Linguistik
Refine
Year of publication
Document Type
- Part of a Book (54)
- Article (23)
- Working Paper (15)
- Preprint (7)
- Review (5)
- Conference Proceeding (3)
- Doctoral Thesis (2)
- Book (1)
- Lecture (1)
- Report (1)
Language
- English (71)
- German (35)
- Portuguese (4)
- Croatian (2)
Has Fulltext
- yes (112)
Is part of the Bibliography
- no (112)
Keywords
- Semantik (112) (remove)
Institute
Semantik für Sprechakte
(1972)
Semantik wird herkömmlicherweise als die Interpretation von Zeichenketten verstanden, die die Syntax liefert. Damit gibt sie aber ein dubioses Programm für die Beschäftigung mit natürlichen Sprachen ab. Ausgangspunkt für diese muß die Feststellung sein, daß Sprechen ein Handeln ist und kein Produzieren von Zeichenketten (außer vielleicht zu Demonstrationszwecken). Sprechhandlungen sind z. B.: jmd. Widersprechen, jmd. beschuldigen, sich ausreden bzw. entschuldigen usw. Über die Sprechhandlungen selbst werde ich im folgenden nichts weiter sagen; ich werde vielmehr ein Verfasser und Leser gemeinsames Verständnis, begründet in einer gemeinsamen Erfahrung, voraussetzen. In dem so angedeuteten Rahmen soll es die Aufgabe der Semantik sein, die Bedingungen für Sprechhandlungen zu explizieren: Welche Bedingungen muß z. B. eine Sprechhandlung erfüllen, um eine Beschuldigung zu sein (als Beschuldigung zu gelten, als solche akzeptiert zu werden o. ä.)? Dieses Programm möchte ich im folgenden exemplarisch entwickeln.
Die Termini Possessivität und Possession, die wir synonym für einander verwenden wollen, sind vorwissenschaftlich. Ihr Inhalt hat in keinem der Modelle der synchronen Sprachbeschreibung eine befriedigende Präzisierung erfahren. Die Auffassungen darüber, was man in gewissen Sprachen als possessiv anzusehen hat, schwanken. Man hat sich, mit Recht, gefragt, ob man einem entsprechenden Begriff überhaupt einen Platz in der Beschreibung von Sprachen – und damit in der Grammatik – einräumen solle. […] So erwägenswert manches an dieser Einschätzung auch ist, so finde ich es anderseits doch bemerkenswert, daß sich die verschiedensten Linguisten bei der Beschreibung der verschiedensten Sprachen doch immer wieder veranlaßt sehen, solche Termini – und Begriffe – wie "possessiv", "Possession" einzuführen. […] Intuitiv denkt man bei dem Terminus "Possession", "possessiv" in Sprachen wie dem Deutschen an die Konstruktionen mit Genitiv oder Possessivpronomen einerseits 'Karls/sein Haus') und an Konstruktionen mit 'haben', 'gehören', 'besitzen' anderseits ('Karl hat ein Haus'). Es hat nicht an Versuchen gefehlt, das eine auf das andere zu reduzieren. Die orthodoxe TG hat lange genug behauptet, 'Karls Haus' liege ein 'Karl hat ein Haus' zugrunde. Daß sich das nicht verallgemeinern läßt, sieht man etwa an 'Karls Tod', wozu es kein *'Karl hat einen Tod' gibt. Die Hypothese, die ich hier vorlegen und begründen möchte besteht darin, daß beide Ausdrucksweisen, also Genitiv, Possessivpronomen einerseits und 'haben' etc. anderseits einander komplementieren und erst zusammen den Phänomenbereich der Possessivität konstruieren. Eine große Rolle spielt dabei der Unterschied zwischen sogenannten relationalen und nicht-relationalen Nomina. Solche schwierigen Fragen untersucht man einerseits am besten an seiner eigenen Muttersprache. Anderseits aber hoffe ich das hier Gefundene durch die Konfrontation mit den Verhältnissen in einer davon weit abliegenden Sprache, einer Indianersprache Süd-Kaliforniens, Cahuilla, noch plastischer hervortreten zu lassen. Das hier angewendete Beschreibungsmodell ist gemischt. Die zugrundeliegenden Strukturen sind so weit wie möglich als syntaktische dargestellt. Doch konnte ich nicht umhin, in solchen syntaktischen Strukturen gewisse semantische Entitäten unterzubringen. Das gilt insbesondere für die abstrakten oder "höheren" Verben APPLIES und EXIST. Sie haben einen direkten semantischen Wert.
Eine allgeneine und theoretische Antwort auf die Frage, ob der Begriff "Possesivität" zur grammatischen Beschreibung einer natürlichen Sprache gehören solle oder nicht, wird je nach Standpunkt verschieden ausfallen. Man kann auch anders vorgehen, indem man in einem vortheoretischen Verständnis einen Begriff "Possesssivität" zunächst annimmt und zusieht, wie die Repräsentationen eines solchen Begriffs in je einer einzelnen Sprache sich gestalten. Die Möglichkeit, dass sich daraus, fast von alleine, eine Bestätigung und Präzisierung für diesen Begriff, ja sogar der eine oder andere Anhaltspunkt für dessen Universalität ergibt, dürfte man nicht ausschliessen. Der .Aufsatz von Hansjakob Seiler scheint schon in Zusammenhangmit diesem Problem nicht nur das Wesentlichste klargemacht zu haben; er stellt auch die Frage nach einem gemeinsamen Prinzip, dem die einzelnen Sprachen gehorchen, wenn sie die Possessivitätsrelation ausdrücken.
Dieser Beitrag ist ein Vorschlag, auf der grammatisch-semantischen Ebene dieses Prinzip in einer konktreten Sprache, dem Polnischen, aufgrund der die Possessivität ausdrückenden Mittel und ihrer Bereiche zu illustrieren. Daher wird hier semantisch davon ausgegangen, dass die Possessivität eine Relation ausdrückt, die den Verhältnis des Teils zum Ganzen entspricht. Ob man nun diese Relation als direkte Zugehörigkeit zur Menge oder als eine Art indirekter Zugehörigkeit, nämlich zum Besitzer der Menge auffasst, wäre eine Frage über die aufgrund der Struktur der betreffenden Sprache entschieden werden sollte, – vorausgesetzt immer, dass die Possessivität ein sprachlich ausgeprägtes und sprachwissenschaftlich beschreibbares Phänomen ist.
In my Cahuilla Grammar (Seiler 1977:276-282) and in a subsequent paper (Seiler 1980:229-236) I have drawn attention to the fact that many kin terms in this language, especially those that have a corresponding reciprocal term in the ascending direction – like niece or nephew in relation to aunt – occur in two expressions of quite different morphological shape. The following remarks are intended to furnish an explanation of this apparent duplicity.
Sieht man neuere Grammatiken des Deutschen daraufhin durch, wie die Masse der Verben bezüglich ihres semantischen Gehalts klassifiziert wird, stellt sich bald heraus, daß hier kein Konsens besteht. Die DUDEN-Grammatik beispielsweise unterscheidet Bedeutungsgruppen: Tätigkeitsverben (mit der Untergruppe Handlungsverben), Vorgangsverben und Zustandsverben, BRINKMANN fügt diesen drei Klassen die Geschehensverben und die Witterungsverben hinzu; RENICKE gliedert die Verben in 2 Klassen Punktuelle Verben und Ausdehnungsverben. FLÄMIG schlägt semantische Subklassifizierungen unter drei verschiedenen Gesichtspunkten vor: hinsichtlich des Anteils der Verben "an der komplexen Geschehens-/Seinsbezeichnung", hinsichtlich "der Verlaufsweise eines Geschehens" und hinsichtlich "der Charakteristik eines Geschehens/Seins in bezug auf entsprechende Sachverhalte", die letztere Klassifikation unterscheidet Handlungsverben, Tätigkeitsverben, Vorgangsverben, Ereignisverben und Zustandsverben. [...] Eine semantische Analyse der Fortbewegungsverben des Althochdeutschen liegt meines wissens nicht vor, stellt also eine reizvolle Aufgabe dar, zu deren Lösung hier erste Schritte unternommen werden sollen.
It is by now a weIl-known topic in semantics that there are striking similarities between the meanings of nominal and verbal expressions, insofar as the mass:count distinction in the nominal domain is reflected in the atelic:telic distinction in the verbal domain (cf. Leisi 1953, Taylor 1977, Bach 1986, to cite just a few authors). However, these supposed similarities have not be made explicit in formal representations.
Nominalreferenz, Zeitkonstitution, Aspekt, Aktionsart : eine semantische Erklärung ihrer Interaktion
(1989)
In der vorliegenden Arbeit berichte ich über den Erklärungsansatz, den ich im Rahmen einer modelltheoretischen Semantik zur Beschreibung dieses Phänomens entwickelt habe. Ich konzentriere mich hierbei auf die zugrundeliegende Motivation und die intuitive Charakterisierung dieser Theorie. Leser, die an den Einzelheiten der Durchführung und an weiteren Anwendungsmöglichkeiten der Theorie interessiert sind, seien auf Krifka (1987, 1989) verwiesen: ein forschungshistorischer Abriß zu alternativen Theorien findet sich in Krifka (1986).
Aspektsysteme
(1991)
„Die folgenden Papiere sind im Umfeld eines Hauptseminars "Aspekt und Tempus" entstanden, das im Wintersemester 1989/90 am Institut für Sprachwissenschaft der Universität zu Köln stattfand. In den folgenden Beiträgen werden nicht alle Aspekte des Aspekts gedeckt; im Vordergrund steht hauptsächlich die Frage der Interaktion von lexikalischer Semantik und Aspektmorphologie, so daß sich die Beschreibung der Aspektmorphologie auf aspektrelevante Fälle beschränkt und Nebenfunktionen (z.B. temporale), Konventionalisierungen, Neutralisierungen usw. weitgehend vernachlässigt werden. Kritik und Anregungen sind höchst willkommen.“ ---
Inhalt:
Aspekttheorie (Hans-Jürgen Sasse); Albanisch (Christina Leluda); Spanisch (Olga Chapado Chorro & Luisa Garcia Garcia); Japanisch (Antje Seidel & Helga Weyerts); Maa (Christa König); Modemes Chinesisch (Chor-Shing Li); Samoanisch (Mario Longino)
Wie hängen die verschiedenen Verwendungsweisen eines sprachlichen Ausdrucks miteinander zusammen? Diese Kernfrage der lexikalischen Semantik war schon immer ein praktisches Problem der Lexikographie und ein theoretisches Zentralthema der traditionellen Semasiologie (vgl. Paul 1894, 68ff.). In der neueren Semantik stand dieses theoretische Problem längere Zeit nicht im Vordergrund der Diskussion. Eine gewisse Stagnation in dieser Frage mag auf linguistischer Seite bedingt gewesen sein durch methodische Vorgaben strukturalistischer Bedeutungsauffassungen (vgl. Lyons 1977, 553; Heringer 1981, 109ff.) und auf philosophischer Seite u.a. durch das notorische Desinteresse der wahrheitsfunktionalen Semantik an lexikalischen Fragen.
Ich werde im folgenden einige Überlegungen zur konzeptuellen und semantischen Struktur von Numeralkonstruktionen im Deutschen anstellen, in deren Rahmen ich sowohl die Repräsentation von Zahlen und die Modellierung von Numeralkonstruktionen diskutieren als auch einige Aspekte der Schnittstelle Syntax-Semantik erhellen will. Ich führe meine Untersuchung im Rahmen des „Zwei-Ebenen-Modells“ der Semantik durch (vgl. Bierwisch 1983;1987;1988; Lang 1987; Zimmermann 1987; 1992), nehme also neben dem semantischen System SEM ein autonomes konzeptuelles System CS an, das „die mentale Form dessen, was durch sprachliche Äußerungen wiedergegeben wird, [determiniert]“ (Bierwisch 1987:6).
German particles usually bring great difficulties to German students. One of these particles, doch, is very often used, especially in conversation. In this paper its various uses are discussed, as well as eases where it can be replaced by other particles, adverbs or conjunctions, without changing the illocution (that is, the intention of the speaker). This study is based on the work of HELBIG, who differentiates eight varieties of doch. Each of them is discussed here according to syntactic, semantic and pragmatic criteria and made explicit through examples.
Die folgende Untersuchung wird Parallelen in der semantisch-konzeptuellen Struktur von Nominalgruppen und Sätzen aufzeigen und so unabhängige, semantische Argumente für den „sentential aspect“ von Nominalgruppen liefern, wie er bereits von Abney (1987) auf syntaktischer Seite motiviert wurde. Ich werde im ersten Teil die semantische und syntaktische Struktur von Sätzen skizzieren und hierbei insbesondere die zentralen semantisch-konzeptuellen Operationen identifizieren, die die Generierung von CPs begleiten. Vor diesem Hintergrund werden im zweiten Teil die zentralen übereinzelsprachlichen Merkmale von Nominalgruppen diskutiert und durch semantisch-konzeptuelle (sowie - in einer Skizze - syntaktische) Repräsentationen erfasst. Das Modell zur Struktur von Nominalgruppen wird in Bezug zu den zuvor skizzierten Annahmen über Sätze gestellt. Es wird sich hierbei zeigen, dass bei der Generierung von DPs die gleichen semantisch- konzeptuellen Operationen wirksam werden, wie sie für CPs festgehalten wurden. Ein zentraler Punkt der Diskussion wird das Problem der semantischen Kompositionalität sein. Im Rahmen eines Zwei-Ebenen-Modells der Semantik soll mithilfe semantischer Repräsentationen zugleich die Korrelation sprachlicher und konzeptueller Strukturen erfasst werden.
This paper addresses the syntax and semantics plurals, and then applies it to reciprocal expressions. In the course of this investigation, I address two problems for the conventional view that a reciprocal makes essentially the same semantic contribution to the sentence as other noun phrases, but has an interesting internal structure. I will show that both problems are properties of plurality in general, and can be successfully explained along these lines. As a result, the paper is more about plurality in general than reciprocals though the goal of the paper is to account for the two problems relating to reciprocals.
This article deals with the notion of reality. During the last twenty years, public discourse in Western societies has identified the opposition between the real and the virtual as one of the cultural key questions. Taking concrete examples as a point of departure, the paper investigates the semantics of the polysemic tems virtual and real. A semiotic model of the relation between (human) organisms, concepts and signs is used in order to demonstrate that the virtual cannot be adequately described as something opposed to reality, but must be seen as an indispensable part of it. The way in which organisms constitute reality is discussed in the light of the basic cognitive operations of categorization and the formation of conceptual relations, and also of their linguistic counterparts. The apparent conflict between the real and the virtual, which has led many critics to develop apocalyptic visions of the end of civilization, is, in fact, a phantom, product of an outdated theory of semantics.
This paper aims to present a type of verb which serves to connect two or more propositions to each other in a way similar to that carried out by connectors such as conjunctions and prepositions. It is the objective of this paper to classify the types of semantic connections they establish, such as cause and effect, equivalence, and temporality. Verbs with this type of connectivity are called "connection verbs". They are investigated both in German and Portuguese, organized according to the semantic relations they indicate, and described by means of syntactic and semantic criteria.
Anders als man auf den ersten Blick vermuten könnte ist die vorliegende Sammlung von Aufsätzen nicht aus den Beiträgen eines thematisch einschlägigen Workshops kompiliert worden (ein solcher ist erst für Herbst 1999 vorgesehen), sondern sie entstammt den Diskussionsrunden des Lexikonzirkels am ZAS, die - initiiert vom Projekt "Schnittstellen der Semantik: Kopula-Prädikativ-Konstruktionen" - seit 1997 regelmäßig und mit zunehmender Einbindung externer Mitarbeiter stattgefunden haben. Daß das 1998 mit nur anderthalb DFG-Stellen besetzte Projekt am ZAS eine solche Irradiationswirkung ausübt, verdankt sich wohl dem Zusammentreffen zweier günstiger Bedingungen.
Die erste Bedingung liefern die im Konzept des ZAS angelegten Möglichkeiten kooperativer Forschungsförderung, die hier in beherzter Überschreitung administrativer Grenzen erfolgreich umgesetzt werden konnten. Die Beiträge sind eine Zwischenbilanz von Studien, die im ZAS-Projekt selbst betrieben wurden, und von Studien, die - vom Projekt angeregt - nach kurzem so in dessen Forschung verwickelt waren, daß die resultierende Verflechtung zur unverzichtbaren Grundlage der weiteren Arbeit des Projekts geworden ist.
Die zweite Bedingung besteht offenkundig in der Problemhaltigkeit des Themas und der daraus resultierenden theoretischen Attraktivität. Was macht Kopula-Prädikativ-Konstruktionen unter dem Blickwinkel ihrer grammatischen Schnittstellen so attraktiv?
The paper investigates the issue whether the stage-level/individual level contrast introduced by Carlson 1977 requires the assumption of two homonymous copulas depending on the categorization of the predicative. We argue that instead of a uniform stage-level/individual level distinction we have to distinguish several similar but independent contrasts, none of which crucially depend on the semantics of the copula. In the second part of the paper, we concentrate on one group of phenomena-the distribution of weak subjects-and propose an explanation in terms of an interaction between topic/comment structure and aspectual properties of the predicate.
In this paper I investigate the properties of the copula-like verb 'ficar' in Brazilian Portuguese using Pustejovsky's generative lexicon (GL). The verb 'ficar' can be translated as 'stay' or 'become', depending on its complement. With locatives, only the STAY reading is possible. With adjectival complements, both BECOME and STAY readings are possible. I propose that 'ficar' takes an eventuality as its complement and I argue that there is no need to create multiple lexical entries for it, since the readings are the result of the possible combinations between the transition denoted by 'ficar' and the properties of the stative complements.
I argue that the BECOME reading with adjectival predicates is the result of combining part of the qualia of the adjectival predicate with the TRANSITION of 'ficar'. The STAY readings of 'ficar'+adjective are the result of shadowing the transition. In the case of 'ficar'+locative, the BECOME reading is unavailable. Departing from the hypothesis that subevents have to be linked to arguments in order to be able to be modified by certain types of modifiers or be selected by certain types of heads, I argue that the transition, in the case of locative complements, is not associated to any argument because nothing in the qualia of the locative complement is compatible with a transition, given that there is not motion component in either 'ficar' or the locative. Unlinked to any argument, the TRANSITION can only be part of the 'constant' meaning of the verb, which explains why it is not available for modification.
In contradistinction to main verbs copula verbs like 'sein', 'werden' or 'bleiben' ('be', 'become' or 'remain') can, though with some restrictions, take projections of all lexical categories as complements. Semantically 'werden' and 'bleiben' are considered to be dual operators, related to each other by inner and outer (= dual) negation. But there are contexts where 'bleiben' seems to assume the meaning of its dual 'werden'. What at first glance appears to be an idiosyncracy of German turns out to hold for Swedish, Brazil-Portuguese and other unrelated languages as well.
'Werden' is more restricted than 'sein' and 'bleiben', it cannot have a locative complement. 'Bleiben' has the widest distribution, it can also take infinitives of verbs of position as complement. But in this case 'stehen bleiben' is ambiguous between a "remain" -reading and a "become" -reading.
In 15th century the Swedish verb 'bliva' - a borrowing from German - has undergone a change from the "remain"-reading to the "become"-reading. The "become"-reading of 'bliva' (later form 'bli') is only blocked (as is the German verb 'werden') in the case of a locative complement, where the "remain"-reading has survived. The two readings of 'bli' do not produce any ambiguity, except when taking a verb of position as complement - much the same as in German.
The paper attempts to pinpoint the conditions that lead to this surprising shift of meaning between duals.
This contribution concerns the interaction of morphology, syntax and semantics. It treats German past participles and concentrates on their function as heads in attributive and adverbial modifier phrases. It is argued that participles have the same argument structure as the underlying verbs and can undergo passivization, perfectivization and conversion to adjectives. Since these three operations involve changes in the morphosyntactic categorization they are considered as zero affixation. Two affixless templates – without any categorical changes – convert participle constructions to modifiers relating to participants or to situations. These phrases do not have a syntactic position for the grammatical subject, an operator or an adverbial relator. The pertinent components are present only in the semantic structure. Two further templates serve the composition of participle constructions as modifiers with the modificandum. It is necessary to differentiate between modifiers which function as predicates and those which have the status of a propositional operator. In syntax, these different semantic functions correspond to different adjunct positions of the respective participle phrases.
Im vorliegenden Beitrag plädiere ich für ein Vorgehen, bei dem Kopulasätze generell als Beschreibungen von Situationen behandelt werden. Genauer nehme ich an, daß Sätze mit der Kopula 'sein' semantische Repräsentationen haben, die über eine darin vorkommende existenzquantifizierte Variable auf eine noch näher zu spezifizierende Situation referieren. Drei grundlegende Klassen von Fällen werden unterschieden: Erstens kann es sich bei der fraglichen Situation um einen durch das Prädikativ charakterisierten Zustand handeln, in dem sich das mit dem Subjektausdruck erfaßte Objekt befindet. Zweitens kann die Situation ein mit dem Subjektausdruck erfaßter Zustand sein, der über das Prädikativ eine zusätzliche Charakterisierung erhält. Und drittens kann die Situation auch ein Ereignis (im weiteren Sinne) sein, das nun entsprechend mit dem betreffenden Subjektausdruck erfaßt und durch das Prädikativ näher charakterisiert wird.
Einführung
(1999)
[...] Was macht Kopula-Prädikativ-Konstruktionen unter dem Blickwinkel ihrer grammatischen Schnittstellen so attraktiv? Die kurze Einführung will darauf eine partielle Antwort geben, aber nicht indem sie versucht, unter Beachtung ausgewogener Erwähnungsfrequenz die einzelnen Aufsätze zusammenzufassen (was sich durch die jeweils vorangestellten Abstracts eh erübrigt), sondern indem sie – a field is defined by certain questions ! – die aus Titeln und Abstracts nicht sofort ersichtlichen theoretischen Koordinaten des hier gewählten Ausschnitts der Kopula-Forschungslandschaft skizziert, um darin einige in den Beiträgen vorgeschlagene Antworten zu orten. So kommen die Relativität des Erreichten, aber auch das Potential, das in z.T. kontrovers geführten Argumentationen und konkurrierenden Analysen steckt, gleichermaßen zur Geltung.
The copula "sein" "be" in German, together with its complements, refers to a stative situation. Besides offering argument positions in its Semantic Form SF, it has no other function. Stative verbs are not specified with respect to the beginning or the end of a described situation or with respect to the state before or after. I will take the verb "werden" "become, get" to be a copular verb as well. The only difference to "sein" is that "werden" refers to a nonstative or changing situation. I argue that "werden" is underspecified in two respects. Like motion verbs and successive patient verbs (SUK verbs in Krifka (1989)) "werden" switches between an unlimited and a limited process (accomplishment) dependent on its complement (cf. "älter werden" "get older" / "vorwärts gehen" "go forward" / "Tee trinken" "drink tea" vs. "alt werden" "get old" / "in das Zimmer gehen" "go into the room"/ "eine Tasse Tee trinken" "drink a cup of tea"). But "werden" is even more underspecified than these verbs; it is the only verb which covers all nonstative situations, not only processes and accomplishments but also punctual transitions (achievements), cf. "schwanger werden" "get pregnant". "Werden" is anything but stative. Whether there is a target state implied or not, or whether the transition to this target state is extensible or atomic, is the result of the composition of the meaning of "werden" and its intimal argument added by special meaning postulates. Hierarchically marked subtypes of situational arguments result as a side effect.
The paper addresses the longstanding question of whether the copular verb "werden" ('become') is a transitional, i.e. telic, or a nontransitional, i.e. atelic, verb, or verb that is unspecified with regard to telicity. By means of standard tests and historical considerations, it is argued that the verb is telic and refers to accomplishment situations. Nevertheless, there are two types of copular "werden"-clauses with regard to which this view may seem questionable at first sight. First, some "werden"-clauses appear to refer to achievements. This, however, is not a matter concerning the semantics of werden. Rather, the crucial cases are accidentally instantaneous because their predicative complements are absolute predicates. Hence, they do not allow for extended transitions from one state to another. Second, some other "werden"-clauses, expecially those with comparative complements, sometimes appear to refer to processes. However "werden" combined with a comparatival adjective can be shown to be able to refer to clear accomplishment situations. The process-effect is due to a common phenomenon of reinterpretation that leads to iterative transitions between degrees.
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).
The present investigation is concerned with German participles II (past participles) as lexical heads of adjuncts.
Within a minimalist framework of sound-meaning correlation, the analysis presupposes a lexicalist conception of morphology and the differentiation of Semantic Form and Conceptual Structure. It is argued that participles II have the same argument structure as the underlying verbs and can undergo passivization, perfectivization and conversion to adjectives. As for the potential of participles to function as modifiers, it is shown that attributive and adverbial participle constructions involve further operations of conversion. Participle constructions are considered as reduced sentences. They do not have a syntactic position for the subject, for an operator (comparable to the relative pronoun in relative clauses) or for an adverbial relator (as in adverbial clauses). The pertinent components are present only in the semantic structure.
Two templates serve the composition of modifiers - including participle constructions - with the modificandum. It is necessary to differentiate between modification which unifies two predicates relating to participants or to situations and frame setting modification where the modifier is given the status of a propositional operator.
The proposed analysis shows that the high degree of semantic underspecification and interpretative flexibility of German participle II constructions resides in the indeterminacy of participles II with respect to voice and perfect, in the absence of certain constituents in the syntactic structure and in the presence of corresponding parameters in the Semantic Form of the participle phrases.
The paper investigates a recent proposal to resultativity by G. Jäger and R. Blutner (J&B). J&B say that the representation of result states of accomplishments by means of CAUSE and BECOME is not correct and should not be done in the syntax in terms of decomposition. They develop an axiomatic approach where each accomplishment/achievement is related to its result by a particular axiom. Modification of the result by "again" makes use of these axioms and the restitutive/resultative ambiguity is a matter of lexical ambiguity or polysemy. They argue that the classical decomposition theory cannot treat the restitutive reading of "A Delaware settled in New Jersey again" (there had been Delawares in New Jersey but not this particular one; and those earlier Delawares never moved to New Jersey but were borne there). I discuss (and dispute) these data and compare the two theories. J&B's contains an OT-part dealing with the disambiguating role of stress. While the decomposition theory cannot deal with the data mentioned, it can integrate the OT-part of J&B's theory.
Rethinking the adjunct
(2000)
The purpose of the present paper is twofold: first, to show that, when defining the adjunct, it is necessary to distinguish in a strict modular way between the syntactic level and the lexico-semantic level. Thus, the adjunct is a syntactic category on a par with the specifier and the complement, whereas the argument belongs to the same set as does (among others) the modifier. The consequence of this distinction is that there is no direct one-to-one opposition between adjuncts and arguments. Nor is there any direct one-to one relation between adjuncts and modifiers.
The second and main purpose of the paper is to account for the well-known difference between the position of a specific set of modifiers (cause, time, place etc.) in, on the one hand, English and Swedish, on the other, German. In English and Swedish the default position of these modifiers is postverbal, whereas in German it is preverbal. Further, in English and Swedish, these modifiers occur in a mirror order compared with their German counterparts, an order which, from a semantic point of view, is not the expected one. I shall demonstrate that this difference is due to the different settings of the verbal head parameter, the former languages being VO-languages and the latter being OV -languages. I shall further argue that in English and Swedish these modifiers are base generated as adjuncts to an empty VP, which is a complement of the main verb of what I shall call the minimal VP (MVP), whereas in German they are adjuncts on top of the MVP. Finally, I shall argue that the postverbal modifiers move at the latest at LF to the top of the MVP, in order to take scope over it, the restriction being 'Shortest move'. The movement results in the correct scope order of the postverbal modifiers.
The proposed structure also accounts for the binding data, in particular for the binding of a specific Swedish possessive anaphor 'sin'. This pronoun, which may occur within the MVP, must not occur within the postverbal modifiers in the empty VP. This supports the assumption that there is a strict borderline between the MVP and the assumed empty VP. The account is also in accordance with the focus data, the specific set of modifiers being potential focus exponents in a wide focus reading in English and Swedish, but not in German.
In this study, I investigate the positions and interpretations available to 'manner' adverbs in English. My central claim, contra Wyner (1994, 1998), is that an association does exist between 'manner' adverb positions and interpretations, which is best characterized in terms of Peterson's (1997) distinction between 'restrictive' and 'non-restrictive' modification. I also claim, however, that the association in question is not as general as commonly claimed; and, in particular, does not apply directly to 'manner' adverbs in 'fronted' and 'parenthetical' positions, which require special syntactic description.
This paper proposes that we can predict which adverbs cannot adjoin to the right in headinitial languages by means of a particular semantic property, that of being a "subjective" adverb, one which maps an event or proposition onto a scale with the high degree of indeterminacy and context-dependence. Such adverbs, such as 'probably' or 'luckily', cannot adjoin to the right with non-manner readings, while other adverbs (like 'politically', 'often', or 'deliberately') may. This supports the view that the distribution of adverbs depends heavily, and subtly, on their lexicosemantic properties.
In this paper I would like to show that the principles which have been proposed so far to account for the relationship between the informational level and the syntactic level in a Chinese utterance are unable to predict some interesting and regular facts of that language.
To my mind, the form and the position of the question operator in an interrogative utterance provide two distributional tests which univocally indicate where the new information lies. Hence, the pairing of affirmative and interrogative sentences might be a better approach to locate where the new information lies in a Chinese utterance.
This paper deals with a series of semantic contrasts between the copula "be" and the preposition "as", two functional elements that both head elementary predication structures. It will be argued that the meaning of "as" is a type lowering device shifting the meaning of its complement NP from generalized quantifier type to property type (where properties are conceived as relations between individuals and situations), while the copula "be" induces a type coercion from (partial) situations to (total) possible worlds. Paired with van der Sandt's 1992 theory of presupposition accommodation, these assumptions will account for the observed contrasts between "as" and "be".
This paper is concerned with the fact that a number of adverbal modifications involve a systematic reinterpretation of at least one of the expressions connected by the operation in question. It offers an approach in which such transfers of meaning turn out to be a result of contextually controlled enrichments of an underspecified as well as a strictly compositionally structured semantic representation. The approach proposed is general for three reasons: First, it takes into account not only reinterpretations in temporal but also such in non-temporal modification. Second, it allows considering so-called secondary predications as a particular kind of adverbal modification. Third, it explains the respective reinterpretations within a uniform formal framework of meaning variation.
This paper draws a link between the typological phenomenon of the paradigmatically supported evidentiality evoked by perfect and/or perfectivity and the equally epistemic system of modal verbs in German. The assumption is that, if perfect(ivity) is at the bottom of evidentiality in a wide number of unrelated languages, then it will not be an arbitrary fact that systematic epistemic readings occur also for the modal verbs in German, which were preterite presents originally. It will be demonstrated, for one, how exactly modal verbs in Modem German still betray sensitivity to perfect and perfective contexts, and, second, how perfect(ivity) is prone to evincing epistemic meaning. Although the expectation cannot be satisfied due to a lack of respective data from the older stages of German, a research path is sketched narrowing down the linguistic questions to be asked and dating results to be reached.
The paper starts with a semantic differentiation between the notions of sentence topic and discourse topic. Sentence topic is conceived of as part of a semantic predication in the sense of Y. Kim's work. Discourse topic is defined, as in N. Asher's Segmented Discourse Representation Theory, as a discourse constituent that comprises the content of (part of) the larger discourse.
The main body of the paper serves to investigate the intricate connection between the two types of topic. For restricting the context of investigation, a specific relation between discourse constituents, Elaboration, is chosen. If Elaboration holds between two discourse constituents, one of them can be identified as the explicit discourse topic with respect to the other one. Whereas an elaborating sentence - with or without a sentence topic - is used to infer a 'dimension' for extending the discourse topic, the role of the sentence topic if it occurs is to mark an 'index' for predication along that dimension. The interaction of elaborating sentences and their topics is modelled by means of channel theoretic devices.'
Einführung
(2000)
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 ZAS PIL 14 einleitend knapp umrissen wurde, wird derzeit im Projekt in drei Untersuchungssträngen bearbeitet.
This volume presents a collection of papers touching on various issues concerning the syntax and semantics of predicative constructions.
A hot topic in the study of predicative copula constructions, with direct implications for the treatment of he (how many he's do we need?), and wider implications for the theories of predication, event-based semantics and aspect, is the nature and source of the situation argument. Closer examination of copula-less predications is becoming increasingly relevant to all these issues, as is clearly illustrated by the present collection.
This paper argues for non-primary c- and s-selectional restrictions of verbs in computing nonprimary predicatives such as resultatives, depictives, and manners. Our discussion is based both on the selection violations in the presence of nonprimary predicates and on the cross-linguistic and language-internal variations of categorial and semantic constraints on nonprimary predicates. We claim that all types of thematic predication are represented by an extended projection, and that the merger of lexical heads with another element, regardless of the type of the element, consistently has c- and s-selectional restrictions.
Predication at the interface
(2001)
We try to show that predication plays a greater role in syntax than commonly assumed. Specifically, we wil argue that predication to a large extent determines both the phrase structure of clauses and trigger syntactic processes that take place in clauses. If we are on the right path, this implies that syntax is basically semantically driven, given that predication is semantically construed.
The paper shows that shared indefinite expressions in coordinative constructions may differ with respect to their referential properties. This is due to their being either in a focused or in a nonfocused shared constituent. Their different information-structural status follows from Rooth's theory on focus interpretation. Thus it follows that focused shared constitutents must be beyond the actual coordination and that coordinative constructions with unfocused shared constituents can be represented as ellipsis. In a focused shared constituent indefinite expressions may have a specific and an non specific unique reading as well as an non specific distributive one. For the latter we outline the idea that subjects and objects in the actual coordination form a pair of sets to which a distributing operator is attached. The set formation is further supported by plural pronouns referring to the respective set and by plural verb agreement in subsequent expressions.
Many authors who subscribe to some version of generative syntax account for the two readings of [...] sentences [...] in terms of LF-ambiguity. There is assumed to be covert quantifier raising (QR), which results in two distinct possibilities for the indefinite quantificational expressions involved to take scope over each other [...] In this paper, an alternative account is proposed which dispenses with the idea that there are different scope relations involved in the readings of […] sentences [...] and, consequently, with QR as the syntactic operation to be assumed for generating the respective LFs. I argue that it is rather focus structure in connection with type semantic issues pertaining to the indefinite quantificational expressions involved which result in the different readings associated with [...] sentences.
Sluicing phenomena
(2001)
The paper shows that in various sluicing types, the wh-phrase in the sluicing sentence as well as its relatum in the antecedent clause must be F-marked, and it explains this observation with Schwarzschild's (1999) and Merchant's (1999) focus theory. According to the semantics of the wh-phrase, it will argue that the relatum of the wh-phrase is an indefinite expression that must allow a specific interpretation. Following Heusinger (1997, 2000), specificity will be defined as an anchoring relation between the discourse referent introduced by the indefinite expression and a discourse given item. Because specific indefinite expressions are always novel, contexts like the scope of definite DPs, the scope of thematic matrix predicates, and the scope of downward-monotonic quantifiers which all exhibit non-novel indefinites do not allow sluicing.
Specificity distinction
(2001)
This paper is concerned with semantic noun phrase typology, focusing on the question of how to draw fine-grained distinctions necessary for an accurate account of natural language phenomena. In the extensive literature on this topic, the most commonly encountered parameters of classification concern the semantic type of the denotation of the noun phrase, the familiarity or novelty of its referent, the quantificational/nonquantificational distinction (connected to the weak/strong dichotomy), as well as, more recently, the question of whether the noun phrase is choice-functional or not (see Reinhart 1997, Winter 1997, Kratzer 1998, Matthewson 1999). In the discussion that follows I will attempt to make the following general points: (i) phenomena involving the behavior of noun phrases both within and across languages point to the need of establishing further distinctions that are too fine-grained to be caught in the net of these typologies; (ii) some of the relevant distinctions can be captured in terms of conditions on assignment functions; (iii) distribution and scopal peculiarities of noun phrases may result from constraints they impose on the way variables they introduce are to be assigned values.
Section 2 reviews the typology of definite noun phrases introduced in Farkas 2000 and the way it provides support for the general points above. Section 3 examines some of the problems raised by recognizing the rich variety of 'indefinite' noun phrases found in natural language and by attempting to capture their distribution and interpretation. Common to the typologies discussed in the two sections is the issue of marking different types of variation in the interpretation of a noun phrase. In the light of this discussion, specificity turns out to be an epiphenomenon connected to a family of distinctions that are marked differently in different languages.
In this squib, I want to argue that the morphological structure of words is, at least to some extent, motivated. As an example I have choosen the partonomic (and for the less part taxonomic) nomenclature of the human body. While important work by Brown et alii (1973), Anderson (1978) and Schladt (1997) exists on this topic, these analyses focus on the conceptualization of body-parts and their semantics, but not on their morphological representation.
In the following, I want to check two predictions about the morphological complexity of lexical items denoting parts of the human body. The first assumption is that the most canonical body-parts are always expressed by mono-lexematic items. The second one consists in the assumption that body-parts of the lowest levels in the hierarchy are always morphologically complex. A set of six body-parts has been analysed in 27 languages. The set consists of two canonical (HEAD and EAR) and of one from the lowest level of the hierarchy (TOENAIL). For this I have adopted a sample from Schladt (1997) and a small one compiled by myself
In this paper I firstly argue that secondary predicates are complement of v, and v is overtly realized by Merge or Move in secondary predication in Chinese. The former option derives the de-construction, whereas the latter option derives the V-V construction. Secondly, I argue that resultatives are hosted by complement vPs, whereas depictives are hosted by adjunct vPs. This complement-adjunct asymmetry accounts for a series of syntactic properties of secondary predication in Chinese: the position of a secondary predicate with respect to the verb of the primary predicate, the co-occurrence patterns of secondary predicates, the hierarchy of depictives, the control and ECM properties of resultative constructions, and the locality constraint on the integration of secondary predicates into the structure of primary predication. Thirdly, I argue that the surface position of de is derived by a PF operation which attaches de to the right of the leftmost verbal lexical head of the construction. Finally, I argue that in the V-V resultative construction, the assumed successive head-raising may account for the possible subject-oriented reading of the resultative predicate, and that the head raising out of the lower vP accounts for the possible non-specific reading of the subject of the resultative predicate.
The paper characterizes three different domains in the German middle field which are relevant for the interpretation of an indefinite. It is argued that the so-called 'strong' reading of an indefinite is the basic one and that the 'weak' reading needs special licensing which is mirrored by certain syntactic requirements. Some popular claims about the relation between the position and the interpretation of indefinites as well as some claims about scrambling are discussed and rejected. From the findings also follows that the strong reading of an indefinite is independent of its information status.