Refine
Document Type
- Part of a Book (3)
- Article (1)
- Book (1)
- Conference Proceeding (1)
- Doctoral Thesis (1)
Has Fulltext
- yes (7)
Keywords
- Deutsch (6)
- Semantik (3)
- Syntax (3)
- Englisch (2)
- Modalität (2)
- Thematische Relation (2)
- Ableitung <Linguistik> (1)
- Adverb (1)
- Bedeutungsvielfalft (1)
- Dativ (1)
Publicationstate
- Veröffentlichungsversion (7) (remove)
Reviewstate
This chapter focuses on the formation of adverbs from a corpuslinguistic perspective, providing an overview of adverb formation patterns in German that includes frequencies and hints to productivity as well as combining quantitative methods and theoretically founded hypotheses to address questions that concern possible grammaticalization paths in domains that are formally marked by prepositional elements or inflectional morphology (in particular, superlative or superlative-derived forms). Within our collection of adverb types from the project corpus, special attention is paid to adverbs built from primary prepositions. The data suggest that generally, such adverb formation involves the saturation of the internal argument slot of the relation-denoting preposition. In morphologically regular formations with the preposition in final position, pronominal forms like da ‘there’, hier ‘here’, wo ‘where’ as well as hin ‘hither’ and her ‘thither’ serve to derive adverbs. On the other hand, morphologically irregular formations with the preposition – in particular: zu ‘to’ or vor ‘before, in front of’ – in initial posi-tion show traits of syntactic origin such as (remnants of) inflectional morphology. The pertaining adverb type dominantly saturates the internal argument slot by means of universal quantification that is part and parcel as well of the derivation of superlatives and demonstrably fuels the productivity of the pertaining formation pattern.
Modern theoretical linguistics lives by the insight that the meanings of complex expressions derive from the meanings of their parts and the way these are composed. However, the currently dominating theories of the syntax-semantics interface hastily relegate important aspects of meaning which cannot readily be aligned with visible structure to empty projecting heads non-reductively (mainstream Generative Grammar) or to the syntactic construction holistically (Construction Grammar). This book develops an alternative, compositional analysis of the hidden aspectual-temporal, modal and comparative meanings of a range of productive constructions of which pseudorefl exive, excessive and directional complement constructions take center stage. Accordingly, a contradiction-inducing hence semantically problematic part of literally coded meaning is locally ignored and systematically realized „expatriately“ with respect to parts of structure that achieve the indexical anchoring of propositional contents in terms of times, worlds and standards of comparison, thus yielding the observed hidden meanings.
The effects of different forms of predication have been insightfully (and almost exclusively) studied for 'simple' cases of predication, of which the 'presentational sentence' is maybe the paradigm instantiation. It is the aim of this paper to show that thc same kind of effects as well as in fact the same kind of structures are present at embedded levels in thematically and otherwise more complex structures. Beyond presentational sentences, 'unaccusative' experiencing constructions involving a dative subject, 'double object constructions' and - to a lesser extent - spraylload constructions are discussed. For all of these, it is argued that they comprise a predication encoding the ascription of a transient temporal property to a location. On this basis, a proposal is made as to how the scope asymmetry between the two arguments involved in the colistructions can be explained. Furthermore, a proposal is made as to how what has been called 'argument shift' is motivated.
The principal claim of this dissertation is that there is a unique structural core shared by Double Object, Dative Experiencer and Existential/Presentational constructions. This core is argued to take the form of a Cipient Predication structure, `cipient covering traditional notions like (affected) source/goal, recipient, indirect object or dative experiencer. Central questions arising in defining Cipient Predication are: How are cipients thematically licensed, and what is the role of there in argument-structural terms? What is the structural locus of cipients/there? What is the role and nature of dative case? How can the possessive interpretation, the blocking and definiteness effects associated with the above-mentioned constructions be explained? Cipients are presented as external arguments and logical subjects (location individuals) of predicates derived from a propositional meaning embedded in the VP, the predicate formed by a lower tense head `little t that is overtly realized as there. Little t is argued to encode a distinction at the reference time level, structural dative hinging on a tense property like structural nominative. The cipient relates as a whole to a part to a VP-internal location argument that together with the theme furnishes the propositional meaning (`possession ). As logical subjects, cipients anchor the predicate to the utterance context, forcing its interpretation in extralinguistic terms (`blocking effects ). It is proposed that lacking structurally encoded subjects, Existential/Presentational constructions are not saturated expressions in syntax, precluding the interpretation of certain quantifiers (most/every, vide `definiteness effects ). Cipient Predication, couched in terms of the Minimalist Program (in particular, Chomsky 1999) and a semantics relying on tense and the ontological distinction of locations as well as scalar and part-whole structure, should be of interest to scholars working on datives, argument structure, and the syntax/semantics/pragmatics interface more generally.
The article investigates the conditions under which the w-relativizer was appears instead of the d-relativzer das in German relative clauses. Building on Wiese 2013, we argue that was constitutes the elsewhere case that applies when identification with the antecedent cannot be established by syntactic means via upward agreement with respect to phi-features. Corpuslinguistic results point to the conclusion that this is the case whenever there is no lexical nominal in the antecedent that, following Geach 1962 and Baker 2003, supplies a criterion of identity needed to establish sameness of reference between the antecedent and the relativizer.