Linguistik
Filtern
Erscheinungsjahr
- 2007 (117) (entfernen)
Dokumenttyp
- Teil eines Buches (Kapitel) (49)
- Wissenschaftlicher Artikel (36)
- Preprint (12)
- Konferenzveröffentlichung (5)
- Bericht (5)
- Rezension (5)
- Arbeitspapier (4)
- Buch (Monographie) (1)
Sprache
- Englisch (117) (entfernen)
Volltext vorhanden
- ja (117)
Gehört zur Bibliographie
- nein (117)
Schlagworte
- Referenzidentität (11)
- Englisch (10)
- Deutsch (9)
- Spracherwerb (7)
- focus (7)
- Referenz <Linguistik> (6)
- Sprachverstehen (6)
- Bedeutungswandel (5)
- Rezension (5)
- Anapher <Syntax> (4)
Institut
Information structure
(2007)
Semantics
(2007)
In this paper, we will argue for a novel analysis of the auxiliary alternation in Early English, its development and subsequent loss which has broader consequences for the way that auxiliary selection is looked at cross-linguistically. We will present evidence that the choice of auxiliaries accompanying past participles in Early English differed in several significant respects from that in the familiar modern European languages. Specifically, while the construction with have became a full-fledged perfect by some time in the ME period, that with be was actually a stative resultative, which it remained until it was lost. We will show that this accounts for some otherwise surprising restrictions on the distribution of BE in Early English and allows a better understanding of the spread of HAVE through late ME and EModE. Perhaps more importantly, the Early English facts also provide insight into the genesis of the kind of auxiliary selection found in German, Dutch and Italian. Our analysis of them furthermore suggests a promising strategy for explaining cross-linguistic variation in auxiliary selection in terms of variation in the syntactico-semantic structure of the perfect. In this introductory section, we will first provide some background on the historical situation we will be discussing, then we will lay out the main claims for which we will be arguing in the paper.
A two-week perturbation EMA-experiment was carried out with palatal prostheses. Articulatory effort for five speakers was assessed by means of peak acceleration and jerk during the tongue tip gestures from /t/ towards /i, e, o, y, u/. After a period of no change speakers showed an increase in these values. Towards the end of the experiment the values decreased. The results are interpreted as three phases of carrying out changes in the internal model. At first, the complete production system is shifted in relation to the palatal change, afterwards speakers explore different production mechanisms which involves more articulatory effort. This second phase can be seen as a training phase where several articulatory strategies are explored. In the third phase speakers start to select an optimal movement strategy to produce the sounds so that the values decrease.
In the area of the Modern Greek verb, phenomena which consistently appear are headmarking, many potential slots before and/or after the verb root, noun and adverb incorporation, addition of adverbial elements by means of affixes, a large inventory of bound morphemes, verbal words as minimal sentences, etc. These features relate Modern Greek to polysynthesis. The main bulk of this paper is dedicated to the comparison of affixal and incorporation patterns between Modern Greek and the polysynthetic languages Abkhaz, Cayuga, Chukchi, Mohawk, and Nahuatl. Ultimately, a typological outlook for Modern Greek is proposed.
In this paper, we introduce an extension of the XMG system (eXtensibleMeta-Grammar) in order to allow for the description of Multi-Component Tree Adjoining Grammars. In particular, we introduce the XMG formalism and its implementation, and show how the latter makes it possible to extend the system relatively easily to different target formalisms, thus opening the way towards multi-formalism.
In this paper we will explore the similarities and differences between two feature logic-based approaches to the composition of semantic representations. The first approach is formulated for Lexicalized Tree Adjoining Grammar (LTAG, Joshi and Schabes 1997), the second is Lexical Ressource Semantics (LRS, Richter and Sailer 2004) and was first defined in Head-driven Phrase Structure Grammar. The two frameworks have several common characteristics that make them easy to compare: 1 They use languages of two sorted type theory for semantic representations. 2. They allow underspecification. LTAG uses scope constraints while LRS provides component-of contraints. 3 They use feature logics for computing semantic representations. 4. they are designed for computational applications. By comparing the two frameworks we will also point outsome characteristics and advantages of feature logic-based semantic computation in genereal.