On the categorical status of different dependent clauses
The paper discusses some central distinguishing properties of the external and internal syntax of different types of adverbial and complement clauses in German, among them their different depths of the attachment sites in the hosts and their...
mehr
|
Volltext:
|
|
|
Zitierfähiger Link:
|
|
|
The paper discusses some central distinguishing properties of the external and internal syntax of different types of adverbial and complement clauses in German, among them their different depths of the attachment sites in the hosts and their possibility or impossibility of hosting different high adverbials and other weak root phenomena (RPs), of hosting subject-oriented verb-first parentheticals and other semi-strong RPs and of hosting interjections and other strong RPs. It is discussed which kind of German complement clauses allow the positioning to the left of the matrix verb and a proposal is made for the categorical status of verb-second complement clauses. The paper argues that the framework developed in Krifka (in this volume) for the analysis of speech acts is well suited to addressing these characteristics. According to Krifka, one has to distinguish between the semantic levels of speech act, commitment, judgement and proposition. These levels are syntactically represented by the projections (i): ActP > ComP > JP > TP. The paper argues that the aforementioned properties correlate with which projection from (i) is the highest one contained in a given clause type. The clause type’s external syntax is determined by this node and its internal licensing capacities is determined by this node and the projections below: weak RPs are licensed by JP, semi-strong RPs are licensed by ComP and strong RPs are licensed by ActP. ; Der Beitrag diskutiert einige zentrale Eigenschaften der externen und internen Syntax von verschiedenen Typen von Adverbial- und Komplementsätzen im Deutschen, darunter die unterschiedlichen Höhen ihrer Anknüpfungspositionen im Trägersatz und ihre Möglichkeit bzw. Unmöglichkeit der Beherbergung von ‚hohen‘ Adverbialen und anderen schwachen Wurzelphänomenen (WP), der Beherbergung von subjektorientierten Verberst-Parenthesen und anderen semistarken WP sowie der Beherbergung von Interjektionen und anderen starken WP. Es wird diskutiert, welche Art von Komplementsätzen im Deutschen die ...
|
