Linguistik
Refine
Document Type
- Part of a Book (5) (remove)
Has Fulltext
- yes (5)
Is part of the Bibliography
- no (5)
Keywords
- Schwedisch (5) (remove)
Institute
- Extern (3)
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.
Eigennamen stehen in einem vielfältigen Spannungsverhältnis zu Appellativen: Auf der einen Seite entwickeln sie sich fast immer aus - meist konkreten - Gattungsbezeichnungen (Eichstätt, Lindenstraße, Schneider), auf der anderen Seite besteht ihre Hauptfunktion - ganz im Gegensatz zu den Appellativen - in ihrer Monoreferentialität, d.h. in einem 1: 1- Bezug zu nur einem einzigen außersprachlichen Objekt (meist Örtlichkeiten im weitesten Sinn und Personen).
Trubetzkoy's recognition of a delimitative function of phonology, serving to signal boundaries between morphological units, is expressed in terms of alignment constraints in Optimality Theory, where the relevant constraints require specific morphological boundaries to coincide with phonological structure (Trubetzkoy 1936, 1939, McCarthy & Prince 1993). The approach pursued in the present article is to investigate the distribution of phonological boundary signals to gain insight into the criteria underlying morphological analysis. The evidence from English and Swedish suggests that necessary and sufficient conditions for word-internal morphological analysis concern the recognizability of head constituents, which include the rightmost members of compounds and head affixes. The claim is that the stability of word-internal boundary effects in historical perspective cannot in general be sufficiently explained in terms of memorization and imitation of phonological word form. Rather, these effects indicate a morphological parsing mechanism based on the recognition of word-internal head constituents. Head affixes can be shown to contrast systematically with modifying affixes with respect to syntactic function, semantic content, and prosodic properties. That is, head affixes, which cannot be omitted, often lack inherent meaning and have relatively unmarked boundaries, which can be obscured entirely under specific phonological conditions. By contrast, modifying affixes, which can be omitted, consistently have inherent meaning and have stronger boundaries, which resist prosodic fusion in all phonological contexts. While these correlations are hardly specific to English and Swedish it remains to be investigated to which extent they hold cross-linguistically. The observation that some of the constituents identified on the basis of prosodic evidence lack inherent meaning raises the issue of compositionality. I will argue that certain systematic aspects of word meaning cannot be captured with reference to the syntagmatic level, but require reference to the paradigmatic level instead. The assumption is then that there are two dimensions of morphological analysis: syntagmatic analysis, which centers on the criteria for decomposing words in terms of labelled constituents, and paradigmatic analysis, which centers on the criteria for establishing relations among (whole) words in the mental lexicon. While meaning is intrinsically connected with paradigmatic analysis (e.g. base relations, oppositeness) it is not essential to syntagmatic analysis.
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.
Die synchrone wie diachrone Untersuchung von vier Passivauxiliaren in der deutschen Standardsprache und in deutschen Dialekten, im Schwedischen und im Luxemburgischen liefert deutliche Evidenz dafür, dass Vollverben nicht direkt zu Passivauxiliaren grammatikalisieren, sondern dass dieser Pfad über die Inchoativkopula verläuft. Inchoativkopulas sind soweit grammatikalisiert (und damit reduziert), dass sie über den Weg einer Reanalyse zu Vorgangspassivauxiliaren mutieren können: Erst verbinden sie sich mit (prädikativen) Substantiven, dann mit Adjektiven und schließlich partizipialen Verben. Bereits im Kopulastadium haben sie sich (sofern vorhanden gewesen) ihres Dativ- und Akkusativobjekts entledigt (Intransitivierung). Das Subjekt ist nach seiner Entkoppelung mit dem Agens eine neue Koppelung mit dem Patiens eingegangen. Damit hat die einstige Handlungsperspektive eine Umkehr zur Geschehensperspektive erfahren. Diese Schritte dokumentiert die folgende Figur: .... Als weniger problematisch hat sich, bedingt durch die Ausgangssemantik, der Grammatikalisierungspfad bei nhd. werden, bair.lalem. kommen und schwed. bli erwiesen im Gegensatz zu lux. ginn 'geben', das in jeder Hinsicht die stärksten Reduktionen erfahren hat und einen besonders langen, verschlungenen und "steinigen" Weg absolviert hat. Mit Sicherheit kann geben nicht als Idealkandidat für Passivgrarnmatikalisierungen gelten. Nur so lässt sich erklären, weshalb diese Grarnmatikalisierung in anderen Sprachen der Welt bisher nicht beobachtet wurde.