ZASPiL 58 = Byproducts and side effects : Nebenprodukte und Nebeneffekte
Refine
Year of publication
- 2015 (7)
Document Type
- Part of a Book (7)
Has Fulltext
- yes (7)
Is part of the Bibliography
- no (7)
Keywords
- Deutsch (3)
- Adjektiv (1)
- Altenglisch (1)
- Applikativ (1)
- Attribution (1)
- Demonstrativpronomen (1)
- Direktes Objekt (1)
- Emphatischer Akzent (1)
- Informationsstruktur (1)
- Intonation <Linguistik> (1)
Das im vorliegenden Artikel untersuchte Phänomen im Deutschen ist in der Literatur bisher quasi unentdeckt geblieben. Die einzige Ausnahme bildet der Beitrag von Berg (2008). Die Beobachtung ist folgende: Unter bestimmten Bedingungen, die mit Emphase zu tun haben, kann die lexikalisch festgelegte Betonung, also der Wortakzent, verschoben werden. Im Normalfall betrifft dieser Prozess nicht-native lexikalische Einheiten, denn die Akzentverschiebung passiert in der Regel von hinten nach vorn. Da deutsche Erbwörter initial-, also erstbetont, sind, ist das schwer möglich (jedoch s.u.). Fremdwörter, die auf den hinteren Silben betont sind, sind deshalb prädestiniert. Die meisten Beispiele kommen aus dem Bereich der Wortklasse Adjektiv: spektakulär, skandalös, sensationell, optimal, ideal, brutal, fulminant, perfekt, gigantisch. Im angedeuteten expressiven Gebrauch kann der Wortakzent von der letzten auf die erste Silbe wandern [...].
Der folgende Artikel soll einen Überblick über ein Phänomen geben, das unter verschiedenen Namen einen Einzug in deutsche Grammatiken und linguistische Fachtexte gehalten hat. Man begegnet ihm als "Attribuierungskomplikation", "schiefes Attribut", "grammatische Illusion" und Ähnlichem. Gemeint sind Daten wie der grüne Bohneneintopf, der vierstöckige Hausbesitzer oder das direkte Objektpronomen, sowie die Absturzursache des TWA-Jumbos und die Kritikpunkte an Lakoff. Im Folgenden soll aufgezeigt werden, wie die Diskussion um (scheinbar) fehlerhafte Attribuierungen von N+N-Komposita wieder zu einem virulenten Forschungsthema wurde (§1) und wie dessen Behandlung in Grammatiken (§2), (populären) Sprachkritiken (§3) und Fachtexten (§4) aussieht. In §5 wird eine abschließende Diskussion gegeben.
It has been claimed and widely assumed that caseless direct objects in Turkish exhibit a sort of syntactic incorporation, and only their cased counterparts are true syntactic arguments (Kornfilt 1997; Knecht 1986; Nilsson 1986; Öztürk 2005 among others). Cased and caseless objects are thus widely taken as derivationally related, crystallized in Kelepir's (2001) proposal that objects pick up overt accusative as they move out of the VP. In this paper, I would like to revisit both the empirical evidence and the interpretation leading to these claims and propose revisions.
I first show that not all caseless objects are the same. Mostly drawing on Aydemir (2004), I argue that bare caseless objects and those with indefinite expressions have differences that would be very unusual if they were both incorporated. However, adopting Öztürk (2005) and against Aydemir (2004), neither of the cases can be analyzed as head incorporation.
I then turn to the cased vs. caseless distinction and argue that cased and caseless objects are not that different after all. Based on data with strictly controlled information structure, I arrive at a different generalization than most of the earlier reports and claim that caseless objects are morphosyntactically as moveable as their cased counterparts.
Hence, I propose to replace the notion of incorporation in the literature of Turkish syntax with the notion of weak case (de Hoop 1992) and conclude by a discussion of the domain of syntactic analysis in this primarily semantic phenomenon.
In this article, I provide a description and analysis of the morphemes čiɫ 'do to', ḥta 'do towards' and cḥin 'do for' in the Southern Wakashan language Nuuchahnulth (nuučaan̓uɫ). I argue that these morphemes are verbal applicatives that add a non-core argument to the thematic structure of a verb.
Verbal applicatives in Nuuchahnulth are interesting to investigate because they exhibit typologically unique behaviour that has never been studied before. Applicatives are traditionally considered functional elements whose only purpose is to add an indirect object to the argument structure of the verb (Pylkkanen 2002:17). Nuuchahnulth is the only known language that productively uses independent verbs for this purpose.
Nuuchahnulth is an indigenous language of Canada spoken in the province of British Columbia. It consists of 14 major dialects, most of which have never been studied. All of these dialects are now highly endangered and urgently need to be documented.
The present investigation steps back to the claims of the 1990s by assuming that there is a functional opposition in the use of P- and D-PRO which affects the status of the pronoun's referent in the mental model of the discourse. We interpret the earlier findings as an indication of an information structural difference which is specifically relevant on the discourse level. The question we address here is twofold. Firstly, we ask whether the assumed opposition in the information status of P- and D-PRO referents has consequences on referent continuation in the ongoing discourse. So far, the effects of P- vs. D-PRO use were determined concerning the status of the pronoun referent in the actual sequence of discourse, i.e. they were determined by a judgement on the salience or the topic/focus status of the pronominal DP. As far as we can see, this determination has not been operationalized further. Since there are contexts in which both P- and D-PRO would fit in with only a feeling of a difference but without clear-cut exclusiveness, the opposition is empirically not well validated. If we could show that there are effects of type of pronoun on the ongoing discourse this would, in our view, provide the lacking empirical validation. Secondly, we ask whether there are effects of the narrator's point of view on P- and D-PRO use. The idea behind this question is that the way of information unfolding in discourse depends on the speaker. S/he decides which pieces of information come next, what is foreground and what is background information. If type of pronoun choice is related to the processes of discourse organization by the speaker – via fore- and backgrounding of information – and if internal or external location of the narrator's point of view influences the organization strategies of the speaker/narrator this might have an ffect on the use of P- and D-PRO.
This paper aims to work toward a proper understanding of the role of preverbal ge- in Old English (henceforth OE) and its disappearance in the course of Middle English. This prefix is reminiscent of its cognates in Modern German and Dutch (also written ge-) in its distribution, but even a cursory examination of the details reveals it to be quite distinct, as we will see. The proper characterization of that distribution, and of its diachronic development, has proven to be extremely difficult. I have thus carried out a large-scale corpus study using the York-Toronto-Helsinki parsed corpus of Old English prose (Taylor et al. 2003) and the Penn-Helsinki parsed corpus of Middle English, 2nd ed. (Kroch & Taylor 1999). This paper will report the results of the first phase of the project, involving patterns in the data that could be identified primarily on the basis of automatic searches in the corpora.
"Je suis Charlie" was used over 619.000 times in the two days that have followed the attack of the editorial team of Charlie Hebdo (Le Progrès, The Huffington Post) and has regularly been taken up in both written and spoken form since. In this paper, we argue that the structure of this sentence actually clashes with its meaning. More specifically, whereas its word order and default rightmost sentence stress are compatible either with an all-focus reading or a narrow focusing of Charlie, the context of use of this sentence as well as the solidarity/empathy message it intends to communicate suggest that its subject is narrowly focused. We will propose that two strategies have emerged to solve this conflict: (i) various alternative forms have appeared that allow proper subject focusing and (ii) speakers have reinterpreted the structure so as to pragmatically retrieve the (additive) focused nature of the subject.