Grammatikforschung
Refine
Year of publication
Document Type
- Part of a Book (282)
- Article (122)
- Other (35)
- Book (21)
- Conference Proceeding (20)
- Doctoral Thesis (6)
- Review (5)
- Working Paper (4)
- Master's Thesis (1)
Language
- German (433)
- English (59)
- Portuguese (2)
- Russian (2)
Keywords
- Deutsch (347)
- Grammatik (103)
- Korpus <Linguistik> (47)
- Syntax (37)
- Grammatiktheorie (31)
- Kontrastive Grammatik (28)
- Englisch (24)
- Nominalphrase (24)
- Verb (22)
- Semantik (21)
Publicationstate
- Veröffentlichungsversion (496) (remove)
Reviewstate
- (Verlags)-Lektorat (374)
- Peer-Review (73)
- Verlags-Lektorat (14)
- Qualifikationsarbeit (Dissertation, Habilitationsschrift) (6)
- Peer-review (5)
- (Verlags-)Lektorat (2)
- Review-Status-unbekannt (2)
- Abschlussarbeit (Bachelor, Master, Diplom, Magister) (Bachelor, Master, Diss.) (1)
- Peer Review (1)
- Peer-Revied (1)
Publisher
- de Gruyter (107)
- Narr (52)
- Institut für Deutsche Sprache (46)
- Leibniz-Institut für Deutsche Sprache (IDS) (16)
- Niemeyer (16)
- Heidelberg University Publishing (15)
- De Gruyter (14)
- Leibniz-Institut für Deutsche Sprache (14)
- Lang (12)
- Stauffenburg (12)
studierfähig – studierbar. Die semantischen Rollen von Aktiv und Passiv bei deverbativen Adjektiven
(2024)
Datensatz Schwache Maskulina
(2023)
Der Datensatz enthält eine Sammlung von 1.156 Substantiven (mit wenigen Ausnahmen Maskulina), die sich im Korpusgrammatik-Untersuchungskorpus (Bubenhofer et al. 2014), basierend auf dem Deutschen Referenzkorpus DeReKo (Kupietz et al. 2010, 2018), Release 2017-II, unmittelbar nach einem Beleg für die Akkusativ- oder Dativform des unbestimmten Artikels ( einen / einem ) mindestens einmal mit der “schwachen” Endung -(e)n belegen lassen (z.B. einen Aktivisten , einem Autoren ). Einzelheiten zur Datenerhebung in Weber & Hansen (2023).
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.
Warum gibt es Futur II?
(2023)
Recent years have seen a growing interest in grammatical variation, a core explanandum of grammatical theory. The present volume explores questions that are fundamental to this line of research: First, the question of whether variation can always and completely be explained by intra- or extra-linguistic predictors, or whether there is a certain amount of unpredictable – or ‘free’ – grammatical variation. Second, the question of what implications the (in-)existence of free variation would hold for our theoretical models and the empirical study of grammar. The volume provides the first dedicated book-length treatment of this long-standing topic. Following an introductory chapter by the editors, it contains ten case studies on potentially free variation in morphology and syntax drawn from Germanic, Romance, Uralic and Mayan.
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.