Linguistik-Klassifikation
Refine
Year of publication
Document Type
- Conference Proceeding (11)
- Part of a Book (8)
- Article (1)
- Working Paper (1)
Has Fulltext
- yes (21)
Is part of the Bibliography
- no (21)
Keywords
- Adjunkt <Linguistik> (21) (remove)
Der Aufsatz untersucht das syntaktische Verhalten nicht-satzförmiger Adverbialia im Deutschen und im brasilianischen Portugiesisch in vergleichender Perspektive. Behandelt werden Adverbialia aus sechs Klassen, deren semantische Funktionen von der Sachverhaltsbeschreibung bis zur Beschreibung von Handlungsabsichten des Sprechers reichen. Insgesamt zeigen sich große Ähnlichkeiten zwischen den Vergleichssprachen. Im Deutschen scheint eine etwas stärkere Tendenz zu bestehen, Adverbialia syntaktisch zu integrieren, während es im Portugiesischen mehr Möglichkeiten gibt, sie desintegriert zu verwenden.
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.
Multiple nominative constructions (MNCs) in Korean have two main sub- types: possessive and adjunct types. This paper shows that a grammar allow- ing the interaction of declarative constraints on types of signs - in particular, having constructions (phrases and clauses) - can provide a robust and efficient way of encoding generalizations for two different MNCs. The feasibility of the grammar developed here has been checked with its implementation into the LKB (Linguistic Knowledge Building) system
We present an analysis of adjuncts which, while based on the traditional binary adjunction schema, accommodates the phenomena that motivate the alternative Adjunct-as-Complement approach, such as adjunct extraction and case marking. The key idea is to enable the syntactic head (modifiee) to select for its modifier (adjunct) via the new valence feature dedicated for adjuncts, while leaving its values underspecified. Thus the selectional property of the modifiee percolates as well as that of the modifier, dispensing with the need to endow adjuncts a complement-like status.
The distinction between COMPLEMENTS and ADJUNCTS has a long tradition in grammatical theory, and it is also included in some way or other in most current formal linguistic theories. But it is a highly vexed distinction, for several reasons, one of which is that no diagnostic criteria have emerged that will reliably distinguish adjuncts from complements in all cases – too many examples seem to "fall into the crack" between the two categories, no matter how theorists wrestle with them.
In this paper, I will argue that this empirical diagnostic "problem" is, in fact, precisely what we should expect to find in natural language, when a proper understanding of the adjunct/complement distinction is achieved: the key hypothesis is that a complete grammar should provide a DUAL ANALYSIS of every complement as an adjunct, and potentially, an analysis of any adjunct as a complement. What this means and why it is motivated by linguistic evidence will be discussed in detail.
The paper proposes structural constraints for different adjunct classes in German and English. Approaches in which syntax has only the task to provide adjunct positions and in which principles of scope are supposed to explain the distribution of adjuncts are rejected as incomplete. The syntactic requirements are not as rigid as other approaches require, such that there is just one possible position for a given adjunct. Rather the syntactic constraints may be fulfilled in different positions.
Rethinking the adjunct
(2000)
The purpose of the present paper is twofold: first, to show that, when defining the adjunct, it is necessary to distinguish in a strict modular way between the syntactic level and the lexico-semantic level. Thus, the adjunct is a syntactic category on a par with the specifier and the complement, whereas the argument belongs to the same set as does (among others) the modifier. The consequence of this distinction is that there is no direct one-to-one opposition between adjuncts and arguments. Nor is there any direct one-to one relation between adjuncts and modifiers.
The second and main purpose of the paper is to account for the well-known difference between the position of a specific set of modifiers (cause, time, place etc.) in, on the one hand, English and Swedish, on the other, German. In English and Swedish the default position of these modifiers is postverbal, whereas in German it is preverbal. Further, in English and Swedish, these modifiers occur in a mirror order compared with their German counterparts, an order which, from a semantic point of view, is not the expected one. I shall demonstrate that this difference is due to the different settings of the verbal head parameter, the former languages being VO-languages and the latter being OV -languages. I shall further argue that in English and Swedish these modifiers are base generated as adjuncts to an empty VP, which is a complement of the main verb of what I shall call the minimal VP (MVP), whereas in German they are adjuncts on top of the MVP. Finally, I shall argue that the postverbal modifiers move at the latest at LF to the top of the MVP, in order to take scope over it, the restriction being 'Shortest move'. The movement results in the correct scope order of the postverbal modifiers.
The proposed structure also accounts for the binding data, in particular for the binding of a specific Swedish possessive anaphor 'sin'. This pronoun, which may occur within the MVP, must not occur within the postverbal modifiers in the empty VP. This supports the assumption that there is a strict borderline between the MVP and the assumed empty VP. The account is also in accordance with the focus data, the specific set of modifiers being potential focus exponents in a wide focus reading in English and Swedish, but not in German.
An adjunct-DP in the free instrumental case occurs in a number of surface positions where the DP is syntactically optional. does not depend on any element in the sentence, and has a number of different interpretations. We introduce Bailyn's proposal which postulates a uniform syntactic environment for all the uses of instr. This calls for a uniform semantics of these DPs which can nevertheless accomodate the different interpretations. Starting with the hypothesis of Roman Jakobson about the semantics of the instrumental case we formulate a semantic interpretation theory based on abduction. We give a uniform semantics for three different adjunct uses of instr in this framework. In the concluding part of the paper we discuss some possible alternatives and ramifications as well as questions and objections raised with respect to the treatment proposed in this paper.
This paper deals with restitutive and repetitive 'wieder'. Proceeding from the assumption that adverbial adjuncts have base positions which reflect their semantic relations to the rest of the sentence, it is shown that repetitive 'wieder' belongs to the class of event adverbs minimally c-commanding the base positions of all arguments whereas restitutive 'wieder' has many properties in common with process adjuncts, minimally c-commanding the final verb.
In this paper I argue that the syntax of Eastern Bantu does not make reference to the notion 'syntactic object'. That is, there is no linguistic category of objects that is the target of syntactic rules in Eastern Bantu languages. Instead I propose that syntactic rules broadly distinguish complements and adjuncts as well as category type of complement or adjunct. I argue that Bantu languages are typologically special in that (a) the verb complement structure can be expanded by the valency increasing applicative suffix; and (b) that the class of adjuncts can be expanded through verb concord licensing. Because of these properties, Bantu languages have a much-expanded notion of 'complement' and 'adjunct'. Namely, complements consist of (a) inherent complements (subcategorised by the lexical verb), and (b) derived complements (licensed by the applicative suffix). Adjuncts consist of (a) non-subcategorised modifying constituents in the usual sense and (b) phrases that are licensed by verb concord (i.e. Topics in Bresnan and Mchombo (1987)). I propose that most the differences in the licensing of objects in Bantu are due to two causes: (a) the unusual split in the composition of complements and adjuncts and (b) a set of typological parameter settings.