Syntax
Refine
Document Type
- Part of a Book (7)
- Book (3)
- Article (1)
Has Fulltext
- yes (11)
Keywords
- Kontrastive Syntax (11) (remove)
Publicationstate
- Veröffentlichungsversion (8)
- Zweitveröffentlichung (3)
- Postprint (1)
Reviewstate
- (Verlags)-Lektorat (7)
- Peer-Review (3)
- Peer-review (1)
Publisher
- Benjamins (2)
- De Gruyter (2)
- Groos (2)
- Association for Computational Linguistics (1)
- Frank & Timme (1)
- Septentrio Academic Publishing (1)
- de Gruyter (1)
- iudicium (1)
Close repetitions of lexical material can create an impression of clumsiness in the style of Italian prose, while they seem to be accepted with more ease in German. The present study shows that this traditional claim needs some further differentiation. The negative effects on style take place in Italian when informationally prominent words are repeated, while informational background material may - and in certain cases even must - be repeated for clarity. The comparative study investigates lexical, syntactic and prosodic resources for indicating adversative (contrast) relations in argumentative texts from the field of humanities, written in Italian and German. It shows that, for encoding this kind of relation, Italian depends very much on lexical resources, including repetitions of words, while German makes more use of syntactic and prosodic parallelism. As a consequence, German can often dispense with adversative connectives and allows to employ word repetitions for different purposes.
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.
I’ve got a construction looks funny – representing and recovering non-standard constructions in UD
(2020)
The UD framework defines guidelines for a crosslingual syntactic analysis in the framework of dependency grammar, with the aim of providing a consistent treatment across languages that not only supports multilingual NLP applications but also facilitates typological studies. Until now, the UD framework has mostly focussed on bilexical grammatical relations. In the paper, we propose to add a constructional perspective and discuss several examples of spoken-language constructions that occur in multiple languages and challenge the current use of basic and enhanced UD relations. The examples include cases where the surface relations are deceptive, and syntactic amalgams that either involve unconnected subtrees or structures with multiply-headed dependents. We argue that a unified treatment of constructions across languages will increase the consistency of the UD annotations and thus the quality of the treebanks for linguistic analysis.
This paper analyses the variation we find in the realization of finite clausal complements in the position of prepositional objects in a set of Germanic languages. The Germanic languages differ with respect to whether prepositions can directly select a clause (North Germanic) or not and instead need a prepositional proform (Continental West Germanic). Within the Continental West Germanic languages, we find further differences with respect to the constituent structures. We propose that German strong vs. weak prepositional proforms (e.g. drauf vs. darauf) differ with respect to their syntax, while this is not the case for the Dutch forms (ervan vs. daarvan). What the Germanic languages under consideration share is that the prepositional element can be covert, except in English. English shows only limited evidence for the presence of P with finite clauses in the position of prepositional objects generally, but only with a selected set of verbs. This investigation is a first step towards a broader study of the nature of clauses in prepositional object positions and the implications for the syntax of clausal complementation.
Verschiedene Sprachen, wie auch verschiedene Konstruktionen in den einzelnen Sprachen, weisen divergente und z.T. sehr komplexe elliptische Muster auf. Auf den ersten Blick scheinen komplexe Beschreibungen durch sprach- und konstruktionspezifische Ellipseregeln erforderlich zu sein. Dies wird anhand kontrastierender Möglichkeiten zur Objektellipse in Koordinationen sowie in unabhängigen elliptischen Sätzen (z.B. elliptischen Antworten) des Deutschen und des Englischen verdeutlicht. Bei näherem Hinschauen stellt sich jedoch heraus, daß die unterschiedlichen Ellipsemöglichkeiten mit unterschiedlichen Wortstellungsmustern korrelieren. So können die syntaktischen Determinanten der Wortstellungsmuster, die ohnehin notwendige sprach- und konstruktionsspezifische Annahmen darstellen, verwendet werden für die Erklärung von variierenden Ellipsemöglichkeiten, ohne daß auf spracheigene Ellipseregeln zurückgegriffen werden muß. Diese These wird exemplarisch bewiesen an dem Zusammenwirken der invarianten Tilgungsregeln (Vorwärts- und Rückwärtstilgung) mit zwei Wortstellungsparametern (V2-Parameter und VO/OV-Parameter), die für die unterschiedlichen Konstituentenabfolgen des Deutschen und des Englischen verantwortlich sind.