Linguistische Arbeiten
Refine
Year of publication
Document Type
- Part of a Book (31)
- Book (1)
Has Fulltext
- yes (32)
Keywords
- Deutsch (18)
- Wortbildung (5)
- Pragmatik (4)
- Syntax (4)
- Ellipse <Linguistik> (3)
- Konversationsanalyse (3)
- Prosodie (3)
- Satzverbindung (3)
- Semantik (3)
- Englisch (2)
Publicationstate
Reviewstate
- (Verlags)-Lektorat (27)
Publisher
- Niemeyer (25)
- de Gruyter (6)
- De Gruyter (1)
418
Departing from Rooth's focus interpretation theory the article discusses two types of (German) ellipsis phenomena: direct alternative and implicit alternative coordinative ellipsis. For the first type, which includes Stripping, Gapping, ATB, and RNR, it is characteristic that the semantic value of either conjunct instantiates the context variable of the respective focus operator in the other. For German Polarity ellipsis and Sluicing, which constitute the other type, it is characteristic that the semantic value, which instantiates the variable given by the focus operator in the second conjunct, must be derived from the semantic value of the first conjunct and that the second conjunct always hosts an alternative set inducing item which demands new information focus in the first conjunct.
315
Es wird im allgemeinen zwischen vollständig durch die Grammatik determinierten unvollständigen Äußerungen wie "(Hans denkt an Maria) und Paul an Frieda" und situativ bedingten unvollständigen Ausdrücken wie "Schnell ein Glas Wasser!" unterschieden. Wenngleich es offensichtlich ist, daß es sich bei beiden um komplexere Strukturen handelt, stellt sich die Frage, ob sie syntaktisch als Satz beziehungsweise CP oder I0 kategorisiert sind. Für eine Kategorisierung als Satz spricht u.a., daß es Ausdrücke gibt wie "Warum nachdenken?", in denen Spec-CP als Landeplatz für die w-Phrase vorhanden sein sollte, vorausgesetzt, es sollen in Hinblick auf die Satzgrammatik nicht zusätzliche Regeln für die Bewegung der w-Phrase in elliptischen Ausdrücken vorgesehen werden. Gegen eine Subkategorisierung würde sprechen, daß die jeweiligen Strukturen umständlich zu rechtfertigende leere Kategorien enthalten. Dies führt zu der Annahme, beide Ansätze zu verknüpfen, so daß einerseits das Startsymbol für alle syntaktischen Kategorien zugänglich ist und andererseits elliptische Strukturen leere Kategorien enthalten können.
565
The present paper explores the change in distribution and potential function as well as the interplay of two phenomena that occur at the internal boundaries of nominal compounds, namely linking elements and hyphenation. About 40% of present-day German compounds contain a linking element, most prominently -s- (e.g. Geburt-s-ort ‘birth place’). Numerous theories have been brought forward to explain its function, two of which are examined here: It will be shown that the linking-s tends to mark morphologically complex constituents while the assumption that it prefers marked phonological words cannot be corroborated.
Linked compounds in present-day German use hyphenation, a strategy that is mostly employed with graphematically or phonologically marked constituents, at a much smaller rate than unlinked compounds. In Early New High German (ENHG, 1350-1650), when the linked type arose by reanalyzing prenominal genitive attributes as first constituents of compounds, the reverse held true: Linked compounds underwent a gradual graphematic integration from separate writing into directly connected words which was partly reversed by a century of hyphenation (1650-1750). While hyphenation also occurred with unlinked compounds, the linked compounds show a striking preference with hyphenation rates reaching a peak at around 90%. It will be argued that ENHG hyphenation had the same function it has today, namely structuring constituents that are perceived as marked: The change in spelling between ENHG and today reflects the integration of a formerly syntactic and thereby marked pattern into word-formation.