Linguistik
Refine
Year of publication
- 2005 (187) (remove)
Document Type
- Part of a Book (54)
- Conference Proceeding (52)
- Article (51)
- Preprint (13)
- Book (7)
- Working Paper (5)
- Report (3)
- diplomthesis (1)
- Other (1)
Language
Has Fulltext
- yes (187)
Is part of the Bibliography
- no (187)
Keywords
- Deutsch (14)
- Artikulation (13)
- Artikulatorische Phonetik (13)
- Phonetik (13)
- Englisch (11)
- Artikulator (9)
- Bedeutungswandel (6)
- Computerlinguistik (6)
- Japanisch (6)
- Akustische Phonetik (5)
Institute
Since Donald Davidson’s seminal work “The Logical Form of Action Sentences” (1967) event arguments have become an integral component of virtually every semantic theory. Over the past years Davidson´s proposal has been continuously extended such that nowadays event(uality) arguments are generally associated not only with action verbs but with predicates of all sorts. The reasons for such an extension are seldom explicitly justified. Most problematical in this respect is the case of stative expressions. By taking a closer look at copula sentences the present study assesses the legitimacy of stretching the Davidsonian notion of events and discusses its consequences. A careful application of some standard eventuality diagnostics (perception reports, combination with locative modifiers and manner adverbials) as well as some new diagnostics (behavior of certain degree adverbials) reveals that copular expressions do not behave as expected under a Davidsonian perspective: they fail all eventuality tests, regardless of whether they represent stage-level or individual-level predicates. In this respect, copular expressions pattern with stative verbs like know, hate, and resemble, which in turn differ sharply from state verbs like stand, sit, and sleep. The latter pass all of the eventuality tests and therefore qualify as true “Davidsonian state” expressions. On the basis of these empirical observations and taking up ideas of Kim (1969, 1976) and Asher (1993, 2000), an alternative account of copular expressions (and stative verbs) is provided, according to which the copula introduces a referential argument for a temporally bound property exemplification (= “Kimian state”). Considerations on some logical properties, viz. closure conditions and the latent infinite regress of eventualities, suggest that supplementing Davidsonian eventualities with Kimian states may yield not only a more adequate analysis of copula sentences but also a better understanding of eventualities in general.
In this paper I will discuss the formation of different types of yes/no questions in Serbian (examples in (1)), focusing on the syntactically and semantically puzzling example (1d), which involves the negative auxiliary inversion. Although there is a negative marker on the fronted auxiliary, the construction does not involve sentential negation. This coincides with the fact that the negative quantifying NPIs cannot be licensed. The question formation and sentential negation have similar syntactic effects cross-linguistically. This has led to various attempts to formulate a unifying syntactic account of the phenomena (ever since Klima 1964). One striking fact about the two syntactic contexts is that both license weak NPIs (Negative Polarity Items). It has been suggested (cf. Laka 1990, Culicover 1991) that the derivation of both interrogatives and negatives involves the same type of functional projection PolP (polarity phrase). One such account of the formation of negative interrogatives in Serbo- Croatian is offered by Progovac (2005). She proposes that there are two PolPs optionally cooccurring in the same clause, in which both positive and negative polarity items check their positive or negative features (following Haegeman and Zanuttini (1991) feature-checking account of negative structures, and the insights of Brown(1999) on the negation in Russian). On her account, the negative auxiliary question in (1d), is the case when both polarity phrases are present. The higher has [-pos +neg] features, and the lower one (below TP) is [-pos -neg]. Although her account correctly predicts the ungrammaticality of (2a) in contrast with (1c), it wrongly predicts the (2b) to be grammatical. I will argue that Progovac’s theory regarding the nature of the PolP is wrong. It employs both the binary feature valuation on the polarity head and the hierarchical ordering of the two polarity phrases, which eventually leads to overgeneration. On the account presented here the nature of the question marker (li vs zar) is highly relevant. Notice that (1b) and (1d) express presuppositions regarding the truth value of the propositions. In this way they contrast with (1a) and (1c). In addition, the type (1b) (with the question particle zar) can introduce both the positive and negative presupposition as shown in (3), which, semantically, makes this construction compatible with negative auxiliary questions in English (4a). The polarity items licensed in the relevant structures are also of the same type in both languages. The fronted-negative-auxiliary questions (1d) in Serbian are only possible with the particle li. In this case the presupposition is exclusively positive. The peculiar question/focus marking function of li (in Bulgarian and Russian) is well known. However, it is always assumed that its focus marking role is not relevant for the formation of yes/no questions. This I believe is not correct. The syntactic explanation of the interpretational facts points to the following: A) The possibility of the separate lexical encoding (particle zar) of the ‘rhetorical’ yes/no questions in Serbian allows the embedding of both positive and negated sentences, in which case the (weak) NPIs can remain in local relation with the negated verb. B) Recall that Serbian is an NC language, which requires local/c-command relation between the verbal negative marker and the NPI. With the negative inverted auxiliary questions this condition is not met, and the licensing of an n-word is not possible. C) The impossibility of licensing a weak NPI (i-words in the examples below) is due to the nature of the question marker li. (1) a. Da li je Vera videla ikoga / nekoga / *nikoga? DA Q aux Vera see.part.F.Sg anyone someone noone “Did Vera see anyone/someone/noone?” b. Zar je Vera videla ikoga / nekoga / *nikoga? ZAR aux Vera see.part.F.Sg anyone someone noone “Is it really the fact that Vera saw anyone/someone?” c. Je li Vera videla ikoga / nekoga /*nikoga? aux Q Vera see.part.F.Sg anyone someone noone “Did Vera see anyone/someone/noone?” d. Nije li Vera videla *ikoga / nekoga / *nikoga? neg+aux Q Vera see.part.F.Sg anyone someone noone “Didn’t Vera see someone?”/ “Vera saw someone, didn’t she?” (2) a. *Nije li Vera videla nikoga? neg+aux Q Vera see.part.F.Sg noone b. *Nije li Vera videla ikoga? neg+aux Q Vera see.part.F.Sg anyone (3) a. Zar je Vera videla nekoga / ikoga? ZAR aux Vera see.part.F.Sg someone/anyone b. Zar Vera nije videla nekoga/nikoga? ZAR Vera neg+aux see.part.F.Sg someone/anyone (4) a. Didn’t Vera (NOT) see someone/anyone? b. Vera saw someone, didn’t she?
Tagging kausaler Relationen
(2005)
In dieser Diplomarbeit geht es um kausale Beziehungen zwischen Ereignissen und Erklärungsbeziehungen zwischen Ereignissen, bei denen kausale Relationen eine wichtige Rolle spielen. Nachdem zeitliche Relationen einerseits ihrer einfacheren Formalisierbarkeit und andererseits ihrer gut sichtbaren Rolle in der Grammatik (Tempus und Aspekt, zeitliche Konjunktionen) wegen in jüngerer Zeit stärker im Mittelpunkt des Interesses standen, soll hier argumentiert werden, dass kausale Beziehungen und die Erklärungen, die sie ermöglichen, eine wichtigere Rolle im Kohärenzgefüge des Textes spielen. Im Gegensatz zu “tiefen” Verfahren, die auf einer detaillierten semantischen Repr¨asentation des Textes aufsetzen und infolgedessen für unrestringierten Text m. E. nicht geeignet sind, wird hier untersucht, wie man dieses Ziel erreichen kann, ohne sich auf eine aufwändig konstruierte Wissensbasis verlassen zu müssen.
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.
This paper provides an analysis of an alternative strategy to A´-movement in both German and Dutch where the extracted constituent is preceded by a preposition and a coreferential pronoun appears in the extraction site. The construction has properties of both binding and movement: Whereas reconstruction effects suggest movement out of the embedded clause, there is strong evidence that the operator constituent is linked to an A-position in the matrix clause; this paradox is resolved by assuming a Control-like approach that involves movement from the embedded clause into a theta-position in the matrix clause with subsequent short A´- movement. The coreferential pronoun is interpreted as a resumptive heading a Big-DP which hosts the antecedent in its specifier.
Plural semantics for natural language understanding : a computational proof-theoretic approach
(2005)
The semantics of natural language plurals poses a number of intricate problems – both from a formal and a computational perspective. In this thesis I investigate problems of representing, disambiguating and reasoning with plurals from a computational perspective. The work defines a computationally suitable representation for important plural constructions, proposes a tractable resolution algorithm for semantic plural ambiguities, and integrates an automatic reasoning component for plurals. My solution combines insights from formal semantics, computational linguistics and automated theorem proving and is based on the following main ideas. Whereas many existing approaches to plural semantics work on a model-theoretic basis using higher-order representation languages I propose a proof-theoretic approach to plural semantics based on a flat firstorder semantic representation language thus showing that a trade-off between expressive power and logical tractability can be found. The problem of automatic disambiguation of plurals is tackled by a deliberate decision to drastically reduce recourse to contextual knowledge for disambiguation but rely instead on structurally available and thus computationally manageable information. A further central aspect of the solution lies in carefully drawing the borderline between real ambiguity and mere indeterminacy in the interpretation of plural noun phrases. As a practical result of my computational proof-theoretic approach to plural semantics I can use my methods to perform automated reasoning with plurals by applying advanced firstorder theorem provers and model-generators available off-the shelf. The results are prototypically implemented within the two logic-oriented natural language understanding applications DRoPs and Attempto. DRoPs provides an automatic plural disambiguation component for uncontrolled natural language whereas Attempto works with a constructive disambiguation strategy for controlled natural language. Both systems provide tools for the automated analysis of technical texts allowing users for example to automatically detect inconsistencies, to perform question answering, to check whether a conjecture follows from a text or to find equivalences and redundancies.
Ziel des Teilprojekts ist die thematische Erschließung der Korpora, um sowohl themenspezifische virtuelle Subkorpora zusammenstellen zu können als auch aufgrund der Analyse sachgebietsbezogener Häufigkeitsverteilungen z.B. Lesarten disambiguieren zu können. Ausgangspunkt ist die Erstellung einer Taxonomie von Sachgebietsthemen. Dies erfolgt in einem semiautomatischen Verfahren, welches die Anwendung von Textmining (Dokumentclustering) und die manuelle Zuordnung von Clustern in eine externen Ontologie beinhaltet. Es wird argumentiert, dass die so gewonnene Taxonomie sowohl intuitiver als auch objektiver ist als bestehende, rein manuelle Ansätze. Sie eignet sich zudem gleichermaßen für manuelle als auch für maschinelle Klassifikation. Für letzteres wird der Naive Bayes'sche Textklassifikator motiviert und für ein klassifiziertes Korpus von knapp zwei Milliarden Wörtern evaluiert.
Wie formt sich die Sprache im Kopf? : Kognitive Linguistik: Sprache, Grammatik und die Wissenswelten
(2005)
Man kann die Menschheit in zwei Gruppen teilen: in solche, die sich an fremden Orten verbal anschmiegen und die lokale Sprache in sich aufnehmen als wäre es schon immer die eigene gewesen und solche, die ihre Sprache an einem fremden Ort beibehalten und sich kaum merklich oder gar nicht von ihrer neuen Umgebung sprachlich beeinflussen lassen. Daher fällt einem meist auf, ob jemand beispielsweise in Solothurn seinen Berner, Basler oder Thurgauer Dialekt beibehalten hat, oder aber man beobachtet – vielleicht sodann mit einer gewissen Skepsis –, dass ein zugezogener Mensch das Solothurnische langsam annimmt und seinen eigenen Dialekt nach und nach zu verlernen scheint. ...