Refine
Document Type
- Article (4)
- Part of a Book (2)
- Conference Proceeding (2)
- Review (1)
Has Fulltext
- yes (9)
Keywords
- Deutsch (7)
- Einbettung <Linguistik> (4)
- Prädikat (4)
- Semantik (3)
- Syntax (3)
- Englisch (2)
- Italienisch (2)
- Nominalphrase (2)
- Polnisch (2)
- Ungarisch (2)
Publicationstate
- Zweitveröffentlichung (6)
- Veröffentlichungsversion (2)
- Postprint (1)
Reviewstate
- Peer-Review (9) (remove)
The paper discusses particular logical consistency conditions satisfied by German proposition-embedding predicates which determine the question type (external and internal whether-form as well as exhaustive and non-exhaustive wh-form), the correlate type (es- or da-correlate) as well as the impact of the correlate on the respective consistency condition. It will turn out that some consistency conditions also determine the embedding of verb second and subject-control.
Der Aufsatz diskutiert die Syntax und Semantik von Konstruktionen im Deutschen mit es- und präpositionalen Korrelaten wie "Leo bedauert es, dass Mia krank ist" oder "Leo freut sich darüber, dass Mia gesund ist". Er argumentiert gegen Breindls (1989), Sudhoffs (2003, i.Vorb.), und Freys (2011) Homonymiehypothese, nach der es-Korrelate und präpositionale Korrelate sich jeweils in unterschiedliche syntaktische Kategorien aufsplitten. Es wird eine uniforme Analyse präsentiert, die generell ein Korrelat als eine Proform ansieht, die auf ein abstraktes Objekt referiert. Letzteres ist entweder eine Aussage σ, auf die ein eingebetteter Deklarativsatz oder das Radikal eines eingebetteten wenn- oder ob-Satzes referiert, oder es handelt sich bei ihm um eine kontextgegebene Aussage μ, die eine Antwort auf die eingebettete w-Frage darstellt. Die uniforme Analyse offeriert syntaktische und semantische Erklärungen für die Beobachtungen, die zu der Homonymiehypothese geführt haben.
Previous accounts addressing the question what semantic properties of a matrix predicate determine the possible clause type of the embedded clause have not provided a general answer (e.g. Grimshaw 1979, Zifonun et al. 1997, Ginzburg & Sag 2000). This paper proposes that clause-embedding predicates fulfill characteristic logical conditions, so-called consistency conditions, which rule the syntactic potential of the matrix clause: for instance, the clause type of the embedded clause (declarative, ob- and/or wh-interrogative) and the correlate type, the matrix predicate can co-occur with (es and/or ProPP). Furthermore, they predict the logical forms of legitimate constructions with embedded ob- or wh-interrogatives, respectively, and how a legitimate optional correlate modifies the meaning of the matrix predicate.
Previous accounts addressing the question what semantic properties of a matrix predicate determine the possible clause type of the embedded clause have not provided a general answer (e.g. Grimshaw 1979, Zifonun et al. 1997, Ginzburg & Sag 2000). This paper proposes that clause-embedding predicates fulfill characteristic logical conditions, so-called consistency conditions, which rule the syntactic potential of the matrix clause: for instance, the clause type of the embedded clause (declarative, ob- and/or wh-interrogative) and the correlate type, the matrix predicate can co-occur with (es and/or ProPP). Furthermore, they predict the logical forms of legitimate constructions with embedded ob- or wh-interrogatives, respectively, and how a legitimate optional correlate modifies the meaning of the matrix predicate.
German subjectively veridical sicher sein ‘be certain’ can embed ob-clauses in negative contexts, while subjectively veridical glauben ‘believe’ and nonveridical möglich sein ‘be possible’ cannot. The Logical Form of F isn’t certain if M is in Rome is regarded as the negated disjunction of two sentences ¬(cf σ ∨ cf ¬σ) or ¬cf σ ∧ ¬cf ¬σ. Be certain can have this LF because ¬cf σ and ¬cf ¬σ are compatible and nonveridical. Believe excludes this LF because ¬bf σ and ¬bf ¬σ are incompatible in a question-under-discussion context. It follows from this incompatibility and from the incompatibility of bf σ and bf ¬σ that bf ¬σ and ¬bf σ are equivalent. Therefore believe cannot be nonveridical. Be possible doesn’t allow the LF either. Similar to believe, ¬pf σ and ¬pf ¬σ are incompatible. But unlike believe, pf σ and pf ¬σ are compatible.
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.
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.