Linguistik
Refine
Year of publication
- 2007 (54) (remove)
Document Type
- Part of a Book (54) (remove)
Has Fulltext
- yes (54)
Is part of the Bibliography
- no (54)
Keywords
- Referenzidentität (10)
- Deutsch (8)
- Referenz <Linguistik> (5)
- Spracherwerb (5)
- Sprachverstehen (5)
- focus (5)
- Personalpronomen (4)
- Anapher <Syntax> (3)
- Demonstrativpronomen (3)
- topic (3)
Institute
- Extern (3)
»Die Spur, von der wir sprechen«, so Derrida in der Grammatologie, ist »so wenig natürlich (sie ist nicht das Merkmal, das natürliche Zeichen oder das Indiz im Husserlschen Sinne) wie kulturell, so wenig physisch wie psychisch, so wenig biologisch wie geistig«. Wie ist aber dann die Spur, von der Derrida hier spricht, zu denken? Und vor allem: Warum soll die Spur nicht an die Begriffe des Merkmals, des natürlichen Zeichens oder des Indices anschließbar sein?
"Anything which focusses the attention is an index", schreibt Charles Sanders Peirce, der Begründer des amerikanischen Pragmatismus und Vater der modernen Semiotik in einem 1893 verfassten Kapitel seines geplanten Buches "The Art of Reasoning". Alles, was die Aufmerksamkeit ausrichtet oder erzeugt, ist ein Index. Aber was heißt hier Aufmerksamkeit? Was ist mit "ausrichten oder erzeugen" - der von mir gewählten Übersetzung für den Ausdruck "focusses" - gemeint. Und, last but not least, wie soll man den Begriff des Index fassen?
Ein zentrales Thema in den Arbeiten Klaus Welkes ist die Analyse formal bestimmter Relationen, die semantisch interpretierbar sind (vgl. etwa WELKE 1988, 1992, 1994, 2001, 22005). Wichtige Fragestellungen sind hier insbesondere: Wie ist die Hierarchie logisch-pragmatischer Rollen, wie die syntaktischer Funktionen? Wie hängen die beiden Bereiche zusammen? Wie können wir dies mit Hilfe von Argumentstrukturen erfassen? Der vorliegende Beitrag wird sich mit dem hierfür zentralen Aspekt der Verknüpfung syntaktischer und semantischer Relationen aus einer evolutionären Perspektive befassen. In Übereinstimmung mit WELKE (22005) gehe ich davon aus, „daß es neben einer Syntax formaler Strukturen auch eine Syntax semantischer Strukturen gibt“ (WELKE 22005, 4) und untersuche vor diesem Hintergrund, wie eine Entstehung dieser beiden Domänen und die Verknüpfung der betreffenden Strukturen im Rahmen der Evolution menschlicher Sprache aussehen könnte.
We investigate methods to improve the recall in coreference resolution by also trying to resolve those definite descriptions where no earlier mention of the referent shares the same lexical head (coreferent bridging). The problem, which is notably harder than identifying coreference relations among mentions which have the same lexical head, has been tackled with several rather different approaches, and we attempt to provide a meaningful classification along with a quantitative comparison. Based on the different merits of the methods, we discuss possibilities to improve them and show how they can be effectively combined.
While the Information Structure (IS) is most naturally interpreted as "structure of information", some may argue that it is structure of something else, and others may object to the use of the word "structure". This paper focuses on the question of whether the informational component can have structural properties such that it can be called "structure". The preliminary conclusion is that, althoughthere are some vague indications of structurehood in it, it is perhaps better understood to be a representation that encodes a finite set of information-based partitions, rather than structure.
Complement control is a well-known phenomenon in Turkish linguistics, and different proposals for analysing it are available. The majority of these treat control as a structural phenomenon, cf. Kerslake (1987), Özsoy (1987; 2001) and Kural (1998). In sum, control is predicted only in sentences with complement clauses formed with the suffixes -mEk and -mE, which can be case-marked, but the appearance of a possessive marker definitely precludes control. As far as the control relations are concerned, the research so far has attested the classical cases of subject and object control. In addition to that, variable control is discussed by Taylan (1996). The status of the controlled element is discussed by Bozşahin (in press), which concludes that the syntactic subject is appointed by this function in Turkish.
In this paper I will argue that the currently established approach to control is insufficient. The shortcomings of a strictly configurational approach become clear if a broader perspective on control is adopted. I follow the approach to control outlined by Stiebels (this volume), and show that two types of control must be distinguished. Inherent control is encoded in the lexical entry of the verb. Verbs which show inherent control either select only control-inducing structures or trigger control in environments not requiring control. Structural control, on the other hand, arises through the use of a control-inducing structure with a verb which does not inherently require control. Structural control verbs show control only with control-inducing structures. No control occurs with such verbs in other configurations. The data discussed in this paper will show that control is a ‘mixed’ phenomenon, since it may arise structurally or semantically. Its explanation must therefore consider the semantics of the relevant matrix verbs and the syntactic properties of complement clauses on an equal basis.
This questionnaire focuses on control structures that are instantiated by predicates that take a state of affairs (SOA) argument. Noonan (1985) has called these predicates 'complement-taking predicates'; I will use the notion of SOAAtaking predicates (SOAA = state of affairs argument).
Prototypically, complement control is instantiated by certain classes of verbs; however, adjectives (be eager to) and nouns (e.g. nominalizations such as promise) may function as control predicates as well. 'Control' refers to the pattern of argument identification between an argument of the SOAA-taking predicate and an argument of the SOAA-head. In the literature the notion of 'equi deletion' or 'equi-NP deletion' has been used (following Rosenbaum 1967), which refers to structures in which an overt argument of the matrix predicate is identified with a covert argument of the embedded predicate. This questionnaire aims at a cross-linguistic application of the notion of control and thus uses a semantic definition of complement control. It extends the notion of control to other patterns of referential dependency between arguments of a SOAA-taking predicate and of the embedded predicate.
New evidence is provided for a grammatical principle that singles out contrastive focus (Rooth 1996; Truckenbrodt 1995) and distinguishes it from discourse-new “informational” focus. Since the prosody of discourse-given constituents may also be distinguished from discourse-new, a three-way distinction in representation is motivated. It is assumed that an F-feature marks just contrastive focus (Jackendoff 1972, Rooth 1992), and that a G-feature marks discoursegiven constituents (Féry and Samek-Lodovici 2006), while discoursenew is unmarked. A crucial argument for G-marking comes from second occurrence focus (SOF) prosody, which arguably derives from a syntactic representation where SOF is both F-marked and G-marked. This analysis relies on a new G-Marking Condition specifying that a contrastive focus may be G-marked only if the focus semantic value of its scope is discourse-given, i.e. only if the contrast itself is given.
The paper investigates focus marking devices in the scarcely documented North-Ghanaian Gur language Konkomba. The two particles lé and lá occur under specific focus conditions and are therefore regarded as focus markers in the sparse literature. Comparing the distribution and obligatoriness of both alleged focus markers however, I show that one of the particles, lé, is better analyzed as a connective particle, i.e. as a syntactic rather than as a genuine pragmatic marker, and that comparable syntactic focus marking strategies for sentence-initial constituents are also known from related languages.
The recognition of the prosodic focus position in German-learning infants from 4 to 14 months
(2007)
The aim of the present study was to elucidate in a study with 4-, 6-, 8-, and 14-month-old German-learning children, when and how they may acquire the regularities which underlie Focus-to-Stress Alignment (FSA) in the target language, that is, how prosody is associated with specific communicative functions. Our findings suggest, that 14-month-olds have already found out that German allows for variable focus positions, after having gone through a development which goes from a predominantly prosodically driven processing of the input to a processing where prosody interacts more and more with the growing lexical and syntactic knowledge of the child.