No full-text available
To read the full-text of this research,
you can request a copy directly from the author.
Zum grammatischen status der hilfsverben
... Der Bub the lad nom kriegt gets das Spielzeug the toy weggenommen. taken away (Reis 1976: 71) ...
... The claim that the subject of the kriegen-passive must be animate/sentient (Reis 1976: 57) might at first glance account for the contrast between (12)/(13) and (14)/(15) since the subjects in (12b) and (13b) are inanimate. However, this cannot be the correct restriction since the kriegen-passive can occur with an inanimate subject, as in (16): ...
It is argued, in agreement with Haider (1992), that some German ditransitives
have a basic order acc > dat. It is claimed that it has, however, been overlooked
that some of these verbs have a second variant whose unmarked order is dat >
acc. We show that the two basic word orders result from two different
conceptual structures. In LFG’s Lexical Mapping Theory, this has the consequence
that the two variants subcategorise for differing grammatical functions (GFs),
requiring two distinct lexical entries. The ‘high’ datives bear the grammatical
function (GF) of secondary object whereas the (rarer) ‘low’ datives bear that of
oblique. An outcome of the analysis is a streamlined statement of unmarked
middlefield order in German whereby argument ordering follows the GF
hierarchy. The analysis sheds new light on the distribution of the so-called
kriegen-passive. Although it is often held that the dative of verbs with an acc >
dat basic order cannot surface as nominative in the kriegen-passive, there are
counterexamples. We offer a more fine-grained ‘argument composition’ analysis
of the kriegen-passive from which it emerges straightforwardly that it is only in
the variant with acc > dat as basic order that kriegen-passive is ruled out. The
variant with dat > acc basic order permits kriegen-passive, and it is this
(overlooked) variant that occurs in the above mentioned counterexamples. In
sum, some of the verbs thought to license only ‘low’ datives are shown to select
either type of dative. This alternation is, however, a reflection of differences in
conceptual structure. The distribution of kriegen-passive with these ditransitives
patterns with the conceptual structures.
... For further discussion of the bekommen passive construction in German cf. CRITCHLEY 1983, DANEŠ 1976, EROMS 1978, KIRKWOOD 1973 part V, and, with a focus on the auxiliary verb status of bekommen, EBERT 1978, EROMS 1978, REIS 1976, WEGENER 1985 for an attempt in (modified) GB terms to deny bekommen + PART II constructions of the type considered here the status of passives, see HAIDER 1984b and the conclusive refutation in REIS 1986 andWEGENER 1985. Observe also that the above analysis of the German bekommen passive entails rejection of the 'unaccusative' proposal entertained with respect to the English get passive or the Welsh personal cael ('receive'/'get') passive by HAEGEMAN 1985 andPOSTAL 1984b: §5.5. ...
Syntaktische Funktion ist die Bezeichnung für eine Relation zwischen zwei Ausdrücken. Diese wird durch morpholog. Markierung (Kasus) und/oder durch die strukturelle Relation (Stellung) der Ausdrücke zueinander bestimmt. So etwa erfüllt eine nominat. NP, die unmittelbare Konstituente eines Satzes ist, bezüglich dieses Satzes die Subj.-Funktion (→121); eine akk. NP, die unmittelbare Konstituente einer VP ist, erfüllt bezüglich dieser VP die Funktion des AkkO ( →125). In der alltäglichen Redeweise vernachlässigt man leider die Angabe der definierenden Faktoren und spricht nur von „Subj.“, „AkkO“ usw.
The paper studies the morphosyntax of constructions of the type kam gefahren, here referred to as the Kommen-Konfigurativ (kommen-configuration). It will be argued that the past participle in this construction is verbal and that kommen behaves in many respects as an auxiliary.
ResearchGate has not been able to resolve any references for this publication.