Open Access

This dissertation deals with the lexical, morphological, syntactic, and semantic properties of (VP )idioms and their behavior in combination with restrictive relative clauses, raising, constituent fronting, wh-movement, VP-ellipsis, pronominalization, the progressive form, verb placement, passivization, conjunction modification, and the N-after-N construction. It provides empirical evidence towards a combinatorial analysis of both semantically non-decomposable idioms (SNDIs) and semantically decomposable idioms (SDIs) and contributes to the (formal) formulation of such an account. The Introduction (Chapter 1) first motivates why idioms are an exciting and challenging phenomenon and then gives a definition of the term idiom, a classification of idioms, and an overview of the wide spectrum of idiom analyses found in the linguistic literature. Chapter 2, “Idioms as evidence for the proper analysis of relative clauses”, shows that the Modification Analysis beats the other two major analyses of restrictive relative clauses (RRCs), namely Raising and Matching, as (i) the latter two lead to a loss of numerous empirical generalizations in syntax and morphology, and (ii) contrary to the assumption in the literature, idioms in RRCs can, in fact, be licensed without literal syntactic movement of the RRC-head, which makes modification fully compatible with idiom reconstruction effects. Chapter 3, “How frozen are frozen idioms?”, presents new empirical observations on the lexical, morphological, and syntactic flexibility of kick the bucket and displays that this idiom is not completely frozen with respect to its NP complement, the progressive form, and, in some contexts, even passivization. The chapter concludes that analyses of kick the bucket as a single lexical entry should be replaced by analyses of this and other SNDIs with a syntactically regular shape as consisting of individual word-level lexical entries that combine according to the standard rules of syntax. This idea is taken up in Chapter 4, “The syntactic flexibility of semantically non-decomposable idioms”, which – based on the differences between English and German with regard to verb placement, constituent fronting, and passivization as well as a short outlook on Estonian and French – spells out a combinatorial analysis of SNDIs and augments it with a semantic analysis formulated in Lexical Resource Semantics, according to which some idiom parts make identical semantic contributions to the overall meaning of the idiom. The analysis further suggests that the syntactic flexibility of idioms is due to the semantic and pragmatic constraints on the involved constructions, rather than the syntactic encoding of the idioms. Chapter 5, “Modification of literal meanings in semantically non-decomposable idioms”, reviews Ernst’s (1981) classical three types of idiom modification (internal, external, and conjunction) to then closely investigate the most challenging type, namely conjunction modification, in SNDIs. Based on naturally occurring examples of four SNDIs (two English, two German), it sketches an analysis in terms of two or more conjoined independent propositions, each of which can be the result of figurative reinterpretation. One of the propositions contains the idiomatic meaning, in (one of) the other(s), the meaning of the modifier applies to the literal meaning of the idiom’s noun. Chapter 6, “Semantically decomposable idioms in the N-after-N construction”, offers a formal syntactic and semantic account of SDIs like pull strings in the N-after-N construction, as in Kim pulled string after string to get Alex into a good college. While the idiom contributes the type of entity at stake (‘string’ in the case of pull strings), N-after-N contributes that there are several instantiations of that type of entity and that these are subject to temporal or spatial succession. The chapter first summarizes the empirical properties of N-after-N, then provides an account of N-after-N in Head-driven Phrase Structure Grammar (HPSG), presents an updated version of the account of SDIs suggested in Chapter 2 within HPSG, and combines it with the HPSG account of N-after-N.

Rezension zu Bülow, Lars/Johann, Michael (Hgg.) (2019): Politische Internet-Memes - Theoretische Herausforderungen und empirische Befunde. Berlin: Frank & Timme Verlag, ISBN: 978–3–7329–0535–5, 248 S.

Unquestionably (or: undoubtedly), every competent speaker has already come to doubt with respect to the question of which form is correct or appropriate and should be used (in the standard language) when faced with two or more almost identical competing variants of words, word forms or sentence and phrase structure (e.g. German "Pizzas/Pizzen/Pizze" 'pizzas', Dutch "de drie mooiste/mooiste drie stranden" 'the three most beautiful/most beautiful three beaches', Swedish "större än jag/mig" 'taller than I/me'). Such linguistic uncertainties or "cases of doubt" (cf. i.a. Klein 2003, 2009, 2018; Müller & Szczepaniak 2017; Schmitt, Szczepaniak & Vieregge 2019; Stark 2019 as well as the useful collections of data of Duden vol. 9, Taaladvies.net, Språkriktighetsboken etc.) systematically occur also in native speakers and they do not necessarily coincide with the difficulties of second language learners. In present-day German, most grammatical uncertainties occur in the domains of inflection (nominal plural formation, genitive singular allomorphy of strong masc./neut. nouns, inflectional variation of weak masc. nouns, strong/weak adjectival inflection and comparison forms, strong/weak verb forms, perfect auxiliary selection) and word-formation (linking elements in compounds, separability of complex verbs). As for syntax, there are often doubts in connection with case choice (pseudo-partitive constructions, prepositional case government) and agreement (especially due to coordination or appositional structures). This contribution aims to present a contrastive approach to morphological and syntactic uncertainties in contemporary Germanic languages (mostly German, Dutch, and Swedish) in order to obtain a broader and more fine-grained typology of grammatical instabilities and their causes. As will be discussed, most doubts of competent speakers - a problem also for general linguistic theory - can be attributed to processes of language change in progress, to language or variety contact, to gaps and rule conflicts in the grammar of every language or to psycholinguistic conditions of language processing. Our main concerns will be the issues of which (kinds of) common or different critical areas there are within Germanic (and, on the other hand, in which areas there are no doubts), which of the established (cross-linguistically valid) explanatory approaches apply to which phenomena and, ultimately, the question whether the new data reveals further lines of explanation for the empirically observable (standard) variation.

Während es jedem unbenommen ist, eine Sprache oder einen Dialekt schön oder häßlich zu finden, wird immer wieder versucht, sprachästhetische Urteile zu begründen. In diesem Essay werden Urteile über die deutsche Sprache gesammelt und linguistisch betrachtet, d.h. nicht nach den sozio-kulturellen Assoziationen, die sie auslöst (Giles/Niedzielsky 1998: social connotation hypothesis), sondern nach sprachlichen Merkmalen (inherent value hypothesis), was Versuche nicht ausschließt, sozio-kulturelle Assoziationen linguistisch zu legitimieren. Konsens scheint darüber zu bestehen, daß die romanischen Sprachen, und unter diesen besonders das Italienische, schöner klingen als die germanischen Sprachen, und unter diesen besonders das Deutsche, während das Deutsche durch Ableitung und Zusammensetzung Wortbildungsmöglichkeiten hat und nutzt, die anderen Sprachen versagt sind. Was die Aussagekraft solcher Vergleiche mindert, ist ihr Eurozentrismus; ästhetische Urteile über „exotische“ Sprachen sind noch selten.