Linguistik-Klassifikation
Refine
Year of publication
Document Type
- Part of a Book (204)
- Article (29)
- Working Paper (27)
- Preprint (23)
- Conference Proceeding (17)
- Report (5)
- Book (3)
Language
- English (308) (remove)
Has Fulltext
- yes (308)
Is part of the Bibliography
- no (308)
Keywords
- Syntax (100)
- Thema-Rhema-Gliederung (36)
- Deutsch (31)
- Wortstellung (30)
- Englisch (29)
- Generative Transformationsgrammatik (29)
- Intonation <Linguistik> (25)
- Bantusprachen (22)
- Prädikat (21)
- Semantik (21)
- Relativsatz (19)
- Formale Semantik (17)
- Optimalitätstheorie (15)
- Prosodie (14)
- Phonologie (13)
- Sinotibetische Sprachen (13)
- Topikalisierung (13)
- Chinesisch (12)
- Informationsstruktur (12)
- Interrogativsatz (12)
- Referenzidentität (12)
- Russisch (12)
- Adjunkt <Linguistik> (9)
- Morphosyntax (9)
- Nungisch (9)
- Pragmatik (9)
- Spracherwerb (9)
- Tibetobirmanische Sprachen (9)
- Valenz <Linguistik> (9)
- Anapher <Syntax> (8)
- Kontrastive Linguistik (8)
- Linguistik (8)
- Oberflächenstruktur <Linguistik> (8)
- Pronomen (8)
- Tagalog (8)
- Tiefenstruktur (8)
- Extraposition (7)
- Kasus (7)
- Lexikologie (7)
- Topik (7)
- Chewa-Sprache (6)
- Grammatische Kategorie (6)
- Morphologie (6)
- Referenz <Linguistik> (6)
- Sprachverstehen (6)
- Thematische Relation (6)
- Transitivität (6)
- Adverb (5)
- Genus verbi (5)
- Griechisch (5)
- Japanisch (5)
- Kongress (5)
- Kontrastive Syntax (5)
- Lokativ (5)
- Malagassi-Sprache (5)
- Satz (5)
- Skopus (5)
- Spezifität (5)
- Sprachstatistik (5)
- Sprachtypologie (5)
- Vergleichende Sprachwissenschaft (5)
- syntax (5)
- Aufsatzsammlung (4)
- Ergativ (4)
- Funktionale Kategorie (4)
- Generative Grammatik (4)
- Gradpartikel (4)
- Italienisch (4)
- Kindersprache (4)
- Klitisierung (4)
- Morphonologie (4)
- Nebensatz (4)
- Niederländisch (4)
- Personalpronomen (4)
- Prädikation (4)
- Qiang-Sprache (4)
- Satztyp (4)
- Ungarisch (4)
- Verb (4)
- Austronesische Sprachen (3)
- Bindungstheorie <Linguistik> (3)
- Bulgarisch (3)
- Definitheit (3)
- Demonstrativpronomen (3)
- Ergänzung <Linguistik> (3)
- Ergänzungsfragesatz (3)
- Französisch (3)
- Hypotaxe (3)
- Infinitkonstruktion (3)
- Kontrastive Grammatik (3)
- Koreanisch (3)
- Modalverb (3)
- Negation (3)
- Neugriechisch (3)
- Nominalphrase (3)
- Objekt (3)
- Passiv (3)
- Quantor (3)
- Referenzsemantik (3)
- Satzanalyse (3)
- Satzglied (3)
- Satzsemantik (3)
- Scrambling (3)
- Spaltsatz (3)
- Swahili (3)
- Syntaktische Kongruenz (3)
- Adjektiv (2)
- Adverbiale (2)
- Afrikanische Sprachen (2)
- Albanisch (2)
- Artikulation (2)
- Aspekt <Linguistik> (2)
- Aspiration <Linguistik> (2)
- Aufforderungssatz (2)
- Baskisch (2)
- Consecutio temporum (2)
- Diskontinuität (2)
- Diskursanalyse (2)
- Diskursrepräsentationstheorie (2)
- Distribution <Linguistik> (2)
- Drung (2)
- Experiment (2)
- Feldlinguistik (2)
- Freier Relativsatz (2)
- Ganda-Sprache (2)
- Genitiv (2)
- German (2)
- Grammatiktheorie (2)
- Hebräisch (2)
- Herausstellung (2)
- Instrumental (2)
- Inuktitut (2)
- Isländisch (2)
- Junktur (2)
- Kanuri-Sprache (2)
- Konditionalsatz (2)
- Kontrastive Phonologie (2)
- Kontrolle <Linguistik> (2)
- Korpus <Linguistik> (2)
- Makonde-Sprache (2)
- Modalität (2)
- Morphem (2)
- Nama-Sprache (2)
- Nominalisierung (2)
- Parataxe (2)
- Philippinen-Austronesisch (2)
- Phrasenstrukturgrammatik (2)
- Plural (2)
- Polarität (2)
- Portugiesisch (2)
- Pro-Form (2)
- Prädikativsatz (2)
- Präposition (2)
- Restriktiver Relativsatz (2)
- Salish-Sprache (2)
- Satzakzent (2)
- Satzteil (2)
- Sotho (2)
- Spanisch (2)
- Sprachverarbeitung <Psycholinguistik> (2)
- Spurtheorie (2)
- Subjekt (2)
- Temporalsatz (2)
- Tempus (2)
- Tharaka (2)
- Unbestimmtheit (2)
- Wortbildung (2)
- Yoruba-Sprache (2)
- Zulu-Sprache (2)
- case (2)
- dass (2)
- Ableitung <Linguistik> (1)
- Adversativsatz (1)
- Affix (1)
- Akan-Sprache (1)
- Algorithmus (1)
- Allomorph (1)
- Ambiguität (1)
- Amerikanisches Englisch (1)
- Argument <Linguistik> (1)
- Aschanti-Sprache (1)
- Aspekt (1)
- Asymmetrie (1)
- Auslassung (1)
- Ausrufesatz (1)
- Bahasa Indonesia (1)
- Bantoid (1)
- Basaa-Sprache (1)
- Baushi (1)
- Belebtheit <Grammatik> (1)
- Belhare (1)
- Bemba-Sprache (1)
- Berlin <2001> (1)
- Chinese (1)
- Chomsky (1)
- Demokratische Republik Kongo (1)
- Determinativ (1)
- Dialektologie (1)
- Disambiguierung (1)
- Dutch (1)
- Eindeutigkeit (1)
- Ellipse <Linguistik> (1)
- Epenthese (1)
- Erkenntnistheorie (1)
- Evidenz (1)
- Existentialsatz (1)
- Faktiv (1)
- Finite Verbform (1)
- Fipa (1)
- Frage (1)
- Fragebogen (1)
- Funktionsverb (1)
- Galloitalienisch (1)
- Grammatikalisation (1)
- Grammatikalität (1)
- Grammatische Relation (1)
- Hausa (1)
- Haya (1)
- Herero-Sprache (1)
- Inchoativ (1)
- Indefinitpronomen (1)
- Infix (1)
- Inkorporation <Linguistik> (1)
- Inversion <Grammatik> (1)
- Je suis Charlie (1)
- Kamerun (1)
- Kausativ (1)
- Khoisan (1)
- Kognitive Entwicklung (1)
- Komoren (1)
- Konfiguration <Linguistik> (1)
- Kongo-Sprache (1)
- Kongressbericht (1)
- Konjunktion (1)
- Konsekutivsatz (1)
- Konstruktionsgrammatik (1)
- Kontrastive Semantik (1)
- Kopula (1)
- Kopulasatz (1)
- Lerntheorie (1)
- Lexicalized Tree Adjoining Grammar (1)
- Logische Form <Linguistik> (1)
- Lokale Präposition (1)
- Makua-Sprache (1)
- Malawi (1)
- Mboshi-Sprache (1)
- Methodologie (1)
- Mittelenglisch (1)
- Modalität <Linguistik> (1)
- Morphologie <Linguistik> (1)
- Move-alpha (1)
- Mura-Sprache (1)
- Mögliche Welt (1)
- Mündlichkeit (1)
- Nicht-restriktiver Relativsatz (1)
- Niger-Kongo-Sprachen (1)
- Nilosaharanische Sprachen (1)
- Nilotische Sprachen (1)
- Niue-Sprache (1)
- Noam (1)
- Notwendigkeit (1)
- Objektsatz (1)
- Opaker Kontext (1)
- Oslo <1999> (1)
- Paiwan (1)
- Palauisch (1)
- Palaung (1)
- Parametrisierung (1)
- Parasitic gap (1)
- Partitiv (1)
- Partizip Perfekt (1)
- Perfekt (1)
- Phonetik (1)
- Phrasenkompositum (1)
- Phrasenmarker (1)
- Phrasenstruktur (1)
- Pirahã (1)
- Possessivität (1)
- Potsdam <2002> (1)
- Proto-Indo-European (1)
- Proto-Tibetobirmanisch (1)
- Präsupposition (1)
- Quantifizierung <Linguistik> (1)
- Raising (1)
- Range Concatenation Grammar (1)
- Reduktion <Linguistik> (1)
- Reduplikation (1)
- Reflexivpronomen (1)
- Relevanz <Linguistik> (1)
- Resultativ (1)
- Reziprozität (1)
- Reziprozität <Linguistik> (1)
- Rumänisch (1)
- Saharanische Sprachen (1)
- Samoanisch (1)
- Satzadverb (1)
- Schriftlichkeit (1)
- Schwedisch (1)
- Senufo (1)
- Serbian (1)
- Serbisch (1)
- Serialverb-Konstruktion (1)
- Skandinavische Sprachen (1)
- Slawische Sprachen (1)
- Sprachgeschichte (1)
- Sprachproduktion (1)
- Sprachtheorie (1)
- Sprachverarbeitung (1)
- Sprachwahrnehmung (1)
- Stativ <Grammatik> (1)
- Stochastik (1)
- Strukturelle Grammatik (1)
- Strukturelle Phonologie (1)
- Suppire (1)
- Suppire-Sprache (1)
- Taiwan-Austronesisch (1)
- Teilsatz (1)
- Temporaladverb (1)
- Thai (1)
- Theory of mind (1)
- Tibetobirmanische Sprachen ; Nungisch (1)
- Tongaisch (1)
- Tonologie (1)
- Tswana (1)
- Tukangbesi (1)
- Tumbuka-Sprache (1)
- Türkisch (1)
- Umgangssprache (1)
- Universalgrammatik (1)
- Venetisch (1)
- Verbalphrase (1)
- Vietnamese (1)
- Vokal (1)
- Vokalharmonie (1)
- Xhosa (1)
- Zentralkhoisan-Sprachen (1)
- Zulu (1)
- acceptability (1)
- agree (1)
- also (1)
- anticausatives (1)
- argument dislocation (1)
- background particles (1)
- causatives (1)
- clefts (1)
- complementation (1)
- cyclicity (1)
- epp (1)
- ergativity (1)
- features (1)
- fieldwork (1)
- focus particles (1)
- free-choice (1)
- gradience grammar (1)
- grammaticality (1)
- hierarchies (1)
- long wh-movement (1)
- passives (1)
- person splits (1)
- phi-features (1)
- phonology (1)
- pirahã (1)
- pp modification (1)
- question formation (1)
- root classes (1)
- stress patterns (1)
- subject inversion (1)
- syntactic decomposition (1)
- temporal gradation (1)
- temporal limitation (1)
- tone (1)
- tones (1)
- word order variation (1)
Institute
- Extern (12)
Why variables?
(1999)
This paper addresses the question of how sentence-internal semantic dependencies are computed? The kind of semantic dependency I am looking at is that between a so called "bound (variable) pronoun" and its binder illustrated in (1), where the dependency is indicated by a connecting line. With all the literature on the topic (see for example Partee 1973, Percus 1998), I assume that this case is the prototype of all semantic dependencies, and therefore any result for this case generalizes to all types of sentence-internal semantic dependencies.
This paper corroborates the interpretability proposal of Chomsky (1995) with evidence from scrambling in Japanese and German. First it is shown that scrambling in Japanese is semantically vacuous, whereas scrambling in German is semantically contentful. Chomsky’s proposal then predicts that the feature driving Japanese scrambling is erased after checking, while the corresponding feature in German remains visible, specifically for the Shortest Attract condition. Looking at patterns of movement that result in overlapping paths, this prediction is seen to be correct.
The meaning of chains
(1998)
This thesis investigates the mechanisms applying in the interpretation of syntactic chains. The theoretical background includes a translation of syntactic forms into semantic forms and a model theoretic explication of the meaning of semantic forms. Simplicity considerations apply to all three stages of the interpretation process: syntactic derivation, translation into semantic forms, interpretation of semantic forms. Three main results are achieved. The first is that trace positions can have semantic content beyond what is needed for the semantic dependency of trace and binder. This extra content is some or all of the lexical material of the head of the chain, as expected on the copy theory of movement. Two independent arguments support this conclusion. One, discussed in chapter 2, is based on the distribution of Condition C effects, where novel interactions between variable binding, antecedent contained deletion and Condition C are observed. The second, developed in chapter 3, is based on conditions on the identity of traces observed in antecedent contained deletion constructions. Both arguments lead to the same generalizations about what lexical material of the head is interpreted in the trace position. The second main result is that lambda calculus is superior to both standard predicate logic and combinatorial logic as the mathematical model for the semantic mechanism mediating the dependency of trace (or bound pronoun) and binder. Chapter 4 argues this on the basis of the distribution of focus and destressing in constructions with bound pronouns. The third main result is that quantification must be allowed to range over pointwise different choice functions. Chapter 5 shows that quantification over individuals is insufficient, and that pointwise different choice functions are required. The result entails that the syntactic difference of A-chains and A-bar chains predicts a semantic difference in the type of the variable involved, which is argued to explain weak crossover phenomena. Chapters 6 argues that the interpretation procedures developed in the preceeding chapters account for all cases. It is shown that only traces of the type of individuals arise, and that scope reconstruction is a phonological phenomenon. The latter result also supports the T-model of syntax.
Relating propositions : subordination and coordination strategies in a polysynthetic language
(1998)
This paper discusses the relationship between the morphological structure of language and its syntactic structure. Although it is primarily a single language which is analysed in detail, namely, Inuktitut, an Eskimo language of the Canadian Eastern Arctic, the findings seem to be of general relevance.
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.
Middle voice marking is very rarely recognized as such in the grammars written on Tibeto-Burman languages. It is often simply treated as a normal direct reflexive or as an intransitivizer. In order to draw the attention of scholars to the existence and function of middle voice marking in Tibeto-Burman languages, the present paper discusses the form and function of middle marking in several of these languages. We will first discuss key facts about middle marking in general, then discuss the individual Tibeto-Burman examples.
The case of German relatives
(1995)
The lemmings theory of case
(1995)
Early features
(1995)
In LaPolla 1990, I presented arguments to show that Chinese is a language in which there has been no grammaticalizalion of the syntactic relations "subject" and "object". This being the case, then syntactic relations cannot be what determines word order in Chinese. In this paper I will argue that, aside from a semantic rule that the actor of a verb, if expressed, must precede that verb, it is pragmatic relations (information structure) that are the main determinants of word order in Chinese.
In the last two decades Philippine languages, and of these especially Tagalog, have acquired a prominent place in linguistic theory. A central role in this discussion was played by two papers written by Schachter (1976 and 1977), who was inspired by Keenan's artcle on the subject from 1976. The most recent contributions on this topic have been from de Wolff (1988) and Shibatani (1988), both of which were published in a collection of essays, edited by Shibatani, with the title Passive and Voice. These works, and several works in-between, deal with the focus system specific to Philippine languages. The main discussion centers around the fact that Philippine languages contain a basic set of 5 to 7 affix focus forms. Their exact number varies not only in the secondary literature, but in the primary sources, i.e. Tagalog grammars, as well, where considerable differences in the number of affix focus forms can be found. All of these works, however, do agree on one point: the Philippine focus system basica1ly consists of agent, patient (=goal or object), benefactive, locative, and instrumental affix forms. Schachter/Otanes (1972) list a number of further forms, and in Drossard (1983 and 1984) we tried to show (in an attempt similar to those of Sapir 1917 and Klimov 1977) that the main criterion for a systematization of the Philippine focus system consists in the difference between the active and stative domains, an attempt which in our opinion was largely misunderstood (cf. the brief remarks in Shibatani (1988) and de Wolff (1988). The present paper is thus, on the one hand, an attempt to repeat and clarify our earlier position, and on the other, a further step towards such a systematization. A first step in this direction was an article on resultativity in Tagalog from 1991. In the present paper this approach will be extended to reciprocity. In the process we will show that it is valid to make a distinction between an active (=controlled action) vs. a stative (=limited controlled action) domain. First, however, we will take a brief look at what makes up the active and stative voice systems.
In attempting to reconstruct the morphosyntax of Proto-Sino-Tibetan, one of the most basic questions to be answered is what was the unmarked word order of the proto-language? Chinese, Bai, and Karen are verb-medial languages, while all of the Tibeto-Burman languages except for Bai and Karen have verb-final word order. lf these languages are all related, as we can assume from lexical correspondences, then either Chinese, Bai and Karen changed from verb-final to verb-medial word order, or the other Tibeto-Burman languages changed trom verb-medial to verb-final order. How we answer the question of which languages changed their word would then give us the answer to the question of word order in Proto-Sino-Tibetan.
Thirty-one years ago Tsu-lin Mei (1961) argued against the traditional doctrine that saw the subject-predicate distinction in grammar as parallel to the particular- universal distinction in logic, as he said it was a reflex of an Indo-European bias, and could not be valid, as ‘Chinese ... does not admit a distinction into subject and predicate’ (p. 153). This has not stopped linguists working on Chinese from attempting to define ‘subject’ (and ‘object’) in Chinese. Though a number of linguists have lamented the difficulties in trying to define these concepts for Chinese (see below), most work done on Chinese still assumes that Chinese must have the same grammatical features as Indo-European, such as having a subject and a direct object, though no attempt is made to justify that view. This paper challenges that view and argues that there has been no grammaticalization of syntactic functions in Chinese. The correct assignment of semantic roles to the constituents of a discourse is done by the listener on the basis of the discourse structure and pragmatics (information flow, inference, relevance, and real world knowledge) (cf. Li & Thompson 1978, 1979; LaPolla 1990).
Grammatical relations – in particular the relation 'subject of' – and voice are of central concern to any theory of universal grammar. With respect to these phenomena the analysis of Tagalog (and the Philippine languages in general) has turned out to be particularly difficult and continues to be a matter of debate. What traditionally has been called passive voice in these languages […] appears to be so different from voice phenomena in the more familiar Indo-European languages that the term 'focus' was introduced in the late 1950s to underscore its 'exceptional' nature [...]. Furthermore, […] an inflationary use has been made of the term 'ergative' in the last decade; it can thus no longer be assumed that it has an unequivocal and specific meaning in typologizing languages, apart from the technical definition it might be given within a particular framework. But if the Philippine 'focus' constructions are neither passive nor ergative, how else can they be analysed? [...] In this paper a ease will be made for the claim that 'focus' marking should be analysed in terms of orientation, a concept used […] for capturing the difference between English (and, more generally, Indo-European) orientated nominalisations such as 'employ-er' or 'employ-ee', and unorientated nominalisations such as 'employ-ing'. This approach implies that 'focus' marking is derivational rather than inflectional as often presumed in the literature. This is to say that what is typologically conspicuous in Tagalog is not the 'focus' phenomenon per se, since this is very similar to orientated nominalisations in many other languages, but rather the very prominent use of orientated formations (i.e., derivational morphology) in basic clause structure.
Since the mid-1970's, the question of whether or not a verb agreement system1 (VAS) should be reconstructed for Proto-Tibeto-Bunnan (PTB) has been a controversial topic, but because of the large amount of work published arguing in favor of reconstructing a VAS for PTB, especially by James J. Bauman (1974, 1975a, 1975b, 1979) and Scott DeLancey (1980, 1983, 1988, 1989, to appear), many people have begun to accept the existence of a VAS in PTB as received knowledge. In a recent paper on verb agreement systems in Tibeto-Burman, Scott DeLancey states that 'There can no longer be any serious doubt that a system of verb agreement must be attributed to Proto-Tibeto-Bunnan (PTB)' (DeLancey 1988: 1). Though the number of papers supporting this position is quite large, I would like to raise several serious doubts about the theoretical and methodological basis for reconstructing a VAS for PTB' and at the same time argue for the use of functionally and typologically based theories of grammar, as exemplified by the head-marking/dependent-marking distinction developed in Nichols 1986, in diachronic syntax and syntactic reconstruction.
This paper is one argument for a theory of grammatical relations in Chinese in which there are no grammatical relations beyond semantic roles, and no lexical relation-changing rules. As the passive rule is one of the most common relation changing rules cross-linguistically, in this paper I will address the question of whether or not Mandarin Chinese has lexical passives, that is, passives defined as in Relational Grammar (see for example Perlmutter and Postal 1977) and the early Lexical Functional Grammar (LFG) literature (e.g. Bresnan 1982), where a 2-arc (object) is promoted to a 1-arc (subject).
As a traditional notion of fundamental importance in linguistics and philosophy (logic), "predication" is fraught with controversial issues. It is thus difficult to delimit the scope of this paper without becoming involved in some major issue. The following distinctions seem to me to be plausible on an intuitive basis. Evidence for why they are useful and legitimate will be found in the body of the paper. The discussion will focus on morphosyntactic predication […].
Ergativity in Samoan
(1985)
Most typological and language specific studies on so- called ergative languages are concerned with case marking patterns, particularly split ergativity, with the organization of syntactic relations as defined by syntactic operations such as coreferential deletion across coordinate conjunctions, Equi-NP-deletion and relativization , and with the notion of subject, but usually neglect the notion of valency, though the inherent relational properties of the verb , i. e. valency, play a fundamental role in the syntactic organization of sentences in ergative as well as in other languages . The following investigation of ergativity in Samoan aims to integrate the notion of valency into the description of semantic and syntactic relations and to outline the characteristic features of Samoan verbal clauses as far as they seem to be relevant to recent and still ongoing discussions on linguistic typology and syntactic theory. The main points of the definition of valency […] are: Valency is the property of the verb which determines the obligatory and optional number of its participants, their morphosyntactic form, their semantic class membership (e.g. ± animate, ± human) , and their semantic role (e.g. agent , patient , recipient). All semantic properties and morphosyntactic properties of participants not inherently given by the verb and therefore not predictable from the verb, are not a matter of valency. Valency is not a homogenous property of the verb, but consists of several exponents which show varying degress of relevance in different languages or different verb classes within a single language.
The present paper is an attempt to describe a particular semantic domain in Thai, that of local relations, in terms of a gradual interconnection of what traditional descriptions usually regard as distinct and isolated categories. It is based on the well-known observation that isolating languages like Thai typically display a high degree of 'multifunctionality', or else of syntactic 'versatility' of very many lexical items. […] The semantic area studied in the following pages yields a clear systematic interconnection of three different categories, viz. that of nouns – as the focal instance of maximum syntactic independence –, that of verbs – as, conversely, the focal instance of maximally relational concepts –, and, as an intermediary category between these two, that of prepositions which the system lexically feeds from both these opposite ends. The examples given in the course of this paper have been obtained from published grammatical literature, from Thai texts, and from informants.
Grammatical relations, particularly the notions of transitivity, case marking, ergativity, passive and antipassive have been a favourite subject of typological research during the last decade, but surprisingly, the notion of valency has been of marginal interest in cross-linguistic studies, though the syntactic and semantic status of participants is, to a great extent, determined by the relational properties of the verb. Valency is the property of the verb which determines the obligatory and optional number of its participants, their morphosyntactic form, their semantic class membership (e.g. ± animate, ± human) ,and their semantic role (e.g. agent, patient, recipient). The valency inherently gives information on the nature of the semantic and syntactic relations that hold between the verb and its participants. If a verb is combined with more participants than allowed or less than required, or if the participants do not show the required morphosyntactic form or class membership, the clause is ungrammatical. In other words, it is not sufficient to consider only the number of actants as a matter of valency, but it is only acceptable if all semantic and morphosyntactic properties of the relation between a verb and its participants that are predictable from the verb are included. The predictability of these properties results from their inherent givenness, and it does not seem reasonable to count some inherently given relational properties as a matter of valency, but not others (compare Helbig (1971:38f) and Heidolph et ale (1981:479) who distinguish between the quantitative, syntactic and semantic aspect of valency).
In his magnum opus (Syntax and Semantics, Leiden 1978, henceforth: S&S) C.L. Ebeling makes a distinction between temporal gradation (pp 301-308 and 337-339) and temporal limitation (pp 311-315). In the case of temporal gradation “p , q”, the meaning “q” specifies the time during which the referent carries the mean-ing “p”.