Linguistik
Refine
Year of publication
- 2008 (199) (remove)
Document Type
- Article (81)
- Conference Proceeding (47)
- Part of a Book (31)
- Preprint (20)
- Review (8)
- Report (4)
- Book (3)
- Doctoral Thesis (2)
- Working Paper (2)
- magisterthesis (1)
Has Fulltext
- yes (199)
Keywords
- Deutsch (20)
- Linguistik (20)
- Rezension (20)
- Germanistik (12)
- Russland (12)
- Metapher (9)
- Phonologie (9)
- Englisch (7)
- Kroatisch (7)
- Phonetik (7)
Institute
We contrast two types of sentences with a preposed NP in French in a construction based HPSG grammar. They differ with respect to different grammatical aspects (syntax, semantics, pragmatics and phonology), which cluster uniquely into constructions. Both are colloquial, a reason why they have been recognized only recently (see Zribi-Hertz 1986, 1996, Sabio 1995, 2006). Accordingly, we rely for the data on spoken corpora (Corpaix, CFRP) as well as on our intuitions. Both constructions involve a partitioned semantics but this mode of composition is associated with different effects. One construction is characterized semantically: the preposed NP is the theme of a categorical proposition. The other construction is characterized pragmatically: it is associated with an independent declarative clause, a typical use of which is to signal a break in the interaction.
Die vorliegende Arbeit diente der Gewinnung neuer Erkenntnisse über die historische Entwicklung und Typisierung von Fragesätzen. Die Analyse basiert auf Materialien verschiedener indogermanischer Sprachen (Griechisch, Armenisch, Gotisch, Altkirchenslavisch, Altrussisch) sowie einer außerindogermanischen kaukasischen Sprache (Altgeorgisch). Primär wurden Bibeltexte aus dem Alten und Neuen Testament anhand von Faksimileausgaben und elektronischen Textcorpora untersucht. Die Arbeit demonstrierte anhand von über 540 Beispielen, welche Kriterien, graphische oder grammatische Mittel, Fragewortstellung oder Satzgliederfolge, in den überlieferten Texten für die Entschlüsselung von Fragesätzen hilfreich waren. Für jede betrachtete Sprache wurde eine möglichst ausführliche Klassifikation der Hauptfragesatztypen vorgelegt. Ferner gehörte zum Untersuchungsobjekt der Arbeit die in den Fragesätzen implizierte Antworterwartung. Für die weitere Analyse dieser Erscheinung wurden die Fragesätze aufgrund ihrer formalen Kennzeichen für Antworterwartung und Bedeutung eingeteilt. Anhand des übereinzelsprachlichen Vergleiches war es möglich, die spezifischen interrogativen Charakteristika aufzuzeigen, die in den einzelnen Sprachen für die jeweiligen schriftlich fixierten Perioden typisch waren. Wenn relevant, wurden auch Daten aus jüngeren Sprachstufen herangezogen. Die zum Schluss vorgestellte Gegenüberstellung von indogermanischen und kaukasischen Sprachen war erforderlich, um nicht nur genetisch bedingte sprachspezifische Charakteristika von Fragesätzen aufzuzeigen, sondern auch allgemeinsprachliche spezifische Merkmale zu eruieren.
On the role of syntactic locality in morphological processes : the case of (Greek) derived nominals
(2008)
The paper is structured as follows. In section 2, I briefly summarize the facts on English and Greek nominalizations. In section 3, I discuss English nominal derivation in some detail. In section 4, I turn to the question of licensing of AS in nominals. In section 5, I turn to the issue of the optionality of licensing of AS in the nominal system.
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.
Structuring participles
(2008)
In this paper we discuss three types of adjectival participles in Greek, ending in -tos and –menos, and provide a further argument for the view that finer distinctions are necessary in the domain of participles (Kratzer 2001, Embick 2004). We further compare Greek stative participles to their German (and English) counterparts. We propose that a number of semantic as well as syntactic differences shown by these derive from differences in their respective morpho-syntactic composition.
In this paper we compare the distribution of PPs introducing external arguments in nominalizations with PPs introducing external arguments in the verbal domain. We show that several mismatches exist between the behavior of PPs in nominalizations and PPs in the verbal domain. This leads us to suggest that while PPs in the verbal domain are licensed by functional structure alone, within the nominal domain, PPs can also be licensed via an interplay of the encyclopaedic meaning of the root involved and the properties of the preposition itself. This second mechanism kicks in in the absence of functional structure.
Verbs, nouns and affixation
(2008)
What explains the rich patterns of deverbal nominalization? Why do some nouns have argument structure, while others do not? We seek a solution in which properties of deverbal nouns are composed from properties of verbs, properties of nouns, and properties of the morphemes that relate them. The theory of each plus the theory of howthey combine, should give the explanation. In exploring this, we investigate properties of two theories of nominalization. In one, the verb-like properties of deverbal nouns result from verbal syntactic structure (a “structural model”). See, for example, van Hout & Roeper 1998, Fu, Roeper and Borer 1993, 2001, to appear, Alexiadou 2001, to appear). According to the structural hypothesis, some nouns contain VPs and/or verbal functional layers. In the other theory, the verbal properties of deverbal nouns result from the event structure and argument structure of the DPs that they head. By “event structure” we mean a representation of the elements and structure of a linguistic event, not a representation of the world. We refer to this view as the “event model”. According to the event model hypothesis, all derived nouns are represented with the same syntactic structure, the difference lying in argument structure – which in turn is critically related to event structure, in the way sketched in Grimshaw (1990), Siloni (1997) among others. In pursuing these lines of analysis, and at least to some extent disentangling their properties, we reach the conclusion that, with respect to a core set of phenomena, the two theories are remarkably similar – specifically, they achieve success with the same problems, and must resort to the same stipulations to address the remaining issues that we discuss (although the stipulations are couched in different forms).
This paper deals with the variable position of adjectives in the Romanian DP. As all other Romance languages, Romanian allows for adjectives to appear in both prenominal and post-nominal position. In addition, however, Romanian has a third pattern: the so-called cel construction, in which the adjective in the post-nominal position is preceded by a determiner-like element, cel. This pattern is superficially similar to Determiner Spreading in Greek. In this paper we contrast the cel construction to Greek DS and discuss the similarities and differences between the two. We then present an analysis of cel as involving an appositive specification clause, building on de Vries (2002). We argue that the same structure is also involved in the context of nominal ellipsis, the second environment in which cel is found.
Class features as probes
(2008)
In this article, we adress (i) the form and (ii) the function on inflection class features in minimalist grammar. The empirical evidence comes from noun inflection systems involving fusional markers in German, Greek, and Russian. As for (i), we argue (based on instances of transparadigmatic syncretism) that class features are not privative; rather, class information must be decomposed into more abstract, binary features. Concerning (ii), we propose that class features qualify as the very device that brings about fusional infection: They are uninterpretable in syntax and actas probes on stems, with matching inflection markers as goels, and thus trigger morphological Agree operations that merge stem and inflection marker before syntax is reached.