Refine
Has Fulltext
- yes (106)
Year of publication
- 2004 (106) (remove)
Document Type
- Article (106) (remove)
Is part of the Bibliography
- no (106) (remove)
Keywords
- 1814-1831 (2)
- Honorationen (2)
- Johann Gottfried Herder (2)
- Johann Wolfgang von Goethe (2)
- Relation historique (2)
- focus movement (2)
- prosody (2)
- 1799 (1)
- 1799-1804 (1)
- 1847 (1)
Institute
Die Braut des Soldaten
(2004)
In this short essay, the Alexander von Humboldt scholar Kurt-R. Biermann (1919-2002) shed some light on the relationship between the famous conservative Austrian statesman Prince Metternich and the liberal Prussian scientist Alexander von Humboldt. It is one of the old legends that Humboldt and Metternich had studied together in Göttingen. They first met 1807 in Paris and corresponded in the most polite manner basically on one common field of interest, namely the promotion of the sciences.
ANNIS
(2004)
In this paper, we discuss the design and implementation of our first version of the database "ANNIS" ("ANNotation of Information Structure"). For research based on empirical data, ANNIS provides a uniform environment for storing this data together with its linguistic annotations. A central database promotes standardized annotation, which facilitates interpretation and comparison of the data. ANNIS is used through a standard web browser and offers tier-based visualization of data and annotations, as well as search facilities that allow for cross-level and cross-sentential queries. The paper motivates the design of the system, characterizes its user interface, and provides an initial technical evaluation of ANNIS with respect to data size and query processing.
We argue that there is a crucial difference between determiner and adverbial quantification. Following Herburger [2000] and von Fintel [1994], we assume that determiner quantifiers quantify over individuals and adverbial quantifiers over eventualities. While it is usually assumed that the semantics of sentences with determiner quantifiers and those with adverbial quantifiers basically come out the same, we will show by way of new data that quantification over events is more restricted than quantification over individuals. This is because eventualities in contrast to individuals have to be located in time which is done using contextual information according to a pragmatic resolution strategy. If the contextual information and the tense information given in the respective sentence contradict each other, the sentence is uninterpretable. We conclude that this is the reason why in these cases adverbial quantification, i.e. quantification over eventualities, is impossible whereas quantification over individuals is fine.
This paper investigates the nature of the attraction of XPs to clauseinitial position in German (and other languages). It argues that there are two different types of preposing. First, an XP can move when it is attracted by an EPP-like feature of Comp. Comp can, however, also attract elements that bear the formal marker of some semantic or pragmatic (information theoretic) function. This second type of movement is driven by the attraction of a formal property of the moved element. It has often been misanalysed as “operator” movement in the past. Japanese wh-questions always exhibit focus intonation (FI). Furthermore, the domain of FI exhibits a correspondence to the wh-scope. I propose that this phonology-semantics correspondence is a result of the cyclic computation of FI, which is explained under the notion of Multiple Spell-Out in the recent Minimalist framework. The proposed analysis makes two predictions: (1) embedding of an FI into another is possible; (2) (overt) movement of a wh-phrase to a phase edge position causes a mismatch between FI and wh-scope. Both predictions are tested experimentally, and shown to be borne out.
Content: 1 Introduction 2 A restrictive theory of head movement 2.1 Preliminary Remarks 2.2 Theoretical Problems of Head Movement 2.3 Remnant Phrasal Movement 2.4 Münchhausen Style Head Movement 3 Verb Second Movement 3.1 Introductory Remarks 3.2 Problems of V/2 constructions: Does V really move to Comp? 3.3 The preverbal position 3.4 The Second Position 4 References