Linguistik-Klassifikation
Refine
Year of publication
Document Type
- Part of a Book (6)
- Conference Proceeding (6)
- Article (2)
Has Fulltext
- yes (14)
Is part of the Bibliography
- no (14)
Keywords
- Adverb (14) (remove)
Institute
Unter Syntaktikern besteht generell die Tendenz, im Deutschen die Freiheit bezüglich der Positionierung der Adverbiale sogar für noch größer zu halten als die Freiheit der Positionierung der Argumente. Wie die Stellungsfreiheit der Argumente im Mittelfeld eines deutschen Satzes theoretisch zu erfassen sei, wird seit langer Zeit kontrovers diskutiert. Die Hauptfrage dreht sich darum, ob alle Serialisierungen der Argumente basisgeneriert sind oder ob es eine ausgezeichnete Serialisierung der Argumente, eine sogenannte Grundabfolge, gibt, aus der sämtliche anderen Aktantenserialisierungen durch eine Ableitungsoperation bzw. Bewegung zu gewinnen sind. Diese grundsätzlichen Fragen stellen sich auch bezüglich der Positionierungsmöglichkeiten der Adverbiale, auch wenn sie hierfür bei weitem nicht so häufig gestellt und diskutiert wurden.
Der Ausgangspunkt ist die These, daß die verschiedenen Adverbialklassen im Deutschen unterschiedliche Basispositionen aufweisen und daß sich diese durch unterschiedliche strukturelle Anforderungen an die Klassen ergeben. Es soll gezeigt werden, daß sich die plausible Vermutung, daß die Adverbialklassen in Sprachen wie dem Deutschen und dem Englischen entsprechenden strukturellen Bedingungen unterliegen, bestätigt. Unterschiede im Verhalten der Adverbiale in den beiden Sprachen werden demnach nicht durch unterschiedliche Eigenschaften der Adverbiale erfaßt, sondern diese ergeben sich durch die unterschiedlichen Satzstrukturen und die unterschiedlichen Weisen der Argumentverwaltung. Dies wird illustriert anhand von Adverbialen der Art und Weise, Lokal- und Temporaladverbialen, Adverbialen der Subjekthaltung und Satzadverbialen.
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 study, I investigate the positions and interpretations available to 'manner' adverbs in English. My central claim, contra Wyner (1994, 1998), is that an association does exist between 'manner' adverb positions and interpretations, which is best characterized in terms of Peterson's (1997) distinction between 'restrictive' and 'non-restrictive' modification. I also claim, however, that the association in question is not as general as commonly claimed; and, in particular, does not apply directly to 'manner' adverbs in 'fronted' and 'parenthetical' positions, which require special syntactic description.
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.
Fronting a noun phrase changes the focus structure of a sentence. Therefore, it may affect truth conditions, since some operators, in particular quantificational adverbs, are sensitive to focus. However, the position of the quantificational adverb itself, hence its informational status, is usually assumed not to have any semantic effect. In this paper I discuss a reading of some quantificational adverbs, the relative reading, which disappears if the adverb is fronted. I propose that this reading relies not only on focus, but on B-accent (fall-rise intonation) as well. A fronted Q-adverb is usually pronounced with a B-accent; since only one element can be B-accented, this means that the scope of the adverb contains no B-accented material, hence no relative readings. Thus, the effects of fronting range more widely than is usually assumed, and quantificational adverbs are a useful tool with which to investigate these effects.
Two diametrically opposed stances have emerged from recent theoretical debates on adverbial syntax. One approach, represented by Alexiadou (1997) and Cinque (1999), espouses a rigid hierarchy of functional projections hosting individual adverbs. The other, represented broadly by Jackendoff (1972), McConnell-Ginet (1982) and most recently Ernst (2002), takes adverb placement to be determined by the semantics of the adverbs themselves as opposed to the functional architecture of the clause. Under the latter view, adverbs may be divided into several categories based on their meaning with each category being licensed in a certain range within the sentence.
Here, I undertake a detailed examination of Tagalog adverbs and compare the predictions of the two best articulated recent theories of adverbs, that of Cinque (1999, 2004) and Ernst (2002). The results offer support for some of the basic predictions of the semantically based approach of Ernst. Particularly important are scopal facts which do not obtain a clear explanation under a functional projection-based theory such as Cinque's.
HPSG accounts of filler-gap dependencies hold considerable potential for explaining the cross-linguistic variation in unbounded dependency constructions (UDCs), specifically filler-gap dependencies. This potential comes from the SLASH specifications that are posited in all nodes along the extraction path (the path between filler and gap). However, as Hukari and Levine (1994, 1995, 1996) have observed, the HPSG analysis presented by Pollard and Sag (1994) fails to embody the generalizations required in order to explain key universal properties of UDCs, in particular the ˋregistration' of such dependencies in cases of subject- and adverb-extraction. This demonstration led Bouma et al. (2001) to propose a revised UDC analysis that avoids these difficulties by ˋthreading' the SLASH specfications through all heads within an extraction domain. However, Levine (2002) points out that this analysis encounters a new difficulty concerning the interaction of extraction and coordination. This paper revisits these issues, arguing that a small modification of the BMS analysis provides a solution to the important problem observed by Levine.
Three distinctions seem relevant for the scope properties of adverbs: their function (adjuncts or complements), their prosody (incidental or integrated) and their lexical semantics (parenthetical or non parenthetical). We propose an analysis in which the scope of French adverbs is aligned with their syntactic properties, relying on a view of adjuncts as loci for quantification, a linearization approach to the word order, and an explicit modelling of dialogue.
Ausgehend von der Engelschen Auffassung der Situativergänzungen wird hier an die Adverbialia mittels neu vorgeschlagener analytischer Verfahren herangegangen. Diese Studie leistet zum einen eine einheitliche Beschreibung bestimmter Verben - "stattfinden", "gebären", "sterben", "erschehen", "anfangen", "öffnen" und "beginnen" - und bietet zum anderen syntaktische, semantische, morphosyntaktische und kommunikative Unterscheidungsmittel für strittige Fälle bei der Unterscheidung zwischen adverbialen Ergänzungen und adverbialen Angaben. Das in diesem Aufsatz Dargestellte kann akzeptiert oder revidiert werden, aber der empirische Teil zeigt eindeutige Ergebnisse.