下载PDF
{"title":"Wider die Klammerparadoxie: Kombinatorische Illusionen beim Adjektivbezug auf NN-Komposita","authors":"Claudia Maienborn","doi":"10.1515/zfs-2020-2009","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"This paper dealswith so-called “bracketing paradoxes” composed of an adjective and an NN compound, such as German katholisches Kirchenoberhaupt ‘catholic church.head’. In these constructions, the adjectivalmodifier seems to relate to the nominal non-head, thereby challenging the principle of compositionality. After summarizing some core empirical observations by Bergmann (1980) and reviewing relevant theoretical approaches (Larson 1998; Egg 2006; Beard 1991), the paper develops a novel formal semantic account that unmasks the alleged bracketing paradoxes as combinatorial illusions. The analysis developed here differs from Larson-style solutions in taking the adjective as point of departure (rather than the noun) and in adhering strictly to classic composition (rather than liberalizing the syntax-semantics interface). In short, there is no grammatically licensed linking of the adjectival modifier to the non-head of a nominal compound. What gives the impression of a syntax-semantics mismatch is a blending of compositional and pragmatic processes: Semantic composition warrants that the adjectival predicate is always linked to the referential argument of the nominal head. But, depending on the internal semantics of the adjective, semantic underspecificationmay emerge in the course of composition and call for a pragmatic specification of the adjectival predicate’s ultimate target. A general pragmatic parsimonity condition ensures that referents introduced by linguistic material will be chosen as best, “cheapest” target candidates whenever possible. This is why the nonhead argument is identified as a preferred ultimate target for the adjectival predicate. This is spelled out in detail for relational adjectives on the one hand (e. g. katholisches Kirchenoberhaupt) and qualitative adjectives on the other hand (e. g. gehobene Preisklasse ‘upper price.class’). One of themerits of the advocated analysis is that it can account straightforwardly for the blocking of well-known caricature examples (e. g. *vierstöckiger Hausbesitzer ‘four-storeyed house.owner’) and it provides an explanation for the reduced acceptability of borderline cases such as ?ambulanter Versorgungsauftrag ‘ambulant supply.mandate’. *Kontakt: Claudia Maienborn, Deutsches Seminar, Universität Tübingen, Tübingen, Germany, E-Mail: claudia.maienborn@uni-tuebingen.de Open Access. © 2020 Maienborn, publiziert von De Gruyter. Dieses Werk ist lizensiert unter einer Creative Commons Namensnennung 4.0 International Lizenz.","PeriodicalId":43494,"journal":{"name":"Zeitschrift Fur Sprachwissenschaft","volume":"39 1","pages":"149 - 200"},"PeriodicalIF":0.6000,"publicationDate":"2020-09-22","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1515/zfs-2020-2009","citationCount":"1","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Zeitschrift Fur Sprachwissenschaft","FirstCategoryId":"98","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1515/zfs-2020-2009","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"文学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"0","JCRName":"LANGUAGE & LINGUISTICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1
引用
批量引用
自相矛盾的是组合形容词的组合幻想
本文处理由形容词和神经网络复合词组成的所谓“括号法悖论”,如德语katholisches Kirchenoberhaupt“天主教教堂头”。在这些结构中,形容词修饰语似乎与名义上的非词头有关,从而挑战了组合性原则。在总结了Bergmann(1980)的一些核心实证观察并回顾了相关的理论方法(Larson 1998;蛋2006;Beard 1991),本文发展了一种新的形式语义解释,揭示了所谓的括号悖论是组合错觉。这里的分析与larson风格的解决方案的不同之处在于将形容词作为出发点(而不是名词),并严格遵守经典的构成(而不是放宽语法-语义接口)。简而言之,形容词修饰语与名词性复合词的非词头之间没有语法上允许的连接。给人语法语义不匹配的印象是组合和语用过程的混合:语义组合保证形容词谓语总是与名义词头的指称论点联系在一起。但是,根据形容词的内在语义,在构成过程中可能出现语义不规范,需要对形容词谓语的最终目标进行语用规范。一般的语用节俭条件确保语言所引入的指涉物在可能的情况下被选为最好的、“最便宜的”目标候选者。这就是为什么nonhead参数被确定为形容词谓词的首选最终目标。这在关系形容词(如katholisches Kirchenoberhaupt)和定性形容词(如gehobene Preisklasse ' upper price.class ')中都有详细的说明。所提倡的分析的优点之一是,它可以直接解释众所周知的漫画例子(例如*vierstöckiger Hausbesitzer '四层楼的房子的主人')被阻止的原因,并且它为诸如' ambulanter Versorgungsauftrag ' ambulant supplymandate '等边缘案例的可接受性降低提供了解释。*联系:Claudia Maienborn, Deutsches研讨会,Universität 宾根,德国宾根,E-Mail: claudia.maienborn@uni-tuebingen.de Open Access。©2020 Maienborn, publicziert von De Gruyter。基于知识共享协议Namensnennung 4.0国际共享协议的作品列表。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。