Refine
Year of publication
Document Type
- Part of a Book (14)
- Article (7)
- Book (2)
Has Fulltext
- yes (23)
Keywords
- Deutsch (16)
- Deklination (5)
- Flexion (5)
- Polnisch (5)
- Ablaut (4)
- Englisch (4)
- Ungarisch (4)
- Französisch (3)
- Kasus (3)
- Kontrastive Grammatik (3)
Publicationstate
- Veröffentlichungsversion (10)
- Postprint (2)
Reviewstate
- (Verlags)-Lektorat (11)
- Peer-review (1)
Publisher
- De Gruyter (6)
- de Gruyter (5)
- Benjamins (2)
- Niemeyer (2)
- Elsevier (1)
- Fachbereich 16 (Germanistik) der Freien Universität Berlin (1)
- Freie Universität Berlin (1)
- Mouton (1)
- Mouton Publishers (1)
- Narr (1)
Some basic difficulties in the generative description o f grammatical coordination are traced back to principal open points in Chomsky’s initial model o f transformational grammar. The argument is based (i) on an analysis of the role played by internal and external conditions of adequacy for grammars in the conception of syntactic structures, and (ii) on an examination of the relation between syntax and semantics as proposed by Chomsky. The continuation o f the problems stated is shown by surveying a number of contributions from later models. As a possible solution a description of coordination in terms of a "surface syntax for semantics" is envisaged.
In their article 'Psycholinguistics without "psychological reality" ', Maria Black and Shulamit Chiat have argued the case for abandoning 'the notion of "psychological reality"' (1981: 37), pointing to 'the contradictions and non sequiturs found whenever psychological reality is mentioned'
(1981: 58, n. 9) in linguistic literature. Interestingly, the same issue of Linguistics provides us with a case in point. Roland A. Wolff (henceforth W) reports on a test intended to address the 'general question ... : To what extent does a formal grammar (a linguist's account, or model) correspond to a speaker's internalized grammar (competence)?' (1981: 3; if not otherwise indicated in the following, page references are to Wo1ff, 1981).
Anaphora by pronouns
(1983)
An adequate conception of anaphora is still a desideratum. Considering the anaphoric use of third-person personal pronouns, the present study contributes to the solution of the question of what anaphora is. Major tenets of generative approaches to pronominal anaphora are surveyed; descriptive and methodological problems with transformational as well as interpretive treatments are discussed. The prevailing assumption that anaphora is a syntactically based phenomenon is shown tobe inadequate. In particular, it is argued that pronominal anaphora does not constitute a case of eilher a syntactic ( agreement) relation or a semantic ( coreference) relation between antecedents and anaphors, i.e. linguistic expressions. Infact, there is no grammatical antecedent-anaphor relation that is essential to the description of pronouns. Pronouns are to be treated in their own right rather than by recourse to supposed antecedents. An account of the use of pronouns has to be based on a notion of speaker reference and on a unified description of lexical entries for pronouns that specify their meanings. Sampie entries for English are suggested. It is emphasized that pronoun meanings rejlect social, not biological, classifications of possible referents. To the extent that pronouns are used according to morphosyntactic features, as in languages like German or French, lexical entries for pronouns should specify the pronouns' 'associative potential'. Associative potential has the samefunction as conceptual meaning, viz. delimiting the associated extension. In addition to this, pronouns turn out to differ from 'normal definite nominals' only in the low conceptual content of their meanings. Pronoun occurrences that apparently agree with and are coreferential with referential antecedents are found to form a restricted subclass of pronoun use in generat as weil as of anaphoric pronoun use. Thus one must refrainfromforcing each and every pronoun occurrence into this mold. Instead, anaphora by pronouns is characterized as a type of use where pronouns serve to refer to referents that the speaker considers to be retrievable from the universe-of-discourse.
Wie gut bekannt ist, ist der Bau von Flexionsformen häufig durch diagrammatische Beziehungen zwischen flexivischen Kennzeichen und gekennzeichneten Flexionsmerkmalen motiviert. Im vorliegenden Beitrag wird eine Analyse der verbalen Personal- und Numerusflexion des Neuhochdeutschen vorgeschlagen, nach der sich - entgegen gängigen Vermutungen - auch in diesem Teilsystem ein derartiger Ikonismus feststellen läßt. Auf der Formseite wird ein Inventar von vier Verbendungen gerechtfertigt (-(e), -(e)n -(e)t, -(e)st), die jeweils Schwa-lose und Schwa-haltige Varianten besitzen. Auf der Funktionsseite werden die Grundlagen der Personal- und Numerusklassifikation erörtert. Für Verben wird eine Personalformenklassifikation angenommen, der zwei Merkmale zugrunde gelegt werden, die als adressierend und demonstrativ bezeichnet werden. Kongruenzbedingungen werden durch Feststellungen zur (In-)Kompatibilität nominaler und verbaler Kennzeichnungen ersetzt. Der untersuchte Form-Funktions-Zusammenhang stellt sich als ein Entsprechungsverhältnis zwischen phonologischem Gewicht und funktionaler Spezifik der Endungen heraus: Die Endungen weisen in der Reihenfolge ihrer obigen Anführung zunehmendes phonologisches Gewicht und zunehmende funktionale Spezifik auf. Die leichten Endungen fungieren als unspezifische Flexionsendung (-(e)) bzw. als Numerusendung (-fe)n), die schweren Endungen als Personalendungen unterschiedlicher Spezifik (-(e)t: demonstrativ oder adressierend; -(e)st: demonstrativ und adressierend).