DOCSLIB.ORG

A Construction Grammar Approach

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
A Construction Grammar Approach UC Berkeley Dissertations, Department of Linguistics Title Tough Construction in English: A Construction Grammar Approach Permalink https://escholarship.org/uc/item/0z44h6zf Author Chung, Yoon-Suk Publication Date 2001 eScholarship.org Powered by the California Digital Library University of California Tough construction in English: a Construction Grammar approach * Yoon-Suk Chung B.A. (Seoul National University) 1985 M.A. (Seoul National University) 1988 M.A. (University of California, Berkeley) 1992 A dissertation submitted in partial satisfaction of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in Linguistics in the GRADUATE DIVISION of the UNIVERSITY of CALIFORNIA, BERKELEY Committee in charge: Professor Paul Kay, Chair Professor Charles J. Fillmore Professor Yoko Hasegawa Spring 2001 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Tough construction in English: a Construction Grammar approach Copyright 2001 by Yoon-Suk Chung Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 1 Abstract Tough construction in English: a Construction Grammar approach by Yoon-Suk Chung Doctor of Philosophy in Linguistics University of California, Berkeley Professor Paul Kay, Chair This study proposes a new analysis of the Tough construction (TC) in the English language. This analysis is couched within the non-modular, non- derivational, unification and inheritance-based framework of Construction Grammar (CG). There are five major theoretical issues around which the study of the TC has revolved: (1) the identification of the TC in generative syntax as a species of either extraction or control; (2) the characterization of the tough predicate as either a raising or a control predicate; (3) the analysis of the/or-phrase as either a PP or a complementizer + lower subject; and the classification of the tough infinitival phrase as (4) a VP, an IP, or a CP, and as (5) either a complement or an adjunct. I argue that the TC is a species of neither extraction nor control, but rather of a third independent grammatical construction. I maintain that the tough predicate should be treated as a raising predicate and demonstrate how its apparent control properties can be accounted for by Brentano's thetic vs. categorical distinction. While I argue that the for-phrase should be analyzed as a Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 2 PP by default in most cases, I also identify particular grammatical conditions in which it can be interpreted otherwise. I characterize the tough infinitival phrase as a gapped VP complement, attributing its apparent adjunct properties to this syntactic peculiarity. I argue that tough sentences may be illustrations of four different lexical constructions based mainly on the interpretation of the thetic vs. categorical readings, and on the form and function of the/or-phrase. I show that these four lexical constructions inherit a single abstract Tough Coinstantiation construction, which I demonstrate is both similar to and different from the extraction and control constructions. The differences demonstrate that the Tough Coinstantiation construction should be treated as an independent structure. The commonalities indicate that these three constructions inherit perhaps a more abstract construction, more directly connected with each other than was previously assumed in frameworks other than CG. This case study casts doubts on some common assumptions of grammatical theory and illuminates the desirability of a more flexible grammatical theory such as CG. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. This small project is dedicated with my love to The Sacred and Immaculate Hearts, the only source of my salvation. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. ii Table of contents 1 Introduction ................................................................................................... 1 2 Theoretical framework: fundamentals of Construction Grammar 7 2.1 Construction Grammar, constructions, and constructs .................. 7 2.1.1 Is CG a study of idioms? ............................................................... 9 2.1.2 Types of constructions .................................................................. 10 2.2 Goals of CG.............................................................................................. 11 2.3 Psycholinguistic issues in CG ............................................................... 12 2.4 Grammatical data in CG ........................................................................ 12 2.5 Characteristics of CG.............................................................................. 13 2.5.1 Non-modular grammar ................................................................ 13 2.5.2 Generative grammar ...................................................................... 13 2.5.3 Non-derivational grammar ......................................................... 14 2.6 Formal objects of the representational system in CG...................... 15 2.6.1 Feature structures.......................................................................... 15 2.6.2 Unification ...................................................................................... 16 2.6.3 Inheritance ...................................................................................... 17 2.6.4 Constituent structures with feature structures ........................ 18 2.6.5 Feature structure trees.................................................................. 18 2.6.6 Unification procedures .................................................................. 19 2.6.7 Psycholinguistic claims about the formal representational system............................................................................................. 20 2.7 Feature architecture in CG .................................................................... 20 2.7.1 Phrasal roles .................................................................................... 22 2.7.2 Synsem features ............................................................................. 23 2.7.2.1 Relational features ............................................................. 23 2.7.2.2 Intrinsic features ................................................................ 25 2.7.2.2.1 Syntactic features ................................................. 25 2.7.2.2.1.1 Head features .................................... 25 2.7.2.2.1.2 Level .features..................................... 26 2.7.2.2.2 Semantic features ................................................. 28 2.7.3 Valence features ............................................................................. 29 2.7.3.1 Valence, valence elements, and valence sets ............. 29 2.7.3.2 Valence alternation .......................................................... 30 2.7.3.2.1 Minimal vs. full valence .................................. 30 2.7.3.2.2 Minimal vs. augmented valence ................... 31 2.7.3.3 Valence satisfaction .......................................................... 33 2.7.3.4 Types of valence satisfaction .......................................... 33 2.7.3.4.1 Local instantiation ............................................. 33 2.7.3.4.2 Distant instantiation ......................................... 34 2.7.3.4.3 Double instantiation ......................................... 34 2.7.3.4.4 Coinstantiation ................................................... 34 2.7.3.4.5 Null instantiation .............................................. 35 2.7.4 Phon features .................................................................................. 36 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 2.8 Headed constructions in CG ................................................................. 37 2.8.1 The HC construction ..................................................................... 40 2.8.2 The XH construction ..................................................................... 42 2.8.2.1 The Subject-Predicate construction .................................. 43 3 Previous approaches to the Tough and related constructions in generative grammar..................................................................................... 45 3.1 Transformational approaches ............................................................... 45 3.2 Tough movement vs. tough deletion .................................................. 47 3.2.1 The tough movement analysis: Rosenbaum 1967 Postal 1971, Chomsky 1973, and Berman 1974 .......................... 47 3.2.2 The tough deletion analysis: Ross 1967, Lasnik & Fiengo 1974 ................................................................... 51 3.2.3 Arguments for the tough movement analysis .......................... 52 3.2.4 Arguments for the tough deletion analysis .............................. 57 3.2.5 Summary......................................................................................... 60 3.3 The WH-extraction analysis .................................................................. 62 3.3.1 WH-operator movement analyses ............................................. 63 3.3.1.1 Chomsky 1977 ............................... ...................................... 63 3.3.1.2 Chomsky 1981 ....................................................................
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Feature Clusters
    Chapter 2 Feature Clusters 1. Introduction The goal of this Chapter is to address certain issues that pertain to the properties of feature clusters and the rules that govern their co-occurrences. Feature clusters come as fully specified (e.g. [+c+m] associated with people in (1a)) and ‘underspecified’ (e.g. [-c] associated with acquaintances in (1a)). Such partitioning of feature clusters raises the question of the implications of notions such as ‘underspecified’ and ‘fully specified’ in syntactic and semantic terms. The sharp contrast between the grammaticality of the middle derivation in (1b) and ungrammaticality of (1c) takes the investigation into rules that regulate the co-realization of feature clusters of the base-verb (1a). Another issue that is discussed in this Chapter is the status of arguments versus adjuncts in the Theta System. This topic is also of importance for tackling the issue of middles in Chapter 4 since – intriguingly enough – whereas (1c) is not an acceptable middle derivation in English, (1d) is. (1a) People[+c+m] don’t send expensive presents to acquaintances[-c] (1b) Expensive presents send easily. (1c) *Expensive presents send acquaintances easily. (1d) Expensive presents do not send easily to foreign countries. In section 2 of this Chapter, the properties of feature clusters with respect to syntax and semantics are examined. Section 3 sets the background for Section 4 by addressing the issue of conditions on thematic roles that have been assumed in the literature. Section 4 deals with conditions that govern the co-occurrences of feature clusters in the Theta System. The discussion in section 4 will necessitate the discussion of adjunct versus argument status of certain phrases.
    [Show full text]
  • University of California Santa Cruz Ungrammatical
    UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA SANTA CRUZ UNGRAMMATICAL DOUBLE-ISLAND SLUICING AS A DIAGNOSTIC OF LEFT-BRANCH POSITIONING A thesis submitted in partial satisfaction of the requirements for the degree of MASTER OF ARTS in LINGUISTICS by Sara Cantor June 2013 The Thesis of Sara Cantor is approved: Professor Jorge Hankamer, Chair Professor Sandy Chung Professor Pranav Anand Tyrus Miller Vice Provost and Dean of Graduate Studies Contents 1 Introduction 1 2 The Problem 3 3 The Facts 5 3.1 Islands that do not form a barrier to amelioration . 5 Complex Noun Phrase: Relative Clause . 6 Complex Noun Phrase: Noun with CP Complement . 8 CoordinateStructure . 10 Adjunct ............................ 12 3.2 Islands that do form a barrier to amelioration . 14 Subjects............................ 14 SententialSubjects . .. .. 16 Topicalization......................... 18 4 Background on Sluicing 19 4.1 MovementandDeletion ....................... 20 4.2 LF-CopyingandMerger ....................... 22 5 Proposal 23 5.1 Certain islands are barriers to island amelioration . 23 5.2 MovementorSpecifiers? ....................... 24 Movement to a Non-Specifier Position: Leftward Adjuncts 25 Movement to a Non-Specifier Position: Heavy NP Shift . 27 Base-Generated Specifiers: Small Clause Subjects . 30 Generalization about Amelioration Blocking . 32 5.3 NotaRecencyEffect ......................... 32 5.4 NotPropositionalvs.PFIslands . 33 6 Theoretical Implications 34 6.1 ImplicationsforCoordinateStructures . 34 6.2 Extraposition ............................. 36 7 Future Questions 40 7.1 Non-SluicingContexts ........................ 40 7.2 D-Linking ............................... 41 8 Conclusion 42 9 References 43 iii Abstract Ungrammatical Double-Island Sluicing as a Diagnostic of Left-Branch Positioning Sara Cantor Sluicing, as described by Ross (1969), Chung, Ladusaw, and McCloskey (1995), and Merchant (2001), ameliorates island violations. In this paper, I identify constructions in which sluicing does not ameliorate island viola- tions.
    [Show full text]
  • 1 the Syntax of Scope Anna Szabolcsi January 1999 Submitted to Baltin—Collins, Handbook of Contemporary Syntactic Theory
    1 The Syntax of Scope Anna Szabolcsi January 1999 Submitted to Baltin—Collins, Handbook of Contemporary Syntactic Theory 1. Introduction This chapter reviews some representative examples of scopal dependency and focuses on the issue of how the scope of quantifiers is determined. In particular, we will ask to what extent independently motivated syntactic considerations decide, delimit, or interact with scope interpretation. Many of the theories to be reviewed postulate a level of representation called Logical Form (LF). Originally, this level was invented for the purpose of determining quantifier scope. In current Minimalist theory, all output conditions (the theta-criterion, the case filter, subjacency, binding theory, etc.) are checked at LF. Thus, the study of LF is enormously broader than the study of the syntax of scope. The present chapter will not attempt to cover this broader topic. 1.1 Scope relations We are going to take the following definition as a point of departure: (1) The scope of an operator is the domain within which it has the ability to affect the interpretation of other expressions. Some uncontroversial examples of an operator having scope over an expression and affecting some aspect of its interpretation are as follows: Quantifier -- quantifier Quantifier -- pronoun Quantifier -- negative polarity item (NPI) Examples (2a,b) each have a reading on which every boy affects the interpretation of a planet by inducing referential variation: the planets can vary with the boys. In (2c), the teachers cannot vary with the boys. (2) a. Every boy named a planet. `for every boy, there is a possibly different planet that he named' b.
    [Show full text]
  • A PROLOG Implementation of Government-Binding Theory
    A PROLOG Implementation of Government-Binding Theory Robert J. Kuhns Artificial Intelligence Center Arthur D. Little, Inc. Cambridge, MA 02140 USA Abstrae_~t For the purposes (and space limitations) of A parser which is founded on Chomskyts this paper we only briefly describe the theories Government-Binding Theory and implemented in of X-bar, Theta, Control, and Binding. We also PROLOG is described. By focussing on systems of will present three principles, viz., Theta- constraints as proposed by this theory, the Criterion, Projection Principle, and Binding system is capable of parsing without an Conditions. elaborate rule set and subcategorization features on lexical items. In addition to the 2.1 X-Bar Theory parse, theta, binding, and control relations are determined simultaneously. X-bar theory is one part of GB-theory which captures eross-categorial relations and 1. Introduction specifies the constraints on underlying structures. The two general schemata of X-bar A number of recent research efforts have theory are: explicitly grounded parser design on linguistic theory (e.g., Bayer et al. (1985), Berwick and Weinberg (1984), Marcus (1980), Reyle and Frey (1)a. X~Specifier (1983), and Wehrli (1983)). Although many of these parsers are based on generative grammar, b. X-------~X Complement and transformational grammar in particular, with few exceptions (Wehrli (1983)) the modular The types of categories that may precede or approach as suggested by this theory has been follow a head are similar and Specifier and lagging (Barton (1984)). Moreover, Chomsky Complement represent this commonality of the (1986) has recently suggested that rule-based pre-head and post-head categories, respectively.
    [Show full text]
  • Principles and Parameters Set out from Europe
    Principles and Parameters Set Out from Europe Mark Baker MIT Linguistics 50th Anniversary, 9 December 2011 1. The Opportunity Afforded (1980-1995) The conception of universal principles plus finite discrete parameters of variation offered: The hope and challenge of simultaneously doing justice to both the similarities and the differences among languages. The discovery and expectation of patterns in crosslinguistic variation. These were first presented with respect to “medium- sized” differences in European languages: The subjacency parameter (Rizzi, 1982) The pro-drop parameter (Chomsky, 1981; Kayne, 1984; Rizzi, 1982) They were then perhaps extended to the largest differences among languages around the world: The configurationality parameter(s) (Hale, 1983) “The more languages differ, the more they are the same” Example 1: Mohawk (Baker, 1988, 1991, 1996) Mohawk seems nonconfigurational, with no “syntactic” evidence of a VP containing the object and not the subject: (1) a. Sak wa-ha-hninu-’ ne ka-nakt-a’. Sak FACT-3mS-buy-PUNC NE 3n-bed-NSF b. Sak kanakta wahahninu’ c. Kanakta’ wahahninu’ ne Sak d. Kanakta’ Sak wahahninu’ e. Wahahninu’ ne Sak ne kanakta’ f. Wahahninu’ ne kanakta’ ne Sak g. Wahahninu’ ne kanakta’ h. Kanakta’ wahahninu’ i. Sak wahahninu’ j. Wahahninu’ ne Sak k. Wahahninu. All: ‘Sak/he bought a bed/it.’ There are also no differences between subject and object in binding (Condition C, neither c- commands the other) or wh-extraction (both are islands, no “subject condition”) (Baker 1992) Mohawk is polysynthetic (agreement, noun incorporation, applicative, causative, directionals…): (2) a. Sak wa-ha-nakt-a-hninu-’ Sak FACT-3mS-bed-Ø-buy-PUNC ‘Sak bought the bed.’ 1 b.
    [Show full text]
  • Expanding the Scope of Control and Raising∗
    1 Expanding the scope of control and raising∗ Maria Polinsky and Eric Potsdam University of California at San Diego and University of Florida 1. Introduction The relationship between linguistic theory and empirical data is a proverbial two-way street, but it is not uncommon for the traffic in that street to move only in one direction. The study of raising and control is one such case, where the empirical lane has been running the risk of becoming too empty, and much theorizing has been done on the basis of English and similar languages. A statement in a recent paper is quite telling in that regard: “Our impression from the literature … is that control behaves cross-linguistically in much the same fashion [as in English]…” (Jackendoff and Culicover 2003: 519). If indeed all languages structure control in ways similar to English, cross-linguistic investigation might not be expected to have much to offer, so there has not been much impetus for pursuing them. This paper offers a new incentive to pursue empirical data on control and raising. For these phenomena, recent results from both theoretical and empirical work have coalesced in a promising way allowing us to expand the boundaries of a familiar concept. This in turn provides a stronger motivation for the development of raising/control typologies. 2. Innovations in linguistic theory and their consequence for control and raising Two main innovations in linguistic theory allow us to predict a greater range of variation in control and raising: the unification of control and raising under a single analysis as movement and the compositional view of movement.
    [Show full text]
  • Malagasy Extraposition: Evidence for PF Movement
    Nat Lang Linguist Theory https://doi.org/10.1007/s11049-021-09505-2 Malagasy extraposition Evidence for PF movement Eric Potsdam1 Received: 28 August 2018 / Accepted: 23 January 2021 © The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer Nature B.V. part of Springer Nature 2021 Abstract Extraposition is the non-canonical placement of dependents in a right- peripheral position in a clause. The Austronesian language Malagasy has basic VOXS word order, however, extraposition leads to VOSX. Extraposed constituents behave syntactically as though they were in their undisplaced position inside the predicate at both LF and Spell Out. This paper argues that extraposition is achieved via movement at Phonological Form (PF). I argue against alternatives that would derive extraposi- tion with syntactic A’ movement or stranding analyses. Within a Minimalist model of grammar, movement operations take place on the branch from Spell Out to PF and have only phonological consequences. Keywords Malagasy · Extraposition · Movement · Phonological Form · Word order 1 Introduction Extraposition—the non-canonical placement of certain constituents in a right- peripheral position—has been investigated in detail in only a small number of lan- guages. There is a considerable literature for English, SOV Germanic languages Ger- man and Dutch, and the SOV language Hindi-Urdu. The construction has not been widely explored in other, typologically distinct languages. This lacuna means that we have probably not seen the full range of options and have also not tested pro- posed analyses in the widest possible way. The goal of this paper is to investigate in some detail extraposition in Malagasy, an Austronesian language with basic VOXS word order spoken by approximately 17 million people on the island of Madagascar.
    [Show full text]
  • Subject Placement in the History of Latin
    Catalan Journal of Linguistics 16, 2017 125-161 Subject Placement in the History of Latin Lieven Danckaert CNRS/Université de Lille 3 [email protected] Received: May 2, 2017 Accepted: July 17, 2017 Abstract The aim of this paper is to provide further support for one aspect of the analysis of Classical and Late Latin clause structure proposed in Danckaert (2017a), namely the diachrony of subject place- ment. According to the relevant proposal, one needs to distinguish an earlier grammar (‘Grammar A’, whose heyday is the period from ca. 200 BC until 200 AD), in which there is no A-movement for subjects, and a later grammar (‘Grammar B’, which is on the rise from ca. 50-100 AD, and fully productive from ca. 200 AD onwards), where subjects optionally move to the inflectional layer. Assuming the variationist acquisition model of language change developed in Yang (2000, 2002a,b), I present corpus evidence which confirms that it is only in the Late Latin period that TP-internal subjects fully establish themselves as a grammatical option. Keywords: Latin; language change; word order; subject placement; grammar competition Resum. La posició del subjecte en la historia del llatí L’objectiu d’aquest article és proporcionar un suport addicional a un aspecte de l’anàlisi de l’estructura oracional del llatí clàssic i llatí tardà proposada a Danckaert (2017a), a saber, la dia- cronia de la posició del subjecte. D’acord amb la proposta rellevant, cal distingir una gramàtica anterior (‘Gramàtica A’, l’apogeu de la qual és aproximadament el període comprès entre el 200aC i el 200dC), en què no hi ha moviment-A per als subjectes, i una gramàtica posterior (‘Gramàtica B’, que sorgeix aproximadament el 50-100dC, i esdevé totalment productiva a partir del 200dC en endavant), on els subjectes es mouen opcionalment a la capa flexional.
    [Show full text]
  • Idioms-And-Expressions.Pdf
    Idioms and Expressions by David Holmes A method for learning and remembering idioms and expressions I wrote this model as a teaching device during the time I was working in Bangkok, Thai- land, as a legal editor and language consultant, with one of the Big Four Legal and Tax companies, KPMG (during my afternoon job) after teaching at the university. When I had no legal documents to edit and no individual advising to do (which was quite frequently) I would sit at my desk, (like some old character out of a Charles Dickens’ novel) and prepare language materials to be used for helping professionals who had learned English as a second language—for even up to fifteen years in school—but who were still unable to follow a movie in English, understand the World News on TV, or converse in a colloquial style, because they’d never had a chance to hear and learn com- mon, everyday expressions such as, “It’s a done deal!” or “Drop whatever you’re doing.” Because misunderstandings of such idioms and expressions frequently caused miscom- munication between our management teams and foreign clients, I was asked to try to as- sist. I am happy to be able to share the materials that follow, such as they are, in the hope that they may be of some use and benefit to others. The simple teaching device I used was three-fold: 1. Make a note of an idiom/expression 2. Define and explain it in understandable words (including synonyms.) 3. Give at least three sample sentences to illustrate how the expression is used in context.
    [Show full text]
  • Working Papers in Scandinavian Syntax 92 (2014) 1–32 ! 2
    WORKING PAPERS IN SCANDINAVIAN SYNTAX 92 Elisabet Engdahl & Filippa Lindahl Preposed object pronouns in mainland Scandinavian 1–32 Katarina Lundin An unexpected gap with unexpected restrictions 33–57 Dennis Ott Controlling for movement: Reply to Wood (2012) 58–65 Halldór Ármann Sigur!sson About pronouns 65–98 June 2014 Working Papers in Scandinavian Syntax ISSN: 1100-097x Johan Brandtler ed. Centre for Languages and Literature Box 201 S-221 00 Lund, Sweden Preface: Working Papers in Scandinavian Syntax is an electronic publication for current articles relating to the study of Scandinavian syntax. The articles appearing herein are previously unpublished reports of ongoing research activities and may subsequently appear, revised or unrevised, in other publications. The WPSS homepage: http://project.sol.lu.se/grimm/working-papers-in-scandinavian-syntax/ The 93rd volume of WPSS will be published in December 2014. Papers intended for publication should be submitted no later than October 15, 2014. Contact: Johan Brandtler, editor [email protected]! Preposed object pronouns in mainland Scandinavian* Elisabet Engdahl & Filippa Lindahl University of Gothenburg Abstract We report on a study of preposed object pronouns using the Scandinavian Dialect Corpus. In other Germanic languages, e.g. Dutch and German, preposing of un- stressed object pronouns is restricted, compared with subject pronouns. In Danish, Norwegian and Swedish, we find several examples of preposed pronouns, ranging from completely unstressed to emphatically stressed pronouns. We have investi- gated the type of relation between the anaphoric pronoun and its antecedent and found that the most common pattern is rheme-topic chaining followed by topic- topic chaining and left dislocation with preposing.
    [Show full text]
  • Remarks on the History of the Indo-European Infinitive Dorothy Disterheft University of South Carolina - Columbia, [email protected]
    University of South Carolina Scholar Commons Faculty Publications Linguistics, Program of 1981 Remarks on the History of the Indo-European Infinitive Dorothy Disterheft University of South Carolina - Columbia, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarcommons.sc.edu/ling_facpub Part of the Linguistics Commons Publication Info Published in Folia Linguistica Historica, Volume 2, Issue 1, 1981, pages 3-34. Disterheft, D. (1981). Remarks on the History of the Indo-European Infinitive. Folia Linguistica Historica, 2(1), 3-34. DOI: 10.1515/ flih.1981.2.1.3 © 1981 Societas Linguistica Europaea. This Article is brought to you by the Linguistics, Program of at Scholar Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in Faculty Publications by an authorized administrator of Scholar Commons. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Foli.lAfl//ui.tfcoFolia Linguistica HfltorlcGHistorica II/III/l 'P'P.pp. 8-U3—Z4 © 800£etruSocietae lAngu,.ticaLinguistica Etlropaea.Evropaea, 1981lt)8l REMARKSBEMARKS ONON THETHE HISTORYHISTOKY OFOF THETHE INDO-EUROPEANINDO-EUROPEAN INFINITIVEINFINITIVE i DOROTHYDOROTHY DISTERHEFTDISTERHEFT I 1.1. INTRODUCTIONINTRODUCTION WithWith thethe exceptfonexception ofof Indo-IranianIndo-Iranian (Ur)(Hr) andand CelticCeltic allall historicalhistorical Indo-EuropeanIndo-European (IE)(IE) subgroupssubgroups havehave a morphologicalIymorphologically distinctdistinct II infinitive.Infinitive. However,However, nono singlesingle proto-formproto-form cancan bebe reconstructedreconstructed
    [Show full text]
  • Meanings of Determiners Heading Non-Topic Dps to the Meanings of the Corresponding Topics
    Acknowledgements First of all, I would like to thank my teachers and supervisors Manfred Bierwisch and Reinhard Blutner. Without their sympathetic help in a personally very difficult situation, I would have been unable even to start writing this dissertation. Besides this, they patiently supported me with their advice and experience in every stage of my work. The people that inspired me with discussions and comments are so numerous that there is no hope to mention all of them. Among them are Kai Alter, Daniel Büring, Johannes Dölling, Bernhard Drubig, Hans Martin Gärtner, Edward Göbbel, Michael Herweg, Caroline Heycock, Helen de Hoop, Inga Kohlhof, Manfred Krifka, Annette Lessmöllmann, Christine Maaßen, André Meinunger, Marga Reis, Michal Starke, Markus Steinbach, Wolfgang Sternefeld, Anatoli Strigin, Hubert Truckenbrodt, Enric Vallduví, Ralf Vogel, Chris Wilder, Susanne Winkler, Werner Wolff, Henk Zeevat, and Ede Zimmermann. I am indebted to the "Max-Planck-Gesellschaft" for its financial support. Special thanks go to Elena Demke, Annette Lessmöllmann, Anatoli Strigin, and Chris Wilder for correcting my English. All remaining mistakes are of course subject to my own responsibility. Last but not least, I thank my parents and my brother for everything. Table of Contents 1 Introduction . 1 2 The Dynamic Framework . 5 2.1 Donkey Sentences and Cross-sentential Anaphora . 5 2.2 Montague Semantics and File Change Semantics: A Comparison . 7 2.2.1 Montague Semantics: The General Picture . 7 2.2.2 File Change Semantics: An Overview . 11 2.2.2.1 The Strategy . 11 2.2.2.2 Files . 13 2.2.2.3 LF-Construal . 13 2.2.2.4 The Interpretation of LF .
    [Show full text]