Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-j824f Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-09T21:51:20.675Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Stress on particle verbs with durch in Modern German

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  05 December 2008

Wilbur A. Benware
Wilbur A. Benware
Affiliation:
University of California at DavisDavis, California 95616
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The verbal particle durch shows two stress patterns: stressed and unstressed. These are correlated with two different construals of the relation of a Trajector to a Landmark. When the relation is construed to be sequential from one side of the Landmark to the other, the particle is stressed. Non-sequentiality is correlated with unstressed particles.

Type
Articles
Information
Journal of Germanic Linguistics , Volume 4 , Issue 2 , July 1992 , pp. 149 - 180
Copyright
Copyright © Society for Germanic Linguistics 1992

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

WORKS CITED

Bennett, D.C. 1975. Spatial and temporal uses of English prepositions. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Chafe, Wallace. 1970. Meaning and the structure of language. Chicago and London: University of Chicago.Google Scholar
Curme, George O. 1922. A grammar of the German lan-guage. 2nd ed.New York: Ungar.Google Scholar
Dowty, David. 1979. Word meaning and Montague Grammar. Dordrecht: Reidel.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Engelen, Bernhard. 1978. “Zum Status des Elements durch in Sätzen wie Er ist durch den Wald durchgelaufen.” Zeitschrift für germanistische Linguistik 6:178–186.Google Scholar
Erben, Johannes. 1972. Deutsche Grammatik. Ein Abriβ. 11. Auflage. München: Hueber.Google Scholar
Eroms, Hans-Werner. 1981. Valenz, Kasus und Präpositionen. Heidelberg: Winter.Google Scholar
Eroms, Hans-Werner. 1982. “Trennbarkeit und Nichttrennbarkeit bei den deutschen Partikelverben mit durch und um” Tendenzen verbaler Wortbildung in der deutschen Gegenwartssprache. Ed. Eichinger, Ludwig M.. Hamburg: Buske. Pp. 33–50.Google Scholar
Foley, William A. and Van Valin, Robert D. Jr. 1984. Functional syntax and universal grammar. Cambridge: Cambridge Univ. Press.Google Scholar
Heidolph, Karl Erich, Flämig, Walter and Motsch, Wolfgang. 1981. Grundzüge einer deutschen Grammatik. Berlin: Akademie Verlag.Google Scholar
Holisky, Dee Ann. 1987. “The case of the intransitive subject in Tsova-Tush (Batsbi).” Lingua 71:103–132.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Itälä, Marja-Leena. 1984. Die lokosemantischen Interrelationen zwischen Verb und Lokativbestimmung. Turku: Turun Yliopisto.Google Scholar
Jolly, Julia. 1987. “An analysis of selected English prepositions within the framework of Role and Reference Grammar.” Davis working papers in linguistics 2. 60–114.Google Scholar
Kjellman, Nils. 1945. Die Verbalzusammensetzungen mit ‘durch’. Lund: Gleerup.Google Scholar
Kühnhold, Ingeburg. 1973. “Präfixverben”. Deutsche Wortbildung. Typen und Tendenzen in der Gegenwartssprache. Erster Hauptteil: Das Verb. Ed. Kühnhold, Ingeburg and Wellmann, Hans. Pp. 141–375. Düsseldorf: Schwann.Google Scholar
Lakoff, George. 1986. Women, fire and dangerous things. Chicago: Univ. of Chicago.Google Scholar
Langacker, Ronald. 1987. Foundations of cognitive grammar I: Theoretical perequisites. Stanford: Stanford Univ. Press.Google Scholar
Lindner, Susan Jean. 1983. A lexico-semantic analysis of English verb-particle constructions with ‘out’ and ‘up’. Bloomington: Indiana Univ. Linguistics Club.Google Scholar
Lischke, Gunhild Iris. 1988. German spatial prepositions and their metaphorical use in verb-preposition combinations. M.A. thesis, Cornell University.Google Scholar
Mater, Erich. 1966. Deutsche Verben 1. Alphabetisches Gesamtverzeichnis. Leipzig: VEB Bibliographisches Institut.Google Scholar
Schanen, François. 1979. “Le préverbe <durch>.” Cahiers d'allemand 14:17–34.Google Scholar
Schmitz, Werner. 1968. Der Gebrauch der deutschen Präpositionen. 5th ed.München: Hueber.Google Scholar
Schröder, Jochen. 1986. Lexikon deutscher Präpositionen. Leipzig: Enzyklopädie.Google Scholar
Smith, Michael B. 1987. The semantics of dative and accusative in German: An investigation in Cognitive Grammar. Ph.D. Dissertation. University of California, San Diego.Google Scholar
Talmy, Leonard. 1983. “How language structures space.” Spatial orientation. Eds. Pick, Herbert L. Jr. and Acredolo, Linda. New York and London: Plenum. Pp 225–282.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Van, Valin, Robert, D. Jr. (forthcoming). “A synopsis of role and reference grammar.” Advances in role and reference grammar. Ed. Van Valin, R. D. Jr. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Vendler, Zeno. 1967. Philosophy in linguistics. Ithaca: Cornell Univ. Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Waugh, Linda R. 1982. “Marked and unmarked: A choice between unequals in semiotic structure.” Semiotica 38:299–318.CrossRefGoogle Scholar