Linguistik
Refine
Year of publication
- 2004 (69) (remove)
Document Type
- Part of a Book (69) (remove)
Has Fulltext
- yes (69)
Is part of the Bibliography
- no (69)
Keywords
- Generative Transformationsgrammatik (19)
- Syntax (16)
- Wortstellung (16)
- Deutsch (10)
- Informationsstruktur (7)
- Intonation <Linguistik> (7)
- Phonologie (7)
- Englisch (6)
- Extraposition (6)
- Malagassi-Sprache (6)
Institute
- Extern (6)
This paper evaluates trills [r] and their palatalized counterparts [rj] from the point of view of markedness. It is argued that [r]s are unmarked sounds in comparison to [r ]s which follows from the examination of the following parameters: (a) frequency of occurrence, (b) articulatory and aerodynamic characteristics, (c) perceptual features, (d) emergence in the process of language acquisition, (e) stability from a diachronic point of view, (f) phonotactic distribution, and (g) implications.
Several markedness aspects of [r]s and [rj] are analyzed on the basis of Slavic languages which offer excellent material for the evaluation of trills. Their phonetic characteristics incorporated into phonetically grounded constraints are employed for a phonological OT-analysis of r-palatalization in two selected languages: Polish and Czech.
This article analyses the German discourse particle wohl 'I suppose', 'presumably' as a syntactic and semantic modifier of the sentence types declarative and interrogative. It is shown that wohl does not contribute to the propositional, i.e. descriptive content of an utterance. Nor does it trigger an implicature. The proposed analysis captures the semantic behaviour of wohl by assuming that it moves to SpecForceP at LF, from where it can modify the sentence type operators in Force0 in compositional fashion. Semantically, a modification with wohl results in a weaker commitment to the proposition expressed in declaratives and in a request for a weaker commitment concerning the questioned proposition in interrogatives. Cross-linguistic evidence for a left-peripheral position of wohl (at LF) comes from languages in which the counterpart of wohl occurs in the clausal periphery overtly. Overall, the analysis sheds more light on the semantic properties of the left periphery, in particular of the functional projection ForceP.
This paper investigates how syntax and focus interact in deriving the phonological phrasing of utterances in Xhosa, a Bantu language spoken in South Africa. Although the influence of syntax on phrasing is uncontroversial, a purely syntactic analysis cannot account for all the data reported for Xhosa by Jokweni (1995). Focus influences the phrasing in that it inserts a phonological phrase-boundary after the focused constituent. This generalization can account for the variation found in the phrasing of adverbials.
The findings are dealt with in an OT-based framework following Truckenbrodt's work on Chichewa (1995, 1999) which is extended to the phrasing of adjuncts.
In morphological systems of the agglutinative type we sometimes encounter a nearly perfect one-to-one relation between form and function. Turkish inflectional morphology is, of course, the standard textbook example. Things seem to be quite different in systems of the flexive type. Declension in Contemporary Standard Russian (henceforth Russian, for short) may be cited as a typical example: We find, among other things, cumulative markers, “synonymous” endings (e.g., dative singular noun forms in -i, -e, or -u), and “homonymous” endings (e.g., -i, genitive, dative, and prepositional singular). True, some endings are more of an agglutinative nature, being bound to a specific case-number combination and applying across declensions, e.g., -am (dative plural, all nouns); and some cross the boundaries of word classes, e.g., -o, which serves as the nominative/accusative singular ending of neuter forms of pronouns (and adjectives) and as the nominative/accusative singular ending of (most) neuter nouns as well. Still, many observers have been struck by the impression that what we face here are rather uneconomic or even, so to speak, unnatural structures. But perhaps flexive systems are not as complicated as they seem. What seems to be uneconomic complexity may be, at least partially, an artifact of uneconomic descriptions.
In the wake of Kayne's Antisymmetry Hypothesis and Linear Correspondence Axiom (LCA), there has been much fruitful research attempting to adjust syntactic analyses to those permitted by Kayne's restrictive system. In doing so, analyses which at first seem counter-intuitive may tum out to provide solutions to old problems. Two cases in point are the analysis of Malagasy involving extensive Remnant Movement [henceforth RM1 described in Rackowski & Travis (2000), Pearson (2001), and elsewhere; on the one hand, and the analysis of Hungarian and Dutch verbal clusters in Koopman & Szabolcsi (2000) [henceforth R&T, Pearson, and K&Sz].
The original motivation (in part) for examining L&Sz and subsequently R&T was that it is the extensive use of iterated RM which increases the computational complexity of languages generatable in Stabler's "Strict Minimalist Grammar" formalism over that of context-free grammars. It has also been noted that allowing extraction from complex specifiers created by Merge (as opposed to Move) increases the level of complexity even further (lens Michaelis, p.e.). Both R&T and K&Sz make extensive use of RM; R&T allow extraction from complex specifiers, while K&Sz do not. Although the specifiers in both cases are created by Move, not Merge, we nevertheless feel that there is enough intrinsic linguistic interest in trying to limit extraction possibilities to pursue the comparison of these two systems with regard to this point.
The filling of the 'Vorfeld' in German sentences is basically obligatory; which constituent, however, actually moves to the Vorfeld is underdetermined by syntax and thus governed presumably by discourse factors. Coming from English, there are certain competing expectations one could have: either the topic — more specifically, the backward-looking center — of a sentence is moved to the Vorfeld, or an element in a poset relationship to a set mentioned in the previous discourse, or elements with other functions, such as the exposition of brand-new information or the setting of a scene. A study of a corpus of texts of different stylistic levels showed that indeed all elements expected to appear in the Vorfeld are eligible for Vorfeld-movement, but that there is a strict ranking. Preferred Vorfeld-fillers are phrases containing brand-new information as well as scene-setting elements; only if no such elements are present can elements in a poset relationship with some previously mentioned set be moved to the Vorfeld. Finally, if such elements are not present either, backward-looking centers can move to the Vorfeld. Backward-looking centers have, for this reason, a relatively poor quota among Vorfeld-fillers, namely around 50%.
This work examines English echo questions (EQs) against the background of Rizzi's (1997) analysis of split CP. It argues that EQs do not behave as the split CP analysis predicts that they should, and that their behavior can instead be straightforwardly explained within the classic CP analysis. Further, what are termed here 'echo negations' of negative inversion constructions are shown not to parallel EQs, a surprising result if negative inversion architecture parallels question architecture, as claimed by split CP proponents. In general, classic CP architecture is more appropriate for analysing this range of phenomena.
In this paper, we investigate two pairs of structures in German and English: German Weak Pronoun Left Dislocation and English Topicalization, on the one hand, and German and English Hanging Topic Left Dislocation, on the other. We review the prosodic, lexical, syntactic, and discourse evidence that places the former two structures into one class and the latter two into another, taking this evidence to show that dislocates in the former class are syntactically integrated into their 'host' sentences while those in the latter class are not. From there, we show that the most straightforward way to account for this difference in 'integration' is to take the dislocates in the latter structures to be 'orphans', phrases that are syntactically independent of the phrases with which they are associated, providing additional empirical and theoretical support for this analysis — which, we point out, has a number of antecedents in the literature.
As part of a major project on the syntactic organisation of written discourse in the recent history of the English language, this paper tackles the distribution of sentences comprising left-dislocated constituents in a corpus of texts from late Middle English onwards. Once the phenomenon of left dislocation has been properly defined, this investigation will concentrate on the analysis of the corpus in the following directions: (i) statistical evolution of left dislocation in the recent history of the English language; (ii) the influence of orality and genre on left dislocation; (iii) information conveyed by the left-dislocated material, that is, the discourse-based referentiality potential of the left-dislocated constituents in terms of recoverability, and its association with end-focus; and (iv) grammatical complexity of the left-dislocated material and its association with end-weight.
Wh-questions in Malagasy
(2004)
Wh-questions in Malagasy consist of a clause-initial wh-phrase followed by an invariant particle and then the remainder of the clause. This paper considers the structural analysis of Malagasy wh-questions and argues for a biclausal cleft analysis in which the initial wh-phrase is a predicate and the remaining material is a headless relative in subject position. The paper is organized as follows: Section 2 introduces some basic facts about Malagasy clause structure and wh-questions. Section 3 lays out two competing structural analyses of wh-questions: the cleft analysis and a fronting analysis in which Malagasy wh-questions are derived by wh-movement. Section 4 introduces various evidence in favor of the pseudocleft analysis and against the fronting analysis. Section 5 concludes.