Refine
Year of publication
Document Type
- Conference Proceeding (12)
- Part of a Book (6)
- Article (1)
- Review (1)
- Working Paper (1)
Language
- English (15)
- German (4)
- Portuguese (2)
Has Fulltext
- yes (21) (remove)
Is part of the Bibliography
- no (21)
Keywords
- Passiv (21) (remove)
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.
Das deutsche Passiv-Paradigma befindet sich im Umbruch. Getragen wird ein Paradigma von einer allgemeinen abstrakten kategorialen Bedeutung, der sogenannten Zielkategorie (werden-Passiv). Im Rahmen von Grammatikalisierungsprozessen kann das Paradigma ausgebaut werden, wobei neue Mitglieder in Konkurrenz oder Opposition zu der Zielkategorie treten. Periphere Mitglieder des Paradigmas (gehören-Passiv, bekommen-Passiv) werden anhand ihrer semantischen und morphosyntaktischen Merkmale eingeordnet.
This paper aims to provide type hierarchies for Korean passive constructions on the basis of their forms within the HPSG framework. The type hierarchies proposed in this paper are based on the classification of Korean passives; suffixal passives, auxiliary passives, inherent passives, and passive light verb constructions. Verbs are divided into five subtypes in accordance with the possibility of passivization. We also provide type hierarchies for verbal nouns and passive light verbs.
The structure Accusativus cum Infinitivo (AcI) has been observed in a number of languages, amongst them Latin. Morphologically it consists of an NPacc and a VPinf . In Latin however, a finer distinction has to be drawn, as was already noticed by Bolkestein (1976) who differentiates "between actual accusative cum infinitive clauses and constructions existing of an object-noun in the accusative caseform and a complementary infinitive"(1976:263).
Zum Passiv im Türkischen
(1983)
Die vorliegende Arbeit will das Passiv im Türkischen beschreiben, und zwar besonders seine formalen Merkmale, seine Funktion und seinen Zusammenhang mit verwandten kategorien. Zunächst sollen aber die wichtigsten Strukturmerkmale der türkischen Sprache kurz erläutert werden; darauf folgen allgemeine Bemerkungen über das Passiv.
As construções com verbo-suporte (CVS) são ligações verbo-nominais com um significado único, por exemplo, 'zu Ende bringen' e 'ins Gespräch kommen'. Os verbos-suporte 'bringen' e 'kommen' podem formar CVS com os mesmos substantivos, de maneira que a CVS com 'bringen' na voz passiva e com kommen sejam sinônimas. O objetivo deste artigo é investigar as diferenças de significado entre essas duas CVS sinônimas que emergem da sintaxe através das metáforas conceptuais PROXIMIDADE É FORÇA DE EFEITO e MAIS FORMA É MAIS CONTEÚDO (LAKOFF; JOHNSON 1980). Para tanto, analisamos os dados da dissertação de mestrado de Pereira (2017), cujos corpora foram obtidos no Sistema de Gerenciamento e Análise de Corpora (Cosmas II). Concluímos que diferenças sutis de significado entre CVS formadas com ambos os verbos emergem das metáforas conceptuais citadas e que ambas permitem que a voz passiva de 'bringen' carregue mais significado que a CVS com 'kommen', a saber, o agente implícito. Além disso, as CVS também sofrem influência das metáforas conceptuais UMA AÇÃO É UM LOCAL e UMA AÇÃO É UM OBJETO.
In this paper I develop a unified analysis of the Japanese passive, which provides a uniform syntactic/semantic representation of the alleged varieties of passives (direct, indirect, possessive) as a complex predicate that encodes the triadic relation of "lack of control" among an agent, undergoer and event. Various differences among the direct, possessive, and indirect passives (the adversative effect implicature, the possibility of reflexive binding, the animacy constraint on the subject, etc.) are explained as cooperative effects of the core syntactic/sematic properties of the passive morpheme -(r)are and functional/pragmatic factors like conversational implicature and empathy constraints.
This paper focuses on passive constructions in Dutch. Specifically, we focus on worden, as well as krijgen passives in Dutch, for which we propose a uniform, raising analysis in HPSG. We also show that such an analysis can be carried over to account for passives cross-linguistically. Specifically, we look at corresponding structures in German and show that there is no need for a dual raising and control analysis for the German "agentive" (werden) and the German "dative" (kriegen) passives, respectively, as has been proposed in Müller (2002) and Müller (2003).
We show how the variation in the passive in Danish, English, and German can be accounted for. The dimensions in which the three languages differ are
- the existence of a morphological passive in Danish
- a subject requirement in Danish and English resulting in expletive insertion in impersonal
- constructions in Danish and absence of impersonal passives in English the possibility to promote the secondary object to subject in Danish
The differences are accounted for by differences in the structural/lexical case distinction and by mapping processes that insert expletives in Danish. The passive in general is accounted for by a lexical rule that is uniform across languages and hence captures the generalization regarding passive.
It is a much-debated issue whether one should assume separate lexical entries for participles used in passive and perfect constructions or whether there is just one lexical entry that is used in different ways depending on whether a passive or perfect auxiliary is present in the clause.
In previous work I criticized approaches trying to analyze the passive with one lexical entry for making empirically wrong predictions and suggested a lexical-rule based approach were two different lexical items for the participle are licensed.
In this paper I show how Heinz and Matiasek's (1994) formalizations of Haider's (1986) ideas can be extended and modified in a way that both modal infinitives and control constructions can be captured correctly. The suggested analysis needs only one lexical item for participles, base form infinitives, and zu infinitives irrespective of their usage in active or passive like structures.
In this paper I show that object to subject raising approaches as suggested by Pollard (1994) and Müller (1999) are problematic since they cannot account for adjective formation in a satisfying way. The approach by Heinz and Matiasek (1994), which is a formalization of Haider's (1986) ideas, cannot account for modal infinitives and control.
I develop a lexical rule based approach and it will be shown that this approach also extends to tricky cases of remote passive.
This study aims to analyze and develop a detailed model of syntax and semantics of passive sentences in standard Indonesian in the framework of Head-Driven Phrase Structure Grammar (HPSG) (Pollard & Sag, 1994; Sag et al., 2003) and Minimal Recursion Semantics (MRS) (Copestake et al., 2005), explicit enough to be interpreted by a computer, focusing on implementation rather than theory. There are two main types of passive in Indonesian, following Sneddon et al. (2010, pp. 256-260) and Alwi et al. (2014, pp. 352-356), called 'passive type 1' (P1) and 'passive type 2' (P2). Both types were analyzed and implemented in the Indonesian Resource Grammar (INDRA), a computational grammar for Indonesian (Moeljadi et al., 2015).
Die vorliegende Studie untersucht die lexikalisch-semantischen Charakteristika der passivischen und deagentiven Konstruktion "bleiben" + "zu"-Vollverbinfinitiv auf der Basis von Recherchen im Deutschen Referenzkorpus des Instituts für deutsche Sprache (DeReKo; TAGGED-T2-öffentlich). Aufgrund der Analyse wurden die in diese prädikative Konstruktion eintretenden Vollverben identifiziert und in Bezug auf ihre lexikalisch-semantischen Charakteristika erforscht. Daraus ergab sich ihre Gliederung in sechs lexikalische Felder, und zwar Einschätzung – "Wert", "Kommunikation", "Lösung", "unspezifische Aktivität", "Ziel" – "Endpunkt" und "Wunsch".
Starting from the basic observation that, across languages, the anticausative variant of an alternating verb systematically involves morphological marking that is shared by passive verbs, the goal of this paper is to provide a uniform and formal account of these arguably two different construction types. The central claim that I put forward is that passives and anticausatives differ only with respect to the event-type features of the verb but both arise through the same operation, namely suppression by special morphology of a feature in v that encodes the ontological event type of the verb. Crucially, I argue for two syntactic primitives, namely act and cause, whereto I trace the passive/anticausative distinction. Passive constructions across languages are made compatible by relegating the differences to simple combinatorial properties of verb and prepositional types and their interactions with other event functors, which are in turn encoded differently morphologically across languages. New arguments are brought forward for a causative analysis of anticausatives. Agentive adverbials are examined, and doubt is cast on the usefulness of by-phrases as a diagnostic for argumenthood.
In the present paper, we concentrate on (selected) Bantu and Nilotic bare-passive strategies and lay out the basis for a typology of transitive passive constructions in these languages. We argue that bare-passives constitute an optimal strategy to change prominence relations between arguments, in languages that strongly hold to the default mapping between the highest thematic role available and the grammatical subject (i.e. Spec,TP). The Nilotic and Bantu languages discussed here differ in their way of satisfying this default mapping. In particular, impersonal bare-passives satisfy it by resorting to an agentive place-holder (an indefinite subject marker) and realizing the logical agent as a lower thematic/semantic role (e.g. instrument or locative). Left-dislocation and so called 'subjectobject' reversal bare-passives realize the default matching between agent and subject in a more straightforward way, but locate the patient in a higher argument position within the inflectional domain (Spec,TopP). As argued in Hamlaoui and Makasso (2013) and Hamlaoui (2013), and in line with Noonan (1977), the present languages display a clauseinternal split between subjecthood (being the grammatical subject in Spec,TP) and topicality (being the subject of the predication, in an inflectional-domain internal Spec,TopP).
We discuss evidence in Halkomelem, a Coast Salish language of British Columbia, which supports the hypothesis put forward by Manning and Sag (1999) that a universal passive argument structure (ARG-ST) is complex and has two a-subjects. We argue that morphological and syntactic control phenomena in Halkomelem are best described by saying that an a-subject is accessible, where an a-subject is the first argument on an argument structure list.
ARG-ST <bi <a, Proi, ...>>
The Halkomelem passive data show that two notions of subject are essential for capturing control phenomena. One set of constructions-motion auxiliaries, desideratives, and reflexive causatives-involve linking to the internal a-subject. One construction-the control construction–links to either the highest a-subject or the internal a-subject. Similar conclusions have been drawn for data from Russian (Perlmutter 1984), Philippine languages (Schachter 1984), and other languages of the world. As Manning and Sag (1998) point out, one does not have to draw the conclusion that passive must be given a multilevel syntactic analysis from such data. Rather, their analysis of passive, which posits a complex argument structure, easily accounts for Halkomelem. Control facts in Halkomelem, with examples drawn from both morphological and syntactic constructions, can be added to the catalog of phenomenon that support this view of the passive.
Since Pollard and Sag (1994) it has been assumed that raising involves full structure sharing, whereas a control verb merely shares the content of one of the lower verb's arguments. This has been considered a property of the phenomena, despite the fact that Pollard and Sag (1994) present this syntactic difference as a hypothesis confirmed for Icelandic only. In this paper we discuss the difference between raising and control from the perspective of Dutch and German passives. It has already been shown by Van Noord and Kordoni (2005) that the secondary object passives in these languages are raising structures, in which the case of the raised argument changes. In this paper we provide additional evidence for the raising analysis, and we propose a new analysis, which allows for a uniform account of Dutch and German passives as raising structures. Przepiorkowski and Rosen (2004) show that control may exhibit case transmission; the data presented in this paper shows that raising may not. Therefore, we claim that the distinction between raising and control is found in theta-role assignment. Syntactically they tend to behave differently, but they may also behave in the exact same way.
The aim of this paper is to provide an adequate analysis in LFG of the prepositional passive, e.g. That problem has been dealt with, My pen has been written with. This construction has been examined in LFG before by Bresnan (1982), Lødrup (1991), and Alsina (2009), but empirical and theoretical problems, some well-documented, some new, mean that such proposals cannot be maintained. Instead, I offer an account couched in recent work on the mapping between grammatical functions and arguments (Asudeh et al., 2014; Findlay, 2014a) that treats the defining characteristic of the prepositional passive not as purely syntactic, but rather as being located at the interface between syntax and semantics.
In many languages, a passive-like meaning may be obtained through a noncanonical passive construction. The get passive (1b) in English, the se faire passive (2b) in French and the kriegen passive (3b) in German represent typical manifestations. This squib focuses on the behavior of the get-passive in English and discusses a number of restrictions associated with it as well as the status of get.
Die Ableitung des Passivs ist typologisch keine einheitlich konfigurierte Konstruktion. In den kontinental-westgermanischen Sprachen und dem Lateinischen setzt sie ein lexikalisch externes Argument (designiertes Subjektargument) voraus, im Englischen, Französischen und Russischen sowohl ein externes wie ein internes Argument (Subjekt und (direktes) Objekt). Gleichwohl sind Passive im Deutschen und Russischen - also quer zu dieser ersten Verbklassifikation – aspektuellen Beschränkungen unterworfen, Passive im Englischen dagegen nicht, jedenfalls auf den ersten Blick. Sehen wir in diesen Kreis von Sprachen noch historische Stufen hinzu, dann ist auch davon auszugehen, daß Sprachen wie das Deutsche von einer Stufe mit einem paradigmatisch einigermaßen systematisch gefestigten Aspektsystem ohne Passiv – dem Althochdeutschen – zu einer Sprache mit Passiv (und ohne Aspekt) wurde. Wir brauchen gar nicht die gemeinsame indoeuropäische Wurzel zu beschwören, um die folgenden Fragen plausibel erscheinen zu lassen: Was hat Aspekt mit Passiv zu tun? Und: Soferne solche Übergänge tatsächlich vorliegen – wie sehen die Schritte von Aspekt zum Genus verbi im einzelnen aus, und wo stehen die Sprachen heute im Vergleich zueinander, also auf einer Art Entwicklungsleiter, mit Vorläufer- gegenüber Nachläuferstufen in der relativen Diachronie von Aspekt zur Passivdiathese?