Grammatikforschung
Refine
Year of publication
- 2018 (55) (remove)
Document Type
- Part of a Book (25)
- Article (16)
- Other (9)
- Book (4)
- Review (1)
Keywords
- Deutsch (35)
- Grammatik (12)
- Korpus <Linguistik> (10)
- Grammatiktheorie (8)
- Logische Partikel (5)
- Grammis (4)
- Valenz <Linguistik> (4)
- Wortbildung (4)
- Konstruktionsgrammatik (3)
- Kontrastive Grammatik (3)
Publicationstate
- Veröffentlichungsversion (28)
- Zweitveröffentlichung (24)
- Postprint (7)
Reviewstate
- (Verlags)-Lektorat (33)
- Peer-Review (19)
Publisher
This article targets a distinctive kind of root structures in German formed by minimally two phrases but lacking an overt verbal predicate like i.a. die Guten ins Tröpfchen, die Schlechten ins Kröpfchen, jedem ein Bier or in den Müll mit dem Dreck. Certain instantiations of these patterns have been dubbed verblose Direktiva by Jacobs (2008) who provides an account in terms of construction grammar. Müller (2011), on the other hand, proposes an anti-passive analysis of the phenomenon. However, these apparent verbless root structures show conspicuous parallels in form and interpretation to another type of non-finite root structures in German, namely root infinitives. Both exclude an overt subject expression and both have a modal interpretation. Referring to these parallels, an analysis is elaborated which employs a empty verbal category. The overt consituents, then, are hosted by the (possibly extended) projection of the empty verb. Furthermore, this analysis captures a broader range of data, in particular instances formed by concatenated NPDAT-NPAKK or NPAKK-PP.
Constructionist approaches to grammar do not draw a clear distinction between lexicon and grammar, as generative "words and rules" accounts do. Rather, they conceptualize grammar and lexicon as a continuum of constructions of greater or lesser complexity and abstraction. In this paper, i explore the implications of this paradigm shift for the applied discipline of grammaticography. If we abandon the distinction between grammar and lexicon, should we also abandon the distinction between grammar, books and dictionaries? Drawing on a case study on the treatment of verbless constructions in the "IDS-Grammatik", it is argued that constructions should play a greater role in grammar books, but that grammar books still need to provide access to general principles of grammar.
The linear analysis of sentences is part of every grammatical description of German, often based on the theory of 'Topologische Felder' ('topological fields'). According to this theory, German sentences are composed of so-called 'Felder' ('fields') that can be filled by differents kinds of syntactic expressions. One widespread assumption is that some of the fields can be left empty, depending on the kind of sentence, another widespread assumption is that some of the fields are only optional. We will show that not all kinds of empty positions or fields which are adopted in different versions of topological theories are motivated. But this seems to be essential if we take the theory of topological fields serious. The following is an attempt of clarification.
The paper provides a survey about grammatical variation in German and discusses the consequences for grammar books: How can they describe systematic differences between several varieties as well as the core system of German as an individual language? Proceeding from the differentiation between extra- and intralinguistic explanations for grammatical variation and from theoretic considerations on the notion of 'system' the paper discusses different possibilities of modeling the relationship between system and variation. It argues for a modular concept with a core system that provides the option of internal variation and modular systems that contain grammatical phenomena which are specific for certain varieties.
The paper attempts to bridge the gap between semantics and the conceptualization and teaching of grammar at secondary school exemplarily concerning German demonstratives dies- and jen-. I show that existing accounts of these demonstratives in reference grammars and school books are far from being satisfactory, whilst at least for dies-, if not for jen-, there exist comprehensive linguistic analyses. I adapt these to offer a semantic analysis for jen- using corpus data from modern German with pronominal and adnominal jen-, and propose a didactically applicable category of 'shared mental space' of the speaker and the hearer for the demonstratives: I argue that speakers use demonstrative reference to anchor the referent inside resp. outside their and the hearers' shared mental space.
Präpositionalphrasen
(2018)
Wortarten
(2018)
Konnektoren
(2018)
Der Beitrag beschäftigt sich mit der Frage, wie Konstruktionen in der Konstruktionsgrammatik klassifiziert werden. Da es in der Konstruktionsgrammatik keine klare Trennung von Lexikon und Grammatik gibt, zeigt dieser Beitrag, wie die Methoden der Konstruktionsgrammatik und Frame-Semantik angewendet werden können, um eine einheitliche Beschreibung von Phänomenen im Spannungsfeld zwischen Lexikon und Grammatik zu erreichen. Darüber hinaus will dieser Beitrag auf empirische Probleme aufmerksam machen, die bei der Klassifikation von Konstruktionen anhand von Korpusdaten auftreten können.