Refine
Year of publication
Document Type
- Part of a Book (13)
- Article (6)
- Conference Proceeding (2)
- Other (1)
- Review (1)
- Working Paper (1)
Keywords
- Deutsch (13)
- Semantik (11)
- Syntax (9)
- Prädikat (7)
- Einbettung <Linguistik> (5)
- Ellipse <Linguistik> (5)
- Exklamation (4)
- Kommunikativer Sinn (4)
- Situativer Kontext (4)
- Ausrufesatz (3)
Publicationstate
- Zweitveröffentlichung (17)
- Veröffentlichungsversion (5)
- Postprint (2)
Reviewstate
- (Verlags)-Lektorat (10)
- Peer-Review (9)
Publisher
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.
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.
Vom ZISW zum ZAS
(2021)
Das Leibniz-Zentrum Allgemeine Sprachwissenschaft (ZAS) ist jetzt 25 Jahre alt, im besten Alter sozusagen. Es hat Erfahrungen gesammelt, sich mit theoretischen Forschungen zur Phonetik und Phonologie, Morphologie, Syntax, Semantik und Pragmatik weltweit einen Namen gemacht. Anlässlich seines Jubiläums fragt man sich, wo es seine Ursprünge hat und unter welchen Umständen es ›groß‹ geworden ist. Diesen beiden Fragen versuche ich in diesem Beitrag nachzugehen. Ich tue das, weil ich die Zeitzeugin bin, die das ZAS am längsten begleitet hat.
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.
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.
Previous accounts addressing the question what semantic properties of a matrix predicate determine the possible clause type of the embedded clause have not provided a general answer (e.g. Grimshaw 1979, Zifonun et al. 1997, Ginzburg & Sag 2000). This paper proposes that clause-embedding predicates fulfill characteristic logical conditions, so-called consistency conditions, which rule the syntactic potential of the matrix clause: for instance, the clause type of the embedded clause (declarative, ob- and/or wh-interrogative) and the correlate type, the matrix predicate can co-occur with (es and/or ProPP). Furthermore, they predict the logical forms of legitimate constructions with embedded ob- or wh-interrogatives, respectively, and how a legitimate optional correlate modifies the meaning of the matrix predicate.
Previous accounts addressing the question what semantic properties of a matrix predicate determine the possible clause type of the embedded clause have not provided a general answer (e.g. Grimshaw 1979, Zifonun et al. 1997, Ginzburg & Sag 2000). This paper proposes that clause-embedding predicates fulfill characteristic logical conditions, so-called consistency conditions, which rule the syntactic potential of the matrix clause: for instance, the clause type of the embedded clause (declarative, ob- and/or wh-interrogative) and the correlate type, the matrix predicate can co-occur with (es and/or ProPP). Furthermore, they predict the logical forms of legitimate constructions with embedded ob- or wh-interrogatives, respectively, and how a legitimate optional correlate modifies the meaning of the matrix predicate.
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 grammatically determined meaning of situation dependent ellipses like "Schnell einen Krankenwagen!" is indeterminate as compared to the semantic form of corresponding non elliptical sentences. To assume such an indeterminacy is only possible if one distinguishes the grammatically determined meaning from the utterance meaning. The semantic indeterminacy of situation dependent ellipses has its syntactic pendant in the form of minimal sentence structures containing empty categories, which are interpreted semantically as free variables. The letter are replaced by specific context dependent entities only in the utterance meaning.
In this paper, the problem will be discussed whether the pragmatic category 'exclamative' has a grammatical pendant and how this pragmatic category is derived from the corresponding semantic structure if there doesn't exist a semantic 'exclamative' category. Special accentual properties and the possible dislocation of the wh-phrase 'wie' from the adjective phrase as in ‘wie ist er [e groß]’ seem to be the only grammatical evidences indicating the exclamative type. The movement of 'wie' without violating the Chomskean Empty Category Principle is assumed to be possible because of the existence of a syntactic sentence feature [+ EX], which cancels the barrierhood of the wie-containing adjective phrase. Both the feature [+ EX] and the barrierhood of the wie-containing adjective phrases in wh-questions and embedded wh-clauses are motivated by a pragmatic principle.
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.
Im Rahmen eines Bedeutungsmodells mit zwei Ebenen: einer ausschließlich grammatisch determinierten Bedeutung und einer kontextuell spezifizierten konzeptuellen Interpretation wird in dem Beitrag gezeigt, daß die grammatisch determinierte Bedeutung situativer Ellipsen wie "Einen Tee." unterspezifiziert ist, was die Charakterisierung des durch sie denotierten Sachverhalts angeht. Indem allgemein gültige Kommunikationsprinzipien zugrunde gelegt werden, nach denen davon auszugehen ist, daß es sich bei derartigen Äußerungen um kommunikativ adäquate Diskursbeiträge handelt, ist auf der Ebene der kontextuell determinierten Bedeutung ein Sachverhalt rekonstruierbar. Die Rekonstruktion eines einstellungsbewerteten Sachverhalts unterliegt bestimmten konzeptuellen und kommunikativen Bedingungen. Es wird in diesem Beitrag versucht, diese Sachverhaltsrepräsentationen als Implikaturen aus der grammatisch unterspezifizierten Bedeutung, dem jeweiligen Kontext und bestimmten kommunikativen und konzeptuellen Bedingungen darzustellen.
Es wird im allgemeinen zwischen vollständig durch die Grammatik determinierten unvollständigen Äußerungen wie "(Hans denkt an Maria) und Paul an Frieda" und situativ bedingten unvollständigen Ausdrücken wie "Schnell ein Glas Wasser!" unterschieden. Wenngleich es offensichtlich ist, daß es sich bei beiden um komplexere Strukturen handelt, stellt sich die Frage, ob sie syntaktisch als Satz beziehungsweise CP oder I0 kategorisiert sind. Für eine Kategorisierung als Satz spricht u.a., daß es Ausdrücke gibt wie "Warum nachdenken?", in denen Spec-CP als Landeplatz für die w-Phrase vorhanden sein sollte, vorausgesetzt, es sollen in Hinblick auf die Satzgrammatik nicht zusätzliche Regeln für die Bewegung der w-Phrase in elliptischen Ausdrücken vorgesehen werden. Gegen eine Subkategorisierung würde sprechen, daß die jeweiligen Strukturen umständlich zu rechtfertigende leere Kategorien enthalten. Dies führt zu der Annahme, beide Ansätze zu verknüpfen, so daß einerseits das Startsymbol für alle syntaktischen Kategorien zugänglich ist und andererseits elliptische Strukturen leere Kategorien enthalten können.
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.
Die Repräsentation satzartiger situativer Ellipsen unter besonderer Berücksichtigung ihres Modus
(1988)
Der Aufsatz ist eine Zusammenfassung meiner Dissertation "Die Spezifik situativer Ellipsen". Einer ihrer zentralen Punkte besteht darin, die semantische Unbestimmtheit situativer Ellipsen nachzuweisen und Vorschläge zu ihrer syntaktischen und semantischen Repräsentation zu unterbreiten. Weiterhin wird gezeigt, wie die semantisch unbestimmten Strukturen konzeptuell und interaktionell verarbeitet werden. Der vorliegende Aufsatz beschränkt sich auf die Analyse satzartiger Ellipsen, da das Profil des ihn enthaltenden Sammelbandes eine breitere Behandlung des Modus verlangt.
Der Aufsatz diskutiert die Syntax und Semantik von Konstruktionen im Deutschen mit es- und präpositionalen Korrelaten wie "Leo bedauert es, dass Mia krank ist" oder "Leo freut sich darüber, dass Mia gesund ist". Er argumentiert gegen Breindls (1989), Sudhoffs (2003, i.Vorb.), und Freys (2011) Homonymiehypothese, nach der es-Korrelate und präpositionale Korrelate sich jeweils in unterschiedliche syntaktische Kategorien aufsplitten. Es wird eine uniforme Analyse präsentiert, die generell ein Korrelat als eine Proform ansieht, die auf ein abstraktes Objekt referiert. Letzteres ist entweder eine Aussage σ, auf die ein eingebetteter Deklarativsatz oder das Radikal eines eingebetteten wenn- oder ob-Satzes referiert, oder es handelt sich bei ihm um eine kontextgegebene Aussage μ, die eine Antwort auf die eingebettete w-Frage darstellt. Die uniforme Analyse offeriert syntaktische und semantische Erklärungen für die Beobachtungen, die zu der Homonymiehypothese geführt haben.