Linguistik-Klassifikation
Refine
Year of publication
- 2007 (51) (remove)
Document Type
- Conference Proceeding (24)
- Part of a Book (21)
- Article (2)
- Preprint (2)
- Working Paper (2)
Language
- English (51) (remove)
Has Fulltext
- yes (51)
Is part of the Bibliography
- no (51)
Keywords
- Referenzidentität (11)
- Deutsch (9)
- Referenz <Linguistik> (6)
- Spracherwerb (6)
- Sprachverstehen (6)
- Koreanisch (5)
- Anapher <Syntax> (4)
- Personalpronomen (4)
- Demonstrativpronomen (3)
- Kontrolle <Linguistik> (3)
The result of questionnaire studies are presented which shows (i) that conjuncts are scope islands in Japanese and (ii) that left-node raising can nullify such scope islands. This finding confirms the theory advanced in Yatabe (2001), in which semantic composition is almost entirely carried out within order domains, and arguably contradicts the theory proposed in Beavers and Sag (2004), which introduces a mechanism called Optional Quantifier Merger to deal with the fact that right-node raising and left-node raising can have semantic effects.
Based on Krifka (1992) and de Kuthy (2000), this paper develops an architecture for complex topic-comment structures in HPSG and applies it to predicate fronting in English with the goal of capturing the insights of Ward (1988) on this construction. We argue that predicate fronting is a distributed constructional form consisting of an auxiliary occurring in a predicate preposing phrase. The use of predicate preposing is a function of a combination of simultaneous constraints on its theme structure, its background-focus distribution, and its presuppositional structure. It is shown that these constraints can be made explicit within the HPSG architecture developed here.
This paper aims at making a general description of Chinese NPs using Head-Driven Phrase Structure Grammar. The paper introduces the basic and complex structures of Chinese NPs and then shed light on the noun-classifier matching problem when implemented in HPSG. To solve this problem, the paper tries to establish a basic grammar of Chinese NPs in the framework of HPSG, which is implemented in the LKB system. The implementation shows, although the matching problem between noun and classifier can be described in HPSG, especially by the MRS, it is still difficult to efficiently represent the semantic constrains in the LKB system.
The Big Mess Construction
(2007)
There is a construction in English, exemplified by 'how long a bridge', which is so irregular that it has been named the Big Mess Construction (Berman 1974). This paper first sketches its main characteristics and a treatment of the internal structure of the noun phrase which serves as a background for the analysis. It then presents three ways in which the Big Mess Construction can be analysed; two of them are lexicalist and are shown to be implausible; the third is constructivist and is argued to be superior. In a next step, the discussion is extended to two other types of constructions. The first concerns the English adnominal reflexives, as in 'the children themselves', and is shown to require a constructivist analysis which is similar but not identical to the one for the Big Mess Construction. The second concerns the combination of 'such' and 'what' with the indefinite article, as in 'such a pleasure'. In spite of its obvious resemblance with the Big Mess Construction this combination does not require a constructivist analysis; instead, it fits the lexicalist mould of most of the rest of HPSG.
An empirical overview of the properties of English prepositional passives is presented, followed by a discussion of formal approaches to the analysis of the various types of prepositional passives in HPSG. While a lexical treatment is available, the significant number of technical and conceptual difficulties encountered point to an alternative approach relying on constructional constraints. The constructional approach is argued to be the best option for prepositional passives involving adjunct PPs, and this analysis can be extended to create a hierarchy of constructions accommodating all types of prepositional passives in English, and the ordinary NP passive.
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.
This paper aims to provide type hierarchies for Korean passive constructions on the basis of their forms within the HPSG framework. The type hierarchies proposed in this paper are based on the classification of Korean passives; suffixal passives, auxiliary passives, inherent passives, and passive light verb constructions. Verbs are divided into five subtypes in accordance with the possibility of passivization. We also provide type hierarchies for verbal nouns and passive light verbs.
In Sorani Kurdish dialects, the complement of a preposition can generally be realized either as a syntactic item (NP, independent pronoun or PP) or a bound personal morpheme (clitic/affix). However, the affixal realization of the complement gives rise to a range of specific phenomena. First, some prepositions display two different phonological forms depending on the realization of their complement: the variant combining with a syntactic item is referred to as ˋsimple', while the variant combining with an affixal complement is called ˋabsolute'. Furthermore, unlike syntactic complements, which are always realized locally, the affixal complement of an absolute preposition can have a non-local realization, attaching to a host with which it has no morphosyntactic relations. In order to deal with these facts, this paper proposes a classification of Sorani prepositions along two lines: the affixal versus non-affixal realization of the complement on the one hand and its local versus non-local realization on the other hand. All cases of non-local realization receive a lexical account, either in terms of argument composition or in terms of linearization constraints on domain objects.