From andreas.nolda at CMS.HU-BERLIN.DE Sun Feb 26 13:49:35 2006 From: andreas.nolda at CMS.HU-BERLIN.DE (Andreas Nolda) Date: Sun, 26 Feb 2006 14:49:35 +0100 Subject: Nf-part of the SUO in German Message-ID: Hi everybody, this is a follow-up to the talk I gave last Friday at the DGfS workshop "Syntax and morphology multi-dimensional". In that talk, I argued that the Nf-part of the syntactic unit ordering (SUO) of German idiolect systems should include a classification on Nf called "substantivity". This classification contains two classes: 1. Adj[ectival noun form], containing those Nf's which can be used as adjectival modifiers (e.g. _ein_1, _einen_1, _rosa_1, and _rosanen_1); 2. Subst[antival noun form], containing those Nf's which can be 'used as noun' -- in particular as the head of a referential expression (e.g. simple forms like _Stoff_1, _eins_1, _einen_1, and _rosanen_1, as well as analytic forms like _der_1 _Stoff_2, _der_1 _eine_2, and _ein_1 _rosaner_2). Note that according to my conception, an adjectival word like the numeral _ein_[NUM]W can contain forms which are adjectival only (e.g. _ein_1), forms which are substantival only (e.g. _eins_1 and _der_1 _eine_2), as well as forms which are both (e.g. _einen_1). This very conception takes up a proposition by Lieb (1983). It is motivated by the fact that the semantic effect of the 'use as noun'--i.e. being denotable by a noun of a certain kind--cannot be introduced in the lexicon since it has to be suppressed in certain accent-related meanings in the propositional background (cf. Nolda 2005: 197-203). Now, given the new substantivity classification, I'd like to propose the following, revised Nf-part of the SUO's functional part for German idiolect systems (this is where I'm going beyond my talk): Nf ,-------------´|||`----------, case ||| Nf-number +---+---+---+------+ ||| +-----+---------+ | | | | | ||| | | | Nom Acc Dat Gen Unsp-Case ||| Sg-Nf Pl-Nf Unsp-Nf-Num ,---------------´|`-------, gender | substantivity +----+---+-------+ | +----+ | | | | | | | Masc Fem Neut Unsp-Gend | Adj Subst ,---------------------´ | strength definiteness +-----+ +----+------+ | | | | | Str Non-Str Def Indef Unsp-Def | | 'weakness' negativity +-----+ +---------+ | | | | Wk Unsp-Weak Pos-Indef Neg-Indef Note that the functional status of the strength classification is debatable (cf. Budde 2000: 212). The unspecifity categories contain the following Nf's: Unsp-Case: the predicative adjective forms; Unsp-Nf-Num: dito; Unsp-Gend: the predicative adjective forms and the plural Nf's; Unsp-Weak: the predicative adjective forms, the forms of nouns which do not inflect for strength, and the analytical substantival forms; Unsp-Def: the simple substantival forms. Thus all of the unspecifity categories are 'neither...nor categories': they contain forms which are neutral with regard to the relevant distinction; they are *not* used in order to reduce syncretisms in the paradigms. What do *you* think about the above classification system? Andreas Nolda References Budde, Monika (2000). Wortarten: Definition und Identifikation. Diss., Freie Universität Berlin. Lieb, Hans-Heinrich (1983). Akzent und Negation im Deutschen: Umrisse einer einheitlichen Konzeption (Teil B). _Linguistische Berichte_ 85, 1-48. Nolda, Andreas (2005). Integriertes Rahmenthema: Zur Syntax und Semantik der ‚gespaltenen Topikalisierung‘ im Deutschen. Diss., Freie Universität Berlin. -- Andreas Nolda http://www2.hu-berlin.de/linguistik/institut/nolda/ Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin Philosophische Fakultät II Institut für deutsche Sprache und Linguistik From lieb at ZEDAT.FU-BERLIN.DE Mon Feb 27 11:41:08 2006 From: lieb at ZEDAT.FU-BERLIN.DE (Hans-Heinrich Lieb) Date: Mon, 27 Feb 2006 12:41:08 +0100 Subject: Nf-part of the SUO in German In-Reply-To: <200602261449.35777.andreas.nolda@cms.hu-berlin.de> Message-ID: Lieber Herr Nolda, sehr erwägenswert, aber ich selber hatte mich bei den Unsp-Kategorien gerade in die umgekehrte Richtung entschieden: Unsp, wenn die Kriterien sämtlich zutreffen. Ich *muß* diese Frage für mich noch klären, komme aber im Augenblick nicht dazu. Problem bei Ihrem Vorschlag: Was heißt Zugehörigkeit zu derselben Klassifikation, wenn keines der Kriterien zutrifft?? Wie wird dann die Basis der Klassifikation bestimmt, ohne daß man einen Haufen von völlig irrelevantem Zeug mit einschließt? Herzliche Grüße Ihr Hans-Heinrich Lieb ------------------------------------------------ Prof. Dr. Hans-Heinrich Lieb FB Philosophie und Geisteswissenschaften FREIE UNIVERSITÄT BERLIN ------------------------------------------- lieb at zedat.fu-berlin.de Telefon (030) 838-52973 Sekretariat (030) 838-52168 Privat (030) 852 92 80 www.germanistik.fu-berlin.de/il/lieb.html ------------------------------------------------ From andreas.nolda at CMS.HU-BERLIN.DE Sun Feb 26 13:49:35 2006 From: andreas.nolda at CMS.HU-BERLIN.DE (Andreas Nolda) Date: Sun, 26 Feb 2006 14:49:35 +0100 Subject: Nf-part of the SUO in German Message-ID: Hi everybody, this is a follow-up to the talk I gave last Friday at the DGfS workshop "Syntax and morphology multi-dimensional". In that talk, I argued that the Nf-part of the syntactic unit ordering (SUO) of German idiolect systems should include a classification on Nf called "substantivity". This classification contains two classes: 1. Adj[ectival noun form], containing those Nf's which can be used as adjectival modifiers (e.g. _ein_1, _einen_1, _rosa_1, and _rosanen_1); 2. Subst[antival noun form], containing those Nf's which can be 'used as noun' -- in particular as the head of a referential expression (e.g. simple forms like _Stoff_1, _eins_1, _einen_1, and _rosanen_1, as well as analytic forms like _der_1 _Stoff_2, _der_1 _eine_2, and _ein_1 _rosaner_2). Note that according to my conception, an adjectival word like the numeral _ein_[NUM]W can contain forms which are adjectival only (e.g. _ein_1), forms which are substantival only (e.g. _eins_1 and _der_1 _eine_2), as well as forms which are both (e.g. _einen_1). This very conception takes up a proposition by Lieb (1983). It is motivated by the fact that the semantic effect of the 'use as noun'--i.e. being denotable by a noun of a certain kind--cannot be introduced in the lexicon since it has to be suppressed in certain accent-related meanings in the propositional background (cf. Nolda 2005: 197-203). Now, given the new substantivity classification, I'd like to propose the following, revised Nf-part of the SUO's functional part for German idiolect systems (this is where I'm going beyond my talk): Nf ,-------------?|||`----------, case ||| Nf-number +---+---+---+------+ ||| +-----+---------+ | | | | | ||| | | | Nom Acc Dat Gen Unsp-Case ||| Sg-Nf Pl-Nf Unsp-Nf-Num ,---------------?|`-------, gender | substantivity +----+---+-------+ | +----+ | | | | | | | Masc Fem Neut Unsp-Gend | Adj Subst ,---------------------? | strength definiteness +-----+ +----+------+ | | | | | Str Non-Str Def Indef Unsp-Def | | 'weakness' negativity +-----+ +---------+ | | | | Wk Unsp-Weak Pos-Indef Neg-Indef Note that the functional status of the strength classification is debatable (cf. Budde 2000: 212). The unspecifity categories contain the following Nf's: Unsp-Case: the predicative adjective forms; Unsp-Nf-Num: dito; Unsp-Gend: the predicative adjective forms and the plural Nf's; Unsp-Weak: the predicative adjective forms, the forms of nouns which do not inflect for strength, and the analytical substantival forms; Unsp-Def: the simple substantival forms. Thus all of the unspecifity categories are 'neither...nor categories': they contain forms which are neutral with regard to the relevant distinction; they are *not* used in order to reduce syncretisms in the paradigms. What do *you* think about the above classification system? Andreas Nolda References Budde, Monika (2000). Wortarten: Definition und Identifikation. Diss., Freie Universit?t Berlin. Lieb, Hans-Heinrich (1983). Akzent und Negation im Deutschen: Umrisse einer einheitlichen Konzeption (Teil B). _Linguistische Berichte_ 85, 1-48. Nolda, Andreas (2005). Integriertes Rahmenthema: Zur Syntax und Semantik der ?gespaltenen Topikalisierung? im Deutschen. Diss., Freie Universit?t Berlin. -- Andreas Nolda http://www2.hu-berlin.de/linguistik/institut/nolda/ Humboldt-Universit?t zu Berlin Philosophische Fakult?t II Institut f?r deutsche Sprache und Linguistik From lieb at ZEDAT.FU-BERLIN.DE Mon Feb 27 11:41:08 2006 From: lieb at ZEDAT.FU-BERLIN.DE (Hans-Heinrich Lieb) Date: Mon, 27 Feb 2006 12:41:08 +0100 Subject: Nf-part of the SUO in German In-Reply-To: <200602261449.35777.andreas.nolda@cms.hu-berlin.de> Message-ID: Lieber Herr Nolda, sehr erw?genswert, aber ich selber hatte mich bei den Unsp-Kategorien gerade in die umgekehrte Richtung entschieden: Unsp, wenn die Kriterien s?mtlich zutreffen. Ich *mu?* diese Frage f?r mich noch kl?ren, komme aber im Augenblick nicht dazu. Problem bei Ihrem Vorschlag: Was hei?t Zugeh?rigkeit zu derselben Klassifikation, wenn keines der Kriterien zutrifft?? Wie wird dann die Basis der Klassifikation bestimmt, ohne da? man einen Haufen von v?llig irrelevantem Zeug mit einschlie?t? Herzliche Gr??e Ihr Hans-Heinrich Lieb ------------------------------------------------ Prof. Dr. Hans-Heinrich Lieb FB Philosophie und Geisteswissenschaften FREIE UNIVERSIT?T BERLIN ------------------------------------------- lieb at zedat.fu-berlin.de Telefon (030) 838-52973 Sekretariat (030) 838-52168 Privat (030) 852 92 80 www.germanistik.fu-berlin.de/il/lieb.html ------------------------------------------------