Linguistik-Klassifikation
Refine
Year of publication
Document Type
- Part of a Book (229)
- Article (66)
- Working Paper (47)
- Preprint (25)
- Conference Proceeding (22)
- Report (7)
- Book (5)
- Review (3)
- magisterthesis (1)
Language
- English (308)
- German (77)
- Croatian (7)
- Portuguese (7)
- French (4)
- mis (1)
- Multiple languages (1)
Has Fulltext
- yes (405)
Keywords
- Syntax (116)
- Deutsch (63)
- Thema-Rhema-Gliederung (37)
- Wortstellung (32)
- Englisch (30)
- Generative Transformationsgrammatik (30)
- Relativsatz (29)
- Intonation <Linguistik> (28)
- Semantik (26)
- Bantusprachen (22)
Institute
The meaning of chains
(1998)
This thesis investigates the mechanisms applying in the interpretation of syntactic chains. The theoretical background includes a translation of syntactic forms into semantic forms and a model theoretic explication of the meaning of semantic forms. Simplicity considerations apply to all three stages of the interpretation process: syntactic derivation, translation into semantic forms, interpretation of semantic forms. Three main results are achieved. The first is that trace positions can have semantic content beyond what is needed for the semantic dependency of trace and binder. This extra content is some or all of the lexical material of the head of the chain, as expected on the copy theory of movement. Two independent arguments support this conclusion. One, discussed in chapter 2, is based on the distribution of Condition C effects, where novel interactions between variable binding, antecedent contained deletion and Condition C are observed. The second, developed in chapter 3, is based on conditions on the identity of traces observed in antecedent contained deletion constructions. Both arguments lead to the same generalizations about what lexical material of the head is interpreted in the trace position. The second main result is that lambda calculus is superior to both standard predicate logic and combinatorial logic as the mathematical model for the semantic mechanism mediating the dependency of trace (or bound pronoun) and binder. Chapter 4 argues this on the basis of the distribution of focus and destressing in constructions with bound pronouns. The third main result is that quantification must be allowed to range over pointwise different choice functions. Chapter 5 shows that quantification over individuals is insufficient, and that pointwise different choice functions are required. The result entails that the syntactic difference of A-chains and A-bar chains predicts a semantic difference in the type of the variable involved, which is argued to explain weak crossover phenomena. Chapters 6 argues that the interpretation procedures developed in the preceeding chapters account for all cases. It is shown that only traces of the type of individuals arise, and that scope reconstruction is a phonological phenomenon. The latter result also supports the T-model of syntax.
The lemmings theory of case
(1995)
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.
Quantificational determiners in Japanese can be marked with genitive case. Current analyses (for example by Watanabe, Natural Language and Linguistic Theory, to appear) treat the genetive case marker in these cases as semantically vacuous, but we show that it has semantic effects. We propose a new analysis as reverse partitives. Following Jackendoff (MIT-Press, 1977), we assume that partitives always contain two NPs one of which is phonologically deleted. We claim that, while in normal partitives the higher noun is deleted, in reverse partitives the lower noun is deleted.
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.
Für das Präpositionalattribut des Deutschen existieren bei einer Übertragung ins Ungarische vielfältige Übersetzungsvarianten. Die den deutschen Präpositionalphrasen entsprechenden Postpositionalphrasen und kasussuffigierten Nominalphrasen gehen in Attributsfunktion dem Kopf der Nominalphrase in der Regel voran und sind dann in partizipiale oder adjektivische Strukturen einzubetten. Die der deutschen Konstruktion entsprechende Postponierung dieser Attribute gewinnt allerdings in der modernen Standardsprache immer mehr an Raum. Gleichfalls lässt sich in einigen Textsorten eine Ausbreitung des sog. postpositionalen Adjektivs konstatieren. Lassen sich beide Phänomene gegebenenfalls als Symptome eines Nominalstils im Ungarischen werten?
This paper provides an analysis of an alternative strategy to A´-movement in both German and Dutch where the extracted constituent is preceded by a preposition and a coreferential pronoun appears in the extraction site. The construction has properties of both binding and movement: Whereas reconstruction effects suggest movement out of the embedded clause, there is strong evidence that the operator constituent is linked to an A-position in the matrix clause; this paradox is resolved by assuming a Control-like approach that involves movement from the embedded clause into a theta-position in the matrix clause with subsequent short A´- movement. The coreferential pronoun is interpreted as a resumptive heading a Big-DP which hosts the antecedent in its specifier.
In this paper I argue in favor of a Matching Analysis for German relative clauses. The Head Raising Analysis is shown to fail to account for parts of the reconstruction pattern in German, especially cases where only the external head is interpreted and the absence of Principle C effects. I propose a Matching Analysis with Vehicle Change and make consistent assumptions about possible deletion operations in relatives so that the entire pattern can be captured by one analysis which therefore proves superior to previous ones.
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.
Freeze (1992) argued on the basis of data from several different languages that there is a close relationship between existential sentences (stating the existence of an entity) and locative sentences (stating the location of an entity). Freeze (1992) proposes that they are both derived from the same base structure and that the surface differences are rather due to the distinct information structures.This paper argues against this position with the data from Serbian existentials, which show clear syntactic differences from the locatives. Thus, the close relationship between existential and locative sentences that Freeze (1992) observes is conceptual, but not (necessarily) part of the syntax of the language. In order to account for the data, we propose that existential sentences originate from a different syntactic predication structure than the locative ones. The existential meaning arises, as we will show, from the interaction of this predication structure with the structure and meaning of the noun phrase.
The renowned Grimm Dictionary (1854-1961) makes the statement that the German copula sein (to be) is “the most general and colourless of all verbal concepts” (der allgemeinste und farbloseste aller verbalbegriffe). A more concise summary of the linguistic issues surrounding the copula is hardly possible. These two properties (and the latent tension between them!) make copulas a particularly interesting and vexing subject of linguistic research. Copulas appear to be almost colourless, i.e., devoid of any concrete meaning, thus leading to the question of why such expressions exist at all, not only in German but in the majority of the world’s languages. And at the same time copulas presumably provide the best window into the core of verbal concepts thereby telling us what it actually means to be a verb – at least in a language like German or English. While there is a rather rich body of research on copulas in philosophical and formal semantics including several in-depth studies on the copular systems of individual languages, copulas have received comparably little attention from a typological perspective. The monograph of Regina Pustet sets out to fill this gap. She presents an extensive cross-linguistic study of copula usage based on a sample of 154 languages drawn from the language families of the world. The analysis is embedded in the theoretical framework of functional typology. The study aims at uncovering universal principles that govern the distribution of copulas in nominal, adjectival, and verbal predications. Its major objective is the development of a “semantically-based model of copula distribution” (p.62) by means of which the presence vs. absence of copulas can be motivated through the inherent meaning of the lexical items they potentially combine with. Drawing mainly on the work by Givón (1979, 1984) and Croft (1991, 2001), who provide a functional foundation of the traditional parts of speech, Pustet identifies four semantic parameters which, if taken together, are claimed to support substantial generalisations on copula distribution – within a given language as well as crosslinguistically. These parameters are DYNAMICITY, TRANSIENCE, TRANSITIVITY, and DEPENDENCY. Pustet goes on to argue – and this is in fact the driving force behind the overall monograph – that the distributional behaviour of copulas, in turn, yields a useful methodology for developing a general approach to lexical categorization. Thus, in the long run Pustet aims at contributing to a better understanding of the traditional parts of speech, noun, adjective, and verb by defining them in terms of “semantic feature bundles, which can be arranged in [a] coherent semantic similarity space” (p.193).
Since Donald Davidson’s seminal work “The Logical Form of Action Sentences” (1967) event arguments have become an integral component of virtually every semantic theory. Over the past years Davidson´s proposal has been continuously extended such that nowadays event(uality) arguments are generally associated not only with action verbs but with predicates of all sorts. The reasons for such an extension are seldom explicitly justified. Most problematical in this respect is the case of stative expressions. By taking a closer look at copula sentences the present study assesses the legitimacy of stretching the Davidsonian notion of events and discusses its consequences. A careful application of some standard eventuality diagnostics (perception reports, combination with locative modifiers and manner adverbials) as well as some new diagnostics (behavior of certain degree adverbials) reveals that copular expressions do not behave as expected under a Davidsonian perspective: they fail all eventuality tests, regardless of whether they represent stage-level or individual-level predicates. In this respect, copular expressions pattern with stative verbs like know, hate, and resemble, which in turn differ sharply from state verbs like stand, sit, and sleep. The latter pass all of the eventuality tests and therefore qualify as true “Davidsonian state” expressions. On the basis of these empirical observations and taking up ideas of Kim (1969, 1976) and Asher (1993, 2000), an alternative account of copular expressions (and stative verbs) is provided, according to which the copula introduces a referential argument for a temporally bound property exemplification (= “Kimian state”). Considerations on some logical properties, viz. closure conditions and the latent infinite regress of eventualities, suggest that supplementing Davidsonian eventualities with Kimian states may yield not only a more adequate analysis of copula sentences but also a better understanding of eventualities in general.
Davidsonian event semantics has an impressive track record as a framework for natural language analysis. In recent years it has become popular to assume that not only action verbs but predicates of all sorts have an additional event argument. Yet, this hypothesis is not without controversy in particular wrt the particularly challenging case of statives. Maienborn (2003a, 2004) argues that there is a need for distinguishing two kinds of states. While verbs such as sit, stand, sleep refer to eventualities in the sense of Davidson (= Davidsonian states), the states denoted by such stative verbs like know, weigh,and own, as well as any combination of copula plus predicate are of a different ontological type (= Kimian states). Against this background, the present study assesses the two main arguments that have been raised in favour of a Davidsonian approach for statives. These are the combination with certain manner adverbials and Parsons (2000) so-called time travel argument. It will be argued that the manner data which, at first sight, seem to provide evidence for a Davidsonian approach to statives are better analysed as non-compositional reinterpretations triggered by the lack of a regular Davidsonian event argument. As for Parsons´s time travel argument, it turns out that the original version does not supply the kind of support for the Davidsonian approach that Parsons supposed. However, properly adapted, the time travel argument may provide additional evidence for the need of reifying the denotatum of statives, as suggested by the assumption of Kimian states.
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.
“Comments are very welcome!” This basic attitude and the many ways of implementing it contribute immensely to the fascination of engaging in scientific research. I am grateful to Theoretical Linguistics for providing a public platform for this kind of scholarly exchange and I thank all commentators for their thoughtful, stimulating, and often challenging contributions to my target article. My response will address two main issues that are raised by the commentaries. The first issue is shaped by a cluster of questions relating to ontology. The second issue concerns questions of methodology pertaining in particular to the problem of judging data.
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.