Jump to ContentJump to Main Navigation
Show Summary Details
More options …

Zeitschrift für germanistische Linguistik

Deutsche Sprache in Gegenwart und Geschichte

Ed. by Ágel, Vilmos / Feilke, Helmuth / Linke, Angelika / Lüdeling, Anke / Tophinke, Doris

3 Issues per year


CiteScore 2017: 0.16

SCImago Journal Rank (SJR) 2017: 0.164
Source Normalized Impact per Paper (SNIP) 2017: 0.806

Online
ISSN
1613-0626
See all formats and pricing
More options …
Volume 46, Issue 2

Issues

Graduierung nicht skalarer Verben

Grading non-scalar Verbs

Dr. Jens Fleischhauer
  • Corresponding author
  • Institut für Sprache und Information Heinrich-Heine Universität Düsseldorf Abteilung für Allgemeine Sprachwissenschaft Universitätsstraße 1, D-40225 Düsseldorf Deutschland
  • Email
  • Other articles by this author:
  • De Gruyter OnlineGoogle Scholar
Published Online: 2018-09-14 | DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/zgl-2018-0014

Abstract

The paper deals with degree gradation of verbs in German. Gradation is a process of comparing degrees on a scale but not all gradable verbs lexicalize a suitable gradation scale. In the paper, a definition of ‘lexically scalar predicate’ is proposed and based on that definition, it is argued that some gradable verbs are not lexically scalar. I argue essentially that such verbs require the activation of a gradation scale. The scale is licensed by the lexical semantics of the gradable verb but retrieved from the conceptual knowledge associated with the verb.

Literatur

  • Biedermann, Reinhard. 1969. Die deutschen Gradadverbien. Heidelberg: Dissertation an der Universität Heidenberg.Google Scholar

  • Bierwisch, Manfred. 1987. Semantik der Graduierung. In Manfred Bierwisch & Ewald Lang (Hrsg.), Grammatische und konzeptuelle Aspekte von Dimensionsadjektiven, 91–286. Berlin: Akademie-Verlag.Google Scholar

  • Bochnak, Ryan. 2013. Cross-linguistic Variation in the Semantics of Comparatives. Dissertation: University of Chicago.Google Scholar

  • Bolinger, Dwight. 1972. Degree words. The Hague: Mouton.Google Scholar

  • Carstensen, Kai-Uwe. 2013. A cognitivist semantics of gradation. Zeitschrift für Sprachwissenschaft 32(2). 181–219.Web of ScienceGoogle Scholar

  • Cresswell, Max J. 1976. The Semantics of Degree. In Barbara Partee (ed.), Montague Grammar, 261–292. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar

  • de Hoop, Helen. 2015. Against affectedness. In S. Lestrade, Peter de Swart & Lotte Hogeweg (Hrsg.). Addenda. Artikelen voor Ad Foolen, 169–176. Nijmegen: Radboud University.Google Scholar

  • de Swart, Peter. 2014. Prepositional inanimates in Dutch: A paradigmatic case of Differential Object Marking. Linguistics 52(2): 445–468.Web of ScienceGoogle Scholar

  • Doetjes, Jenny. 1997. Quantifiers and Selection. Dordrecht: Holland Institute of Generative Linguistics.Google Scholar

  • Doetjes, Jenny. 2007. Adverbs and quantification: Degree versus frequency. Lingua 117. 685–720.Google Scholar

  • Dowty, David. 1979. Word Meaning and Montague Grammar. Dordrecht: Reidel.Google Scholar

  • Engelen, Bernhard. 1990. ‚sehr’ und Konsorten – Zur Graduierung von Verben. Zielsprache Deutsch 21, 3, 2–11.Google Scholar

  • Fillmore, Charles. 1970. The Grammar of Hitting and Breaking. In Roderick Jacobs & Peter Rosenbaum (Hrsg.). Readings in English Transformational Grammar, 120–133. Ginn: Waltham, Mass.Google Scholar

  • Fleischhauer, Jens. 2013. Interaction of telicity and degree gradation in change of state verbs. In Boban Arsenijević, Berit Gehrke & Rafael Marín (Hrsg.). Studies in the Composition and Decomposition of Event Predicates, 125–152. Dordrecht: Springer.Google Scholar

  • Fleischhauer, Jens. 2015. Activation of attributes in frames. In Vito Pirrelli, Claudia Marzi, Marcello Ferro (Hrsg.). Word structure and word usage, 58–62. http://ceur-ws.org.Google Scholar

  • Fleischhauer, Jens. 2016a. Degree Gradation of Verbs. Düsseldorf: Düsseldorf University Press.Google Scholar

  • Fleischauer, Jens. 2016b. Degree expressions at the Syntax-Semantics Interface. In Jens Fleischhauer, Anja Latrouite & Rainer Osswald. (eds.). Explorations of the Syntax-Semantics-Pragmatics-Interface, pp. 209–246. Düsseldorf: Düsseldorf University Press.Google Scholar

  • Fleischhauer, Jens; Thomas Gamerschlag & Wiebke Petersen. 2017. A frame-analysis of the interplay of grammar and cognition in emission verbs. In Stefan Hartmann (ed.). Yearbook of the German Cognitive Linguistics Association Vol. 5, 177–194. Berlin/Boston: Mouton de Gruyter Google Scholar

  • Flick, Johanna. 2016. Der am-Progressiv und parallele am V-en sein-Konstruktionen. Beiträge zur Geschichte der deutschen Sprache und Literatur 138(2). 163–196.Google Scholar

  • Gary, Edward Norman. 1979. Extent in English. A Unified Account of Degree and Quantity. Los Angeles: Dissertation an der University of California.Google Scholar

  • Goldberg, Adele. 2005. Argument realization: The role of constructions, lexical semantics and discourse factors. In Jan-Ola Ostman & Mirjam Fried (Hrsg.), Construction Grammars: Cognitive Grounding and Theoretical Extensions, 17–43. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar

  • Grimshaw, Jane. 1990. Argument Structure. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.Google Scholar

  • Härtl, Holden. 2001. CAUSE und CHANGE. Thematische Relationen und Ereignisstrukturen in Konzeptualisierung und Grammatikalisierung. Berlin: Akademie.Google Scholar

  • Kaufmann, Ingrid. 1995a. What is an (im)possible verb? Restrictions on Semantic Form and their con-sequences for argument structure. Folia Linguistica XXIX (1–2). 67–103.Google Scholar

  • Kaufmann, Ingrid. 1995b. Konzeptuelle Grundlagen semantischer Dekompositionsstrukturen: Die Kombinatorik lokaler Verben und prädikativer Komplemente. Tübingen: Niemeyer.Google Scholar

  • Kennedy, Christopher. 1999. Projecting the Adjective – The Syntax and Semantics of Gradability and Comparison. New York: Garland.Google Scholar

  • Kennedy, Christopher. 2007. Vagueness and grammar: the semantics of relative and absolute gradable adjectives. Linguistics and Philosophy 30(1). 1–45.Web of ScienceGoogle Scholar

  • Kennedy, Christopher & Louise McNally. 2005. Scale Structure, Degree Modification, and the Semantics of Gradable Predicates. Language 81, 345–381.Google Scholar

  • Kirschbaum, Ilja. 2002. Schrecklich nett und voll verrückt. Muster der Adjektivintensivierung im Deutschen. Düsseldorf: Dissertation an der Heinrich-Heine Universität.Google Scholar

  • Levin, Beth. 1993. English verb classes and alternations. Chicago: Chicago University Press.Google Scholar

  • Löbner, Sebastian. 1990. Wahr neben Falsch. Tübingen: Niemeyer.Google Scholar

  • Löbner, Sebastian. 2002. Is the German Perfekt a perfect Perfect? In Ingrid Kaufmann & Barbara Stiebels (Hrsg.), More than Words, 369–391. Berlin: Akademie–Verlag.Google Scholar

  • Löbner, Sebastian. 2012. Sub-compositionality. In Markus Werning, Wolfram Hinzen, Edouard Machery (Hrsg.), The Oxford Handbook of Compositionality, 220–241. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

  • Löbner, Sebastian. 2014. Evidence for frames from human language. In Thomas Gamerschlag, Doris Gerland, Rainer Osswald & Wiebke Petersen (Hrsg.), Frames and Concept Types: Applications in Language and Philosophy, 23–68. Heidelberg/New York: Springer.Google Scholar

  • Lundquist, Björn & Gilian Ramchand. 2012. Contact, animacy, and affectedness in Germanic. In Peter Ackema, Rhona Alcorn & Caroline Heycock (Hrsg.). Comparative Germanic Syntax, 224–248. Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Google Scholar

  • Tenny, Carol. 2000. Core events and adverbial modification. In Carol Tenny, James Pustejovsky (Hrsg.), Events as Grammatical Objects, 285–334. Stanford: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar

  • Tsujimura, Natsuko. 2001. Degree words and scalar structure in Japanese. Lingua 111, 29–52.Google Scholar

  • van Os, Charles. 1989. Aspekte der Intensivierung im Deutschen. Tübingen: Narr.Google Scholar

  • Pesetsky, David. 1995. Zero Syntax: Experiencer and Cascades. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.Google Scholar

  • Petersen, Wiebke. 2007. Representation of Concepts as Frames. In Jurgis Skilters, Fiorenza Toccafondi & Gerhard Stemberger (Hrsg.), Complex Cognition and Qualitative Science. The Baltic International Yearbook of Cognition, Logic and Communication, 151–170. Riga: University of Latvia.Google Scholar

  • Petersen, Wiebke & Thomas Gamerschlag, Thomas. 2014. Why chocolate eggs can taste old but not oval: A frame.theoretic analysis of inferential evidentials. In Thomas Gamerschlag, Doris Gerland, Rainer Osswald & Wiebke Petersen (Hrsg.), Frames and concept types: Applications in language and philosophy, 199–220. Dordrecht: SpringerGoogle Scholar

  • Rappaport Hovav, Malka. 2008. Lexicalized meaning and the internal temporal structure of events. In Susan Rothstein (Hrsg.), Theoretical and Crosslinguistic Approaches to the Semantics of Aspect, 13–42. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Google Scholar

  • Ropertz, Ruth. 2001. Das Wort sehr als Modifikator deutscher Adjektive und Verben. Düsseldorf: Magisterarbeit an der Heinrich-Heine Universität Düsseldorf.Google Scholar

  • de Swart, Henriëtte. 1993. Adverbs of quantification: A generalized quantifier approach. New York: Garland.Google Scholar

  • Van Valin, Robert D. jr. 2005. Exploring the Syntax-Semantics Interface. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

  • Verma, Manindra & K.P. Mohanan (Hrsg.). 1990. Experiencer Subjects in South Asian Languages. Stanford: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar

  • Wegener, Heike. 1998. Die Kasus des EXP. In Marcel Vuillaume (Hrsg.), Die Kasus im Deutschen, 71–84. Tübingen: Staufenburg.Google Scholar

About the article

Published Online: 2018-09-14

Published in Print: 2018-09-10


Citation Information: Zeitschrift für germanistische Linguistik, Volume 46, Issue 2, Pages 221–247, ISSN (Online) 1613-0626, ISSN (Print) 0301-3294, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/zgl-2018-0014.

Export Citation

© 2018 Walter de Gruyter GmbH, Berlin/Boston.Get Permission

Comments (0)

Please log in or register to comment.
Log in