400 Sprache
Refine
Year of publication
Document Type
- Article (236)
- Part of a Book (230)
- Preprint (96)
- Conference Proceeding (78)
- Report (30)
- Book (18)
- Doctoral Thesis (18)
- Working Paper (18)
- Part of Periodical (15)
- Bachelor Thesis (3)
- Periodical (2)
- Diploma Thesis (1)
- Master's Thesis (1)
- Other (1)
Language
- English (747) (remove)
Is part of the Bibliography
- no (747)
Keywords
- Spracherwerb (43)
- Sprachtest (35)
- Sinotibetische Sprachen (31)
- Deutsch (26)
- Phonetik (25)
- Syntax (25)
- Informationsstruktur (20)
- Semantik (20)
- Tibetobirmanische Sprachen (15)
- Nominalisierung (14)
Institute
Multicomponent Tree Adjoining Grammars (MCTAG) is a formalism that has been shown to be useful for many natural language applications. The definition of MCTAG however is problematic since it refers to the process of the derivation itself: a simultaneity constraint must be respected concerning the way the members of the elementary tree sets are added. Looking only at the result of a derivation (i.e., the derived tree and the derivation tree), this simultaneity is no longer visible and therefore cannot be checked. I.e., this way of characterizing MCTAG does not allow to abstract away from the concrete order of derivation. Therefore, in this paper, we propose an alternative definition of MCTAG that characterizes the trees in the tree language of an MCTAG via the properties of the derivation trees the MCTAG licences.
Multicomponent Tree Adjoining Grammars (MCTAG) is a formalism that has been shown to be useful for many natural language applications. The definition of MCTAG however is problematic since it refers to the process of the derivation itself: a simultaneity constraint must be respected concerning the way the members of the elementary tree sets are added. This way of characterizing MCTAG does not allow to abstract away from the concrete order of derivation. In this paper, we propose an alternative definition of MCTAG that characterizes the trees in the tree language of an MCTAG via the properties of the derivation trees (in the underlying TAG) the MCTAG licences. This definition gives a better understanding of the formalism, it allows a more systematic comparison of different types of MCTAG, and, furthermore, it can be exploited for parsing.
The present work reports two experiments on brain electric correlates of cognitive and emotional functions. (1) Studying paranormal belief, 35-channel resting EEG (10 believers and 13 skeptics) was analyzed with "Low Resolution Electromagnetic Tomography" (LORETA) in seven frequency bands. LORETA gravity centers of all bands shifted to the left in believers vs. sceptics, and showed that believers had stronger left fronto-temporo-parietal activity than skeptics. Self-rating of affective attitude showed believers to be less negative than skeptics. The observed EEG lateralization agreed with the ‘valence hypothesis’ that posits predominant left hemispheric processing for positive emotions. (2) Studying emotions, positive and negative emotion words were presented to 21 subjects while "Event-Related Potentials" (ERPs) were recorded. During word presentation (450 ms), 13 microstates (steps of information processing) were identified. Three microstates showed different potential maps for positive vs. negative words; LORETA functional imaging showed stronger activity in microstate #4 (106-122 ms) for positive words right anterior, for negative words left central; in #6 (138-166 ms) for positive words left anterior, for negative words left posterior; in #7 (166-198 ms), for positive words right anterior, for negative words right central. In conclusion: during word processing, the extraction of emotion content starts as early as 106 ms after stimulus onset; the brain identifies emotion content repeatedly in three separate, brief microstate epochs; and, this processing of emotion content in the three microstates involves different brain mechanisms to represent the distinction positive vs. negative valence.
This paper examines the development of periphrastic constructions involving auxiliary "have" and "be" with a past participle in the history of English, on the basis of parsed electronic corpora. It is argued that the two constructions represented distinct syntactic and semantic structures: while the one with have developed into a true perfect in the course of Middle English, the one with be remained a stative resultative throughout its history. In this way, it is explained why the be construction was rarely or never used in a number of contexts, including past counterfactuals, iteratives, duratives, certain kinds of infinitives and various other utterance types that cannot be characterized as perfects of result. When the construction with have became a true perfect, it was used in such contexts, regardless of the identity of the main verb, leading to the appearance of have with verbs like come which had previously only taken be. Crucially, however, have was not spreading at the expense of be, as the be perfect had never been used in such contexts, but rather at the expense of the old simple past. At least until the end of the Early Modern English period, the shift in the relative frequency of have and be perfects is to be explained in terms of the expansion of the former into new contexts, while the latter remained stable. A formal analysis is proposed, taking as its starting point a comparison with German which shows that the older English be perfect indeed behaves more like the German stative passive than its haben and sein perfects.
In this paper, we will argue for a novel analysis of the auxiliary alternation in Early English, its development and subsequent loss which has broader consequences for the way that auxiliary selection is looked at cross-linguistically. We will present evidence that the choice of auxiliaries accompanying past participles in Early English differed in several significant respects from that in the familiar modern European languages. Specifically, while the construction with have became a full-fledged perfect by some time in the ME period, that with be was actually a stative resultative, which it remained until it was lost. We will show that this accounts for some otherwise surprising restrictions on the distribution of BE in Early English and allows a better understanding of the spread of HAVE through late ME and EModE. Perhaps more importantly, the Early English facts also provide insight into the genesis of the kind of auxiliary selection found in German, Dutch and Italian. Our analysis of them furthermore suggests a promising strategy for explaining cross-linguistic variation in auxiliary selection in terms of variation in the syntactico-semantic structure of the perfect. In this introductory section, we will first provide some background on the historical situation we will be discussing, then we will lay out the main claims for which we will be arguing in the paper.
In this paper I seek to account for the productive word-formation process resulting in the current proliferation of un-nouns, the semi-legitimate offspring of Humpty Dumpty´s un-birthday present (1871) and 7-Up´s commercial incarnation as The Un-Cola (1968), a construction that can be linked to the more well-established categories of un-adjectives and un-verbs, whose formation constraints we will also examine. Drawing on a large corpus of novel un-nouns I have assembled in collaboration with Beth Levin presented in the Appendices to this paper, I will invoke Rosch´s prototype semantics and Aristotle´s notion of PRIVATIVE opposites, defined in terms of a marked exception to a general class property, to generalize across the different categories of un-words. It will be argued that a given un-noun refers either to an element just outside a given category with whose members it shares a salient function (e.g. un-cola) or to a peripheral member of a given category (an unhotel is a hotel but not a good exemplar of the class-not a HOTEL hotel).
The retreat of BE as perfect auxiliary in the history of English is examined. Corpus data are presented showing that the initial advance of HAVE was most closely connected to a restriction against BE in past counterfactuals. Other factors which have been reported to favor the spread of HAVE are either dependent on the counterfactual effect, or significantly weaker in comparison. It is argued that the effect can be traced to the semantics of the BE perfect, which denoted resultativity rather than anteriority proper. Related data from other older Germanic and Romance languages are presented, and finally implications for existing theories of auxiliary selection stemming from the findings presented are discussed.
It has often been noticed that one syntactic argument position can be realized by elements which seem to realize different thematic roles. This is notably the case with the external argument position of verbs of change of state which licenses volitional agents, instruments or natural forces/causers, showing the generality and abstractness of the external argument relation. (1) a. John broke the window (Agent) b. The hammer broke the window (Instrument) c. The storm broke the window (Causer) In order to capture this generality, Van Valin & Wilkins (1996) and Ramchand (2003) among others have proposed that the thematic role of the external argument position is in fact underspecified. The relevant notion is that of an effector (in Van Valin & Wilkins) or of an abstract causer/initiator (in Ramchand). In this paper we argue against a total underspecification of the external argument relation. While we agree that (1b) does not instantiate an instrument theta role in subject position, we argue that a complete underspecification of the external theta-position is not feasible, but that two types of external theta roles have to be distinguished, Agents and Causers. Our arguments are based on languages where Agents and Causers show morpho-syntactic independence (section 2.1) and the behavior of instrument subjects in English, Dutch, German and Greek (section 2.2 and 3). We show that instrument subjects are either Agent or Causer like. In section (4) we give an analysis how arguments realizing these thematic notions are introduced into syntax.
Verbs, nouns and affixation
(2008)
What explains the rich patterns of deverbal nominalization? Why do some nouns have argument structure, while others do not? We seek a solution in which properties of deverbal nouns are composed from properties of verbs, properties of nouns, and properties of the morphemes that relate them. The theory of each plus the theory of howthey combine, should give the explanation. In exploring this, we investigate properties of two theories of nominalization. In one, the verb-like properties of deverbal nouns result from verbal syntactic structure (a “structural model”). See, for example, van Hout & Roeper 1998, Fu, Roeper and Borer 1993, 2001, to appear, Alexiadou 2001, to appear). According to the structural hypothesis, some nouns contain VPs and/or verbal functional layers. In the other theory, the verbal properties of deverbal nouns result from the event structure and argument structure of the DPs that they head. By “event structure” we mean a representation of the elements and structure of a linguistic event, not a representation of the world. We refer to this view as the “event model”. According to the event model hypothesis, all derived nouns are represented with the same syntactic structure, the difference lying in argument structure – which in turn is critically related to event structure, in the way sketched in Grimshaw (1990), Siloni (1997) among others. In pursuing these lines of analysis, and at least to some extent disentangling their properties, we reach the conclusion that, with respect to a core set of phenomena, the two theories are remarkably similar – specifically, they achieve success with the same problems, and must resort to the same stipulations to address the remaining issues that we discuss (although the stipulations are couched in different forms).