Refine
Year of publication
Document Type
- Conference Proceeding (15)
- Article (5)
- Working Paper (4)
- Book (1)
- Part of a Book (1)
- Preprint (1)
- Review (1)
Has Fulltext
- yes (28)
Is part of the Bibliography
- no (28)
Keywords
- Arabisch (28) (remove)
Institute
- Extern (1)
Much discussion of the comparative correlative construction exemplified by The more I read, the more I understand has been concerned with how much cross–linguistic variation there is in this area. Culicover and Jackendoff (1999) suggest that there is considerable variation, but Den Dikken (2005) suggests with data from a variety of languages that the variation is quite limited. Modern Standard Arabic has a comparative correlative construction which is quite different from Engish and the other languages that Den Dikken considers, suggesting that there is more variation in this domain than he assumes. However, it is not difficult to provide an analysis of the construction and other related constructions within the HPSG framework.
Modern Standard Arabic (MSA) has simple and complex comparatives, which look rather like their counterparts in many other languages. MSA simple comparatives are indeed like those of other languages, but MSA complex comparatives are quite different. They involve an adjective with a nominal complement, which may be an adjectival noun or an ordinary noun, and are rather like so-called 'adjectival constructs'. Simple comparatives, complex comparatives, and adjectival constructs can all be analysed with lexical rules within HPSG.
Over the past few years, there has been renewed interest in the treatment of resumption in HPSG: despite areas of convergence, e.g. the recognition of resumptive dependencies as dependencies, as motivated by Across-the-Board (ATB) extraction, there is no unified theory to date, with differences pertaining, e.g., to the exact formulation of amalgamation (Ginzburg and Sag, 2000), or the place of island constraints in grammar. While Borsley (2010) and Alotaibi and Borsley (2013) relegate the difference in locality of gap and resumptive dependencies to the performance system, Crysmann (2012, 2016) captures insensitivity to strong islands as part of the grammar. Harmonising existing proposals becomes even more acute, if we consider the cross-linguistic similarity of the phenomenon, in particular, if we compare languages like Hausa and Arabic, which both feature island insensitivity to some degree, as well as bound pronominal resumptive objects and zero pronominal resumptive subjects, to name just a few of the parallels. In this paper, I shall reexamine resumption (and extraction) in Modern Standard Arabic (henceforth: MSA) and propose a reanalysis that improves on Alotaibi and Borsley (2013) in several areas: first, I shall argue that controlling the distribution of gaps and resumptives by means of case is not only empirically under-motivated but also leads to counter-intuitive constraint specifications in the majority of cases. Second, I shall show that the case-based account of Alotaibi and Borsley (2013) can be straightforwardly supplanted with the weight-based account I proposed in Crysmann (2016): in doing this, one does not only get a better alignment of case assignment constraints with overtly observable manifestations of case, but such an account is also general enough to scale from case languages, such as MSA, to languages without case, such as Hausa, or many Arabic vernaculars. Finally, I shall address case in ATB extraction and propose a refinement of the Coordination Constraint of Pollard and Sag (1994) that accounts for exactly the kind of mismatch observed in mixed gap/resumptive ATB extraction
In this paper we investigate the status of control constructions in Modern Standard Arabic (MSA). MSA has several embedded clause constructions, some of which resemble control in English (and other languages). However, these constructions exhibit some notable differences. Chief among them is the fact that the embedded verb carries agreement features that can indicate both coreference and disjoint reference between a matrix argument and the understood subject of the complement clause. We conducted a thorough corpus-based investigation of such constructions, with a special focus on a search for obligatory control in the language. We show that our findings contradict accepted generalizations (and predictions) proposed by state-of-the-art theories of control, as they indicate that there are no "real" control predicates in MSA. We outline an HPSG analysis that accounts for the MSA data.
In the present monograph, we will deal with questions of lexical typology in the nominal domain. By the term "lexical typology in the nominal domain", we refer to crosslinguistic regularities in the interaction between (a) those areas of the lexicon whose elements are capable of being used in the construction of "referring phrases" or "terms" and (b) the grammatical patterns in which these elements are involved. In the traditional analyses of a language such as English, such phrases are called "nominal phrases". In the study of the lexical aspects of the relevant domain, however, we will not confine ourselves to the investigation of "nouns" and "pronouns" but intend to take into consideration all those parts of speech which systematically alternate with nouns, either as heads or as modifiers of nominal phrases. In particular, this holds true for adjectives both in English and in other Standard European Languages. It is well known that adjectives are often difficult to distinguish from nouns, or that elements with an overt adjectival marker are used interchangeably with nouns, especially in particular semantic fields such as those denoting MATERIALS or NATlONALlTIES. That is, throughout this work the expression "lexical typology in the nominal domain" should not be interpreted as "a typology of nouns", but, rather, as the cross-linguistic investigation of lexical areas constitutive for "referring phrases" irrespective of how the parts-of-speech system in a specific language is defined.
Sprechen heißt, mit Sachverhalten zu operieren. Die Forschung an der Dimension PARTIZIPATION hat es unternommen, zu zeigen, was es heißt, Sachverhalte sprachlich zu erfassen, und welche Techniken unter dieser allgemeinen Funktion zu finden sind und zusammenspielen (cf. Seiler/Premper (eds.) 1991). Wer spricht, macht aber gewöhnlich mehr: Sachverhalte werden nicht nur erfaßt, sondern gleichzeitig auch in den Kontext einer kommunikativen Absicht gestellt; sie werden behauptet, vermutet, bezweifelt, in Frage gestellt, negiert, gefordert, herbeigewünscht und anderes mehr. Kommunikative Absichten sind ebenfalls konstitutiv fürs Sprechen; durch sie werden Sprechereignisse erst zu Sprechakten. Sprechsituationen sind aber auch nicht nur durch kommunikative Absichten gekennzeichnet, sondern sie finden natürlich in Zeit und Raum statt. Folglich bestehen zwischen Sprecher und besprochenen Sachverhalten nicht nur Einstellungs-, sondern auch zeitliche Beziehungen. Dieses Hineinstellen in einen kommunikativen Kontext wird von uns (von UNITYP) SITUIERUNG genannt, und die Tatsache, daß sich dieser Komplex von Operationen sprachlicher Mittel bedient, macht Situierung zu einer sprachlichen Dimension. Die vorliegende Arbeit stellt sich die Aufgabe, die beiden Dimensionen Partizipation und Situierung in ihrem Verhältnis zueinander zu beleuchten, und zwar schwerpunktmäßig aus theoretischer und wissenschaftshistorischer Sicht. Als begrifflich-terminologischer Anknüpfungspunkt soll dabei der Ausdruck Proposition dienen. Zunächst werden einige Aspekte dieses Begriffes in der philosophischen Logik aufgeführt (Kap. 1). Dann wird die Diskussion, teilweise in Analogie zum ersten Kapitel, im Bereich der Linguistik fortgeführt, wobei unter anderem Argumente aus den Bereichen Sprechakttheorie (2.2.), Transformationstheorie (2.3.), Substitutionstests (2.4.) und Generative Semantik (2.5.) ins Spiel kommen.
Niemand wird als Märtyrer geboren – auch nicht in der arabischen Welt, wo dieser Begriff seit einigen Jahren Hochkonjunktur hat. Bei der Stilisierung zum Märtyrer spielen Literatur und bildende Künste eine zentrale Rolle: Ohne Literatur gäbe es keine Märtyrer, niemand würde sich ihrer erinnern. Könnte ein Akt des Martyriums begangen werden ohne seine vorherige symbolische Produktion, ohne seinen öffentlichen Lobpreis und seine Huldigung als Vorbild für Tugend und Heldentum?
Friederike Pannewick beschäftigt sich mit verschiedenen Konstellationen von Opfer, Tod und Liebe, angefangen mit der frühislamischen arabischen Literatur bis hinein ins 21. Jahrhundert. Stationen sind der frühislamische Schlachtfeldmärtyrer, der Liebestod, weibliches Martyrium und Selbstmordattentäterinnen, aber auch moderne Dichtung und Romane, die die propagandistische Wirkungsmacht von Märtyrerfiguren in der blutigen Geschichte der zeitgenössischen arabischen Welt kritisch reflektieren und ästhetisch dekonstruieren.
This paper presents a descriptive overview and a formal analysis of the syntax of pronominal arguments, pronominal conjuncts and bound pronouns in Arabic. I argue that Arabic allows first conjuncts to be null and that this is an instance of a more general pattern of zero anaphora that may affect pronominal arguments or their first conjuncts. First Conjunct Agreement and constraints on the distribution of zero anaphora are accounted for by a new feature sharing mechanism which allows a uniform treatment without appeal to the internal structure of argument NPs. I then argue that Arabic bound pronouns should be analyzed as affixes and present an analysis of their relation to argument structure and coordination. Finally, it is shown how constraints on case marking in Arabic coordination can be formalized. The analysis is part of an Arabic grammar fragment implemented in the TRALE system.
The problem of vocalization, or diacritization, is essential to many tasks in Arabic NLP. Arabic is generally written without the short vowels, which leads to one written form having several pronunciations with each pronunciation carrying its own meaning(s). In the experiments reported here, we define vocalization as a classification problem in which we decide for each character in the unvocalized word whether it is followed by a short vowel. We investigate the importance of different types of context. Our results show that the combination of using memory-based learning with only a word internal context leads to a word error rate of 6.64%. If a lexical context is added, the results deteriorate slowly.