Freie Relativsätze und die Kasushierarchie

Pittner, Karin

doi:10.1515/9783111353180.341

Cited by 14 publications

(19 citation statements)

References 5 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…An example is the pair in (1) Experiments usually test for contrasts between minimally different expressions. In our example, the theory of case matching in argument free relative clauses (Groos and van Riemsdijk, 1981;Pittner, 1991;Vogel, 2001) is confirmed if (1-b) is judged as grammatical less often than (1-a) to a statistically significant degree. This is indeed the result of a speeded grammaticality judgement experiment by Boethke (in preparation).…”

Section: Markedness In Syntaxsupporting

confidence: 54%

“…Both patterns in (6) are classified as ungrammatical by Groos and van Riemsdijk (1981) (Vogel's (2001) "German C"). Pittner (1991) offers an explanation for the contrast she sees in (6) in terms of the case hierarchy "nominative < accusative < dative, genitive, PP": a case may only be suppressed in favour of another case that is higher on the case hierarchy, in particular, accusative can be suppressed in favour of dative, but not in favour of nominative. In (Vogel, 2001), I capture this with the following OT constraint:…”

mentioning

confidence: 97%

“…(1-b) * * * (1) and (2) Groos and van Riemsdijk (1981); Pittner (1991) and Vogel (2001) offer three different approaches to case conflicts in German FRs. Interestingly, these authors also differ in the grammaticality judgements they present.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Degraded Acceptability and Markedness in Syntax, and the Stochastic Interpretation of Optimality Theory

Vogel¹

2006

Gradience in Grammar

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

very welcome Gradience and categoricity in generative syntaxConceiving grammaticality as gradient poses problems for those traditional conceptions of grammar which assume that linguistic expressions can only be either grammatical or ungrammatical. That a sentence is, for instance, "grammatical to 75%" is a nonsensical statement from this point of view. In this tradition, generative grammar assumes the native speaker's linguistic competence to be the system of rules with which, among other things, she classifies sentences as either grammatical or ungrammatical. A linguistic theory is explanatorily adequate to the extent that it successfully models this underlying knowledge.As a consequence of the categorical view on grammaticality, generative models rarely reflect gradience. The minimalist program (Chomsky, 1995) for generative syntax knows "converging" and "crashing" derivations, which conform to grammatical and ungrammatical structures. But * I want to thank my collaborators

show abstract

Section: Markedness In Syntaxsupporting

confidence: 54%

mentioning

confidence: 97%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Degraded Acceptability and Markedness in Syntax, and the Stochastic Interpretation of Optimality Theory

Vogel¹

2006

Gradience in Grammar

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…This has led some authors to assume that these "matching effects" are a necessary condition for the formation of a free relative clause in New High German. 8 As Pittner (1991) observes, Modern Standard German is not the strict-matching language it is often assumed to be. There are a number of examples in Modern Standard German, See for instance Eisenberg (1986: 220), Haider (1988b: 47).…”

Section: The Case Of Relative Pronounsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The relative pronouns do not necessarily have to fit into the matrix clause. But in every instance the These examples were given in Pittner (1991), see there for the sources and for more examples.…”

Section: The Case Of Relative Pronounsmentioning

confidence: 99%