Loading...

Facets of Linguistics

Proceedings of the 14 th Norddeutsches Linguistisches Kolloquium 2013 in Halle an der Saale

by Anne Ammermann (Volume editor) Alexander Brock (Volume editor) Jana Pflaeging (Volume editor) Peter Schildhauer (Volume editor)
Conference proceedings 250 Pages

Summary

This volume aims to represent the breadth and depth of current linguistic research of predominantly young linguists and thus to produce a snapshot of topical linguistic issues and trends. Therefore, it presents papers from systemic linguistics next to ones on text linguistics, sociolinguistics and the didactics of language. The volume is based on talks given at the 14th Norddeutsches Linguistisches Kolloquium 2013 in Halle an der Saale. The book contains 14 contributions in English, and three in German.

Table Of Contents

  • Cover
  • Title
  • Copyright
  • About the book
  • This eBook can be cited
  • Table of Contents
  • Language System and Language Use
  • On the Evaluation of Morphological Form of the German Universal Quantifier
  • 1. Introduction
  • 2. Preliminary Observation: German Adjective Inflection and Definiteness
  • 3. A Phrasal Set-Up for the Quantificational Domain in Recursive Quantification
  • 4. Quantifier Inflection in the Definiteness Domain
  • 5. The Locus of Application of Inflectional Evaluation
  • 6. Speculations on the Purpose of Overt Coding of Definiteness
  • 7. Conclusion
  • References
  • Amplifiers in Native and Non-Native Speaker Language Performance
  • 1. Introduction
  • 2. State of Research
  • 3. Theoretical Framework: The Contrastive Interlanguage Analysis
  • 4. Variables
  • 4.1 Preliminary Remarks
  • 4.2 Amplifiers
  • 5. Corpora
  • 6. Results
  • 6.1 The Use of Amplifiers
  • 6.2 Results in Context
  • 6.3 Sociolinguistic Variables
  • 7. Conclusion
  • Sources
  • Acknowledgements
  • The Faces of the German Adverb garantiert
  • Introduction
  • The Readings of garantiert as an Adverb
  • Garantiert as an Adjective-Modifying Adverb
  • Garantiert as a Modifier of V or S
  • Garantiert as a Manner Adverb
  • Garantiert as an Epistemic Adverb
  • Garantiert as an S-Adverb: Emphasising or Relativising?
  • A Diachronic Sketch of Adverbial garantiert
  • Conclusion
  • References
  • Usage, Status, and Function of Stand-Alone Ish
  • 1. Introduction
  • 2. Historical Development and Present-Day Usages of -ish
  • 3. Ish as a Free Morpheme
  • 3.1 Methodological Considerations
  • 3.2 Different Kinds of Stand-Alone Ish
  • 3.3 Semi-Free Ish
  • 3.5 Free Ish
  • 4. Possible Functions of Ish
  • 4.1 Afterthought Ish
  • 4.2 Ish as a Downtoner and a Means for Politeness
  • 4.3 Ish as a hedge
  • 5. Summary
  • References
  • Corpora Used
  • Text and Context
  • On the Corruption of Text Types. The Cases of Comedy and Readers’ Commentaries in Online Newspapers
  • I. Introduction
  • II. Corrupting Text Types 1: Comedy
  • III. Corrupting Text Types 2: Readers’ Commentaries
  • IV. Text Type Corruption – Reasons and Results
  • V. Summary
  • References
  • “What’s on Your Mind?” and Who Do You Want to Tell? Negotiating Collapsed Contexts and Multiple Audiences in Facebook Status Updates
  • 1. Introduction
  • 2. Previous Studies
  • 3. Methodological Background
  • 4. Co- and Contextual Features
  • Reader Address
  • Affordances and Their Impact on Topics, Speech Acts and Self-References
  • 5. Language Choice and Alternation
  • Generic Reader Address
  • Specified Reader Address
  • 6. Conclusion
  • Literature
  • On Irony-in-Interaction
  • 1. Introduction
  • 2. Pragmatic Accounts of Irony
  • 2.1 The Standard Pragmatic Account
  • 2.2 Irony as (Im)polite Criticism
  • 2.3 The Echoic Account
  • 3. Commonalities and Limitations of Pragmatic Accounts
  • 4. An Example of Irony-in-Interaction
  • 5. Conclusions
  • Literature
  • Die Textsorte ministerielles Grußwort in Informationsbroschüren zum Nachbarrecht aus systemtheoretischer Perspektive
  • 1. Einleitung
  • 2. Systemrationalität und akteurtheoretische Ergänzung
  • 2.1 Systeme und Systemrationalität
  • 2.2 Akteurtheoretische Ergänzungen
  • 3. Textsorten und Systemtheorie
  • 3.1 Textsorten in der Kommunikationsstruktur von Systemen
  • 3.2 Funktionsbegriffe
  • 4. Das ministerielle Grußwort im Spannungsfeld zwischen Politik, Recht und der Akteurkonstellation Nachbarschaft – Ein Beispiel
  • 4.1 Die Textsorte „ministerielles Grußwort in Informationsbroschüren“
  • 4.2 Der Bezug zu den teilsystemischen Orientierungshorizonten Politik und Recht
  • 4.3 Der Bezug zur Akteurkonstellation Nachbarschaft
  • 4.4 Die Funktionen des ministeriellen Grußwortes in Informationsbroschüren
  • 5. Fazit
  • Literatur
  • The Textual Functions of Personal Weblogs. Stability, Diversity, and Change
  • 1. Introduction
  • 2. Current Research
  • 3. Study Description
  • 3.1 Data
  • 3.2 Theoretical Framework: Textual Function as a Complex Task
  • 3.3 Methodology: Combining Grounded Theory and Linguistic Methods
  • 4. Selected Textual Functions
  • 4.1 Filter
  • 4.2 Update
  • 4.3 Sharing Experience
  • 5. The Diachronic Dimension: Stability, Diversity, and Change
  • 6. Conclusion
  • References
  • Methods of Teaching and Research
  • Umgang mit lernungewohnten Teilnehmern mit z.T. fossilisierten Sprachbeständen auf niedrigem Niveau. Portfolioarbeit in Förderkursen
  • Einleitung
  • Das Integrationskurssystem und der Förderkurs
  • Fossilisierung
  • Lernungewohntheit (LUG)
  • Das Sprachlernportfolio als Lösungsansatz
  • 1. Das Portfolio sollte bereits zu Beginn des Kurses eingeführt werden (1. Woche).
  • 2. Die Ziele des Portfolios sollten von Anfang an, die Ziele einzelner Aufgaben kontinuierlich transparent gemacht werden.
  • 3. Am Portfolio arbeiten alle Lehrkräfte eines Förderkurses regelmäßig mit.
  • 4. Die Portfolioarbeit sollte ein fester Bestandteil des Unterrichts sein, bestenfalls mit stabilen, regelmäßigen Terminen.
  • 5. Interesse seitens der Lehrkraft am Portfolio der Teilnehmer ist häufig erwünscht, Kontrolle dagegen nicht!
  • 6. Anfangs kann ein (sprachlich) einfaches, stark gesteuertes Portfolio genutzt werden.
  • 7. Mit der Zeit können Seiten aus komplexeren Portfolios genutzt werden.
  • 8. Im fortgeschrittenen Unterricht können Portfolioseiten zusammen mit den Teilnehmern erarbeitet werden.
  • 9. Neue Kursteilnehmer müssen jeweils separat in die Portfolioarbeit eingeführt werden.
  • 10. Die Arbeit am Portfolio sollte fakultativ sein.
  • Abschluss
  • Literatur
  • Fictional Orality as a Challenge for the Translator
  • 1. Preliminaries
  • 2. Fictional Orality Walter Moers’ Die Stadt der Träumenden Bücher
  • 3. Fictional Orality and Its Translation: The Example of Walter Moers’ Die Stadt der Träumenden Bücher
  • 3.1 On the French Translation
  • 3.2. On the Italian Translation
  • 4. Conclusion
  • Corpus
  • Literature
  • The Morphilo Toolset. Handling the Diversity of English Historical Texts
  • Introduction
  • Towards a Quantitative Diachronic Model in English Derivational Morphology
  • How does Morphilo Work: Data Structures and Architecture
  • Outlook
  • General Discussion
  • Summary
  • References
  • Promoting the Visualisation of Linguistic Theories
  • 1. Introduction
  • 2. Pictures of Knowledge Transfer: Typological Considerations
  • 2.1 Image versus Picture
  • 2.2 Pictures of Knowledge Transfer
  • 2.2.1 Representational (or Realistic) Pictures
  • 2.2.2 Pictorial Analogies
  • 2.2.3 Logical (or Arbitrary) Pictures
  • 3. The State of the Art: Pedagogically-Motivated Pictures at University Level
  • 3.1 Visualisations in Academic Disciplines other than (English) Linguistics
  • 3.2 Visualisations in English Linguistics
  • 4. A Suggestion: Visualising Linguistic Theories
  • 5. Conclusion
  • References
  • Language Attitudes and Sociolinguistics
  • Revisiting Spanglish
  • 1. Introduction
  • 2. Spanglish – Definitional Attempts
  • 2.1 The Cultural Dimension of Spanglish
  • 2.2 The Linguistic Dimension of Spanglish
  • 2.3 Synonyms of Spanglish
  • 2.4 Continuum Models of Spanglish
  • 3. A Case Study for Northwest Arkansas
  • 3.1 Study Description
  • 3.2 Spanglish or English-Spanish?
  • 4. Conclusion
  • References
  • Was uns Begriffe wie Anglizismus, Engländerei, Denglisch etc. über Lehnbeziehungen und die Einstellungen der Sprachteilhaber verraten
  • 1. Einleitung
  • 2. Zur Genese von Anglicism, Anglicisme, Anglizismus
  • 2.1 Die Entstehung von Anglicisme in Frankreich
  • 2.2 Die Entstehung von Anglizismus im Deutschen
  • 2.3 Die Entstehung diaevaluativ markierter Begriffe
  • 2.3.1 Engländerei
  • 2.3.2 Amerikafimmel
  • 2.3.3 Denglisch, Germang, Engleutsch …
  • 2.4 Soziohistorische Einordnung der Begriffe
  • 3. Zusammenfassung
  • Literatur
  • Wörterbücher
  • The Importance of Language Attitudes Regarding First-Language-Based Education in South Africa. Case Study in Gauteng and Northwest Province
  • 1. Introduction
  • 2. Theoretical Background of Language Policy
  • 3. Historical and legal background of language policy in South Africa
  • 4. Language Profile of the Republic of South Africa and Methodology
  • 5. Effects of language attitude on First Language (L1) teaching in South Africa
  • 6. Conclusion
  • 7. References
  • Communicative Space and Language Use in the Age of Globalized Migration
  • Introduction
  • Background Information
  • The Interconnection of Space and Language Use
  • Space and Language: The Construction of the Repertoire
  • The Country of Origin
  • Previous Stages of Migration
  • Italy: The Locality of Arrival
  • Language Use and Space: The Construction of Communicative Space
  • Local Level
  • Translocal and Transnational Level
  • Space and Multilingualism in Traditional Sociolinguistic Research
  • Conclusions
  • References
  • Contributors
  • Series Index

| 9 →

Language System and Language Use

| 11 →

On the Evaluation of Morphological Form of the German Universal Quantifier*

Marco Benincasa

Abstract

The primary aim of this paper is to propose a phrasal set-up of the quantificational domain in the nominal hierarchy of projections that accounts for the differing linearizational and inflectional properties of strong and weak quantifiers in German in the sense of Milsark (1974, 1977). I argue that the German bare vs. inflected universal quantifier dichotomy constitutes a solid basis for the proposal of two diverging quantifier phrases (QP). Additionally, evidence is put forth for the existence of two discrete possessive heads (Poss0). The main difference between these two instances will be found in their value of grammatical definiteness due to their varying positions. With these axioms combined, we arrive at a symmetrical bisection of [±definite] QP and PossP encircling the nominal core categories D and N, respectively. I also make use of this phrasal configuration to develop an algorithm for the evaluation of morphological form on strong quantifiers, which is arguably also applicable in further instances of morphological evaluation, namely the division of strong/weak adjective inflection in exceptional case-marking configurations. In addition, the analysis proposed thereby allows pinning down the locus of application of said algorithm at an early stage in the phonological component: the subcomponent Morphology (Chomsky 1995).

1. Introduction

The purpose of this paper is the establishment of a connection between linearizational and inflectional divergences of strong and weak quantifiers (henceforth QS vs. QW) in the sense of Milsark (1974, 1977) and their respective external merging-sites in the minimalist framework (Chomsky 1993 et seq.). I argue on the basis of German quantified determiner phrases (DPs) that the connection itself can be identified as the value of grammatical definiteness of said elements, which constitutes the origin for the development of a symmetrical phrasal set-up of the quantificational domain in the nominal hierarchy of projections. However, I start out in a different domain, namely the strong/weak adjective inflection in German, and try to deduce a unified analysis in what follows. ← 11 | 12 →

2. Preliminary Observation: German Adjective Inflection and Definiteness

It is well known that adjectives in German display different inflectional patterns depending on the status of definiteness of the DP they are part of. Consider (1), in which the nominal complex is headed by the definite masculine determiner der and the indefinite D ein.

1) a) der grüne Baum
the[+def] green[weak] tree

 b) ein grüner Baum
a[-def] green[strong] tree

With the adjective not being dominated by any overt D-element, strong inflection is obligatory. Weak inflection, however, is not only triggered by the definite determiner but also by demonstratives, possessive pronouns (at least with plural head nouns; cf. fn. 1) as well as inflected strong quantifiers like all-e (‘all’).

2) {diese, seine, alle} grünen Bäume1
{these, his, all } green[weak] trees

Additionally, Fanselow (2013) observes that in complex, exceptionally case-marked (ECM) noun phrases, only the highest adjective bears strong inflection in German. The relation, however, has to be re-evaluated when a subpart of the DP (say, A-N) is fronted, stranding the previously highest A in base position. In these cases, both adjectives carry strong inflection.2 ← 12 | 13 →

3) a) Rotem polnischen Wein vertrauen wir nicht.(= Fanselow 5.)
red.sg.dat.strong Polish.sg.dat.weak wine trust we not
We do not trust red Polish wine.

 b) Polnischem Wein vertrauen wir nur rotem.
Polish.dat.sg.strong wine trust we only red.dat.sg.strong
We only trust red Polish wine.

Based on this contrast, Fanselow (2013:20) argues that “morphological shape must be determined after movement,” if, as I will do with Fanselow, discontinuous DPs are understood as originating from one discrete projection. I will come back to this in section 4.

3. A Phrasal Set-Up for the Quantificational Domain in Recursive Quantification3

Ordering the categories introduced in section 2 concerning their unmarked linear order allows for two interesting observations on quantification and definiteness in German: First, strong and weak quantifiers (exemplified here with all- and viel- (‘many’), respectively) differ in their default (i.e., non-partitive) position with respect to D/Dem and the possessive pronoun (PossPRO), with QS preceding these elements and Qw following them:

4) all(-e) {die, diese, meine} vielen N
all(-infl) {the, these, my} many N

Second, the elements classified as [+definite] above, by means of them triggering strong inflection on adjectives, cluster together preceding all elements that do not affect weak adjective inflection, such as weak quantifiers, numerals and adjectives themselves.4

5) QS > D/Dem > PossPRO > QW/Num > Adj > N

In what follows, I assume this ordering to reflect the phrasal set-up of the quantificational domain in the nominal hierarchy of projections.5,6 The proposal of ← 13 | 14 → two quantificational heads is reminiscent of Zamparelli`s (1995) division of strong vs. predicative determiner phrases (SDP vs. PDP). Yet, in his system, the definite demonstrative and the determiner standardly constitute instances of the former. This departure from Zamparelli is a critical feature in the analysis elaborated below.

While as of yet being a mere working hypothesis, I hope to demonstrate below that it also constitutes a promising starting point for the investigation of quantified structures in German.

4. Quantifier Inflection in the Definiteness Domain

Merchant (1996), building on Sportiche (1988) and Shlonsky (1991, on Hebrew; see also Giusti 1991 for a parallel analysis based on Italian data), describes the QS all- in German as optionally inflected for case with the quantifier in its base-generated (i.e., External Merge, EM) position heading DP, irrespective of the selecting verb’s case frame. In contrast, when the DP is moved out of the c-command domain of the quantifier, overt inflection turns obligatory:

6) a) Gestern haben all(e) diese Studenten protestiert. (= Merchant 4.a)
yesterday have all(-infl) these students protested
All these students protested yesterday.

 b) Diese Studenten haben gestern alle protestiert. (= Merchant 5.a)
these students all-infl

Merchant (pace Shlonsky) takes quantifier inflection to be a precondition for rather than a reflex of movement of the coordinated DP. In his analysis, the overt realization of the inflection signals the presence of an inflectional agreement ← 14 | 15 → feature F, which has to be checked in a spec-head configuration not later than at LF (thereby accounting for its optionality in EM-configurations).

We can, however, find configurations in the German QP that challenge Merchant’s analysis, since the relation between stranding contexts and obligatory inflectional realization is not exclusive. Consider (7) below, in which the overt realization of the inflection on QS is obligatory:

7) all*(-e) {viele, zwei, grüne} N
all*(-infl) {many, two, green} N

Here, all elements classified as [-definite] above can only be conjoined with QS if the quantifier bears inflection. Observe that the presence of only one of the elements classified as [+definite] above renders inflection on QS optional again:

8) all(-e) die/diese/meine {vielen, zwei, grünen} N
all(-infl) the/these/my {many, two, green} N

With this observation in mind, let us reconsider the stranded quantifier configurations. I will assume with Merchant that a discontinuous DP at Spell-Out originates from a discrete nominal hierarchy of projections via movement (parallel to Fanselow’s approach to stranded adjectives, sketched in section 2).

It turns out that these structures are also non-uniform with respect to inflectional realization on the quantifier. Consider (9), in which the head noun Medaillen (‘medals’) of the strong quantified DP has raised to a sentence initial projection to receive strong contrastive focus.

9) Pokale habe ich wenige, [aber Medailleni habe ich all(-e) diese ti gewonnen].
cups have I few [but medalsi have I all(-infl) these ti won]
I have won a few cups but all these medals.

The optional realization of inflection on QS seems to be dependent on the adjacency of the quantifier to an element classified as [+definite] above. Keeping this in mind, let us again turn to the hierarchy of projections proposed at the end of the last section.

Here, these elements were grouped together with the universal quantifier constituting the highest head. If quantifier stranding is understood as movement out of the complement of QS0, the obligatory realization of quantifier inflection readily falls into place with inflection on adjectives (given that we argue with Fanselow (2013) that morphological effects are determined after movement).

10) a) All(-e) die Bäume habe ich gefällt.
all(-infl) the trees have I chopped

 b) [Die Bäume]i habe ich all*(-e) <die Bäume>i gefällt. ← 15 | 16 →
[the trees]i have I all*(-infl) <the trees>i chopped

 c) All*(-e) grünen Bäume habe ich gefällt.
all*(-infl) green[weak] trees have I chopped

Details

Pages
250
ISBN (PDF)
9783653035407
ISBN (ePUB)
9783653997613
ISBN (MOBI)
9783653997606
ISBN (Hardcover)
9783631629079
Language
English
Publication date
2014 (February)
Published
Frankfurt am Main, Berlin, Bern, Bruxelles, New York, Oxford, Wien, 2014. 250 pp., 1 coloured fig., 20 graphs

Biographical notes

Anne Ammermann (Volume editor) Alexander Brock (Volume editor) Jana Pflaeging (Volume editor) Peter Schildhauer (Volume editor)

Previous

Title: Facets of Linguistics