Linguistik-Klassifikation
Refine
Year of publication
Document Type
- Working Paper (75) (remove)
Has Fulltext
- yes (75)
Is part of the Bibliography
- no (75)
Keywords
- Semantik (12)
- Possessivität (10)
- Sprachtypologie (7)
- Kausativ (5)
- Linguistik (5)
- Pragmatik (5)
- Deskriptivität (4)
- Formale Semantik (4)
- Kongress (4)
- Partizipation (4)
Institute
- Extern (3)
The paper makes two contributions to semantic typology of secondary predicates. It provides an explanation of the fact that Russian has no resultative secondary predicates, relating this explanation to the interpretation of secondary predicates in English. And it relates depictive secondary predicates in Russian, which usually occur in the instrumental case, to other uses of the instrumental case in Russian, establishing here, too, a difference to English concerning the scope of the secondary predication phenomenon.
Questions and focus
(2003)
The purpose of this dissertation is to defend the idea that the empirical responsibilities of binding theory can be handled in a more psychologically and historically realistic way when assigned to the field of pragmatics. In particular, I wish to show that Optimality Theory (OT) (Prince & Smolensky, 1993), the stochastic OT and Gradual Learning Algorithm of Boersma (1998), the Recoverability of OT of Wilson (2001) and Buchwald et al. (2002), and the bidirectional OT of Blutner (2000b) and Bidirectional Gradual Learning Algorithm of Jäger (2003a) can all participate in a formal framework in which one can formally spell out and justify the idea that the distributional behavior of bound pronouns and reflexivs is a pragmatic phenomenon.
This volume comprises papers that were given at the workshop Information Structure and the Referential Status of Linguistic Expressions, which we organized during the Deutsche Gesellschaft für Sprachwissenschaft (DGfS) Conference in Leipzig in February 2001. At this workshop we discussed the connection between information structure and the referential interpretation of linguistic expressions, a topic mostly neglected in current linguistics research. One common aim of the papers is to find out to what extent the focus-background as well as the topic-comment structuring determine the referential interpretation of simple arguments like definite and indefinite NPs on the one hand and sentences on the other.
Der vorliegende Band setzt im Anschluß an den Band ZAS Papers in Linguistics 14 (1999) die Vorpublikation von Arbeiten fort, die innerhalb oder im Umkreis des von der DFG geförderten Projekts "Schnittstellen der Semantik: Kopula-Prädikativ-Konstruktionen" am ZAS entstanden sind. Das Rahmenthema, wie es in ZASPiL 14 einleitend knapp umrissen wurde, wird derzeit im Projekt in drei Untersuchungssträngen bearbeitet. Sie beinhalten
(1) die Klärung der in der Literatur auch weiterhin häufig bemühten, aber keineswegs eindeutig verankerten, sondern auf mehrere Domänen zu verteilenden Distinktion von Stage Level Predicates vs. Individual Level Predicates (kurz: SLP/ILP-Problematik);
(2) die Klärung des Situationsbezugs von Kopula-Prädikativ-Konstruktionen (KPK) im Hinblick auf die ontologische Natur, die lexikalische Fundierung und die syntaktische Verwaltung des referentiellen Arguments von KPK (kurz: Argumentstruktur von KPK);
(3) die vertiefte Analyse der notorisch idiosynkratischen Kopulaverben in Prädikationsstrukturen, nicht zuletzt im Hinblick auf diejenigen Vorkommen solcher Verben, in denen sie gemeinhin als "Hilfsverben" gelten, was wiederum eine umfassende Analyse der infiniten Verbformen einschließt (kurz: lexical vs. functional category features).
Gegenstand dieses Aufsatzes ist das Verhältnis zwischen der Wahrnehmung einer Anordnung im Raum und der Kategorisierung grammatischer Information. Bei der Diskussion unterschiedlicher Ansätze zu diesem Thema (Metapherntheorie , Gestalttheorie u.a.) stehen die Fragen nach der Existenzberechtigung und dem Erklärungspotential eines lokalistischen Ansatzes im Vordergrund. Während eine direkte Beziehung zwischen räumlicher und grammatischer Kategorisierung abzulehnen ist, liegt ein gemeinsamer Nenner in übergreifenden Prinzipien der Mustererkennung. In einer Theorie der Mustererkennung "vereinen sich wesentliche Gedanken aus Wahrnehmungs- und Lernbarkeitstheorien und deren Formulierung mittels "berechenbarer" geometrisch-topologischer Modelle. Als Illustration dienen u.a. Beispiele zur Kasusmarkierung und zur sprachlichen Kategorisierung von Aspekt und Tempus.
Remarks on deixis
(1992)
The prevailing conception of deixis is oriented to the idea of 'concrete' physical and perceptual characteristics of the situation of speech. Signs standardly adduced as typical deictics are I, you, here, now, this, that. I and you are defined as meaning "the person producing the utterance in question" and "the person spoken to", here and now as meaning "where the speaker is at utterance time" and "at the moment the utterance is made" (also, "at the place/time of the speech exchange"); similarly, the meanings of this and that are as a rule defined via proximity to speaker's physical location. The elements used in such definitions form the conceptual framework of most of the general characterisations of deixis in the literature. [...] There is much in the literature, of course, that goes far beyond this framework . A great variety of elements, mostly with very abstract meanings, have been found to share deictic characteristics although they do not fit into the personnel-place-time-of-utterance schema. The adequacy of that schema is also called into question by many observations to the effect that the use of such standard deictics as here, now, this, that cannot really be accounted for on its basis, and by the far-reaching possibilities of orienting deictics to reference points in situations other than the situation of speech, to 'deictic centers' other than the speaker. [...] Analyses along the lines of the standard conception regularly acknowledge the existence of deviations from the assumed basic meanings. One traditional solution attributes them to speaker's "subjectivity", or to differences between "physical" and "psychological" space or time; in a similar vein, metaphorical extensions may be said to be at play, or a distinction between prototypical and non-prototypical meanings invoked. Quite apart from the question of the relative merits of these explanatory principles, which I do not wish to discuss here, the problem with all such accounts is that the definitions of the assumed basic meanings themselves are founded on axiom rather than analysis of situated use. The logical alternative, of course, is to set out for more abstract and comprehensive meaning definitions from the start. In fact, a number of recent, discourse-oriented, treatments of the demonstratives proceed this way; they view those elements as processing instructions rather than signs with inherently spatial denotation (Isard 1975, Hawkins 1978, Kirsner 1979, Linde 1979 , Ehlich 1982.)
Studien zur Lokalisation: Teil: 2.: Verbgebundene Lokalisation vs. Lokalisation von Propositionen
(1992)
Der vorliegende Aufsatz gliedert sich in zwei Unterabschnitte. In Abschnitt I geht es um verbgebundene, von der Valenz geforderte Lokalisation. Die einzelsprachlichen Beispiele zeigen, daß es sich konstant um Verben der Position oder Positionsveränderung (Bewegungs - und Transferverben) handelt, die lokale Relationen wie LOK (Ortsruhe), SOURCE oder GOAL fordern. Unter Bezugnahme auf die Erkenntnisse zur Dimension der PARTIZIPATION (H. Seiler/W. Premper 1991) können die Varianten, wie sie in der einzelsprachlichen Kodierung zu beobachten sind, zwischen den Polen zentralisiert und dezentralisiert (peripher) angeordnet werden . Dies bedeutet, daß lokale Relationen (als verbgebundene Entitäten) einerseits am Partizipatum selbst und andererseits im Bereich der Partizipanten in Gestalt verschiedener grammatischer Relationen in Erscheinung treten können. Im ersteren Fall kann die Inkorporation einer lokalen Ergänzung ins Partizipatum als optimal zentralisiert betrachtet werden, während eine Kodierung als Präpositionalphrase das andere Extrem darstellt. Dazwischen liegt eine Kodierung als "Subjekt"- bzw. "Objekt"-Relation, für die sich, wie auch für die anderen Fälle, eine Reihe von Beispielen finden lassen. Somit schwankt die Skala der Kodierungsmöglichkeiten für verbgebundene lokale Relationen zwischen Inkorporation und Präpositional-/Postpositionalphrasen, was letztlich eine Differenzierung in markierte und unmarkierte, im letzteren Falle gar prototypische Instanzen bedeutet. Im II . Abschnitt geht es darum, so weit dies möglich erscheint, Varianten zu beschreiben, die funktional die Aufgabe einer Situierung einer Gesamtproposition bewerkstelligen.
Oppositeness, i.e. the relation between opposites or contraries or contradictories, has a fundamental role in human cognition. In the various domains of intellectual and psychological activity we find ordering schemas that are based, in one way or another, on the cognitive figure of oppositeness. It is therefore not surprising that the figure and its corresponding ordering schemas show their reflexes in the languages of the world. [...] We shall be dealing with oppositeness in the sense that a linguistically untrained native speaker, when asked what would be the opposite of 'long' can come up with some such answer as 'short', and likewise intuitively grasp the relation between 'man' and 'woman', 'corne' and 'go', 'up' and 'down', etc. Thinking that much of the vocabulary of a language is organized in such opposite pairs we must recognize that this is an important faculty, and we are curious to know how this is done, what are the underlying conceptual-cognitive structures and processes, and how they are encoded in the languages of the world. We shall leave out of consideration such oppositions as singular vs. plural. present vs. past, voiced vs. unvoiced, oppositions that the linguist states by means of a metalanguage which is itself derived from a concept of oppositeness as manifested by the examples which I gave earlier. Our approach will connect with earlier versions of the UNITYP framework. However, as a novel feature, and, hopefully, as an improvement, we shall apply some sort of a division of labor. We shall first try to reconstruct the conceptual-cognitive content of oppositeness and to keep it separate from the discussion of its reflexes in the individual languages. We shall find that a dimensional ordering of content in PARAMETERS and a continuum of TECHNIQUES is possible already on the conceptual-cognitive level. In order to keep it distinct from the level of linguistic encoding we shall use a separate terminology, graphically marked by capital 1etters.