Manner of Obtainment as a relative in a family of resultative constructions

The present paper examines the syntactic and semantic properties of a group of constructions which carry an idiomatic interpretation of obtainment. In Polish and German, the constructions under consideration consist of a verb with a directional particle followed by an object NP, as exemplified in (1a)-(1b). (1a) Adam wynurkował starego buta. (Polish) Adam wy- snorkeled old shoe. ‘Adam found an old shoe while snorkeling.’ (1b) Michael erboxte sich den Titel. (German) Michael er- boxed REFL the title. ‘Michael boxed his way to the (championship) title.’ Sentences containing these constructions will be assumed to have the same basic interpretation “Subject obtains/produces Object by V-ing”. A constructional analysis of the constructions will be proposed, as they pose licensing problems and their interpretation cannot be accounted for in terms of the individual conceptual structures of the lexical items composing the sentence. Unlike most accounts of verb particle constructions based on implicit or explicit assumptions of straightforward semantic composition, the present study proposes an analysis under which the semantic structure of verb particle combinations is not a compositional function of the verb and the particle/prefix alone. It is argued that the construction comes with its own subcategorization frame (separate from that carried by the verb) which is motivated by the meaning of the construction and its corresponding constructional subevent. Additionally, a crosslinguistic correlation will be shown to hold between a language’s ability to express event conflation (Talmy 1985, 2000) and the occurrence of some form of the construction in that language. This will be taken as an indication of the resultative nature of those types of directional phrases which involve the semantic interpretation of boundary crossing.

Imperatives in concessive clauses: compatibility between constructions

In his pioneering paper on “Performative Subordinate Clauses,” Lakoff (1984) claimed that subordinate clauses expressing a reason or concession allow imperatives conveying statements (i.e. assertive illocutionary force). While this analysis has gone unchallenged to this day, the present paper shows that Lakoff’s analysis is inadequate, in that reason and concessive clauses show a sharp contrast in the kinds of imperative utterances they permit. Contra Lakoff, concessive clauses with although, though and except (that) do allow imperative constructions conveying directive illocutionary forces to occur, whereas by contrast those with even though tend to disallow both types of imperatives. These findings can be explained in terms of compatibility between “component” constructions constituting a complex sentence. It is argued that the compatibility between imperatives (both directive and assertive types) and concessive adverbials (excluding even though) can be attributed to the latter’s loose integration into a matrix clause required by the former. Furthermore, it is argued that the incompatibility of even though with imperatives arises primarily from the incompatibility between the tight integration of even though and the loose integration required by imperatives, together with the associated incompatibility between the non-rectifying function of even though and the rectifying conjunction favored by imperatives.

Zur Inhaltsstruktur von Rechtsnormen: Modalitäten und Normtypen

Rechtsnormen als Texte – Versuch einer Zusammenführung von Rechtstheorie und Linguistik: Rechtstheoretiker sind sich zwar bewusst, dass Recht wesentlich Sprache ist; diese Voraussetzung wird aber in der konkreten Analyse von Rechtsnormen und ihrer Struktur nur selten systematisch berücksichtigt; zumeist wird von der konkreten sprachlichen Form abgesehen oder der einzelne Satz wird als formale Größe absolut gesetzt. Dazu werden auch meist wichtige Erkenntnisse der Linguistik kaum berücksichtigt, etwa grundlegende Differenzierungen wie jene zwischen Satz und Text bzw. Grammatik und Äußerung oder Ausdruck und Inhalt. Dieser Beitrag versucht, Rechtsnormen als geschriebene Texte sui generis, d. h. als sprachliche Objekte, ernst zu nehmen und aus einem textlinguistischen Blickwinkel zu betrachten, durchaus im Horizont der Rechtstheorie und deren Erkenntnisinteresse, und die grundlegenden Eigenschaften von Rechtsnormen aus dieser zweifachen Perspektive deutlicher zu klären, etwa in Bezug auf die innere Struktur von Rechtsnormen, auf eine Typologie von Rechtsnormen, die Bedeutung von einzelnen Normen, das Verhältnis von innerer Struktur und äusserer Form oder die Adressatenfrage.

Dutch boundaries

In many schools of architecture the 1970s have been an important watershed for the way in which architecture was taught. For example, recent studies have stressed the importance of Aldo Rossi for the changes in the teaching of architec-ture at the ETH in Zürich that before was based on orthodox modern principles. A similar struggle between an orthodox conception of modernity and its criticism took place at the architectural faculty of Delft, in the Netherlands. Although Delft is an important European school of architecture, the theoretical work produced during this period is not largely known outside the Netherlands. This is perhaps due to the fact that most studies were published in Dutch. With this article, I intend to make the architectural theory developed during this period known to a larger public. The article describes the intellectual journey made by Dutch stu-dents of architecture in the 1970s and 1980s. This was the quest to receive recognition for the intellectual substance of architecture: the insight architecture could be a discourse and a form of knowledge and not only a method of building. Specifically, the work of the architectural theoretician Wim Nijenhuis is highlight-ed. However, as I point out in this article, the results of this journey also had its problematic sides. This becomes clear from the following sentence taken from the dissertation of Wim Nijenhuis: "The search for metaphysical fiction and the tendency towards a technological informed absolute through fully transparent and simultaneous information, should be contested by a fantasy dimension, that does not wish to 'overcome' a given situation and that does not rely on 'creativi-ty' (that would still be historical and humanistic)." Texts like this have a hermet-ic quality that is not easy to comprehend for an architectural public. Even more, there is an important debate looming behind these sentences. As an important outcome of their quest the architectural students in Delft asked themselves: how do we give form to architectural theory once its claim to truth is exposed as an illusion? For Nijenhuis, the discourse about architecture is a mere 'artful game with words': a fiction, besides other forms of fiction like poetry or literature. The question is then if we have not entered the realm of total subjectivity and relativ-ism with this position. From what can the discourse of architecture derive its authority after the death of God?