Linguistik
Refine
Year of publication
Document Type
- Part of a Book (54)
- Article (23)
- Working Paper (15)
- Preprint (7)
- Review (5)
- Conference Proceeding (3)
- Doctoral Thesis (2)
- Book (1)
- Lecture (1)
- Report (1)
Language
- English (71)
- German (35)
- Portuguese (4)
- Croatian (2)
Has Fulltext
- yes (112) (remove)
Is part of the Bibliography
- no (112) (remove)
Keywords
- Semantik (112) (remove)
Institute
Semantik für Sprechakte
(1972)
Semantik wird herkömmlicherweise als die Interpretation von Zeichenketten verstanden, die die Syntax liefert. Damit gibt sie aber ein dubioses Programm für die Beschäftigung mit natürlichen Sprachen ab. Ausgangspunkt für diese muß die Feststellung sein, daß Sprechen ein Handeln ist und kein Produzieren von Zeichenketten (außer vielleicht zu Demonstrationszwecken). Sprechhandlungen sind z. B.: jmd. Widersprechen, jmd. beschuldigen, sich ausreden bzw. entschuldigen usw. Über die Sprechhandlungen selbst werde ich im folgenden nichts weiter sagen; ich werde vielmehr ein Verfasser und Leser gemeinsames Verständnis, begründet in einer gemeinsamen Erfahrung, voraussetzen. In dem so angedeuteten Rahmen soll es die Aufgabe der Semantik sein, die Bedingungen für Sprechhandlungen zu explizieren: Welche Bedingungen muß z. B. eine Sprechhandlung erfüllen, um eine Beschuldigung zu sein (als Beschuldigung zu gelten, als solche akzeptiert zu werden o. ä.)? Dieses Programm möchte ich im folgenden exemplarisch entwickeln.
This paper reports results from a series of experiments that investigated whether semantic and/or syntactic complexity influences young Dutch children’s production of past tense forms. The constructions used in the three experiments were (i) simple sentences (the Simple Sentence Experiment), (ii) complex sentences with CP complements (the Complement Clause Experiment) and (iii) complex sentences with relative clauses (the Relative Clause Experiment). The stimuli involved both atelic and telic predicates. The goal of this paper is to address the following questions.
Q1. Does semantic complexity regarding temporal anchoring influence the types of errors that children make in the experiments? For example, do children make certain types of errors when a past tense has to be anchored to the Utterance Time (UT), as compared to when it has to be anchored to the matrix topic time (TT)?
Q2. Do different syntactic positions influence children’s performance on past-tense production? Do children perform better in the Simple Sentence Experiment compared to complex sentences involving two finite clauses (the Complement Clause Experiment and the Relative Clause Experiment)? In complex sentence trials, do children perform differently when the CPs are complements vs. when the CPs are adjunct clauses? (Lebeaux 1990, 2000)
Q3. Do Dutch children make more errors with certain types of predicate (such as atelic predicates)? Alternatively, do children produce a certain type of error with a certain type of predicates (such as producing a perfect aspect with punctual predicates)? Bronckart and Sinclair (1973), for example, found that until the age of 6, French children showed a tendency to use passé composé with perfective events and simple present with imperfective events; we will investigate whether or not the equivalent of this is observed in Dutch.
If we want to develop a semantic analysis for explicit performatives such as I promise you to free Willy, we are faced with the following puzzle: In order to account for the speech act expressed by the performative verb, one can assume that the so-called performative clause is purely performative and provides the illocutionary force of the speech act whose content is given by the semantic object denoted by the complement clause. Yet under this perspective, the performative clause that is, next to the performative verb, the indexicals I and you that refer to the speaker and to the addressee of the utterance context is semantically invisible and does not contribute compositionally its meaning to the meaning of the entire explicit performative sentence. Conversely, if we account for the truth conditional contribution of the performative clause and deny that the meaning of the performative verb is purely performative, then we have to find a way to account for the speech act expressed by the performative verb. Of course, there is already the widely accepted and very appealing indirectness account for explicit performative utterances developed by Bach & Harnish (1979). Roughly, Bach and Harnish solve this puzzle in deriving the performativity by means of a pragmatic inference process. According to them, the important speech act performed by means of the utterance of the explicit performative sentence is a kind of the conventionalized indirect speech act. However, the boundary between semantics and pragmatics can be drawn in many various ways. Therefore, I think there could be other perspectives regarding the interface between the truth-functional treatment of the declarative explicit performative sentences and the speech acts performed with their utterances and which are expressed by the performative verbs. Hence, this thesis consists in the experiment to develop a further analysis and to check out its consequences with respect to the semantics and pragmatics of explicit performative utterances and the new interface emerged. Briefly, the experiment runs as follows: First, I develop an analysis for explicit performative sentences framed by parenthetical structures such as in (1)(a). In a second step, this parenthetical analysis is applied to the proper Austinian explicit performative sentences in (1)(b). (1) a. Tomorrow, I promise you this, I will teach them Tyrolean songs. b. I promise you that I will teach them Tyrolean songs. To analyze at first explicit performatives framed by parenthetical structures bears the convenience that we are faced with two utterances of two main clauses. In (1)(a) there is the utterance of the host sentence Tomorrow I will teach them Tyrolean songs, and the utterance of the explicit parenthetical I promise you this, where the demonstrative this refers to the utterance of Tomorrow I will teach them Tyrolean songs. Since speakers perform speech acts with utterances of main clauses, I assume that the meaning of the explicit parenthetical I promise you this specifies that the actual illocutionary force of the utterance of Tomorrow I will teach them Tyrolean songs is the illocutionary force of a promise. Hence, instead of deriving an indirect illocutionary force by means of a pragmatic inference schema, we can deal with an ordinary direct speech act that is performed with the utterance of the host sentence. This kind of analysis stresses the particular discourse function of explicit performative utterances. Performative verbs are used whenever the contextual information is not sufficient to determine the illocutionary force of the corresponding implicit speech act. The resulting consequences of the parenthetical analysis are interesting since they cast a different light on performative verbs. Surprisingly, the performative verbs are not performative at all. They do not constitute the execution of a speech act, but are execution supporting. Instead of constituting the particular illocutionary force, they merely specify the illocutionary force of the utterance of the host sentence. For instance, the speaker utters the explicit parenthetical I promise you this for specifying what he is simultaneously doing. Hence the speaker does not succeed in performing the promise simply because he is uttering I promise you this. Rather, by means of the information conveyed by the utterance of I promise you this, the potential illocutionary forces of the utterance of the host sentence are disambiguated. Thus, it is not the case that explicit parentheticals are trivially true when uttered. Their function is more complex. Their self-verifying property (‘saying so makes it so’) is explained by means of disambiguation. Furthermore, according to the parenthetical analysis, instead of being purely performative, the performative verbs contribute compositionally their meanings to the truth conditions of the entire explicit performative sentence. Together with its consequences, this analysis is applied to the proper Austinian performatives, which display subordination. I assume that regardless of their structure, explicit performatives always semantically and pragmatically behave as the parenthetical analysis predicts.
This paper presents results of research into syntactic negation in both German and Brazilian Portuguese dialogues. After some considerations on the nature of negation, its occurrence in a corpus is investigated based on semantic negation categories established from works by Polenz and Engel. Based on Ilari's works, possible syntactic negation forms are presented as formulae that express the relationships between their components. Use frequency of syntactic negation in the semantic categories in each language is presented, as well as possible sources of interference in the use of such elements by foreign speakers, along with considerations about negation, culture and language.
Tema je ovoga rada raščlamba kategorije prijelaznosti u hrvatskim gramatikama. Pri raščlambi je proučen odnos subjekta i (auto)objekta. Prikazan je način na koji je prijelaznost opisana u gramatikama te su obrađena ova pitanja: Kako prijelazni glagoli mogu postati neprijelazni i što se događa s njihovim značenjem? Kako gramatike dijele glagole prema prijelaznosti? Kako se tumači neprava povratnost? Što znači da radnja proizlazi sama od sebe? Na koji je način moguća dodatna interpretacija prijelaznosti kod pravih povratnih glagola s obzirom na razine proučavanja?
Decomposing coordination
(2014)
Natural languages display a surprising diversity of expression of elementary logical operations. The study of this variation is emerging as an important topic of cross-linguistic semantics. In this paper, we address the expression of coordination from this perspective, especially coordination of individual denoting expressions such as "John and Mary". We argue that there is an underlying universal structure for individual coordination, and that the cross-linguistic variation can be explained by assuming that languages pronounce different morphemes of this universal structure. In particular, we argue that there two main types of system for the expression of individual coordination: the J-type and the μ-type. In μ-type languages the morpheme used for individual coordination also has uses a quantificational or focus particle, while in the J-type languages it doesn't. Instead at least in many J-type languages the same morpheme is used for individual and propositional coordination. The evidence we present for our model comes from two sources: new data from specific data of the J-type and μ-type languages, and from a study of the historical development of the expression of individual coordination in Indo-European which switched from a μ-type to a J-type system.
Modern theorists rarely agree on how to represent the categories of tense and aspect, making a consistent analysis for phenomena, such as the present perfect, more difficult to attain. It has been argued in previous analyses that the variable behavior of the present perfect between languages licenses independently motivated treatments, particularly of a morphosyntactic or semanticsyntactic nature (Giorgi & Pianesi 1997; Schmitt 2001; Ilari 2001). More specifically, the wellknown readings of the American English (AE) present perfect (resultative, experiential, persistent situation, recent past (Comrie 1976)), are at odds with the readings of the corresponding structure in Brazilian Portuguese (BP), the 'pretérito perfeito composto' (default iterativity and occasional duration (Ilari 1999)). Despite these variations, the present work, assuming a tense-aspect framework at the semantic-pragmatic interface, will provide a unified analysis for the present perfect in AE and BP, which have traditionally been treated as semantically divergent. The present perfect meaning, in conjunction with the aspectual class of the predicate, can account for the major differences between languages, particularly regarding iterativity and the "present perfect puzzle", regarding adverb compatibility.
The paper addresses the longstanding question of whether the copular verb "werden" ('become') is a transitional, i.e. telic, or a nontransitional, i.e. atelic, verb, or verb that is unspecified with regard to telicity. By means of standard tests and historical considerations, it is argued that the verb is telic and refers to accomplishment situations. Nevertheless, there are two types of copular "werden"-clauses with regard to which this view may seem questionable at first sight. First, some "werden"-clauses appear to refer to achievements. This, however, is not a matter concerning the semantics of werden. Rather, the crucial cases are accidentally instantaneous because their predicative complements are absolute predicates. Hence, they do not allow for extended transitions from one state to another. Second, some other "werden"-clauses, expecially those with comparative complements, sometimes appear to refer to processes. However "werden" combined with a comparatival adjective can be shown to be able to refer to clear accomplishment situations. The process-effect is due to a common phenomenon of reinterpretation that leads to iterative transitions between degrees.
In this paper I would like to show that the principles which have been proposed so far to account for the relationship between the informational level and the syntactic level in a Chinese utterance are unable to predict some interesting and regular facts of that language.
To my mind, the form and the position of the question operator in an interrogative utterance provide two distributional tests which univocally indicate where the new information lies. Hence, the pairing of affirmative and interrogative sentences might be a better approach to locate where the new information lies in a Chinese utterance.
Eine allgeneine und theoretische Antwort auf die Frage, ob der Begriff "Possesivität" zur grammatischen Beschreibung einer natürlichen Sprache gehören solle oder nicht, wird je nach Standpunkt verschieden ausfallen. Man kann auch anders vorgehen, indem man in einem vortheoretischen Verständnis einen Begriff "Possesssivität" zunächst annimmt und zusieht, wie die Repräsentationen eines solchen Begriffs in je einer einzelnen Sprache sich gestalten. Die Möglichkeit, dass sich daraus, fast von alleine, eine Bestätigung und Präzisierung für diesen Begriff, ja sogar der eine oder andere Anhaltspunkt für dessen Universalität ergibt, dürfte man nicht ausschliessen. Der .Aufsatz von Hansjakob Seiler scheint schon in Zusammenhangmit diesem Problem nicht nur das Wesentlichste klargemacht zu haben; er stellt auch die Frage nach einem gemeinsamen Prinzip, dem die einzelnen Sprachen gehorchen, wenn sie die Possessivitätsrelation ausdrücken.
Dieser Beitrag ist ein Vorschlag, auf der grammatisch-semantischen Ebene dieses Prinzip in einer konktreten Sprache, dem Polnischen, aufgrund der die Possessivität ausdrückenden Mittel und ihrer Bereiche zu illustrieren. Daher wird hier semantisch davon ausgegangen, dass die Possessivität eine Relation ausdrückt, die den Verhältnis des Teils zum Ganzen entspricht. Ob man nun diese Relation als direkte Zugehörigkeit zur Menge oder als eine Art indirekter Zugehörigkeit, nämlich zum Besitzer der Menge auffasst, wäre eine Frage über die aufgrund der Struktur der betreffenden Sprache entschieden werden sollte, – vorausgesetzt immer, dass die Possessivität ein sprachlich ausgeprägtes und sprachwissenschaftlich beschreibbares Phänomen ist.
U ovom članku razmatraju se dokazi koje posuđenice nude za vrste kontakata između Praslavena i njihovih germanskih susjeda, Gota i različitih zapadnogermanskih naroda. Germanske posuđenice u praslavenskome uglavnom pripadaju određenom skupu semantičkih polja. Posuđene riječi mogu se podijeliti u nekoliko semantičkih polja: vlast i vojska, tehnička terminologija, novac i trgovinska razmjena, mjesta za pohranu (bačve, kutije itd.), kršćanska terminologija i imanje. Tehničke riječi i kršćanske riječi vjerojatno su zapadnogermanskoga podrijetla, dok sve ostale semantičke kategorije sadrže i gotske i zapadnogermanske posuđenice.
This paper is about the semantics of wh-phrases. It is argued that wh-phrases should not be analyzed as indefinites as, for example, Karttunen (1977) and many others have done, but as functional expressions with an indefinite core -their function being to restrict possible focus/background structures in direct or congruent answers. This will be argued for on the basis of observations made with respect to the distribution of term answers in well-formed question/answer sequences. This claim having been established, it will be integrated in a categorial variant of Schwarzschild's (1999) information-theoretic approach to F-marking and accent placement, and – second – its consequences with respect to the focus/background structure of wh-questions will be outlined.
LTAG semantics for questions
(2004)
This papers presents a compositional semantic analysis of interrogatives clauses in LTAG (Lexicalized Tree Adjoining Grammar) that captures the scopal properties of wh- and nonwh-quantificational elements. It is shown that the present approach derives the correct semantics for examples claimed to be problematic for LTAG semantic approaches based on the derivation tree. The paper further provides an LTAG semantics for embedded interrogatives.
Rethinking the adjunct
(2000)
The purpose of the present paper is twofold: first, to show that, when defining the adjunct, it is necessary to distinguish in a strict modular way between the syntactic level and the lexico-semantic level. Thus, the adjunct is a syntactic category on a par with the specifier and the complement, whereas the argument belongs to the same set as does (among others) the modifier. The consequence of this distinction is that there is no direct one-to-one opposition between adjuncts and arguments. Nor is there any direct one-to one relation between adjuncts and modifiers.
The second and main purpose of the paper is to account for the well-known difference between the position of a specific set of modifiers (cause, time, place etc.) in, on the one hand, English and Swedish, on the other, German. In English and Swedish the default position of these modifiers is postverbal, whereas in German it is preverbal. Further, in English and Swedish, these modifiers occur in a mirror order compared with their German counterparts, an order which, from a semantic point of view, is not the expected one. I shall demonstrate that this difference is due to the different settings of the verbal head parameter, the former languages being VO-languages and the latter being OV -languages. I shall further argue that in English and Swedish these modifiers are base generated as adjuncts to an empty VP, which is a complement of the main verb of what I shall call the minimal VP (MVP), whereas in German they are adjuncts on top of the MVP. Finally, I shall argue that the postverbal modifiers move at the latest at LF to the top of the MVP, in order to take scope over it, the restriction being 'Shortest move'. The movement results in the correct scope order of the postverbal modifiers.
The proposed structure also accounts for the binding data, in particular for the binding of a specific Swedish possessive anaphor 'sin'. This pronoun, which may occur within the MVP, must not occur within the postverbal modifiers in the empty VP. This supports the assumption that there is a strict borderline between the MVP and the assumed empty VP. The account is also in accordance with the focus data, the specific set of modifiers being potential focus exponents in a wide focus reading in English and Swedish, but not in German.
Aspektsysteme
(1991)
„Die folgenden Papiere sind im Umfeld eines Hauptseminars "Aspekt und Tempus" entstanden, das im Wintersemester 1989/90 am Institut für Sprachwissenschaft der Universität zu Köln stattfand. In den folgenden Beiträgen werden nicht alle Aspekte des Aspekts gedeckt; im Vordergrund steht hauptsächlich die Frage der Interaktion von lexikalischer Semantik und Aspektmorphologie, so daß sich die Beschreibung der Aspektmorphologie auf aspektrelevante Fälle beschränkt und Nebenfunktionen (z.B. temporale), Konventionalisierungen, Neutralisierungen usw. weitgehend vernachlässigt werden. Kritik und Anregungen sind höchst willkommen.“ ---
Inhalt:
Aspekttheorie (Hans-Jürgen Sasse); Albanisch (Christina Leluda); Spanisch (Olga Chapado Chorro & Luisa Garcia Garcia); Japanisch (Antje Seidel & Helga Weyerts); Maa (Christa König); Modemes Chinesisch (Chor-Shing Li); Samoanisch (Mario Longino)
Irene Heim in unpublished work proposed a new syntax-semantics interface for propositional attitude reports based on an ontology without transworld individuals, but counterpart functions instead. We show that the approach can capture the 'de re'/'de dicto' distinction, but makes different predictions from accounts with transworld individuals. Specifically, the account uses a non-invertible counterpart functions: a single individual in an alternative world can be the counterpart of many individuals of the real world. The directionality of counterpart functions predicts that a 'de dicto' interpreted DP cannot be an argument of a 'de re' interpreted predicate. We show that the predicted restriction is corroborated by existing work on restrictions on 'de re' interpretation. The derivation of constraints on 'de re' interpretation argues empirically for the counterpart ontology and Heim’s implementation thereof.
The late physicist Carl Sagan, whom I quote in the first part of my title, skillfully phrased the common sense view on evidence in the mature sciences. In linguistics, however, evidence has become a controversial issue, especially so when it comes to the investigation of less well studied languages. In this paper, I argue that Sagan's principle should be applied to linguistics. The growing accessibility of a wide array of experimental techniques and computational tools to analyze such data makes it feasible to back up extraordinary claims with evidence from a variety of sources. At the same time, it is in many cases possible to agree on what constitutes an ordinary claim and focus the extra effort on extraordinary claims. For non-controversial claims no more than the minimum effort to establish the claim and properly document the evidence is necessary.
This paper addresses the syntax and semantics plurals, and then applies it to reciprocal expressions. In the course of this investigation, I address two problems for the conventional view that a reciprocal makes essentially the same semantic contribution to the sentence as other noun phrases, but has an interesting internal structure. I will show that both problems are properties of plurality in general, and can be successfully explained along these lines. As a result, the paper is more about plurality in general than reciprocals though the goal of the paper is to account for the two problems relating to reciprocals.
The paper presents an additional argument for a specific account of semantic binding: the flat-binding analysis. The argument is based on observations concerning sloppy interpretations in verb phrase ellipsis when the binder is not the subject of the elided VP. In one such case, it is important that one of the binders belong to the domain of the other. This case can be derived from the flat-binding analysis as is shown in the paper, while it is unclear how to account for it within other analyses of semantic binding.
Der Titel dieses Beitrags variiert den berühmten Titel eines der Hauptwerke Nietzsches "Also sprach Zarathrustra". In seiner englischen Übersetzung lautet der Titel meist wie folgt: "Thus spoke (spake) Zarathrustra". Thus kennzeichnet Konklusivität, eine Schlussfolgerung aus einem zuvor genannten Umstand oder Sachverhalt. Das englische also, in seiner Schreibung dem deutschen also identisch, beinhaltet semantisch keine Konklusivität, sondern drückt Additivität aus. Der formgleiche Konnektor ist also (!) semantisch unterschiedlich im Deutschen und Englischen. Um diesen Unterschied und seine Bedeutung für türkische DaF-Lerner soll es im folgenden Artikel gehen.
In this paper I investigate the properties of the copula-like verb 'ficar' in Brazilian Portuguese using Pustejovsky's generative lexicon (GL). The verb 'ficar' can be translated as 'stay' or 'become', depending on its complement. With locatives, only the STAY reading is possible. With adjectival complements, both BECOME and STAY readings are possible. I propose that 'ficar' takes an eventuality as its complement and I argue that there is no need to create multiple lexical entries for it, since the readings are the result of the possible combinations between the transition denoted by 'ficar' and the properties of the stative complements.
I argue that the BECOME reading with adjectival predicates is the result of combining part of the qualia of the adjectival predicate with the TRANSITION of 'ficar'. The STAY readings of 'ficar'+adjective are the result of shadowing the transition. In the case of 'ficar'+locative, the BECOME reading is unavailable. Departing from the hypothesis that subevents have to be linked to arguments in order to be able to be modified by certain types of modifiers or be selected by certain types of heads, I argue that the transition, in the case of locative complements, is not associated to any argument because nothing in the qualia of the locative complement is compatible with a transition, given that there is not motion component in either 'ficar' or the locative. Unlinked to any argument, the TRANSITION can only be part of the 'constant' meaning of the verb, which explains why it is not available for modification.
The paper shows that shared indefinite expressions in coordinative constructions may differ with respect to their referential properties. This is due to their being either in a focused or in a nonfocused shared constituent. Their different information-structural status follows from Rooth's theory on focus interpretation. Thus it follows that focused shared constitutents must be beyond the actual coordination and that coordinative constructions with unfocused shared constituents can be represented as ellipsis. In a focused shared constituent indefinite expressions may have a specific and an non specific unique reading as well as an non specific distributive one. For the latter we outline the idea that subjects and objects in the actual coordination form a pair of sets to which a distributing operator is attached. The set formation is further supported by plural pronouns referring to the respective set and by plural verb agreement in subsequent expressions.
Sluicing phenomena
(2001)
The paper shows that in various sluicing types, the wh-phrase in the sluicing sentence as well as its relatum in the antecedent clause must be F-marked, and it explains this observation with Schwarzschild's (1999) and Merchant's (1999) focus theory. According to the semantics of the wh-phrase, it will argue that the relatum of the wh-phrase is an indefinite expression that must allow a specific interpretation. Following Heusinger (1997, 2000), specificity will be defined as an anchoring relation between the discourse referent introduced by the indefinite expression and a discourse given item. Because specific indefinite expressions are always novel, contexts like the scope of definite DPs, the scope of thematic matrix predicates, and the scope of downward-monotonic quantifiers which all exhibit non-novel indefinites do not allow sluicing.
The method of the lexical field – which was initially used to capture lexical units – established itself gradually in various grammatical concepts as an onomasiological and functionally motivated model for the description of grammatical categorical meanings. The concept of a field allows for a complex description of a grammatical system, where the focus lies not on the particular grammatical categories and forms, but on the semantic-functional categories in their relationship with the total inventory of linguistic means.
In my Cahuilla Grammar (Seiler 1977:276-282) and in a subsequent paper (Seiler 1980:229-236) I have drawn attention to the fact that many kin terms in this language, especially those that have a corresponding reciprocal term in the ascending direction – like niece or nephew in relation to aunt – occur in two expressions of quite different morphological shape. The following remarks are intended to furnish an explanation of this apparent duplicity.
Die Termini Possessivität und Possession, die wir synonym für einander verwenden wollen, sind vorwissenschaftlich. Ihr Inhalt hat in keinem der Modelle der synchronen Sprachbeschreibung eine befriedigende Präzisierung erfahren. Die Auffassungen darüber, was man in gewissen Sprachen als possessiv anzusehen hat, schwanken. Man hat sich, mit Recht, gefragt, ob man einem entsprechenden Begriff überhaupt einen Platz in der Beschreibung von Sprachen – und damit in der Grammatik – einräumen solle. […] So erwägenswert manches an dieser Einschätzung auch ist, so finde ich es anderseits doch bemerkenswert, daß sich die verschiedensten Linguisten bei der Beschreibung der verschiedensten Sprachen doch immer wieder veranlaßt sehen, solche Termini – und Begriffe – wie "possessiv", "Possession" einzuführen. […] Intuitiv denkt man bei dem Terminus "Possession", "possessiv" in Sprachen wie dem Deutschen an die Konstruktionen mit Genitiv oder Possessivpronomen einerseits 'Karls/sein Haus') und an Konstruktionen mit 'haben', 'gehören', 'besitzen' anderseits ('Karl hat ein Haus'). Es hat nicht an Versuchen gefehlt, das eine auf das andere zu reduzieren. Die orthodoxe TG hat lange genug behauptet, 'Karls Haus' liege ein 'Karl hat ein Haus' zugrunde. Daß sich das nicht verallgemeinern läßt, sieht man etwa an 'Karls Tod', wozu es kein *'Karl hat einen Tod' gibt. Die Hypothese, die ich hier vorlegen und begründen möchte besteht darin, daß beide Ausdrucksweisen, also Genitiv, Possessivpronomen einerseits und 'haben' etc. anderseits einander komplementieren und erst zusammen den Phänomenbereich der Possessivität konstruieren. Eine große Rolle spielt dabei der Unterschied zwischen sogenannten relationalen und nicht-relationalen Nomina. Solche schwierigen Fragen untersucht man einerseits am besten an seiner eigenen Muttersprache. Anderseits aber hoffe ich das hier Gefundene durch die Konfrontation mit den Verhältnissen in einer davon weit abliegenden Sprache, einer Indianersprache Süd-Kaliforniens, Cahuilla, noch plastischer hervortreten zu lassen. Das hier angewendete Beschreibungsmodell ist gemischt. Die zugrundeliegenden Strukturen sind so weit wie möglich als syntaktische dargestellt. Doch konnte ich nicht umhin, in solchen syntaktischen Strukturen gewisse semantische Entitäten unterzubringen. Das gilt insbesondere für die abstrakten oder "höheren" Verben APPLIES und EXIST. Sie haben einen direkten semantischen Wert.
In this study, I investigate the positions and interpretations available to 'manner' adverbs in English. My central claim, contra Wyner (1994, 1998), is that an association does exist between 'manner' adverb positions and interpretations, which is best characterized in terms of Peterson's (1997) distinction between 'restrictive' and 'non-restrictive' modification. I also claim, however, that the association in question is not as general as commonly claimed; and, in particular, does not apply directly to 'manner' adverbs in 'fronted' and 'parenthetical' positions, which require special syntactic description.
This paper reviews research on English past-tense acquisition to test the validity of the single mechanism model and the dual mechanism model, focusing on regular-irregular dissociation and semantic bias. Based on the review, it is suggested that in L1 acquisition, both regular and irregular verbs are governed by semantics; that is, early use of past tense forms are restricted to achievement verbs—regular or irregular. In contrast, some L2 acquisition studies show stronger semantic bias for regular past tense forms (e.g., Housen, 2002, Rohde, 1996). It is argued that L1 acquisition of the past-tense morphology can be accounted for more adequately by the single-mechanism model.
Obwohl die moderne deutsche Wortbildungslehre im verhältnismäßig kurzen Zeitraum eine rasante Entwicklung mit bemerkenswerten Forschungsergebnissen und interdisziplinären Bindungen (zu Syntax, Text, Pragmatik) zu verzeichnen vermag und zu einem festen Bestandteil der universitären DaF-Curricula in fast ganz Europa wurde, konnte sie hierzulande erst etwa seit den 80er Jahren des 20. Jh. als eine eigenständige Disziplin oder im Verbund mit der Lexikologie (vorher in die formale Morphologie integriert) Eingang in das DaF-Studium finden. Die Hintergründe sind in einer durch die damals herrschende Sprachtheorie (der Generativen Grammatik/Syntax der 60er Jahre) mit einer Überbetonung der Sprachproduktion (der Erzeugung von Sätzen) und zum Nachteil der rezeptiven, die Analyse der sprachlichen Erscheinungen anstrebenden Ansätze, zu sehen. Unsere (tschecho-slowakischen) didaktischmethodischen Theorien des Fremdsprachenlehrens und -lernens hatten diese asymmetrische Auffassung der sprachlichen Kommunikation (d. h. Sprachkompetenz = Sprachproduktion) damals ziemlich unkritisch übernommen. Die Überbewertung und die damit einhergehende fälschliche Gewichtung der Erzeugungsphase von Sätzen und Texten beeinträchtigten u. a. die Prozesse der verstehenden Verarbeitung von fertigen Sprach-, folglich auch von Wortbildungsprodukten. Die Wortbildungslehre kam dabei zu kurz, sie wurde zeitweilig aus den Curricula verbannt, weil die Ausländer auch bei guter Kenntnis von Bildungsmitteln, -modellen und -regeln einer Fremdsprache meist nur noch nicht-usuelle, nichtübliche, wenn auch vom System her "richtige" Wörter zu komplettieren vermochten. Diese Argumentation ist stichhaltig: Nichtmuttersprachler bilden wirklich meist defekte Wörter in einer Fremdsprache und die Wortbildungslehre soll eben deshalb nicht als ein Instrumentarium zur selbstständigen Bildung unbekannter Wörter dienen. Bei vielen Gemeinsamkeiten von Wortbildung und Flexion bzw. Satzbildung ist die Wortbildung ja doch anders beschaffen als die Bildung von Sätzen oder Wortformen, vgl. u. a. die Unvollständigkeit/Defektivität des Wortbildungsparadigmas, verschiedene, nichtprädiktable Benennungsmotive in einer Fremdsprache, die Wahl einer Benennungsart aus dem Inventar mehrerer Möglichkeiten, einschließlich der Entlehnung, die Besonderheiten der jeweiligen sprachspezifischen onomatologischen Verarbeitung einer Einwortbenennung u. a. m.
Die Ausarbeitung einer semantisch-funktionalen Syntax des komplexen Satzes erfordert in erster Linie eine Satzbautypologie, die eine Vorstellung davon vermittelt, welche Konstruktionen dieses oder jenes Semantikfeld im syntaktischen System der gegebenen Sprache gewährleisten. In zweiter Linie erfordert die Orientierung auf die Kommunikation, Bedingungen für die Auswahl der entsprechenden Einheit aus der in der gegebenen Sprache vorhandenen Variantenreihe zu schaffen. Mit Rücksicht auf die genannten Umstände erscheint es zweckmäßig, bei der Erforschung von komplexen syntaktischen Konstruktionen die Methodik der polyaspektuellen (aspektuellen) Analyse zu verwenden. Das Wesen der polyaspektuellen Analyse besteht in der konsequenten Betrachtungsweise der Besonderheiten des semantischstrukturellen und funktionalen Satzbaus.
Die Anwendung dieser Methode bei der Beschreibung von Satzgefügen zeigt, dass die Niveaucharakteristiken der Kompositionsglieder (der linguistischen Einheiten) mutmaßlich ihr subordinatives Funktionieren im komplexen Satz bestimmen. Auch die Auswahl der Kompositionsglieder, die zum allgemeinen lexikalisch-semantischen Bereich gehören, vollzieht sich mit Rücksicht auf die syntaktischen Eigenschaften der Subordination. Demzufolge zeichnen sich die Satzgefüge durch eine qualitativ stabile Bestimmtheit aus, die mithilfe eines Komplexes von Differenzierungsmerkmalen gebildet wird.
The paper investigates a recent proposal to resultativity by G. Jäger and R. Blutner (J&B). J&B say that the representation of result states of accomplishments by means of CAUSE and BECOME is not correct and should not be done in the syntax in terms of decomposition. They develop an axiomatic approach where each accomplishment/achievement is related to its result by a particular axiom. Modification of the result by "again" makes use of these axioms and the restitutive/resultative ambiguity is a matter of lexical ambiguity or polysemy. They argue that the classical decomposition theory cannot treat the restitutive reading of "A Delaware settled in New Jersey again" (there had been Delawares in New Jersey but not this particular one; and those earlier Delawares never moved to New Jersey but were borne there). I discuss (and dispute) these data and compare the two theories. J&B's contains an OT-part dealing with the disambiguating role of stress. While the decomposition theory cannot deal with the data mentioned, it can integrate the OT-part of J&B's theory.
The copula "sein" "be" in German, together with its complements, refers to a stative situation. Besides offering argument positions in its Semantic Form SF, it has no other function. Stative verbs are not specified with respect to the beginning or the end of a described situation or with respect to the state before or after. I will take the verb "werden" "become, get" to be a copular verb as well. The only difference to "sein" is that "werden" refers to a nonstative or changing situation. I argue that "werden" is underspecified in two respects. Like motion verbs and successive patient verbs (SUK verbs in Krifka (1989)) "werden" switches between an unlimited and a limited process (accomplishment) dependent on its complement (cf. "älter werden" "get older" / "vorwärts gehen" "go forward" / "Tee trinken" "drink tea" vs. "alt werden" "get old" / "in das Zimmer gehen" "go into the room"/ "eine Tasse Tee trinken" "drink a cup of tea"). But "werden" is even more underspecified than these verbs; it is the only verb which covers all nonstative situations, not only processes and accomplishments but also punctual transitions (achievements), cf. "schwanger werden" "get pregnant". "Werden" is anything but stative. Whether there is a target state implied or not, or whether the transition to this target state is extensible or atomic, is the result of the composition of the meaning of "werden" and its intimal argument added by special meaning postulates. Hierarchically marked subtypes of situational arguments result as a side effect.
In contradistinction to main verbs copula verbs like 'sein', 'werden' or 'bleiben' ('be', 'become' or 'remain') can, though with some restrictions, take projections of all lexical categories as complements. Semantically 'werden' and 'bleiben' are considered to be dual operators, related to each other by inner and outer (= dual) negation. But there are contexts where 'bleiben' seems to assume the meaning of its dual 'werden'. What at first glance appears to be an idiosyncracy of German turns out to hold for Swedish, Brazil-Portuguese and other unrelated languages as well.
'Werden' is more restricted than 'sein' and 'bleiben', it cannot have a locative complement. 'Bleiben' has the widest distribution, it can also take infinitives of verbs of position as complement. But in this case 'stehen bleiben' is ambiguous between a "remain" -reading and a "become" -reading.
In 15th century the Swedish verb 'bliva' - a borrowing from German - has undergone a change from the "remain"-reading to the "become"-reading. The "become"-reading of 'bliva' (later form 'bli') is only blocked (as is the German verb 'werden') in the case of a locative complement, where the "remain"-reading has survived. The two readings of 'bli' do not produce any ambiguity, except when taking a verb of position as complement - much the same as in German.
The paper attempts to pinpoint the conditions that lead to this surprising shift of meaning between duals.
In this squib, I want to argue that the morphological structure of words is, at least to some extent, motivated. As an example I have choosen the partonomic (and for the less part taxonomic) nomenclature of the human body. While important work by Brown et alii (1973), Anderson (1978) and Schladt (1997) exists on this topic, these analyses focus on the conceptualization of body-parts and their semantics, but not on their morphological representation.
In the following, I want to check two predictions about the morphological complexity of lexical items denoting parts of the human body. The first assumption is that the most canonical body-parts are always expressed by mono-lexematic items. The second one consists in the assumption that body-parts of the lowest levels in the hierarchy are always morphologically complex. A set of six body-parts has been analysed in 27 languages. The set consists of two canonical (HEAD and EAR) and of one from the lowest level of the hierarchy (TOENAIL). For this I have adopted a sample from Schladt (1997) and a small one compiled by myself
[I]n der folgenden Skizze [soll] argumentiert werden, dass eine Rückführung unterschiedlicher Lesarten auf unterschiedliche syntaktische Verhältnisse […] unangemessen ist. Vielmehr sol1 aufgezeigt werden, dass es sich um eine ausschließlich semantische Frage handelt, die syntaktische Struktur in jeder Hinsicht aber die immerselbe ist. […] Unser Gegenstandsbereich fasst somit Fälle zusammen, die unter anderen Gesichtspunkten differenziert werden. [...] Diese Gesichtspunkte, nach denen die Differenzierung erfolgt, sind semantischer Natur. Für unsere syntaktische Analyse nehmen wir in Anspruch, dass sie auf alle Adverbialstrukturen zutrifft, mit Ausnahme von Satzadverbialen und (den diesen strukturell gleichen) Adverbialsätzen. Gezeigt wird dies jedoch nur an Fallen wie oben, an Adjektiven in modaladverbialer Funktion. Diese Adjektive fassen wir im übrigen kategorial als das auf, was sie ihrer Form nach sind, nämlich unflektierte Adjektive.
On object specificity
(2001)
[W]e have demonstrated that the object specificity follows from the same principle as the subject specificity under the EMH. Furthermore, the semantic discrepancy between the realis and irrealis object shift constructions turns out to be a subcase of the more general indicative-modal asymmetry. Although our analysis presented here is nothing but conclusive, it does suggest that the EMH is a potent candidate for explaining the indicative-modal asymmetry, as well as for building a general theory of the specificity effects in question.
In diesem Aufsatz wird das mentale Lexikon als System beschrieben, in dem Lexeme aufgenommen, gespeichert und nach bestimmten Regeln geordnet und eingesetzt werden. Hierbei spielen Bedeutungsbeziehungen eine grundlegende Rolle. Die Mikrostruktur dieses Netzwerks bildet die Polysemie, die anhand von Bedeutungssternen (mit Kernbedeutung und Nebenbedeutungen einzelner Lexeme) dargestellt werden kann. Anhand von Musterübungen wird gezeigt, wie dieses Thema im muttersprachlichen Unterricht didaktisch umgesetzt werden kann.
Im ersten Teil wird zunächst die wenige Forschungsliteratur zum Thema Deskriptivität selbst und eng verwandten Themen vorgestellt und besprochen. Daraus soll sich im Anschluss auch eine Definition des Begriffes ergeben, die weit genug gefasst ist, um die übliche Verwendungsweise des Begriffs bei Autoren, die ihn zwar benutzen, aber nicht theoretisch behandeln, zu erfassen, die sich aber andererseits dennoch in klar definierten und nachvollziehbaren Grenzen bewegt. Dabei soll weiterhin deutlich werden, dass es sich bei Deskriptivität um ein prinzipiell in allen Sprachen anzutreffendes Phänomen handelt, dass sich aber die Frequenz deskriptiver Ausdrücke von Sprache zu Sprache stark unterscheiden kann. Dabei werde ich Daten aus ausgewählten Sprachen einbeziehen und eine quantitative Analyse des Ausmaßes, mit dem verschiedene Sprachen von deskriptiven Bildungen Gebrauch machen vorstellen. Der zweite Hauptteil der Arbeit beschäftigt sich mit folgender Frage: Wenn jede Sprache zu einem gewissen Grad von deskriptiven Benennungen Gebrauch macht, welche Mechanismen des Sprachwandels gibt es, die die Position einer Sprache auf dieser Skala in die eine oder die andere Richtung verändern können?
Weak function word shift
(2004)
The fact that object shift only affects weak pronouns in mainland Scandinavian is seen as an instance of a more general observation that can be made in all Germanic languages: weak function words tend to avoid the edges of larger prosodic domains. This generalisation has been formulated within Optimality Theory in terms of alignment constraints on prosodic structure by Selkirk (1996) in explaining thedistribution of prosodically strong and weak forms of English functionwords, especially modal verbs, prepositions and pronouns. But a purely phonological account fails to integrate the syntactic licensing conditions for object shift in an appropriate way. The standard semantico-syntactic accounts of object shift, onthe other hand, fail to explain why it is only weak pronouns that undergo object shift. This paper develops an Optimality theoretic model of the syntax-phonology interface which is based on the interaction of syntactic and prosodic factors. The account can successfully be applied to further related phenomena in English and German.
This paper argues for a particular architecture of OT syntax. This architecture hasthree core features: i) it is bidirectional, the usual production-oriented optimisation (called ‘first optimisation’ here) is accompanied by a second step that checks the recoverability of an underlying form; ii) this underlying form already contains a full-fledged syntactic specification; iii) especially the procedure checking for recoverability makes crucial use of semantic and pragmatic factors. The first section motivates the basic architecture. The second section shows with two examples, how contextual factors are integrated. The third section examines its implications for learning theory, and the fourth section concludes with a broader discussion of the advantages and disadvantages of the proposed model.
The aim of this paper is the exploration of an optimality theoretic architecture for syntax that is guided by the concept of "correspondence": syntax is understood as the mechanism of "translating" underlying representations into a surface form. In minimalism, this surface form is called "Phonological Form" (PF). Both semantic and abstract syntactic information are reflected by the surface form. The empirical domain where this architecture is tested are minimal link effects, especially in the case of "wh"-movement. The OT constraints require the surface form to reflect the underlying semantic and syntactic representations as maximally as possible. The means by which underlying relations and properties are encoded are precedence, adjacency, surface morphology and prosodic structure. Information that is not encoded in one of these ways remains unexpressed, and gets lost unless it is recoverable via the context. Different kinds of information are often expressed by the same means. The resulting conflicts are resolved by the relative ranking of the relevant correspondence constraints.
French suffixations in -age, -ion and -ment are considered roughly equivalent, yet some differences have been pointed out regarding the semantics of the resulting nominalizations. In this study, we confirm the existence of a semantic distinction between them on the basis of a large scale distributional analysis. We show that the distinction is partially determined by the degree of technicality of the denoted action: -age nominals tend to be more technical than -ion ones. We examine this hypothesis through the statistical modeling of technicality. To this end, we propose a linguistic definition of technicality, which we implement using empirical, quantitative criteria estimated in corpora and lexical resources. We show to what extent the differences with respect to these criteria adequately approximate technicality. Our study indicates that this definition of technicality, while amendable, provides new perspectives for the characterization of action nouns.
This paper deals with German kinship terms ending with the form "n" (Muttern, Vatern). Firstly, data from newspapers are presented that show that especially Muttern denotes very special meanings that can only be derived to a limited extent from the lexical base: a) Muttern referring to a home where mother cares for you, b) Muttern standing for overprotection, and c) Muttern representing a special food style (often embedded in prepositional phrases and/or comparative constructions like wie bei or wie von Muttern). Secondly, it is argued that the addition of n to kinship terms is not a word-formation pattern, but that these word forms are instead lexicalized and idiomatized in contemporary German. Hence, a diachronic scenario is applied to account for the data. It is argued in the present paper that the n-forms have been borrowed from Low German dialects, especially from constructional idioms of the type ‘X-wie bei Muttern’ and that forms were enriched by semantic concepts associated with the dialect.
How far can language-specific structures influence conceptualisation? After a period of time where the discussion of any ‘Whorfian’ effects tended to be considered of little scientific merit, the recent decade has seen a renewed interest in this question. In particular, studies have aimed to tease apart ‘thinking for speaking’ from general cognition (cf. Slobin 1996, Stutterheim & Nüse 2002) and have shown that language-specific differences can often be observed in verbalisation as well as in the preverbal preparation phase of speech production, rather than in non-linguistic tasks.
Ich werde im folgenden einige Überlegungen zur konzeptuellen und semantischen Struktur von Numeralkonstruktionen im Deutschen anstellen, in deren Rahmen ich sowohl die Repräsentation von Zahlen und die Modellierung von Numeralkonstruktionen diskutieren als auch einige Aspekte der Schnittstelle Syntax-Semantik erhellen will. Ich führe meine Untersuchung im Rahmen des „Zwei-Ebenen-Modells“ der Semantik durch (vgl. Bierwisch 1983;1987;1988; Lang 1987; Zimmermann 1987; 1992), nehme also neben dem semantischen System SEM ein autonomes konzeptuelles System CS an, das „die mentale Form dessen, was durch sprachliche Äußerungen wiedergegeben wird, [determiniert]“ (Bierwisch 1987:6).
Die folgende Untersuchung wird Parallelen in der semantisch-konzeptuellen Struktur von Nominalgruppen und Sätzen aufzeigen und so unabhängige, semantische Argumente für den „sentential aspect“ von Nominalgruppen liefern, wie er bereits von Abney (1987) auf syntaktischer Seite motiviert wurde. Ich werde im ersten Teil die semantische und syntaktische Struktur von Sätzen skizzieren und hierbei insbesondere die zentralen semantisch-konzeptuellen Operationen identifizieren, die die Generierung von CPs begleiten. Vor diesem Hintergrund werden im zweiten Teil die zentralen übereinzelsprachlichen Merkmale von Nominalgruppen diskutiert und durch semantisch-konzeptuelle (sowie - in einer Skizze - syntaktische) Repräsentationen erfasst. Das Modell zur Struktur von Nominalgruppen wird in Bezug zu den zuvor skizzierten Annahmen über Sätze gestellt. Es wird sich hierbei zeigen, dass bei der Generierung von DPs die gleichen semantisch- konzeptuellen Operationen wirksam werden, wie sie für CPs festgehalten wurden. Ein zentraler Punkt der Diskussion wird das Problem der semantischen Kompositionalität sein. Im Rahmen eines Zwei-Ebenen-Modells der Semantik soll mithilfe semantischer Repräsentationen zugleich die Korrelation sprachlicher und konzeptueller Strukturen erfasst werden.
This paper presents an account of semantics as a system that integrates conceptual representations into language. I define the semantic system as an interface level of the conceptual system CS that translates conceptual representations into a format that is accessible by language. The analysis I put forward does not treat the make up of this level as idiosyncratic, but subsumes it under a unified notion of linguistic interfaces. This allows us to understand core aspects of the linguistic-conceptual interface as an instance of a general pattern underlying the correlation of linguistic and non-linguistic structures. By doing so, the model aims to provide a broader perspective onto the distinction between and interaction of conceptual and linguistic processes and the correlation of semantic and syntactic structures.
In the sections that follow we shall be concerned with analyzing the semantic evolution of the noun cheek in the history of English. The semantics of the lexical item under scrutiny will be examined with reference to its two aspects, that is (1) the semantic potential of the analysed lexical unit in its primary, etymological sense (sense A) and its secondary senses (senses B > E), (2) as well as the secondary senses emerging from various phraseological units which echo the nominal sense B (henceforth B-related senses). The analysis proposed here continues the area of research initiated in Wieclawska (2009a, 2009b), Wieclawska 2010, Kleparski and Wieclawska (2010) and Wieclawska (2011), the target of which are semantic changes and phraseological productivity of lexical items variously related to the conceptual macrocategory BODY PARTS. The methodological apparatus employed here is the one that follows the theoretical frames developed by, among others, Kleparski (1996, 1997, 2002), Kieltyka (2008, 2010) that may be referred to as representing much cognitivistic spirit of semantic analysis.
Exclamative clauses exhibit a structural diversity which raises the question of whether they form a clause type in the sense of Sadock & Zwicky (1985). Based on data from English, Italian, and Paduan, we argue that the class of exclamatives is syntactically characterizable in terms of a pair of abstract syntactic properties. Moreover, we propose that these properties encode two components of meaning which uniquely define the semantics and pragmatics of exclarnatives. Overall, our paper is a contribution to the study of the syntaxlsemantics interface and offers a new perspective on the notion of clause type.
In this paper I firstly argue that secondary predicates are complement of v, and v is overtly realized by Merge or Move in secondary predication in Chinese. The former option derives the de-construction, whereas the latter option derives the V-V construction. Secondly, I argue that resultatives are hosted by complement vPs, whereas depictives are hosted by adjunct vPs. This complement-adjunct asymmetry accounts for a series of syntactic properties of secondary predication in Chinese: the position of a secondary predicate with respect to the verb of the primary predicate, the co-occurrence patterns of secondary predicates, the hierarchy of depictives, the control and ECM properties of resultative constructions, and the locality constraint on the integration of secondary predicates into the structure of primary predication. Thirdly, I argue that the surface position of de is derived by a PF operation which attaches de to the right of the leftmost verbal lexical head of the construction. Finally, I argue that in the V-V resultative construction, the assumed successive head-raising may account for the possible subject-oriented reading of the resultative predicate, and that the head raising out of the lower vP accounts for the possible non-specific reading of the subject of the resultative predicate.
This paper argues for non-primary c- and s-selectional restrictions of verbs in computing nonprimary predicatives such as resultatives, depictives, and manners. Our discussion is based both on the selection violations in the presence of nonprimary predicates and on the cross-linguistic and language-internal variations of categorial and semantic constraints on nonprimary predicates. We claim that all types of thematic predication are represented by an extended projection, and that the merger of lexical heads with another element, regardless of the type of the element, consistently has c- and s-selectional restrictions.
The present investigation is concerned with German participles II (past participles) as lexical heads of adjuncts.
Within a minimalist framework of sound-meaning correlation, the analysis presupposes a lexicalist conception of morphology and the differentiation of Semantic Form and Conceptual Structure. It is argued that participles II have the same argument structure as the underlying verbs and can undergo passivization, perfectivization and conversion to adjectives. As for the potential of participles to function as modifiers, it is shown that attributive and adverbial participle constructions involve further operations of conversion. Participle constructions are considered as reduced sentences. They do not have a syntactic position for the subject, for an operator (comparable to the relative pronoun in relative clauses) or for an adverbial relator (as in adverbial clauses). The pertinent components are present only in the semantic structure.
Two templates serve the composition of modifiers - including participle constructions - with the modificandum. It is necessary to differentiate between modification which unifies two predicates relating to participants or to situations and frame setting modification where the modifier is given the status of a propositional operator.
The proposed analysis shows that the high degree of semantic underspecification and interpretative flexibility of German participle II constructions resides in the indeterminacy of participles II with respect to voice and perfect, in the absence of certain constituents in the syntactic structure and in the presence of corresponding parameters in the Semantic Form of the participle phrases.
This contribution concerns the interaction of morphology, syntax and semantics. It treats German past participles and concentrates on their function as heads in attributive and adverbial modifier phrases. It is argued that participles have the same argument structure as the underlying verbs and can undergo passivization, perfectivization and conversion to adjectives. Since these three operations involve changes in the morphosyntactic categorization they are considered as zero affixation. Two affixless templates – without any categorical changes – convert participle constructions to modifiers relating to participants or to situations. These phrases do not have a syntactic position for the grammatical subject, an operator or an adverbial relator. The pertinent components are present only in the semantic structure. Two further templates serve the composition of participle constructions as modifiers with the modificandum. It is necessary to differentiate between modifiers which function as predicates and those which have the status of a propositional operator. In syntax, these different semantic functions correspond to different adjunct positions of the respective participle phrases.
Predication at the interface
(2001)
We try to show that predication plays a greater role in syntax than commonly assumed. Specifically, we wil argue that predication to a large extent determines both the phrase structure of clauses and trigger syntactic processes that take place in clauses. If we are on the right path, this implies that syntax is basically semantically driven, given that predication is semantically construed.
Anders als man auf den ersten Blick vermuten könnte ist die vorliegende Sammlung von Aufsätzen nicht aus den Beiträgen eines thematisch einschlägigen Workshops kompiliert worden (ein solcher ist erst für Herbst 1999 vorgesehen), sondern sie entstammt den Diskussionsrunden des Lexikonzirkels am ZAS, die - initiiert vom Projekt "Schnittstellen der Semantik: Kopula-Prädikativ-Konstruktionen" - seit 1997 regelmäßig und mit zunehmender Einbindung externer Mitarbeiter stattgefunden haben. Daß das 1998 mit nur anderthalb DFG-Stellen besetzte Projekt am ZAS eine solche Irradiationswirkung ausübt, verdankt sich wohl dem Zusammentreffen zweier günstiger Bedingungen.
Die erste Bedingung liefern die im Konzept des ZAS angelegten Möglichkeiten kooperativer Forschungsförderung, die hier in beherzter Überschreitung administrativer Grenzen erfolgreich umgesetzt werden konnten. Die Beiträge sind eine Zwischenbilanz von Studien, die im ZAS-Projekt selbst betrieben wurden, und von Studien, die - vom Projekt angeregt - nach kurzem so in dessen Forschung verwickelt waren, daß die resultierende Verflechtung zur unverzichtbaren Grundlage der weiteren Arbeit des Projekts geworden ist.
Die zweite Bedingung besteht offenkundig in der Problemhaltigkeit des Themas und der daraus resultierenden theoretischen Attraktivität. Was macht Kopula-Prädikativ-Konstruktionen unter dem Blickwinkel ihrer grammatischen Schnittstellen so attraktiv?
The volume is a collection of papers given at the conference “sub8 -- Sinn und Bedeutung”, the eighth annual conference of the Gesellschaft für Semantik, held at the Johann-Wolfgang-Goethe-Universität, Frankfurt (Germany) in September 2003. During this conference, experts presented and discussed various aspects of semantics. The very different topics included in this book provide insight into fields of ongoing Semantics research.
Der vorliegende Band setzt im Anschluß an den Band ZAS Papers in Linguistics 14 (1999) die Vorpublikation von Arbeiten fort, die innerhalb oder im Umkreis des von der DFG geförderten Projekts "Schnittstellen der Semantik: Kopula-Prädikativ-Konstruktionen" am ZAS entstanden sind. Das Rahmenthema, wie es in ZASPiL 14 einleitend knapp umrissen wurde, wird derzeit im Projekt in drei Untersuchungssträngen bearbeitet. Sie beinhalten
(1) die Klärung der in der Literatur auch weiterhin häufig bemühten, aber keineswegs eindeutig verankerten, sondern auf mehrere Domänen zu verteilenden Distinktion von Stage Level Predicates vs. Individual Level Predicates (kurz: SLP/ILP-Problematik);
(2) die Klärung des Situationsbezugs von Kopula-Prädikativ-Konstruktionen (KPK) im Hinblick auf die ontologische Natur, die lexikalische Fundierung und die syntaktische Verwaltung des referentiellen Arguments von KPK (kurz: Argumentstruktur von KPK);
(3) die vertiefte Analyse der notorisch idiosynkratischen Kopulaverben in Prädikationsstrukturen, nicht zuletzt im Hinblick auf diejenigen Vorkommen solcher Verben, in denen sie gemeinhin als "Hilfsverben" gelten, was wiederum eine umfassende Analyse der infiniten Verbformen einschließt (kurz: lexical vs. functional category features).
Papers on pragmasemantics
(2009)
Optimality theory as used in linguistics (Prince & Smolensky, 1993/2004; Smolensky & Legendre, 2006) and cognitive psychology (Gigerenzer & Selten, 2001) is a theoretical framework that aims to integrate constraint based knowledge representation systems, generative grammar, cognitive skills, and aspects of neural network processing. In the last years considerable progress was made to overcome the artificial separation between the disciplines of linguistic on the one hand which are mainly concerned with the description of natural language competences and the psychological disciplines on the other hand which are interested in real language performance.
The semantics and pragmatics of natural language is a research topic that is asking for an integration of philosophical, linguistic, psycholinguistic aspects, including its neural underpinning. Especially recent work on experimental pragmatics (e.g. Noveck & Sperber, 2005; Garrett & Harnish, 2007) has shown that real progress in the area of pragmatics isn’t possible without using data from all available domains including data from language acquisition and actual language generation and comprehension performance. It is a conceivable research programme to use the optimality theoretic framework in order to realize the integration.
Game theoretic pragmatics is a relatively young development in pragmatics. The idea to view communication as a strategic interaction between speaker and hearer is not new. It is already present in Grice' (1975) classical paper on conversational implicatures. What game theory offers is a mathematical framework in which strategic interaction can be precisely described. It is a leading paradigm in economics as witnessed by a series of Nobel prizes in the field. It is also of growing importance to other disciplines of the social sciences. In linguistics, its main applications have been so far pragmatics and theoretical typology. For pragmatics, game theory promises a firm foundation, and a rigor which hopefully will allow studying pragmatic phenomena with the same precision as that achieved in formal semantics.
The development of game theoretic pragmatics is closely connected to the development of bidirectional optimality theory (Blutner, 2000). It can be easily seen that the game theoretic notion of a Nash equilibrium and the optimality theoretic notion of a strongly optimal form-meaning pair are closely related to each other. The main impulse that bidirectional optimality theory gave to research on game theoretic pragmatics stemmed from serious empirical problems that resulted from interpreting the principle of weak optimality as a synchronic interpretation principle.
In this volume, we have collected papers that are concerned with several aspects of game and optimality theoretic approaches to pragmatics.
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.