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)
The issue: We discuss (declarative) prepositional object clauses (PO-clauses) in the West Germanic languages Dutch (NL), German (DE), and English (EN). In Dutch and German, PO-clauses occur with a prepositional proform (=PPF, Dutch: ervan, erover, etc.; German: drauf/darauf, drüber/darüber, etc.). This proform is optional with some verbs (1). In English, by contrast, P embeds a clausal complement in the case of gerunds or indirect questions (2), however, P is obligatorily absent when the embedded CP is a that-clause in its base positionv(3a). However, when the that-clause is passivized or topicalized, the stranded P is obligatory (3b). Given this scenario, we will address the following questions: i) Are there structural differences between PO-clauses with a P/PPF and those in which the P/PPF is optionally or obligatorily omitted? ii) In particular, do PO-clauses without P/PPF structurally coincide with direct object (=DO) clauses? iii) To what extent are case and nominal properties of clauses relevant? We use wh-extraction as a relevant test for such differences.
Previous research: Based on pronominalization and topicalization data in German and Dutch, PO-clauses are different from DO-clauses independent of the presence of the PPF (see, e.g., Breindl 1989; Zifonun/Hoffmann/Strecker 1997; Berman 2003; Broekhuis/Corver 2015 and references therein) (4,5). English pronominalization and topicalization data (3b) appear to point in the same direction (Fischer 1997; Berman 2003; Delicado Cantero 2013). However, the obligatory absence of P before that-clauses in base position indicates a convergence with DO-clauses.
Experimental evidence: To provide further evidence to these questions we tested PO-clauses in all three languages for long wh-extraction, which is usually possible for DO-clauses in English and Dutch, and in German for southern regional varieties. For German and Dutch we conducted rating studies using the thermometer method (Featherston 2008). Each study contained two sets of sentences: the first set tested long wh-extraction with regular DO-clauses (6). The second set tested wh-extraction from PO-clauses with and without PPFs (7), respectively. The results show no significant difference in extraction with PO-clauses whether or not the PPF was present even for those speakers who otherwise accept long-distance extraction in German. This supports a uniform analysis of PO-clauses with and without the PPF in contrast to DO-clauses. For English we tested extraction with verbs that select for PP-objects in two configurations: V+that-clause and V+P-gerund (8) in comparison to sentences without extraction. Participants rated sentences on a scale of 1 (unnatural) to 7 (natural). We included the gerund for English as this is a regular alternative for such objects. The results show that extraction is licit in both configurations. This suggests that English PO-clauses are different from German and Dutch PO-clauses: They rather behave as DO-clauses allowing for extraction. Note though, that the availability of extraction from P+gerund also shows that PPs are not islands for extraction in English. Overall, this shows that there is a split between English vs. German/Dutch PO-clauses when the P/PPF is absent. While these clauses behave like PO-clauses in the latter languages, extraction does not show a difference between DO- and PO-clauses in English. We will discuss the results in relation to the questions i)–iii) above.
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 diesem Beitrag werden Präpositionalobjektsätze – also Sätze, die in der Funktion von präpositionalen Objekten stehen, – aus ausgewählten germanischen und romanischen Sprachen sprachvergleichend betrachtet. Dabei zeigen sich zwei verschiedene Strategien, die Verbindung von Präposition und Satz herzustellen: direkt, indem die Präposition einen Satz selegiert, und indirekt über die Anbindung mit einer komplexen Proform. Erstere Strategie sehen wir im Schwedischen (stellvertretend für die nordgermanischen Sprachen) und auch im Französischen und Italienischen (mit einer coverten Präposition). Im Niederländischen und Deutschen findet sich die zweite Strategie, bei der Sätze mithilfe eines Pronominaladverbs angebunden werden. Eine genauere Analyse dieser beiden germanischen Sprachen zeigt, dass im Deutschen Pronominaladverb und Satz eine Konstituente bilden können, während dies im Niederländischen nicht möglich ist. Alle analysierten Sprachen haben gemeinsam, dass das präpositionale Element (Präposition oder Pronominaladverb) abwesend sein kann oder muss. Dabei lässt sich anhand von Pronominalisierung, Topikalisierung und W-Extraktion zeigen, dass das P-Element syntaktisch präsent als leeres Element (covert) realisiert werden muss, da diese Sätze mit und ohne P-Element Eigenschaften der PO-Sätze haben und mit DO-Sätzen kontrastieren.
This paper discusses a specific subclass of English it-clefts posited in the theoretical literature, so-called predicational clefts. The main point of the paper is to show that there is no need to postulate such a separate class. Predicational clefts look special because of the narrow focus on the adjective within an indefinite pivot, but their special properties can all be derived from this narrow focus in a focus analysis in which it-clefts express contrasting focus. Contrasting focus means that besides the assertion of the proposition expressed in the cleft, there is one contrasting proposition which is excluded. The focus on the adjective in apparent predicational clefts gives rise to a narrow set of relevant alternatives, all of which differ only in the adjectival property within the pivot. The analysis developed here can account for many of the observations for apparent predicational clefts. Other properties are shown to be not conclusive. Thus, predicational clefts need not be considered a special subclass beyond their special focus characteristics.