Syntax
Refine
Year of publication
Document Type
- Part of a Book (30)
- Article (12)
- Book (8)
- Review (2)
- Conference Proceeding (1)
- Report (1)
Has Fulltext
- yes (54)
Keywords
- Syntax (54) (remove)
Publicationstate
- Zweitveröffentlichung (21)
- Veröffentlichungsversion (18)
- Postprint (5)
Reviewstate
- (Verlags)-Lektorat (34)
- Peer-Review (6)
Publisher
- de Gruyter (12)
- Niemeyer (4)
- Schwann (4)
- Institut für Deutsche Sprache (3)
- Benjamins (2)
- Buske (2)
- Hueber (2)
- Narr Francke Attempto (2)
- Stauffenburg (2)
- Akademie Verlag (1)
Das Werk versteht sich als eine Darstellung der wichtigsten syntaktischen, prosodischen, semantischen und pragmatischen Eigenschaften kausaler und konditionaler Konnektoren des gesprochenen Deutsch.
Die Untersuchung formuliert notwendige theoretische Grundlagen und zeigt die komplexe Interaktion mehrerer Faktoren, die sich auf die Interpretation einer Äußerung auswirken. Empirische Daten belegen, dass die kontextuelle und pragmatische Interpretation der untersuchten Relationen stark mit ihren syntaktischen und prosodischen Mustern korreliert. Jedoch handelt es sich nicht um eine Eins-zu-eins-Beziehung, denn gleiche Lesarten können von kausalen und konditionalen Relationen unterschiedlich markiert sein. Anhand der Ergebnisse wird das Verhältnis zwischen Konditionalität und Kausalität diskutiert.
Introduction
(2023)
The paper is concerned with the filling of the right edge of a German clause with different constituents: subconstituents of the clause, arguments and modifiers of the NP, appositions and right-dislocated elements. It is argued that these different ways of filling the right edge come about in quite different ways. Subconstituents of the clause are base generated at the right edge in syntax. Constituents of the NP and appositions get to the right edge postsyntactically, i.e., they are linearised there only in the phonological component. Finally, the appearance of right-dislocated constituents is the result of two well-established deletion processes operating on two adjacent clauses.
The different mechanisms allow us to understand differences these elements show regarding positioning inside the right edge, binding and intonation. An important empirical generalisation put forward in the IDS-grammar can be captured. The grammar's controversial assumption that the right edge comprises a part which is disintegrated in between two syntactically integrated parts can be shown to be superfluous.
This paper shows how experimental methods can advance syntactic description and syntactic theory. The empirical domain is the order of verbs in German verb clusters containing a modal verb in the perfect. Such clusters are special insofar as prescriptive grammar requires the finite verb to appear in cluster-initial instead of cluster-final position (e.g., hat lesen müssen 'has read must' instead of lesen müssen hat 'read must has'). Contrary to this requirement, experiments show that native speakers accept the auxiliary also in later positions as long as it precedes the modal verb. The acceptability data are corroborated by corpus data and experimental data from language production. The relevance of the experimental data for syntactic theory are discussed.
This paper investigates the use of linking adverbs in adversative constructions in German and Italian. In Italian those constructions are very frequently formulated with adverbs such as invece, while wordings without a lexical connective are more typical of German. Corpus data show that the syntactic und semantic conditions favouring the use of adversative adverbs are by and large the same in both languages. Lexical connectives can increase explicitness when the intended adversative interpretation is not obvious on other grounds. The higher frequency of adversative adverbs in Italian is shown to be a consequence of the more restrictive rules of the placement of prosodic accent.
Control, typically defined as a specific referential dependency between the null-subject of a non-finite embedded clause and a co-dependent of the matrix predicate, has been subject to extensive research in the last 50 years. While there is a broad consensus that a distinction between Obligatory Control (OC), Non-Obligatory Control (NOC) and No Control (NC) is useful and necessary to cover the range of relevant empirical phenomena, there is still less agreement regarding their proper analyses. In light of this ongoing discussion, the articles collected in this volume provide a cross-linguistic perspective on central questions in the study of control, with a focus on non-canonical control phenomena. This includes cases which show NOC or NC in complement clauses or OC in adjunct clauses, cases in which the controlled subject is not in an infinitival clause, or in which there is no unique controller in OC (i.e. partial control, split control, or other types of controllers). Based on empirical generalizations from a wide range of languages, this volume provides insights into cross-linguistic variation in the interplay of different components of control such as the properties of the constituent hosting the controlled subject, the syntactic and lexical properties of the matrix predicate as well as restrictions on the controller, thereby furthering our empirical and theoretical understanding of control in grammar.
In der Syntaxtheorie gibt es verschiedene Ansätze, um die grammatische Variation zwischen Sprachen zu erfassen. Grundsätzlich lassen sich diese auch auf die grammatische Variation innerhalb einer Sprache anwenden, etwa bei der Beschreibung zweier Dialekte. Innersprachliche Variation weist aber Eigenschaften auf, die nahelegen, eine andere Modellierung vorzunehmen: Die Syntax der Sprache ist unterspezifiziert für die Strukturen, bezüglich derer Variation vorliegt. Sie erzeugt eine Menge von Konstruktionen, die allesamt zur passiven Kompetenz der Sprecher gehören. Im soziolinguistischen Regelsystem der Sprache können dann einige dieser Konstruktionen regionalen oder sozial konstituierten Sprechergruppen oder bestimmten Registern zugeordnet werden, und (nur) diese Zuordnung definiert Dialekte, Soziolekte oder Register. Die Syntax selbst sagt dazu nichts. Neben der Variation durch Auswahl aus einer Konstruktionsmenge liegt auch Variation vor, die aus unterschiedlicher Flexibilität im Umgang mit Konstruktionen resultiert, und - weil verarbeitungsbezogenen - nicht Gegenstand soziolinguistischer Etikettierungen sein kann.