Refine
Document Type
- Article (1)
- Part of a Book (1)
- Review (1)
Has Fulltext
- yes (3)
Keywords
- Grammatik (2)
- Ambiguität (1)
- Anthropologie (1)
- Common language (1)
- Communication in Sciences (1)
- Deutsch (1)
- Englisch (1)
- English (1)
- Fachsprache (1)
- German (1)
Publicationstate
- Veröffentlichungsversion (3) (remove)
Reviewstate
- (Verlags)-Lektorat (2)
- Peer-Review (1)
Publisher
- Facultas (1)
- IDS-Verlag (1)
- de Gruyter (1)
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.
The article aims to examine grammatical features and pragmatic concerns of communicating in the Sciences. In the research of certain languages, it became common to explaingrammatical features such as the usage of passive voice and nominal structures by communication requirements such as objectivity and precision. With the assumption that communication in Science is designed to help gain and spread new insight, the authors tried to integrateseveral approaches to pragmatic and grammatical features of communication. By discussing therelationship between the grammar of certain languages and of the corresponding commonlanguage, the article also places the subject of communication in the Sciences in the discipline oflanguage Variation.