415 Grammatik
Refine
Year of publication
Document Type
- Part of a Book (7)
- Working Paper (5)
- Doctoral Thesis (1)
Language
- English (13) (remove)
Has Fulltext
- yes (13)
Is part of the Bibliography
- no (13)
Keywords
- Syntax (3)
- Aspekt (2)
- Generative Transformationsgrammatik (2)
- Grammatiktheorie (2)
- Grammatische Kategorie (2)
- Kindersprache (2)
- Morphologie (2)
- Topik (2)
- Topikalisierung (2)
- Anapher <Syntax> (1)
Institute
- Extern (2)
- Neuere Philologien (2)
This dissertation deals with the lexical, morphological, syntactic, and semantic properties of (VP )idioms and their behavior in combination with restrictive relative clauses, raising, constituent fronting, wh-movement, VP-ellipsis, pronominalization, the progressive form, verb placement, passivization, conjunction modification, and the N-after-N construction. It provides empirical evidence towards a combinatorial analysis of both semantically non-decomposable idioms (SNDIs) and semantically decomposable idioms (SDIs) and contributes to the (formal) formulation of such an account.
The Introduction (Chapter 1) first motivates why idioms are an exciting and challenging phenomenon and then gives a definition of the term idiom, a classification of idioms, and an overview of the wide spectrum of idiom analyses found in the linguistic literature.
Chapter 2, “Idioms as evidence for the proper analysis of relative clauses”, shows that the Modification Analysis beats the other two major analyses of restrictive relative clauses (RRCs), namely Raising and Matching, as (i) the latter two lead to a loss of numerous empirical generalizations in syntax and morphology, and (ii) contrary to the assumption in the literature, idioms in RRCs can, in fact, be licensed without literal syntactic movement of the RRC-head, which makes modification fully compatible with idiom reconstruction effects.
Chapter 3, “How frozen are frozen idioms?”, presents new empirical observations on the lexical, morphological, and syntactic flexibility of kick the bucket and displays that this idiom is not completely frozen with respect to its NP complement, the progressive form, and, in some contexts, even passivization. The chapter concludes that analyses of kick the bucket as a single lexical entry should be replaced by analyses of this and other SNDIs with a syntactically regular shape as consisting of individual word-level lexical entries that combine according to the standard rules of syntax.
This idea is taken up in Chapter 4, “The syntactic flexibility of semantically non-decomposable idioms”, which – based on the differences between English and German with regard to verb placement, constituent fronting, and passivization as well as a short outlook on Estonian and French – spells out a combinatorial analysis of SNDIs and augments it with a semantic analysis formulated in Lexical Resource Semantics, according to which some idiom parts make identical semantic contributions to the overall meaning of the idiom. The analysis further suggests that the syntactic flexibility of idioms is due to the semantic and pragmatic constraints on the involved constructions, rather than the syntactic encoding of the idioms.
Chapter 5, “Modification of literal meanings in semantically non-decomposable idioms”, reviews Ernst’s (1981) classical three types of idiom modification (internal, external, and conjunction) to then closely investigate the most challenging type, namely conjunction modification, in SNDIs. Based on naturally occurring examples of four SNDIs (two English, two German), it sketches an analysis in terms of two or more conjoined independent propositions, each of which can be the result of figurative reinterpretation. One of the propositions contains the idiomatic meaning, in (one of) the other(s), the meaning of the modifier applies to the literal meaning of the idiom’s noun.
Chapter 6, “Semantically decomposable idioms in the N-after-N construction”, offers a formal syntactic and semantic account of SDIs like pull strings in the N-after-N construction, as in Kim pulled string after string to get Alex into a good college. While the idiom contributes the type of entity at stake (‘string’ in the case of pull strings), N-after-N contributes that there are several instantiations of that type of entity and that these are subject to temporal or spatial succession. The chapter first summarizes the empirical properties of N-after-N, then provides an account of N-after-N in Head-driven Phrase Structure Grammar (HPSG), presents an updated version of the account of SDIs suggested in Chapter 2 within HPSG, and combines it with the HPSG account of N-after-N.
Unquestionably (or: undoubtedly), every competent speaker has already come to doubt with respect to the question of which form is correct or appropriate and should be used (in the standard language) when faced with two or more almost identical competing variants of words, word forms or sentence and phrase structure (e.g. German "Pizzas/Pizzen/Pizze" 'pizzas', Dutch "de drie mooiste/mooiste drie stranden" 'the three most beautiful/most beautiful three beaches', Swedish "större än jag/mig" 'taller than I/me'). Such linguistic uncertainties or "cases of doubt" (cf. i.a. Klein 2003, 2009, 2018; Müller & Szczepaniak 2017; Schmitt, Szczepaniak & Vieregge 2019; Stark 2019 as well as the useful collections of data of Duden vol. 9, Taaladvies.net, Språkriktighetsboken etc.) systematically occur also in native speakers and they do not necessarily coincide with the difficulties of second language learners. In present-day German, most grammatical uncertainties occur in the domains of inflection (nominal plural formation, genitive singular allomorphy of strong masc./neut. nouns, inflectional variation of weak masc. nouns, strong/weak adjectival inflection and comparison forms, strong/weak verb forms, perfect auxiliary selection) and word-formation (linking elements in compounds, separability of complex verbs). As for syntax, there are often doubts in connection with case choice (pseudo-partitive constructions, prepositional case government) and agreement (especially due to coordination or appositional structures). This contribution aims to present a contrastive approach to morphological and syntactic uncertainties in contemporary Germanic languages (mostly German, Dutch, and Swedish) in order to obtain a broader and more fine-grained typology of grammatical instabilities and their causes. As will be discussed, most doubts of competent speakers - a problem also for general linguistic theory - can be attributed to processes of language change in progress, to language or variety contact, to gaps and rule conflicts in the grammar of every language or to psycholinguistic conditions of language processing. Our main concerns will be the issues of which (kinds of) common or different critical areas there are within Germanic (and, on the other hand, in which areas there are no doubts), which of the established (cross-linguistically valid) explanatory approaches apply to which phenomena and, ultimately, the question whether the new data reveals further lines of explanation for the empirically observable (standard) variation.
This paper discusses critically a number of developments at the heart of current syntactic theory. These include the postulation of a rich sequence of projections at the left periphery of the sentence; the idea that movement is tied to the need to eliminate uninterpretable features; and the conception put forward by Chomsky and others that advances in the past decade have made it reasonable to raise the question about whether language might be in some sense ‘perfect’. However, I will argue that there is little motivation for a highly-articulated left-periphery, that there is no connection between movement and uninterpretable features, and that there is no support for the idea that language might be perfect.
This work examines English echo questions (EQs) against the background of Rizzi's (1997) analysis of split CP. It argues that EQs do not behave as the split CP analysis predicts that they should, and that their behavior can instead be straightforwardly explained within the classic CP analysis. Further, what are termed here 'echo negations' of negative inversion constructions are shown not to parallel EQs, a surprising result if negative inversion architecture parallels question architecture, as claimed by split CP proponents. In general, classic CP architecture is more appropriate for analysing this range of phenomena.
On the early development of aspect in greek and russian child language, a comparative analysis
(2003)
The category of aspect is grammaticized in both Greek and Russian opposing perfective and imperfective verb forms in all inflectional categories except the nonpast (‘present’). Despite these similarities there are important differences in the way the aspectual systems function in the two languages. While in Greek nearly all verbs oppose a perfective to a given imperfective grammatical form, Russian aspect is more strongly lexicalized with pairs of imperfective and perfective lexemes not only differing aspectually, but also as far as their lexical meanings are concerned. This is especially true of perfective verbs formed by prefixes as compared to their imperfective bases. Thus, in pairs of prefixed and unprefixed dynamic verbs, the derived prefixed (perfective) member has a telic meaning while its unprefixed (imperfective) counterpart is atelic (e.g. sjest’ (PFV) ‘to eat up’ vs. jest’ (IPF) ‘to eat’). Such derived perfective verbs may in turn be “secondarily” imperfectivized by suffixation furnishing the only “true” perfective/imperfective pairs of verbs (e.g. sjest’ (PFV) ‘to eat up’ vs. sjedat’ (IPF) ‘to eat up’ (iterative)). “Secondary” imperfectives do not occur in our child data.
In this pilot study, we will analyze the tense-aspect-mood forms of the 20 most frequent verbs with equivalent meanings occurring in the longitudinal audiotaped data of a Greek and a Russian boy between 2;1 and 2;3 (their entire lexical inventories comprise approx. 100 verbs each).
We adopt a constructivist perspective on the development of aspect in Greek and Russian child language and will show that in spite of a broad inventory of imperfective and perfective verb forms to be found in the speech of both children aspect has not yet developed into a generalized grammatical category, but is strongly dependent on aktionsart (stative/dynamic, telic/atelic) in both languages. While this results in a strong preference for perfective verb forms of telic verbs and of imperfective forms of atelic ones in the speech of the Greek boy, the Russian child tends to use the unmarked members.
In this paper, we investigate two pairs of structures in German and English: German Weak Pronoun Left Dislocation and English Topicalization, on the one hand, and German and English Hanging Topic Left Dislocation, on the other. We review the prosodic, lexical, syntactic, and discourse evidence that places the former two structures into one class and the latter two into another, taking this evidence to show that dislocates in the former class are syntactically integrated into their 'host' sentences while those in the latter class are not. From there, we show that the most straightforward way to account for this difference in 'integration' is to take the dislocates in the latter structures to be 'orphans', phrases that are syntactically independent of the phrases with which they are associated, providing additional empirical and theoretical support for this analysis — which, we point out, has a number of antecedents in the literature.
Our results indicate some differences in the use of aspect between French and Croatian speaking children. In Croatian language children always manage to keep the appropriate aspect, unlike French children. However, the imperfective aspect seems to be better acquired in French children than the perfective aspect. The perfective aspect, the marked form both in French as well as in Croatian, is related to the lexical meaning of the verbs. The acquisition of the Aktionsart in both languages seems to be more a matter of semantics than of morphology. Furthermore, our data suggest the existence of a specific developmental trend in the use of Aktionsart (intensive, iterative and inchoative), which is similar for children speaking Slavic and Romanic languages.
The left periphery has enjoyed extensive study over the past years, especially drawn against the framework of Rizzi (1997). It is argued that in this part of the clause, relations are licensed that have direct impact on discourse interpretation and information structure, such as topic, focus, clause type, and the like. I take this line of research up and argue in favour of a split CP on the basis of strictly left-peripheral phenomena across languages. But I also want to link the relation of articulated clause structure, syntactic derivations, and information structure. In particular, I outline the basics of a model of syntactic derivation that makes explicit reference to the interpretive interfaces in a cyclic, dynamic manner.
I suggest a return to older stages of generative grammar, at least in spirit, by proposing that clausal derivation stretches over three important areas which I call prolific domains: the part of the clause which licenses argument/thematic relations (V- or θ-domain), the part that licenses agreement/grammatica1 relations (T- or ϕ-domain), and the part that licenses discourse/information-relevant relations (C- or ω-domain). It is thus a rather broad and conceptual notion of "adding" and "omitting" that I am concerned with here, namely licensing of material to relate to information structure, and the desire to find an answer to the question which elements might be added or omitted across languages to establish such links.
This paper is a preliminary comparative study of the relation between word order and information structure in three Null Subject Languages ((NSLs) Spanish, Italian and Greek). The aim is twofold: first I seek to examine the differences and the similarities among these languages in this domain of their syntax. Secon, I investigate the possible derivations of the various patterns and attempt to localize the differences among these languages in different underlying syntactic structures.
In my paper "Thesen zum Universalienprojekt" (1976) I mention two complementary procedures for discovering language universals: 1. The investigation of the dimensions and principles whose existence is necessitated by the communicative function of language; 2. The development of a formal language in which all syntactic rules are explicitly formulated and in which all syntactic categories are defined by their relation to a minimally necessary number of syntactic categories. Since the first procedure is treated in many of the other papers of this volume, I wish to discuss the role of formal methods in the research of language universals. As an example I want to take the dimensions of determination and show how expressions denoting concepts are modified and turned into reference identifying expressions. There is a general end a specific motivation for the introduction of formal methods into linguistics. The general motivation is to make statements in linguistics as exact and verifiable as they are in the natural sciences. The specific motivation is to make the grammars of various languages comparable by describing them with the same form of rules. The form has to be flexible enough to describe the phenomena of any possible natural language. All natural languages have in common that they may potentially express any meaning. The flexibility of the form of grammatical rules may therefore be attained, if syntactic rules are not isolated from the semantic function they express and syntactic classes are not defined merely by the relative position of their elements in the sentence, but also by the communicative function their elements fulfill in their combination with elements of other classes.
Montague (1974) has shown that this flexibility may be attained by using the language of algebra combined with categorial grammar. Algebraic systems have been developed by mathematicians to model any systems whose operations are definable. Montague does not merely use the tools of mathematics for describing the features of language, but regards syntax, semantics and pragmatics as branches of mathematics. One of the advantages of this approach is that we may apply the laws developed by mathematicians to the systems constructed by linguists for the description and explanation of natural language.