Constructional Approaches to Syntactic Structures in German最新文献

英文中文

Constructions, compositionality, and the system of German particle verbs with ‘an’ 德语助动词“an”的结构、组合和系统

Constructional Approaches to Syntactic Structures in German

Pub Date : 2018-07-09 DOI: 10.1515/9783110457155-008

Marc Felfe

引用次数: 0

Frames, verbs, and constructions: German constructions with verbs of stealing 框架、动词和结构:带有偷窃动词的德语结构

Constructional Approaches to Syntactic Structures in German

Pub Date : 2018-07-09 DOI: 10.1515/9783110457155-010

R. Dux

引用次数: 10

Frontmatter

Constructional Approaches to Syntactic Structures in German

Pub Date : 2018-07-09 DOI: 10.1515/9783110457155-fm

引用次数: 0

The Case for Caseless Prepositional Constructions with voller in German 德语无格介词结构的动词格

Constructional Approaches to Syntactic Structures in German

Pub Date : 2018-07-09 DOI: 10.1515/9783110457155-007

Amir Zeldes

In this article I will focus on the German deadjectival quasi-preposition voller ‘full of’, which appears to occur with genitive, dative, accusative and even nominative argument forms, e.g.: eine Stadt voller Kindergen? ‘a city full of children’, eine Badewanne voller Wasserdat? ‘a tub full of water’, ein Koffer voller böse Gräuelacc? ‘a suitcase full of evil horrors’, Menschen voller Aberglaubenom? ‘people full of superstition’. Using the largest sample of corpus examples to date, normative dictionaries, and native speakers’ forum discussions on the subject, I will defend an analysis of constructions involving voller as prepositional constructions without an unambiguous case assignment. Overt case in specific environments is determined not by the head but by the argument’s morphosyntax, including the properties of number, gender, morphological class and the presence of attributive adjectives. Inconvenient forms will be shown to be systematically avoided and replaced by alternative constructions. I describe a unification based, constructional approach with underspecified case assignment to capture the data using the formalism of Sign-Based Construction Grammar (SBCG).

在这篇文章中，我将重点关注德语的形容词类介词voller“full of”，它出现在所有格、与格、宾格甚至主格的论证形式中，例如:eine Stadt voller Kindergen?“一个充满孩子的城市”，巴德万内·沃勒·沃瑟达特?“一桶水”，ein Koffer voller böse Gräuelacc?“一个装满邪恶恐怖的手提箱”，Menschen voller Aberglaubenom?“充满迷信的人”。使用迄今为止最大的语料库示例样本，规范词典和母语人士关于该主题的论坛讨论，我将捍卫涉及voller作为介词结构的结构分析，而没有明确的案例分配。特定环境中的显性格不是由头部决定的，而是由论点的形态句法决定的，包括数字、性别、形态类和形容词的存在。不方便的形式将被系统地避免，并被替代的结构所取代。我描述了一种基于统一的构造方法，该方法使用基于符号的构造语法(SBCG)的形式来捕获数据，该方法具有未指定的case分配。

{"title":"The Case for Caseless Prepositional Constructions with voller in German","authors":"Amir Zeldes","doi":"10.1515/9783110457155-007","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110457155-007","url":null,"abstract":"In this article I will focus on the German deadjectival quasi-preposition voller ‘full of’, which appears to occur with genitive, dative, accusative and even nominative argument forms, e.g.: eine Stadt voller Kindergen? ‘a city full of children’, eine Badewanne voller Wasserdat? ‘a tub full of water’, ein Koffer voller böse Gräuelacc? ‘a suitcase full of evil horrors’, Menschen voller Aberglaubenom? ‘people full of superstition’. Using the largest sample of corpus examples to date, normative dictionaries, and native speakers’ forum discussions on the subject, I will defend an analysis of constructions involving voller as prepositional constructions without an unambiguous case assignment. Overt case in specific environments is determined not by the head but by the argument’s morphosyntax, including the properties of number, gender, morphological class and the presence of attributive adjectives. Inconvenient forms will be shown to be systematically avoided and replaced by alternative constructions. I describe a unification based, constructional approach with underspecified case assignment to capture the data using the formalism of Sign-Based Construction Grammar (SBCG).","PeriodicalId":408755,"journal":{"name":"Constructional Approaches to Syntactic Structures in German","volume":"20 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2018-07-09","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"114244650","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 0

Argument omissions in multiple German corpora 多德语语料库中的论点遗漏

Constructional Approaches to Syntactic Structures in German

Pub Date : 2018-07-09 DOI: 10.1515/9783110457155-006

Josef Ruppenhofer

引用次数: 6

Comparing Comparative Correlatives: The German vs. English construction network 比较关联词:德语与英语建筑网络

Constructional Approaches to Syntactic Structures in German

Pub Date : 2018-07-09 DOI: 10.1515/9783110457155-005

Thomas Hoffmann

引用次数: 4

The argument structure of psych-verbs: A quantitative corpus study on cognitive entrenchment 心理动词的论元结构:认知巩固的数量语料库研究

Constructional Approaches to Syntactic Structures in German

Pub Date : 2018-07-09 DOI: 10.1515/9783110457155-002

Stefan Engelberg

Psych-verbs exhibit a fairly large variation in argument structure patterns, as the following examples from German show. Many of these verbs allow alternations between stimuli and experiencers in subject position (1a vs. 1b), between nominal and clausal realizations of arguments (1a vs. 1c, 1b vs. 1d), between inanimate and agent-like animate stimuli (1a vs. 1e), between simple stimuli and “split-stimuli” that are spread out over two constituents, a subject NP and a PP (1a vs. 1f), and between explicit and implicit argument realization (1b vs. 1g).

心理动词在论点结构模式上表现出相当大的变化，如下面的德语例子所示。这些动词中的许多都允许在主语位置的刺激和体验者之间(1a vs. 1b)，在论据的名义和小句实现之间(1a vs. 1c, 1b vs. 1d)，在无生命的和类主体的有生命的刺激之间(1a vs. 1e)，在简单的刺激和分散在两个成分上的“分裂刺激”之间，一个主语NP和一个PP (1a vs. 1f)，以及在显性和隐性的论点实现之间(1b vs. 1g)。

引用次数: 10

Type and token frequency effects on developing constructional productivity: The case of the German sein ‘be’ + present participle construction 类型和表征频率对构建生产力的影响:德语“be”+现在分词结构的例子

Constructional Approaches to Syntactic Structures in German

Pub Date : 2018-07-09 DOI: 10.1515/9783110457155-009

K. Madlener

引用次数: 0

Approaching German syntax from a constructionist perspective 从构造主义的角度看德语语法

Constructional Approaches to Syntactic Structures in German

Pub Date : 2018-07-09 DOI: 10.1515/9783110457155-001

H. Boas, Alexander Ziem

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 syntagmatic complexity. Building on this basic assumption, this volume investigates a variety of grammatical phenomena in German from a constructional point of view, including argument structure constructions, prepositional constructions, comparative correlatives, and relative clause constructions. Each contribution is anchored in a constructional approach to language, and the constructional nature of each phenomenon addressed is demonstrated in detail. Why German? Since its beginnings in the 1980s, constructional research has primarily focused on English, although languages such as Czech, Finnish, French, and Japanese have also received considerable attention. Since the 2000s, there has also been a significant amount of constructional research on German, including Järventausta (2006), Imo (2007), Nikula (2007), Chang (2008), Cloene and Willems (2006a, b), Deppermann (2007), Rostila (2008), Felfe (2012), Zeldes (2012), Hein (2015), and Lasch (2017); as well as a number of edited volumes such as Fischer and Stefanowitsch (2006), Stefanowitsch and Fischer (2008), Günthner and Bücker (2009), Engelberg et al. (2011), Lasch and Ziem (2011),

在过去的十多年里，构式语法(CxG)已经发展成为语言学研究中一个有影响力的范式。CxG包含了一系列相关的语言建构方法，包括认知建构语法(Lakoff 1987, Goldberg 1995, Boas 2013)、伯克利建构语法(Fillmore et al. 1988, Kay and Fillmore 1999, Fillmore 2013)、基于符号的建构语法(SBCG;Sag 2011, Boas和Sag 2012, Michaelis 2013)，激进结构语法(Croft 2001, 2013)和认知语法(Langacker 1987, 2008;brocias 2013)等(有关概述，请参阅Hoffmann/Trousdale 2013, Ziem and Lasch 2013以及Lasch and Ziem 2014)。尽管这些方法不仅在方法论上有所不同，而且在涉及的语言现象类型上也有所不同，但它们都认为词汇和语法本质上都是由结构组成的，即不同抽象性和句法复杂性的非构成(和构成)形式意义配对。建立在这个基本的假设，这卷调查各种语法现象在德国从结构的角度来看，包括论点结构结构，介词结构，比较关联词，和关系从句结构。每个贡献都是锚定在语言的结构方法，并详细说明了每个现象的结构性质。为什么德国?自20世纪80年代开始，结构研究主要集中在英语上，尽管捷克语、芬兰语、法语和日语等语言也受到了相当大的关注。自2000年代以来，对德语的建构研究也相当多，包括Järventausta(2006)、Imo(2007)、Nikula(2007)、Chang(2008)、Cloene and Willems (2006a, b)、Deppermann(2007)、Rostila(2008)、Felfe(2012)、Zeldes(2012)、Hein(2015)和Lasch (2017);以及一些编辑过的书籍，如Fischer and Stefanowitsch(2006)、Stefanowitsch and Fischer(2008)、g nthner and b cker(2009)、Engelberg et al.(2011)、Lasch and Ziem(2011)、

{"title":"Approaching German syntax from a constructionist perspective","authors":"H. Boas, Alexander Ziem","doi":"10.1515/9783110457155-001","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110457155-001","url":null,"abstract":"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 syntagmatic complexity. Building on this basic assumption, this volume investigates a variety of grammatical phenomena in German from a constructional point of view, including argument structure constructions, prepositional constructions, comparative correlatives, and relative clause constructions. Each contribution is anchored in a constructional approach to language, and the constructional nature of each phenomenon addressed is demonstrated in detail. Why German? Since its beginnings in the 1980s, constructional research has primarily focused on English, although languages such as Czech, Finnish, French, and Japanese have also received considerable attention. Since the 2000s, there has also been a significant amount of constructional research on German, including Järventausta (2006), Imo (2007), Nikula (2007), Chang (2008), Cloene and Willems (2006a, b), Deppermann (2007), Rostila (2008), Felfe (2012), Zeldes (2012), Hein (2015), and Lasch (2017); as well as a number of edited volumes such as Fischer and Stefanowitsch (2006), Stefanowitsch and Fischer (2008), Günthner and Bücker (2009), Engelberg et al. (2011), Lasch and Ziem (2011),","PeriodicalId":408755,"journal":{"name":"Constructional Approaches to Syntactic Structures in German","volume":"88 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2018-07-09","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"125058870","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 6

Case alternation in argument structure constructions with prepositional verbs: A case study in corpus-based constructional analysis 介词动词论元结构结构的格变:基于语料库结构分析的个案研究

Constructional Approaches to Syntactic Structures in German

Pub Date : 2018-07-09 DOI: 10.1515/9783110457155-003

K. Willems, L. D. Cuypere, Jonah Rys

In present-day German, nine “two-way prepositions” can take either the accusative (ACC) or dative (DAT), viz. an, auf, hinter, in, neben, uber, unter, vor and zwischen. In traditional explanations, ACC is associated with ‘motion’/‘directionality’ and DAT with ‘location’/‘state’. A similar conceptual contrast can be found in many modern accounts, which oppose ‘focus on the path’ and ‘endpoint focus’. While such a contrast may be satisfactory with respect to verbs such as gehen ‘go’, laufen ‘run’, wandern ‘wander’ etc., the ACC/DAT alternation with more complex verbal constructions cannot be accounted for in this way. This article provides an alternative explanation, which is corpus-based and couched in a constructional framework. The case study focuses on two prepositional verbs: aufsetzen auf ‘set down on, land on, base on’ and aufnehmen in ‘allow (as a member), incorporate, shelter, assimilate mentally’. These prepositional verbs were selected because they figure prominently in the literature on case alternation with two-way prepositions and exhibit interesting formal and semantic differences, which are potentially relevant from a constructional point of view: aufsetzen auf occurs in transitive and intransitive sentences, aufnehmen in only in transitive sentences, and they both have a range of different senses. The data is drawn from the Mannheim German Reference Corpus (DeReKo). The sentences (aufsetzen auf: N = 644; aufnehmen in: N = 454) are annotated for a set of morpho¬syntactic and lexical-semantic factors, viz. transitivity, voice, perfect tense and conventionalized senses. Classification trees are used to gauge the effects of the factors on the case alternation. The quantitative findings are interpreted according to a “three-level” approach to meaning based on the distinction between i) the general systemic meaning of a prepositional verb as part of the lexicon, ii) its conventionalized or default senses which pertain to “normal language use” and iii) its unique, referential readings in particular contextualized occurrences. The analysis shows that a constructional account makes it possible to determine the extent of the effects of the various factors on the case alternation in a quantitatively satisfactory and qualitatively innovative way. At the same time, the analysis leaves room to incorporate assumptions about the meaning of ACC and DAT proposed in previous accounts, in particular Paul (1920).

在现代德语中，9个“双向介词”既可以是宾格(ACC)也可以是格格(DAT)，即an、auf、hinter、In、neben、uber、unter、vor和zwischen。在传统的解释中，ACC与“运动”/“方向性”有关，而DAT与“位置”/“状态”有关。类似的概念对比可以在许多现代的说法中找到，它们反对“关注路径”和“关注终点”。虽然这样的对比在动词方面可能令人满意，如gehen ' go '， laufen ' run '， wandern ' wander '等，但ACC/DAT与更复杂的动词结构的交替不能用这种方式来解释。本文提供了另一种解释，这种解释是基于语料库的，并在结构框架中进行了修饰。案例研究的重点是两个介词动词:aufsetzen auf“落在，落在，基于”和aufnehmen在“允许(作为成员)，合并，庇护，精神上同化”。选择这些介词动词是因为它们在关于双向介词格交替的文献中占有重要地位，并且表现出有趣的形式和语义差异，这些差异从结构的角度来看可能是相关的:aufsetzen auf出现在及物句和不及物句中，而aufnehmen只出现在及物句中，并且它们都有一系列不同的意义。数据来自曼海姆德语参考语料库(DeReKo)。句子(aufsetzen auf: N = 644;本文从及物性、语态、完成时和规格化意义等方面，对文章的词法句法和词汇语义因素进行了注解。分类树用于评估因素对病例交替的影响。定量研究结果是根据“三个层次”的意义分析方法来解释的，该方法基于以下三个层次的区别:1)介词动词作为词汇的一部分的一般系统意义，2)它属于“正常语言使用”的约定俗成或默认意义，3)它在特定情境下的独特参考阅读。分析表明，一种建构性的叙述可以以一种数量上令人满意和质量上具有创新性的方式确定各种因素对案件变更的影响程度。与此同时，该分析留下了空间，可以纳入以前的帐户中提出的关于ACC和DAT含义的假设，特别是Paul(1920)。

{"title":"Case alternation in argument structure constructions with prepositional verbs: A case study in corpus-based constructional analysis","authors":"K. Willems, L. D. Cuypere, Jonah Rys","doi":"10.1515/9783110457155-003","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110457155-003","url":null,"abstract":"In present-day German, nine “two-way prepositions” can take either the accusative (ACC) or dative (DAT), viz. an, auf, hinter, in, neben, uber, unter, vor and zwischen. In traditional explanations, ACC is associated with ‘motion’/‘directionality’ and DAT with ‘location’/‘state’. A similar conceptual contrast can be found in many modern accounts, which oppose ‘focus on the path’ and ‘endpoint focus’. While such a contrast may be satisfactory with respect to verbs such as gehen ‘go’, laufen ‘run’, wandern ‘wander’ etc., the ACC/DAT alternation with more complex verbal constructions cannot be accounted for in this way. This article provides an alternative explanation, which is corpus-based and couched in a constructional framework. The case study focuses on two prepositional verbs: aufsetzen auf ‘set down on, land on, base on’ and aufnehmen in ‘allow (as a member), incorporate, shelter, assimilate mentally’. These prepositional verbs were selected because they figure prominently in the literature on case alternation with two-way prepositions and exhibit interesting formal and semantic differences, which are potentially relevant from a constructional point of view: aufsetzen auf occurs in transitive and intransitive sentences, aufnehmen in only in transitive sentences, and they both have a range of different senses. The data is drawn from the Mannheim German Reference Corpus (DeReKo). The sentences (aufsetzen auf: N = 644; aufnehmen in: N = 454) are annotated for a set of morpho¬syntactic and lexical-semantic factors, viz. transitivity, voice, perfect tense and conventionalized senses. Classification trees are used to gauge the effects of the factors on the case alternation. The quantitative findings are interpreted according to a “three-level” approach to meaning based on the distinction between i) the general systemic meaning of a prepositional verb as part of the lexicon, ii) its conventionalized or default senses which pertain to “normal language use” and iii) its unique, referential readings in particular contextualized occurrences. The analysis shows that a constructional account makes it possible to determine the extent of the effects of the various factors on the case alternation in a quantitatively satisfactory and qualitatively innovative way. At the same time, the analysis leaves room to incorporate assumptions about the meaning of ACC and DAT proposed in previous accounts, in particular Paul (1920).","PeriodicalId":408755,"journal":{"name":"Constructional Approaches to Syntactic Structures in German","volume":"65 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2018-07-09","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"126480056","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 5

下一页尾页

类型

全部化学•材料生命科学医学物理工程技术环境•农林材料科学地球科学法学管理学化学环境科学与生态学计算机科学教育学经济学农林科学人文科学生物学数学物理与天体物理心理学综合性期刊其他工业工程理学历史学农学文学信息工程

数据库

全部 ACS Publications Elsevier ieeexplore Springer The Royal Society of Chemistry Wiley

期刊

Constructional Approaches to Syntactic Structures in German

全部 Acc. Chem. Res. ACS Applied Bio Materials ACS Appl. Electron. Mater. ACS Appl. Energy Mater. ACS Appl. Mater. Interfaces ACS Appl. Nano Mater. ACS Appl. Polym. Mater. ACS BIOMATER-SCI ENG ACS Catal. ACS Cent. Sci. ACS Chem. Biol. ACS Chemical Health & Safety ACS Chem. Neurosci. ACS Comb. Sci. ACS Earth Space Chem. ACS Energy Lett. ACS Infect. Dis. ACS Macro Lett. ACS Mater. Lett. ACS Med. Chem. Lett. ACS Nano ACS Omega ACS Photonics ACS Sens. ACS Sustainable Chem. Eng. ACS Synth. Biol. Anal. Chem. BIOCHEMISTRY-US Bioconjugate Chem. BIOMACROMOLECULES Chem. Res. Toxicol. Chem. Rev. Chem. Mater. CRYST GROWTH DES ENERG FUEL Environ. Sci. Technol. Environ. Sci. Technol. Lett. Eur. J. Inorg. Chem. IND ENG CHEM RES Inorg. Chem. J. Agric. Food. Chem. J. Chem. Eng. Data J. Chem. Educ. J. Chem. Inf. Model. J. Chem. Theory Comput. J. Med. Chem. J. Nat. Prod. J PROTEOME RES J. Am. Chem. Soc. LANGMUIR MACROMOLECULES Mol. Pharmaceutics Nano Lett. Org. Lett. ORG PROCESS RES DEV ORGANOMETALLICS J. Org. Chem. J. Phys. Chem. J. Phys. Chem. A J. Phys. Chem. B J. Phys. Chem. C J. Phys. Chem. Lett. Analyst Anal. Methods Biomater. Sci. Catal. Sci. Technol. Chem. Commun. Chem. Soc. Rev. CHEM EDUC RES PRACT CRYSTENGCOMM Dalton Trans. Energy Environ. Sci. ENVIRON SCI-NANO ENVIRON SCI-PROC IMP ENVIRON SCI-WAT RES Faraday Discuss. Food Funct. Green Chem. Inorg. Chem. Front. Integr. Biol. J. Anal. At. Spectrom. J. Mater. Chem. A J. Mater. Chem. B J. Mater. Chem. C Lab Chip Mater. Chem. Front. Mater. Horiz. MEDCHEMCOMM Metallomics Mol. Biosyst. Mol. Syst. Des. Eng. Nanoscale Nanoscale Horiz. Nat. Prod. Rep. New J. Chem. Org. Biomol. Chem. Org. Chem. Front. PHOTOCH PHOTOBIO SCI PCCP Polym. Chem.

﹀