Refine
Year of publication
Document Type
- Article (10)
- Conference Proceeding (10)
- Preprint (3)
- Working Paper (3)
- Review (1)
Language
- English (13)
- German (11)
- Croatian (1)
- Portuguese (1)
- Turkish (1)
Has Fulltext
- yes (27)
Is part of the Bibliography
- no (27)
Keywords
- Präposition (27) (remove)
Institute
- Extern (2)
"Vor Ort" im Sprachgebrauch : eine kontrastive korpusbasierte Untersuchung (Deutsch-Slowakisch)
(2020)
[...] wird im vorliegenden Beitrag auf die Präposition-Nomen-Wortverbindungen (PNW) als Untersuchungsgegenstand eingegangen, wobei die Exemplifizierung am Beispiel der deutschen PNW "vor Ort" erfolgt. Aus Perspektive des Muttersprachlers stellen die Präposition-Nomen-Wortverbindungen Mehrwort-Einheiten mit einem bestimmten kombinatorischen Potenzial dar. Analog zu den (Einwort-)Lexemen lassen sich auch hier seine Grenzen nur schwer endgültig festlegen, auf Grund der Ko-Vorkommenshäufigkeit können aber die Präferenzen, bzw. Restriktionen bezüglich bestimmter Kookkurrenzpartner ermittelt und die sich daraus ergebenden Schlüsse im Hinblick auf das Funktionieren der PNW im Gebrauch gezogen werden. Obwohl sie im Sprachgebrauch keine Randposition besitzen, gibt es kaum eine zugängliche lexikographische Quelle mit einer detaillierteren Verarbeitung der Kombinatorik dieser Mehrworteinheiten. Ein weiterer Grund für die Notwendigkeit, das Augenmerk auf die Präposition-Nomen-Wortverbindungen zu richten, resultiert aus der Einbeziehung der Nicht Muttersprachler-Perspektive in die Untersuchung. Da die verglichenen Sprachen typologisch unterschiedlich sind, können bestimmte Divergenzen auch mit Rücksicht auf die gegebene Problematik erwartet werden.
In Sorani Kurdish dialects, the complement of a preposition can generally be realized either as a syntactic item (NP, independent pronoun or PP) or a bound personal morpheme (clitic/affix). However, the affixal realization of the complement gives rise to a range of specific phenomena. First, some prepositions display two different phonological forms depending on the realization of their complement: the variant combining with a syntactic item is referred to as ˋsimple', while the variant combining with an affixal complement is called ˋabsolute'. Furthermore, unlike syntactic complements, which are always realized locally, the affixal complement of an absolute preposition can have a non-local realization, attaching to a host with which it has no morphosyntactic relations. In order to deal with these facts, this paper proposes a classification of Sorani prepositions along two lines: the affixal versus non-affixal realization of the complement on the one hand and its local versus non-local realization on the other hand. All cases of non-local realization receive a lexical account, either in terms of argument composition or in terms of linearization constraints on domain objects.
In this paper we investigate the distribution of PPs related to external arguments (agent, causer, instrument, causing event) in Greek. We argue that their distribution supports an analysis, according to which agentive/instrument and causer PPs are licensed by distinct functional heads, respectively. We argue against a conceivable alternative analysis, which links agentivity and causation to the prepositions themselves. We furthermore identify a particular type of Voice head in Greek anticausative realised by non-active Voice morphology.
In Libyan Arabic, the preposition fi 'in' has developed into a marker of continuous or habitual aspect. While structurally remaining a preposition which marks the objects of the non-tensed forms of dynamic transitive verbs, it serves to attribute an aspectual interpretation to the clause as a whole. We argue that this aspectual object marking is naturally modeled by an inside-out functional designator, and provide arguments that the aspectual value contributed by aspectual fi is best treated as an f-structure feature.
Prepositional phrase (PP) attachment is one of the major sources for errors in traditional statistical parsers. The reason for that lies in the type of information necessary for resolving structural ambiguities. For parsing, it is assumed that distributional information of parts-of-speech and phrases is sufficient for disambiguation. For PP attachment, in contrast, lexical information is needed. The problem of PP attachment has sparked much interest ever since Hindle and Rooth (1993) formulated the problem in a way that can be easily handled by machine learning approaches: In their approach, PP attachment is reduced to the decision between noun and verb attachment; and the relevant information is reduced to the two possible attachment sites (the noun and the verb) and the preposition of the PP. Brill and Resnik (1994) extended the feature set to the now standard 4-tupel also containing the noun inside the PP. Among many publications on the problem of PP attachment, Volk (2001; 2002) describes the only system for German. He uses a combination of supervised and unsupervised methods. The supervised method is based on the back-off model by Collins and Brooks (1995), the unsupervised part consists of heuristics such as ”If there is a support verb construction present, choose verb attachment”. Volk trains his back-off model on the Negra treebank (Skut et al., 1998) and extracts frequencies for the heuristics from the ”Computerzeitung”. The latter also serves as test data set. Consequently, it is difficult to compare Volk’s results to other results for German, including the results presented here, since not only he uses a combination of supervised and unsupervised learning, but he also performs domain adaptation. Most of the researchers working on PP attachment seem to be satisfied with a PP attachment system; we have found hardly any work on integrating the results of such approaches into actual parsers. The only exceptions are Mehl et al. (1998) and Foth and Menzel (2006), both working with German data. Mehl et al. report a slight improvement of PP attachment from 475 correct PPs out of 681 PPs for the original parser to 481 PPs. Foth and Menzel report an improvement of overall accuracy from 90.7% to 92.2%. Both integrate statistical attachment preferences into a parser. First, we will investigate whether dependency parsing, which generally uses lexical information, shows the same performance on PP attachment as an independent PP attachment classifier does. Then we will investigate an approach that allows the integration of PP attachment information into the output of a parser without having to modify the parser: The results of an independent PP attachment classifier are integrated into the parse of a dependency parser for German in a postprocessing step.
This paper gives a survey over the forms that can be used as prepositions in contemporary German. Apart from prototypical prepositions such as an [at, by], auf [on] or in [in], there are prepositions with the form of a content word or the form of a syntactical structure. Prepositions with the form of a content word look like adverbs (e.g. abseits [away], außerhalb [outside]), verbs (entsprechend [corresponding], betreffend [concerning]), adjectives (nahe [near], seitlich [at the side]) or nouns (trotz [despite], kraft [by virtue]); prepositions with the form of a syntactical structure look like prepositional phrases (im Gefolge [in the wake], am Rande [on the brink]). These "atypical" prepositions are of special interest for two reasons: (1) they raise the question of the delimitation of the grammatical category "preposition"; (2) unlike prototypical prepositions, they are often characterized by semantically irrelevant variations in position (preposing vs postposing) and in the choice of the governed case (dative vs genitive). These synchronic variations are documented by authentic examples from a large corpus of written German of the 90s, and are explained on the basis of a diachronic gramrnaticalization rnodel.
In this paper, the author describes the use of the prepositions "laut", "zufolge" and "gemäß". These phrases are used exclusively when adopting parts of a text in another one. Thus, phrases with these prepositions are understood here as explicit intertextuality markers. Furthermore, the paper examines the nouns from these phrases, as well as some text-pretext relations arising from them.
This paper discusses the syntactic properties of 'prepositional numeral constructions (PNCs)' in English, which is exemplified by 'about 250 babies' and 'over 16,000 animals'. In PNCs a preposition is followed by a numeral. Previous analyses have claimed that the preposition and the numeral make a prepositional phrase in PNCs, but we argue that this is not a satisfactory approach. In HPSG there are some possible analyses that might be proposed, but there are reasons for supposing that the best analysis is one in which the preposition is a functor, a non-head selecting a numeral head.
An empirical overview of the properties of English prepositional passives is presented, followed by a discussion of formal approaches to the analysis of the various types of prepositional passives in HPSG. While a lexical treatment is available, the significant number of technical and conceptual difficulties encountered point to an alternative approach relying on constructional constraints. The constructional approach is argued to be the best option for prepositional passives involving adjunct PPs, and this analysis can be extended to create a hierarchy of constructions accommodating all types of prepositional passives in English, and the ordinary NP passive.
Rezension zu: Zengin, Dursun (2016): Her Yönüyle Almanca İlgeçler. Ankara: Nika Yayınevi. 409 S. ISBN: 9786059386050