Linguistik
Refine
Year of publication
- 2004 (167) (remove)
Document Type
- Part of a Book (69)
- Conference Proceeding (38)
- Article (25)
- Preprint (15)
- Working Paper (8)
- Report (5)
- Book (3)
- Doctoral Thesis (2)
- Other (1)
- Review (1)
Language
- English (131)
- German (31)
- Portuguese (2)
- Turkish (2)
- Italian (1)
Has Fulltext
- yes (167) (remove)
Is part of the Bibliography
- no (167)
Keywords
- Generative Transformationsgrammatik (23)
- Syntax (22)
- Wortstellung (20)
- Deutsch (16)
- Phonologie (11)
- Optimalitätstheorie (9)
- Englisch (8)
- Formale Semantik (8)
- Informationsstruktur (8)
- Thema-Rhema-Gliederung (8)
Institute
- Extern (30)
- Sprachwissenschaften (2)
- Gesellschaftswissenschaften (1)
- Neuere Philologien (1)
"A team", definitely
(2004)
Schwankungen zwischen starker und schwacher Flexion werden mit unterschiedlichen Graden von Determinativhaftigkeit verschiedener Pronominaladjektive korreliert, bezogen auf eine universelle Dimension der IDENTIFIKATION (nach Seiler), sowie mit unterschiedlichen Graden der Ausgeprägtheit determinativischer (starker) Flexion, bezogen auf eine Ordnung nach formaler Markanz verschiedener Wortformen. Es wird gezeigt, dass stärkere Determinativhaftigkeit der Lexeme schwache Flexion bei folgenden Adjektiven begünstigt. Bezüglich der Varianz bei verschiedenen paradigmatischen Formen wird die Vermutung gestützt, dass das Formengewicht der Endungen eine wesentliche Rolle spielt.
In morphological systems of the agglutinative type we sometimes encounter a nearly perfect one-to-one relation between form and function. Turkish inflectional morphology is, of course, the standard textbook example. Things seem to be quite different in systems of the flexive type. Declension in Contemporary Standard Russian (henceforth Russian, for short) may be cited as a typical example: We find, among other things, cumulative markers, “synonymous” endings (e.g., dative singular noun forms in -i, -e, or -u), and “homonymous” endings (e.g., -i, genitive, dative, and prepositional singular). True, some endings are more of an agglutinative nature, being bound to a specific case-number combination and applying across declensions, e.g., -am (dative plural, all nouns); and some cross the boundaries of word classes, e.g., -o, which serves as the nominative/accusative singular ending of neuter forms of pronouns (and adjectives) and as the nominative/accusative singular ending of (most) neuter nouns as well. Still, many observers have been struck by the impression that what we face here are rather uneconomic or even, so to speak, unnatural structures. But perhaps flexive systems are not as complicated as they seem. What seems to be uneconomic complexity may be, at least partially, an artifact of uneconomic descriptions.
Japanese wh-questions always exhibit focus intonation (FI). Furthermore, the domain of FI exhibits a correspondence to the wh-scope. I propose that this phonology-semantics correspondence is a result of the cyclic computation of FI, which is explained under the notion of Multiple Spell-Out in the recent Minimalist framework. The proposed analysis makes two predictions: (1) embedding of an FI into another is possible; (2) (overt) movement of a wh-phrase to a phase edge position causes a mismatch between FI and wh-scope. Both predictions are tested experimentally, and shown to be borne out.
We argue that there is a crucial difference between determiner and adverbial quantification. Following Herburger [2000] and von Fintel [1994], we assume that determiner quantifiers quantify over individuals and adverbial quantifiers over eventualities. While it is usually assumed that the semantics of sentences with determiner quantifiers and those with adverbial quantifiers basically come out the same, we will show by way of new data that quantification over events is more restricted than quantification over individuals. This is because eventualities in contrast to individuals have to be located in time which is done using contextual information according to a pragmatic resolution strategy. If the contextual information and the tense information given in the respective sentence contradict each other, the sentence is uninterpretable. We conclude that this is the reason why in these cases adverbial quantification, i.e. quantification over eventualities, is impossible whereas quantification over individuals is fine.