Subject internal ellipse

from Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The term internal subject ellipse is a technical term from syntax .

Explanation

The subject internal ellipse is a possibility of the coordination ellipse . In the case of an internal subject ellipse, the subject is left out inside a sentence. Two main clauses connected with “and” have the same subject. The first main clause has the order of the word order: Vorfeld - finite verb form - subject - and so on. As with statements, the finite verb typically comes in second place ( V2 sentence ). The subject stands in the “middle field”, which was the reason for the creator of the term to name it as a subject within an ellipse. This sentence is continued after the "and" with the same subject. The subject is not mentioned explicitly, but omitted (ellipse). The fact that the second subject is left out is called " gapping " in technical terms . The word order for the second, after and following main clause is (in principle) the one that occurs most frequently in declarative clauses in the German language: subject, finite verb form and so on. Since the subject is not explicitly mentioned but left out, a verbal sentence ( V1 sentence ) results for this second part after the “and” . To put it scientifically, it sounds like this: "Subject internal ellipses are anaphoric coordination ellipses in which the subject of the second conjunct is to be expanded, whereby the conjuncts are constructed syntactically differently." This is also referred to as "non-equivalence of the coordination cores". (Sometimes the term internal subject ellipse is also used for those sentence series whose first part contained the subject in advance, but that is not correct in the sense of Walther Kindt.) Regarding the lack of the subject in the second sentence, one also finds the formulation “Consequently, from one To assume double linkage of the subject. "

For main sentence series, in which the first part is also formed in the order that occurs most frequently for German statements, subject - finite verb form - and so on (V2 position), if the same subject is omitted in the second part after the "and" the technical term "subject internal ellipse" is sometimes used. Kindt writes: There are non-excluding anaphoric coordination ellipses in German also for the case that the coordination complement is identical to the subject. This type of ellipse, which we want to call internal subject ellipse, has only recently been "rediscovered" by elliptical research (Höhle (1983), Kindt (1985), Steedman (1990), Wunderlich (1988).) What is particularly noticeable about internal subject ellipses is that in their case the two cores have a different structure.This becomes clear, for example, in a sentence quoted by Wunderlich:

In den Wald ging ein Jäger und fing einen Hasen.

Here the two corresponding verb phrases are comparable neither in terms of word order nor of valence structure.

Examples of subject internal ellipses

Examples of subject ellipses can easily be found in many texts.

Den modischen Rock sah die fröhliche Studentin und kaufte ihn.
In den Wald ging ein Mädchen und beobachtete den Hasen.

Comparison of possible and non-possible subject internal ellipses

In order for subject internal ellipses to be possible, special requirements must be met. Kindt: "In addition, a prerequisite for the correctness of the subject internal ellipse is that the left core allows the subject to be thematized." An example is the comparison of two sentences with a rearrangement of the order of the partial sentences. The following applies as a possible subject internal ellipse:

Aus Baden kommt dieser Wein und schmeckt mir.

If, on the other hand, the sentence is rearranged, an internal subject ellipse is no longer possible :

Mir schmeckt dieser Wein und kommt aus Baden.

To justify the fact that no subject internal ellipse is possible here, Walther Kindt writes:

"This sentence is presumably only partially acceptable because the focus of attention is not the grammatical subject" wine " , but the logical subject" me " ."

In this sentence, the topicalized (in front) dative object "mir" forms the subject, i. H. a statement is not made about the carrier of the grammatical subject, but about the speaker. Therefore she prefers a noun phrase verbal sequence structure for the first construction part. However, it conflicts with the verbal sequence-noun phrase structure required for the internal subject ellipse and this results in a decision dilemma that affects the processing of the sentence. Another argument is that “taste” is one of the “psychic verbs” in which u. U. the object precedes the subject in the word order

Necessary properties of the subject in subject internal ellipses formation

To explain the prerequisites that must be met so that an internal subject ellipse can be used, Walther Kindt writes: The principle can also be used to explain the peculiarity of the subject internal ellipse cf. (GÜNTHER / KINDT et al. 1991). In the following position, only subjects with a high emotional value remain in focus in such a way that they can be omitted in the right part of the coordination construction.

Heute kommt Karl und besucht seinen Freund.

Verberststellung of the second law

A verb second setting is not possible for the second part with the subject internal ellipse.

Nach Bielefeld ist der Autor gefahren und hält morgen einen Vortrag.
Nach Bielefeld ist der Autor gefahren und morgen hält einen Vortrag.

A comparison of the sentences shows that the first one with V1 position after the “and” is possible for an internal subject ellipse, the second with V2 position, however, is not.

Position of the missing subject

Various linguistics researchers have wondered whether the position of the missing subject would be before or after the second finite verb. To this end, the term SLF coordination (subject gap in finite / frontal sentences) was coined (Höhle, 1983). An example sentence is:

Bald danach wurde der Genosse Liebknecht verhaftet und (SL?) musste (SL?) ein ganzes Jahr Festungshaft in Glatz absitzen. (Günter Grass, Mein Jahrhundert)

Fanselow pleads for "before", Hartmann, on the other hand, pleads for after. Depending on the coherence relationship between the sub-clauses, the position should be before (cause-consequence and contiguity relationship) or after (similarity relationship) the finite verb. Walther Kindt, on the other hand, means that in the second conjunct there is no subject “missing”, but that one “refers” to the subject present in the first sentence.

Situation in Dutch

Koort daarna werd kameraad Liebknecht gearresteerd en (SL?) moest (SL?) een heel jaar vestingstraf in Glatz uisitten (Günter Grass, übersetzt von Jan Gielkens, Mijn eeuw)

In Dutch, for example, the subject is often taken up again after the finite verb. This dynamic subject gap comes closer in Dutch to a real subject ellipse , which is bound to formal and functional conditions, than in German. In this respect, it is also felt more strongly in Dutch as a missing subject, which is why this may be the case. U. also has to be resumed (Fanselow).

literature

  • Walther Kindt: Ellipses and other syntagmatic aspects. In: Gert Rickheit, Theo Herrmann, Werner Deutsch (Eds.): Psycholinguistik / Psycholinguistics. An International Handbook . Walter de Gruyter, Berlin 2003, pp. 306-316.
  • Walther Kindt: Word order as a problem of dynamic grammar. In: Brigitta Haftka (Ed.): What determines word order variation ? Studies on a field of interaction between grammar, pragmatics and language typology. Westdeutscher Verlag, Opladen 1994, pp. 49-62.
  • Gert Rickheit, Lorenz Sichelschmidt: Understanding ellipses, a holistic approach. In: Mathilde Hennig: The ellipse. New perspectives on an old phenomenon (= linguistics - impulses & tendencies. 52). Walter de Gruyter, Berlin 2013, pp. 159–182.

Individual evidence

  1. T. Höhle: Subject gaps in coordination. Unpublished manuscript. University of Tübingen, Tübingen 1983.
  2. ^ W. Kindt: Grammatical principles of so-called ellipses and a new syntax model. In: R. Meyer-Hermann, H. Rieser (Ed.): Ellipses and fragmentary expressions. Volume 1, Niemeyer, Tübingen 1985.
  3. ^ MJ Steedman: Gapping constituent coordination. In: Linguistics and Philosophy. 13, 1990, pp. 207-263.
  4. D. Wunderlich: Some Problems or Coordination in German. In: U. Reyle, C. Rohrer (Eds.): Natural Language Using and Linguistic Theories. Dordrecht 1988, pp. 289-316.
  5. Walther Kindt, personal communication
  6. U. Günther, W. Kindt, U. Schade, L. Sichelschmidt, H. Stroher: Elliptische Koordination. Structures and processes of local text coherence. In: Linguistic Reports. No. 146, 1993, pp. 312-342.
  7. Susanne Günthner, Klaus-Peter Konerding, Wolf Andreas Siebert, Thorsten Roelcke: In: Linguistik, Impulse & Tendenzen. 52, de Gruyter, p. 102.
  8. Walther Kindt: In: Linguistic reports. 247, p. 376.
  9. Jaronir Zeman: The German word order. Edition Praesens, Vienna 2002, ISBN 3-7069-0137-4 .
  10. ^ Gisbert Fanselow: Minimal Syntax. In: Groninger work on German linguistics. No. 32, 1991.
  11. ^ Katharina Hartmann: For the coordination of V2 sentences. In: Journal for Linguistics. Volume 13, No. 1, 1994, pp. 3-19.
  12. Geert Stuyckens: Position and type of subject gaps in verb- second coordination in a German> Dutch translation corpus .
  13. Personal communication from Professor Dr. Walther Kindt