400 Sprache, Linguistik
Refine
Document Type
- Part of a Book (3)
- Conference Proceeding (1)
Language
- English (4)
Has Fulltext
- yes (4)
Keywords
- Objektsatz (4) (remove)
Publicationstate
Reviewstate
- (Verlags)-Lektorat (2)
- Peer-Review (2)
Publisher
- Narr Francke Attempto (2)
- IDS-Verlag (1)
- Peter Lang (1)
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.
This paper first argues that the distinction between Propositions and States-of-Affairs is significant for understanding a number of linguistic contrasts, including contrasts between nominalizations, complement clauses, readings of modal infinitives, raising constructions, illocutions and moods, relative clauses, and nouns. Subsequently, the paper outlines a cognitive linguistic model of the distinction, according to which Propositions and States-of-Affairs differ in terms of construal. Both prompt Langackerian “processes”, but only Propositions prompt a construal of these processes as referential. The paper argues that this model has a number of advantages over a traditional, denotational understanding of the distinction.
The present article proposes a syntactic and semantic analysis of assertive clauses that comprises their truth-conditional aspects and their speech act potential in communication. What is commonly called “illocutionary force” is differentiated into three structurally and functionally distinct layers: a judgement phrase, representing subjective epistemic and evidential attitudes; a commitment phrase, representing the social commitment related to assertions; and an act phrase, representing the relation to the common ground of the conversation. The article provides several pieces of evidence for this structure: from the interpretation and syntactic position of various classes of epistemic, evidential, affirmative and speech act-related operators, from clausal complements embedded by different types of predicates, from embedded root clauses, and from anaphora referring to different clausal projections. The syntactic assumptions are phrased within X-bar theory, and the semantic interpretation makes use of dynamic update of common ground, differentiating between informative and performative updates. The object language is German, with particular reference to verb final and verb second structure.
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.