Linguistik-Klassifikation
Refine
Year of publication
Document Type
- Part of a Book (229)
- Article (66)
- Working Paper (47)
- Preprint (25)
- Conference Proceeding (22)
- Report (7)
- Book (5)
- Review (3)
- magisterthesis (1)
Language
- English (308)
- German (77)
- Croatian (7)
- Portuguese (7)
- French (4)
- mis (1)
- Multiple languages (1)
Has Fulltext
- yes (405)
Keywords
- Syntax (116)
- Deutsch (63)
- Thema-Rhema-Gliederung (37)
- Wortstellung (32)
- Englisch (30)
- Generative Transformationsgrammatik (30)
- Relativsatz (29)
- Intonation <Linguistik> (28)
- Semantik (26)
- Bantusprachen (22)
Institute
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.
Eine Einführung in eine Reihe von linguistischen Phänomenen von Phonetik bis Pragmatik, einige theoretische Ansätze zur Beschreibung/für diese Phänomene, mit einem Blick auf Phänomene und Ansätze, die für kognitive Linguisten und Neurologen interessant sind. Der Begriff "Schnittstelle" ist in der Linguistik ein technischer Terminus, der beschreibt, wie verschiedene Typen von Phänomenen miteinander in einer Beziehung stehen, aber der Terminus soll auch beschreiben, wie linguistische und außerlinguistische Phänomene ineinandergreifen.
Ein zentrales Thema in den Arbeiten Klaus Welkes ist die Analyse formal bestimmter Relationen, die semantisch interpretierbar sind (vgl. etwa WELKE 1988, 1992, 1994, 2001, 22005). Wichtige Fragestellungen sind hier insbesondere: Wie ist die Hierarchie logisch-pragmatischer Rollen, wie die syntaktischer Funktionen? Wie hängen die beiden Bereiche zusammen? Wie können wir dies mit Hilfe von Argumentstrukturen erfassen? Der vorliegende Beitrag wird sich mit dem hierfür zentralen Aspekt der Verknüpfung syntaktischer und semantischer Relationen aus einer evolutionären Perspektive befassen. In Übereinstimmung mit WELKE (22005) gehe ich davon aus, „daß es neben einer Syntax formaler Strukturen auch eine Syntax semantischer Strukturen gibt“ (WELKE 22005, 4) und untersuche vor diesem Hintergrund, wie eine Entstehung dieser beiden Domänen und die Verknüpfung der betreffenden Strukturen im Rahmen der Evolution menschlicher Sprache aussehen könnte.
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.
In letzter Zeit haben trennbare Verben, meist "Partikelverben" genannt, groß es Interesse gefunden, insbesondere solche, bei denen der trennbare Teil eine Präposition darstellt. Ich werde mich im folgenden auf Verbindungen konzentrieren, die sich aus einem Substantiv als Erstglied und einem Verb als Zweitglied zusammensetzen. Es soll gezeigt werden, daß es sich bei Verbindungen wie Auto fahren, Klavier spielen um komplexe Prädikate handelt, die sich in ihren Eigenschaften deutlich von parallelen syntaktischen Strukturen unterscheiden, in denen dem Substantiv der Status einer selbständigen Konstituente zukommt.
Unter Syntaktikern besteht generell die Tendenz, im Deutschen die Freiheit bezüglich der Positionierung der Adverbiale sogar für noch größer zu halten als die Freiheit der Positionierung der Argumente. Wie die Stellungsfreiheit der Argumente im Mittelfeld eines deutschen Satzes theoretisch zu erfassen sei, wird seit langer Zeit kontrovers diskutiert. Die Hauptfrage dreht sich darum, ob alle Serialisierungen der Argumente basisgeneriert sind oder ob es eine ausgezeichnete Serialisierung der Argumente, eine sogenannte Grundabfolge, gibt, aus der sämtliche anderen Aktantenserialisierungen durch eine Ableitungsoperation bzw. Bewegung zu gewinnen sind. Diese grundsätzlichen Fragen stellen sich auch bezüglich der Positionierungsmöglichkeiten der Adverbiale, auch wenn sie hierfür bei weitem nicht so häufig gestellt und diskutiert wurden.
Der Ausgangspunkt ist die These, daß die verschiedenen Adverbialklassen im Deutschen unterschiedliche Basispositionen aufweisen und daß sich diese durch unterschiedliche strukturelle Anforderungen an die Klassen ergeben. Es soll gezeigt werden, daß sich die plausible Vermutung, daß die Adverbialklassen in Sprachen wie dem Deutschen und dem Englischen entsprechenden strukturellen Bedingungen unterliegen, bestätigt. Unterschiede im Verhalten der Adverbiale in den beiden Sprachen werden demnach nicht durch unterschiedliche Eigenschaften der Adverbiale erfaßt, sondern diese ergeben sich durch die unterschiedlichen Satzstrukturen und die unterschiedlichen Weisen der Argumentverwaltung. Dies wird illustriert anhand von Adverbialen der Art und Weise, Lokal- und Temporaladverbialen, Adverbialen der Subjekthaltung und Satzadverbialen.
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.