Refine
Document Type
- Article (5)
- Part of a Book (2)
Has Fulltext
- yes (7)
Keywords
- Deutsch (6)
- Englisch (3)
- Kontrastive Syntax (3)
- Französisch (2)
- Appellativum (1)
- Demonstrativpronomen (1)
- English (1)
- Ergänzung <Linguistik> (1)
- Forschungsbericht (1)
- German (1)
Publicationstate
- Veröffentlichungsversion (5)
- Postprint (2)
Reviewstate
- Peer-Review (7) (remove)
Publisher
- IDS-Verlag (2)
- Schmidt (2)
- Classiques Garnier (1)
- Edinburgh University Press (1)
- Septentrio Academic Publishing (1)
Im Deutschen und anderen europäischen Sprachen können Demonstrativa das Antezedens von Relativsätzen bilden oder als Determinator eines solchen Antezedens fungieren. Konstruktionen dieser Art weisen Besonderheiten in Bezug auf Form und Bedeutung auf: Einerseits finden sich Demonstrativa, die nicht oder nur marginal mit appositiven Relativsätzen kombiniert werden können, andererseits solche, die entweder keine restriktiven Relativsätze zulassen oder sich mit diesen nur in speziellen, nichtdeiktischen und nichtphorischen Bedeutungen kombinieren lassen. Zumindest einige dieser Besonderheiten scheinen auf allgemeinere, sprachübergreifende Beschränkungen hinzuweisen. So zeigt sich tendenziell, dass die Kombinierbarkeit von Demonstrativa mit restriktiven Relativsätzen mit der deiktischen Stärke des Demonstrativums korreliert: Distanzmarkierende und in diesem Sinn deiktisch starke Demonstrativa schließen restriktive Relativsätze tendenziell aus, während distanzneutrale oder nichtdeiktisch verwendbare Demonstrativa sie in der Regel zulassen. Beschränkungen dieser Art werden anhand des Deutschen, Französischen und Schwedischen aufgezeigt.
Complex common names such as Indian elephant or green tea denote a certain type of entity, viz. kinds. Moreover, those kinds are always subkinds of the kind denoted by their head noun. Establishing such subkinds is essentially the task of classifying modifiers that are a defining trait of endocentrically structured complex common names. Examining complex common names of different lexico-syntactic types(NN compounds, N+N syntagmas, NP/PP syntagmas, A+N syntagmas) and from different languages (particularly English, German and French) it can be shown that complex common names are subject to language- independent formal and semantic constraints. In particular, complex common names qualify as name-like expressions in that they tend to be deficient in terms of formal complexity and semantic compositionality.
Vorwort
(2010)
Der Beitrag führt in das Themenheft der Zeitschrift Deutsche Sprache 2/2010 ein. Dieses Themenheft versammelt vier Beiträge zu einem zentralen Thema der deutschen Grammatik und Textlinguistik: der Form und Funktion von Attributionsstrukturen in der Nominalphrase. Gemeinsam ist allen Beiträgen der kontrastive und/oder funktional-typologische Zugang zu diesem Thema; Unterschiede bestehen in Bezug auf die untersuchten Attributtypen (Adjektiv-, Genitiv-, Präpositional- und Partizipialattribute), den methodischen Zugriff auf die Daten, die theoretischen Fragestellungen sowie die jeweiligen Vergleichssprachen (Niederländisch, Dänisch, Norwegisch, Englisch). Alle Beiträge dokumentieren das in den letzten Jahren wieder erstarkte Interesse an sprachvergleichenden Untersuchungen, das sich auch in entsprechenden themenspezifischen Konferenzen und Forschungsprojekten im In- und Ausland niederschlägt.
Cet article propose un bref aperçu de l’état de l’art en syntaxe de l’allemand. Pour illustrer les évolutions théoriques et méthodologiques majeures, en rupture avec les approches traditionnelles, l’étude a sélectionné cinq points particuliers : la structure du groupe nominal, la syntaxe du verbe en lien avec la valence et les fonctions syntaxiques, les diathèses, les constructions infinitives et la structure de la phrase sous l’angle de la position du verbe et de ses implications syntaxiques.
This paper analyses the variation we find in the realization of finite clausal complements in the position of prepositional objects in a set of Germanic languages. The Germanic languages differ with respect to whether prepositions can directly select a clause (North Germanic) or not and instead need a prepositional proform (Continental West Germanic). Within the Continental West Germanic languages, we find further differences with respect to the constituent structures. We propose that German strong vs. weak prepositional proforms (e.g. drauf vs. darauf) differ with respect to their syntax, while this is not the case for the Dutch forms (ervan vs. daarvan). What the Germanic languages under consideration share is that the prepositional element can be covert, except in English. English shows only limited evidence for the presence of P with finite clauses in the position of prepositional objects generally, but only with a selected set of verbs. This investigation is a first step towards a broader study of the nature of clauses in prepositional object positions and the implications for the syntax of clausal complementation.
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 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.