Refine
Year of publication
Document Type
- Part of a Book (22)
- Article (6)
- Book (4)
- Conference Proceeding (2)
- Doctoral Thesis (1)
Keywords
- Syntax (12)
- Englisch (10)
- Deutsch (8)
- Grammatik (5)
- Proposition (5)
- Kontrastive Grammatik (4)
- Kopulasatz (4)
- Objektsatz (4)
- Semantik (4)
- Spaltsatz (4)
Publicationstate
- Zweitveröffentlichung (13)
- Veröffentlichungsversion (12)
- Postprint (4)
Reviewstate
Publisher
- Narr Francke Attempto (8)
- Benjamins (7)
- de Gruyter (6)
- Buske (3)
- Cambridge University Press (3)
- De Gruyter (1)
- Elsevier (1)
- GLSA Publications (1)
- IDS-Verlag (1)
- LOT (1)
This paper discusses the interaction of Freezing with movement and focus on the basis of subextraction from the pivot of it-cleft sentences. It shows that subextraction is in principle possible, and that it is not sensitive to whether the pivot is related to a derived subject or real object. However, if the context induces an additional contrastive focus on the pivot, extraction is less acceptable. It is suggested that the problem is that two different sets of alternatives need to be construed on the basis of one and the same syntactically marked focus phrase, the pivot. Once the two sets of alternatives are syntactically separated, interpretation is less complex and licit.
Introduction
(2023)
Vorwort der Herausgeberinnen
(2023)
Die Beiträge in diesem Sammelband sind im Nachgang zur Ars Grammatica Tagung 2018 entstanden, die am 21./22. Juni 2018 mit dem Titel „Theorie und Empirie im Sprachvergleich zum Schwerpunktthema Sachverhalts-/propositionale Argumente“ am Leibniz-Institut für Deutsche Sprache in Mannheim stattfand. Die Konferenz befasste sich mit der übereinzelsprachlichen Variation bei der Realisierung von propositionalen Argumenten bzw. Sachverhaltsargumenten. Dies sind im weitesten Sinne Argumente, die Ereignisse, Propositionen oder Situationen beschreiben und in der Regel als Komplementsätze, Infinitivkomplemente, Gerundivkomplemente oder nominale/nominalisierte Komplemente realisiert werden.
In this paper, I argue against the analyses of the there-construction by Moro (1997) and Hoekstra & Mulder (1990) and for an analysis in the frame of Williams (1994), Hazout (2004) from two angles. First of all, Moro and Hoekstra & Mulder do not correctly predict the behaviour of the there-construction under wh-movement; second, from a semantic point of view, the predicate in the small clause structure is the postverbal DP and not there. Alternatively, I follow the proposal by Williams (1994) in which there is the subject of predication and I will point out a direction to analyse the problematic wh-movement data within this framework.