Refine
Document Type
- Part of a Book (7)
- Article (5)
Has Fulltext
- yes (12)
Is part of the Bibliography
- no (12) (remove)
Keywords
- Deutsch (9)
- Infinitivkonstruktion (4)
- Infinitiv (3)
- Absentiv (2)
- Adverbialsatz (1)
- Bedeutung (1)
- Befehlssatz (1)
- Darstellungsart (1)
- Ereignis (1)
- Handlungstheoretische Semantik (1)
Publicationstate
Reviewstate
- (Verlags)-Lektorat (3)
- Peer-Review (1)
- Verlags-Lektorat (1)
Publisher
- De Gruyter (3)
- Buske (2)
- Akademie-Verl. (1)
- Institut für Deutsche Sprache (1)
- Niemeyer (1)
- Peter Lang (1)
- Stauffenburg (1)
- de Gruyter (1)
The present investigation targets the phenomenon commonly called control. Many languages including German and Polish employ non-finite clauses (besides finite clauses) as propositional complements. The subject of these complement clauses is left unexpressed and must generally be interpreted co-referentially with the subject or object of the matrix clause (subject or object control). However. there are also infinitive-selecting verbs that do not allow for a co- referential interpretation of the embedded subject - semantically, the embedded infinitives of these anti-control verbs are thus less dependent on or less unifiable with the matrix proposition. In Polish anti-control constructions, non-finite complements are overtly marked with the complementizer zeby, suggesting that they are structurally more complex (namely. containing a C-projection) than the non-finite complements in control constructions lacking zeby (modulo special contexts. viz. 'control switch'). In a comparative perspective, the paper brings corpuslinguistic and experimental evidence to bear on the question whether surface appearances notwithstanding, the infinitival complements of anti-control verbs in German should similarly be analyzed as truly sentential, i.e., C-headed structures.
Aspekte des Absentivs: "Wir sind Sue gratulieren" : zum Problem der Lokalisierung im Absentiv
(2013)
Complement clauses in German can have a lexical complementizer when they are finite, but they must not have one when they are non-finite. I will argue that this distribution follows from the referential properties of the sentential complement. According to Grimshaw, only referential categories extend to functional projections. The status marker zu in German infinitival complements can be shown to block reference. Thus, non-finite complement clauses with zu do not project a left periphery and cannot host a complementizer.
Introduction
(2005)