Linguistik
Refine
Year of publication
- 2001 (154) (remove)
Document Type
- Part of a Book (66)
- Article (44)
- Conference Proceeding (12)
- Working Paper (9)
- Preprint (8)
- Book (6)
- Review (6)
- Report (2)
- Diploma Thesis (1)
Language
- English (121)
- German (28)
- Portuguese (4)
- Polish (1)
Has Fulltext
- yes (154) (remove)
Is part of the Bibliography
- no (154) (remove)
Keywords
- Syntax (32)
- Semantik (20)
- Prädikat (18)
- Deutsch (15)
- Englisch (13)
- Informationsstruktur (10)
- Satzakzent (8)
- Lexikologie (6)
- Polnisch (6)
- Russisch (6)
Institute
Formalized as a systematic interaction between a tier of co-arguments and a tier of co-dependents, the concept of diathesis offers a considerable theoretical advantage in stating linguistic generalizations. Based on Slavic data, this paper argues for the general notion of dependents in HPSG, in addition to arguments and subcategorized elements (valence). It attempts to provide a systematic inventory of ARG-ST / DEPS mappings which results in a diathetic paradigm. The approach offers an insightful cross-linguistic and cross-constructional perspective.
Dynamic semantic accounts of presupposition have proven to quite successful improvements over earlier theories. One great advance has been to link presupposition and anaphora together (van der Sandt 92, Geurts 95), an approach that extends to integrate bridging and other discourse phenomena (Asher and Lascarides 1998a,b). In this extended anaphoric account, presuppositions attach, like assertions, to the discourse context via certain rhetorical relations. These discourse attachments constrain accommodation and help avoid some infelicitous predictions of standard accounts of presupposition. Further, they have interesting and complex interactions with underspecified conditions that are an important feature of the contributions of most presupposition triggers.
Deictic uses of definites, on the other hand, seem at first glance to fall outside the purview of an anaphoric theory of presupposition. There seems to be little that a discourse based theory would have to say. I will argue, however, that a discourse based account can capture how these definites function in conversation. In particular such accounts can clarify the interaction between the uses of such deictic definites and various conversational moves. At least some deictic uses of definites generate presuppositions that are bound to the context via a rhetorical function that I'll call unchoring, which if successful entails a type of knowing how. If this anchoring function is accepted, then the acceptors know how to locate the referent of the definite in the present context. I'll concentrate here just on definites that refer to spatial locations, where the intuitions about anchoring are quite clear. But I think that this view extends to other deictic uses of definites and has ramifications for an analysis of de re attitudes as well.
In this work, I provide an analysis of adjectival depictive constructions which accounts for most of their fundamental properties. First, I focus on the restrictions having to do with the integration of the depictive and the verbal predicate: they are based on aspectual compatibility between the two predicates, which, in turn, will depend on the ability, on the part of the depictive, to make reference to some (sub)event in the event structure of the verbal predicate. Facts not captured by previous approaches in the literature will be straightforwardly accounted for, among them the possibility to have I-L depictive constructions, and the impossibility to combine a depictive with some non-stative verbal predicates. Second, it will be shown that the informational import of the depictive in the sentence can be equivalent to that of the verbal predicate: both can be the primary lexical basis of predication. This is reflected in the sentence in various ways, having to do with aspectual modifiers, and in the properties of the sentential subject. In this connection, we will reconsider the notion of subject, arguing that no subject-predicate relation takes place in the lexical domain of sentences, and hence that the argument the depictive is oriented to, the common argument, cannot be a subject of the depictive. Finally, a minimalist analysis is proposed for the syntax of the construction, in terms of direct syntactic merge of predicative constituents and sidewards (q-to-q) movement for the common argument, from the lexical domain of the depictive to the lexical domain of the verb. As to morphosyntactic properties, a syntactic Double Agree relation is assumed to hold between T/v, as probes, on the one hand, and the common argument and depictive, as simultaneous goals, on the other, which would allow for the deletion of Case features on both goals. The assumed presence of Structural Case on the adjectival depictive will be responsible for the well-known restriction on the orientation of depictives to the sentential subject or object.
Predication and equation
(2001)
English is one language where equative sentences and non-equative sentences have a similar surface syntax (but see Heggie 1988 and Moro 1997 for a discussion of more subtle differences). In this paper we address the fact that many other languages appear to use radically different morphological means which seem to map to intuitive differences in the type of predication expressed. We take one such language, Scottish Gaelic, and show that the real difference is not between equative and non-equative sentences, but is rather dependent on whether the predicational head in the structure proposed above is eventive or not.
We show that the aparently odd syntax of “equatives” in this language derives from the fact that they are constructed via a non-eventive Pred head. Since Pred heads cannot combine with non-predicative categories, such as saturated DPs, “equatives” are built up indirectly from a simple predicational structure with a semantically bleached predicate. This approach not only allows us to maintain a strict one-to-one syntax/semantics mapping for predicational syntax, but also for the syntax of DPs. The argument we develop here, then, suggests that the interface between the syntactic and semantic components is maximally economical— one could say perfect.
In French, Italian, and Romanian, forms inherited from the Latin paradigm 'esse' are used for the copula, the passive auxiliary and tense or perfective auxiliaries. We show that the copula and the passive auxiliary should be identified, while the tense or perfective auxiliaries are different lexemes. Moreover, the copula has the same description across all the Romance languages. While they all are argument inheritance verbs, the copula and the tense or perfective auxiliaries differ with respect to their complement structure: (i) the second only have one complement structure (the complement participle is complement unsaturated), the copula has two complement structures (the predicate is either complement saturated or unsaturated); (ii) French and Italian tense auxiliaries are the head of a flat VP, where the participle is sister to its subcategorized complements, the Romanian perfective auxiliary is the head of a verbal complex; (iii) when the complement predicate is unsaturated, the Romance copula is the head of a flat VP.
Two consequences of the analysis are worth mentioning. First, the copula (and the passive auxiliary) should not be taken into account when stating the environments for auxiliary selection in French and Italian. Second, argument inheritance and complement structure are different phenomena, and argue in favor of theories which systematically distinguish between valence features and constituent structures.
This volume presents working versions of presentations heard at and selected for the Workshop on Syntax of Predication, held at ZAS, Berlin, on November 2-3, 2001 (except the editor’s own paper).
Predication is a many-faceted topic which involves both syntax and semantics and the interface between them. This is reflected in the papers of the volume.
This volume presents a collection of papers touching on various issues concerning the syntax and semantics of predicative constructions.
A hot topic in the study of predicative copula constructions, with direct implications for the treatment of he (how many he's do we need?), and wider implications for the theories of predication, event-based semantics and aspect, is the nature and source of the situation argument. Closer examination of copula-less predications is becoming increasingly relevant to all these issues, as is clearly illustrated by the present collection.
This volume presents working versions of presentations heard at and selected for the Workshop on Syntax of Predication, held at ZAS, Berlin, on November 2-3, 2001 (except the editor’s own paper).
Predication is a many-faceted topic which involves both syntax and semantics and the interface between them. This is reflected in the papers of the volume.
This volume comprises papers that were given at the workshop Information Structure and the Referential Status of Linguistic Expressions, which we organized during the Deutsche Gesellschaft für Sprachwissenschaft (DGfS) Conference in Leipzig in February 2001. At this workshop we discussed the connection between information structure and the referential interpretation of linguistic expressions, a topic mostly neglected in current linguistics research. One common aim of the papers is to find out to what extent the focus-background as well as the topic-comment structuring determine the referential interpretation of simple arguments like definite and indefinite NPs on the one hand and sentences on the other.
Die Sprachtheorie steht heute vor neuen Herausforderungen. Sie zeichnet sich durch die schnelle Dynamik ihrer Entwicklung und die Öffnung gegenüber anderen Wissenschaften und Forschungsbe-reichen aus. Ergebnisse der Sprachtheorie sind für die Philosophie, die Linguistik und die Sozialwissenschaften, aber auch für die Kommunikationswissenschaften von Bedeutung. Die in diesem Band versammelten Beiträge konzentrieren sich auf folgende Schwerpunkte der Sprachtheorie: intentionale Bedeutung, Sprecherbedeutung und Sprachbedeutung, Intentionalität, Kommu-nikation und kommunikative Intentionen, die Fortbildung und Kri-tik der von Grice entwickelten Bedeutungstheorie (Bedeutungsnominalismus) sowie ihre Anwendung auf die sogenannte Theorie der sprachlichen Kraft (illokutive Kraft), einen Neuanfang der Klas-sifikation von Sprechakten, Analyse der Gültigkeitsunterstellungen der Interpretation, Ergebnisse der Dialogforschung und Modelle der Argumentationstheorie. Inhalt Einleitung: Zu kognitiven und handlungstheoretischen Grundlagen der Sprachtheorie 7 Gerhard Preyer, Maria Ulkan, Alexander Ulfig I Intentionen und kommunikative Handlungen Maria Ulkan Kommunikative und illokutionäre Akte 22 Georg Meggle/Maria Ulkan Grices Doppelfehler. Ein Nachtrag zum Griceschen Grundmodell 43 Jan Nuyts Intentionalität und Sprachfunktionen 51 II Interpretation und Bedeutung Gerhard Preyer Kognitive Semantik 74 Anhang: Sprechaktsemantik: J.L. Austin, J.R. Searle, H.P. Grice, P.F. Strawson 113 Louise Röska-Hardy Sprechen, Sprache, Handeln 139 Frank Siebelt Zweierlei Holismus. Überlegungen zur Interpretationstheorie Donald Davidsons 159 Peter Rothermel Semantische Implikaturen 173 Volkmar Taube Referenz und Interpretation. Zur Theorie nichtsprachlicher Symbolisierung 187 Georg Peter Zu Richtigkeit und Interpretation der Metapher: Kognitive Funktion und rekonstruktive Schemainterpretation 195 III Klassifikation von Sprechakten Maria Ulkan Informations- und Aufforderungshandlungen 218 Dirk Hartmann Konstruktive Sprechakttheorie 228 Volkmar Taube Bildliche Sprechakte 247 IV Kommunikatives Handeln und intersubjektive Gültigkeit Jürgen Habermas Sprechakttheoretische Erläuterungen zum Begriff der kommunikativen Rationalität 258 Karl-Otto Apel Illokutionäre Bedeutung und normative Gültigkeit. Die transzendentalpragmatische Begründung der uneingeschränkten kommunikativen Verständigung 288 Peter-Paul König Kommunikatives und strategisches Handeln. Kritische Bemerkungen zu zwei zentralen Begriffen der "Theorie kommunikativen Handelns" von Jürgen Habermas 304 Alexander Ulfig Präsuppositionen und Hintergrundwissen. Eine Kritik am formalpragmatischen Präsuppositionsbegriff 321 V Dialogstruktur und Argumentation Wilhelm Franke Konzepte linguistischer Dialogforschung 346 Franz Hundsnurscher Streitspezifische Sprechakte: Vorwerfen, Insistieren, Beschimpfen 363 Dieter Mans Argumentation im Kontext Exkurs: Zu Christoph Lumers "Praktische Argumentationstheorie" 376