Linguistik-Klassifikation
Refine
Year of publication
- 2014 (15) (remove)
Document Type
- Part of a Book (11)
- Article (3)
- Working Paper (1)
Has Fulltext
- yes (15)
Is part of the Bibliography
- no (15)
Keywords
- Syntax (11)
- Bantusprachen (7)
- Thema-Rhema-Gliederung (3)
- Deutsch (2)
- Semantik (2)
- Adjunkt <Linguistik> (1)
- Artikel (1)
- Bantoid (1)
- Demokratische Republik Kongo (1)
- Evidenz (1)
Im Folgenden soll kurz geklärt werden, was Genus ist (Kap. 2) und – auch wenn diese Frage nicht mit unserem derzeitigen Wissen beantwortbar ist – woher Genus kommen könnte (Kap. 3). Hauptsächlich stellt sich jedoch die Frage: Was tun mit Genus, das heute das Endstadium einer langen Grammatikalisierung darstellt (Kap. 4)? Hier wird die wichtigste Antwort lauten: Genus hat eine neue, eine syntaktische Nutzung erfahren, indem es maßgeblich daran beteiligt ist, unsere berühmten Nominalklammern zu bauen (4.1). Außerdem gibt es weitere "Recyclingmöglichkeiten" von Genus, nämlich: a) Objekte, die Namen tragen, zu klassifizieren (die Kaiser Wilhelm), b) Beziehungen zwischen namentragenden und namenverwendenden Personen zu qualifizieren (der Peterle, das Anna) oder sogar c) Personen zu degradieren (das Merkel). Mit Punkt a) begebe ich mich in die Onomastik, mit Punkt b) in die Dialektologie, und mit Punkt c) werde ich mit der Genderlinguistik enden.
It has long been observed that subjects cross-linguistically have topic properties: they are typically definite, referential and/or generic (Givón 1976). Bantu languages are said to illustrate this generalization: preverbal position for NPs is equated with both subject and topic status and postverbal position with focus (and non-subject). However, there is a growing body of work showing that preverbal subjects are not necessarily syntactically or semantically equivalent to topics. For example, Zerbian’s (2006) careful study of preverbal position in Northern Sotho shows that preverbal subjects meet few of the semantic tests for aboutness topics. The study of restrictions on preverbal subjects in Durban Zulu presented in this paper builds on Zerbian (2006) and Halpert (2012). In particular, we investigate the interpretational properties of preverbal indefinite subjects. These subjects show us that preverbal subjects carry a presupposition of existence. We explore an analysis connecting the "strong reading" of preverbal subjects with how high the verb moves in Zulu (following Tsai’s 2001 work on Mandarin).
Locative inversion in Cuwabo
(2014)
This paper proposes a detailed description of locative inversion (LI) constructions in Cuwabo, in terms of morphosyntactic properties and thematic restrictions. Of particular interest are the use of disjoint verb forms in LI, and the co-existence of formal and semantic LI, which challenges the widespread belief that the two constructions cannot be found in the same language.
Introduction
(2014)
Bantu languages have been at the heart of the research on the interaction between syntax, prosody and information structure. In these predominantly SVO languages, considerable attention has been devoted to postverbal phenomena. By addressing issues related to Subjects, Topics and Object-Verb word orders, the goal of the present papers is to deepen our understanding of the interaction of different grammatical components (syntax, phonology, semantics/pragmatics) both in individual languages and across the Bantu family. Each paper makes a valuable contribution to ongoing discussions on the preverbal domain.
The papers in this volume take up some aspects of the preverbal domain(s) in Bantu languages. They were originally presented at the Workshop BantuSynPhonIS: Preverbal Domain(s), held at the Center for General Linguistics (ZAS), in Berlin, on 14-15 November 2014. This workshop was coorganized by ZAS (Fatima Hamlaoui & Tonjes Veenstra) and the Humboldt University (Tom Güldemann, Yukiko Morimoto and Ines Fiedler).
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.
Irene Heim in unpublished work proposed a new syntax-semantics interface for propositional attitude reports based on an ontology without transworld individuals, but counterpart functions instead. We show that the approach can capture the 'de re'/'de dicto' distinction, but makes different predictions from accounts with transworld individuals. Specifically, the account uses a non-invertible counterpart functions: a single individual in an alternative world can be the counterpart of many individuals of the real world. The directionality of counterpart functions predicts that a 'de dicto' interpreted DP cannot be an argument of a 'de re' interpreted predicate. We show that the predicted restriction is corroborated by existing work on restrictions on 'de re' interpretation. The derivation of constraints on 'de re' interpretation argues empirically for the counterpart ontology and Heim’s implementation thereof.
The late physicist Carl Sagan, whom I quote in the first part of my title, skillfully phrased the common sense view on evidence in the mature sciences. In linguistics, however, evidence has become a controversial issue, especially so when it comes to the investigation of less well studied languages. In this paper, I argue that Sagan's principle should be applied to linguistics. The growing accessibility of a wide array of experimental techniques and computational tools to analyze such data makes it feasible to back up extraordinary claims with evidence from a variety of sources. At the same time, it is in many cases possible to agree on what constitutes an ordinary claim and focus the extra effort on extraordinary claims. For non-controversial claims no more than the minimum effort to establish the claim and properly document the evidence is necessary.
In the present paper, we concentrate on (selected) Bantu and Nilotic bare-passive strategies and lay out the basis for a typology of transitive passive constructions in these languages. We argue that bare-passives constitute an optimal strategy to change prominence relations between arguments, in languages that strongly hold to the default mapping between the highest thematic role available and the grammatical subject (i.e. Spec,TP). The Nilotic and Bantu languages discussed here differ in their way of satisfying this default mapping. In particular, impersonal bare-passives satisfy it by resorting to an agentive place-holder (an indefinite subject marker) and realizing the logical agent as a lower thematic/semantic role (e.g. instrument or locative). Left-dislocation and so called 'subjectobject' reversal bare-passives realize the default matching between agent and subject in a more straightforward way, but locate the patient in a higher argument position within the inflectional domain (Spec,TopP). As argued in Hamlaoui and Makasso (2013) and Hamlaoui (2013), and in line with Noonan (1977), the present languages display a clauseinternal split between subjecthood (being the grammatical subject in Spec,TP) and topicality (being the subject of the predication, in an inflectional-domain internal Spec,TopP).
Proportional determiner quantifiers in German allow interpretations that violate the conservativity universal of Keenan and Stavi (1986). I argue for an analysis that distinguishes between surface syntax and the logical form of sentences. I show that in surface syntax, German non-conservative quantifiers are determiners that form a constituent with a noun phrase and share case and agreement properties with the noun phrase. But I propose that at logical form the non-conservative determiners undergo an adverbialization movement and are interpreted by a mechanism that generalizes focus-a ected quantification of Herburger (2000). This result refines the understanding of conservativity as a constraint on interpretation.