we can account for geben in the sense of ‘to give’ as a full,
regular, ditransitive verb within such a framework as follows (coindexation by A, B, C,
D marks correlations between representations at different levels):
(16) Representation of geben in the sense of ‘to give’:
PHON: /…/A /…/B /…/C /ge:bԥn/D
SYN: [IP NPNOMA [VP NPDATB [NPACCC VD ]]]
SEM: GIVED [ (X)C (Y)B (Z)A ]
Theme Recipient Agent
This brings together, at the phonological level, a phonological representation of the verb
(in its infinitive form, acting as a place-holder for different inflected forms); at the syn-
tactic level, the verbal projection (including a functional IP layer), and, at the semantic
level, a predicate referent for the VP head, and its arguments with their thematic roles,
correlated with the two object complements and the subject.
In contrast to this, a representation of existential geben would look like this:
(17) Representation of existential geben:
PHON: /!Es/A /…/B /gIpt/C
SYN: [IP PRON3SG.NEUT.NOMA [VP NPACCB V3SGC ]]
SEM: EXISTC [ XB ]
Theme
In this representation, one of the arguments, the subject, is highly specified phono-
logically and syntactically as a 3rd singular neuter pronoun /ßEs/, and does not have a
match in the semantic representation, which only includes a Theme argument corre-
12 For a definition of the interface systems supporting coindexed representations cf. Wiese (2003).
13 cf. also Jacobs (2008) for an approach to the lexicon that includes projections.
A new German particle ‘gib(t)s’ 53
sponding to the accusative object. To account for the frequency of the form gibt’s in
verb-second sentences where the pronominal subject is cliticised to the verb, we can
draw on a representation of sentences with pronominal -s clitics attached to the finite
verb that affects the phonological and syntactic, but not the semantic level:14
(18) Representation of V2 sentences with pronominal subject -s as a clitic:
PHON: /…AsB/
SYN: [CP ViA [IP PRONCL.3SG.NEUTB…ti]]
Against this background, we can now provide a representation for sentences with exis-
tential gibt’s as an inflected verb with a subject clitic. In order to capture the informa-
tion-structural motivation of the word order supporting this cliticisation in existential
sentences, this representation includes a level Information Structure (IS) where the left-
peripheral element of the sentence is specified as a frame-setter.
(19) Representation of V2 sentences with existential gibt’s as an inflected verb with a
subject clitic:
PHON: /…/A /gIptBsC/ /…/D
SYN: [CP XPADVA ViB [IP PRONCLC [VP NPACCD ti ]]]
SEM: EXISTB [ XD ] [TIME/PLACE]A
Theme
IS: FramesetterA TopicD
At the surface, this representation is similar to one with existential sein ‘to be’, in par-
ticular in sentences where the object of gibt is not marked unambigously as accusative,
that is, in all cases except for masculine singulars, e.g.:
(20a) Dort gibt’s Wolken . ‘There are clouds.’
There gives-itCL clouds
(20b) Dort sind Wolken . ‘There are clouds.’
There are clouds
14 Note that this is not meant to be a general representation of cliticisation, but rather an illustration
of its effects for the example of cliticised pronominal subjects es in verb-second sentences.
54 Heike Wiese and Sibylle Duda
These sentences do not differ substantially at the semantic and information-structural
levels, and they show strong parallels at the phonological level, with gib(t)s forming a
phonological unit just as much as sind. It is only at the syntactic level that they involve
diverging representations. (21) brings the two patterns together:
(21) Parallels between V2 sentences with existential gib(t)s and with existential sind:
PHON: /…/A /gIptBsC/ /…/D
SYN: [CP XPADVA ViB [IP PRONCLC [VP NPACCD ti ]]]
SEM: EXISTB [ XD ] [TIME/PLACE]A
Theme
IS: FramesetterA TopicD
PHON: /…/A /zInt/B /…/C
SYN: [CP XPADVA ViB [IP NPNOMC [VP ti ]]]
SEM: EXISTB [ XC ] [TIME/PLACE]A
Theme
IS: FramesetterA TopicC
These parallels underline the system-internal motivation for a syntactic reanalysis of
existential gib(t)s. Unlike the representation with gib(t)s, the one with sind is unexcep-
tional from the point of view of the grammatical system: it does not involve elements
that occur only at some, but not all grammatical levels, but has corresponding representa-
tions at all three levels PHON, SYN, and SEM, and it matches the subject from SYN
with the highest thematic role in SEM, yielding the expected alignment of syntactic and
semantic arguments.
As shown above, gib(t)s is often not interpreted as a complex form anymore, but
shows a tendency to be treated as a monomorphematic element with the subject van-
ished. This yields a form gibts that is more like a particle than an inflected verb with its
subject, and can undergo, in a straightforward way, a reanalysis that yields a representa-
tion much more in line with the regular pattern illustrated by existential sein:
A new German particle ‘gib(t)s’ 55
(22) Reanalysis of sentences with existential gib(t)s:
PHON: /…/A /gIptBsC/ /…/D
SYN: [CP XPADVA ViB [IP PRONCLC [VP NPACCD ti ]]]
SEM: EXISTB [ XD ] [TIME/PLACE]A
Theme
IS: FramesetterA TopicD
PHON: /…/A /gIp(t)s/B /…/C
SYN: [CP XPADVA PART/ViB [IP NPNOMC [VP ti ]]]
SEM: EXISTB [ XC ] [TIME/PLACE]A
Theme
IS: FramesetterA TopicC
(23) gives the general representation we get for the existential particle gib(t)s on this
basis:
(23) gib(t)s as an existential particle:
PHON: /…/A /gIp(t)s/B
SYN: [IP NPNOMA [VP PART/V]B]
SEM: EXISTB [ XA ]
Theme
The emergence of this representation is, as argued above, not only motivated system-
internally in German, but can get further support from a similar pattern for existential var
in Turkish in contexts with a sufficient proportion of bilingual Turkish-German speakers:
(24) existential var in Turkish:
PHON: /…/A /vAr/B
SYN: [ NPNOMA PARTB ]
SEM: EXISTB [ XA ]
Theme
56 Heike Wiese and Sibylle Duda
This, then, gives us a network of representations supporting, at different grammatical and
extra-grammatical levels, the development of an existential particle gib(t)s, with well-
aligned syntactic and semantic arguments, from an exceptional existential verb geben
with syntax-semantic mismatches.
Fig. 3 brings this network together:
Fig. 3: A network supporting the emergence of an existential particle gib(t)s
/!Es /A /…/B /gIpt/C
[IP PRON3SG.NEUT.NOMA [VP NPACCB V3SGC ]]
EXISTC [ XB ]
Theme
/…/A /gIptBsC/ /…/D
[CP XPADVA ViB [IP PRONCLC [VP NPACCD ti ]]]
EXISTB [ XD ] [TIME/PLACE]A
Theme
FramesetterA TopicD
/.../A /zInt/B /.../C
[CP XPADVA ViB [IP NPNOMC [VP ti ]]
EXISTB [XC ] [TIME/PLACE]A
Theme
FramesetterA TopicC
/…/A /gIpts/B
[IP NPNOMA [VP PART/V]B]
EXISTB [ XA ]
Theme
/.../A /var/B
[ NPNOMA PARTB]
EXISTB [ XA ]
Theme
A new German particle ‘gib(t)s’ 57
6. Conclusion: a successful cooperation
In this paper, we have discussed a case of sucessful cooperation within and beyond a
linguistic system: the development of a new, existential particle gib(t)s in German that
evolves from an interplay of different grammatical subsystems, an extragrammatical
system (information structure), and a grammatical pattern from another language (Turk-
ish), and draws on aspects of structure, frequency/processing, and acquisition.
The source for gib(t)s is a construction with an existential verb geben, literally ‘to
give’, that is highly irregular from the point of view of the grammatical system: geben in
this sense invariably combines with a semantically empty subject es ‘it’ – and is accord-
ingly restricted to the 3rd singular form – while the Theme of the existential statement is
realised as an accusative object, leading to a mismatch of syntactic and semantic argu-
ments.
From this source, gib(t)s evolves as an existential particle in several steps, involving a
rich network of support that comes from the linguistic system proper as well as from its
realisation in language use and language acquisition:
Information Structure, Semantics, and Phonology motivate a word order where es
follows, rather than precedes the finite verb in V2 sentences: existential sentences
typically involve adverbials of time or place (ĺ semantics) that restrict the existential
statement and act as framesetters (ĺ information structure) and accordingly tend to
occupy the frontfield position in front of the finite verb, while es tends to remain be-
hind the verb given its status as a semantically empty, weak pronoun (ĺ semantics,
phonology).
Phonology/Phonetics and Syntax support a reduction of es to -s and its attachment to
the finite verb gibt, leading to, in present tense, gib(t)s: pronouns in Wackernagel po-
sition behind the finite verb (ĺ syntax) tend to be cliticised (ĺ phonol-
ogy/phonetics).
Language use and language processing can lead to the interpretation of gib(t)s as a
monomorphematic element: because of the frequent occurrence of the merged form
gib(t)s, its internal composition might be disregarded, leading to, e.g., constructions
with an extra subject (“es gibts”).
The Morphology/Phonology and the Syntax/Semantics interfaces support a reanalysis
of the accusative complement of monomorphematic gib(t)s as a subject: since in con-
temporary German, the morphological accusative/nominative distinction of NPs is no
longer phonologically marked except in the case of masculine singulars (ĺ morphol-
ogy/phonology), the accusative argument of monomorphematic gib(t)s can also be in-
terpreted as a nominative, leading to a proper alignment of the subject with the
Theme, that is, the highest (= only) semantic role (ĺ syntax/semantics), similar to
constructions with existential sein ‘to be’.
In multilingual urban speech communities that are characterised by a substantial
proportion of Turkish-German bilingual speakers, this reanalysis gets further support
from another linguistic system, Turkish: Turkish has a similar pattern as the one with
reanalysed gib(t)s, based on the existential marker var, which also occupies the posi-
58 Heike Wiese and Sibylle Duda
tion of the finite verb and is combined with a subject that expresses the Theme of the
existential argument.
The tendency to use gib(t)s as an existential particle might be particulary pronounced
in children at an age before formal schooling and the acquisition of written language
sets in.
As a result of this ‘joint effort’ at different levels, we get a new existential construction
with gib(t)s that makes a much better fit than the initial, exceptional construction with
existential geben does: a definite improvement from the point of view of the grammatical
system, with a straight-forward, regular mapping of syntactic and semantic roles and no
semantically empty elements. The price one has to pay for this is the use of a particle in
place of a finite verb: as a monomorphematic element, gib(t)s as a whole ends up in the
position of the finite verb (that is, the position where gibt alone, as a 3rd singular form of
geben used to be) without, though, being part of an inflectional verbal paradigm. This
causes a tension which might either prevent the ongoing process of gib(t)s becoming an
existential particle from getting properly established, or which might lend further dynam-
ics to this development, leading on to, say, a paradigm of different forms, if not for per-
son and number, then at least for those categories that get support from cliticisations of -s
to other 3rd singular forms of geben, namely past gabs (from gab, the past form of geben)
and subjunctive gäbs (from subjunctive gäb/gäbe). Here is, as a last illustration, an utter-
ance from a researcher at a South German museum that rather points in this direction
(speaker in his early 40s, of monolingual German background):
(25) […] dass=es das auch schon DAmals gabs .
that.itCL thatNEUT.SG also already those.days gabs
‘that they had this already in those days as well / that this existed already in
those days as well’
Taken together, in the case of German gib(t)s we see an interesting development that
rectifies the exceptional behaviour of existential geben and the syntax-semantics mis-
match it causes in its standard usage, and that is particularly visible in, but not restricted
to, the growing multilingual urban speech communities with their special linguistic dy-
namics – a development that is by no means completed and that we think is well worth
watching.
A new German particle ‘gib(t)s’ 59
References
Abraham, W. (1995), Deutsche Syntax im Sprachenvergleich. Grundlegung einer typologischen
Syntax des Deutschen, Tübingen: Narr.
Cheshire, J. / S. Fox / P. Kerswill / E. Torgersen (2008), “Ethnicity, friendship network and social
practices as the motor of dialect change: linguistic innovation in London”, Sociolinguistica, 22,
1-23.
Cheshire, J. / P. Kerswill / S. Fox / E. Torgersen (2011), “Contact, the feature pool and the speech
community: The emergence of Multicultural London English”, Journal of Sociolinguistics, 15,
151-196.
Clyne, M. / E. Eisikovits / L. Tollfree (2002), “Ethnolects as in-group markers”, in: Duszak, A.
(ed.), Us and Others. Social Identities Across Languages, Discourses and Cultures, Amster-
dam: Benjamins, 133-157.
Culicover, P. / R. Jackendoff (2005), Simpler Syntax, Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Czinglar, C. (1997), “Bemerkungen zur Existenzbehauptung und Ortsbestimmung im Deutschen
und alemannischen Varianten”, Groninger Arbeiten zur germanistischen Linguistik, 41, 39-60.
Dietrich, R. / C. Perdue / J. Allwood / G. Extra (1984), “Processes in developing vocabulary”, in:
Perdue, C. (ed.), Second Language Acquisition by Adult Immigrants. A Field Manual, Rowley,
MA: Newbury House Publishers, 117-138.
Dietrich, R. / H. Egel / B. Maier-Schicht / M. Neubauer (1991), ORACLE und die Analyse des
Äußerungsaufbaus. Arbeiten aus dem SFB 245, vol. 32, Heidelberg/Mannheim.
Dietrich, R. / W. Klein / C. Noyau (1995), The Acquisition of Temporality in a Second Language,
Amsterdam: Benjamins.
Dietrich, R. / T. Childress (eds. 2004), Group Interaction in High Risk Environments, Aldershot:
Ashgate.
Dietrich, R. / A. Hanulíková (2008), “Die variable Coda in der slovakisch-deutschen Interimspra-
che”, in: Tarvas, M. (ed.), Tradition und Geschichte im literarischen und sprachwissenschaft-
lichen Kontext, Frankfurt am Main: Lang, 119-130.
Dietrich, R. / J. Weißenborn (2008), “Erwerbsprozesse im Erstspracherwerb und Zweitsprach-
erwerb”, in: Ahrenholz, B. / U. Bredel / W. Klein / M. Rost-Roth / R. Skiba (eds.), Empirische
Forschung und Theoriebildung, Frankfurt am Main: Lang, 217-226.
Freywald, U. / K. Mayr / T. Özçelik / H. Wiese (2011), “Kiezdeutsch as a multiethnolect”, in:
Kern, F. / M. Selting (eds.), Panethnic Styles of Speaking in European Metropolitan Cities,
Amsterdam, Philadelphia: Benjamins, 45-73.
Göksel, A. / C. Kerslake (2005), Turkish: A Comprehensive Grammar, London, New York:
Routledge.
Jackendoff, R. (1997), The Architecture of the Language Faculty, Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Jackendoff, R. (2002), Foundations of Language. Brain, Meaning, Grammar, Evolution, Oxford:
Oxford University Press.
Jacobs, J. (2001), “The dimensions of topic-comment”, Linguistics, 39, 641-681.
Jacobs, J. (2008), “Wozu Konstruktionen?”, Linguistische Berichte, 213, 3-44.
Krifka, M. (2007), “Basic Notions of Information Structure”, in: Féry, C. / G. Fanselow / M.
Krifka (eds.), The Notions of Information Structure. Interdisciplinary Studies on Information
Structure, 6, Potsdam: Universitätsverlag Potsdam, 13-55.
Lambrecht, K. (1995), Information Structure and Sentence Form. Topic, Focus, and Mental Rep-
resentations of Discourse Referents, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Lenerz, J. (1992), “Zur Theorie des syntaktischen Wandels. Das expletive es in der Geschichte des
Deutschen”, in: Abraham, W. (ed.), Erklärende Syntax des Deutschen, Tübingen: Narr, 99-136.
Poplack, S. / S. Levey (2010), “Contact-induced grammatical change”, in: Auer, P. / J. Schmidt
(eds.), Language and Space. An International Handbook of Linguistic Variation, vol. 1, Theo-
ries and methods, Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, 391-418.
60 Heike Wiese and Sibylle Duda
Quist, P. (2005), “New speech varieties among immigrant youth in Copenhagen – a case study”,
in: Hinnekamp, V. / K. Meng (eds.), Sprachgrenzen überspringen. Sprachliche Hybridität und
polykulturelles Selbstverständnis, Tübingen: Narr, 145-161.
Wiese, H. (2003), Sprachliche Arbitrarität als Schnittstellenphänomen, Habilitation Thesis, Hum-
boldt-Universität zu Berlin.
Wiese, H. (2006), “‘Ich mach dich Messer‘: Grammatische Produktivität in Kiez-Sprache”, Lingu-
istische Berichte, 207, 245-273.
Wiese, H. (2009), “Grammatical innovation in multiethnic urban Europe: new linguistic practices
among adolescents”, Lingua, 119, 782-806.
Wiese, H. (2011), “so as a focus marker in German”, Linguistics, 49, 991-1039
Wiese, H. (2012), Kiezdeutsch: ein neuer Dialekt entsteht, München: C.H. Beck.
Wiese, H. / U. Freywald / S. Schalowski / K. Mayr (2012), Das KiezDeutsch Korpus. Spontan-
sprachliche Daten Jugendlicher aus urbanen Wohngebieten”, Deutsche Sprache, 2.