430 Germanische Sprachen; Deutsch
Refine
Year of publication
Document Type
- Conference Proceeding (73) (remove)
Has Fulltext
- yes (73) (remove)
Is part of the Bibliography
- no (73)
Keywords
- Deutsch (12)
- Phraseologie (5)
- Passiv (4)
- Wortstellung (4)
- Dänisch (3)
- Fremdsprachenunterricht (3)
- Relativsatz (3)
- Tschechisch (3)
- Unterspezifikation (3)
- Deutsch als Fremdsprache (2)
Institute
- Extern (2)
- Neuere Philologien (1)
The Dutch and German verbs wijsmaken/weismachen 'make wise' have an idiomatic interpretation as verbs of deception 'to fool'. As such, they have the unusual property of being contrafactive (presupposing the falsity of their complement). With second person or generic pronoun subjects, under negation and with future orientation, they are used to express disbelief on the part of the entity denoted by the indirect object. A corpus study shows this secondary use to be especially prominent in Dutch. It depends on the availability of the point of view of experiencer and is most common with first person dative objects.
The Smurf comics series is, among others, famous for the so-called "smurf language", in which words or parts of words can be replaced by "smurf". We will argue that this "smurfing" has the properties of placeholding. Based on data from German translations of Smurf comics, we will provide a formalization of smurfing in German which can be generalized to a theory of placeholder expressions.
This paper presents an incremental approach to verb clusters in German which radically differs from standard HPSG accounts. While the common assumption is that the verbs in subordinate clauses form clusters and accumulate all their valence requirements on a SUBCAT list, the assumption in this paper is that the arguments in verb final clauses are encapsulated incrementally into syntactic and semantic structures before the verbs are attached. The proposed analysis is in line with psycholinguistic findings. A grammar fragment of German demonstrating an implementation of the analysis is presented.
The paper addresses verbal agreement in German sign language from a constraint-based perspective. Based on Meir's Agreement Morphology Principles it presents an HPSG analysis of plain, regular and backwards agreement verbs that models the interaction between phonological (manual) features and syntactico-semantic relationships within a verbal sign by well-defined lexical restrictions. We argue that a sign-based declarative analysis can provide an elegant approach to agreement in sign language since it allows to exploit cross-modular constraints within grammar, and hence permits a direct manipulation of all relevant phonological features of a verb depending on its syntactic and semantic properties.
This paper presents a new analysis of quirky subjects according to which quirky subjects bear multiple grammatical relations and hence differ syntactically from regular subjects. This contrasts with the standard analysis of quirky subjects according to which quirky subjects are regular subjects bearing lexical case and therefore differ only morphologically from regular subjects. Based on the behavior of quirky subjects in Faroese and German, I argue that the syntactic account is superior. Faroese shows that the case borne by a quirky subject is not lexical, whereas German shows that quirky subjects are not regular subjects to begin with. The behavior of quirky subjects in Icelandic, on which the standard analysis is based, is argued to be the result of a morphosyntactic peculiarity of Icelandic.
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.
I argue for a new type of non-standard constituent in German; a modifier-collocational-cluster. This type of cluster combines (i) a modifier and (ii) a PP from a light-verb construction (or a Funktionsverbgefüge (FVG) as they are known in German) or a bare noun. Such strings are found in German in initial (prefield) position in certain cases of apparent multiple fronting. We are dealing with a syntax-semantics mismatch here since the modifier does not semantically modify the element with which it can first syntactically combine. I show that the modifier is a collocate of both its co-prefield element but also of the verb. I propose a schema which lexically licenses the building of such clusters and I show how we can encode information about what I refer to as collocational selection in the lexical entries of the type of lexemes involved in these multi-word strings. The analysis can be seen as lexical but does not require lexical storage of phrasal elements.
We show how the variation in the passive in Danish, English, and German can be accounted for. The dimensions in which the three languages differ are
- the existence of a morphological passive in Danish
- a subject requirement in Danish and English resulting in expletive insertion in impersonal
- constructions in Danish and absence of impersonal passives in English the possibility to promote the secondary object to subject in Danish
The differences are accounted for by differences in the structural/lexical case distinction and by mapping processes that insert expletives in Danish. The passive in general is accounted for by a lexical rule that is uniform across languages and hence captures the generalization regarding passive.
The present article discusses several aspects of the so-called correlate-es construction in German. This complex clausal construction can be identified by a correlative nominal element es ('it') occuring in the matrix clause and a right-peripheral full clausal argument linked to es. The article supports the hypothesis that correlative es has a janus-faced nature between an expletive and a referential meaning. This is the reason why existing approaches are not sufficient to capture the properties of the discussed construction in its entirety. The first part of the article sums up the common view on correlative es including the empirical properties of the construction as well as a brief survey of the relevant previous approaches trying to account for correlative es. Based on new empirical data, the second part of the article shows that none of these accounts is able to capture all relevant facts of the correlate-es construction because existing approaches usually ignore that the realization of correlative es is verb-class dependent. Hence, a new constraint-based analysis is developed that takes both empirical observations into account, the verb-class dependence and the janus-faced nature.
This paper deals with expletives that are inserted into clauses for structural reasons. We will focus on the Germanic languages Danish, German, and Yiddish. In Danish and Yiddish expletives are inserted in preverbal position in certain wh-clauses: In Danish such an insertion is observed when the subject is locally extracted from an SVO configuration in non-assertive clauses. In Yiddish wh-clauses are formed from a wh-phrase and a V2 clause. If no element would be fronted in the embedded V2 clause, an expletive is inserted in non-assertive clauses in order to meet the V3 requirement for embedded clauses. In addition to embedded wh-clauses, declarative V2 clauses also allow the insertion of an expletive. In Danish the expletive fills the subject position and is not necessarily fronted. In German and Yiddish the expletive has to occur in fronted position. In contrast to Danish and Yiddish, German does not insert expletives into embedded wh-clauses. They are inserted only into declarative V2 clauses in order to fulfill the V2 requirement without having to front another constituent. In this paper we try to provide an account that captures the commonalities between the three languages while being able to account for the differences.