Grammatik
Refine
Year of publication
- 2019 (17) (remove)
Document Type
- Part of a Book (8)
- Article (7)
- Conference Proceeding (1)
- Review (1)
Keywords
- Deutsch (11)
- Argumentstruktur (8)
- Verb (4)
- Kontrastive Grammatik (3)
- Korpus <Linguistik> (3)
- Präposition (3)
- Dependenzgrammatik (2)
- Engel, Ulrich (2)
- Konstruktionsgrammatik (2)
- Kontrastive Valenzlexikographie (2)
Publicationstate
- Zweitveröffentlichung (12)
- Veröffentlichungsversion (4)
- Postprint (1)
Reviewstate
- (Verlags)-Lektorat (9)
- Peer-Review (7)
Gute Argumente. Wo beginnen?
(2019)
Gerade allgemeinere Verben zeigen eine Variationsbreite der Verwendung, die nicht leicht zu einem einheitlichen Bild zu fassen ist. Am Beispiel des Verbs beginnen wird gezeigt, wie hier die Interaktion zwischen der Struktur der Aktanten und den grammatischen Regelmäßigkeiten funktioniert. Dabei wird versucht, in der Kombination von Valenzinformationen, Argumentstrukturpositionierungen und Musterbildungen im Gebrauch ein zusammenhängendes Bild dieses Verbs in seinen verschiedenen Verwendungen zu entwerfen.
Central complements: good arguments are self-explanatory.
Together with its central complements, verbs model basic patterns of interaction. The constellations of these complements in turn correspond to central patterns of the argument structure. Nominative and accusative complements formally occupy the first and second positions (subject and object), but they also have certain semantic preferences. The formal function of the dative is less pronounced, where it occurs (ditransitive verbs) the semantic imprint of the frame („transfer“) is very strong. This corresponds to the meaning of a core group of corresponding verbs. Other verbs that allow this pattern are used more often in other valence structures and the ditransitive use appears as a systematic way of personal extension of object‑related activities. This will be discussed with reference to the verbs zeigen and (in a different way) lehren.
Der Blick auf die Syntax und generell auf die Grammatik ist traditionell aszendent, 'von unten nach oben' gerichtet: Einer Wortgrammatik folgt eine Satzgrammatik und dieser eventuell eine Textgrammatik. Doch wir schreiben und sprechen weder in Wörtern noch in Sätzen, sondern wir produzieren Texte und Gespäche. Deshalb musste auch der diametral entgegengesetzte Blick, der zu einer deszendenten Grammatik fuhrt, möglich sein. Eine solche Grammatik liegt mit der Grammatischen Textanalyse (= GTA), einer funktionalen Syntax des Gegenwartsdeutschen vor, die das grammatische System 'von oben nach unten' - von der Text- (Textglieder) über die Satz- (Satzglieder) zur Wortgruppenebene (Wortgruppenglieder) - modelliert. Im Beitrag werden Grundlagen und Leitbegriffe der GTA vorgestellt und an ausgewählten Phänomenen exemplifiziert.
Lebenslauf bis 2019
(2019)
Ulrich Engel schildert die einzelnen Stationen seines Lebens: als Kind im Vorkriegsdeutschland und als junger Soldat, anschließend seine Lehrertätigkeit und wissenschaftliche Laufbahn, insbesondere seine Funktion als Direktor des Instituts für Deutsche Sprache in Mannheim. Er hebt seine Tätigkeit als Leiter von mehreren Projekten von kontrastiven zweisprachigen Grammatiken sowie Valenzwörterbüchern hervor. Dabei schildert er seinen familiären Hintergrund als Spiegel des gesellschaftlich‑politischen Wandels im Vor‑ und Nachkriegsdeutschland.
Der Beitrag ist die Verschriftlichung der Laudatio, die die Autorin anlässlich des Festaktes zum 90. Geburtstag von Prof. Dr. Dr. h.c. mult. Ulrich Engel am Leibniz‑Institut für Deutsche Sprache (=IDS) gehalten hat. Es handelt sich um eine persönliche Sicht auf fast drei Dekaden Forschungsarbeit, in denen zwischen Engel und der Germanistischen Abteilung der Universität Santiago de Compostela eine sehr enge Forschungskooperation bestand.
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.
This article investigates the transitive-oblique alternation in German that involves the preposition an ‘at, on’, e.g. ein Buch schreiben ‘write a book’ vs. an einem Buch schreiben ‘work on / write a book’ (lit. write at a book). The crucial semantic difference between the two structures is the obligatory atelic interpretation of the prepositional an-variant. Based on a corpus study for twenty verbs that were discussed in the previous work, I revisit the assumptions that were made by Filip (1999). First, the incremental theme verbs like bauen ‘build’ or essen ‘eat’ appear only seldom with an. This questions the central role of incrementality as the semantic explanation for the acceptability of the an-variant. Second, selectional preferences of verbs differ in the two argument structures. This observation challenges the assumption that the an-phrase and the direct object are alternative syntactic realizations of the same verbal argument. Overall, this first corpus-based study of the an-construction reveals complex interactions between the semantics of individual verbs, verb classes and the meaning of the preposition an.
This article shows what may be gained by a pattern-based analysis and lexicographic representation of argument structure patterns as compared to one based solely on the valency properties of verbs. The pattern analysed expresses a state whereby two or more entities are positioned on a scale of distinct values. Formally it minimally comprises a verb expressing a state or event and two NPs expressing the entities ranked. The NP referring to the entity occupying the lower position on the scale is embedded in a PP headed by vor. Allowing the identification of instances comprising verbs whose meaning is not straightforwardly related to that of the pattern, the pattern-based analysis employed raises the question of how the metaphorical state meaning of the pattern comes about. Since the verb does not express a ranking and / or a state in a large number of instances, the metaphorical state meaning of the pattern is argued to originate in these cases within the scalar meaning of the preposition and / or to be associated with the pattern itself.
The following article shows how several verbal argument structure patterns can build clusters or families. Argument structure patterns are conceptualised as form-meaning pairings related by family relationships. These are based on formal and / or semantic characteristics of the individual patterns making up the family. The small family of German argument structure patterns containing vor sich her and vor sich hin is selected to illustrate the process whereby pattern meaning combines with the syntactic and semantic properties of the patterns’ individual components to constitute a higher-level family or cluster of argument structure patterns. The study shows that the patterns making up the family are similar with regard to some of their formal characteristics, but differ quite clearly with respect to their meaning. The article also discusses the conditions of usage of the individual patterns of the family, the contribution of verb meaning and prepositional meaning to the overall meaning of the patterns, coercion effects, and productivity issues.
In German linguistics, a traditional distinction is made between (i) prepositional objects (POs) and prepositional adverbials, and (ii), among the latter, between adverbial complements and adjuncts. As a contribution to the debate on points of contact and possible syntheses between valency-based and construction-based approaches to verb argument structure, a corpus-based constructionist account of German PO and PP adverbial verb argument structures involving the preposition vor ‘in front of’ is developed. It is argued that ‘desemanticised’ PO-uses of vor are markers of inherently meaningful verb argument structure constructions that form a transparently motivated network comprising both PO and PP adverbial patterns. Analyses are presented for five interrelated families of vor constructions within the overall network thus defined. Their meanings are shown to reflect an interplay of more concrete spatial meanings of the preposition and the lexical semantics of verbal fillers of these constructions. Once conventionalised, they are subject to regular processes of metaphorical and metonymic semantic extension that are tentatively unravelled to create an integrated semantic map of verbal vor-constructions in present day German.