Refine
Document Type
- Part of a Book (5)
- Article (1)
Language
- English (6) (remove)
Has Fulltext
- yes (6)
Keywords
- Deutsch (3)
- Deklination (2)
- Adjektiv (1)
- Appellativum (1)
- Argumentstruktur (1)
- Deixis (1)
- Englisch (1)
- Französisch (1)
- Germanische Sprachen (1)
- Kasus (1)
Publicationstate
- Postprint (2)
- Veröffentlichungsversion (2)
- Zweitveröffentlichung (1)
Reviewstate
- (Verlags)-Lektorat (4)
- Peer-Review (1)
- Peer-review (1)
Publisher
- de Gruyter (3)
- Benjamins (1)
- De Gruyter (1)
- Edinburgh University Press (1)
Complex common names such as Indian elephant or green tea denote a certain type of entity, viz. kinds. Moreover, those kinds are always subkinds of the kind denoted by their head noun. Establishing such subkinds is essentially the task of classifying modifiers that are a defining trait of endocentrically structured complex common names. Examining complex common names of different lexico-syntactic types(NN compounds, N+N syntagmas, NP/PP syntagmas, A+N syntagmas) and from different languages (particularly English, German and French) it can be shown that complex common names are subject to language- independent formal and semantic constraints. In particular, complex common names qualify as name-like expressions in that they tend to be deficient in terms of formal complexity and semantic compositionality.
Introduction
(2004)
This contribution offers a fine-grained analysis of German and Romanian ditransitive and prepositional transfer constructions. The transfer construction (TC) is shown to be realised in German by 26 argument structure patterns (ASPs), which are conceived of as form-meaning pairings which differ only minimally. The mainstream constructionist view of the different types of TCs being related by polysemy links is rejected, the ASPs being argued instead to be related by family relationships. All but six of the ASPs identified for German are shown to possess a Romanian counterpart. For some ditransitive structures, German is shown to possess two prepositional variants, one with an (‘at’) and one with zu (‘to’) or auf (‘on’), while Romanian has only one. Due to the lack of a Romanian counterpart for the German zu and auf variants, Romanian lacks some of the dative alternations found in German. However, Romanian as well as German permits the double object pattern to interact with take-verbs, verbs of removal and add-verbs, which do not allow the ditransitive construction in English. Since these verb classes also permit at least one prepositional pattern in both languages, Romanian and German show a larger number of dative alternation types than English.
Im ’Minimalistischen Programm’ (Chomsky 1995) werden A-Bewegungen (’A- movements’, d.h. N-Hebung, V-Hebung usw.) und A’-Bewegungen (’A-bar- movements’, d.h. Extraposition, VP-Adjunktion, ’scrambling’ usw.) als sehr ungleichwertige Operationen behandelt. Der vorliegende Aufsatz untersucht die distinkten Eigenschaften von A-Bewegungen und A’-Bewegungen anhand von drei Gruppen von Argumenten, nämlich Topikalisierung (Abschnitt 2), Verschiebung schwacher Pronomina (Abschnitt 3) und Verb-Zweit unter der Symmetrie-Annahme (Abschnitt 4). Die Konklusionen daraus sind, daß die hier vertretene Analyse eine Möglichkeit bietet, A-Bewegungen und A’- Bewegungen zu unterscheiden, ohne letztere aus dem Zuständigkeitsbereich der Grammatik zu verbannen.