Linguistik
Refine
Year of publication
Document Type
- Article (1214)
- Part of a Book (784)
- Conference Proceeding (583)
- Working Paper (254)
- Review (181)
- Preprint (122)
- Book (108)
- Part of Periodical (64)
- Report (58)
- Doctoral Thesis (23)
Language
Has Fulltext
- yes (3409) (remove)
Keywords
- Deutsch (436)
- Syntax (152)
- Linguistik (127)
- Englisch (123)
- Semantik (112)
- Spracherwerb (97)
- Phonologie (86)
- Rezension (77)
- Kroatisch (68)
- Fremdsprachenlernen (67)
Institute
- Extern (438)
- Institut für Deutsche Sprache (IDS) Mannheim (113)
- Neuere Philologien (43)
- Sprachwissenschaften (43)
- Universitätsbibliothek (5)
- Sprach- und Kulturwissenschaften (3)
- Gesellschaftswissenschaften (2)
- Medizin (2)
- Präsidium (2)
- SFB 268 (2)
Wasow (1977) argues that linguistic theory should recognize two qualitatively distinct types of rules: syntactic rules, which can affect more "superficial" grammatical function properties; and lexical rules, which affect deeper lexical semantic properties of lexical items. However, lexicalist theories of grammar have replaced syntactic rules with lexical rules leaving Wasow's dichotomy potentially unexplained. Our goal in this paper is to recapture Wasow's insight within a lexicalist framework such as HPSG. Building on Sag & Wasow's (1999) distinction between lexeme and word, we claim that there is a contrast between lexical rules that relate lexemes to lexemes (L-to-L rules) and lexical rules that relate words to words (W-to-W rules) and that these differences follow from the architecture of the grammar. In particular, we argue that syntactic function features (ARGST, VALENCE, etc.) are not defined for lexemes, while lexical semantic features (CONTENT) are. From this it follows that L-to-L rules can affect lexical semantic features, and not syntactic function features. In addition, since words are defined for syntactic function features, W-to-W rules can change them. In this paper, we support this hypothesis by examining certain differences between two types of Noun Incorporation construction, and their relation to other rules in the grammar. We argue that Compounding Noun Incorporation is an L-to-L type and that Classifier Noun Incorporation is a W-to-W type; we base our argument on the interaction of Noun Incorporation and Applicative Formation in the Paleo-Siberian language Chukchi and the isolate language Ainu.
This paper examines reprise questions: questions which request clarification of the meaning intended by a speaker when uttering a word or phrase. As such they can act as semantic probes, providing information about what meaning can be associated with word and phrase types. We present corpus evidence regarding the meaning of nouns and noun phrases, and argue that this evidence runs contrary to the usual treatments of semantics in HPSG, and to the traditional generalised quantifier view of NPs as sets of sets. Instead we outline an analysis of NPs as (possibly functional) sets of individuals.
This paper seeks to improve HPSG engineering through the design of more terse, readable and intuitive type signatures. It argues against the exclusive use of IS-A networks and, with reference to the English Resource Grammar, demonstrates that a collection of higher-order datatypes are already acutely in demand in contemporary HPSG design. Some default specification conventions to assist in maximizing the utility of higher-order type constructors are also discussed.
This paper shows that the Gerund Phrase (GP) in the Spanish Gerund Construction (e.g., El jefe entró a su oficina corriendo, lit. The boss entered his office running ) is sometimes a complement (in SGCC) and sometimes an adjunct (in SGCA). Although in both cases, the GP expresses a non-argument of the main lexical verb's denotation, it is a syntactic adjunct in SGCA and a syntactic dependent of the main clause s head in SGCC. We argue that there is a semantic correlate of this syntactic difference and propose a general principle that constrains the semantic relations that can hold between the denotata of heads and added members of their ARG-ST lists: The two denotata must be part of a larger macro-event in the sense of Talmy (2000). We further show that the relation between the events denoted by the gerund and main verbs involves four semantic conditions and that which subset of those four conditions are satisfied in a particular SGCC sentence determines what subkind of SGCC is involved.
It is a much-debated issue whether one should assume separate lexical entries for participles used in passive and perfect constructions or whether there is just one lexical entry that is used in different ways depending on whether a passive or perfect auxiliary is present in the clause.
In previous work I criticized approaches trying to analyze the passive with one lexical entry for making empirically wrong predictions and suggested a lexical-rule based approach were two different lexical items for the participle are licensed.
In this paper I show how Heinz and Matiasek's (1994) formalizations of Haider's (1986) ideas can be extended and modified in a way that both modal infinitives and control constructions can be captured correctly. The suggested analysis needs only one lexical item for participles, base form infinitives, and zu infinitives irrespective of their usage in active or passive like structures.
In Japanese, as in other classifier languages like Chinese and Malay, numerals do not directly quantize nouns, but first combine with a classifier to form a measure phrase (MP; cf. Aikhenvald 2000). From the perspective of constraint-based approaches to syntax/semantics, the mutual selective restriction between classifiers and nouns can be stated in terms of information-sharing and featural identity, to some extent parallel to the treatment of gender/number agreement (between determiner and noun, for instance) (cf. Pollard and Sag 1994; Kathol 1999). There are, however, data that challenge this line of approach to noun-classifier matching. We demonstrate in this paper that it is possible that a single noun is associated with different types of classifier, and show why they are problematic for unification-based approaches, similar to the situation with case syncretism in European languages (Ingria 1990 and others). Later in the paper, we argue that information-sharing between noun, predicate and classifier is not completely transitive, and present a formal analysis which models multiple selectional requirements with sets.
This paper compares transformation-based and constraint-based treatments of unbounded filler-gap dependencies, the latter specifically as articulated in terms of HPSG, and argues, contrary to the commonly made allegations of notational variance , that there is purely empirical evidence that is consistent with only the constraint-based account. Recent proposals to deal with parasitic gaps in terms of null pronominals and empty operators are unable to account for the phenomenon of symbiotic gaps, the apparent case mismatches found in parasitic gap constructions, or (in general) for the well-known across-the-board effects within coordinate structures.
Most researchers now agree that subcategorization correlates significantly with semantics. But this semantic component of linking has proved elusive. Most, if not all, theories of linking have, in pratice, resorted to constructs that are syntactic diacritics. We show in this paper that the implicit syntactic diacritics that plague the basic linking constraints posited in at least some of these theories can be eliminated, provided that (i) the metalanguage in which linguistic constraints are written allows for true implicational statements; (ii) one is willing to slightly increase the number of linking constraints. We focus in particular on the linking theory presented in Davis and Koenig 2000, Davis 2001, and Koenig and Davis 2000, but we maintain that our arguments apply, mutatis mutandis, to many other linking theories. We note some of the consequences of this view of linking, including: linking constraints are stated in terms of semantically natural classes of situations, a single entailment of a verb's argument is sufficient to determine its linking, and interaction among linking constraints restricts the range of possible lexical items.
In this paper we investigate the factors conditioning a morphological alternation on verbal heads in Lai. We show that this alternation eludes a simple characterization and instead exhibits a many-to-many form-function mapping. We will further show that the facts can be given a straightforward analysis in terms of default conditions based on valence and polarity, together with various constructional overrides. Our analysis thus follows recent proposals in HPSG, in particular Malouf (forthcoming), in using a constructional type hierarchy with defaults (cooperating constructions) as an alternative to an Optimality Theoretic system of ranked violable constraints.
In Jaeger (to appear) I have described clitic doubling in Bulgarian wh-interrogatives which constitutes a type of Superiority violation that cannot be accounted for by any existing analyses. By showing that clitic doubling of object wh-phrases marks topicality, I raised the hypothesis that many (or maybe all) so called Superiority effects in Bulgarian are due to topic-fronting of wh-phrases. Here, I provide further support for this hypothesis and show that there is also evidence for topic-fronting of non-object wh-phrases. Differences between colloquial and formal Bulgarian are restricted to how topical objects have to be realized at the source of the extraction (i.e. the VP), which also makes the account readily extendable to other multiple fronting languages. The complex ordering constraints on the left periphery are captured in a Linear Syntax approach (similar to but different from Kathol 2000).