Refine
Document Type
- Part of a Book (12) (remove)
Has Fulltext
- yes (12)
Keywords
- Deutsch (6)
- Korpus <Linguistik> (5)
- Grammatik (3)
- Sprachvariante (3)
- Adjektiv (2)
- Syntax (2)
- Wortstellung (2)
- Althochdeutsch (1)
- Attributiver Relativsatz (1)
- Bairisch (1)
Publicationstate
- Veröffentlichungsversion (4)
- Postprint (2)
- Zweitveröffentlichung (2)
- Erstveröffentlichung (1)
Reviewstate
- (Verlags)-Lektorat (8)
- Peer-Review (1)
Publisher
- Narr (3)
- Oxford University Press (3)
- de Gruyter (2)
- Benjamins (1)
- De Gruyter (1)
- Heidelberg University Publishing (1)
- Stauffenburg (1)
In recent minimalist work, it has been argued that C-agreement provides conclusive support for the following theoretical hypotheses (cf. Carstens 2003; van Koppen 2005; Haegeman & van Koppen 2012): (i) C hosts a separate set of phi-features, a parametric choice possibly linked to the V2 property; (ii) feature checking/valuation is accomplished under (closest) c-command (i.e. by the operation Agree, cf. Chomsky 2000 and subsequent work). This paper reviews the significance of C-agreement for syntactic theory and argues that certain systematic asymmetries between regular verbal agreement and complementizer agreement suggest that the latter does not result from operations that are part of narrow syntax. The case is based on the observation that at least in some Germanic varieties (most notably Bavarian), the realization of inflectional features in the C-domain is sensitive to adjacency effects and deletion of the finite verb in right node raising and comparatives. The fact that C may not carry inflection when the finite verb has been elided is taken to suggest that complementizer agreement does not involve a dependency between C and the subject, but father between C and the finite verb (i.e. T). More precisely, it is argued that inflectional features present in the C-domain are added postsyntactically via a process of feature insertion (cf. e.g. Embick 1997; Embick & Noyer 2001; Harbour 2003) that creates a copy of T’s (valued) <J)-set. It will then be shown that this account can also capture phenomena like first conjunct agreement (FCA) and external possessor agreement, which are often presented as crucial evidence of the syntactic nature of complementizer agreement (cf. van Koppen 2005; Haegeman & van Koppen 2012).
Einleitung
(2019)
In recent years, the availability of large annotated and searchable corpora, together with a new interest in the empirical foundation and validation of linguistic theory and description, has sparked a surge of novel and interesting work using corpus-based methods to study the grammar of natural languages. However, a look at relevant current research on the grammar of the Germanic, Romance, and Slavic languages reveals a variety of different theoretical approaches and empirical foci, which can be traced back to different philological and linguistic traditions. Still, this current state of affairs should not be seen as an obstacle but as an ideal basis for a fruitful exchange of ideas between different research paradigms.
Language Change
(2017)
The present chapter outlines a research program for historical linguistics based on the idea that the object of the formal study of language change should be defined as grammar change, that is, a set of discrete differences between the target grammar and the grammar acquired by the learner (Hale 2007). This approach is shown to offer new answers to some classical problems of historical linguistics (Weinreich et al. 1968), concerning, specifically, the actuation of changes and the observation that the transition from one historical state to another proceeds gradually. It is argued that learners are highly sensitive to small fluctuations in the linguistic input they receive, making change inevitable, while the impression of gradualness is linked to independent factors (diffusion in a speech community, and grammar competition). Special attention is paid to grammaticalization phenomena, which offer insights into the nature of functional categories, the building blocks of clause structure.
In diesem Beitrag werden zunächst zwei Perspektiven auf sprachliche Variabilität diskutiert: Im Fokus stehen zum einen die Variation der Form und zum anderen die Variation der Funktion. Im Anschluss daran werden im Bereich der formalen Variation zwei Fälle eingehender untersucht: die Acl-Konstruktion mit ihren Kovarianten und die Relativsatzeinleitung mittels das oder was. Dabei wird der zuvor modellhaft entworfene methodische Rahmen auf die differenzierte Praxis linguistischer Forschung angewendet und das heuristische Potenzial des Prinzips der „Variationsreduktion“ genauer illustriert.
This paper discusses the categorial status of nominalized adjectives, which share formal properties with both adjectives and nouns, in present-day German. Based on a corpus study conducted in the Deutsches Referenzkorpus (DeReKo), it is shown that different types of deadjectival nouns do not behave uniformly with respect to pronoun choice in attributive relative clauses. While nominalized positives (in the neuter gender) preferably combine with the regular relative pronoun das ‘that’, superlatives strongly favor relativization by means of the corresponding wh-form was ‘what’. The contrasts are taken to reflect structural differences in the internal make-up of the respective categories that give rise to different degrees of ‘nouniness’.
Relativpronomenselektion und grammatische Variation: 'was' vs. 'das' in attributiven Relativsätzen
(2019)
Sprachliche Variation
(2018)
Der Beitrag diskutiert anhand von Kongruenzschwankungen im Zusammenhang mit Subjektreihungen verschiedene Aspekte sprachlicher Variation. Es wird gezeigt, wie mithilfe einer Korpusstudie grammatische Faktoren ermittelt werden können, die die Verteilung der Varianten steuern. Im Anschluss wird eine Analyse vorgestellt, die Variation darauf zurückführt, dass syntaktische Strukturen, die an der Schnittstelle zur Morphologie/Phonologie nicht vollständig interpretierbar sind, auf verschiedene Arten repariert werden können.