Refine
Year of publication
Document Type
- Part of a Book (3965) (remove)
Language
- German (2840)
- English (1071)
- French (20)
- Italian (12)
- Turkish (12)
- Multiple languages (5)
- mis (2)
- Hungarian (1)
- Portuguese (1)
- Spanish (1)
Has Fulltext
- yes (3965)
Keywords
- Literatur (201)
- Deutsch (180)
- Rilke, Rainer Maria (136)
- Rezeption (106)
- Syntax (101)
- Geschichte (91)
- Benjamin, Walter (72)
- Spracherwerb (72)
- Begriff (67)
- Lyrik (65)
Institute
- Extern (421)
- Sprach- und Kulturwissenschaften (59)
- Rechtswissenschaft (58)
- Universitätsbibliothek (53)
- Gesellschaftswissenschaften (51)
- Neuere Philologien (28)
- Erziehungswissenschaften (25)
- studiumdigitale (23)
- Geschichtswissenschaften (21)
- Kulturwissenschaften (18)
Information structure
(2007)
Traces
(2007)
Implicated presuppositions
(2008)
It is widely believed that existential quantifiers can bring about the semantic effects of a scope which is wider than their actual syntactic scope (See Fodor & Sag (1982), Cresti (1995), Kratzer (1995), Reinhart (1995) and Winter (1995), among many others.) On the other hand, it is assumed that the syntactic scope of universal quantifiers can be determined unequivocally by the semantics. This paper shows that this second assumption is wrong; universal quantifiers can also bring about scope illusions, though in a very specific environment. In particular, we argue that in the environment of generic tense, universal quantifiers can show the semantic effects of a scope which is wider than the one that is actually realized at LF. Our argument has four steps. First, we show that in generic contexts, universal quantifiers escape standard “scope-islands” (Section 1). Second, we show how the effects of wide scope in generic contexts can be achieved without syntactic wide scope (Section 2.1). Third, we show that this result is actually forced on us, once we take seriously certain independent issues concerning the interpretation of generic tense (Sections 2.2 - 2.4). Finally, the semantics of generic tense and, in particular, its interaction with focus, will yield some intricate new predictions, which, as we show, are borne out (Sections 3 - 5).
The paper presents an additional argument for a specific account of semantic binding: the flat-binding analysis. The argument is based on observations concerning sloppy interpretations in verb phrase ellipsis when the binder is not the subject of the elided VP. In one such case, it is important that one of the binders belong to the domain of the other. This case can be derived from the flat-binding analysis as is shown in the paper, while it is unclear how to account for it within other analyses of semantic binding.
Trubetzkoy's recognition of a delimitative function of phonology, serving to signal boundaries between morphological units, is expressed in terms of alignment constraints in Optimality Theory, where the relevant constraints require specific morphological boundaries to coincide with phonological structure (Trubetzkoy 1936, 1939, McCarthy & Prince 1993). The approach pursued in the present article is to investigate the distribution of phonological boundary signals to gain insight into the criteria underlying morphological analysis. The evidence from English and Swedish suggests that necessary and sufficient conditions for word-internal morphological analysis concern the recognizability of head constituents, which include the rightmost members of compounds and head affixes. The claim is that the stability of word-internal boundary effects in historical perspective cannot in general be sufficiently explained in terms of memorization and imitation of phonological word form. Rather, these effects indicate a morphological parsing mechanism based on the recognition of word-internal head constituents. Head affixes can be shown to contrast systematically with modifying affixes with respect to syntactic function, semantic content, and prosodic properties. That is, head affixes, which cannot be omitted, often lack inherent meaning and have relatively unmarked boundaries, which can be obscured entirely under specific phonological conditions. By contrast, modifying affixes, which can be omitted, consistently have inherent meaning and have stronger boundaries, which resist prosodic fusion in all phonological contexts. While these correlations are hardly specific to English and Swedish it remains to be investigated to which extent they hold cross-linguistically. The observation that some of the constituents identified on the basis of prosodic evidence lack inherent meaning raises the issue of compositionality. I will argue that certain systematic aspects of word meaning cannot be captured with reference to the syntagmatic level, but require reference to the paradigmatic level instead. The assumption is then that there are two dimensions of morphological analysis: syntagmatic analysis, which centers on the criteria for decomposing words in terms of labelled constituents, and paradigmatic analysis, which centers on the criteria for establishing relations among (whole) words in the mental lexicon. While meaning is intrinsically connected with paradigmatic analysis (e.g. base relations, oppositeness) it is not essential to syntagmatic analysis.
In morphological systems of the agglutinative type we sometimes encounter a nearly perfect one-to-one relation between form and function. Turkish inflectional morphology is, of course, the standard textbook example. Things seem to be quite different in systems of the flexive type. Declension in Contemporary Standard Russian (henceforth Russian, for short) may be cited as a typical example: We find, among other things, cumulative markers, “synonymous” endings (e.g., dative singular noun forms in -i, -e, or -u), and “homonymous” endings (e.g., -i, genitive, dative, and prepositional singular). True, some endings are more of an agglutinative nature, being bound to a specific case-number combination and applying across declensions, e.g., -am (dative plural, all nouns); and some cross the boundaries of word classes, e.g., -o, which serves as the nominative/accusative singular ending of neuter forms of pronouns (and adjectives) and as the nominative/accusative singular ending of (most) neuter nouns as well. Still, many observers have been struck by the impression that what we face here are rather uneconomic or even, so to speak, unnatural structures. But perhaps flexive systems are not as complicated as they seem. What seems to be uneconomic complexity may be, at least partially, an artifact of uneconomic descriptions.
Objektrelativsätze mit haben
(2006)
Objektrelativsätze mit dem Vollverb haben sind im gesprochenen Deutsch vergleichsweise häufig. Sie treten als einfache Objekt-Subjekt-Verb-Strukturen auf, z.B. die ich habe, und auch erweitert durch Modalisierungen und/oder Adverbialphrasen etc., z.B. wie in die ick uff de GRUNDschule schon hatte. Um die Differenzen, die sich zwischen den Verwendungen erkennen lassen, zu erfassen, kann eine standardgrammatische Beschreibung allenfalls als Ausgangsbasis dienen. Ein konstruktionsgrammatisches Vorgehen hingegen, bei dem alle linguistischen Ebenen der Sprachbeschreibung berücksichtigt werden, zeigt die Bandbreite von haben-Relativkonstruktionen auf. In Zusammenhang mit den Matrixstrukturen und unter Berücksichtigung der Diskurspragmatik (informationsstrukturelle und konversationelle Dimensionen) lassen sich vier verschiedene Konstruktionen mit haben-Relativsätzen konturieren: eine Präsentativkonstruktion, eine Topikkonstruktion, eine cleftartige Konstruktion und eine Konstruktion mit identifizierenden haben-Relativsätzen.