Refine
Year of publication
Document Type
- Part of a Book (12)
- Article (4)
- Book (2)
- Review (1)
Has Fulltext
- yes (19)
Keywords
- Niederländisch (19) (remove)
Publicationstate
Reviewstate
- Peer-Review (5)
- (Verlags)-Lektorat (4)
Publisher
- de Gruyter (5)
- Schwann (4)
- Steiner (2)
- De Gruyter (1)
- IDS-Verlag (1)
- Institut für Deutsche Sprache (1)
- Narr (1)
- Niemeyer (1)
- Universitätsverlag Rhein-Ruhr OHG (1)
- Waxmann (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.
In verschiedenen europäischen Ländern ist in letzter Zeit in der Soziolinguistik die Frage diskutiert worden, ob sich zwischen der traditionellen Standardsprache und den regionalen bzw. Substandardvarietäten ein neuer Standard („Neo-Standard“) herausgebildet hat; ein Standard, der sich nicht nur strukturell vom alten unterscheidet, sondern sich auch durch ein anderes Prestige auszeichnet als dieser: Er wirkt (im Vergleich) informeller, subjektiver, moderner, kreativer etc.In diesem Beitrag werden einige wesentliche Eigenschaften von Neo Standards diskutiert und ihre Entwicklung als Folge der „Demotisierung“ (Mattheier) der Standardsprache beschrieben. Neben dem potenziellen Neo-Standard in Deutschland werden auch die Entwicklungen in Dänemark, Belgien und Italien diskutiert.
Designed as a contribution to contrastive linguistics, the present volume brings up-to-date the comparison of German with its closest neighbour, Dutch, and other Germanic relatives like English, Afrikaans, and the Scandinavian languages. It takes its inspiration from the idea of a "Germanic Sandwich", i.e. the hypothesis that sets of genetically related languages diverge in systematic ways in diverse domains of the linguistic system. Its contributions set out to test this approach against new phenomena or data from synchronic, diachronic and, for the first time in a Sandwich-related volume, psycholinguistic perspectives. With topics ranging from nickname formation to the IPP (aka 'Ersatzinfinitiv'), from the grammaticalisation of the definite article to /s/-retraction, and from the role of verb-second order in the acquisition of L2 English to the psycholinguistics of gender, the volume appeals to students and specialists in modern and historical linguistics, psycholinguistics, translation studies, language pedagogy and cognitive science, providing a wealth of fresh insights into the relationships of German with its closest relatives while highlighting the potential inherent in the integration of different methodological traditions.
This article investigates the use of überhaupt and sowieso in German and Dutch. These two words are frequently classified as particles, if only because of their pragmatic functions. The frequent use of particles is considered a specific trait common to German and Dutch, and the description of their semantics and pragmatics is notoriously difficult. It is unclear whether both particles have the same meaning in Dutch (where they are loanwords) and German, whether they can fulfil the same syntactic functions and to what extent the (semantic and pragmatic) functions of überhaupt und sowieso overlap. There has already been linguistic research on überhaupt and sowieso by Fisseni (2009) using the world-wide web and by Bruijnen and Sudhoff (2013) using the EUROPARL corpus. In the present study we critically evaluated the corpus study, integrating information on original utterance language and discussing the adequacy of this corpus. Moreover, we conducted an experimental survey collecting subjective-intuitive judgements in three dimensions, thus gathering more data on sparse and informal constructions.
By using these complementary methods, we obtain a more nuanced picture of the use of überhaupt and sowieso in both languages: On the one hand, the data show where the use of both words is more similar and on the other hand, differences between the languages can also be discerned.
Im vorliegenden Beitrag werden einige zentrale Aspekte der kontrastiven Wortbildungsforschung anhand von Beispielen aus dem niederländisch-deutschen Sprachvergleich besprochen. Als nah verwandte Sprachen zeigen das Niederländische und das Deutsche zwar vergleichbare Strukturen der Komposition und der Derivation, bei näherem Hinsehen sind es aber vor allem die vielfältigen Divergenzen, die ins Auge fallen. Im ersten Teil des Artikels werden verschiedenartige Beispiele für solche Divergenzen besprochen. Anschließend geht es um gegenläufige Entwicklungen, die zu Konvergenz zwischen beiden Sprachen führen. Anhand einer Analyse von Zusammensetzungen vom Typ „wassergekühlt“ (ndl. „watergekoeld“) wird für eine stärkere Berücksichtigung von Konvergenzfaktoren in der kontrastiven Linguistik plädiert. Der zweite Teil des Artikels enthält eine detaillierte Fallstudie zur Adjektivbildung mit dem niederländischen Suffix „-achtig“ und dem deutschen „-haft“, die den Zusammenhang von diachronen Entwicklungen und synchronen Kontrasten aufzeigt. Zudem zeigt sie Konsequenzen und Implikationen der vergleichenden Analyse für die Theorie des Lexikons und der Wortbildung auf. Im Mittelpunkt stehen dabei Rainers (2003) Idee der ,semantischen Fragmentierung‘ von Wortbildungsmustern und die Konzeption eines ,hierarchischen Lexikons‘, wie sie unter anderem von Jackendoff (2008) oder Booij (2010) vertreten wird.
We compare the use of überhaupt and sowieso in Dutch and German. We use the world-wide web as the main resource and pursue a zigzag strategy, trying to find usages going back and forth between dictionaries, intuitions and real data obtained through web search. To our surprise, the results more or less confirm the decision of Dutch dictionaries to consider überhaupt and sowieso synonymous. In German, we find no synonymy, but only a great overlap of usage conditions in declarative sentences.
Vorwort
(2018)
Variation ist ein wesentliches Merkmal von Sprachen und auf allen Ebenen der linguistischen Beschreibung zu finden. In der Forschungsliteratur wird allgemein angenommen, dass Variation – sofern es nicht zur funktionalen oder semantischen Ausdifferenzierung kommt – langfristig zu Verdrängungsprozessen und damit zu Sprachwandel führt. Als empirische Evidenz wird zumeist die Seltenheit lexikalischer Synonyme genannt. Der vorliegende Band bietet eine kritische Betrachtung dieser Annahme am Beispiel morphologisch-syntaktischer Konkurrenzen im Deutschen und Niederländischen. Konkreter Untersuchungsgegenstand sind Adjektiv-Nomen-Komposita (z.B. Kaltmiete), die gleichermaßen als Benennungen dienenden Phrasen (z.B. kaltes Büfett) sowie die zugrunde liegenden strukturellen Bildungsmuster Komposition und Phrasenbildung. Anhand historischer Fallstudien wird die Entwicklung beider Muster seit 1700 beschrieben und untersucht, ob von einem Verdrängungsprozess ausgegangen werden kann, der zur Unproduktivität eines der beiden Muster führt. Der Sprachvergleich erlaubt dabei die Identifikation einzelsprachlicher Präferenzen sowie verschiedener Faktoren, die zu Divergenz- und Konvergenzprozessen zwischen dem Deutschen und Niederländischen führen.
This article is concerned with the way in which different types of speech act evaluations are lexicalized by speech act verbs and speech act idioms. The authors first distinguish different types of explicit and implicit evaluations which may be lexicalized by speech act verbs. The meanings of speech act verbs in German, English and Dutch are compared to examine which types of evaluations are lexicalized in each of these languages. Having established an inventory of evaluation types lexicalized by speech act verbs, they compare the evaluations lexicalized by speech act verbs with those lexicalized by speech act idioms. Particularly, he authors ask themselves whether certain types of evaluations may be lexicalized by idioms rather than by verbs, and if so, whether this phenomenon also holds cross- linguistically. They shall also examine whether those evaluations typically expressed by speech act idioms are the same in German, English and Dutch.