scholarly journals Coherence with adjectives in German

2010 ◽  
Author(s):  
Philippa Cook ◽  
Bjarne Ørsnes
Keyword(s):  
Structural Basis ◽  
Structural Function ◽  
Matrix Clause ◽  
Gradable Adjectives ◽  
Corpus Study ◽  
Complex Predicate ◽  
Structural Functions ◽  
The Matrix ◽  
Coherence Patterns ◽  
Infinitival Complements

Coherence generally refers to a kind of predicate formation where a verb forms a complex predicate with the head of its infinitival complement. Adjectives taking infinitival complements have also been shown to allow coherence, but the exact conditions for coherence with adjectives appear not to have been addressed in the literature. Based on a corpus-study (supplemented with grammaticality judgements by native speakers) we show that adjectives fall into three semantically and syntactically defined classes correlating with their ability to construct coherently. Non-factive and non-gradable adjectives allow coherence, factive and gradable adjectives do not allow coherence and non-factive and gradable adjectives are tolerated with coherence. On the basis of previous work on coherence in German we argue that coherence allows the infinitival complement of a verb or an adjective to be "split-up", so that the head and a dependent of this head are associated with different information structural functions. In this respect coherence patterns with extraction structures where the extracted constituent has an information structural function different from the constituent from which it is extracted. Following literature on the information structural basis of extraction islands, we show how the lack of coherence with factive adjectives follows from their complements' being information structurally backgrounded, while the infinitival complements of non-factive adjectives tend to a higher fusion with the matrix clause. We also show that coherence is observed with attributive adjectives as well, arguing that coherence is not a distinct verbal property. Finally we provide an analysis of coherence with adjectives within HPSG.

Da eine oder mehrere betroffen …

2020 ◽  
Vol 48 (1) ◽  
pp. 47-100
Author(s):  
Melitta Gillmann
Keyword(s):  
High Frequency ◽  
Formal Language ◽  
Subordinate Clause ◽  
Matrix Clause ◽  
Very High Frequency ◽  
Corpus Study ◽  
Causal Relations ◽  
Legal Texts ◽  
The Matrix ◽  
Very High

AbstractBased on a corpus study conducted using the GerManC corpus (1650–1800), the paper sketches the functional and sociosymbolic development of subordinate clause constructions introduced by the subjunctor da ‘since’ in different text genres. In the second half of the 17th and the first half of the 18th century, the da clauses were characterized by semantic vagueness: Besides temporal, spatial and causal relations, the subjunctor established conditional, concessive, and adversative links between clauses. The corpus study reveals that different genres are crucial to the readings of da clauses. Spatial and temporal usages, for example, occur more often in sermons than in other genres. The conditional reading, in contrast, strongly tends to occur in legal texts, where it displays very high frequency. This could be the reason why da clauses carry indexical meaning in contemporary German and are associated with formal language. Over the course of the 18th century, the causal usages increase in all genres. Surprisingly, these causal da clauses tend to be placed in front of the matrix clause despite the overall tendency of causal clauses to follow the matrix clause.

scholarly journals Icelandic Control Is Not A-Movement: The Case from Case

2009 ◽  
Vol 40 (1) ◽  
pp. 113-132 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jonathan David Bobaljik ◽  
Idan Landau
Keyword(s):  
Relevant Literature ◽  
Matrix Clause ◽  
Subsequent Work ◽  
Nominative Case ◽  
Case Assignment ◽  
Obligatory Control ◽  
Movement Theory ◽  
The Matrix ◽  
Infinitival Complements ◽  
Domain Independent

A rich literature on Icelandic syntax has established that infinitival complements of obligatory control verbs constitute a case assignment domain independent from the matrix clause, and in this differ systematically from all types of A-movement, which manifest case dependence/preservation. As Landau (2003) has observed, these facts provide significant counterevidence to the movement theory of control (Hornstein 1999 and subsequent work). Boeckx and Hornstein (2006a) attempt to defend this theory in light of data from Icelandic. We offer here a review of the relevant literature, and we show that Boeckx and Hornstein's reply fails on several counts. We further argue that contrary to their claims, PRO in Icelandic receives structural rather than default (nominative) case, leaving the movement theory with no account for the distinction between PRO and lexical subjects.

Causal inference or conventionalized meaning? A corpus study of the German connector nachdem ‘after’ in regional standard varieties

2018 ◽  
Vol 52 (2) ◽  
pp. 483-522
Author(s):  
Melitta Gillmann
Keyword(s):  
Information Structure ◽  
Causal Link ◽  
Conversational Implicature ◽  
Matrix Clause ◽  
Corpus Study ◽  
Individual Level ◽  
Token Frequency ◽  
The Matrix ◽  
Temporal Succession ◽  
German Standard

AbstractDrawing on a corpus study using German and Austrian parliamentary protocols, this paper shows that the originally temporal connectornachdem‘after’ may carry causal meaning in southern German standard varieties. In these varieties,nachdemclauses may occur with individual level predicates, cases which, I will argue, provide unambiguously causal contexts since a temporal succession of events is excluded with individual level predicates. Whilenachdemdisplays polysemy comparable to Englishsincein southern German standard varieties, it is a temporal marker in central and northern German varieties and a causal link may arise only due to a conversational implicature. The observed polysemy coincides with a higher token frequency ofnachdemas well as a higher incidence of present tense use in thenachdemclause in the respective southern German varieties. Remarkably, causalnachdemclauses show a clear tendency to be fronted to the matrix clause despite the overall tendency of causal clauses to be post-posed, both cross-linguistically and in German, which may be explained in terms of information structure and discourse-organizing functions.

Designing TIMP (tissue inhibitor of metalloproteinases) variants that are selective metalloproteinase inhibitors

2003 ◽  
Vol 70 ◽  
pp. 201-212 ◽  
Author(s):  
Hideaki Nagase ◽  
Keith Brew
Keyword(s):  
Three Dimensional ◽  
Therapeutic Interventions ◽  
Tissue Inhibitors Of Metalloproteinases ◽  
Structural Basis ◽  
Structural Elements ◽  
Ridge Structure ◽  
Extracellular Matrix Components ◽  
Metalloproteinase Inhibitors ◽  
The Matrix ◽  
A Disintegrin And Metalloproteinase

The tissue inhibitors of metalloproteinases (TIMPs) are endogenous inhibitors of the matrix metalloproteinases (MMPs), enzymes that play central roles in the degradation of extracellular matrix components. The balance between MMPs and TIMPs is important in the maintenance of tissues, and its disruption affects tissue homoeostasis. Four related TIMPs (TIMP-1 to TIMP-4) can each form a complex with MMPs in a 1:1 stoichiometry with high affinity, but their inhibitory activities towards different MMPs are not particularly selective. The three-dimensional structures of TIMP-MMP complexes reveal that TIMPs have an extended ridge structure that slots into the active site of MMPs. Mutation of three separate residues in the ridge, at positions 2, 4 and 68 in the amino acid sequence of the N-terminal inhibitory domain of TIMP-1 (N-TIMP-1), separately and in combination has produced N-TIMP-1 variants with higher binding affinity and specificity for individual MMPs. TIMP-3 is unique in that it inhibits not only MMPs, but also several ADAM (a disintegrin and metalloproteinase) and ADAMTS (ADAM with thrombospondin motifs) metalloproteinases. Inhibition of the latter groups of metalloproteinases, as exemplified with ADAMTS-4 (aggrecanase 1), requires additional structural elements in TIMP-3 that have not yet been identified. Knowledge of the structural basis of the inhibitory action of TIMPs will facilitate the design of selective TIMP variants for investigating the biological roles of specific MMPs and for developing therapeutic interventions for MMP-associated diseases.

scholarly journals In situ structure and organization of the influenza C virus surface glycoprotein

2021 ◽  
Vol 12 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Steinar Halldorsson ◽  
Kasim Sader ◽  
Jack Turner ◽  
Lesley J. Calder ◽  
Peter B. Rosenthal
Keyword(s):  
Membrane Fusion ◽  
Hexagonal Lattice ◽  
Surface Glycoprotein ◽  
Structural Basis ◽  
Virus Surface ◽  
The Matrix ◽  
Influenza C Virus ◽  
Subtomogram Averaging ◽  
Electron Cryotomography

AbstractThe lipid-enveloped influenza C virus contains a single surface glycoprotein, the haemagglutinin-esterase-fusion (HEF) protein, that mediates receptor binding, receptor destruction, and membrane fusion at the low pH of the endosome. Here we apply electron cryotomography and subtomogram averaging to describe the structural basis for hexagonal lattice formation by HEF on the viral surface. The conformation of the glycoprotein in situ is distinct from the structure of the isolated trimeric ectodomain, showing that a splaying of the membrane distal domains is required to mediate contacts that form the lattice. The splaying of these domains is also coupled to changes in the structure of the stem region which is involved in membrane fusion, thereby linking HEF’s membrane fusion conformation with its assembly on the virus surface. The glycoprotein lattice can form independent of other virion components but we show a major role for the matrix layer in particle formation.

Preschoolers’ imitation of sentential complement sentences: Does the nature of the matrix clause matter?

2021 ◽  
pp. 014272372110242
Author(s):  
Ian Morton ◽  
C. Melanie Schuele
Keyword(s):  
Language Development ◽  
Age Group ◽  
Matrix Clause ◽  
Developmental Progression ◽  
Main Effect ◽  
Dependent Variables ◽  
The Matrix ◽  
Group 3 ◽  
Sentence Imitation ◽  
Experimental Findings

Preschoolers’ earliest productions of sentential complement sentences have matrix clauses that are limited in form. Diessel proposed that matrix clauses in these early productions are propositionally empty fixed phrases that lack semantic and syntactic integration with the clausal complement. By 4 years of age, however, preschoolers produce sentential complement sentences with matrix clauses that are more varied. Diessel proposed that the matrix clauses in these later productions semantically and syntactically embed the complement clause. We refer to these matrix clauses as formulaic and true, respectively. Diessel’s hypothesis about the development of sentential complement sentences was based on an analysis of spontaneous language. The purpose of this study was to evaluate Diessel’s hypothesis with an experimental sentence imitation task wherein stimuli varied in the nature of the matrix clause. Thirty children with typical language development participated; 10 children in each age group (3-, 4-, and 5-year-olds) imitated 50 sentential complement sentences that included either a true or a formulaic matrix clause; the structure of the dependent clauses did not vary. Dependent variables were percent sentence imitation and percent matrix clause imitation. There was a significant main effect for matrix clause type on imitation of sentences and matrix clauses. There was also a significant main effect for age on imitation of sentences and matrix clauses. Significant matrix clause type-by-age interactions were such that percent sentence imitation and percent matrix clause imitation varied by age. Three- and 4-year-olds were less proficient than 5-year-olds on imitation of sentences with true matrix clauses and on imitations of true matrix clauses. Only 3- and 4-year-olds were less proficient imitating true matrix clauses than formulaic matrix clauses. Experimental findings support Diessel’s hypothesis that there is a developmental progression in the nature of preschoolers’ production of sentential complement sentences.

Equidistance returns

2018 ◽  
Vol 35 (3) ◽  
pp. 413-461 ◽  
Author(s):  
Nicholas Longenbaugh ◽  
Maria Polinsky
Keyword(s):  
Subject Position ◽  
Matrix Clause ◽  
Content Type ◽  
Object Shift ◽  
Case System ◽  
The Matrix ◽  
Case Licensing ◽  
Embedded Clause ◽  
Text Content ◽  
Semantic Object

Abstract Modern generative linguistic theory furnishes a variety of general principles that appear to be at work in the grammar of all the world’s languages. One of the most basic and uncontroversial of these principles is that Agree/Move operates according to the constraint Attract Closest, which dictates that the closest suitable goal must be the target for the relevant operation (Rizzi 1990; Chomsky 1995, 2000; Richards 1998). The Polynesian language Niuean (Tongic subgroup, predicate initial word order, ergative-absolutive case system) presents a well known challenge to the universality of {Attract Closest}. The challenge manifests in a variety of distinct constructions in Niuean, but the best known case involves an operation first documented by Seiter (1980), which he terms “raising.” Specifically, Niuean raising appears to license an A-type dependency between the subject position of the matrix clause and the object position of an immediately embedded clause. This is illustrated in (1), where the semantic object of the embedded subjunctive clause, Sione, appears as the syntactic subject of the matrix predicate maeke. (1) To maeke a Sione$_{1}$ [ke lagomatai he ekekafo $t_{1}$]. fut possible abs Sione sbj help erg doctor ‘It’s possible the doctor can help Sione.’ (lit.: Sione is possible that the doctor help [him]) Granting that the filler-gap dependency in (1) is A-type, this is both a clear violation of {Attract closest} (Rizzi 1992; Chomsky 1995; Richards 1998) and a typological anomaly. Our aim in this paper is to argue that such apparent violations of {Attract Closest} are only that. Specifically, we show first that the challenge inherent in Seiter’s raising construction is pervasive throughout the language: in general, objects are accessible to syntactic operations even if the intervening clause-mate subject is also a licit target. In other words, Niuean clause-mate subjects and objects are equally accessible to syntactic operations. Then, we argue that this typologically uncommon equal-accessibility follows from the convergence of several otherwise independently attested operations: (i) a configurational system of case licensing, with a $v$P as the case computation domain; (ii) obligatory object shift to Spec($v$P); (iii) an EPP on T triggering V/VP-raising rather than DP externalization. The resulting basic clause structure is then as below, so that Niuean adheres to standard locality constraints. (2)

scholarly journals Featural definition of syntactic positions: Evidence from hyper-raising

2018 ◽  
Vol 3 (1) ◽  
pp. 2 ◽  
Author(s):  
Suzana Fong
Keyword(s):  
Phase Problem ◽  
Matrix Clause ◽  
The Matrix ◽  
The Subject ◽  
Embedded Clause ◽  
Definition Of ◽  
Finite Clause

Hyper-raising consists in raising a DP from an embedded finite clause into the matrix clause. HR introduces a phase problem: the embedded clause is finite, which is supposed to be impervious to raising. This can be overcome by postulating A-features at the C of the the embedded clause. They trigger the movement of the subject to [Spec, CP]. Being at the edge of a phase, it is visible to a matrix probe. If successful, this analysis provides support for the claim that syntactic positions are not inherently A or A-bar; they can be defined featurally instead.

Functional and anaphoric control

2019 ◽  
pp. 545-601
Author(s):  
Mary Dalrymple ◽  
John J. Lowe ◽  
Louise Mycock
Keyword(s):  
Matrix Clause ◽  
Partial Control ◽  
Subject And Object ◽  
The Matrix ◽  
Syntactic Relations ◽  
Lexical Constraints

This chapter explores the syntax and semantics of functional and anaphoric control, constructions in which either syntactic or lexical constraints require coreference between an argument of the matrix clause (the controller) and an argument of a subordinate or modifying adjunct clause (the controllee). Such cases include the classes of “raising” verbs (Section 15.2) and “equi” verbs (Section 15.4). Crosslinguistically, descriptions of such constructions involve reference to functional syntactic relations such as subject and object; therefore, the syntactic discussion in this chapter is primarily centered around the f-structures of functional and anaphoric control constructions. A detailed semantic analyses of functional and anaphoric control constructions is also presented, considering arbitrary, obligatory, and quasi-obligatory (partial) control relations, and a discussion of the syntax and semantics of control in adjuncts (Section 15.8).

Subordinate clauses

2019 ◽  
pp. 237-288
Author(s):  
Jan Terje Faarlund
Keyword(s):  
Word Order ◽  
Relative Clauses ◽  
Main Clause ◽  
Matrix Clause ◽  
Subordinate Clauses ◽  
Different Types ◽  
The Matrix ◽  
Infinitival Clauses ◽  
Finite Verb ◽  
Nominal Clauses

In subordinate clauses, the C position is occupied by a complementizer word, which may be null. The finite verb stays in V. SpecCP is either empty or occupied by a wh-word, or by some other element indicating its semantic function. Nominal clauses are finite or non-finite. Finite nominal clauses are declarative or interrogative. Declarative nominal clauses may under specific circumstances have main clause word order (‘embedded V2’). Infinitival clauses are marked by an infinitive marker, which is either in C (Swedish), or immediately above V (Danish). Norwegian has both options. Relative clauses comprise several different types; clauses with a relativized nominal argument are mostly introduced by a complementizer; adverbial relative clauses relativize a locative or temporal phrase, with or without a complementizer; comparative clauses relativize a degree or identity. Under hard-to-define circumstances depending on language and region, subordinate clauses allow extraction of phrases up into the matrix clause.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document