Refine
Year of publication
Document Type
- Part of a Book (60)
- Article (15)
- Book (9)
- Review (7)
- Conference Proceeding (2)
- Other (1)
- Part of Periodical (1)
- Working Paper (1)
Has Fulltext
- yes (96)
Keywords
- Kontrastive Grammatik (96) (remove)
Publicationstate
- Veröffentlichungsversion (36)
- Zweitveröffentlichung (26)
- Postprint (3)
Reviewstate
- (Verlags)-Lektorat (49)
- Peer-Review (15)
Publisher
- de Gruyter (32)
- Institut für Deutsche Sprache (7)
- De Gruyter (5)
- Narr (5)
- Schwann (5)
- Wydawnictwo Uniwersytetu Gdańskiego (4)
- iudicium (4)
- Groos (2)
- IDS-Verlag (2)
- Iudicium (2)
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.
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.
Dieser Aufsatz befasst sich mit pragmatischen Aspekten von Negationsanhebung (NA), die vor allem in Horn (1978) erörtert wurden, und mit performativischen Eigenschaften von NA-Konstruktionen, die ursprünglich in Prince (1976), vor allem mit Bezug auf französische Daten diskutiert wurden. Das Ziel ist, die Kernaussagen von Horn (1978) und Prince (1976) mit Korpusdaten im übereinzelsprachlichen Kontext zu validieren. Als Gegenstand der Untersuchung werden deutsche und polnische NA-Konstruktionen herangezogen und entsprechend zwei verschiedene monolinguale Korpora als Datenquelle benutzt.
The prohibitive is typically defined as the negative imperative, i.e. it “implies making someone not do something, having the effect of forbidding, preventing, or restricting” (Aikhenvald, 2017: 3). This chapter focuses on the formation of the prohibitive in the languages of Daghestan and neighboring regions, analyzing two different aspects of the morphological coding: first, the verb form (especially whether it is an imperative form or not), and second, the type of negation marker/affix used. Based on this, the general encoding types are deduced. Additionally, the phonological form of the markers is shortly analyzed.
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.
Die Ars Grammatica-Tagungen am Leibniz-Institut für Deutsche Sprache befassen sich mit aktuellen Themen der linguistischen Forschung, denen sich die Abteilung Grammatik in Einzelprojekten widmet. Dieser Band ist aus der Tagung „Theorie und Empirie im Sprachvergleich“ hervorgegangen und thematisiert die übereinzelsprachliche Variation bei der Realisierung von propositionalen (Sachverhalts-)Argumenten. Es handelt sich dabei im weitesten Sinne um Argumente, die Ereignisse, Propositionen oder Situationen beschreiben und in der Regel als Komplementsätze, Infinitivkomplemente, Gerundivkomplemente oder nominale/nominalisierte Komplemente realisiert werden. Detailarbeiten hierzu befassen sich mit Phänomenen in Einzelsprachen oder Sprachpaaren, doch bei detaillierten Analysen eines Phänomens gerät die Überprüfung der Implikationen für den Sprachvergleich und das Sprachprofil leicht aus dem Blick. Ein Desiderat der Forschung insbesondere im Bereich der Sachverhalts-Argumente ist es daher, Wege zu finden, die Variation detailliert zu analysieren und die Komplexität in der Variation kontrastiv und theoretisch adäquat zu beschreiben.
In this paper we investigate the problem of grammar inference from a different perspective. The common approach is to try to infer a grammar directly from example sentences, which either requires a large training set or suffers from bad accuracy. We instead view it as a problem of grammar restriction or sub-grammar extraction. We start from a large-scale resource grammar and a small number of examples, and find a sub-grammar that still covers all the examples. To do this we formulate the problem as a constraint satisfaction problem, and use an existing constraint solver to find the optimal grammar. We have made experiments with English, Finnish, German, Swedish and Spanish, which show that 10–20 examples are often sufficient to learn an interesting domain grammar. Possible applications include computer-assisted language learning, domain-specific dialogue systems, computer games, Q/A-systems, and others.
This paper investigates the use of linking adverbs in adversative constructions in German and Italian. In Italian those constructions are very frequently formulated with adverbs such as invece, while wordings without a lexical connective are more typical of German. Corpus data show that the syntactic und semantic conditions favouring the use of adversative adverbs are by and large the same in both languages. Lexical connectives can increase explicitness when the intended adversative interpretation is not obvious on other grounds. The higher frequency of adversative adverbs in Italian is shown to be a consequence of the more restrictive rules of the placement of prosodic accent.