German Construction Research Articles

Germany's colonial pasts

Part I: Politics of Colonial Culture 1. What Does German Have To Do With National Socialism? Pascal Grosse, Humboldt University Berlin 2. Introduction of Protectorate Law in Togo and David Simo, University of Yaounde, Cameroon 3. Weimar Republic: A Postcolonial State in a Still-Colonial World Marcia Klotz, University of California at Irvine Part II: Gender and Sexuality 4. Sittenkontrolle ist hier bereits eingefuhrt: Jewish Prostitution in German Southwest Joachim Warmbold, Tel Aviv University 5. Race, Gender, and Sexuality in German Southwest Africa. Han's Grimm's Sudafrikanische Novellen Sara Lennox, University of Massachusetts at Amherst 6. Going Native in Kenya Nina Berman, Ohio State University Part III: Identifications of Self and Other 7. Inventing the Auslandsdeutsche: Emigration, Colonial Fantasy, and German Diasporic Identity, 1848-1870 Bradley Naranch, Johns Hopkins University 8. Colonialism and the Culture of Respectability Woodruff D. Smith, University of Massachusetts at Boston 9. Music and German Construction of in the Pacific Vanessa Agnew, University of Michigan Part IV: Nazi Visions of Africa 10. Race Power in Postcolonial Germany: The German Africa Show and the National Socialist Sate, 1935-1940 Elisa von Joeden-Forgey, University of Pennsylvania 11. Raum ohne Volk: German Colonial Film Propaganda Robert Gordon, University of Vermont & Dennis Mahoney, University of Vermont Part V: Reflections of 12. Tranquebar Tales: The Colonial Labyrinths of a German Archive Gita Rajan, Hunter College of the City University of New York 13. Constructing Racial Difference in 'Colonial Poland' Kristin Kopp, Harvard University 14. Theology as a Vision for Colonialism: From Supersessionism to Dejudaization in German Protestantism Susannah Heschel, Dartmouth College 15. Approaches from the Outside: Autobiographies of Black Men in Germany Alain Patrice Nganang, Shippensburg University

Construction-specific properties of syntactic subjects in Icelandic and German

This paper discusses the syntactic similarities and differences in the behavior of subject-like obliques in the Obl–V–(XP) construction in Icelandic and German. Research on this construction so far has suggested that the subject-like oblique behaves as a syntactic subject in Icelandic, but as an object in German. Data from German are presented which show that the subject-like oblique in fact passes almost all the subject tests, with some restrictions. The differences between Icelandic and German are therefore much smaller, and the similarities much greater, than predicted by analyzing them as subjects in Icelandic and objects in German. A comparison between Icelandic and German further reveals that the subject criteria cannot be applied across two as closely related languages as Icelandic and German, and they cannot be consistently applied even within the same language. Therefore, grammatical relations like “subject” and “object” should be regarded, not as universal, not as language-specific, but as CONSTRUCTIONSPECIFIC relations. It is shown that the difference between Icelandic and German resides in Obl–V–(XP) predicates being reluctant to occur in “elliptic” constructions in German, whereas their occurrences in such constructions in Icelandic are less restricted. This correlates with differences in the frequency of Obl–V–(XP) predicates in the two languages, suggesting that the construction exists at different levels of schematicity in Icelandic and German. This is expected on a usage-based account in which frequency is taken to be an important determinant of the language system.

Towards a typology of reciprocal constructions: focus on German and Japanese

The aim of this article is twofold: (a) to offer a detailed analysis of reciprocal constructions in German and Japanese against the background of a preliminary typology of such constructions developed in analogy to the one proposed by L. Faltz (1985) for reflexivity and (b) to examine the implications of these analyses for supporting and possibly refining this typology. Reciprocity is defined as the grammatical encoding of symmetric relations, and four different types of reciprocal constructions are distinguished. Languages typically have more than one strategy at their disposal, which can often be combined but may also contrast and differ in their interpretation. It is shown that symmetric predicates play an important role in reciprocal structures and provide in fact one of their historical foundations. Combinations of quantifiers (and alterity expressions like other), another important source for the development of reciprocal markers, are shown to manifest considerable variation across languages, which is not compatible with the view that they can simply be subsumed under the category “anaphor.” Our typological approach provides some new perspectives and perhaps even solutions for some traditional puzzles in the analysis of reciprocal constructions in German and Japanese.

A New Mixed Multiplicative-Additive Model for Seasonal Adjusment

Usually, seasonal adjustment is based on time series models which decompose an unadjusted series into the sum or the product of four unobservable components (trendcycle, seasonal, working-day and irregular components). In the case of clearly weatherdependent output in the west German construction industry, traditional considerations lead to an additive model. However, this results in an over-adjustment of calendar effects. An alternative is a multiplicative-additive mixed model, the estimation of which is illustrated using X-12-ARIMA. Finally, the relevance of the new model is shown by analysing selected time series for different countries.

Optionality in non-native grammars: L2 acquisition of German constructions with absent expletives

This paper investigates the knowledge of constructions with absent expletives by advanced and high-proficiency non-native speakers of German whose first language is Polish. German grammar is known to license null subjects due to the strength of AGRP but not to identify them. Therefore only expletive subjects can be absent in German, except for Topic-drop and, crucially, the expletive subjects have to be absent in certain cases due to the Projection Principle. The knowledge of this phenomenon by second language (L2) learners has been investigated by two methods, elicited written production task and grammaticality judgment tests. High-level non-native speakers of German differ significantly from native speakers in both types of tasks. The differences are clearly not the result of transfer. The results reported here reveal permanent optionality in L2 grammars suggesting a deficit in the grammatical representations of L2 learners.

Archaeology of a Great War Dugout: Beecham Farm, Passchendaele, Belgium

Beecham Dugout is situated on the lower slopes of the Passchendaele Ridge, to the north-east of the Belgian town of Ypres (Ieper). Fears over the stability of the structure created the need for emergency archaeological investigations. The dugout is shallow (2 m deep) and was constructed in a basic 'T' shape, with accommodation for 66 men and four officers. It is cut within silty-sand levels of the Passchendaele Ridge. The dug-out was surveyed, recorded and removed. Archival studies, coupled with artefacts recovered, suggest that this is a dugout of German construction, but one that had been occupied by British troops after capture of the ridge in 1917. Prior to this discovery, the presence of German dugouts was largely unknown.

The Conceptual Structure of German Impersonal Constructions

German impersonal constructions manifest an array of morphosyntactic properties, such as so-called expletive dummy subjects, 3rd person singular verb agreement, and, in some cases, experiencer nominals bearing “quirky” case (usually dative), that have traditionally been regarded as purely accidental, idiosyncratic, or semantically vacuous. This article argues that these properties typically associated with impersonal constructions in German can be semantically motivated and explained within the theoretical framework of Cognitive Grammar (see Langacker 1987a, 1991a, 1991b). Within this framework, it is assumed that morphosyntactic markers are meaningful and polysemous: they are complex conceptual categories with distinct but related senses radiating from a prototypical sense. As a result, impersonal constructions and their component substructures are seen to be meaningful in their own right in reflecting a particular way of construing a scene, rather than as epiphenomena of autonomous syntactic processes.I would like to acknowledge the perceptive and helpful feedback of the anonymous JGL reviewers. I have tried to follow their suggestions wherever possible. Of course, I take full responsibility for any errors or lack of clarity that may remain.

Who did what to whom? The neural basis of argument hierarchies during language comprehension

The present fMRI study aimed at identifying neural correlates of the syntax–semantics interface in language comprehension. This was achieved by examining what we refer to as “argument hierarchy construction”, i.e., determining which participant in a sentence is the “Actor” and which is the “Undergoer” of the event expressed by the verb. In order to identify the neural bases of argument hierarchy processing, we manipulated three factors known to influence the complexity of argument hierarchy construction in German, namely argument order, verb class and morphological ambiguity. Increased argument hierarchization demands engendered enhanced activation in a network of inferior frontal, posterior superior temporal, premotor and parietal areas. Moreover, components of this network were differentially modulated by the individual factors. In particular, the left posterior superior temporal sulcus showed an enhanced sensitivity for morphological information and the syntactic realization of the verb-based argument hierarchy, while the activation of the left inferior frontal gyrus (pars opercularis) corresponded to linearization demands and was independent of morphological information. We therefore argue that, for German, posterior superior temporal and inferior frontal regions engage in the extraction of actorhood from morphosyntactic structure and in the sequential realization of hierarchical interpretive dependencies, respectively.

Pragmatic Properties of Certain German and English Left Peripheral Constructions

The article discusses various left peripheral constructions in German and English, which are often considered to be topic constructions. The article demonstrates, however, that only one of the constructions under review obligatorily marks a topic in the “aboutness” sense. It also discusses how the constructions behave with respect to some discourse properties which are often related to topicality: referential linking to the preceding discourse, promotion of a nontopic to a topic, thematic continuity. The article describes which constructions exhibit which discourse properties and shows that quite similar constructions behave rather dierently with respect to these properties. The article's findings also cast serious doubt on certain common assumptions about how left peripheral constructions in the two languages correspond to each other.

Semantic Roles within a Contrastive Grammar of Latin and German

SummaryThis paper deals with the problem of defining and describing semantic roles. Methodologically, I follow Coseriu (1987), who argues for a sharp distinction between language-independent reference roles and language-specific semantic roles and criticizes earlier approaches which do not make this distinction. Recent contributions to the problem of defining and describing semantic roles or functions within Generative Grammar (Jackendoff 1991) and Functional Grammar (Dik 1997) differ from earlier approaches in that they try to take this distinction into account However, some problems remain. When we have to deal with syntactic and semantic contrasts between languages such as Latin and German, these contrasts cannot adequately be described with the help of language-independent theta-roles or semantic functions. Therefore, it seems preferable to adopt Coseriu's strategy of describing the expression of reference roles like 'Possessor' in Latin and German as a set of contrasting contextual meanings of cases, syntactic functions and constructions. Contrastive data show that the relevant constructions in Latin and German differ widely both as far as their number and their functional properties are concerned.

Nonspecific free relatives and (anti)grammaticalization in English and German

One of the most contentious issues in historical syntax at the moment is the problem of directionality, in particular its theoretical status in the debate over grammaticalization. Grammaticalization is usually said to proceed unidirectionally from less grammatical to more grammatical. Under a recent proposal by Haspelmath (2004), genuine violations of this constraint are called and the rest The present paper takes up this distinction with respect to the problem of clause-integration in complex sentence constructions in English and German, focusing on a potential example of antigrammaticalization, viz. the historical relationship between nonspecific free relatives and concessive conditionals. Concessive conditionals are always adjuncts and hence much more disintegrated than free relatives synchronically, but since there is also typological evidence which suggests that concessive conditionals are historically derived from free relatives, the development from one to the other could conceivably have involved a decrease of clause-integration rather the increase that one would expect under the unidirectionality constraint. Using present-day and historical data, the present paper argues that the historical link between free relatives and concessive conditionals in English and German does not in fact involve antigrammaticalization at all, and only a limited amount of retraction. The impression of antigrammaticalization arises partly because concessive conditionals have become partially dissociated from free relatives in a process which itself bears some hallmarks of grammaticalization and which, on a larger scale, can be seen as part of the formation of the prototype traditionally known as hypotaxis.

Age, alcohol consumption, and all-cause mortality

Numerous epidemiological studies on middle aged men suggest that moderate alcohol consumption lowers all-cause mortality. Uncertainty exists whether this finding also applies to younger adults. The authors studied the age specific association between alcohol consumption and all-cause mortality in a cohort of 19,943 male employees in the German construction industry (age range 25-64 years) who underwent an occupational health examination between 1986 and 1992 and were followed with respect to vital status over an average period of 10 years. Information on alcohol consumption at baseline examination relied on self report and strongly correlated with biological markers of alcohol consumption. Covariates considered in the proportional hazard regression analysis included age, nationality, smoking status, and comorbidity. Age specific analysis revealed that the J/U-shaped association between alcohol consumption and all-cause mortality is limited to men aged 35 years and above. In contrast, a linear positive dose-response relationship was observed for men aged 25 to 34 years (p-trend=0.02). Recommendations regarding alcohol consumption and potential health benefits should not be generalized to all ages.

Verb-Particle Explorations (review)

Reviewed by: Verb-particle explorations ed. by Nicole Dehé et al. Nina Rojina Verb-particle explorations. Ed. by Nicole Dehé, Ray Jackendoff, Andrew McIntyre, and Silke Urban. (Interface explorations 1.) Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, 2002. Pp. 388. ISBN 3110172283. $101.40 (Hb). The aim of the book is to provide analyses of Germanic constructions known as verb-particle constructions, phrasal verbs, particle verbs, and the like from different perspectives. The following articles present syntactic, morphological, and semantic analyses of particle verbs. Geert Booij, ‘Separable complex verbs in Dutch: A case of periphrastic word formation’ (21–41), discusses the behavior of particle verbs and introduces the idea of periphrastic word formation. Booij treats particle verbs as constructional idioms. Bert Cappelle, ‘And up it rises: Particle preposing in English’ (43–66), using examples, analyzes grammatical constraints on particle preposing and identifies different functions of such constructions (e.g. ‘focus preposing’, ‘presentative preposing’, ‘proposition affirmation’). Ray Jackendoff, ‘English particle constructions, the lexicon, and the autonomy of syntax’ (67–94), presents an overview of the basic facts of English particle verbs and distinguishes between verb-particle idioms and directional, aspectual particles, ‘time-away constructions’, verb-particle idioms with out, and NP + Particle constructions. He suggests that the particles in these constructions have identical syntax (the autonomy of syntax) and argues against a binary branching hypothesis in favor of a triply-branching VP. Andrew McIntyre, ‘Idiosyncrasy in particle verbs’ (95–118), claims that idiosyncratic particle verbs are derived by composition of the meanings of particle and verb and discusses noncompositional particle verbs, suggesting that the latter are licensed by idiosyncratic rules. Stefan Müller, ‘Syntax or morphology: German particle verbs revisited’ (119–39), argues that the fronting of particles is possible [End Page 342] in German and suggests a syntactic analysis of particle verbs where particles are treated as part of the predicate complex. Ad Neeleman, ‘Particle placement’ (141–64), presents word order data in English and Dutch and argues that these languages are ‘identical in all relevant respects’ and different only in the setting of the OV/VO parameter. Neeleman suggests complex predicate analysis for the particle verbs in English and Dutch. Fabrice Nicol, ‘Extended VP-shells and the verb-particle construction’ (165–90), suggests an extended VP-shell analysis of particle verbs (a modified version of Richard Larson’s proposal) and differentiates split constructions (V + NP + Particle) and merged constructions (V + Particle + NP), proposing structures and analyses for these types of constructions. Ida Toivonen, ‘Swedish particles and syntactic projection’ (191–209), analyzes Swedish particle verbs and argues that Swedish particles are nonprojecting words. Jaap Van Marle, ‘Dutch separable compound verbs: Words rather than phrases?’ (221–32), studies Dutch separable and defective compound verbs from a morphological point of view, arguing that these sets of verbs are morphological entities. Jochen Zeller, ‘Particle verbs are heads and phrases’ (233–67), analyzes particle verbs in Dutch, English, German, and Norwegian and suggests that particle verbs can be represented as heads and phrases. Zeller discusses the status of particle verbs from different theoretical perspectives (incorporation, parallel morphology, and autolexical syntax). A few of the articles analyze particle verbs from statistical and psycholinguistic points of view. Stefan Gries, ‘The influence of processing on syntactic variation: Particle placement in English’ (269–88), studies the factors which can influence the choice of using V-Prt-NP or V-NP-Prt constructions. He proposes the processing hypothesis in order to explain the speaker’s choice for a particular construction. Dieter Hillert and Farrell Ackerman, ‘Accessing and parsing phrasal predicates’ (289–313), review some psycholinguistic analyses of Germanic and Hungarian particle verbs and examine the word-/ sentence-level processing of verb-particle constructions during comprehension. Anke Lüdeling and Nivja de Jong, ‘German particle verbs and word formation’ (315–33), review the status of particle verbs and argue that particle verbs are phrasal and not distinguishable from similar constructions. Testing the comprehension of particle verbs, they observe that opaque and transparent particle verbs have formal access representations in the mental lexicon...

All-cause and cause specific mortality in a cohort of 20 000 construction workers; results from a 10 year follow up

Background: Construction workers are potentially exposed to many health hazards, including human carcinogens such as asbestos, silica, and other so-called “bystander” exposures from shared work places. The construction industry is...

Early Acquisition of Verb Grammar and Lexical Development: Evidence from Periphrastic Constructions in French and Austrian German

This paper takes a functionalist approach to the acquisition of verb morphology in French and Austrian German. The development of periphrastic constructions using auxiliaries and modal verbs (compound past, modal constructions and analytic future) was examined in two French and two Austrian children’s spontaneous speech samples from the onset of production until 3;0. Crosslinguistic comparisons showed both similarities and differences in the development of periphrastic constructions (e.g., compound past was the first structure to emerge in French but not in Austrian German, analytic future was the last in both languages), suggesting an interplay between general cognitive and language-specific factors. In the four children, developmental analyses showed precursors, such as bare infinitives and past participles and preverbal fillers, which denote a gradual and continuous acquisition process. They also showed temporal relations between grammaticization and lexical production of verbs, which is an argument for the ‘critical lexical mass’ hypothesis and for interdependencies between lexical and grammatical developments. These analyses support a constructivist and interactive view of language acquisition.

Topics detached to the left: on 'left dislocation', 'hanging topic', and related constructions in German

In this paper I argue that there are three distinct constructions in Modern German in which a 'topic constituent' is detached to the left: (left-)dislocated topic ('left dislocation'), (left-)attached topic ('mixed left dislocation'), and (left-)hanging topic ('hanging topic'). Presupposing the framework of Integrational Linguistics, I provide syntactic and semantic analyses for them. In particular, I propose that these constructions involve the syntactic function (syntactic) topic, which relates the topic constituent to the remaining part of the sentence. Dislocated and attached topic constituents function in addition as a strong or weak (syntactic) antecedent of some resumptive 'd-pronoun' form.
 
 Dislocated topic, attached topic, and hanging topic are in turn contrasted with 'free topics'. Being sentential units of their own, the latter are syntactically unconnected to the following sentence. In particular, they are not topic constituents.

The Semantics ofbe-verb Constructions and the German Locative Alternation

German constructions with the verb prefix be- do not just alternate with simple-verb constructions that express a goal argument obliquely; they can also contrast with simple-verb constructions in which the goal argument appears as an accusative incremental theme. By focusing on these contrasting constructions we can distinguish the semantic contribution of be- from the meaning of the transitive construction itself, enabling a cognitive-semantic account of be-verb constructions that differs significantly from previous proposals. Be- describes a sustained (and typically iterative) interaction directed at a focal accusative landmark whose existence is independent of the event being described. In the process of examining be- verbs we can also gain a better understanding of incremental themes and of holistic effects. The discussion also has general implications for the semantics of argument roles, challenging the idea that semantic roles are global units that can be transported from one construction to another.

On Particle Verbs and Similar Constructions in German (review)

Reviewed by: On particle verbs and similar constructions in German by Anke Lüdeling Gary H. Toops On particle verbs and similar constructions in German. By Anke Lüdeling. (Dissertations in linguistics.) Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications, 2001. Pp. xiv, 178. ISBN: 1-575863-01-4. Cloth $65.00. Paper $23.00. Lüdeling’s examination of German ‘particle verbs’ includes verbs traditionally regarded as having so-called separable prefixes (ankommen ‘arrive’, abfahren ‘depart’, anlachen ‘laugh at, deride’) as well as verbs occurring together with fixed manner adverbs (wach küssen ‘wake with a kiss’, kaputtmachen ‘break’, etc.). In the introduction to this somewhat revised version of her doctoral dissertation, L reveals that her work has led her to conclude that particle verbs as such do not actually exist and that ‘what people call particle verbs are lexicalized phrasal constructions’ (ix–x). Nevertheless, L indulges the reader with the following working definition: ‘Particle verbs are constructions that consist of a verb and a preverb and that behave like words in some respects and like syntactic constructions in others’ (1). According to the author, there are two basic problems associated with the notion of German particle verbs: One is the ‘structure problem’ concerning the question of whether particle verbs are morphological objects or phrasal constructions; the other is the ‘delimitation problem’ concerning the question of how particle verbs can be distinguished from similar (surface) constructions. To obviate these problems in the course of her examination, L adopts as a convenient construct the cover term ‘preverb verb constructions [PVCs]’ (22–23). In the second of six chapters, ‘Particle verbs in syntax, semantics, and phonology’, L demonstrates that a given preverb may or may not be subject to adverbial modification (cf. Sie machten die Tür zum Balkon ganz auf ‘They opened the door to the balcony all the way’ vs. *Sie führten das Stück ganz auf ‘They performed the play all the way’). She formulates a test whereby an element is a phrase or an independent word if it can be modified. L maintains that the separable prefix auf of aufmachen ‘open (up)’ in the former sentence is modifiable by an adverb like ganz ‘completely, all the way’ because it is semantically independent or transparent while in the latter German sentence, the same preverb auf of aufführen ‘perform, put on’ cannot be adverbially modified because it lacks semantic independence (56–57). Observations such as these lend support to L’s assertion that German particle verbs do not constitute a uniquely delineable class (119, 129, 138, and passim). In Ch. 3, ‘Particle verbs in morphology’, L concedes that it is ‘difficult to assert the category of a prefix’. Reasoning, however, that separable prefixes historically developed from prepositions, with which many of them remain homophonous, L argues that a number of separable prefixes ‘have the semantic content of a preposition’ (71). In Ch. 4, ‘Strange words or strange phrases?’, L further maintains that prefixes (or particles) ‘are never syntactic complements, but always secondary predicates or adverbs’ (135). In Ch. 5, ‘Preverbs as secondary predicates or adverbs’, L demonstrates that all PVCs (see above) lend [End Page 812] themselves to a phrasal analysis even if they do not constitute a uniform class of constructions. She maintains that, structurally, preverbs appear in two distinct positions—either as sisters to V or as V′ adjuncts (159). On the whole L’s argumentation is precise, thorough, and easy to follow. In the span of only 164 pages, L manages to subject PVCs to an impressive array of diagnostics. Equally impressive is her facility in citing and providing clear summaries of the work of others as it relates to her own discussion of the relevant facts. Gary H. Toops Wichita State University Copyright © 2003 Linguistic Society of America

An artificial opposition between grammaticality and frequency: comment on

In a recent Cognition paper ( Cognition 85 (2002) B21), Bornkessel, Schlesewsky, and Friederici report ERP data that they claim “show that online processing difficulties induced by word order variations in German cannot be attributed to the relative infrequency of the constructions in question, but rather appear to reflect the application of grammatical principles during parsing” (p. B21). In this commentary we demonstrate that the posited contrast between grammatical principles and construction (in)frequency as sources of parsing problems is artificial because it is based on factually incorrect assumptions about the grammar of German and on inaccurate corpus frequency data concerning the German constructions involved.

Überlegungen zu zwei Unterschieden zwischen der Mittelkonstruktion des Deutschen, Englischen und Niederländischen

This paper discusses two problems about middle constructions in German, English and Dutch. The first question is why a reflexive pronoun occurs only in German middle constructions. After having discussed expressions for grooming actions and inchoative situations, it is pointed out that only in German reflexive pronouns can occur in sentences in which the external argument is suppressed. Following Steinbach (2002), it is then argued that only German reflexives can mediate the linking of the syntactic subject to the internal argument. The second question is why middle constructions can be formed from so-called double object verbs in German, but not in English and Dutch. After having pointed out that middle constructions are not compatible with an accusative argument, it is claimed that morphological coding patterns for indirect objects contribute to the language difference: Whereas in English and Dutch indirect objects remaining in middle constructions are encoded in accusative, they are expressed in dative in German.