Refine
Year of publication
Document Type
- Part of a Book (15)
- Article (6)
- Conference Proceeding (2)
- Doctoral Thesis (1)
Keywords
- Englisch (10)
- Syntax (8)
- Deutsch (4)
- Kopulasatz (4)
- Spaltsatz (4)
- Kontrastive Grammatik (3)
- Freezing principle (2)
- Grammatik (2)
- Icelandic (2)
- Präpositionalobjekt (2)
Publicationstate
- Veröffentlichungsversion (11)
- Zweitveröffentlichung (5)
- Postprint (3)
Reviewstate
Publisher
- Benjamins (6)
- de Gruyter (5)
- Cambridge University Press (3)
- Buske (1)
- De Gruyter (1)
- Elsevier (1)
- GLSA Publications (1)
- IDS-Verlag (1)
- LOT (1)
- Mouton de Gruyter (1)
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 a number of languages, agreement in specificational copular sentences can or must be with the second of the two nominals, even when it is the first that occupies the canonical subject position. Béjar & Kahnemuyipour (2017) show that Persian and Eastern Armenian are two such languages. They then argue that ‘NP2 agreement’ occurs because the nominal in subject position (NP1) is not accessible to an external probe. It follows that actual agreement with NP1 should never be possible: the alternative to NP2 agreement should be ‘default’ agreement. We show that this prediction is false. In addition to showing that English has NP1, not default, agreement, we present new data from Icelandic, a language with rich agreement morphology, including cases that involve ‘plurale tantum’ nominals as NP1. These allow us to control for any confound from the fact that typically in a specificational sentence with two nominals differing in number, it is NP2 that is plural. We show that even in this case, the alternative to agreement with NP2 is agreement with NP1, not a default. Hence, we conclude that whatever the correct analysis of specificational sentences turns out to be, it must not predict obligatory failure of NP1 agreement.