Linguistik-Klassifikation
Refine
Year of publication
Document Type
- Part of a Book (44)
- Article (12)
- Working Paper (12)
- Review (2)
- Conference Proceeding (1)
Language
- English (46)
- German (22)
- Portuguese (3)
Has Fulltext
- yes (71)
Is part of the Bibliography
- no (71)
Keywords
- Semantik (71) (remove)
Institute
In contradistinction to main verbs copula verbs like 'sein', 'werden' or 'bleiben' ('be', 'become' or 'remain') can, though with some restrictions, take projections of all lexical categories as complements. Semantically 'werden' and 'bleiben' are considered to be dual operators, related to each other by inner and outer (= dual) negation. But there are contexts where 'bleiben' seems to assume the meaning of its dual 'werden'. What at first glance appears to be an idiosyncracy of German turns out to hold for Swedish, Brazil-Portuguese and other unrelated languages as well.
'Werden' is more restricted than 'sein' and 'bleiben', it cannot have a locative complement. 'Bleiben' has the widest distribution, it can also take infinitives of verbs of position as complement. But in this case 'stehen bleiben' is ambiguous between a "remain" -reading and a "become" -reading.
In 15th century the Swedish verb 'bliva' - a borrowing from German - has undergone a change from the "remain"-reading to the "become"-reading. The "become"-reading of 'bliva' (later form 'bli') is only blocked (as is the German verb 'werden') in the case of a locative complement, where the "remain"-reading has survived. The two readings of 'bli' do not produce any ambiguity, except when taking a verb of position as complement - much the same as in German.
The paper attempts to pinpoint the conditions that lead to this surprising shift of meaning between duals.
The method of the lexical field – which was initially used to capture lexical units – established itself gradually in various grammatical concepts as an onomasiological and functionally motivated model for the description of grammatical categorical meanings. The concept of a field allows for a complex description of a grammatical system, where the focus lies not on the particular grammatical categories and forms, but on the semantic-functional categories in their relationship with the total inventory of linguistic means.
The copula "sein" "be" in German, together with its complements, refers to a stative situation. Besides offering argument positions in its Semantic Form SF, it has no other function. Stative verbs are not specified with respect to the beginning or the end of a described situation or with respect to the state before or after. I will take the verb "werden" "become, get" to be a copular verb as well. The only difference to "sein" is that "werden" refers to a nonstative or changing situation. I argue that "werden" is underspecified in two respects. Like motion verbs and successive patient verbs (SUK verbs in Krifka (1989)) "werden" switches between an unlimited and a limited process (accomplishment) dependent on its complement (cf. "älter werden" "get older" / "vorwärts gehen" "go forward" / "Tee trinken" "drink tea" vs. "alt werden" "get old" / "in das Zimmer gehen" "go into the room"/ "eine Tasse Tee trinken" "drink a cup of tea"). But "werden" is even more underspecified than these verbs; it is the only verb which covers all nonstative situations, not only processes and accomplishments but also punctual transitions (achievements), cf. "schwanger werden" "get pregnant". "Werden" is anything but stative. Whether there is a target state implied or not, or whether the transition to this target state is extensible or atomic, is the result of the composition of the meaning of "werden" and its intimal argument added by special meaning postulates. Hierarchically marked subtypes of situational arguments result as a side effect.
Sieht man neuere Grammatiken des Deutschen daraufhin durch, wie die Masse der Verben bezüglich ihres semantischen Gehalts klassifiziert wird, stellt sich bald heraus, daß hier kein Konsens besteht. Die DUDEN-Grammatik beispielsweise unterscheidet Bedeutungsgruppen: Tätigkeitsverben (mit der Untergruppe Handlungsverben), Vorgangsverben und Zustandsverben, BRINKMANN fügt diesen drei Klassen die Geschehensverben und die Witterungsverben hinzu; RENICKE gliedert die Verben in 2 Klassen Punktuelle Verben und Ausdehnungsverben. FLÄMIG schlägt semantische Subklassifizierungen unter drei verschiedenen Gesichtspunkten vor: hinsichtlich des Anteils der Verben "an der komplexen Geschehens-/Seinsbezeichnung", hinsichtlich "der Verlaufsweise eines Geschehens" und hinsichtlich "der Charakteristik eines Geschehens/Seins in bezug auf entsprechende Sachverhalte", die letztere Klassifikation unterscheidet Handlungsverben, Tätigkeitsverben, Vorgangsverben, Ereignisverben und Zustandsverben. [...] Eine semantische Analyse der Fortbewegungsverben des Althochdeutschen liegt meines wissens nicht vor, stellt also eine reizvolle Aufgabe dar, zu deren Lösung hier erste Schritte unternommen werden sollen.
This paper reports results from a series of experiments that investigated whether semantic and/or syntactic complexity influences young Dutch children’s production of past tense forms. The constructions used in the three experiments were (i) simple sentences (the Simple Sentence Experiment), (ii) complex sentences with CP complements (the Complement Clause Experiment) and (iii) complex sentences with relative clauses (the Relative Clause Experiment). The stimuli involved both atelic and telic predicates. The goal of this paper is to address the following questions.
Q1. Does semantic complexity regarding temporal anchoring influence the types of errors that children make in the experiments? For example, do children make certain types of errors when a past tense has to be anchored to the Utterance Time (UT), as compared to when it has to be anchored to the matrix topic time (TT)?
Q2. Do different syntactic positions influence children’s performance on past-tense production? Do children perform better in the Simple Sentence Experiment compared to complex sentences involving two finite clauses (the Complement Clause Experiment and the Relative Clause Experiment)? In complex sentence trials, do children perform differently when the CPs are complements vs. when the CPs are adjunct clauses? (Lebeaux 1990, 2000)
Q3. Do Dutch children make more errors with certain types of predicate (such as atelic predicates)? Alternatively, do children produce a certain type of error with a certain type of predicates (such as producing a perfect aspect with punctual predicates)? Bronckart and Sinclair (1973), for example, found that until the age of 6, French children showed a tendency to use passé composé with perfective events and simple present with imperfective events; we will investigate whether or not the equivalent of this is observed in Dutch.
Die Ausarbeitung einer semantisch-funktionalen Syntax des komplexen Satzes erfordert in erster Linie eine Satzbautypologie, die eine Vorstellung davon vermittelt, welche Konstruktionen dieses oder jenes Semantikfeld im syntaktischen System der gegebenen Sprache gewährleisten. In zweiter Linie erfordert die Orientierung auf die Kommunikation, Bedingungen für die Auswahl der entsprechenden Einheit aus der in der gegebenen Sprache vorhandenen Variantenreihe zu schaffen. Mit Rücksicht auf die genannten Umstände erscheint es zweckmäßig, bei der Erforschung von komplexen syntaktischen Konstruktionen die Methodik der polyaspektuellen (aspektuellen) Analyse zu verwenden. Das Wesen der polyaspektuellen Analyse besteht in der konsequenten Betrachtungsweise der Besonderheiten des semantischstrukturellen und funktionalen Satzbaus.
Die Anwendung dieser Methode bei der Beschreibung von Satzgefügen zeigt, dass die Niveaucharakteristiken der Kompositionsglieder (der linguistischen Einheiten) mutmaßlich ihr subordinatives Funktionieren im komplexen Satz bestimmen. Auch die Auswahl der Kompositionsglieder, die zum allgemeinen lexikalisch-semantischen Bereich gehören, vollzieht sich mit Rücksicht auf die syntaktischen Eigenschaften der Subordination. Demzufolge zeichnen sich die Satzgefüge durch eine qualitativ stabile Bestimmtheit aus, die mithilfe eines Komplexes von Differenzierungsmerkmalen gebildet wird.
Einführung
(2000)
Der vorliegende Band setzt im Anschluss an den Band ZAS Papers in Linguistics 14 (1999) die Vorpublikation von Arbeiten fort, die innerhalb oder im Umkreis des von der DFG geförderten Projekts "Schnittstellen der Semantik: Kopula-Prädikativ-Konstruktionen" am ZAS entstanden sind. Das Rahmenthema, wie es in ZAS PIL 14 einleitend knapp umrissen wurde, wird derzeit im Projekt in drei Untersuchungssträngen bearbeitet.
Exclamative clauses exhibit a structural diversity which raises the question of whether they form a clause type in the sense of Sadock & Zwicky (1985). Based on data from English, Italian, and Paduan, we argue that the class of exclamatives is syntactically characterizable in terms of a pair of abstract syntactic properties. Moreover, we propose that these properties encode two components of meaning which uniquely define the semantics and pragmatics of exclarnatives. Overall, our paper is a contribution to the study of the syntaxlsemantics interface and offers a new perspective on the notion of clause type.
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.
Many authors who subscribe to some version of generative syntax account for the two readings of [...] sentences [...] in terms of LF-ambiguity. There is assumed to be covert quantifier raising (QR), which results in two distinct possibilities for the indefinite quantificational expressions involved to take scope over each other [...] In this paper, an alternative account is proposed which dispenses with the idea that there are different scope relations involved in the readings of […] sentences [...] and, consequently, with QR as the syntactic operation to be assumed for generating the respective LFs. I argue that it is rather focus structure in connection with type semantic issues pertaining to the indefinite quantificational expressions involved which result in the different readings associated with [...] sentences.