Grammatikforschung
Refine
Year of publication
Document Type
- Article (95)
- Part of a Book (14)
- Conference Proceeding (5)
- Book (4)
- Review (3)
Language
- German (93)
- English (26)
- Portuguese (1)
- Russian (1)
Has Fulltext
- yes (121)
Keywords
- Deutsch (74)
- Grammatik (23)
- Syntax (17)
- Korpus <Linguistik> (12)
- Kontrastive Grammatik (11)
- Semantik (10)
- Englisch (9)
- Italienisch (9)
- Rezension (8)
- Logische Partikel (7)
Publicationstate
- Veröffentlichungsversion (73)
- Zweitveröffentlichung (33)
- Postprint (11)
Reviewstate
- Peer-Review (121) (remove)
Publisher
- Schmidt (11)
- Erich Schmidt (10)
- de Gruyter (8)
- Buske (6)
- Erich Schmidt Verlag (5)
- Steiner (5)
- De Gruyter (4)
- Heidelberg University Publishing (3)
- European language resources association (ELRA) (2)
- IDS-Verlag (2)
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.
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.
Conventional terminology resources reach their limits when it comes to automatic content classification of texts in the domain of expertlayperson communication. This can be attributed to the fact that (non-normalized) language usage does not necessarily reflect the terminological elements stored in such resources. We present several strategies to extend a terminological resource with term-related elements in order to optimize automatic content classification of expert-layperson texts.
Seit Mitte der 1990er Jahre wird am Institut für deutsche Sprache (IDS) in Mannheim erforscht, wie der hochkomplexe Gegenstandsbereich „Grammatik“ unter Ausnutzung hypertextueller Navigationsstrukturen wissenschaftlich fundiert und anschaulich vermittelt werden kann. Eine zentrale Bedeutung kommt folglich einer konsistenten, theorieübergreifenden Vernetzung sämtlicher Textinhalte zu. Um eine automatisierbare Bezugnahme zwischen mit unterschiedlichem terminologischem Vokabular formulierten, aber das gleiche sprachliche Phänomen beschreibenden Inhalten zu befördern, bildet eine onomasiologisch konzipierte Terminologiedatenbank das Rückgrat des Online-Systems. Der Beitrag beschreibt Konzeption und Aufbau der skizzierten linguistischen Fachterminologie.
The special issue opens up a construction-grammatical perspective on (German) word formation phenomena and goes back to a DFG-funded conference of the same name, which we held at the University of Düsseldorf in December 2020. The aim is to bundle up for the first time research from the field of German linguistics that is oriented towards construction grammar, and thus to lay the foundation for a 'Construction Word Formation' (cf. Booij 2010) also in the German-speaking world. Furthermore, ‘Construction Word Formation’ as a discipline shall hereby be sharpened. In this context, construction grammar should not be seen as a radical alternative to traditional word formation approaches that completely reinvents the wheel, but rather as a further development that builds on traditional concepts such as the pattern term with prominent consideration of usage-based aspects.
Der vorliegende Aufsatz widmet sich zwei Kategorien der traditionellen (deutschen) Grammatik: dem Aufforderungssatz, einer der fünf klassischen Satzarten, und dem Imperativ, einer Verbform, die als typisch für Aufforderungssätze gilt. Er greift Beobachtungen aus der jüngeren Fachliteratur auf, die ein zunehmendes Unbehagen mit beiden Kategorien erkennen lassen. In morphologischer Hinsicht zeigt sich, dass nur wenige deutsche Verben eine eindeutige Imperativform besitzen. Manche Verben besitzen keine Imperativform. Bei der Mehrzahl der Verben besteht Homonymie zwischen Imperativformen und Konjunktivformen der 3. Person Singular. Imperativformen werden durch Konjunktivformen verdrängt. In syntaktischer Hinsicht wird argumentiert, dass Imperativsyntagmen keine Satzform haben. Satzförmige Ausdrücke mit Konjunktivformen, die für auffordernde Handlungen stehen, können als Wunschsätze kategorisiert werden. Als Aufforderungssätze bleiben zwei Klassen von Syntagmen im Grenzbereich zwischen nicht-satzförmigen und satzförmigen Ausdrücken übrig, die besondere Eigenschaften hinsichtlich Subjektbesetzung und Subjekt-Verb-Kongruenz zeigen.
Polish żeby under negation
(2021)
The paper addresses two patterns in the distribution of complement clauses headed by the complementizer żeby in Polish related to the presence of sentential negation. It is argued that żeby-clauses with an obligatory negation in the matrix clause, licensed by epistemic verbs, can be treated in terms of negative polarity, with żeby defined as an n-word. Structures with żeby-clauses and an obligatory negation in the embedded clause, licensed by verbs of fear, are argued to be an instance of negative complementation, with żeby specified as a negative complementizer. A uniform lexicalist analysis within the framework of HPSG is provided, employing tools developed to account for Negative Concord in Polish.
We discuss the modal uses of the Hausa exclusive particle sai (≈ only). We argue that the distribution of sai in modal environments provides evidence for the following claims on the composition of modal meaning that have been independently made in the literature: i) Future-oriented modality involves a prospective aspect operator that can be realized covertly in some languages (e.g. English, Kratzer 2012b) and overtly in others (e.g. Gitksan, Matthewson 2012, 2013). ii) Necessity interpretations arise from exhaustifying possibilities, i.e. an exhaustivity operator applying to existential modality (e.g. Kaufmann 2012 for the case of imperatives and Leffel 2012 for a relevant analysis of necessity meaning in Masalit). We show that future-oriented necessity in Hausa decomposes into EXH((PROSP)), with sai contributing exhaustivity.