Linguistik-Klassifikation
Refine
Year of publication
Document Type
- Part of a Book (204)
- Article (112)
- Working Paper (27)
- Preprint (23)
- Conference Proceeding (17)
- Report (5)
- Book (3)
Language
- English (391) (remove)
Has Fulltext
- yes (391)
Is part of the Bibliography
- no (391)
Keywords
- Syntax (100)
- Thema-Rhema-Gliederung (37)
- Wortstellung (35)
- Deutsch (31)
- Englisch (29)
- Generative Transformationsgrammatik (29)
- Intonation <Linguistik> (25)
- Relativsatz (25)
- Bantusprachen (22)
- Prädikat (21)
- Semantik (21)
- Formale Semantik (17)
- Informationsstruktur (16)
- Optimalitätstheorie (15)
- Prosodie (15)
- Topikalisierung (15)
- Interrogativsatz (13)
- Phonologie (13)
- Pronomen (13)
- Sinotibetische Sprachen (13)
- Adjunkt <Linguistik> (12)
- Chinesisch (12)
- Referenzidentität (12)
- Russisch (12)
- Koreanisch (11)
- Japanisch (10)
- Kasus (10)
- Nominalphrase (10)
- Valenz <Linguistik> (10)
- Anapher <Syntax> (9)
- Linguistik (9)
- Morphosyntax (9)
- Nungisch (9)
- Pragmatik (9)
- Spracherwerb (9)
- Tibetobirmanische Sprachen (9)
- Extraposition (8)
- Kontrastive Linguistik (8)
- Oberflächenstruktur <Linguistik> (8)
- Passiv (8)
- Tagalog (8)
- Tiefenstruktur (8)
- Genus verbi (7)
- Klitisierung (7)
- Lexikologie (7)
- Niederländisch (7)
- Sprachverstehen (7)
- Thematische Relation (7)
- Topik (7)
- Chewa-Sprache (6)
- Grammatische Kategorie (6)
- Head-driven phrase structure grammar (6)
- Kontrastive Syntax (6)
- Morphologie (6)
- Referenz <Linguistik> (6)
- Syntaktische Kongruenz (6)
- Transitivität (6)
- Verb (6)
- Adverb (5)
- Bindungstheorie <Linguistik> (5)
- Bulgarisch (5)
- Freier Relativsatz (5)
- Griechisch (5)
- Kongress (5)
- Koordination <Linguistik> (5)
- Lokativ (5)
- Malagassi-Sprache (5)
- Personalpronomen (5)
- Satz (5)
- Skopus (5)
- Spezifität (5)
- Sprachstatistik (5)
- Sprachtypologie (5)
- Vergleichende Sprachwissenschaft (5)
- syntax (5)
- Adverbiale (4)
- Aufsatzsammlung (4)
- Ergativ (4)
- Ergänzung <Linguistik> (4)
- Französisch (4)
- Funktionale Kategorie (4)
- Generative Grammatik (4)
- Gradpartikel (4)
- Infinitkonstruktion (4)
- Italienisch (4)
- Kindersprache (4)
- Morphonologie (4)
- Nebensatz (4)
- Negation (4)
- Prädikation (4)
- Präposition (4)
- Qiang-Sprache (4)
- Quantifizierung <Linguistik> (4)
- Satztyp (4)
- Spaltsatz (4)
- Ungarisch (4)
- Adjektiv (3)
- Argumentstruktur (3)
- Aspekt <Linguistik> (3)
- Austronesische Sprachen (3)
- Definitheit (3)
- Demonstrativpronomen (3)
- Ellipse <Linguistik> (3)
- Ergänzungsfragesatz (3)
- Grammatiktheorie (3)
- Hebräisch (3)
- Hypotaxe (3)
- Kontrastive Grammatik (3)
- Modalverb (3)
- Neugriechisch (3)
- Objekt (3)
- Quantor (3)
- Raising (3)
- Referenzsemantik (3)
- Reflexivpronomen (3)
- Satzanalyse (3)
- Satzglied (3)
- Satzsemantik (3)
- Scrambling (3)
- Swahili (3)
- Tempus (3)
- Verbalphrase (3)
- Afrikanische Sprachen (2)
- Albanisch (2)
- Argument <Linguistik> (2)
- Artikulation (2)
- Aspiration <Linguistik> (2)
- Aufforderungssatz (2)
- Baskisch (2)
- Consecutio temporum (2)
- Determinator (2)
- Diskontinuität (2)
- Diskursanalyse (2)
- Diskursrepräsentationstheorie (2)
- Distribution <Linguistik> (2)
- Drung (2)
- Experiment (2)
- Extraktion <Linguistik> (2)
- Feldlinguistik (2)
- Ganda-Sprache (2)
- Genitiv (2)
- German (2)
- Gerundium (2)
- Herausstellung (2)
- Indefinitpronomen (2)
- Inkorporation <Linguistik> (2)
- Instrumental (2)
- Interrogativpronomen (2)
- Inuktitut (2)
- Inversion <Grammatik> (2)
- Isländisch (2)
- Junktur (2)
- Kanuri-Sprache (2)
- Konditionalsatz (2)
- Konjunktion (2)
- Kontrastive Phonologie (2)
- Kontrolle <Linguistik> (2)
- Kopula (2)
- Korpus <Linguistik> (2)
- Makonde-Sprache (2)
- Modalität (2)
- Morphem (2)
- Nama-Sprache (2)
- Nicht-restriktiver Relativsatz (2)
- Nominalisierung (2)
- Norwegisch (2)
- Parasitic gap (2)
- Parataxe (2)
- Philippinen-Austronesisch (2)
- Phrasenstruktur (2)
- Phrasenstrukturgrammatik (2)
- Plural (2)
- Polarität (2)
- Portugiesisch (2)
- Pro-Form (2)
- Prädikativsatz (2)
- Restriktiver Relativsatz (2)
- Resultativ (2)
- Salish-Sprache (2)
- Satzakzent (2)
- Satzteil (2)
- Serialverb-Konstruktion (2)
- Slawische Sprachen (2)
- Sotho (2)
- Spanisch (2)
- Sprachverarbeitung <Psycholinguistik> (2)
- Spurtheorie (2)
- Subjekt (2)
- Temporalsatz (2)
- Tharaka (2)
- Tongaisch (2)
- Tough-construction (2)
- Unbestimmtheit (2)
- Wortbildung (2)
- Yoruba-Sprache (2)
- Zulu-Sprache (2)
- case (2)
- dass (2)
- Ableitung <Linguistik> (1)
- Adversativsatz (1)
- Affirmativer Polaritätsausdruck (1)
- Affix (1)
- Ainu-Sprache (1)
- Akan-Sprache (1)
- Akkusativ mit Infinitiv (1)
- Algorithmus (1)
- Allomorph (1)
- Ambiguität (1)
- Amerikanisches Englisch (1)
- Aschanti-Sprache (1)
- Aspekt (1)
- Asymmetrie (1)
- Auslassung (1)
- Ausrufesatz (1)
- Auxiliarkomplex (1)
- Bahasa Indonesia (1)
- Bairisch (1)
- Bantoid (1)
- Basaa-Sprache (1)
- Baushi (1)
- Belebtheit <Grammatik> (1)
- Belhare (1)
- Bemba-Sprache (1)
- Berlin <2001> (1)
- Beschränkung <Linguistik> (1)
- Bewegungsverb (1)
- Chinese (1)
- Chomsky (1)
- Demokratische Republik Kongo (1)
- Determinativ (1)
- Dialektologie (1)
- Disambiguierung (1)
- Diskontinuierliches Element (1)
- Doppelter Nominativ (1)
- Dutch (1)
- Einbettung <Linguistik> (1)
- Eindeutigkeit (1)
- Epenthese (1)
- Erkenntnistheorie (1)
- Evidenz (1)
- Existentialsatz (1)
- Expressivität <Linguistik> (1)
- Faktiv (1)
- Finite Verbform (1)
- Fipa (1)
- Fokus <Linguistik> (1)
- Frage (1)
- Fragebogen (1)
- Funktionsverb (1)
- Funktionsverbgefüge (1)
- Galloitalienisch (1)
- Gefühl (1)
- Generalisierte Phrasenstrukturgrammatik (1)
- Genus (1)
- Glue Semantics (1)
- Gradadverb (1)
- Grammatikalisation (1)
- Grammatikalität (1)
- Grammatische Relation (1)
- Hakha Chin (Lai) (1)
- Halkomelem (1)
- Hausa (1)
- Haya (1)
- Herero-Sprache (1)
- Hilfsverb (1)
- Immediate Dominance/Linear Precedence (1)
- Inchoativ (1)
- Infix (1)
- Insertion <Linguistik> (1)
- Irisch (1)
- Je suis Charlie (1)
- Kamerun (1)
- Kausativ (1)
- Khoisan (1)
- Kognitive Entwicklung (1)
- Komoren (1)
- Komparation (1)
- Konfiguration <Linguistik> (1)
- Kongo-Sprache (1)
- Kongressbericht (1)
- Konsekutivsatz (1)
- Konstruktionsgrammatik (1)
- Kontrastive Semantik (1)
- Kopulasatz (1)
- Korrelativsatz (1)
- Kymrisch (1)
- Lerntheorie (1)
- Lexicalized Tree Adjoining Grammar (1)
- Linksverzweigende Konstruktion (1)
- Logische Form <Linguistik> (1)
- Lokale Präposition (1)
- Luiseño-Sprache (1)
- Makua-Sprache (1)
- Malawi (1)
- Markiertheit (1)
- Mboshi-Sprache (1)
- Methodologie (1)
- Mittelenglisch (1)
- Modalität <Linguistik> (1)
- Modifikation <Linguistik> (1)
- Modifikator (1)
- Morphologie <Linguistik> (1)
- Move-alpha (1)
- Mura-Sprache (1)
- Mögliche Welt (1)
- Mündlichkeit (1)
- Negativer Polaritätsausdruck (1)
- Neutralisation <Linguistik> (1)
- Niger-Kongo-Sprachen (1)
- Nilosaharanische Sprachen (1)
- Nilotische Sprachen (1)
- Niue-Sprache (1)
- Noam (1)
- Nomen (1)
- Nomen agentis (1)
- Nominalsatz (1)
- Nominativ (1)
- Notwendigkeit (1)
- Numerativ (1)
- Objektsatz (1)
- Opaker Kontext (1)
- Oslo <1999> (1)
- Paiwan (1)
- Palauisch (1)
- Palaung (1)
- Parametrisierung (1)
- Partikelverb (1)
- Partitiv (1)
- Partizip Perfekt (1)
- Perfekt (1)
- Phonetik (1)
- Phrasenkompositum (1)
- Phrasenmarker (1)
- Pirahã (1)
- Polnisch (1)
- Possessivität (1)
- Potsdam <2002> (1)
- Proto-Indo-European (1)
- Proto-Tibetobirmanisch (1)
- Präpositionalphrase (1)
- Präsupposition (1)
- Range Concatenation Grammar (1)
- Reduktion <Linguistik> (1)
- Reduplikation (1)
- Regelordnung (1)
- Relevanz <Linguistik> (1)
- Reziprozität (1)
- Reziprozität <Linguistik> (1)
- Richtungsangabe (1)
- Romanische Sprachen (1)
- Rumänisch (1)
- Saharanische Sprachen (1)
- Samoanisch (1)
- Satzadverb (1)
- Satzellipse (1)
- Schriftlichkeit (1)
- Schwedisch (1)
- Semantische Lizenzierung (1)
- Senufo (1)
- Serbian (1)
- Serbisch (1)
- Skandinavische 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)
- Thailändisch (1)
- Theory of mind (1)
- Tibetobirmanische Sprachen ; Nungisch (1)
- Tonologie (1)
- Tschuktschisch (1)
- Tswana (1)
- Tukangbesi (1)
- Tumbuka-Sprache (1)
- Type-Token-Relation (1)
- Türkisch (1)
- Umgangssprache (1)
- Universalgrammatik (1)
- Unterspezifikation (1)
- Valenz (Linguistik) (1)
- Venetisch (1)
- Verbalkomplex (1)
- Vietnamese (1)
- Vokal (1)
- Vokalharmonie (1)
- Vokativ (1)
- W-Bewegung (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)
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.
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.
In this paper I present five alternations of the verb system of Modern Greek, which are recurrently mapped on the syntactic frame NPi__NP. The actual claim is that only the participation in alternations and/or the allocation to an alternation variant can reliably determine the relation between a verb derivative and its base. In the second part, the conceptual structures and semantic/situational fields of a large number of “-ízo” derivatives appearing inside alternation classes are presented. The restricted character of the conceptual and situational preferences inside alternations classes suggests the dominant character of the alternations component.
Rawang [...] is a Tibeto-Burman language spoken by people who live in the far north of Kachin State in Myanmar (Burma), particularly along the Mae Hka ('Nmai Hka) and Maeli Hka (Mali Hka) river valleys (see map on back page); population unknown, although Ethnologue gives 100,000. In the past they had been called ‘Nung’, or (mistakenly) ‘Hkanung’, and are considered to be a sub-group of the Kachin by the Myanmar government. Until government policies put a stop to the clearing of new land in 1994, the Rawang speakers still practiced slash and burn farming on the mountainsides (they still do a bit, but only on already claimed land), in conjunction with planting paddy rice near the river. They are closely related to people on the other side of the Chinese border in Yunnan classified as either Dulong or Nu(ng) (see LaPolla 2001, 2003 on the Dulong language). In this paper, I will be discussing the word-class-changing constructions found in Rawang, using data of the Mvtwang (Mvt River) dialect of Rawang, which is considered the most central of those dialects in Myanmar and so has become something of a standard for writing and inter-group communication.
Rawang (Rvwàng) is a Tibeto-Burman language spoken in the far north of Myanmar (Burma), and is closely related to the Dulong language spoken in China. Rawang manifests a kind of hierarchical person marking on the predicate which marks first person primarily (in several different ways - suffixes, change of final consonant, vowel length - and up to five times within one verb complex), and second person indirectly with a sort of marking similar to the inverse marking found in some North American languages: it appears when there is a first person participant, but that referent is not the actor, and when the second person is a participant. This system is quite different from those that reflect semantic role (e.g. Qiang) or grammatical relations (e.g. English).
Questions on transitivity
(2008)
This handout (it isn’t a paper) presents phenomena and questions, rather than conclusions, related to the concept of transitivity. The idea is to return to these questions at the end of the Workshop to see if we can have a clearer consensus about the best general analysis of phenomena associated with transitivity. Section 2 presents alternative analyses of transitivity and questions about transitivity in three languages I have worked on. Section 3 discusses a few of the different conceptualisations of transitivity that might be relevant to our thinking about the questions related to these languages or that bring up further questions. Section 4 presents some general questions that might be asked of individual languages.
This paper is an inductive look at the constituents found in a randomly selected Tagalog text, Bob Ong’s Alamat ng Gubat (Makati City, MM: Visual Print Enterprises, 2004). The analysis is based on the full text, but we will only be able to go through the first few lines of the text here, which we will do one by one, and discuss the structures found in each line of the text in bullet format after the relevant line. At the end of the paper we will bring up some important questions about the structures found in Tagalog based on this text.
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).
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).
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.
Ever since the publication of Greenberg 1963, word order typologists have attempted to formulate and refine implicational universals of word order so as to characterize the restricted distribution of certain word order patterns, and in some cases have also attempted to develop general principles to explain the existence of those universals.
Evidentiality in Qiang
(2003)
The Qiang language is spoken by about 70,000 (out of 200,000) Qiang people, plus 50,000 people classified as Tibetan by the Chinese government. Most Qiang speakers live in Aba Tibetan and Qiang Autonomous Prefecture on the eastern edge of the Tibetan plateau in the mountainous northwest part of Sichuan Province, China. The Qiang language is a member of the Qiangic branch of the Tibeto-Burman family of the Sino-Tibetan stock. Within Tibeto-Burman, a number oflanguages show evidence of evidential systems, but these systems cannot be reconstructed to any great time depth. The data used in this chapter is from Ranghang Village, Chibusu District, Mao County in Aba Prefecture.
Adjectives in Qiang
(2004)
Qiang is a Tibeto-Burman language spoken by 70,000-80,000 people in Northern Sichuan Province, China, classified as being in the Qiang or Tibetan nationality by the Chinese government. The language is verb final, agglutinative (prefixing and suffixing), and has both head-marking and dependent-marking morphology.
Based on a Relevance Theory-informed view of language development, this paper argues that grammatical relations are construction-specific conventionalizations (grammaticalizations) of implicatures which arise out of repeated patterns of reference to particular types of referents. Once conventionalized, these structures function to constrain the hearer's identification of referents in discourse. As they are construction-specific, and hence language-specific, there is no category "subject" across languages; different languages will either show this type of grammaticalization or not, and if they do, may show it or not in different constructions. Any cross-linguistic use of terms such as "subject" (and "S", as in "SOV") should then be avoided.
On describing word order
(2006)
One aspect that is always discussed in language descriptions, no matter how short they may be, is word order. Beginning with Greenberg 1963, it has been common to talk about word order using expressions such as "X is an SOV language", where "S" represents "subject", "0" represents "object", and "V" represents "verb". Statements such as this are based on an assumption of comparability, an assumption that all languages manifest the categories represented by "S", "0", and "V" (among others), and that word order in all languages can be described (and compared) using these categories.
Nominalization in Rawang
(2009)
This paper discusses the types of relative clause and noun complement structures found in the Rawang language, a Tibeto-Burman language of northern Myanmar, as well as their origin and uses, with data taken mainly from naturally occurring texts. Two types are preposed relative clauses, but in one the relative clause is nominalized, and in the other it is not. The non-nominalized form with a general head led to the development of nominalizing suffixes and one type of nominalized relative clause structure. As the nominalized form is a nominal itself, it can be postposed to the head in an appositional structure. There is also discussion of the Rawang structures in the context of Tibeto-Burman and the development of relative clause structures in the language family.
Many linguists in China and the West have talked about Chinese as a topic-comment language, that is, a language in which the structure of the clause takes the form of a topic, about which something is to be said, and a comment, which is what is said about the topic, rather than being a language with a subject-predicate structure like that of English. Y. R. Chao (1968), for example, said that all Chinese clauses have topic-comment structure and there are no exceptions.
The philosophy of language comes in three varieties. 1. The functionalist’s view: linguistic forms are instruments used to convey meaningful elements. This is the basis of European structuralism. 2. The formalist’s view: linguistic forms are abstract structures which can be filled with meaningful elements. This is the basis of generative grammar. 3. The parasitologist’s view: linguistic forms are vehicles for the reproduction of meaningful elements. This is the view which I advocated twelve years ago in a Festschrift (1985).
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”.
The argument that I tried to elaborate on in this paper is that the conceptual problem behind the traditional competence/performance distinction does not go away, even if we abandon its original Chomskyan formulation. It returns as the question about the relation between the model of the grammar and the results of empirical investigations – the question of empirical verification The theoretical concept of markedness is argued to be an ideal correlate of gradience. Optimality Theory, being based on markedness, is a promising framework for the task of bridging the gap between model and empirical world. However, this task not only requires a model of grammar, but also a theory of the methods that are chosen in empirical investigations and how their results are interpreted, and a theory of how to derive predictions for these particular empirical investigations from the model. Stochastic Optimality Theory is one possible formulation of a proposal that derives empirical predictions from an OT model. However, I hope to have shown that it is not enough to take frequency distributions and relative acceptabilities at face value, and simply construe some Stochastic OT model that fits the facts. These facts first of all need to be interpreted, and those factors that the grammar has to account for must be sorted out from those about which grammar should have nothing to say. This task, to my mind, is more complicated than the picture that a simplistic application of (not only) Stochastic OT might draw.
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.
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.
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.
German dialects vary in which of the possible orders of the verbs in a 3-verb cluster they allow. In a still ongoing empirical investigation that I am undertaking together with Tanja Schmid, University of Stuttgart (Schmid and Vogel (2004)) we already found that each of the six logically possible permutations of the 3-verb cluster in (1) can be found in German dialects.
This paper reports the results of a corpus investigation on case conflicts in German argument free relative constructions. We investigate how corpus frequencies reflect the relative markedness of free relative and correlative constructions, the relative markedness of different case conflict configurations, and the relative markedness of different conflict resolution strategies. Section 1 introduces the conception of markedness as used in Optimality Theory. Section 2 introduces the facts about German free relative clauses, and section 3 presents the results of the corpus study. By and large, markedness and frequency go hand in hand. However, configurations at the highest end of the markedness scale rarely show up in corpus data, and for the configuration at the lowest end we found an unexpected outcome: the more marked structure is preferred.
This paper is part of a research project on OT Syntax and the typology of the free relative (FR) construction. It concentrates on the details of an OT analysis and some of its consequences for OT syntax. I will not present a general discussion of the phenomenon and the many controversial issues it is famous for in generative syntax.
We present a CYK and an Earley-style algorithm for parsing Range Concatenation Grammar (RCG), using the deductive parsing framework. The characteristic property of the Earley parser is that we use a technique of range boundary constraint propagation to compute the yields of non-terminals as late as possible. Experiments show that, compared to previous approaches, the constraint propagation helps to considerably decrease the number of items in the chart.
This paper deals with restitutive and repetitive wieder. Proceeding from the assumption that adverbial adjuncts have base positions which reflect their semantic relations to the rest of the sentence, it is shown that repetitive wieder belongs to the class of event adverbs minimally c-commanding the base positions of all arguments whereas restitutive wieder has many properties in common with process adjuncts, minimally c-commanding the final verb.
This paper argues for a scopal explanation of the readings of the adverb wieder (‘again’). It is the syntactic entity that wieder is related to which determines whether the repetitive or the restitutive reading obtains. If it is adjoined to the minimal verbal domain, it relates to a situation-internal state thus producing a restitutive interpretation, if adjoined to a higher verbal projection, it relates to an eventuality resulting in a repetitive interpretation. Proceeding from the assumption that adverbial adjuncts have base positions which reflect their semantic relations to the rest of the sentence, repetitive wieder is shown to belong to the class of eventuality adverbs that minimally c-command the base positions of all arguments, whereas restitutive wieder has many properties in common with process (manner) adjuncts that minimally c-command the verb in clause-final base position.
The case of German relatives
(1995)
Reflexive pronouns as central anaphoric elements are subject to general principles determined by Universal Grammar and shared by all languages that use reflexives as part of their grammatical structure. In addition to these general conditions, there are language particular properties, which different languages can exhibit on the basis of different regulations. One variation of this sort is the particular role of Reflexives in German, which can show up as improper Arguments, which are subject to standard syntactic and morphological conditions, but do not represent an argument of the head they belong to. Hence the particular property is the effect of syntactic, morphological and semantic conditions. A simple illustration of the phenomena I will explore in this contribution is based on the following observation.
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.
Research on a variety of structurally different languages suggests that information is assigned to grammatical form in way of preferred representations of arguments. These preferences can be captured by four interacting constraints which are based on the analysis of spoken and written discourse. These constraints represent measurable discourse preferences: pragmatically unmarked utterances seem to follow them blindly and widely. Consequently, the preferences motivating these constraints seem to represent the default structuring of discourse in immediate relation to elementary grammatical form. Discourse is no longer viewed as acting upon grammatical form, but as being ‘grammatical’ itself.
In German, prosody interacts with quantifier scope. We investigate this interaction in inverse linking constructions. We present evidence from elicited production of linguistically naive speakers supporting the following two claims: 1) There are two kinds of inverse linking constructions of which only the prepositional type requires a marked intonation contour for inverse scope. 2) In the prepositional construction, a double focus contour is employed with inverse scope rather that a topic-focus (rise-fall) contour as previously assumed (Krifka 1998).