410 Linguistik
Refine
Year of publication
Document Type
- Part of a Book (25)
- Article (6)
- Working Paper (5)
- Book (1)
- Conference Proceeding (1)
- Doctoral Thesis (1)
Language
- English (39) (remove)
Has Fulltext
- yes (39)
Is part of the Bibliography
- no (39)
Keywords
- Syntax (39) (remove)
Institute
Pitch peaks tend to be higher at the beginning of longer than shorter sentences (e.g., ‘A farmer is pulling donkeys’ vs ‘A farmer is pulling a donkey and goat’), whereas pitch valleys at the ends of sentences are rather constant for a given speaker. These data seem to imply that speakers avoid dropping their voice pitch too low by planning the height of sentence-initial pitch peaks prior to speaking. However, the length effect on sentence-initial pitch peaks appears to vary across different types of sentences, speakers and languages. Therefore, the notion that speakers plan sentence intonation in advance due to the limitations in low voice pitch leaves part of the data unexplained. Consequently, this study suggests a complementary cognitive account of length-dependent pitch scaling. In particular, it proposes that the sentence-initial pitch raise in long sentences is related to high demands on mental resources during the early stages of sentence planning. To tap into the cognitive underpinnings of planning sentence intonation, this study adopts the methodology of recording eye movements during a picture description task, as the eye movements are the established approximation of the real-time planning processes. Measures of voice pitch (Fundamental Frequency) and incrementality (eye movements) are used to examine the relationship between (verbal) working memory (WM), incrementality of sentence planning and the height of sentence-initial pitch peaks.
The relation between word-formation and syntax and whether they form distinct domains of grammar or not has been discussed controversially in different theoretical frameworks. The answer to this question is closely connected to the languages under discussion, among other things, because languages seem to differ considerably in this regard. The discussion in this paper focuses on nominal compounds and phrases. On the basis of a great variety of data from a total of 14 European languages, it is argued that the relation between compounds and phrases, and, more generally, between word formation and syntax, should be characterized not in terms of a categorical but instead in terms of a gradient distinction.
The late physicist Carl Sagan, whom I quote in the first part of my title, skillfully phrased the common sense view on evidence in the mature sciences. In linguistics, however, evidence has become a controversial issue, especially so when it comes to the investigation of less well studied languages. In this paper, I argue that Sagan's principle should be applied to linguistics. The growing accessibility of a wide array of experimental techniques and computational tools to analyze such data makes it feasible to back up extraordinary claims with evidence from a variety of sources. At the same time, it is in many cases possible to agree on what constitutes an ordinary claim and focus the extra effort on extraordinary claims. For non-controversial claims no more than the minimum effort to establish the claim and properly document the evidence is necessary.
Irene Heim in unpublished work proposed a new syntax-semantics interface for propositional attitude reports based on an ontology without transworld individuals, but counterpart functions instead. We show that the approach can capture the 'de re'/'de dicto' distinction, but makes different predictions from accounts with transworld individuals. Specifically, the account uses a non-invertible counterpart functions: a single individual in an alternative world can be the counterpart of many individuals of the real world. The directionality of counterpart functions predicts that a 'de dicto' interpreted DP cannot be an argument of a 'de re' interpreted predicate. We show that the predicted restriction is corroborated by existing work on restrictions on 'de re' interpretation. The derivation of constraints on 'de re' interpretation argues empirically for the counterpart ontology and Heim’s implementation thereof.
A contrast to a trace
(2001)
For movement, such as quantifier raising, the three different structures illustrated in (1) are discussed in the recent literature.
(1) A girl danced with every boy
a. [every boy]x a girl danced with x (copy + replace)
b. [every boy]x a girl danced with [every boy] (copy)
c. [every boy]x a girl danced with [thex boy] (copy + modify)
In this paper, I'll call the proposal illustrated by (1a) the copy+replace theory since the movement is analyzed as first copying the moving phrase followed by replacing the moving phrase with a trace in the base position of movement. Chomsky (1993) and Fox (1999) argue against the copy+replace theory (1a) on the basis of Condition C data that show that moved material can behave as if it occupied the base position of movement. This behavior would, for example, be expected on the copy theory of movement illustrated by (1b), which also seems conceptually simpler than the copy+replace theory since it involves only copying without replacement. This conceptual advantage, however, is probably only apparent since a theory of the interpretation of structures like (1b) would probably be more complicated than for (1a). Standard assumptions about interpretation, at least, don't predict the right meaning when applied to (1b). For this reason, Chomsky and Fox propose what I'll call the copy+modify-theory illustrated in (1c). This proposes that copying is followed by a trace modification operation that replaces the determiner of the moved DP with something else. I assume that this is an indexed definite determiner, the interpretation of which is to be clarified below.
Why variables?
(1999)
This paper addresses the question of how sentence-internal semantic dependencies are computed? The kind of semantic dependency I am looking at is that between a so called "bound (variable) pronoun" and its binder illustrated in (1), where the dependency is indicated by a connecting line. With all the literature on the topic (see for example Partee 1973, Percus 1998), I assume that this case is the prototype of all semantic dependencies, and therefore any result for this case generalizes to all types of sentence-internal semantic dependencies.
This paper addresses the syntax and semantics plurals, and then applies it to reciprocal expressions. In the course of this investigation, I address two problems for the conventional view that a reciprocal makes essentially the same semantic contribution to the sentence as other noun phrases, but has an interesting internal structure. I will show that both problems are properties of plurality in general, and can be successfully explained along these lines. As a result, the paper is more about plurality in general than reciprocals though the goal of the paper is to account for the two problems relating to reciprocals.
Early features
(1995)
This work deals with so-called wh-determination. The notion of D-linking (Discourse-linking) is used to uncover and explain properties of constructions involving wh-determiners. The central claim is that there are two types of wh-determination: Token-whs and Kind-whs. These two forms of wh-determination trigger different syntactic effects. Three structural triggers for the syntactic effects exhibited by D-linked wh-phrases (DWH) are discussed. DWH are argued to be instances of Token-whs since triggers for the syntactic effects of D-linking are identical to the once for the token-reading of a wh-phrase.
In chapter 2, which-phrases are shown to be canonical DWH with a special syntax labelled DL-S(yntax). The five most prominent and frequent DL-S effects are the absence of superiority-effects with DWH, the ability of DWH to be extracted out of weak islands, the fact that DWH licence resumptive elements, the obviation of WCO effects by DWH, and the possibility for DWH to stay in-situ. The syntax of Token-whs and Kind-whs are compared. It is demonstrated that regardless of the actual form of the wh-determiner, there are only these two types of wh-determination. These data support the idea that the DL-S effects observable with DWH are triggered by structural properties of the wh-determiners heading DWH.
In chapter 3, it is demonstrated that although presuppositions projected by the Nominal Restrictor are important for triggering DL-I(nterpretation), they do not directly influence DL-S. The ambiguity of Amount-whs is also examined and the conclusion reached is that there are two #P projections: A NumP and a CardP. The dissertation proceeds with the structurally represented notions of definiteness and specificity and examines how these can help capturing the wh-determiner typology proposed. The idea that D-linking can be explained by recourse to topicality is discussed in detail. Empirical evidence is provided for the existence of wh-topics in general and for the claim that many DWH can be construed as wh-topics.
In chapter 4, the general pattern on which wh-pronouns are built are examined, and it is argued that the results bear directly on the topic of this thesis since wh-determiners are universally derived from pronouns. Wh-pronouns are diachronically built out of an element indicating the function of the proform (wh-morpheme), and an element denoting the range of the proform (Range Restrictor). Among other things, it is argued that the wh-morpheme does not mark interrogativity, leading to the adoption of a version of Q-theory. It is also briefly discussed whether the results are compatible with the hypothesis that wh-determiner phrases are Small Clauses. One claim is that all wh-pronouns are fossilized interrogative sentences, lending further support to the parallelism between sentential and nominal structures. It is then argued that Morphological Restrictors can be subdivided into Formal Features and Functional Nouns (and that elements which can become Functional Nouns are taken from the pool of Basic Ontological Categories). The question answered is how these elements synchronically contribute to the meaning of the wh-determiners. After examining the role of the Nominal Restrictor to the syntax of wh-determiners, the thesis continues investigating how Nominal Restrictor are related to Functional Nouns. Finally, the discussion expands to the structural correlates for DL-S effects. It is demonstrated how the results can formally be applied to wh-split constructions in order to explain differences between empty categories. Then, the results of the section on partitivity support the idea that the occurrences of most of the DL-S effects seem to strongly depend on the presence of a second nominal constituent in the structure of wh-phrases. This second nominal can be either a Functional Noun inside the wh-item used as wh-pronoun or an overt second noun as in wh-partitive phrases.
The contribution of this thesis to linguistic theorizing is not a full-fledged technical analysis of every single DL-S effect, but rather the systemisation proposed. Although a lot of terminology is introduced, the outcome of this proliferation of terms is a sharper picture of the intricate relations between the constituents of the wh-items used as wh-determiners and the Nominal Restrictor. Another main conclusion is that the concept of D-linking is not a basic notion. It is comprised of four components (of which DL-Syntax and Morphological-DL have been scrutinized in this thesis). This assumption explains why DWH do not constitute a homogeneous class. The gradual character of D-linking (i.e. the fact that certain wh-determiner constructions show only a subset of DL-S effects even if they are headed by what could faithfully be classified as a/the Token-wh determiner of the respective language) is argued to be related to the fact that the Token-reading itself can have several triggers.
This volume presents working versions of presentations heard at and selected for the Workshop on Syntax of Predication, held at ZAS, Berlin, on November 2-3, 2001 (except the editor’s own paper).
Predication is a many-faceted topic which involves both syntax and semantics and the interface between them. This is reflected in the papers of the volume.