Hostname: page-component-7b7567c8c-fvjsw Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-11-15T20:40:54.309Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

A Lexical-Functional Analysis of Predicate Topicalization in German

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  05 December 2008

Gert Webelhuth and
Farrell Ackerman
Gert Webelhuth
Affiliation:
University of North Carolina at Chapel HillDepartment of LinguisticsCB # 3155 318 Dey HallChapel Hill, NC 27599–3155 [webelhuth@unc.edu]
Farrell Ackerman
Affiliation:
University of California at San DiegoDepartment of LinguisticsMail Code 01089500 Gilman DriveLa Jolla, CA 92093–0108 [ackerman@ling.ucsd.edu]
Get accessRights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

In this paper we examine the topicalization paradigm for ten different verbal constructions in German. We argue that a uniform explanation for the observed behaviors follows from the interpretation of the relevant expressions as (parts of) lexical representations. To this end we motivate a revision of Functional Uncertainty as proposed in Kaplan and Zaenen 1989 to account for filler/gap relations in long-distance dependencies. We assume with the original formulation of this principle that topicalized elements share values with the (grammatical) function status of an entity an indeterminate distance away. We appeal to the inventory of functions posited within LEXICAL-FUNCTIONAL GRAMMAR (LFG), inclusive of the frequently neglected PREDICATE function, which, we argue, is associated with both simple and complex predicates. In addition we show that topicalization, given this function-based proposal, should not be limited to maximal categories. We argue that the need to posit a PREDICATE function for German topicalization is supported by an independent line of research within LFG concerning the analysis of complex predicates. For this purpose we employ the proposals of T. Mohanan (1990/1994), which argue for the independence of the construct PREDICATE from its categorial realization. We show that this type of proposal extends to provide a uniform account of the German topicalization paradigm. This permits us to explain the similarities and differences in the behaviors of various sorts of predicators as well as certain idiomatic expressions interpreted as complex predicates.

Information

Type
Articles
Information
Journal of Germanic Linguistics , Volume 11 , Issue 1 , Spring 1999, pp. 1 - 61
Copyright
Copyright © Society for Germanic Linguistics 1999

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

REFERENCES

Ackerman, Farrell. 1984. Verbal modifiers as argument-taking predicates: Complex predicates as predicate complexes. Groninger Arbeiten zur germanistischen Linguistik 25.23–71.Google Scholar
Ackerman, Farrell. 1987. Miscreant morphemes. Doctoral dissertation, University of California, Berkeley.Google Scholar
Ackerman, Farrell. and LeSourd, Phil. 1997. Toward a theory of phrasal predicates. Complex predicates, ed. by Alsina, Alex, Bresnan, Joan, and Sells, Peter, 67–106. Stanford: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
Ackerman, Farrell. and Webelhuth, Gert. 1993. Complex predicates and wordhood: Passive constructions in German. CLS 28, 554–64.Google Scholar
Ackerman, Farrell. and Webelhuth, Gert. 1998. A theory of predicates. Stanford: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
Alsina, Alex. 1993. The monoclausality of causative constructions in Romance. Unpublished manuscript, Stanford University.Google Scholar
Anderson, Stephen. 1992. A-morphous morphology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Andrews, Avery, and Manning, Christopher. 1993. Information spreading and levels of representation in LFG. Technical Report CSLI-93–176. Stanford: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
Andrews, Avery, and Manning, Chris. In press. Complex predicates and information spreading in LFG. Stanford: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
Baker, Mark. 1988. Incorporation: A theory of grammatical function changes. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Bierwisch, Manfred. 1990. Verb cluster formation as a morphological process. Yearbook of Morphology 3.173–99.Google Scholar
Bresnan, Joan. 1982. Control and complementation. The mental representation of grammatical relations, ed. by Bresnan, Joan, 282–390. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Bresnan, Joan. Forthcoming. Lexical-functional syntax. Oxford and Cambridge, MA: Blackwell.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bresnan, Joan and Kanerva, Jonni. 1989. Locative inversion in Chichewa: A case study of factorization in grammar. Linguistic Inquiry 20.1–50.Google Scholar
Bresnan, Joan and Mchombo, Sam A.. 1987. Topic, pronoun and agreement in Chichewa. Language 63.741–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bresnan, Joan and Mchombo, Sam A.. 1995. The lexical integrity principle: Evidence from Bantu. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 13.181–254.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Butt, Miriam, Niño, Maria-Eugenia, and Segond, Frederique. 1996. Multilingual processing of auxiliaries in LFG. Natural language processing and speech technology: Results of the 3rd KONVENS Conference, ed. by Gibbon, Dafydd, 111–22. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chen, Matthew. In press. Tone sandhi. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dalrymple, Mary. 1993. The syntax of anaphoric binding. Stanford: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
Dalrymple, Mary et al. . 1992. Relating projections. Unpublished manuscript, Xerox.Google Scholar
Davies, William, and Rosen, Carol. 1988. Unions as multi-predicate clauses. Language 64.52–88.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
den Besten, Hans. 1985. The ergative hypothesis and free word order in Dutch and German. Studies in German grammar, ed. by Toman, J., 23–64. Dordrecht: Foris Publications.Google Scholar
Di Sciullo, Anna Maria, and Williams, Edwin. 1987. On the definition of word. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Dixon, R. M. W. 1976. Grammatical categories in Australian languages. (Linguistic series, 22). Atlantic Highlands, NJ: Humanities Press.Google Scholar
Dowty, David. 1979. Word meaning and Montague Grammar. Dordrecht: Reidel.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Evers, Arnold. 1975. The transformational cycle in German and Dutch. Doctoral dissertation, University of Utrecht.Google Scholar
Falk, Yehuda N. 1984. The English auxiliary system: A lexical-functional analysis. Language 60.483–509.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Foley, William A., and Van Valin, Robert D. Jr. 1984. Functional syntax and universal grammar. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Goldberg, Adele Eva. 1995. Argument structure constructions. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Grimshaw, Jane. 1982. On the lexical representation of Romance reflexive clitics. The mental representation of grammatical relations, ed. by Bresnan, Joan, 87–148. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Grimshaw, Jane, and Mester, Armin. 1988. Light verbs and theta marking. Linguistic Inquiry 19.205–32.Google Scholar
Haegeman, Liliane, and Riemsdijk, Henk van. 1986. Verb projection raising, scope and the typology of rules affecting verbs. Linguistic Inquiry 17.417–66.Google Scholar
Haider, Hubert. 1981. Dependenzen und Konfigurationen. Groninger Arbeiten zur germanistischen Linguistik 21.1–59.Google Scholar
Haider, Hubert. 1984. Mona Lisa lächelt stumm – Über das sogenannte Rezipientenpassiv. Linguistische Berichte 89.32–42.Google Scholar
Haider, Hubert. 1985. The case of German. Issues in German grammar, ed. by Toman, J., 65–101. Dordrecht: Foris Publications.Google Scholar
Holloway-King, Tracy. 1995. Configuring topic and focus in Russian. Stanford: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
Inkelas, Sharon. 1989. Prosodic constituency in the lexicon. Doctoral dissertation, Stanford University.Google Scholar
Jackendoff, Ray. 1987. Consciousness and the computational mind. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Jackendoff, Ray. 1997. The architecture of the language faculty. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Kaplan, R. M. 1989. The formal architecture of Lexical-Functional Grammar. Journal of Information Science and Engineering 5.305–22. (Rpt. 1996 in Formal issues in Lexical-Functional Grammar, ed. by M. Dalrymple, 3–23. Stanford: CSLI Publications.)Google Scholar
Kaplan, R. M. and Zaenen, Annie. 1989. Long-distance dependencies, constituent structure and functional uncertainty. Alternative conceptions of phrase structure, ed. by Baltin, M. and Kroch, A., 17–42. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Kratzer, Angelika. 1995. The event argument. Unpublished manuscript, University of Massachusetts. Amherst.Google Scholar
Lehiste, Ilse. 1964. Compounding as a phonological process. Proceedings of the Ninth International Conference of Linguists, ed. by Lunt, Horace, 331–37. The Hague: Mouton.Google Scholar
Levin, Beth, and Rappaport-Hovav, Malka. 1994. Unaccusativity. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Matsumoto, Yo. 1996. Complex predicates in Japanese: A syntactic and semantic study of the notion “word”. Stanford: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
Matthews, Peter. 1972. Inflectional morphology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Matthews, Peter. 1974. Morphology: An introduction to the theory of word structure. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Mohanan, K. P. 1982. Grammatical relations and clause structure in Malayalam. The mental representation of grammatical relations, ed. by Bresnan, Joan, 504–89. Cambridge MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Mohanan, Tara. 1990. Arguments in Hindi. Doctoral dissertation, MIT. (Published 1994. Argument Structure in Hindi. Stanford: CSLI Publications.)Google Scholar
Mohanan, Tara. 1995. Wordhood and lexicality: Noun incorporation in Hindi. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 13.75–134.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nordlinger, Rachel. 1998. Constructive case: Evidence from Australia. Stanford: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
Nunberg, Geoffrey, Sag, Ivan, and Wasow, Tom. 1994. Idioms. Language 70.491–538.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Perlmutter, David. 1979. Predicate: A grammatical relation. Current issues in syntax and semantics, ed. by Hubbard, Philip L. and Tiersma, Pieter, 127–49. (Linguistic notes from La Jolla: Working papers of the Department of Linguistics, 6.) La Jolla: Department of Linguistics, University of California at San Diego.Google Scholar
Pollard, Carl, and Sag, Ivan. 1994. Head-Driven Phrase Structure Grammar. Stanford: CSLI Publications; Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Reis, Marga. 1985. Mona Lisa kriegt zuviel — Vom sogenannten Rezipientenpassiv im Deutschen. Linguistische Berichte 46.140–55.Google Scholar
Rosen, Carol. 1988. Italian evidence for multi-predicate clauses. Grammatical relations: A cross-theoretical perspective, ed. by Dziwirek, K. et al., 415–44. Stanford: CSLI Publications; Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Rosen, Sara. 1989. Argument structure and complex predicates. Doctoral dissertation, Brandeis University.Google Scholar
Sadock, Jerrold. 1991. Autolexical syntax. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Sells, Peter, Zaenen, Annie, and Zec, Draga. 1987. Reflexivization variation: Relations between syntax, semantics, and lexical structure. Working papers in grammatical theory and discourse structure, Vol. I: Interactions of morphology, syntax, and discourse, ed. by Iida, Masayo et al., 169–238. Stanford: CSLI Publications. (CSLI lecture notes, 11.)Google Scholar
Simpson, Jane. 1983. Aspects of Warlpiri morphology and syntax. Doctoral dissertation, MIT.Google Scholar
Spencer, Andrew, and Zaretskaya, Marina. 1998. Verb prefixation in Russian and lexical subordination. Linguistics 36.1–39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stiebels, Barbara, and Wunderlich, Dieter. 1994. Morphology feeds syntax: The case of particle verbs. Linguistics 32.913–68.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Webelhuth, Gert. 1992. Principles and parameters of syntactic saturation. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Webelhuth, Gert. 1994. On the universal and language-particular components of the German passive. Proceedings of the Eastern States Conference on Linguistics, 330–41. Ithaca: The Department of Modern Languages and Linguistics, Cornell University.Google Scholar
Wegener, Heide. 1985. Er bekommt widersprochen — Argumente für die Existenz eines Dativpassivs im Deutschen. Linguistische Berichte 96.127–39.Google Scholar
Weinreich, Uriel. 1969. Problems in the analysis of idioms. Substance and structure of language, ed. by Puhvel, J., 23–81. Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press. (Rpt. 1980. On semantics, ed. by William Labov and Beatrice Weinreich, 208–64. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.)Google Scholar
Zhirmunskij, V. M., and Sunik, O. P.. 1963. The morphological structure of words in languages of different types. Moscow: Akademii Nauk SSSR.Google Scholar
Zwicky, Arnold. 1990. Syntactic words and morphological words, simple and composite. Yearbook of Morphology 3.201–16.Google Scholar