Refine
Document Type
- Part of a Book (6)
- Conference Proceeding (2)
- Other (1)
- Working Paper (1)
Language
- English (10) (remove)
Keywords
- Deutsch (5)
- Prädikat (5)
- Einbettung <Linguistik> (3)
- Englisch (2)
- Italienisch (2)
- Korpus <Linguistik> (2)
- Online-Datenbank (2)
- Polnisch (2)
- Semantik (2)
- Syntax (2)
Publicationstate
- Veröffentlichungsversion (4)
- Zweitveröffentlichung (4)
- Postprint (2)
Reviewstate
- Peer-Review (4)
- (Verlags)-Lektorat (3)
Publisher
Departing from Rooth's focus interpretation theory the article discusses two types of (German) ellipsis phenomena: direct alternative and implicit alternative coordinative ellipsis. For the first type, which includes Stripping, Gapping, ATB, and RNR, it is characteristic that the semantic value of either conjunct instantiates the context variable of the respective focus operator in the other. For German Polarity ellipsis and Sluicing, which constitute the other type, it is characteristic that the semantic value, which instantiates the variable given by the focus operator in the second conjunct, must be derived from the semantic value of the first conjunct and that the second conjunct always hosts an alternative set inducing item which demands new information focus in the first conjunct.
This paper focuses on the interaction of interrogativity and information structure in Slavic polarity questions where the clitic li may indicate interrogativity as well as focusation. We will see how the semantic category sentence force as well as the pragmatically induced information structuring are anchored syntactically and represented semantically. Even though we will introduce two notions of li for methodological reasons, there is only one li in each language. Within the framework of Rizzi's (1997) theory of the split C-Domain, we will see that li only occurs in Force[0] in Russian and Serbian/Croatian indicating that li is some kind of complementizer. In Bulgarian and Macedonian, on the other hand, li is generated more or less 'independently' from Force[0], but forces the constituent it is adjoined to to move up to FocP. We will further show that Rizzi's theory also accounts for the compositional derivation of meaning of yes/no-interrogatives with information or identificational focus.
The paper discusses particular logical consistency conditions satisfied by German proposition-embedding predicates which determine the question type (external and internal whether-form as well as exhaustive and non-exhaustive wh-form), the correlate type (es- or da-correlate) as well as the impact of the correlate on the respective consistency condition. It will turn out that some consistency conditions also determine the embedding of verb second and subject-control.
German subjectively veridical sicher sein ‘be certain’ can embed ob-clauses in negative contexts, while subjectively veridical glauben ‘believe’ and nonveridical möglich sein ‘be possible’ cannot. The Logical Form of F isn’t certain if M is in Rome is regarded as the negated disjunction of two sentences ¬(cf σ ∨ cf ¬σ) or ¬cf σ ∧ ¬cf ¬σ. Be certain can have this LF because ¬cf σ and ¬cf ¬σ are compatible and nonveridical. Believe excludes this LF because ¬bf σ and ¬bf ¬σ are incompatible in a question-under-discussion context. It follows from this incompatibility and from the incompatibility of bf σ and bf ¬σ that bf ¬σ and ¬bf σ are equivalent. Therefore believe cannot be nonveridical. Be possible doesn’t allow the LF either. Similar to believe, ¬pf σ and ¬pf ¬σ are incompatible. But unlike believe, pf σ and pf ¬σ are compatible.
In many European languages, propositional arguments (PAs) can be realized as different types of structures. Cross-linguistically, complex structures with PAs show a systematic correlation between the strength of the semantic bond and the syntactic union (cf. Givón 2001; Wurmbrand/Lohninger 2023). Also, different languages show similarities with respect to the (lexical) licensing of different PAs (cf. Noonan 1985; Givón 2001; Cristofaro 2003 on different predicate types). However, on a more fine-grained level, a variation across languages can be observed both with respect to the syntactic-semantic properties of PAs as well as to their licensing and usage. This presentation takes a multi-contrastive view of different types of PAs as syntactic subjects and objects by looking at five European languages: EN, DE, IT, PL and HU. Our goal is to identify the parameters of variation in the clausal domain with PAs and by this to contribute to a better understanding of the individual language systems on the one hand and the nature of the linguistic variation in the clausal domain on the other hand. Phenomena and Methodology: We investigate the following types of PAs: direct object (DO) clauses (1), prepositional object (PO) clauses (2), subject clauses (3), and nominalizations (4, 5). Additionally, we discuss clause union phenomena (6, 7). The analyzed parameters include among others finiteness, linear position of the PA, (non) presence of a correlative element, (non) presence of a complementizer, lexical-semantic class of the embedding verb. The phenomena are analyzed based on corpus data (using mono- and multilingual corpora), experimental data (acceptability judgement surveys) or introspective data.
In G, E, I, and H there are constructions with accusative NPs being the external argument of an infinitival, (1) to (4). In P these accusative NPs can only co-occur with an adjectival participle, (5), a construction also occurring in E, (6). The talk compares the syntactic and semantic structure of these constructions focussing on the syntactic category of the nonfinite clause, the status of the accusative NP, the status of the infinitive, restructuring effects, and embedding predicates (including aspect).
i. As to G, E, I, and H, the infinitival clause is regarded as a TP, i.e., a small clause. Its accusative NP and infinitival predicate form a unit – [4], [12], [8]. The AcI denotes, according to [4], an eventuality, which prevents it from being negated. Its subject is case marked by the matrix predicate, either by ECM or subject-to-object raising – [9] and [10]. AcI-constructions can show clause union effects, (7). H additionally allows Dative subjects in infinitive clauses, the latter only being licensed by impersonal predicates and co-occurring with an agreeing infinitive, (8a), – [3]. In case there is no agreeing infinitive, the Dative NP is the experiencer of the matrix clause, (8b). As for Italian, it allows Nominative subject NPs in the infinitive clause, (9a, b).
ii. As to P, small clause constructions differ structurally from E, G, I and H ones – [6], [7]. P small clauses are realizable by copula constructions with verbal być ‘be’ pronominal to ‘it’, (10), or “dual” copula elements, (cooccurrence of a pronominal and a verbal element, [1]), varying with respect to selectional restrictions (part of speech or case within complement phrases, extraction possibilities, [1]). The P counterpart to the AcI-constructions is the secondary predication over an accusative object via an adjectival present participle, (5), (11) and (12). The adjectival participle construction is systematically paraphrasable via clauses introduced by jak ‘how’ (11’) and (12’). In Polish, adjectival phrases like recytującego wiersz ‘reciting’, (11), and wracającego z podróży ‘returning’, (12), clearly function as adjuncts of the accusative object go ‘him’. In our talk, we will compare this P view to languages with typical AcI-constructions, where the AcI-clause is standardly analyzed as a complement of a matrix verb.
This paper has two distinct but interdependent goals. The empirical and analytical primary goal is to present a detailed overview of the patterns of (syntactico-semantic) argument structure and (morpho-syntactic) argument realization found with clause-embedding predicates in German. In particular, it will elucidate the observable relationships and dependencies between them, with a special focus on prepositional object clauses. The methodological secondary goal is to demonstrate the recently published ZAS Database of Clause-Embedding Predicates and illustrate its usefulness in approaching a concrete research agenda. The goals are aligned with each other because the data on patterns of argument structure and realization were collected using the database, and indeed the relevant questions could not have been investigated in such a thorough and efficient way without it. We will begin in Part 1 with an introduction to the database, its structure, and why and how it was created, before moving in Part 2 to the presentation of the data and analysis of argument structure and argument realization.