Foreign language teachers, experts of pedagogy, and textbook publishers often cite frequency as an important tool in the creation of textbooks, as well as in teaching students a foreign language. These same figures, however, rarely question the application of frequency in these works. This thesis examines the application of frequency over a range of first-year German textbooks compared to a textbook that is explicitly based on a particular frequency dictionary. These textbooks are compared to each other and to the Jones and Tschirner Frequency Dictionary of German and Pfeffer’s Grunddeutsch: Basic (Spoken) German Word List, Grundstufe.

Foreign language teachers, experts of pedagogy, and textbook publishers often cite frequency as an important tool in the creation of textbooks, as well as in teaching students a foreign language. These same figures, however, rarely question the application of frequency in these works. This thesis examines the application of frequency over a range of first-year German textbooks compared to a textbook that is explicitly based on a particular frequency dictionary. These textbooks are compared to each other and to the Jones and Tschirner Frequency Dictionary of German and Pfeffer’s Grunddeutsch: Basic (Spoken) German Word List, Grundstufe.

The use of demonstrative adverbs is a function of making reference to a real or abstract location. In German, there are three principle demonstrative adverbs that are used spatially--hier, da, and dort. This thesis provides an overview of the primary theories proposed in the literature to explain the German hier/da/dort system of reference and examines those claims from the context of a study of L2 learners and L1 speakers combined with a corpus-based analysis of the frequency, distribution, and use of the demonstrative adverbs, both in isolation and in unison. The evidence from learner data, native speaker interpretations and grammaticality judgments, adult use corpora, and L1 child corpora all point to da as playing a more significant role than dort in the three-way spatial adverb system of German. Evidence from multiple sources points to the default hier `here' counterpart, there-like equivalent being da. While da is not always used to indicate a non-speaker location, this flexibility is not an indication of its primary or default role. Context often provides semantic information, and even if used in a semi-neutral manner, the use of da often suggests the possibility of a dort-type non-speaker location or of an abstract location/third location. The flexibility that da has in being used in non-contrastive locations or idiomatic expressions to refer to the location of the speaker does not discount the role da has as a primary means of indicating spatial differences in opposition to hier. The presence of dort enables a third location to be identified with a distinct spatial adverb, while hier appears to be highly restricted in its usage. Evidence from child L1 learners is congruent with this analysis. The frequency of da in child L1 learner speech cannot simply be explained by phonetic production, and the child L1 corpora show that dort is only chosen when da and hier are already present (three or more locations are referenced). Native speaker survey data concerning the three spatial adverbs under investigation indicate that locational situation affects the acceptance and interpretation of all three adverbs including da. Da is not shown to be a superfluous double, as it is neither consistently accepted at or near 100%, nor is its acceptance consistently near that of dort or hier. There is evidence that native speaker grammaticality judgments show regional variation when da is used to indicate a speaker location, with northern speakers tending to prefer hier and southern speakers tending to prefer da. L2 speakers show a greater variation from native speakers with respect to their acceptance and interpretations of da as compared with that of hier and dort. Non-native speakers were more likely to accept hier and less likely to accept da than were the native speakers in this study. Elementary, intermediate, and advanced L2 learners showed a significant difference in their acceptance rates of da in at least 50% of the items, while the group of highly-proficient L2 speakers of German showed a significant difference in their acceptance of da in only one item.

When it comes to the production and reception of texts, most linguists will readily agree that writers as well as readers constitute and follow typical text patterns as they produce and read texts. It has become common today to describe text patterns as typical sets of manifestations of formal, thematic, and pragmatic features that arise from resemblances between different texts and that are inscribed in the communicative memories of a language community. However, speakers also transcend text patterns every day and oscillate between following and overstepping textual rules. This thesis investigates how speakers categorize linguistic knowledge in text patterns, and follow and transcend these patterns in everyday communication, using the example of Rainald Goetz’ text Loslabern. Excerpts from reviews about Loslabern illustrate how readers perceive the text: Some readers consider Loslabern as a ‘ruined’ text that falls apart, whereas others describe Loslabern as ‘ocean-like’ and fluid. Based on these reader experiences, the thesis attempts to answer the following central question: How can we describe ‘Loslabern’ and connatural texts from the viewpoint of textual linguistics in accordance with the readers’ intuitions? The thesis proposes and discusses three options: Textual linguistics may describe Loslabern i) as a broken text, ii) in terms of different concepts of text pattern, and iii) in terms of a novel concept of text pattern. The analytical section focuses on a discussion of different concepts of text pattern: discrete structural and prototypical pragmatic concepts. It examines how these concepts fall short of describing Loslabern in accordance with the readers’ intuitions. Following Wittgenstein and his concept of family resemblance, it creates a multi-dimensional and open concept of text patterns. This concept enables textual linguistics to depict the intertextual embeddedness of Loslabern and other texts systematically, to gain insight into the mechanisms of forming and transcending text patterns, and to describe Loslabern in accordance with the diversity of readers’ intuitions. In doing so, the thesis points at new directions in linguistics as well as literary studies.

The varying presentations of the rules for nicht and kein found in intermediate grammar books for students in North America and DaF-learners in Germany highlight the difficulty in finding sources that are both reliable and consistent as well as easily applicable. This thesis seeks to compare the explanations found in A.E. Hammer’s German Grammar and Usage (revised by Martin Durrell), Helbig/Buscha’s Deutsche Grammatik, and Hall/Scheiner’s Übungsgrammatik, comparing all three to the basis of their information, Duden: die Grammatik. In order to assess how and where these sources converge and diverge, the analysis compares the intended use of each book, followed by the underlying concepts and terms, and then finally the rules for negation. The final two chapters attempt to answer two important questions that arise from comparing these sources. First, do beginner level textbooks prepare students with sufficient declarative grammar knowledge to understand and apply negation rules successfully? An analysis of Kontakte’s approach to teaching grammar, most specifically how to use nicht and kein, seeks to answer the first question. Secondly, could authors use a different approach for explaining this difficult grammar topic? Professor Hardarik Blühdorn’s approach, as presented in his course Negation: Syntax, Prosodie und Semantik at the Universität Mannheim during the Fall semester of 2007, serves as an example of new research. His different approach might help non-native speakers of German learn how to use nicht and kein correctly. The analysis reaches three main conclusions. First of all, the rules differ primarily in the amount of detail used, as well as in the inconsistent use of common terminology across the sources. Secondly, beginner’s level textbooks do not provide students with sufficient information about general grammar or negation to help them transition to using explanations found in intermediate grammar books. In order to understand the rules of nicht and kein, these students must first work through the background material methodically. Finally, intermediate learners could not rely on Professor Blühdorn’s approach, as it focuses on the scope of nicht, not on the correct placement of nicht in order to negate an entire sentence. Appendix B provides a chart comparing the rules found in each source.

The varying presentations of the rules for <em> nicht</em> and <em>kein</em> found in intermediate grammar books for students in North America and DaF-learners in Germany highlight the difficulty in finding sources that are both reliable and consistent as well as easily applicable. This thesis seeks to compare the explanations found in A.E. Hammer’s <em>German Grammar and Usage</em> (revised by Martin Durrell), Helbig/Buscha’s <em>Deutsche Grammatik</em>, and Hall/Scheiner’s <em>Übungsgrammatik</em>, comparing all three to the basis of their information, <em>Duden: die Grammatik</em>. In order to assess how and where these sources converge and diverge, the analysis compares the intended use of each book, followed by the underlying concepts and terms, and then finally the rules for negation. The final two chapters attempt to answer two important questions that arise from comparing these sources. First, do beginner level textbooks prepare students with sufficient declarative grammar knowledge to understand and apply negation rules successfully? An analysis of <em>Kontakte’s</em> approach to teaching grammar, most specifically how to use <em>nicht</em> and <em>kein</em>, seeks to answer the first question. Secondly, could authors use a different approach for explaining this difficult grammar topic? Professor Hardarik Blühdorn’s approach, as presented in his course <em>Negation: Syntax, Prosodie und Semantik</em> at the Universität Mannheim during the Fall semester of 2007, serves as an example of new research. His different approach might help non-native speakers of German learn how to use <em>nicht</em> and <em>kein</em> correctly. The analysis reaches three main conclusions. First of all, the rules differ primarily in the amount of detail used, as well as in the inconsistent use of common terminology across the sources. Secondly, beginner’s level textbooks do not provide students with sufficient information about general grammar or negation to help them transition to using explanations found in intermediate grammar books. In order to understand the rules of <em>nicht</em> and <em>kein</em>, these students must first work through the background material methodically. Finally, intermediate learners could not rely on Professor Blühdorn’s approach, as it focuses on the scope of <em>nicht</em>, not on the correct placement of <em>nicht</em> in order to negate an entire sentence. Appendix B provides a chart comparing the rules found in each source.

In certain Germanic languages, there is a group of verbs called preterite-present verbs that are often viewed as irregular, but in fact behave very predictably. They exhibit a morphological phenomenon called deponency, often in conjunction with another morphological phenomenon called heteroclisis. I examine the preterite-present verbs of three different languages: Old Norse, Modern Icelandic, and Modern German. Initially, I approach them from a historical perspective and then seek to reconcile their morphology with the modern perspective. A criteria is established for a canonical preterite-present verb, and then using a lexical programming language called DATR, I create code that generates the appropriate paradigms while also illustrating the morphological relationships between verb tenses and inflection classes, among other things. DATR is a programming language used specifically for language models.