Linguistik-Klassifikation
Refine
Year of publication
Document Type
- Part of a Book (19)
- Conference Proceeding (13)
- Working Paper (5)
- Article (3)
- Book (1)
- Preprint (1)
Has Fulltext
- yes (42)
Is part of the Bibliography
- no (42)
Keywords
- Relativsatz (42) (remove)
Institute
Relative clauses (RCs) in Persian are head-modifying constituents, all typically introduced by the invariant complementizer ke. Persian RCs are Unbounded Dependency Constructions (UDCs), containing either a gap or a resumptive pronoun (RP). In some positions only gaps are allowed, and in other positions only RPs. There are also some positions where both gaps and RPs are alternatively allowed. Illustrating the striking similarities between Persian gaps and RPs, I will provide an HPSG unified approach to take care of the dependency between the licensing structure and the gap/RP with a single mechanism, using only the SLASH feature. Similar to Pollard and Sag s (1994) approach to the bottom of the dependency, I will assume a special sign at the bottom. However, my sign may have a nonempty PHON value. I will introduce a feature called GAPTYPE which is a NONLOCAL feature whose value can be either trace or rp. I will introduce two constraints to capture the pattern of distribution of RPs and traces. At the top of the dependency, I will bind the nonempty SLASH at the complementizer point. I will propose a lexical entry for the complementizer ke that will account for the binding of SLASH by the feature BIND, which has a nonempty set as value.
In this article, the so-called wh-relative clause construction is investigated. The German wh-relative clauses are syntactically relevant as they show both, root clause and subordinate clause properties. They matter semantically because they are introduced by a wh-anaphor that has to be resolved by an appropriate abstract entity of the matrix clause. Additionally, the wh-relative clause construction is discourse-functionally peculiar since it evokes coherence. Besides these interesting empirical characteristics, whrelatives raise important theoretical questions. It is argued that the standard HPSG theory has to be extended to account for non-restrictive relative clauses in general, and to cope with the particular properties of the wh-relative construction.
In HPSG relative clauses have been analyzed in terms of phonologically empty heads in Pollard and Sag (1994) and in terms of a complex system of phrase types in Sag (1997). Modern Standard Arabic has a distinction between relative clauses with a definite antecedent, which are introduced by a special complementizer, and relative clauses with an indefinite antecedent, which are 'bare' clauses. Analyses eschewing empty heads and assuming a complex system of phrase types face a number of problems. An analysis in which relatives with an indefinite antecedent are headed by a phonologically empty complementizer is more satisfactory. Thus, in the case of Arabic, the approach of Pollard and Sag (1994) seems preferable to the approach of Sag (1997).
Classical Arabic and Modern Standard Arabic have several relativization patterns, including relative clauses with and without relativizers and adjectival modification patterns. Previous generative work has targeted several phenomena, but there is no analysis which covers all relativization patterns in any generative framework. We present an HPSG analysis that covers these phenomena in a uniform manner. Based on Doron and Reintges (2005), we show that the crosslinguistically unusual syntax of adjectival modifiers is a language-internally expected variant of participial modifiers as found in English. We also present the first HPSG analysis of Arabic broad subjects and argue that they are selected as specifiers, accounting for the similarities between broad subjects and ordinary subjects.
This paper proposes a constraint-based, comprehensive analysis of the Internally-Headed Relative Clause (IHRC) in Japanese which is able to accommodate the synchronic properties as well as the diachronic change that IHRC went through. This paper claims that IHRC should be defined as a special type of non-head daughter of the main predicate. The predicate is subcategorized for a clause, while it calls for an entity-like argument. The multi-level architecture of HPSG accommodates the apparent syntax-semantic mismatch. The IHRC is syntactically a clausal complement, while it is not semantically selected by the main predicate. The main predicate, on the other hand, selects an entity as its argument, but the entity is not syntactically given. I claim that the syntax of IHRC specifies this much. The rest, or the actual linkage between the predicate and the semantically required target entity is semantically or pragmatically achieved. Drawing on the ideas of Argument Realization and Argument Extension with the postulation of the interface level DEPENDENTS proposed in Bouma et al. (2001), I have demonstrated how the present proposal can connect the clausal complement, IHRC, and adverbial clauses, thus providing the structural aspect of the motivation for the diachronic change.
This paper reports the results of a corpus investigation on case conflicts in German argument free relative constructions. We investigate how corpus frequencies reflect the relative markedness of free relative and correlative constructions, the relative markedness of different case conflict configurations, and the relative markedness of different conflict resolution strategies. Section 1 introduces the conception of markedness as used in Optimality Theory. Section 2 introduces the facts about German free relative clauses, and section 3 presents the results of the corpus study. By and large, markedness and frequency go hand in hand. However, configurations at the highest end of the markedness scale rarely show up in corpus data, and for the configuration at the lowest end we found an unexpected outcome: the more marked structure is preferred.
The argument that I tried to elaborate on in this paper is that the conceptual problem behind the traditional competence/performance distinction does not go away, even if we abandon its original Chomskyan formulation. It returns as the question about the relation between the model of the grammar and the results of empirical investigations – the question of empirical verification The theoretical concept of markedness is argued to be an ideal correlate of gradience. Optimality Theory, being based on markedness, is a promising framework for the task of bridging the gap between model and empirical world. However, this task not only requires a model of grammar, but also a theory of the methods that are chosen in empirical investigations and how their results are interpreted, and a theory of how to derive predictions for these particular empirical investigations from the model. Stochastic Optimality Theory is one possible formulation of a proposal that derives empirical predictions from an OT model. However, I hope to have shown that it is not enough to take frequency distributions and relative acceptabilities at face value, and simply construe some Stochastic OT model that fits the facts. These facts first of all need to be interpreted, and those factors that the grammar has to account for must be sorted out from those about which grammar should have nothing to say. This task, to my mind, is more complicated than the picture that a simplistic application of (not only) Stochastic OT might draw.
In seinen Schriften zur Typologie des Relativsatzes behandelt Lehmann auch das Baskische […] Die Diskussion um den baskischen Relativsatz geht jedoch schon auf De Rijk (1972) zurück und wird von Oyharqabal (1985) fortgesetzt. In diesen Werken geht es um allgemeine Themen der Typologie des Relativsatzes (vor allem um das Problem der Zugänglichkeit), wobei allerdings wichtige Fragen unberücksichtigt bleiben: Warum gibt es im Baskischen mehrere unterschiedliche Relativsatzkonstruktionen? Worin unterscheiden sie sich? Wie lassen sie sich voneinander und gegen andere Verfahren der Nominalisierung abgrenzen, mit anderen Worten: welche Konstruktion gehört noch zu den Relativsatzbildungen, welche nicht mehr? Ich will hier die verschiedenen Verfahren der Relativsatzbildung (Relativierung) vorstellen und versuchen, mit Hilfe von Lehmanns (1984) Kontinuum der Nominalisierung Ordnung in die Phänomene , zu bringen, um schließlich Erklärungsansätze zu finden.
Vor gut vierzig Jahren hat Milewski (1950) das Werkzeug der Syntaxtypologie um das Begriffspaar "kon- und exzentrische Struktur" vermehrt. Dieses Klassifikationsmittel wurde später von Nichols (1984,1986) erneuert und terminologisch mit der Unterscheidung von head- und dependent-marking erfasst. Dabei hat die Autorin vorgeschlagen, diese Unterscheidung auch für die Typologie der Relativkonstruktion fruchtbar zu machen.
Der Relativsatz im Bambara
(1986)
Vorrangiges Ziel der vorliegenden Arbeit ist es, die Relativsatzbildung im Bambara zu beschreiben. In der Darstellung der verschiedenen Relativsatzarten werden die Fragen berücksichtigt, welche Partizipanten der Relativisierung zugänglich sind, inwieweit der Relativsatz semantisch bzw. syntaktisch dem Matrixsatz untergeordnet ist, we1che Funktionen der Relativsatz im Hauptsatz übernehmen kann, wie in den jeweiligen Relativkonstruktionen der Bezug von Nukleus und Relativsatz gewährleistet wird und welche Funktionen das Relativum hat. Diese Fragestellungen erwachsen aus der Lektüre von Ch. Lehmanns Buch (1984), das den theoretischen Hintergrund für die folgenden Ausführungen bildet.
In der vorliegenden Arbeit werden Zusammenhänge und Unterschiede der einzelnen Relativsatzarten aufgezeigt, sowie Grenzbereiche der Relativsatzbildung angeschnitten. Letztere sind dort erreicht, wo Relativsätze gebraucht werden, um solche gedankliche Verknüpfungen herzustellen, die typischerweise durch andere Nebensatzarten geleistet werden. Die Betrachtungen des Grenzbereichs werden auf Satzgefüge und Tei1sätze beschränkt, komplexe Syntagmen, wie z. B. Partizipialkonstruktionen, die z. T. ähnliches leisten wie Relativsätze, werden im Rahmen dieser Arbeit nicht berücksichtigt. Ein Vergleich der Relativsatzarten führt durch die Zuordnung zu Parametern der Grammatika1isierung zur Entwicklung eines innersprachlichen Kontinuums, das ein von Lehmann ausgearbeitetes intersprachlich anwendbares Kontinuum unterstreicht.