Refine
Year of publication
- 2006 (158) (remove)
Document Type
- Part of a Book (158) (remove)
Has Fulltext
- yes (158)
Keywords
- Thema-Rhema-Gliederung (19)
- Formale Semantik (18)
- Englisch (16)
- Lexikologie (11)
- Syntax (10)
- Deutsch (9)
- Jelinek, Elfriede (9)
- Theater (8)
- Bantusprachen (6)
- Rezeption (4)
Institute
This paper demonstrates that there are no empirical and theoretical motivations for regarding verbal predicate focus constructions as (diachronically) derived from cleft constructions. Instead, it is argued that predicate fronting for the purpose of focus or topic is comparable to verb (phrase) fronting structures in other languages (e.g., Germanic). The proposed analysis further indicates that related doubling strategies observed in certain languages are the consequences of parallel chains that license the fronted verb (phrase) in the left periphery, and the Agree-tense-aspect features inside the proposition.
It has often been noticed that one syntactic argument position can be realized by elements which seem to realize different thematic roles. This is notably the case with the external argument position of verbs of change of state which licenses volitional agents, instruments or natural forces/causers, showing the generality and abstractness of the external argument relation. (1) a. John broke the window (Agent) b. The hammer broke the window (Instrument) c. The storm broke the window (Causer) In order to capture this generality, Van Valin & Wilkins (1996) and Ramchand (2003) among others have proposed that the thematic role of the external argument position is in fact underspecified. The relevant notion is that of an effector (in Van Valin & Wilkins) or of an abstract causer/initiator (in Ramchand). In this paper we argue against a total underspecification of the external argument relation. While we agree that (1b) does not instantiate an instrument theta role in subject position, we argue that a complete underspecification of the external theta-position is not feasible, but that two types of external theta roles have to be distinguished, Agents and Causers. Our arguments are based on languages where Agents and Causers show morpho-syntactic independence (section 2.1) and the behavior of instrument subjects in English, Dutch, German and Greek (section 2.2 and 3). We show that instrument subjects are either Agent or Causer like. In section (4) we give an analysis how arguments realizing these thematic notions are introduced into syntax.
In this paper, focusing on the relevance-theoretic view of cognition, I discuss the idea that what is communicated through an utterance is not merely an explicature upon which implicature(s) are recovered, but rather a propositional complex that contains both explicit and implicit information. More specifically, I propose that this information is constructed on the fly as the interpreter processes every lexical item in its turn while parsing the utterance in real time, in this way creating a string of ad hoc concepts. While hearing an utterance and incrementally constructing a context, the propositional complex communicated by an utterance is pragmatically narrowed and simultaneously pragmatically broadened in order to incorporate only the set of optimally relevant propositions with respect to a specific point in the interpretation. The narrowing of propositions from the initial context at each stage allows relevant propositions to be carried on to the new level, while their broadening adds to the communicated propositional complex new propositions that are linked to the lexical item that is processed at every step of the interpretation process.
In my paper, I show that the so-called German right dislocation actually comprises two distinct constructions, which I label 'right dislocation proper' and 'afterthought'. These differ in their prosodic and syntactic properties, as well as in their discourse functions. The paper is primarily concerned with the right dislocation proper (RD). I present a semantic analysis of RD based on the 'separate performative' account of Potts (2004, 2005) and Portner (forthc.). This analysis allows a description of the semantic contribution of RD to its host sentence, as well as explaining certain semantic constraints on the kind of NP in the RD construction.
»Der Kanon regelt Zuordnung und Ausgrenzung, Ja und Nein zu einem Text, es ergibt sich eine Serie von Opposition[spaar]en.« Diese Grundannahme ist, wie ich meine, die Voraussetzung jeder Auseinandersetzung mit der Frage »A Canon of Our Own?« und betrifft den literarischen Kanon in gleicher Weise wie den (literatur-)theoretischen Kanon, obwohl die wissenschaftliche Auseinandersetzung mit Letzterem seltener und wenn doch, so interessengeleiteter stattzufinden scheint und sich zudem häufig in Polemiken erschöpft. Auch der Titel meines Aufsatzes enthält ein Paar, wenngleich das »&« zwischen den Theorien den Anschein von Symmetrie, von Zusammengehörigkeit, nicht von Gegensätzlichkeit erweckt. In der Folge meiner Bestandsaufnahme dieser Theorien innerhalb der germanistischen Literaturwissenschaft und meines Versuchs einer weiteren Perspektivierung und Verschränkung derselben wird deutlich, dass definitiv ein hierarchisches Gefälle hinsichtlich deren Rezeption existiert. Es zeigt sich, dass die Kanonisierungsprozesse unterschiedlich und v.a. zeitversetzt verlaufen – ungeachtet dessen, wie Kanones bzw. »das ihnen anhaftende Phantasma von überzeitlicher und überregionaler Gültigkeit« per se zu bewerten sind.