Refine
Year of publication
Document Type
- Article (429) (remove)
Has Fulltext
- yes (429)
Keywords
- Deutsch (188)
- Rechtschreibung (46)
- Korpus <Linguistik> (45)
- Rezension (37)
- Rechtschreibreform (33)
- Wörterbuch (32)
- Kongressbericht (28)
- Sprachgebrauch (25)
- Gesprochene Sprache (21)
- Konversationsanalyse (21)
Publicationstate
- Zweitveröffentlichung (429) (remove)
Reviewstate
- Peer-Review (292)
- (Verlags)-Lektorat (116)
- Peer-reviewed (2)
- Peer review (1)
Publisher
- Erich Schmidt (58)
- de Gruyter (41)
- Erich Schmidt Verlag (15)
- Verlag für Gesprächsforschung (12)
- Gesellschaft für deutsche Sprache (GfdS) (10)
- Ministerstvo prosveščenija RSFSR; Omskij gosudarstvenny pedagogičeskij institut imeni A. M. Gor´kogo (10)
- Bibliographisches Institut (8)
- Springer (7)
- Steiner (7)
- Buske (6)
In a number of languages, agreement in specificational copular sentences can or must be with the second of the two nominals, even when it is the first that occupies the canonical subject position. Béjar & Kahnemuyipour (2017) show that Persian and Eastern Armenian are two such languages. They then argue that ‘NP2 agreement’ occurs because the nominal in subject position (NP1) is not accessible to an external probe. It follows that actual agreement with NP1 should never be possible: the alternative to NP2 agreement should be ‘default’ agreement. We show that this prediction is false. In addition to showing that English has NP1, not default, agreement, we present new data from Icelandic, a language with rich agreement morphology, including cases that involve ‘plurale tantum’ nominals as NP1. These allow us to control for any confound from the fact that typically in a specificational sentence with two nominals differing in number, it is NP2 that is plural. We show that even in this case, the alternative to agreement with NP2 is agreement with NP1, not a default. Hence, we conclude that whatever the correct analysis of specificational sentences turns out to be, it must not predict obligatory failure of NP1 agreement.
We question the growing consensus in the literature that European Americans behave as a homogenous pan-ethnic coalition of voters. Seemingly below the radar of scholarship on voting groups in American politics, we identify a group of white voters that behaves differently from others: German Americans, the largest ethnic group, regionally concentrated in the ‘Swinging Midwest’. Using county level voting returns, ancestry group information from the American Community Survey (ACS), current survey data and historical census data going back as early as 1910, we provide evidence for a partisan and a non-partisan pathway that motivated German Americans to vote for Trump in 2016: a historically grown association with the Republican Party and an acquired taste for isolationist attitudes that mobilizes non-partisan German Americans to support isolationist candidates. Our findings indicate that European American experiences of migration and integration still echo into the political arena of today.