The scholarship on the Modern German periphrastic future, or the werden future (that is, werden + infinitive) has brought forth different hypotheses about its origins. One of these hypotheses states that it developed from werden + present participle in the 13th century (for example, Bech 1901). While many have criticized this hypothesis, no one until now has proposed a valid solution for the problem. In this study, I carried out a comprehensive examination of the instances of werden in combination with present participles and infinitives in Middle and Early New High German. The analysis indicates that although werden + present participle and werden + infinitive were often used in similar contexts, the former construction was not the source from which the werden future emerged. Old High German data also show the use of werden + infinitive, which suggests that it was already well established in the first two centuries of the Middle High German period. This provides evidence against the view that the construction developed as late as the 13th century. I also address the grammaticalization process that werden + infinitive underwent during the Early New High German period and suggest that it culminated in the 16th century.

This paper argues that the Dutch sociolinguistic situation in the 17th and 18th centuries should be analyzed as diaglossic, that is, involving a wide spectrum of variation in between localized spoken dialects and the supposed written standard. In fact, multiple instances of norm selection for writing render this diaglossic situation even more complex. The paper shows that multiple norm selection even occurred in cases when a strict and simple norm was selected early on, that is, in the late 16th–early 17th century. The case study is based on the Letters as Loot Corpus comprising private letters from the 1660s–1670s and the 1770s–1780s and focuses on the object form of the 1st person singular personal pronoun, namely, mij or mijn. Despite the early selection of mij, some language users in the late 17th and 18th century adopted mijn in writing. The analysis shows a normative split in written Dutch of the time, with most language users either converging to or diverging from the supposed standard form mij.*

Following the Labovian paradigm, the present study uses variationist quantitative methods to examine the linguistic and social factors influencing adjective choices in German. By focusing on adjectives of positive evaluation (such as cool ‘cool’, toll/geil ‘great’), an analysis of over 3,000 tokens reveals that the choice of using one adjective over a competing counterpart is structured systematically. This choice is heavily constrained by the social factor age, with gender also influencing variation to varying degrees. The syntactic position of the adjective also conditions use, with some adjectives favoring predicative position and others favoring attributive or stand-alone position. Comparisons across apparent time, as well as with previous research, indicate that the semantic field of positive evaluation is a perpetually changing locus of variation. By applying variationist methods to German data, the present study illustrates how German lexis can index social meaning, paving the way for future research on German lexical variation. More broadly speaking, this study also contributes to ongoing variationist sociolinguistic research on German language variation and change.*