Bare infinitives in Alemannic and the categorial status of infinitival complements
Bare infinitives in Alemannic and the categorial status of infinitival complements
复制标题
阿勒曼尼语中的裸不定式和不定式补语的范畴地位
DOI：
--
复制
发表时间：
2006
期刊：
影响因子：
--
通讯作者：
Eleonore Brandner
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Eleonore Brandner
本文主要讨论不定式标记在标准德语和德国南部方言阿勒曼尼语中的分布和功能。乍一看，这两种变体的形式和分布在很大程度上不同。最重要的区别是，阿勒曼尼语在SG中出现的环境中通常缺少不定式标记zu（英语中为to，荷兰语中为te）。相反，裸不定式的使用要比SG中大得多。详细的比较显示了这些阿勒曼尼的数据如何为SG不定式结构提供一些新的线索-这是出了名的难以分析，特别是zu的使用。结果表明，“组”在重构语境中几乎没有发挥任何句法作用，因此最好是在构词成分中而不是在句法中加以解释。另一个要讨论的重要问题是外位。如下文所示，外置在阿勒曼尼语中的使用比在SG中广泛得多--尽管如此，阿勒曼尼语的构式还是表现出了单句性，即连贯性。我认为，不应该把外置作为一个指示的双分句结构-因为它是传统上做的-而是在SG中的首选内置顺序应分析的PF“翻转操作”。因此，SG和阿勒曼尼克之间已证实的变化将仅仅是表面上的变化。但在某些结构中，这两种变体的差异更大，即在命题动词的语境中。这些差异将追溯到第二种zu的存在-仅存在于SG中-确实可以许可完整的CP。
This article deals mainly with the distribution and function of the infinitival marker in Standard German and in Alemannic, a dialect spoken in Southern Germany.* At first sight both form and distribution differ in these two variants to a great extent. The most important difference is that Alemannic generally lacks the infinitival marker zu (to in English, te in Dutch) in the environments where it occurs in SG. Instead, bare infinitives are used to a much greater extent than in SG. A detailed comparison shows how these Alemannic data can shed some new light on SG infinitival constructions — which are notoriously hard to analyze, especially the use of zu. It will turn out that zu plays hardly any syntactic role in restructuring contexts and is thus best accounted for in the word formation component rather than in the syntax. Another important issue to be discussed is extraposition. As will be shown below, extraposition is a much more widely used option in Alemannic than in SG — nevertheless, the Alemannic constructions show mono-clausal, i.e. coherent properties. I will argue that extraposition should not be taken as an indication for a bi-clausal structure — as it is done traditionally — but rather that the preferred intraposed order in SG should be analyzed in terms of a PF “flip-operation”. The attested variation between SG and Alemannic will thus turn out to be merely variation on the surface. But there are constructions where both variants differ more profoundly, namely in the context of propositional verbs. These differences will be traced back to the existence of a second kind of zu — existing only in SG — that can indeed license a full CP.