Academia.eduAcademia.edu

Outline

Title
Abstract
FAQs
Figures
Introduction
Case Marking with Two-Way Prepositions in German
Methodology
Data Set
Statistical Analysis
Results and Discussion
Conclusions
References

Constructional Approaches to Syntactic Structures in German

Profile image of Alexander ZiemAlexander Ziem
https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110457155
visibility

…

description

50 pages

link

1 file

Abstract

Bibliographic information published by the Deutsche Nationalbibliothek The Deutsche Nationalbibliothek lists this publication in the Deutsche Nationalbibliografie; detailed bibliographic data are available in the Internet at http://dnb.dnb.de.

FAQs

sparkles

AI

What variables influence the ACC/DAT case alternation in German prepositional verbs?add

The study identifies key factors including transitivity, voice, perfect tense, and conventionalized senses that influence case marking.

How does the presence of conventionalized senses affect case selection in prepositional verbs?add

For example, the sense 'SET DOWN ON' correlates with 90% ACC marking, while 'LAND ON' shows a strong preference for DAT.

What is the methodology used to analyze the case alternation in this study?add

A multivariate corpus-based analysis was employed, with over 1000 samples analyzed using classification tree modeling to evaluate case preferences.

How does transitivity affect the case marking of prepositional verbs in this research?add

Transitivity significantly affects case preference; transitive constructions correlate with ACC, while intransitive constructions typically prefer DAT.

What does the study conclude about complement versus adjunct status in constructions?add

The research posits a gradient distinction between complement and adjunct roles, with case marking influenced by this variation.

Figures (14)
Table 1: Profiles of six PVs with respect to the factor transitivity.
Table 1: Profiles of six PVs with respect to the factor transitivity.
Table 2: Bivariate distribution of the PVs with respect to case. Table 3: Bivariate statistics of the factor transitivity with respect to case.
Table 2: Bivariate distribution of the PVs with respect to case. Table 3: Bivariate statistics of the factor transitivity with respect to case.
of ACC in our data set. On the basis of these findings and in accordance with the premises of the constructional approach, we consider transitivity not only to be a property of the valency of particular (prepositional) verbs but also a defining property of argument structure constructions. Based on previous accounts and the values in Table 3 (intransitive/DAT: 84%, transitive/ACC: 60%), we further- more assume, as a working hypothesis, that the PP in the transitive construction defaults to ACC, whereas the PP in the intransitive construction defaults to DAT. Under this view, deviations from the default correlations are especially in need of elucidation. One of the basic assumptions of constructional approaches to which we sub-
of ACC in our data set. On the basis of these findings and in accordance with the premises of the constructional approach, we consider transitivity not only to be a property of the valency of particular (prepositional) verbs but also a defining property of argument structure constructions. Based on previous accounts and the values in Table 3 (intransitive/DAT: 84%, transitive/ACC: 60%), we further- more assume, as a working hypothesis, that the PP in the transitive construction defaults to ACC, whereas the PP in the intransitive construction defaults to DAT. Under this view, deviations from the default correlations are especially in need of elucidation. One of the basic assumptions of constructional approaches to which we sub-
Table 4: Classification table for the estimated classification tree for aufsetzen auf.
Table 4: Classification table for the estimated classification tree for aufsetzen auf.
conventionalized senses LAND ON and BASE ON and DAT is particularly strong, to the extent that it is able to override the association of the general construc- tional meaning and the default ACC marking of the PP. stronger the bond is between a conventionalized sense and one of the more the case marking of the PP tends to be “lexical”, Put in ot i.e. tied her words: the the two cases, o the PV as an item (itself a construction) of the lexicon with its own idiosyncratic properties, rather than “structural” (see Barddal 2011 for a critical appraisal omy between lexical and structural case). Moreover, wit of the dichot- Nn respec an additional analogical motivation for DAT may very wel to LAND ON, play a role: the regular German verb which has LAND ON as its systemic (“Level 1”) meaning, landen auf, invariably selects DAT in DeReKo.
conventionalized senses LAND ON and BASE ON and DAT is particularly strong, to the extent that it is able to override the association of the general construc- tional meaning and the default ACC marking of the PP. stronger the bond is between a conventionalized sense and one of the more the case marking of the PP tends to be “lexical”, Put in ot i.e. tied her words: the the two cases, o the PV as an item (itself a construction) of the lexicon with its own idiosyncratic properties, rather than “structural” (see Barddal 2011 for a critical appraisal omy between lexical and structural case). Moreover, wit of the dichot- Nn respec an additional analogical motivation for DAT may very wel to LAND ON, play a role: the regular German verb which has LAND ON as its systemic (“Level 1”) meaning, landen auf, invariably selects DAT in DeReKo.
Figure 5: Subconstructional patterns of the intransitive prepositional argument structure construction with aufsetzen auf.
Figure 5: Subconstructional patterns of the intransitive prepositional argument structure construction with aufsetzen auf.
Figure 6: Subconstructional patterns of the transitive prepositional argument structure construction with aufsetzen auf.
Figure 6: Subconstructional patterns of the transitive prepositional argument structure construction with aufsetzen auf.
Table 5: Occurrences of the sense LAND ON of aufsetzen auf with Flugzeug (‘airplane’) as subject or object.
Table 5: Occurrences of the sense LAND ON of aufsetzen auf with Flugzeug (‘airplane’) as subject or object.
——— Eee eeeEeE—EeE—E—E—E—EEOE——_—_O TT The overall correct prediction rate of this model is 84.3% after 10-fold classification. This is only slightly better than the baseline of 84.1% (see Node 0, Figure 7), but the accuracy is accomplished by only one factor, viz. conventionalized sense. The performance of the model is particularly poor with respect to the prediction of DAT. As indicated in Table 6, DAT was predicted correctly in only one third of all occurrences. This low rate is partly related to the low overall use of DAT with aufnehmen in alongside the fact that there is no
——— Eee eeeEeE—EeE—E—E—E—EEOE——_—_O TT The overall correct prediction rate of this model is 84.3% after 10-fold classification. This is only slightly better than the baseline of 84.1% (see Node 0, Figure 7), but the accuracy is accomplished by only one factor, viz. conventionalized sense. The performance of the model is particularly poor with respect to the prediction of DAT. As indicated in Table 6, DAT was predicted correctly in only one third of all occurrences. This low rate is partly related to the low overall use of DAT with aufnehmen in alongside the fact that there is no
Table 6: Classification table for the estimated classification tree for aufnehmen in. environment (i.e., no combination of factors included in the model) in which DAT clearly outranks ACC as the preferred case. The ACC, on the other hand, was correctly predicted for 96.3% of the observations.
Table 6: Classification table for the estimated classification tree for aufnehmen in. environment (i.e., no combination of factors included in the model) in which DAT clearly outranks ACC as the preferred case. The ACC, on the other hand, was correctly predicted for 96.3% of the observations.
T T 0. a the he figures in Table 7 indicate that the sense SHELTER is much more often real- ized in the pattern without a PP than the other three conventionalized senses. his finding is consistent with the assumption that the case of the PP is influ- enced by the position one can assign to a constructional pattern on a continuum f interrelated patterns, as already illustrated in Figure 6 with respect to the tran- sitive construction with aufsetzen auf. The stronger the evidence that the pattern eft end of the cline is instantiated, the stronger the motivation for ACC to be chosen. This entails that the PP tends to have full complement status. By con- trast, t possibility that DAT is chosen. This is to be expected, given that the PP gradually loses its complement status when proceeding from left to right on the cline, being a less profiled phrase in the pattern he more the instantiation tends to the right end of the cline, the greater the Table 7: Occurrences of the different senses of aufnehmen in with and without a PP.
T T 0. a the he figures in Table 7 indicate that the sense SHELTER is much more often real- ized in the pattern without a PP than the other three conventionalized senses. his finding is consistent with the assumption that the case of the PP is influ- enced by the position one can assign to a constructional pattern on a continuum f interrelated patterns, as already illustrated in Figure 6 with respect to the tran- sitive construction with aufsetzen auf. The stronger the evidence that the pattern eft end of the cline is instantiated, the stronger the motivation for ACC to be chosen. This entails that the PP tends to have full complement status. By con- trast, t possibility that DAT is chosen. This is to be expected, given that the PP gradually loses its complement status when proceeding from left to right on the cline, being a less profiled phrase in the pattern he more the instantiation tends to the right end of the cline, the greater the Table 7: Occurrences of the different senses of aufnehmen in with and without a PP.
Figure 8: Subconstructional patterns of the transitive prepositional argument structure construction with aufnehmen in. Note that we again do not posit a clear cut-off point on the cline which marks whether a PP is either a complement or an adjunct. This is in line with the view expressed in Section 2.1. A constructional account of argument structure constructions with complex PVs explicitly acknowledges the possibility that a PF is in-between a complement and an adjunct rather than that a strict boundary can be maintained. Other occurrences with the PV aufnehmen in in our data set confirm this view. For example, in the large majority of the sentences in which aufnehmen in takes on the sense ALLOW (AS A MEMBER), ACC is used. In only 19 out of 170 sentences DAT occurs. (38) below is an example with DAT:
Figure 8: Subconstructional patterns of the transitive prepositional argument structure construction with aufnehmen in. Note that we again do not posit a clear cut-off point on the cline which marks whether a PP is either a complement or an adjunct. This is in line with the view expressed in Section 2.1. A constructional account of argument structure constructions with complex PVs explicitly acknowledges the possibility that a PF is in-between a complement and an adjunct rather than that a strict boundary can be maintained. Other occurrences with the PV aufnehmen in in our data set confirm this view. For example, in the large majority of the sentences in which aufnehmen in takes on the sense ALLOW (AS A MEMBER), ACC is used. In only 19 out of 170 sentences DAT occurs. (38) below is an example with DAT:

Related papers

(Janua Linguarum. Series Practica, Vol. 19) Eugene A. Nida A Synopsis of English Syntax De Gruyter Mouton (2013)
Rezman Othman
View PDFchevron_right
JANUA LINGUARUM STUDIA MEMORIAE I NICOLAI VAN WIJK DEDICATA edenda curat i NR. 4 SYNTACTIC STRUCTURES MOUTON THE HAGUE PARIS
Jaque Lucchesi

Bibliography I more generally, the concept "grammatical." Notice that in order to set the aims of grammar significantly it is sufficient to assume q partial knowledge of sentences and non-sentences. That is. we may assume for this discussion that certain sequences of phonemes are definitely sentences, and that certain &her sequences are definitely non-sentences. In many intermediate c --ecide, when JJie . . grammar is set up in the simplest wav -< the h r sentences and excludes the clear non-sentences. This is a familiar feature of exp1ication.l A certain number of clear cases, then, will provide us with a criterion of adeauacv for any particular grammar. For a single Ian? taken in isolation, this ~rovides only a weak test of adequacy, since many different gampars may hknane the clear cases .vro~erly. This can be generalized to a very strong condition, however, if we insist that the clear cases be handled properly for each language by grammars all of which are constructed by the hat is. each grammar is related to the corpus of sentences in the language it describes in a way fixed in advance for all grammars by a given linguistic 'theory. We then have' a very strong test of adequacy for a 1ingui.stic theory that attempts to give a general explanation for the notion "grammatical sentence" in terms of "observed sentence," and for the set of grammars constructed in ' accordance with such a theory. It is furthermore a reasonable requirement', since weare interested not only in particular languages, .. but also in the general nature of Language. There is a great deal more that can be said about this crucial topic, but this would take us too far afield. Cf. 5 6. On what basis do we actually go about separating grammatical sequences from ungrammatical sequences? I shall not attempt to Cf.,; for example, N. Goodman, The structure of appearance (Cambridge, 1951), pp: 5-6. ~o t i & that to meet the aims of grammar, given a linguistic theory,, it is sufficient to have a partial knowledge of the sentences (i.e., a corpus) of the language, since a linguistic theory will state the relation between the set of observed sentences and the set of grammatical sentences; i-e., it will define "grammatical sentence" in terms of "observed sentence," certain properties of the observed sentences, and certain properties of.grammars. . Quine's formulation, a linguistic theory will give a general .explanation for what 'could' be in language on the basis of "what is plus simplicity of the laws whereby we describe and extrapolate -what is". (W. V. Quine, From a logicalpoint of view [Cambridge, 19531,~. 54). Cf. $ 6.1. ' ' * See my "Semantic considerations in grammar," Monograph no. 8, pp. 141-53 (1955), for a more detailed investigation of (117;). a Note that we cannot argue that "bank" in "the river bank" and "bank" in "the savings bank" are two occurrences of the same word, since this is precisely the'question under investigation. To say that two utterance tokens are occurrences of the same word is to say that they are not phonemically distinct, and presumably this is what thesynonymity criterion (1 17i) is supposed to determine for us.

View PDFchevron_right
The Handbook of Contemporary Syntactic Theory The Handbook of Contemporary Syntactic Theory20200423 91127 x0tdvv
Zeynab Musayeva
View PDFchevron_right
Grammaticalization in Germanic Languages
Martin Hilpert
View PDFchevron_right
Formation of Syntactic Connection in Modern German Applied Constructions
IJRASET Publication

Formation of Syntactic Connection in Modern German Applied Constructions, 2021

The article analyzes the problems of formation of syntactic connections in applied constructions in modern fiction. The author tried to justify the need to separate the applied phenomenon as a separate type of syntactic connection with specific structural and semantic features. Applied phenomenon is expressed by a stylistic style that allows one or another piece of information in a sentence to be activated and is a type of syntactic connection in the modern syntactic system of the German language that requires more consistent and systematic study and description.

View PDFchevron_right
Basic German - A Grammar and Workbook
Roberta Pamella

All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reprinted or reproduced or utilised in any form or by any electronic, mechanical, or other means, now known or hereafter invented, including photocopying and recording, or in any information storage or retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publishers.

View PDFchevron_right
Syntactic Typology and Contrastive Studies. Research on Syntactic Typology, Volume I of III Volumes. A Final Substantive Report
Avery Andrews

1972

This first volume of a three-part 1paiguage research study states and illustrates that the point of departure for comparative analysis of two languages rests on a, comprehensive typology in each of a number of areas of grammar. The report suggests that a limited set of functions can be isolated, and that the range of grammatical possibilities open to any given language within each of these areas can be narrowly delimited. The two grammar points considered here as examples are relative clause formation rules and case marking phenomena. Both issues are discussed in detail, and numerous examples from widely varying world languages are provided. For Volumes 2 and 3 of this study, see FL 003 683 and FL 003 684.

View PDFchevron_right
Phrasenstrukturen und -interpretationen im Gebrauch III Linguistische Treffen in Wrocław Vol. 12 Herausgegeben von
Artur Tworek

2017

Elżbieta Dziurewicz, Sosnowiec (Uniwersytet Śląski), Polen Creating syntagmatic patterns of idioms. A corpus-based analysis The article presents results of a corpus-based approach of selected somatisms taken from the list of Phraseologisches Optimum. Each idiom was analyzed using the German Reference Corpus (DeReKo) in terms of: frequency, possible variants, occurrence, selected modifications, grammatical categories and scope of usage. The main purpose of this analysis was to create syntagmatic patterns showing typical structure and the most frequent lexical contexts. Not only can these patterns be useful in lexicographic practice, but also in teaching German as a foreign language.

View PDFchevron_right
2. Syntactic Constructions
Peter Svenonius

Handbücher zur Sprach- und Kommunikationswissenschaft / Handbooks of Linguistics and Communication Science (HSK) 42/1, 2015

Table of contents 1. Introduction 2. Examples of constructions 3. Constructions and syntactic theory 4. Conclusion 5. References (selected)

View PDFchevron_right
Syntactic theory and the structure of English. A Minimalist approach, de Andrew Radford
Marta Carretero
View PDFchevron_right

References (53)

  1. Ágel, Vilmos. 2000. Valenztheorie. Tübingen: Gunter Narr Verlag.
  2. Baayen, Harald. 2008. Analyzing linguistic data. A practical introduction to statistics using R. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  3. Barðdal, Jóhanna. 2011. Lexical vs. structural case: a false dichotomy. Morphology 21. 619-654.
  4. Baten, Kristof. 2009. Die Wechselpräpositionen im DaF-Unterricht. Deutsch als Fremdsprache 46. 96-104.
  5. Baten, Kristof & Klaas Willems. 2012. Kasuserwerb in der Präpositionalphrase vom Standpunkt der Verarbeitbarkeitstheorie (Processability Theory). Deutsche Sprache 40. 221-239.
  6. Boas, Hans C. 2008. Determining the structure of lexical entries and grammatical constructions in Construction Grammar. Annual Review of Cognitive Linguistics 6. 113-144.
  7. Boas, Hans C. 2009. Verb meanings at the crossroads between higher-level and lower-level constructions. Lingua 120. 22-34.
  8. Breiman, Leo, Jerome Friedman, Richard Olshen & Charles Stone. 1984. Classification and regression trees. New York: Chapman & Hall.
  9. Coene, Ann & Klaas Willems. 2006. Konstruktionelle Bedeutungen. Kritische Anmerkungen zu Adele Goldbergs konstruktionsgrammatischer Bedeutungstheorie. Sprachtheorie und germanistische Linguistik 16. 1-35.
  10. Coseriu, Eugenio. 1970. Bedeutung und Bezeichnung im Lichte der strukturellen Semantik. In: Peter Hartmann & Henri Vernay (eds.), Sprachwissenschaft und Übersetzen, 104-121. München: Max Hueber.
  11. Coseriu, Eugenio. 1975. System, Norm und Rede (Spanish original 1952). In: Eugenio Coseriu, Sprachtheorie und allgemeine Sprachwissenschaft, 11-101. München: Wilhelm Fink.
  12. Coseriu, Eugenio. 2001. L'homme et son langage. Louvain & Paris: Peeters. Crawley, Michael J. 2007. The R book. Chichester: Wiley.
  13. Croft, William. 2003. Lexical rules vs. constructions: A false dichotomy. In: Hubert Cuyckens, Rene Dirven & Klaus-Uwe Panther (eds.), Motivation in language, 49-68. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
  14. Dal, Ingerid. 2014. Kurze deutsche Syntax auf historischer Grundlage, 4th rev. edn. Berlin & New York: W. de Gruyter.
  15. De Backer, Maarten & Ludovic De Cuypere. 2012. The interpretation of masculine personal nouns in German and Dutch: a comparative experimental study. Language Sciences 34(3). 253-268.
  16. Duden. 1999. Das große Wörterbuch der deutschen Sprache, 10 vols. Mannheim: Dudenverlag.
  17. Duden. 2006. Die Grammatik (7th edn.). Mannheim: Dudenverlag.
  18. Duden. 2007. Richtiges und gutes Deutsch (6th edn.). Mannheim: Dudenverlag.
  19. Eisenberg, Peter. 2006. Grundriss der deutschen Grammatik. Vol. 1: Das Wort (3th edn.). Stuttgart/Weimar: J.B. Metzler.
  20. Fillmore, Charles J. 1988. The mechanisms of 'Construction Grammar'. Berkeley Linguistics Society 14. 35-55.
  21. Fried, Mirjam & Jan-Ola Östman. 2004. Construction Grammar. A thumbnail sketch. In: Miriam Fried & Jan-Ola Östman (eds.), Construction Grammar in a cross-language perspective, 11-86. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
  22. Goldberg, Adele. 1995. Constructions: A Construction Grammar approach to argument structure. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
  23. Goldberg, Adele. 1997. The relationship between verbs and constructions. In: Marjolijn Verspoor, Kee Dong Lee & Eve Sweetser (eds.), Lexical and syntactical constructions and the construction of meaning, 383-398. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
  24. Goldberg, Adele. 2003. Constructions: a new theoretical approach to language. Trends in Cognitive Sciences 7. 219-224.
  25. Grice, H. P. 1989 (1967). Logic and conversation. In: H. P. Grice. Studies in the way of words, 22-40. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
  26. Gries, Stefan Th. 2003. Multifactorial analysis in corpus linguistics: a study of particle placement. London & New York: Continuum Press.
  27. Gries, Stefan Th. & Anatol Stefanowitsch. 2004. Extending collostructional analysis: A corpus- based perspectives on 'alternations'. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics 9. 97-129.
  28. Hopper, Paul J. & Sandra A. Thompson. 1980. Transitivity in grammar and discourse. Language 56. 251-299.
  29. Klappenbach, Ruth & Wolfgang Steinitz (eds.). 1978. Wörterbuch der deutschen Gegenwartssprache. Berlin: Akademie Verlag.
  30. Lakoff, George. 1987. Women, fire, and dangerous things: What categories reveal about the mind. Chicago/London: University of Chicago Press.
  31. Langacker, Ronald W. 1987. Foundations of Cognitive Grammar, Vol. I: Theoretical prerequisites. Stanford, Ca.: Stanford University Press.
  32. Langacker, Ronald W. 1999. Assessing the cognitive linguistic enterprise. In: Theo Janssen & Gisela Redeker (eds.), Cognitive Linguistics: foundations, scope, and methodology, 13-59. Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
  33. Levinson, Stephen C. 2000. Presumptive meanings. The theory of Generalized Conversational Implicature. Cambridge: MIT Press.
  34. Leys, Odo. 1989. Aspekt und Rektion räumlicher Präpositionen. Deutsche Sprache 17. 97-113.
  35. Lindemann, Robert. 1998. Bedeutungserweiterungen als systematische Prozesse im System der Partikelverben. In: Susan Olsen (ed.), Semantische und konzeptuelle Aspekte der Partikelverbbildung mit ein-, 105-148. Tübingen: Stauffenburg Verlag.
  36. Olsen, Susan. 1996. Pleonastische Direktionale. In: Gisela Harras & Manfred Bierwisch (eds.), Wenn die Semantik arbeitet. Klaus Baumgärtner zum 65. Geburtstag, 303-329. Tübingen: Niemeyer.
  37. Paul, Hermann. 1920. Deutsche Grammatik, Vol. IV, Teil IV: Syntax (Zweite Hälfte). Halle: Max Niemeyer.
  38. Rehbein, Ines & Josef Van Genabith. 2006. German particle verbs and pleonastic prepositions. In: Boban Arsenijevic, Timothy Baldwin & Beata Trawinski (eds.), Proceedings of the third ACL-SIGSEM workshop on prepositions, 57-64. Trento: EACL.
  39. Rostila, Jouni. 2011. Wege zur konstruktiven Kritik der Konstruktionsgrammatik. Eine Replik auf Leiss (2009a,b). In: Zeitschrift für Germanistische Linguistik 39. 120-134.
  40. Rys, Jonah, Klaas Willems & Ludovic De Cuypere. 2014. Akkusativ und Dativ nach Wechsel- präpositionen im Deutschen: eine Korpusanalyse von versinken, versenken, einsinken und einsenken in. In: Irene Doval & Barbara Lübke (eds.), Raumlinguistik und Sprachkontrast: Neue Beiträge zu spatialen Relationen im Deutschen, Englischen und Spanischen, 217-234. München: Iudicium.
  41. Serra-Borneto, Carlo. 1997. Two-way prepositions in German: image and constraints. In: Marjolijn Verspoor, Kee Dong Lee & Eve Sweetser (eds.), Lexical and syntactical constructions and the construction of meaning, 187-204. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
  42. Smith, Michael B. 1995. Semantic motivation vs. arbitrariness in grammar: toward a more general account of the dative/accusative contrast with German two-way prepositions. In: Irmengard Rauch & Gerald F. Carr (eds.), Insights in Germanic linguistics I: Methodology in transition, 293-323. Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
  43. Stefanowitsch, Anatol & Stefan Th. Gries. 2003. Collostructions: Investigating the interaction between words and constructions. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics 8. 209-243.
  44. Sylla, Bernhard. 1999. Zum Problem der Kasuswahl nach Wechselpräpositionen. Deutsch als Fremdsprache 36. 150-155.
  45. Tyler, Andrea and Vyvyan Evans. 2003. The semantics of English prepositions: spatial scenes, embodied meaning, and cognition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  46. Tagliamonte, Sali & Harald Baayen. 2012. Models, forests, and trees of York English: Was/were variation as a case study for statistical practice. Language Variation and Change 24(2). 135-178.
  47. Van der Gucht, Fieke, Klaas Willems & Ludovic De Cuypere. 2007. The iconicity of embodied meaning. Polysemy of spatial prepositions in the cognitive framework. Language Sciences 29. 733-754.
  48. Vanderschueren, Clara & Ludovic De Cuypere. 2013. The inflected/non-inflected infinitive alternation in Portuguese adverbial clauses. A corpus analysis. Language Sciences 41, Part B. 153-174.
  49. Willems, Klaas. 2001. Produktivität, syntaktische Struktur und Norm. Deskriptive Normregu laritäten nominaler Wortbildungsmuster und kontrastive Wortbildungsforschung. Zeitschrift für Germanistische Linguistik 29. 143-166.
  50. Willems, Klaas 2011a. The semantics of variable case marking (Accusative/Dative) after two-way prepositions in German locative constructions. Towards a constructionist approach. Indogermanische Forschungen 116. 324-366.
  51. Willems, Klaas 2011b. Meaning and interpretation: The semiotic similarities and differences between Cognitive Grammar and European Structural Linguistics. Semiotica 185. 1-50.
  52. Willems, Klaas. 2013. The linguistic sign at the lexicon-syntax interface: Assumptions and implications of the Generative Lexicon Theory. Semiotica 193. 1-55.
  53. Wunderlich, Dieter. 1983. On the compositionality of German prefix verbs. In: Rainer Bäuerle, Christoph Schwarze & Armin von Stechow (eds.), Meaning, use and interpretation of language, 452-465. Berlin & New York: De Gruyter.

Related papers

Approaching German syntax from a constructionist perspective
Alexander Ziem

2018

Over the last decade or so, Construction Grammar (CxG) has evolved into an influential paradigm in linguistic research. CxG subsumes a family of related constructional approaches to language including Cognitive Construction Grammar (Lakoff 1987, Goldberg 1995, Boas 2013), Berkeley Construction Grammar (Fillmore et al. 1988, Kay and Fillmore 1999, Fillmore 2013), Sign-based Construction Grammar (SBCG; Sag 2011, Boas and Sag 2012, Michaelis 2013), Radical Construction Grammar (Croft 2001, 2013), and Cognitive Grammar (Langacker 1987, 2008; Broccias 2013), among others (for an overview see Hoffmann/Trousdale 2013, Ziem and Lasch 2013, and Lasch and Ziem 2014). Although such approaches differ not only in methodological terms but also with respect to the types of linguistic phenomena addressed, they all embrace the view that both lexicon and grammar essentially consist of constructions, i.e. non-compositional (and compositional) formmeaning pairings of varying abstractness and syntagmati...

View PDFchevron_right
German: A Grammatical Sketch
Stefan Müller

This paper pro­vides an overview of the most im­por­tant gram­mat­i­cal prop­er­ties of Ger­man. A large part of the paper is con­cerend with the basic clause types of Ger­man. I start with the Topo­log­i­cal Fields Model, which is very use­ful as a de­scrip­tive tool, but – as will be shown – not suf­fi­cient for a thor­ough ac­count of Ger­man clausal struc­ture. I there­fore ex­plain ad­di­tion­al the­o­ret­i­cal as­sump­tions that were made in order to as­sign struc­ture to the ob­serv­able lin­ear se­quences. After a sketch of an anal­y­sis of the basic sen­tence pat­terns in the Sec­tions 2–5, I give an ac­count of pas­sive, case as­sign­ment, and sub­ject-​verb agree­ment in Sec­tion 6.

View PDFchevron_right
Constraint-Based Approaches to Germanic Syntax
Tibor Kiss

2001

View PDFchevron_right
English translation by the local grammar group at the CIS, Ludwig-Maximilians-Universität, Munich- Oct 2003
franz guenthner

2011

View PDFchevron_right
On extraction and extraposition in German. Edited by Uli Lutz and Jürgen Pafel
Martina Wiltschko

The Journal of Comparative Germanic Linguistics, 1998

View PDFchevron_right

Cited by

‘What and then a little robot brings it to you?’ The reactive what-x construction in spoken dialogue
Carita Paradis

English Language and Linguistics

In the process of compiling a new corpus of contemporary spoken British English, the London–Lund Corpus 2, we hit upon a construction used in the conversations recorded that had not previously been dealt with in the literature, namely the reactive what-x construction. Prompted by this discovery, we carried out a detailed analysis of its properties and constraints within the broad framework of Cognitive Linguistics, namely Construction Grammar, and found that the reactive what-x construction features the interrogative what directly followed by a phrasal or clausal complement x. Moreover, what forms one tone unit with the complement and never carries a nuclear pitch accent. The core meaning is to signal an immediate reaction to something said by another speaker in the preceding turn, and the dialogic functions include questions proper as well as expressions of disagreement. The two contributions of this study are: (i) to provide a definition of the reactive what-x construction and (ii...

View PDFchevron_right
580 California St., Suite 400
San Francisco, CA, 94104
© 2025 Academia. All rights reserved