On the functions of „aktionsart“ and aspect in language contrast

The contribution deals with selected questions of the interaction between the so called “lexical aspect” (the opposition between telicity and atelicity) and the grammatical aspect (or so called “viewpoint”- aspect, i.e. the opposition between perfectivity and imperfectivity) in the languages with and without the overtly encoded aspect. The striking point of the analysis is the “complexive” meaning of aspectual forms and constructions involving lexical atelicity by indicating durativity or iterativity, on the one hand, and grammatical perfectivity by indicating the complexive perspective of the verbal action on the other. This type of aspectuality was a special feature of verbal systems with the aorist category. My claim is, thus, that the contemporary English has a special grammatical form of the “complexive aorist”, i.e. the form of Present Perfect Progressive. The Slavic languages encode this function by using the – unmarked – imperfective forms of the verbs, whereas German uses special means of encoding the very same function on the whole-clause level, such as adverbials or definite vs. indefinite or zero article.The contribution deals with selected questions of the interaction between the so called “lexical aspect” (the opposition between telicity and atelicity) and the grammatical aspect (or so called “viewpoint”- aspect, i.e. the opposition between perfectivity and imperfectivity) in the languages with and without the overtly encoded aspect. The striking point of the analysis is the “complexive” meaning of aspectual forms and constructions involving lexical atelicity by indicating durativity or iterativity, on the one hand, and grammatical perfectivity by indicating the complexive perspective of the verbal action on the other. This type of aspectuality was a special feature of verbal systems with the aorist category. My claim is, thus, that the contemporary English has a special grammatical form of the “complexive aorist”, i.e. the form of Present Perfect Progressive. The Slavic languages encode this function by using the – unmarked – imperfective forms of the verbs, whereas German uses special means of encoding the very same function on the whole-clause level, such as adverbials or definite vs. indefinite or zero article

Einige Besonderheiten der Anwendung des Linguistischen Analyse-modells von Józef P. Darski bei der Beschreibung der morphologischen Systeme älterer Sprachstufen der Indogermania

Einige Besonderheiten der Anwendung des Linguistischen Analyse-modells von Józef P. Darski bei der Beschreibung der morphologischen Systeme älterer Sprachstufen der Indogermani

"Epistemisches" Perfekt und Konditionalis II : einige Streiflichter auf Affinitäten und Divergenzen der kategorialen Genesis

Aus der Faktenlage ergeben sich folgende Probleme, die derzeit in der einschlägigen Literatur diskutiert werden bzw. bisher noch nicht zur Diskussion gelangt sind und die nun im vorliegenden Beitrag behandelt werden: (i) Worauf sind Unterschiede in der Kodierung deontischer und epistemischer Lesarten von Modalverben durch (synthetische) Präsens- bzw. Präteritalformen und (analytische bzw. periphrastische) Perfekt- bzw. Plusquamperfektformen zurückzuführen? Worin liegt der genuine Beitrag des (periphrastischen) Perfekts/Plusquamperfekts bei der Manifestierung der kategorialen Funktion von Modalverben?; (ii) Welches sind die Spezifika der Perfektformen von Modalverben in der Diachronie bzw.welchen kategorialen Wandel erfahren sie im Laufe ihrer Entwicklung?; (iii) Wie ist die formale und funktionale Konstellation zwischen den Konstruktionen Modalverb + Infinitiv II und der Umschreibung würde + Infinitiv II synchron wie diachron zu beurteilen?; (iv) Darf vor dem Hintergrund der Formenasymmetrie im Indikativ und Konjunktiv der Umschreibung werden + Inf. I/II (würde + Inf. I/II vs. *wurde + Inf. I/II) von einer "Lücke" im Verbalparadigma gesprochen werden

Zur Diachronie des Verbs "werden" : Vollverb - Kopula - Auxiliar

"Werden" plays an important role in German, especially as a copula and as an auxiliary verb. It constitutes the analytic (periphrastic) part of the verbal paradigm being used as an auxiliary by encoding the categories of Tense (Future), Mood (Conditional), and Diathesis (Passive). The original meaning of PIE *uuerth- includes two basic readings – a terminative and an aterminative. Both of them have been used in the process of grammaticalisation of werden in constructions with participles and the infinitive. The terminative reading based on the feature "Change of a State" was originally the categorical marker of "werden" within the opposition "sein" vs. "werden", where "sein" indicated the meaning of "State". As a result of the further development which started in the later OHG period, the aterminative reading of "werden" in constructions with the Participle II mixed with the terminative one by establishing the Passive-Paradigm. This evolution forced "sein"+ Part. II into the periphery of the Diathesis where in NHG it is marked as a resultative (terminative) construction. On the other hand, werden + Participle I (later with Infinitive) did not establish aterminative readings due to the peculiarities of the semantics of the Participle I – form. In connection with the Infinitive the terminativity of werden developed in the process of its auxiliarisation to the prospective I prognostic reading in the future-tense perspective and to the epistemic reading in the perspective of the present tense. In the perspective of the past tense (cf. MHG "ward varen" {became ride}, "was ridden") it disappeared because in this perspective prospective or prognostic readings are impossible

Valency and non‑finiteness

Auf den ersten Blick scheinen beide Titelbegriffe kontradiktorisch zu sein, setzt ja die klassische verbozentrische Valenztheorie, deren Anhänger auch der Geehrte ist, eine weit verstandene „Verbalität“ als konstitutives inhaltlich‑propositionales Satzkriterium voraus, wobei die Finitheit von den meisten deutschen Grammatikforschern zum unveräußerlichen formalen Satzkriterium erklärt wird. So gelten z.B. sämtliche infinite Prädikationen schlechtweg als kommunikative Minimaläußerungen, doch wird ihnen der „normale“ Satzstatus abgesprochen (vgl. Zifonun et al. 1997). Auf der anderen Seite gibt es in vielen Sprachen (so in der Slavia, aber auch in älteren germanischen Sprachen, im Griechischen, zum Teil im Latein) viele vollwertige Satzstrukturen, die formal infinit sind. Auch in der deutschen Gegenwartssprache sind mehrfach satzartige Konstruktionen mit vollprädikativem Inhaltswert, dabei aber ohne finites Verb vorhanden. Viele davon fallen unter den Begriff der Afinitheit (vgl. u.a. Riecke 2012, Kotin 2014), vgl. Was vergangen, kehrt in der gleichen Gestalt nie wieder. Wird bei der Deskription der Valenzstruktur derartiger Sätze oder satzartiger Äußerungen das klassische (Engel’sche) Valenzmodell angewandt, so ergibt dies keine rasanten Unterschiede bei finiten und afiniten Satzsyntagmen, da finite Auxiliare und Kopulae darin grundsätzlich als nicht valenzfähig behandelt werden. Schwieriger wird es allerdings, wenn angenommen wird, dass Kopulae und Auxiliare zumindest eine strukturelle Valenz besitzen und Regentia bezüglich der hierarchisch niedrigeren Vollverben darstellen (vgl. Eroms 2000). In diesem Fall sollen afinite Sätze als Ellipsen eingeordnet und entsprechend syntaktisch behandelt werden. Dieses recht komplizierte und komplexe theoretische Problem der Dependenzgrammatik wird am Beispiel verschiedener Sprachen und unterschiedlicher Entwicklungsstufen, also aus synchroner, kontrastiv‑typologischer und diachroner Sicht betrachtet.Both terms seem to be contradictory to each other, since the classical verb‑centric valence theory, the follower of which is also Ulrich Engel, considers the verb, and, thus, also the formal feature of its finiteness as an inalienable criterion of a sentence proposition. Thus, non‑finite predications are simply considered as minimal utterances, whereas their “normal” status of clauses is mostly denied (cf. Zifonun et al. 1997). On the other hand, many languages ( Slavic languages, among others,but also old Germanic languages, Greek and partly Latin) have many full‑value clause structures being formally non‑finite. Similarly, modern German conveys numerous sentence‑like constructions with a full‑predicative propositional value. Many of them belong to the phenomenon of non‑finiteness (cf., among others, Riecke 2012, Kotin 2014), as in: Was vergangen, kehrt in der gleichen Gestalt nie wieder. If in the description of the valency structure of such sentences/ utterances the classical Engelian valence model is used, no significant differences between finite and non‑finite clauses can be registered, since within this model finite auxiliaries and copulas are considered as not valence‑dependent. However, the problem becomes more complicated, if we assume that copulas and auxiliaries possess at least structural valence and, thus, are regentia in respect to the hierarchically “lower” situated so called “full verbs” (cf. Eroms 2000). In this case, non‑finite sentences have to be considered as elliptical ones and treated accordingly to this status. This very complicated and complex theoretical problem of the dependence grammar is the subject of this paper containing an analysis of examples from various languages and different stages of their development, i.e. from synchronic, diachronic and typological perspectives

Emotive Predications from the Perspective of Kernel Grammar

The paper contains an analysis of the syntactic features of emotive predicates as well as the main properties of the codification of feelings in emotive clauses. The emotive predicates possess two arguments with the thematic roles of experiencer and stimulus underlying syntactic movement, which makes them in principle diathetic-sensitive. The syntactic markers of emotionality are: prosody, word order, discourse particles, autonomous ellipsis etc. The latter ones encode emotive readings qua grammar structure, thus, they are the primary encoding forms of emotions. However, they can be both specified and unspecified emotive signals. In the latter case they encode emotionality as such, but it has to be specified qua conversational implicatures