Linguistik-Klassifikation
Refine
Year of publication
Document Type
- Conference Proceeding (367)
- Part of a Book (229)
- Article (66)
- Working Paper (47)
- Preprint (25)
- Report (7)
- Book (5)
- Review (3)
- magisterthesis (1)
Language
- English (653)
- German (77)
- Croatian (7)
- Portuguese (7)
- French (4)
- mis (1)
- Multiple languages (1)
Has Fulltext
- yes (750)
Keywords
- Syntax (117)
- Deutsch (63)
- Wortstellung (48)
- Relativsatz (42)
- Thema-Rhema-Gliederung (38)
- Koreanisch (32)
- Englisch (30)
- Generative Transformationsgrammatik (30)
- Intonation <Linguistik> (28)
- Prädikat (27)
Institute
Wasow (1977) argues that linguistic theory should recognize two qualitatively distinct types of rules: syntactic rules, which can affect more "superficial" grammatical function properties; and lexical rules, which affect deeper lexical semantic properties of lexical items. However, lexicalist theories of grammar have replaced syntactic rules with lexical rules leaving Wasow's dichotomy potentially unexplained. Our goal in this paper is to recapture Wasow's insight within a lexicalist framework such as HPSG. Building on Sag & Wasow's (1999) distinction between lexeme and word, we claim that there is a contrast between lexical rules that relate lexemes to lexemes (L-to-L rules) and lexical rules that relate words to words (W-to-W rules) and that these differences follow from the architecture of the grammar. In particular, we argue that syntactic function features (ARGST, VALENCE, etc.) are not defined for lexemes, while lexical semantic features (CONTENT) are. From this it follows that L-to-L rules can affect lexical semantic features, and not syntactic function features. In addition, since words are defined for syntactic function features, W-to-W rules can change them. In this paper, we support this hypothesis by examining certain differences between two types of Noun Incorporation construction, and their relation to other rules in the grammar. We argue that Compounding Noun Incorporation is an L-to-L type and that Classifier Noun Incorporation is a W-to-W type; we base our argument on the interaction of Noun Incorporation and Applicative Formation in the Paleo-Siberian language Chukchi and the isolate language Ainu.
In this paper, we present an analysis of noun phrases with elided nouns that dispenses with the positing of empty categories and preserves the NP structure assumed for NPs with overt nouns, modulo the absence of the head noun. On a par with existing traceless analyses of long distance dependencies, this is proposed as a further step towards a more lean theory of grammar, without phonetically null items.
Nonverbal predicates in Modern Hebrew have been the subject of investigation in a number of studies. However, to our knowledge, none of them was corpus-based. Corpus searches reveal that the nonverbal constructions which are most commonly addressed in the literature are not the most commonly used ones. Once a broader range of data is considered additional issues are raised. Our analysis addresses these issues, unifying the treatment of three types of copular constructions that we identify in MH. The analysis is implemented as part of a larger-scale grammar, and is extensively tested.
In Japanese, as in other classifier languages like Chinese and Malay, numerals do not directly quantize nouns, but first combine with a classifier to form a measure phrase (MP; cf. Aikhenvald 2000). From the perspective of constraint-based approaches to syntax/semantics, the mutual selective restriction between classifiers and nouns can be stated in terms of information-sharing and featural identity, to some extent parallel to the treatment of gender/number agreement (between determiner and noun, for instance) (cf. Pollard and Sag 1994; Kathol 1999). There are, however, data that challenge this line of approach to noun-classifier matching. We demonstrate in this paper that it is possible that a single noun is associated with different types of classifier, and show why they are problematic for unification-based approaches, similar to the situation with case syncretism in European languages (Ingria 1990 and others). Later in the paper, we argue that information-sharing between noun, predicate and classifier is not completely transitive, and present a formal analysis which models multiple selectional requirements with sets.
Non-restrictive relative clauses (NRRCs) can modify constituents which undergo 'pragmatic enrichment' when they appear in answers to questions. For example, in an interchange like: 'A: What did Jo think? B: That you should say nothing, which is surprising.' What B says is surprising is that 'Jo thinks ...' On the face of it, this might seem problematic for approaches to NRRCs which assume 'syntactic integration' and to support an 'orphan' analysis, where NRRCs are combined with purely conceptual representations. In this paper we examine a range of elliptical and anaphoric phenomena, and show that this conclusion is misplaced. In fact, the phenomena argue strongly in favour of a syntactically integrated analysis.
This paper presents an account of English non-restrictive ('appositive') relative clauses (NRCs) in the framework of 'construction based' HPSG. Specifically, it shows how the account of restrictive relative clause constructions presented in Sag (1997) can be extended to provide an account of the syntax and semantics of NRCs and of the main differences between NRCs and restrictive relatives. The analysis reconciles the semantic intuition that NRCs behave like independent clauses with their subordinate syntax. A significant point is that, in contrast with many other approaches, it employs only existing, independently motivated theoretical apparatus, and requires absolutely no new structures, features, or types.
The dispreference for subject case ellipsis in OSV sentences has been analyzed as resulting from a violation of a structural requirement on the position of bare subject NPs (Ahn and Cho 2006a, 2006b, 2007). In this study, we present evidence from an acceptability rating experiment demonstrating that OSV sentences containing a case-ellipsed subject exhibit acceptability patterns different from ungrammatical sentences violating a core syntactic principle on case assignment and that these sentences are judged acceptable when the subject refers to expected, predictable information in context. This evidence supports the conclusion that the dispreference for subject case ellipsis in OSV sentences is due to violations of probabilistic constraints that favor case marking for rare types of subjects and such violations can be remedied by non-syntactic information.
Gegenstand der folgenden Überlegungen sind Strukturen, in denen Demonstrativa entweder als Antezedens eines restriktiven Relativsatzes oder als Determinativ eines solchen Antezedens auftreten. In solchen Strukturen hat das Demonstrativum weder eine deiktische noch eine anaphorische Bedeutung und damit keine der für Demonstrativa zentralen Funktionen. Aus sprachvergleichender Perspektive zeigt sich, dass manche Typen von Demonstrativa überhaupt nicht mit restriktiven Relativsätzen kombinieren können, andere wiederum den Relativsatz auf spezielle Lesarten beschränken. Ziel ist es, für die fraglichen Strukturen übereinzelsprachliche Beschränkungen aufzuzeigen und aus dem Sprachvergleich Rückschlüsse für das Deutsche zu gewinnen.
We present an analysis of clausal nominalization developed in the context of the LinGO Grammar Matrix (Bender et al., 2002, 2010) to support the addition of subordinate clauses to the grammar customization framework. In particular, we examine the typological variation of nominalized clausal complements and nominalized clausal modifiers. To account for the range of variation in nominalized clauses across the world's languages and to support linguists in exploring alternative analyses, we propose a flexible library of analyses, allowing nominalization of the clause to occur at the V, VP or S level.
Nominalization in Rawang
(2009)