420 Englisch, Altenglisch
Refine
Year of publication
Document Type
- Conference Proceeding (104)
- Article (53)
- Part of a Book (20)
- Review (12)
- Book (3)
- Magister's Thesis (2)
- Working Paper (2)
- Bachelor Thesis (1)
- Contribution to a Periodical (1)
- Doctoral Thesis (1)
- Part of Periodical (1)
Language
- English (186)
- German (9)
- Polish (3)
- Multiple languages (1)
- Portuguese (1)
Has Fulltext
- yes (200)
Is part of the Bibliography
- no (200)
Keywords
- Englisch (66)
- Metapher (17)
- Bedeutungswandel (12)
- Formale Semantik (11)
- Rezension (11)
- Polnisch (10)
- Informationsstruktur (8)
- Ellipse <Linguistik> (7)
- Koordination <Linguistik> (7)
- Nominalphrase (7)
Institute
This paper sketches an analysis in Lexical Resource Semantics of adverbial and adjectival modification in nominal projections which is extensible to modification of other syntactic categories. It combines insights into the syntax-semantics interface of recursive modification in HPSG with underspecified semantics and type-logical meaning representations in the tradition of Montague grammar. The analysis is phrased in such a way that it receives a direct implementation in the Constraint Language of Lexical Resource Semantics as part of the TRALE system.
The paper shows how the plural semantic ideas of (Sternefeld, 1998) can be captured in Lexical Resource Semantics, a system of underspecied semantics. It is argued that Sternefeld's original approach, which allows for the unrestricted insertion of pluralisation into Logical Form, suffers from a problem originally pointed out by Lasersohn (1989) with respect to the analysis offered by Gillon (1987). The problem is shown to stem from repeated pluralisation of the same verbal argument and to be amenable to a simple solution in the proposed lexical analysis, which allows for restricting the pluralisations that can be inserted. The paper further develops an account of maximalisation of pluralities as needed to obtain the correct readings for sentences with quantiers that are not upward monotone. Such an account is absent in the orginal system in (Sternefeld, 1998). The present account makes crucial use of the possibility to have distinct constituents contribute identical semantic material offered by LRS and employs it in an analysis of maximalisation in terms of polyadic quantication.
This paper discusses the syntactic properties of 'prepositional numeral constructions (PNCs)' in English, which is exemplified by 'about 250 babies' and 'over 16,000 animals'. In PNCs a preposition is followed by a numeral. Previous analyses have claimed that the preposition and the numeral make a prepositional phrase in PNCs, but we argue that this is not a satisfactory approach. In HPSG there are some possible analyses that might be proposed, but there are reasons for supposing that the best analysis is one in which the preposition is a functor, a non-head selecting a numeral head.
This paper investigates the syntax of the English "not only ... but also ..." construction, focusing on the linearization possibilities of "not only". Based on novel corpus data, I argue that the "not only ... but also ..." construction exhibits different properties from the "not ... but ..." construction or the adverbial "only". I propose that a linearization-based account, along with coordinate ellipsis, can explain the various linearization possibilities of "not only". I also propose that the construction as a whole is a subtype of the type correlative-coord-ph, which is a novel subtype of coord-ph. Finally, I argue that subject-auxiliary inversion triggered by the clause-initial not only is a new subtype of the type "negative-inversion-ph".
Partial inversion in English
(2017)
A typical finite clause in English has a single constituent that serves as subject. This constituent precedes the finite verb in non-inverted clauses like simple declarative clauses, follows the finite verb in inverted clauses like polar questions, agrees in person and number with the finite verb and with a tag subject when a tag is present, undergoes subject raising, and so on (Postal 2004). Five constructions violate these generalizations and in the literature have called into question the identity of the subject constituent. In each of these five constructions the finite verb agrees with a following constituent in a declarative clause despite the fact, among others, that the constituent preceding the verb exhibits subject behaviors of the kind identified by Keenan (1976). To the authors' knowledge, despite intensive analysis of several of these patterns, the group as a whole has not been subject to prior study. The constructions are: Presentational Inversion (e.g., On the porch stood marble pillars), Presentational there (e.g., "The earth was now dry, and there grew a tree in the middle of the earth"), Deictic Inversion (e.g., "Here comes the bus"), Existential there (e.g., There’s a big problem here) and Reversed Specificational be (e.g., "The only thing we’ve taken back recently are plants"). The approach of Sign-Based Construction Grammar (Sag 2012) enables us to establish precisely what all five patterns have in common and what is particular to each, revealing that a constructional, constraint-based approach can extract the correct grammatical generalizations, not only in 'core' areas of a grammar, but also in the hard cases, where concepts such as subject, which readily handle the more tractable facts, fail to fit the facts at hand. We see further that the five split-subject patterns, sometimes identified as clausal, yield to a strictly lexical analysis.
Explanations and "engineering solutions"? Aspects of the relation between Minimalism and HPSG
(2017)
It is not simple to compare Minimalism and HPSG, but it is possible to identify a variety of differences, some not so important but others of considerable importance. Two of the latter are: (1) the fact that Minimalism is a very lexically-based approach whereas HPSG is more syntactically-based, and (2) the fact that Minimalism uses Internal Merge in the analysis of unbounded dependencies whereas HPSG employs the SLASH feature. In both cases the HPSG approach seems to offer a better account of the facts. Thus, in two important respects it seems preferable to Minimalism.
Right-node raising is usually set apart from other elliptical constructions for imposing a strict identity condition between the omitted and the peripheral elements. Since Pullum & Zwicky (1986), it is assumed that only syncretic forms may resolve a feature conflict between the two conjuncts (I certainly will and you already have set the record straight.). We present an empirical study of RNR with final verb in English and French that shows that verb mismatch does occur in corpora with and without syncretic forms, i.e. that syncretism does not appear to play a role. We present an acceptability judgement task on French that confirms this hypothesis. We therefore propose a new HPSG analysis of RNR that is based on sharing LID features and not morphophonological forms.
Early work on quantification in natural languages showed that sentences like 'Every ape picked different berries', on the reading that the sets of berries picked by any two apes are not the same, can be logically represented with a single polyadic quantifier for the two nominal phrases. However, since that quantifier cannot be decomposed into two quantifiers for the two nominal phrases, a compositional semantic analysis of this reading is not possible under standard assumptions about syntax and semantics. This paper shows how a constraint-based semantics with Lexical Resource Semantics can define a systematic syntax-semantics interface which captures the reading in question with a polyadic quantifier.
The paper briefly reexamines arguments for the argument–adjunct dichotomy, commonly assumed in contemporary linguistics, showing that they do not stand up to scrutiny. It demonstrates that – perhaps surprisingly – LFG currently only assumes this dichotomy in its f-structure feature geometry, and does not rely on it in any crucial way. Building on this observation, the paper presents a way of getting rid of this dichotomy altogether.
This paper discusses recent LFG proposals on resultative and benefactive constructions. I show that neither resultative nor benefactive constructions are fully fixed and that this flexibility requires traces or a stipulation of constructional templates at several unrelated places in the grammar, something that is not necessary in lexical approaches. A second part of the paper deals with the active/passive alternation and shows that language-internal generalizations are missed if constraints are assumed to be contributed by phrase structure rules. A third part examines the parallel constructions in German and shows that cross-linguistic generalizations are not captured by phrasal approaches.