Chapter published in:
Contrastive Studies in Verbal Valency
Edited by Lars Hellan, Andrej L. Malchukov and Michela Cennamo
[Linguistik Aktuell/Linguistics Today 237] 2017
► pp. 84–108

Infinitives

A comparative German-Norwegian study

| NTNU, Trondheim, Norway
In this article we discuss bare infinitive constructions in German and Norwegian, presenting research conducted as part of a comparative valence project. The project approaches valency from a construction oriented perspective, and combines the creation of Open Access monolingual Interlinear Glossed Text (IGT-data), with theoretical work that profiles these resources. Analytically the article builds on Bech's inventory of non-finite verb forms, and their behaviour in hypotactic verb chains. Our focus is on aspectual and perception verbs in German and Norwegian. Object control and switched control for deontic modal infinitives are discussed within the Lexical Functional Grammar framework, highlighting semantic in addition to functional constraints.
Published online: 30 April 2017
https://doi.org/10.1075/la.237.03bee
References

References

Abraham, Werner
2002 Characteristics of spoken vernaculars: parsing strategies? The case of German. In Present-day Dialectology: Problems and Findings, Johannes Bernardus Berns & Jaap van Marle (eds). Berlin: Walter de Gruyter. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Asudeh, Ash
2005 Control and semantic resource sensitivity. Journal of Linguistics 41: 465–511. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Bach, Emmon
1981 On time, tense, and aspect: An essay in English metaphysics. In Radical Pragmatics, Peter Cole (ed.), 63–81. New York NY: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Barwise, Jon & Perry, John
1983 Situations and Attitudes. Cambridge MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
Bayer, Josef
1986 The role of event expression in grammar. Studies in Language 10(1): 1–52. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Bech, Gunnar
1955 Studien zum deutschen Verbum infinitum. Tübingen: Max Niemeyer.Google Scholar
1983 Studien über das deutsche Verbum infinitum. Tübingen: Max Niemeyer.Google Scholar
Beermann, Dorothee
2014 Data management and analysis for endangered languages. In Endangered Languages and New Technologies, Mari C. Jones (ed.). Cambridge: CUP. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Beermann, Dorothee & Mihaylov, Pavel
2014 TypeCraft collaborative databasing and resource sharing for linguists. Language Resources and Evaluation 48(2): 203–225. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Beermann, Dorothee & Hellan, Lars
2016 Switched control and other ‘uncontrolled’ cases of obligatory control. In Proceedings of the Joint 2016 Conference on Head-driven Phrase Structure Grammar and Lexical Functional Grammar, Doug Arnold & Miriam Butt & Berthold Crysmann & Tracy Holloway King & Stefan Müller (eds), 64–82. Stanford: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
Behrens, Bergljot, Flecken, Monique & Carroll, Mary
2004 On the use and grammaticalization of progressive aspect in Dutch, Norwegian, and German. Journal of Germanic Linguistics 25(2): 95–136. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Berman, Judith
2003 Clause Syntax of German. Studies in Constraint-Based Lexicalism. Stanford CA: CSLI.Google Scholar
Bresnan, Joan
1982 Control and complementation. In The Mental Representation of Grammatical Relations, Joan Bresnan (ed.). Cambridge MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
2001 Lexical Functional Syntax. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Dalrymple, Mary
1999 Semantics and Syntax in Lexical Functional Grammar. Cambridge MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
Dalrymple, Mary, Kaplan, Ronald M., Maxwell III, John T. & Zaenen, Annie
(eds) 1995 Formal Issues in Lexical-Functional Grammar. Stanford CA: CSLI.Google Scholar
Dalrymple, Mary
2001 Lexical Functional Grammar [Syntax and Semantics 34]. New York NY: Academic Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Eisenberg, Peter
1989 Grundrisse der deutschen Grammatik, 2nd edn. Tübingen: Max Niemeyer.Google Scholar
Engel, Ulrich
1988 Deutsche Grammatik, 2nd. edn. Heidelberg: Groos.Google Scholar
Engh, Jan
1984 On the development of complex passive. Working Papers in Scandinavian Syntax 10: 1–23.Google Scholar
Fenstad, Jens Erik, Halvorsen, Per-Kristian, Langholm, Tore & van Benthem, Johan
1985 Equations, Schemata and Situations: A Framework for Linguistics Semantics [Technical Report 29]. Stanford CA: CSLI.Google Scholar
Gallmann, Peter
2014 Infinite Verbformen. Die Unterarten von infiniten Verbformen: Der sogeannte Status. Ms. Jena. http://​www​.personal​.uni​-jena​.de​/~x1gape​/Wort​/Wort​_Verb​_infinit​.pdf> (1 December 2015).Google Scholar
Haider, Hubert
1984 The case of German . In Studies in German Grammar, Jindrich Toman (ed.), 65–101. Dordrecht: Foris.Google Scholar
Halvorsen, Per-Kristian
1995 Situations and semantic descriptions in lexical-functional grammar. In Dalrymple et al. (eds).Google Scholar
Halvorsen, Per-Kristian & Kaplan, Ronald M.
1995 Projections and semantic description in lexial-functional grammar. In Dalrymple et al. (eds).Google Scholar
Hellan, Lars
2001 On complex passives in Norwegian. In Progress in Grammar. A Festschrift for the Linguistics Department,Tilburg University, Elena Anagnostoupolou & Marc van Oostendorp (eds). Amsterdam: Meertens Institute.Google Scholar
2014 Infinitive construction types in Norwegian. An inventory. Ms, NTNU, Trondheim.Google Scholar
Hellan, Lars, Johnsen, Lars & Pitz, Anneliese
1989 TROLL. Ms, University of Trondheim. http://​www​.nb​.no​/sprakbanken​/show​?serial​=sbr​-40​&lang​=nbGoogle Scholar
Hellan, Lars & Dakubu, Mary Esther Kropp
2010 Identifying Verb Constructions Cross-linguistically [SLAVOB series 6.3]. University of Ghana.Google Scholar
Hellan, Lars & Beermann, Dorothee
2014a Inducing grammars from IGT. In Human Language Technologies as a Challenge for Computer Science and Linguistics. Proceedings of LTC 2015, Poznan, Zygmunt Vetulani & Joseph Mariani (eds). Berlin: Springer. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2014b Infinitive constructions in Norwegian, in a comparative perspective. Paper presented at SWL6, Pavia, 10 September.Google Scholar
Hellan, Lars, Beermann, Dorothee, Bruland, Tore, Dakubu, Mary Esther Kropp & Marimon, Montserrat
2014 MultiVal: Towards a multilingual valence lexicon. Paper presented at LREC 2014.Google Scholar
Hellan, Lars & Bruland, Tore
2015 A cluster of applications around a Deep Grammar. In Vetulani & Mariani (eds), 503–508.Google Scholar
Höhle, Tilman N.
1983 Topologische Felder. Ms, Cologne.Google Scholar
Johnsen, Lars
1988 A note on subordination. University of Trondheim Working Papers in Linguistics (6): 195–202.Google Scholar
Kaplan, Ronald M. & Zaenen, Annie
2003 West-Germanic verb clusters in LFG. In Verb Constructions in German and Dutch [Current Issues in Linguistic Theory 242], Pieter A.M. Seuren & Gerard Kempen (eds). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Kiss, Tibor
1995 Infinite Komplementation: Neue Studien zum deutschen Verbum infinitum. Tübingen: Max Niemeyer. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Kratzer, Angelika
1991 Modality. In Semantik: Ein internationales Handbuch zeitgenössischer Forschung, Arnim von Stechow & Dieter Wunderlich (eds), 639–650. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Köbler, Gerhard
1995 Deutsches Etymologisches Wörterbuch. http://​www​.koeblergerhard​.de​/derwbhin​.html> (3 November 2015).Google Scholar
Lødrup, Helge
1996 The Theory of Complex Predicates and the Norwegian Verb få ‘get’. Working Papers in Scandinavian Syntax 57 1996, 76–91.Google Scholar
2002 Infinitival complements in Norwegian and the form-function relation. In Proceedings of the LFG02 Conference, Miriam Butt & Tracy Holloway King (eds). Stanford CA: CSLI.Google Scholar
Mair, Christian
1990 A contrastive analysis of object control in English and German. Papers and Studies in Contrastive Linguistics 25: 85–101.Google Scholar
Müller, Stefan
1999 Deutsche Syntax deklarativ. Tübingen: Niemeyer. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Nordgård, Torbjørn
1998 Norwegian Computational Lexicon (NorKompLeks). Proceedings of the 11th Nordic Conference on Computational Linguistics, 34–44.Google Scholar
Osborn, Timothy
2005 Coherence: A dependency grammar analysis. SKY Journal of Linguistics 18: 223–286.Google Scholar
van Pottelberge, Jeroen
2004 Der Am-Progressiv. Tübingen: Narr.Google Scholar
Polinsky, Maria
2013 Raising and control. In The Cambridge Handbook of Generative Syntax, Marcel den Dikken (ed.). Cambridge: CUP. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Radford, Andrew
1985 Transformational Syntax: A Student's Guide to Chomsky's Extended Standard Theory. Cambridge: CUP.Google Scholar
Ross, John Robert
1969 Auxiliaries as main verbs. In Studies in Philosophical Linguistics, Series I, William Todd (ed.), 77–102. Evanston IL: Great Expectations Press.Google Scholar
Smith, Carlota
1997 The Parameters of Aspect [Studies in Linguistics and Philosophy 43]. Dordrecht: Kluwer. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
von Stechow, Armin
1984 Gunnar Bech's Goverment and Binding Theory. Linguistics 22: 225–241. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Stiebels, Barbara
2015 Control. In Syntax – Theory and Analysis. An International Handbook [HSK 42], Tibor Kiss & Artemis Alexiadou (eds), 412–446. Berlin: De Gruyter.Google Scholar
Tonne, Ingebjørg
2007 Analyzing progressives in Norwegian. Nordic Journal of Linguistics 30(2): 185–208. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Verkuyl, Henk J.
1989 Aspectual classes and aspectual composition. Linguistics and Philosophy 12: 39–94. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Vogel, Johann Jacob
1756 Leipzigisches Geschicht-Buch, Oder Annales, Das ist: Jahr- und Tag Bücher Der Weltberühmten Königl. und Churfürstl. Sächsischen Kauff- und Handels-Stadt Leipzig. Leipzig: Lankisch.Google Scholar
Wittgenstein, Ludwig
1921 Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus. London: Kegan Paul.Google Scholar
Wurmbrand, Susi
2012 Infinitives. Restructuring and Clause Structure [Series Studies in Generative Grammar]. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.Google Scholar
Zaenen, Annie & Kaplan, Ronald M.
2002 Subsumption and equality: German partial fronting in LFG. In Proceedings of the LFG02 Conference, Miriam Butt & Tracy Holloway King (eds). Stanford CA: CSLI.Google Scholar
Zifonun, Gisela, Hoffmann, Ludger, Strecker, Bruno
(eds) 1997 Grammatik der deutschen Sprache. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.Google Scholar