Linguistische Berichte Heft 197

This paper provides a comprehensive account of the structure and function of spoken relative clause constructions based on a systematic distinction between spontaneous spoken and formal written language. Spoken language relative clause constructions in English and German are structurally and pragmatically different from the complex relative constructions available in written language. They are structurally simple in terms of their noun phrases and argument structure. The form of pronouns is limited, especially in English. Relative pronouns have subject and direct object function. Non-subject head nouns are highly preferred. Predicate complement and broadly existential heads predominate in conversation. Embedding occurs in restricted contexts with informationally largely redundant relative clauses and the German verbal bracket is largely irrelevant. Many relative clauses have heads which are not part of a clause. All these features combine to downgrade verbs and events. As a result, the focus on referents is concentrated in spoken language. Relative clauses fit into a wider picture of pre- and postmodification in spoken language. They offer a compact, right-expanding solution to referent description. The distinction between restrictive and non-restrictive relative clauses is largely irrelevant for spoken language, nor can relative clauses be considered to be backgrounded. Instead they are best analysed in terms of three functions, serving to describe, intensify/confirm or identify the nature of referents. The discourse function of relative clause constructions as well as constraints on spoken language are central to their structure and the paper therefore provides further evidence of a usage-based account of language with implications for both linguistic theory as well as language acquisition.

The intention of this paper is to offer a lexically driven analysis for certain constructions in German, i.e. resultative constructions and the third construction. Additionally, the lexical information has to be supported by Linear Precedence rules (and other rules) that in a certain sense implement the information structure. The Linear-Precedence rules are fed by the output of the semantic representation. The semantic representation has a predicate-calculus-structure. The output of the semantic representation also decides the choice between two or more syntactical categories for a lexical element. The syntactic categories are inspired by categorial grammar. Only two rules are applied to the semantical representation and the syntax, respectively, i.e. application and functional composition. This paper aims to show that a lexicalist analysis of the constructions in question should be amended by a set of LP-rules that state constraints on word order. However, in contrast to previous generative accounts, the analysis proposed in this paper is non-transformational in nature.

This paper deals with the use of personal pronouns as determiners in German and to some extent in English. Its aim is to explain why the transitive use of singular first and second person personal pronouns is highly restricted, also demonstrating that, at least in German, it is not as restricted as is often claimed: It is not the case that transitive ich and du necessarily select NP-complements that contain an abusive word. The explanation includes considerations concerning the different referential properties of transitive uses of plural first and second personal pronouns on the one hand and their singular equivalents on the other and is finally based on Grice's theory of conversation.