Refine
Document Type
- Part of a Book (3)
- Article (1)
- Book (1)
Keywords
- Semantik (5) (remove)
Publicationstate
- Zweitveröffentlichung (3)
- Postprint (2)
Reviewstate
- (Verlags)-Lektorat (4)
- Peer-Review (1)
Publisher
- Buske (5) (remove)
Introduction
(2023)
We argue that properties with a nominal origin get transferred regularly in certain Gentian particle verb constructions to properties that are propositional insofar as they characterize the temporal structure of eventualities, understood to be described by propositional (= truth-assessable) representations of state changes. Accordingly, the oft-noted perfectivizing function of certain verbal particles like ein- in einfahren ('pull in', cf. Kühnhold 1972) is the effect of redressing a conflict at the syntax-semantics interface: On the one hand, constructions like in [die Grube]acc einfahren ('pull into the mine’) exhibit transitive syntax (Gehrke 2008), requiring that the syntactic arguments be mapped onto well-distinguished or DIFFERENT referents in the semantics (Kemmer 1993). On the other hand, in/ein codes a spatio-temporal inclusion relation between its relata, contradicting the requirement imposed by the transitive syntax. Following Brandt (2019), we submit that the interface executes a manoeuvre that delays the interpretation of part of the contradiction-inducing DIFFERENCE feature. It is not locally interpreted (semantically represented) in toto but in part passed on to the next syntactic-semantic computational cycle. Here, the passed-on meaning is interpreted in the locally customary terms, in the case at hand, as a temporal index where the post-state of the depicted eventuality does not hold.
Die grammatische Kategorie eingebetteter Sätze zählt seit über 50 Jahren zu den zentralen Themen der theoretischen Syntax. Dabei dreht sich die Diskussion speziell um die Frage, ob manche oder vielleicht alle eingebetteten Sätze als Nominalphrasen zu behandeln sind, sei es, weil sie einen (stummen) nominalen Kopf haben (D oder N), oder sei es, weil der Satzeinleiter selbst als nominal zu betrachten ist. Die Beiträge des Sonderhefts nehmen diese Fragestellung erneut auf und explorieren sie unter verschiedenen, syntaktischen wie semantischen Aspekten im Lichte neuerer theoretischer Ansätze. Das Spektrum an Sprachen, die genauer untersucht oder argumentativ für die Zwecke der Analyse herangezogen werden, umfasst neben Deutsch – einschließlich dialektaler Varietäten wie Bairisch und Alemannisch – Englisch, Niederländisch (einschließlich der Brabanter Varietät), Alt- und Neugriechisch, Jula (Niger-Kongo), Schwedisch, Baskisch sowie eine Reihe anderer genetisch und typologisch unterschiedlicher Sprachen.
Perhaps the biggest challenge in derivational morphology is to reconcile morphological idiosyncrasy with semantic regularity. How can it be explained that words with dead affixes and irregulär allomorphy can nonetheless exhibit straightforward and stable semantic relations to their etymological bases (cf. strength ‘property of being strong’, obedience ‘act of obeying’, ‘property of being obedient’)? Theories based on the idea of capturing regularity in terms of synthetic rules for building up complex words out of morphemes along with rules for interpreting such structures in a compositional fashion have not made - and arguably cannot make - sense of this phenomenon. Taking the perspective of the learner in acquisition, I propose an alternative approach to meaning assignment based, not on syntagmatic relations among their constituent morphemes, but on paradigmatic relations between whole words. This approach not only explains the conditions under which meaning relations between words are expected to be stable but also accounts for another notorious mystery in derivational morphology, the frequent occurrence of total synonymy among affixes, as opposed to words.
Current theories of the syntax-semantics interface associate aspects of meaning that cannot be traced to visible structure with empty projecting heads or constructions as wholes. We present an alternative compositional analysis of the hidden aspectual-temporal, modal or comparative meaning of inchoative, middle, excessive and directional complement constructions. Accord-ingly, the hidden meaning results from a repair mechanism that passes on a locally problematic meaning component to the next higher derivational cycle. The meaning component in question is one half of the logical form of Difference as contributed by certain functional elements or by syntactically transitive (nominative-accusative) configurations.