Linguistik-Klassifikation
Refine
Year of publication
- 2003 (53) (remove)
Document Type
- Conference Proceeding (43)
- Part of a Book (7)
- magisterthesis (1)
- Preprint (1)
- Report (1)
Has Fulltext
- yes (53)
Is part of the Bibliography
- no (53)
Keywords
- Koreanisch (6)
- Nominalphrase (4)
- Head-driven phrase structure grammar (3)
- Informationsstruktur (3)
- Japanisch (3)
- Passiv (3)
- Quantifizierung <Linguistik> (3)
- Relativsatz (3)
- Adjektiv (2)
- Adjunkt <Linguistik> (2)
Institute
- Extern (2)
The status of quantifier raising in German and other languages where scope is fairly rigid is debated. The first part of this paper argues that quantifiers in German can undergo covert extraction out of coordinations, and therefore that quantifier raising is available in German. The second part argues that quantifier raising in German is constrained to never move one DP across another. This result might provide part of an explanation of scope rigidity in German.
Im Fokus dieser Magisterarbeit stehen Präpositionalphrasen (PP), deren Komplement eine unikale Komponente ist. Es handelt sich bei diesen Komplementen um Nomen, die außerhalb einer PP nicht vorkommen bzw. in anderen Umgebungen nicht die selbe Bedeutung haben. Um dieses Phänomen zu beschreiben wird eine Analyse innerhalb der Head-Driven Phrase Structure Grammar (HPSG) entwickelt. Grundkenntnisse über Struktur und Begrifflichkeiten der HPSG werden in dieser Arbeit vorausgesetzt, als Referenz siehe [PS94]. Die Gliederung gestaltet sich wie folgt: Zunächst werden die zu untersuchenden Daten im Detail dargestellt. Anschließend werden verschiedene Analysemöglichkeiten innerhalb der Theorie der HPSG in Betracht gezogen, nämlich Selektion, Konstruktion und Kollokation. Dabei muss festgestellt werden, dass die existierenden Ansätze den Daten nicht oder nur unbefriedigend gerecht werden können. Der Ansatz, der letztendlich verfolgt wird, besteht darin, den bereits existierenden Selektionsmechanismus über SPEC zu generalisieren. Dieses Vorgehen erlaubt dann der unikalen NP, die Präposition, mit welcher sie einhergeht, zu selegieren. Hierzu werden einige, jedoch vertretbare Änderungen in der HPSG-Architektur vorgenommen und es wird gezeigt, wie mit dem generalisierten Mechanismus die Daten behandelt werden können. Daran anschließend folgt eine Erweiterung des Phänomenbereichs auf Paarformeln. Ferner wird ein Einwand im Zusammenhang mit der Analyse des Komplements als NP bzw. DP diskutiert und zur weiteren Motivation des Ansatzes wird noch ein weiteres lokales Phänomen,die Distribution der Spur, mit der hier vorgestellten Herangehensweise modelliert. Darüberhinaus wird die Frage untersucht, ob man nicht auch PPs mit festen Verben geschickt analysieren kann. Dazu wird ein Weg, Lexeme zu selegieren, eingeführt und der entwickelte Mechanismus erweitert. Diese Erweiterung findet Anwendung bei der Modellierung der lokalen Distribution einer Partikel. Eine Zusammenfassung, sowie ein Ausblick auf weiterführende Fragestellungen schließen die Arbeit ab.
Semantic research over the past three decades has provided impressive confirmation of Donald Davidsons famous claim that “there is a lot of language we can make systematic sense of if we suppose events exist” (Davidson 1980:137). Nowadays, Davidsonian event arguments are no longer reserved only for action verbs (as Davidson originally proposed) or even only for the category of verbs, but instead are widely assumed to be associated with any kind of predicate (e.g. Higginbotham 2000, Parsons 2000).1 The following quotation from Higginbotham and Ramchand (1997) illustrates the reasoning that motivates this move: "Once we assume that predicates (or their verbal, etc. heads) have a position for events, taking the many consequences that stem therefrom, as outlined in publications originating with Donald Davidson (1967), and further applied in Higginbotham (1985, 1989), and Terence Parsons (1990), we are not in a position to deny an event-position to any predicate; for the evidence for, and applications of, the assumption are the same for all predicates. (Higginbotham and Ramchand 1997:54)" In fact, since Davidson’s original proposal the burden of proof for postulating event arguments seems to have shifted completely, leading Raposo and Uriagereka (1995), for example, to the following verdict: "it is unclear what it means for a predicate not to have a Davidsonian argument (Raposo and Uriagereka 1995:182)" That is, Davidsonian eventuality arguments apparently have become something like a trademark for predicates in general. The goal of the present paper is to subject this view of the relationship between predicates and events to real scrutiny. By taking a closer look at the simplest independent predicational structure – viz. copula sentences – I will argue that current Davidsonian approaches tend to stretch the notion of events too far, thereby giving up much of its linguistic and ontological usefulness. More specifically, the paper will tackle the following three questions: 1. Do copula sentences support the current view of the inherent event-relatedness of predicates? 2. If not, what is a possible alternative to an event-based analysis of copula sentences? 3. What does this tell us about Davidsonian events? The paper is organized as follows: Section 2 first reviews current event-based analyses of copula sentences and then gives a brief summary of the Davidsonian notion of events. Section 3 examines the behavior of copula sentences with respect to some standard (as well as some new) eventuality diagnostics. Copula expressions will turn out to fail all eventuality tests. They differ sharply from state verbs like stand, sit, sleep in this respect. (The latter pass all eventuality tests and therefore qualify as true “Davidsonian state” expressions.) On the basis of these observations, section 4 provides an alternative account of copula sentences that combines Kim’s (1969, 1976) notion of property exemplifications with Ashers (1993, 2000) conception of abstract objects. Specifically, I will argue that the copula introduces a referential argument for a temporally bound property exemplification (= “Kimian state”). The proposal is implemented within a DRT framework. Finally, section 5 offers some concluding remarks and suggests that supplementing Davidsonian eventualities by Kimian states not only yields a more adequate analysis for copula expressions and the like but may also improve our treatment of events.
The article offers evidence that there are two variants of adverbial modification that differ with respect to the way in which a modifier is linked to the verbs eventuality argument. So-called event-external modifiers relate to the full eventuality, whereas event-internal modifiers relate to some integral part of it. The choice between external and internal modification is shown to be dependent on the modifiers syntactic base position. Event-external modifiers are base-generated at the VP periphery, whereas event-internal modifiers are base-generated at the V periphery. These observations are accounted for by a refined version of the standard Davidsonian approach to adverbial modification according to which modification is mediated by a free variable. In the case of external modification, the grammar takes responsibility for identifying the free variable with the verbs eventuality argument, whereas in the case of internal modification, a value for the free variable is determined by the conceptual system on the basis of contextually salient world knowledge. For the intriguing problem that certain locative modifiers occasionally seem to have nonlocative (instrumental, positional, or manner) readings, the advocated approach can provide a rather simple solution.
One aspect of the progress being made is that the focus of attention has widened. Adverbials, though still the heart of the matter, now form part of a much larger set of constituent types subsumed under the general syntactic label of adjunct; while modifier has become the semantic counterpart on the same level of generality. So one of the readings of Modifying Adjuncts stands for the focus on this intersection. Moreover, recent years have seen a number of studies which attest an increasing interest in adjunct issues. There is an impressive number of monographs, e.g. Alexiadou (1997), Laenzlinger (1998), Cinque (1999), Pittner (1999), Ernst (2002), which, by presenting in-depth analyses of the syntax of adjuncts, have sharpened the debate on syntactic theorizing. Serious attempts to gain a broader view on adjuncts are witnessed by several collections, see Alexiadou and Svenonius (2000), Austin, Engelberg and Rauh (in progress); of particular importance are the contributions to vol. 12.1 of the Italian Journal of Linguistics (2000), a special issue on adverbs, the Introductions to which by Corver and Delfitto (2000) and Delfitto (2000) may be seen as the best state-of-the-art article on adverbs and adverbial modification currently on the market. To try and test a fresh view on adjuncts was the leitmotif of the Oslo Conference “Approaching the Grammar of Adjuncts” (Sept 22–25, 1999), which provided the initial forum for the papers contained in this volume and initiated a period of discussion and continuing interaction among the contributors, from which the versions published here have greatly profited. The aim of the Oslo conference, and hence the focus of the present volume, was to encourage syntacticians and semanticists to open their minds to a more integrative approach to adjuncts, thereby paying attention to, and attempting to account for, the various interfaces that the grammar of adjuncts crucially embodies. From this perspective, the present volume is to be conceived of as an interim balance of current trends in modifying the views on adjuncts. In introducing the papers, we will refrain from rephrasing the abstracts, but will instead offer a guided tour through the major problem areas they are tackling. Assessed by thematic convergence and mutual reference, the contributions form four groups, which led us to arrange them into subparts of the book. Our commenting on these is intended (i) to provide a first glance at the contents, (ii) to reveal some of the reasons why adjuncts indeed are, and certainly will remain, a challenging issue, and thereby (iii) to show some facets of what we consider novel and promising approaches.
The paper is structured as follows. Section 2.1 introduces the basic classes of adjectives that constitute the factual core of the paper. Section 2.2 summarizes in greater detail the X° and the XP movement approaches to word order variation within the DP. Section 3 briefly discusses problems for both approaches. Sections 4.1, 5.1, and 5.2 draw from Alexiadou (2001) and contain a discussion of Greek DS and its relevance for a re-analysis of the word order variation in the Romance DP. Section 4.2 introduces refinements to Alexiadou & Wilder (1998) and Alexiadou (2001). Section 5.3. discusses certain issues that arise from the analysis of postnominal adjectives in Romance as involving raising of XPs. Section 6 discusses phenomena found in other languages, which at first sight seem similar to DS. However, I show that double definiteness in e.g. Hebrew, Scandinavian or other Balkan languages constitutes a different type of phenomenon from Greek DS, thus making a distinction between determiners that introduce CPs (Greek) and those that are merely morphological/agreement markers (Hebrew, Scandinavian, Albanian).
This paper argues for a particular architecture of OT syntax. This architecture hasthree core features: i) it is bidirectional, the usual production-oriented optimisation (called ‘first optimisation’ here) is accompanied by a second step that checks the recoverability of an underlying form; ii) this underlying form already contains a full-fledged syntactic specification; iii) especially the procedure checking for recoverability makes crucial use of semantic and pragmatic factors. The first section motivates the basic architecture. The second section shows with two examples, how contextual factors are integrated. The third section examines its implications for learning theory, and the fourth section concludes with a broader discussion of the advantages and disadvantages of the proposed model.
This paper argues for a scopal explanation of the readings of the adverb wieder (‘again’). It is the syntactic entity that wieder is related to which determines whether the repetitive or the restitutive reading obtains. If it is adjoined to the minimal verbal domain, it relates to a situation-internal state thus producing a restitutive interpretation, if adjoined to a higher verbal projection, it relates to an eventuality resulting in a repetitive interpretation. Proceeding from the assumption that adverbial adjuncts have base positions which reflect their semantic relations to the rest of the sentence, repetitive wieder is shown to belong to the class of eventuality adverbs that minimally c-command the base positions of all arguments, whereas restitutive wieder has many properties in common with process (manner) adjuncts that minimally c-command the verb in clause-final base position.
In der deutschen Gegenwartssprache sind die Funktionsverbgefüge (FVG) die über lange Zeit vor allem nur unter stilistischen Gesichtpunkten betrachtet und meist als schlechter Stil abgewertet wurden, mit dem Aufsatz Peter von Polenz (1963) in zunehmendem Maße in das Blickfeld der linguistischen Untersuchungen getreten. In den folgenden Jahren erschienen mehrere Arbeiten zu den FVG, in denen vor allem ihre semantischen, syntaktischen und kommunikativen Leistungen untersucht worden. Die als FVG in der Fachliteratur erfassten Konstruktionen bestehen bekanntlich aus einem Funktionsverb(FV) und einem deverbativen Substantiv, auch manchmal nomen actionis genannt. Funktionsverb und Verbalsubstantiv bilden zusammen sowohl strukturell als auch semantisch eine lexikalische Einheit, z. B. Kritik üben; in Verbindung treten. Kennzeichnend für diese Einheiten ist, dass die eigentliche Bedeutung der FVG im Substantiv liegt, während das Verb der ganzen Einheit nur eine grammatisch-syntaktische Funktion ausübt. Auch im Türkischen sind derartige aus Verben und Verbalsubstantiven bestehende Fügungen vorhanden. Sie stimmen im Hinblick auf ihre Konstruktionen mit den FVG im Deutschen überein […]. Die vorliegende Arbeit verfolgt das Ziel, die Fragen zu erörtern, wie die FVG und VF gebildet werden und welche syntaktischen Konstruktionen dieser FVG und VF ermöglicht werden. Das Hauptaugenmerk gilt den semantischen und syntaktischen Funktionen dieser sprachlichen Phänomene. Dabei geht es weniger darum, die Formen und Funktionen der FVG und VF bis ins kleinste Detail darzustellen. Hier werden vielmehr ihre Formen und Funktionen behandelt, die für eine kontrastive Betrachtung interessant. Die Arbeit hat vor allem theoretischen Charakter und sie ist nicht an einem Korpus orientiert. Die Beschreibung basiert auf der eigene Sprachkompetenz.