Refine
Year of publication
Document Type
- Part of a Book (10)
- Article (6)
Language
- English (8)
- German (5)
- Croatian (1)
- Polish (1)
- Portuguese (1)
Has Fulltext
- yes (16) (remove)
Is part of the Bibliography
- no (16)
Keywords
- Adverb (16) (remove)
Institute
In this study, I investigate the positions and interpretations available to 'manner' adverbs in English. My central claim, contra Wyner (1994, 1998), is that an association does exist between 'manner' adverb positions and interpretations, which is best characterized in terms of Peterson's (1997) distinction between 'restrictive' and 'non-restrictive' modification. I also claim, however, that the association in question is not as general as commonly claimed; and, in particular, does not apply directly to 'manner' adverbs in 'fronted' and 'parenthetical' positions, which require special syntactic description.
Rethinking the adjunct
(2000)
The purpose of the present paper is twofold: first, to show that, when defining the adjunct, it is necessary to distinguish in a strict modular way between the syntactic level and the lexico-semantic level. Thus, the adjunct is a syntactic category on a par with the specifier and the complement, whereas the argument belongs to the same set as does (among others) the modifier. The consequence of this distinction is that there is no direct one-to-one opposition between adjuncts and arguments. Nor is there any direct one-to one relation between adjuncts and modifiers.
The second and main purpose of the paper is to account for the well-known difference between the position of a specific set of modifiers (cause, time, place etc.) in, on the one hand, English and Swedish, on the other, German. In English and Swedish the default position of these modifiers is postverbal, whereas in German it is preverbal. Further, in English and Swedish, these modifiers occur in a mirror order compared with their German counterparts, an order which, from a semantic point of view, is not the expected one. I shall demonstrate that this difference is due to the different settings of the verbal head parameter, the former languages being VO-languages and the latter being OV -languages. I shall further argue that in English and Swedish these modifiers are base generated as adjuncts to an empty VP, which is a complement of the main verb of what I shall call the minimal VP (MVP), whereas in German they are adjuncts on top of the MVP. Finally, I shall argue that the postverbal modifiers move at the latest at LF to the top of the MVP, in order to take scope over it, the restriction being 'Shortest move'. The movement results in the correct scope order of the postverbal modifiers.
The proposed structure also accounts for the binding data, in particular for the binding of a specific Swedish possessive anaphor 'sin'. This pronoun, which may occur within the MVP, must not occur within the postverbal modifiers in the empty VP. This supports the assumption that there is a strict borderline between the MVP and the assumed empty VP. The account is also in accordance with the focus data, the specific set of modifiers being potential focus exponents in a wide focus reading in English and Swedish, but not in German.
Adverbien der Art und Weise im Deutschen und Englischen: zu ihrer Stellung und Interpretation
(2002)
Während es für das Englische seit langem bekannt ist, dass die Interpretation bestimmter ambiger Adverbien von ihrer Stellung abhängt, soll hier gezeigt werden, dass ähnliche Fakten auch im Deutschen zu beobachten sind. Sie können als Hinweis darauf genommen werden, dass bestimmte Adverbialtypen bestimmte Grundpositionen im deutschen Satz haben. Als Beispiel werden in diesem Aufsatz Adverbien der Art und Weise herangezogen, deren Stellungsregularitäten im Englischen und Deutschen auf den ersten Blick völlig unterschiedlich sind. Es wird gezeigt, dass die Stellung dieser Adverbien einer sprachübergreifenden Regularität folgt und dass die zu beobachtenden Unterschiede in der Stellung auf die unterschiedlichen Satzstrukturen des Deutschen und des Englischen zurückzuführen sind.
This paper deals with restitutive and repetitive 'wieder'. Proceeding from the assumption that adverbial adjuncts have base positions which reflect their semantic relations to the rest of the sentence, it is shown that repetitive 'wieder' belongs to the class of event adverbs minimally c-commanding the base positions of all arguments whereas restitutive 'wieder' has many properties in common with process adjuncts, minimally c-commanding the final verb.
U radu će biti riječi o imenicama koje označuju mjeru i koje se redovito pojavljuju u akuzativu iako bi sintaktički na tome mjestu trebao doći koji drugi oblik. Učestalom upotrebom u akuzativnome obliku te imenice gube svoje osnovno morfološko obilježje – promjenjivost, a time i svoju nedvojbenu pripadnost imenicama kao vrsti riječi i nameću pitanje kako ih obraditi u rječniku.
Este artigo apresenta contrastivamente os diferentes tipos de categorização grammatical do item lexical advérbio em uma gramática brasileira e em duas alemãs. O objetivo é apontar a complexidade de descrição do advérbio em uma classe única. A característica heterogeneidade do advérbio é exemplificada por três tipos de advérbio: advérbios modalizadores discursivos (CASTILHO 2010), advérbios de comentário (DUDEN 2006) e palavras modais (HELBIG & BUSCHA 2001).
Two diametrically opposed stances have emerged from recent theoretical debates on adverbial syntax. One approach, represented by Alexiadou (1997) and Cinque (1999), espouses a rigid hierarchy of functional projections hosting individual adverbs. The other, represented broadly by Jackendoff (1972), McConnell-Ginet (1982) and most recently Ernst (2002), takes adverb placement to be determined by the semantics of the adverbs themselves as opposed to the functional architecture of the clause. Under the latter view, adverbs may be divided into several categories based on their meaning with each category being licensed in a certain range within the sentence.
Here, I undertake a detailed examination of Tagalog adverbs and compare the predictions of the two best articulated recent theories of adverbs, that of Cinque (1999, 2004) and Ernst (2002). The results offer support for some of the basic predictions of the semantically based approach of Ernst. Particularly important are scopal facts which do not obtain a clear explanation under a functional projection-based theory such as Cinque's.
It is argued that there is a surprising gap in the distribution of adverbial modifiers, namely that there are (practically) no adverbs that modify exclusively stative verbs. Given the general range of selectional restrictions associated with adverb/verb modification, this comes as a surprise. It is argued that this gap cannot be the result of standard selectional restrictions. An independently motivated account of the state-event verb contrast, in which state verbs are proposed to lack Davidsonian arguments is presented and argued to account for this stative adverb gap. Some apparent and real problems with the analysis are discussed.
Unter Syntaktikern besteht generell die Tendenz, im Deutschen die Freiheit bezüglich der Positionierung der Adverbiale sogar für noch größer zu halten als die Freiheit der Positionierung der Argumente. Wie die Stellungsfreiheit der Argumente im Mittelfeld eines deutschen Satzes theoretisch zu erfassen sei, wird seit langer Zeit kontrovers diskutiert. Die Hauptfrage dreht sich darum, ob alle Serialisierungen der Argumente basisgeneriert sind oder ob es eine ausgezeichnete Serialisierung der Argumente, eine sogenannte Grundabfolge, gibt, aus der sämtliche anderen Aktantenserialisierungen durch eine Ableitungsoperation bzw. Bewegung zu gewinnen sind. Diese grundsätzlichen Fragen stellen sich auch bezüglich der Positionierungsmöglichkeiten der Adverbiale, auch wenn sie hierfür bei weitem nicht so häufig gestellt und diskutiert wurden.