Linguistik
Refine
Year of publication
- 2003 (6) (remove)
Document Type
- Part of a Book (6) (remove)
Has Fulltext
- yes (6)
Is part of the Bibliography
- no (6)
Keywords
- Deutsch (6) (remove)
Institute
- Extern (1)
In the present paper, I will argue that even in a language like German, where the verb system does not contain a grammaticized aspect distinction, aspectual features do underlie the early form-function-mapping of verb forms in L1-acquisition. Furthermore, it will be argued that it is not only past tense forms that may receive an aspectual interpretation in early child language but also other forms of the verbal input. In the case of German, these are the forms of the present tense paradigm and the past participle. Showing and discussing various piecesof evidence for this assumption should strengthen the "aspect before tense" or "primacy of aspect" hypothesis. In general, the paper aims at a deeper understanding of the hierarchical relation between tense and aspect whereby aspect is the basic category and, therefore, aspectual features are the inevitable starting point of the acquisition of grammar.
Two main types of sentences are traditionally distinguished in the context of semantic theories of questions and answers: declarative sentences, corresponding to statements, and interrogative sentences, corresponding to questions. The interrogative forms can be further subdivided into dialectical ones (yes-no-questions) and non-dialectical ones (constituent questions). These distinctions are made for both root and embedded sentences. The predicates that select sentential complements fall into three classes: predicates that license only declaratives, those that allow only for interrogatives, and those that embed both types of sentences. In this connection, verbs of doubt are interesting in that they allow for declaratives as well as dialectical interrogatives, while non-dialectical interrogatives do not seem to be appropriate complements.
In what follows, our main concern will be with the German verb of doubt zweifeln and its possible sentential complements. Speaker intuitions as to which constructions are grammatical or acceptable vary, particularily with respect to rare expressions like zweifeln. Therefore, interviews and corpus analysis were applied as a means to acquire reliable linguistic data. These as well as data from historical sources and from some languages other than German (esp. English and Italian) are presented and analysed. In the last section, based on the notion of ‘subjective probability’, an attempt is made at explaining the observations.
The focus of the present paper is on the difference between English and German learners‘ use of perfectivity and imperfectivity. The latter is expressed by means of suffixation (suffix -va-). In contrast, perfectivity is encoded either by suffixation (-nou-) or by prefixation (twenty different prefixes that mostly modify not only aspectual but also lexical properties of the verb).
In the native Czech data set, there is no significant difference between the number of imperfectively and perfectively marked verb forms. In the English data, imperfectively and perfectively marked verb forms are equally represented as well. However, German learners use significantly more perfective forms than English learners and Czech natives. When encoding perfectivity in Czech, German learners prefer to use prefixes to suffixes. Overall, English learners in comparison to German learners encode more perfectives by means of suffixation than prefixation.
These results suggest that German learners of Czech focus on prefixes expressing aspectual and lexical modification of the verb, while English learners rather pay attention to the aspectual opposition between perfective and imperfective. In a more abstract way, the German learner group focuses on the operations carried out on the left side from the verb stem while the English learner group concentrates on the operations performed on the right side qfrom the verb stem.
This sensitivity can be to certain degree motivated by the linguistic devices of the corresponding source languages: English learners of Czech use imperfectives mainly because English has marked fully grammatical form for the expression of imperfective aspect – the progressive -ing form. German learners, on the other hand, pay in Czech more attention to the prefixes, which like in German modify the lexical meaning of the verb. In this manner, Czech prefixes used for perfectivization function similar to the German verbal prefixes (such as ab-, ver-) modifying Aktionsart.
The present study examines a particular kind of rule blockage – referred to below as an 'antistructure-preservation effect'. An anti-structure-preservation effect occurs if some language has a process which is preempted from going into effect if some sequence of sounds [XY] would occur on the surface, even though other words in the language have [XY] sequences (which are underlyingly /XY/). It will be argued below that anti-structure-preservation effects can be captured in Optimality Theory in terms of a general ranking involving FAITH and MARKEDNESS constraints and that individual languages invoke a specific instantiation of this ranking. A significant point made below is that while anti-structure-preservation effects can be handled straightforwardly in terms of constraint rankings they typically require ad hoc rule-specific conditions in rule-based approaches.
Glide formation, a process whereby an underlying high front vowel is realized as a palatal glide, is shown to occur only in unstressed prevocalic position in German, and to be blocked by specific surface restrictions such as *ji and *ʁj. Traditional descriptions of glide formation (including derivational as well as Optimality theoretic approaches) refer to the syllable in order to capture its conditions. The present study illustrates that glide formation (plus the distribution of long and short tense /i/) in German can better be captured in a Functional Phonology account (Boersma 1998) which makes reference to stress instead of the syllable and thus overcomes problems of former approaches.
In der deutschen Gegenwartssprache sind die Funktionsverbgefüge (FVG) die über lange Zeit vor allem nur unter stilistischen Gesichtpunkten betrachtet und meist als schlechter Stil abgewertet wurden, mit dem Aufsatz Peter von Polenz (1963) in zunehmendem Maße in das Blickfeld der linguistischen Untersuchungen getreten. In den folgenden Jahren erschienen mehrere Arbeiten zu den FVG, in denen vor allem ihre semantischen, syntaktischen und kommunikativen Leistungen untersucht worden. Die als FVG in der Fachliteratur erfassten Konstruktionen bestehen bekanntlich aus einem Funktionsverb(FV) und einem deverbativen Substantiv, auch manchmal nomen actionis genannt. Funktionsverb und Verbalsubstantiv bilden zusammen sowohl strukturell als auch semantisch eine lexikalische Einheit, z. B. Kritik üben; in Verbindung treten. Kennzeichnend für diese Einheiten ist, dass die eigentliche Bedeutung der FVG im Substantiv liegt, während das Verb der ganzen Einheit nur eine grammatisch-syntaktische Funktion ausübt. Auch im Türkischen sind derartige aus Verben und Verbalsubstantiven bestehende Fügungen vorhanden. Sie stimmen im Hinblick auf ihre Konstruktionen mit den FVG im Deutschen überein […]. Die vorliegende Arbeit verfolgt das Ziel, die Fragen zu erörtern, wie die FVG und VF gebildet werden und welche syntaktischen Konstruktionen dieser FVG und VF ermöglicht werden. Das Hauptaugenmerk gilt den semantischen und syntaktischen Funktionen dieser sprachlichen Phänomene. Dabei geht es weniger darum, die Formen und Funktionen der FVG und VF bis ins kleinste Detail darzustellen. Hier werden vielmehr ihre Formen und Funktionen behandelt, die für eine kontrastive Betrachtung interessant. Die Arbeit hat vor allem theoretischen Charakter und sie ist nicht an einem Korpus orientiert. Die Beschreibung basiert auf der eigene Sprachkompetenz.