Infinitive as a verb form of the German language

Dolgopolova Liliya Anatol'evna ORCID: 0000-0003-1327-2454 Doctor of Philology Professor, Department of Linguistics and Intercultural Communication, Crimean Engineering and Pedagogical University named after Fevzi Yakubov 295044, Russia, Republic of Crimea, Simferopol, Bastionnaya str., 41, of. -- lilian2000@mail.ru Other publications by this author

Mustafaeva Alie Hairedinovna Senior Lecturer, Department of Linguistics and Intercultural Communication, Crimean Engineering and Pedagogical University named after Fevzi Yakubov 295015, Russia, Republic of Crimea, Simferopol, lane Educational, 8, of. -- alie_mail@mail.ru Other publications by this author

In the theory of parts of speech, despite its centuries-old history, there are still issues of a debatable nature that are at the center of unrelenting scientific interest. These primarily include the choice of a single / complex criterion for the classification of parts of speech, as well as the problem of distinguishing and identifying individual lexical and grammatical classes. The latter include syncretic units that contain signs of at least two parts of speech. Thus, mixed units with verb-nominal characteristics are non-finite or nominal forms of the verb, such as the infinitive, participle, gerund, etc.

The purpose of our study is to determine the status of the infinitive of the modern German language in the system of its verbal forms, which involves the establishment of specific and general verbal signs of the infinitive.

The infinitive as a verb form is found in almost all known languages. It can be assumed that it is one of the linguistic universals. At the same time, its grammatical indicators in different language groups may differ significantly. If in Germanic languages the infinitive form is characterized by a single finite -n, then in Slavic languages, for example, Russian, there are three formative elements: -t, -ti, whose; in the Darginian literary language, which is part of the group of languages of the Iberian-Caucasian family, such an indicator of the infinitive is a single affix -eu (-es).

There is no unambiguous solution to the question of the origin of the infinitive in modern linguistics, although it is unconditionally recognized as a transitional form from one part of speech to another. Such parts of speech are the noun and the verb. It is debatable which of these parts of speech should be recognized as the original one.

Most scientists believe that the basis for the origin of the infinitive was a certain case form, most often the dative case. At one time, A.M. Peshkovsky characterized the infinitive of the Russian language as "an isolated case of feminine verbal nouns on -sh, -ch, which have lost all other cases of their own" ^{[4, p. 129]}. In favor of the original form of the dative case of Indo-European languages, according to B. Delbruck, early cases of its use in Sanskrit ^{[10, p. 460]} testify. At the same time, G. Paul insisted that such a form is the frozen form of the accusative case ^{[17, p. 85]}.

The hypothesis about the verbal origin of the infinitive and its transition to the nominal paradigm is based primarily on the theory of transposition by S. Bally ^[1]. Such a transition of the verb form into a noun is possible due to a change in the syntactic nature of the verb. Probably, this hypothesis can be supported by the fact that in some languages, for example, Darginian, the infinitive has no nominal signs.

The formation of the infinitive in Germanic languages presumably occurs in the common Germanic period, as evidenced not only by identical affixes, but also by the unity of its temporal and collateral forms. In the process of formation of national languages, the infinitive acquires its own specific features, reflecting the peculiarities of the grammatical structure of a particular language.

Let's consider the features of the infinitive of the German language, taking into account the main parameters of the linguistic unit, namely: semantics, external form and functioning.

Semantics. At one time, the semantic criterion for the allocation of parts of speech occupied a dominant position, especially when characterizing full-valued lexemes. As for the verb, its categorical meaning is considered to be an action or a state as a process ^{[5, p. 80]}. The representation of the categorical meaning in the form of the action/state opposition is very important for the verb forms of the German language; it is realized in the choice of auxiliary verbs of the analytical forms of the infinitive.

The attribution of non-finite forms to the verb part of speech based on the semantic criterion is based on the category of representation by A. I. Smirnitsky, developed by him on the material of the English language ^[6]. The scientist recognizes the common semantic basis of the finite and non-finite forms, but distinguishes between the ways they represent the process itself. This gives the scientist a reason to talk about verbal (finite verb), substantive (infinitive and gerund) and adjectival (participle) forms of representation of categorical meaning. At the same time, the gerund, which, like the infinitive, represents the substantive form of representation, manifests it to the maximum extent. Obviously, the adverbial form of representation, which has another verb form – the adverbial participle, will be characteristic of the verb forms of the Russian language.

In modern German, the infinitive will also express categorical meaning in a substantive form, but unlike English, it does not have any opposition, thereby assuming all sorts of nominal signs. Obviously, due to this property, the infinitive is easily substantivized and participates in the formation of new peripheral constructions, such as Progressiv, as a means to express the inner perspective of action in marginal verbs ^{[11, p. 411]}. The infinitive is used with the conjugated prepositions im, am, beim and the adverb dabei, e.g.: Ich bin am Lesen; er ist dabei, das Buch zu lesen.

The external form.

As for the morphological parameters of the infinitive, in our opinion, its structural division and the presence of various structural forms (microsystem of infinitive forms) are important.

The structure of the infinitive of modern German was formed by the beginning of the early Upper German period (XIV century). By this time, significant changes in the structural division of the word as a whole were taking place in the language, which led to a further reduction in the number of elements. The external form of the infinitive undergoes the following changes:

- there is a loss of the case category, and with it the case endings. Starting from the end of the Middle High German period, the infinitive form with zero inflection replaces the inflectional case forms of the infinitive. The oldest written monuments recorded 4 case forms of the singular: infinitive accusative, infinitive dative, infinitive genitive, infinitive instrumentalis and 1 plural form – infinitive dative.

The infinitive form of an accusative is also called an unmarked or simple infinitive. As a rule, it was used in combination with phase verbs, verbs of movement or speaking: Quam th ? uu ? b fon Samariu sceffen uuazzar. Th? quad iru der heilant: «gib mir trinkan» ^[13]. Its main indicator is zero inflection.

The form of the dative case of the infinitive in Ancient and Middle High German is the most common. Its peculiarity is the presence of the preposition zi / za and the inflection –ne: in geiste inti uu ? re gilimfit zi bet nne ^[13].

The infinitive genitive was used as a mandatory addition in the genitive case of a number of verbs giniozan to taste, enjoy, geban to give, gilusten to bring joy, jehan to speak, acknowledge, antworten to answer: umbi die ioman muoz bitin dina gnada, daz si muozzen gniozzen alla mines lebannes... ^[16]. Over time, these verbs changed the control of the complement to the accusative case.

The form of the instrumentalis and the plural infinitive of the dative at the time of the formation of the written period of the German language is extremely rare. Individual cases of their use are mentioned in the works of V. M. Zhirmunsky ^{[3, p. 212]} and V. Browne ^{[9, p. 292]}.

With the disappearance of the opposition of the case forms of the infinitive, where case inflections served as formal indicators, there was no need to allocate zero inflection from the form of a simple infinitive / infinitive accusative. Over time, the final affix –en is also unified due to the loss of the branched verb conjugation paradigm, which includes various morphological classes.

- the category of the species, which for a long time in the history of the German language was in the process of formation, finally disappeared by the beginning of the Early Upper German period. Its main marker, the prefix g e, is fixed as a mandatory formal sign of participle II, loses its original specific meaning and goes out of use.

As a result of these processes, the infinitive structure in New High German becomes binomial: geb-en. Thus, the structure of the simple infinitive of modern German includes two morphemes – the verb base and the unified final affix. Regarding the latter element, there is no consensus in modern linguistics about its morphological status. In many grammars, -en is considered as an infinitive suffix and is contrasted with the personal endings of the verb ^[7]. Others call it an inflectional morph, since it does not participate in the word forms of the verb paradigm and in the formation of verb derivatives, which is typical for endings ^[15].

In modern Germanic languages, it is customary to distinguish between two structural types of infinitive: marked and unmarked /pure infinitive. The main marker of such opposition is the formant zu, its presence (marked infinitive): Er ist bereit, alles zu opfern ^[14] or absence (unmarked /pure infinitive): der Staat w?rde sich Hilfen ersparen ^[14].

The ambiguous nature of the formant's functioning has also led to the inconsistency of its interpretation. In modern linguistics, zu is interpreted as a preposition, particle, conjunction, or affix.

The interpretation of zu as a preposition is based on a diachronic approach: it was originally used with the infinitive form of the dative and retained its meaning for a long time. However, in the process of linguistic development, zu in combination with the infinitive lost its original prepositional purpose and turned into an element accompanying the infinitive in a certain syntactic position.

Zh. Potu suggests considering the forms of the simple infinitive and the infinitive with a formant as allomorphs: "the infinitive with zu and the simple infinitive have the same signification, none of these forms signals something different from the other form" ^{[18, p. 36]}.

The zu formant in modern German continues to maintain a contact position with the infinitive, unlike in English, where the formation of a construction with a split infinitive is observed. It is a combination of a verb with an adverb placed between the formant to and the infinitive, thereby breaking the contact between the elements, for example, to accidentally burn ^{[8, p. 679]}.

Another structural feature of the infinitive of modern German is its participation in the formation of a number of analytical forms with different grammatical meanings, which determines the presence of a microsystem of infinitive forms.

It should be noted that not all scientists recognize its presence. Thus, W. Engel identifies only one form of the infinitive – a pure infinitive, which excludes the very existence of a microsystem ^[12].

The authors of DUDEN grammar ^{[11, p.189]}, when describing the forms of the infinitive, proceed from the presence of two categories: time (Pr ?sens / Futur I-II / Perfect) and voice (Aktiv / Passiv). In the microsystem presented by them, the infinitive forms form an opposition on three grounds: time Pr?sens / Futur I-II / Perfect), the pledge (Aktiv / Passiv), the type of passive pledge (Vorgangspassiv / Zustandspassiv), which as a result leads to the allocation of eight forms of the infinitive:

-          Infinitiv Pr?sens Aktiv (loben, erwachen);

-          Infinitiv Futur I Aktiv (loben/erwachen werden);

-          Infinitiv Perfekt Aktiv (gelobt haben/ erwacht sein);

-          Infinitiv Futur II Aktiv (gelobt haben werden, erwacht sein werden);

-          Infinitiv Pr?sens (Vorgangs)passiv (gelobt werden);

-          Infinitiv Perfekt (Vorgangs)passiv (gelobt worden sein);

-          Infinitiv Pr?sens (Zustands)passiv (ge?ffnet sein);

-          Infinitiv Perfekt (Zustands)passiv (ge?ffnet gewesen sein) ^{[11, c.189]}.

Controversial among other linguists are the forms of the future tense Infinitiv Futur I / Futur II Aktiv.  Well-known Germanists B. A. Abramov, O. I. Mokalskaya, G. Helbig and I. Busha oppose their isolation as separate forms of the infinitive, which reduces their number to 6.

Functioning. The question of the functional potential of the infinitive in linguistics does not cause any contradictions. Linguists agree on the multifunctional nature of the infinitive, which brings it much closer to the noun. The peculiarities of the grammatical structure of the Russian language, where the existence of a one-part sentence is allowed, allow us to speak about two syntactic types of the infinitive: the dependent and the independent infinitive ^[2]. The independent infinitive acts as the subject in a two–part sentence and the main member of a one–part infinitive sentence; the dependent one performs the functions of the other members of the sentence - predicative, complement, circumstance and definition.

The infinitive of modern German also exhibits polyfunctionality. Let's consider its possible syntactic functions.

The infinitive as a predicate. In German, a predicate is expressed by a finite verb form, or a complex form, the obligatory element of which is a finite verb; the infinitive is the second element of a complex verbal predicate. As a rule, the role of the finite verb is played by aspect (phase): Er beginnt zu laufen or modal verbs: Ich m ? chte Moskau kennen lernen. At the same time, each element of a complex predicate demonstrates the presence of values assigned to them. If the finite form of the phase / modal verb contains markers of grammatical meanings of the person, number, tense, voice and mood that characterize the subject of the sentence, then the infinitive carries the main semantic load, denoting the action of the grammatical subject.

The set of auxiliary verbs in modern German is quite large. It includes not only traditional modal and phase verbs, but also copulative werden, sein, haben, as well as a fairly large corpus of semi-modal verbs such as bleiben, brauchen, scheinen, bekommen, drohen, pflegen, etc., for example: Er versteht sich zu benehmen.

Infinitive constructions of haben also function as a competing form of modal verbs with the meaning of necessity. + zu + Infinitiv: Ich habe mit dir zu reden and sein + zu + Infinitiv: das Telegramm ist noch heute zu schicken.                   

The infinitive in the role of the subject.The predicate in the sentence implements into its argumentative environment in the form of an external (subject) and internal (object) argument. In sentences where the infinitive is a grammatical subject, we can talk about its role as an external argument, for example: Rauchen ist verboten. It is in this case that the nominal signs of the infinitive are most clearly manifested: only nouns or a number of pronouns in the nominative case can perform the function of a grammatical subject.                

The infinitive in the role of the subject retains the verbal valence: ber die Tatsachen hinwegzugehen, ist unklug. In this case, the infinitive forms a verb group (VinfP), which includes elements dependent on it. Such a group often occupies the initial position in a sentence:

berdieTatsachenhinwegzugehen, ist unklug [S [VinfP [PP[NP]] [VP]]].

When moving an infinitive group, the impersonal pronoun es often appears in the initial position: Es ist unklug, dar ? ber hinwegzugehen.

The infinitive as an object.The grammatical semantics of an object is a refinement, specialization of the predicate. There are direct and indirect additions. The first is controlled by a transitive verb and has an uncomplicated accusative or genitive form. The infinitive participates in both forms, as a direct complement: Ich lerne singen; as an indirect complement: Ich freue mich, Sie bald wieder zu begr en.

  The infinitive as an attribute. The infinitive as a nominal definition is included in the nominal component of the sentence, which are the subject: Sein Bem ? hen, die Pr ? fung gut zu bestehen, wurde belohnt; object: Er hat das Recht, diese Papiere zu lesen or predicative: Er ist froh, seine Tochter besuchen zu k ?nen.

As the analysis shows, the infinitive in the role of subject and object demonstrates the diversity of its functional potential. As a subject, he agrees with the predicate, which is in the active or passive voice; in the role of complement, he acts as a mandatory argument of the predicate, requiring direct or indirect complement.

The infinitive as a circumstance.The function of the circumstance is to clarify the predicate attribute or definition and does not depend on the valence of the finite verb. Most often, this function is performed by the so-called infinitive turns / constructions um + zu + Infinitiv: Ich muss mich beeilen, um den Zug noch zu erreichen; statt + zu + Infinitiv: Er ging baden, statt seine Hausaufgaben zu machen; ohne + zu + Infinitiv: Er ?berquerte die Stra?e, ohne auf den Verkehr zu achten.

As we can see, infinitive constructions can fulfill the syntactic role of the circumstance of the mode of action, consequences, conditions and goals, etc.

It is also worth noting another manifestation of the syntactic potential of the infinitive, in which its verbal character is maximally manifested – participation in the formation of a verb group: Sie pflegt [VinfP zu sp ?t zu kommen]. This function is inherent in all verb forms, including both types of participles.

Summarizing the above, we note that in Germanistics, the search for exhaustive criteria for identifying the infinitive in the system of grammatical forms of the verb of the modern German language does not stop. Semantic, morphological and syntactic indicators of the infinitive are more indicative of its verbal character.

The diversity of interpretation of the infinitive is based on the insufficient development of the criteria for classifying parts of speech, a different understanding of the scope of the concept of the infinitive; the lack of a comprehensive comparison of the syntactic behavior of personal and non-personal forms.

The problem of the relationship remains unresolved, firstly, the finite form and the non-finite forms of the verb; secondly, the individual non-finite forms of the verbal paradigm; thirdly, the finite form of the verb and the infinitive. It is also important for understanding the nature of the infinitive in modern German to compare it with non-finite forms of other Germanic languages, since the system of nominal forms was formed after the collapse of the Germanic community and is characterized by their quantitative and qualitative discrepancy.

 Grammatical research leads linguists to new ways to solve the problem of identifying the infinitive by shifting the emphasis to other levels, primarily to the syntactic level, where, on the one hand, the infinitive shows maximum proximity to the noun (syntactic roles in the sentence), on the other hand, by other verb forms (formation of verb groups).

The dual nature of the infinitive of modern German, which determines its peripheral character, gives it the opportunity to be flexible and mobile, as well as participate in the formation of new grammatical forms.

List of symbols

NP – named group

PP – prepositional group

S – offer

Vinf is an infinitive

VP is a verb group