Linguistische Berichte - Sonderhefte
Hamburg: Buske
Refine
Document Type
- Part of a Book (10)
- Book (1)
Keywords
- Deutsch (7)
- Semantik (4)
- Syntax (3)
- Akzent (2)
- Argumentstruktur (2)
- Direkte Rede (2)
- Einbettungssatz <Linguistik> (2)
- Finite Verbform (2)
- Grammatik (2)
- Indirekte Rede (2)
Publicationstate
- Zweitveröffentlichung (7)
- Veröffentlichungsversion (3)
- Postprint (2)
Reviewstate
- (Verlags)-Lektorat (11) (remove)
Publisher
- Buske (11)
33
We argue that properties with a nominal origin get transferred regularly in certain Gentian particle verb constructions to properties that are propositional insofar as they characterize the temporal structure of eventualities, understood to be described by propositional (= truth-assessable) representations of state changes. Accordingly, the oft-noted perfectivizing function of certain verbal particles like ein- in einfahren ('pull in', cf. Kühnhold 1972) is the effect of redressing a conflict at the syntax-semantics interface: On the one hand, constructions like in [die Grube]acc einfahren ('pull into the mine’) exhibit transitive syntax (Gehrke 2008), requiring that the syntactic arguments be mapped onto well-distinguished or DIFFERENT referents in the semantics (Kemmer 1993). On the other hand, in/ein codes a spatio-temporal inclusion relation between its relata, contradicting the requirement imposed by the transitive syntax. Following Brandt (2019), we submit that the interface executes a manoeuvre that delays the interpretation of part of the contradiction-inducing DIFFERENCE feature. It is not locally interpreted (semantically represented) in toto but in part passed on to the next syntactic-semantic computational cycle. Here, the passed-on meaning is interpreted in the locally customary terms, in the case at hand, as a temporal index where the post-state of the depicted eventuality does not hold.
33
Die grammatische Kategorie eingebetteter Sätze zählt seit über 50 Jahren zu den zentralen Themen der theoretischen Syntax. Dabei dreht sich die Diskussion speziell um die Frage, ob manche oder vielleicht alle eingebetteten Sätze als Nominalphrasen zu behandeln sind, sei es, weil sie einen (stummen) nominalen Kopf haben (D oder N), oder sei es, weil der Satzeinleiter selbst als nominal zu betrachten ist. Die Beiträge des Sonderhefts nehmen diese Fragestellung erneut auf und explorieren sie unter verschiedenen, syntaktischen wie semantischen Aspekten im Lichte neuerer theoretischer Ansätze. Das Spektrum an Sprachen, die genauer untersucht oder argumentativ für die Zwecke der Analyse herangezogen werden, umfasst neben Deutsch – einschließlich dialektaler Varietäten wie Bairisch und Alemannisch – Englisch, Niederländisch (einschließlich der Brabanter Varietät), Alt- und Neugriechisch, Jula (Niger-Kongo), Schwedisch, Baskisch sowie eine Reihe anderer genetisch und typologisch unterschiedlicher Sprachen.
28.
Lexikonprojektion und Konstruktion: Experimentelle Studien zu Argumentalternationen im Deutschen
(2020)
Debates on lexicalist vs. constructionist modelling of argument alternations are typically based on data from single constructions, each including different types of verbs. Evidence from constructions with an identical set of verb types that systematically differ in their meaning is lacking, even though such evidence is imperative for specifically investigating the dependence of argument alternations on the interaction between construction and lexical meanings. We present two acceptability studies where verb lexeme meanings and constructions - specifically active voice, impersonal passive and the construction with man 'one' in German - vary systematically. Prima facie our results support a constructionist explanation, because each construction exhibits a unique acceptability cline. However, across constructions, an adequate explanation has to consider verb-based lexical meanings. The most plausible explanation is that the semantic features licensed by the construction are matched with the semantic features provided by the verb lexeme.
28
Objekte der Begeisterung
(2020)
We present a construction-based approach to German prepositional object (I’O) constructions occurring with the verb begeistern ,to thrill'. Traditionally, the preposition in such structures is analysed as a meaningless object marker that is lexically selected by the governing verb and not subject to variation. Drawing on a corpus study in the German reference corpus DeReKo, we show that our target verb occurs with four different PO prepositions (für ,lor‘,« ׳? ,at', von ,front' and über ,over‘) that can be analysed as markers o f schematic argument structure constructions in the Construction Grammar sense. We show that each construction comes with its own meaning and semantically coherent predicate restrictions. We argue that purely valency-based (lexical) approaches to argument structure fail to capture these generalisations. On the other hand, purely schema-based (constructionist) approaches to argument structure face the complcmentary problem o f accommodating item-specific restrictions and exceptions to the generalisations they embody. We suggest that the necessary synthesis can be formulated within an account that recognises both generalised constructions and item-specific valency properties.
22
Konnexion in argumentativen Texten. Gebrauchsunterschiede in Deutsch als L2 vs. Deutsch als L1
(2016)
Für die Kodierung interpropositionaler semantischer Relationen wie Additivität, Adversativität, Kausalität etc. steht im Deutschen wie in vielen anderen Sprachen ein reichhaltiges Inventar von Konnektoren unterschiedlicher syntaktischer Kategorien zur Verfügung. Einige semantische Relationen müssen jedoch nicht explizit kodiert werden, da sie auf der Basis übereinzelsprachlicher Erwartungen an „normale“ Sachverhaltszusammenhänge aus dem Kontext erschließbar sind. Ob diese Relationen dann auch von Schreibern ausbuchstabiert werden, ist einzelsprach-spezifisch unterschiedlich. Der Beitrag untersucht vor diesem Hintergrund die Kodierung interpropositionaler Relationen bei Lernern des Deutschen als Fremdsprache. Die Analyse eines Lernerkorpus mit Essays fortgeschrittener Deutschlerner aus Schweden, China und Weißrussland (KobaltDaF-Korpus) und eines muttersprachlichen Kontrollkorpus zeigt, dass Lerner von den Mustern der Muttersprachler quantitativ und qualitativ abweichen. Der Beitrag beschreibt diese Abweichungen und diskutiert mögliche Erklärungen.
18
Proceeding from the central ideas of the papers contained in this volume, the closing article sets out to achieve a unified theory of the syntax and semantics of verum focus, to be illustrated for the sentence and clause types of present day German. In German, verum focus is realized phonologically by means of pitch accents on morphosyntactic exponents of various classes: finite verb forms, complementizers and subordinators, interrogative and relative phrases, and modal particles. In the first half of the article, these constituents - most of which reside in the left periphery of the sentence or clause - are shown to share the gramma-tical function of distinguishing between sentence moods and other categories of clauses. This observation gives rise to the assumption that verum focus should be explicable as contrastive focus on semantically distinctive features or components of sentence mood and clause type. In the second half of the article this assumption is spelt out for the sentence and clause types of German. We propose a universal semantic structure of sentence meaning which makes it possible to reduce the most typical cases of verum focus and their diverse contextual interpretations to highlighting the connection between the sentence/clause and its textual or dis-course environment. This connection is syntactically implemented by an element occupying the head position of CP: either a finite verb form or a complementizer/subordinator. Realizations of verum focus on prefield constituents in wh- and relative clauses are explained as phonetic remedies deployed when a connecting element in C° is missing. Focusing of modal particles in the middle field and of verb forms in the right periphery of the clause are shown to differ semantically from verum focus stricto sensu, although they have similar pragmatic effects. The theory is built exclusively on assumptions needed for independent reasons and dispenses with the problematic verum operator assumed in most traditional accounts.