Marco García García - Profile on Academia.edu (original) (raw)

Uploads

Conference Presentations by Marco García García

Research paper thumbnail of Construcciones con verbo soporte y otras construcciones afines

Estudios Filológicos Alemanes, 2005

Research paper thumbnail of p + di que + q als Konzessivkonstruktion im Spanischen?

p + di que + q als Konzessivkonstruktion im Spanischen?

p + di que + q als Konzessivkonstruktion im Spanischen?, 2011

Papers by Marco García García

Research paper thumbnail of Sprachwandel – Chat-Kommunikation

Sprachwandel – Chat-Kommunikation

Research paper thumbnail of Rezension von "Schwarze, Brigitte (2008): Genus im Sprachvergleich. Klassifikation und Kongruenz im Spanischen, Französischen und Deutschen

Rezension von "Schwarze, Brigitte (2008): Genus im Sprachvergleich. Klassifikation und Kongruenz im Spanischen, Französischen und Deutschen

Research paper thumbnail of Entwicklung und historischer Stillstand – zur DOM im Spanischen

Entwicklung und historischer Stillstand – zur DOM im Spanischen

Research paper thumbnail of System vs. usage: (Never) mind the gap

System vs. usage: (Never) mind the gap

Research paper thumbnail of Shifting from animacy to agentivity

Shifting from animacy to agentivity

Research paper thumbnail of NP exclamatives and focus

NP exclamatives and focus

This paper makes a contribution to the study of Spanish noun phrase (NP) ex-clamatives, such as ¡... more This paper makes a contribution to the study of Spanish noun phrase (NP) ex-clamatives, such as ¡Las tonterías que dicen! 'The silly things they say!'. The main purpose is to explore the relation between NP exclamatives and the notion of focus. I compare NP exclamatives with canonical focus-marking constructions such as focus-fronting constructions and cleft sentences and show that they share some crucial syntactic and prosodic features. Elaborating on both the similarities and differences between these different constructions, I argue that NP exclamatives exhibit a special kind of focus that points not to the propositional content, but rather to the relation between the propositional content and the exclamative illocution. Making use of both focus theory and speech act theory, I claim that exclamative constructions express a non-contrastive focus that indicates the presence of non-fulfilled speaker expectations.

Research paper thumbnail of Introduction: Core issues of focus realization in Romance

Introduction: Core issues of focus realization in Romance

Despite numerous theoretical approaches and empirical analyses, it is not entirely clear how diff... more Despite numerous theoretical approaches and empirical analyses, it is not entirely clear how different focus types and constructions are realized and interpreted in individual Romance languages. Due to the complexity of this linguistic area, an interdisciplinary and cross-linguistic approach seems most appropriate for exploring the topic further. This introductory article gives an overview of the core problems related to focus realization in Romance, such as methodological in-congruences, differences regarding the conceptualization of focus categories, and nonobservance of diatopic variation. Moreover, it gives an outline of the present volume and situates the contributions with respect to the aforementioned issues.

Research paper thumbnail of Nominal and verbal parameters in the diachrony of DOM in Spanish

In Ilja A. Seržant & Alena Witzlack-Makarevich (eds.), Diachrony of differential argument marking, 209–242. Berlin: Language Science Press, 2018

Research paper thumbnail of Attributive subjects and case-marked objects: a concatenation of mismatches?

Research paper thumbnail of Differential Object Marking with Inanimate Objects

As shown in the table, a-marking with inanimate DOs is most frequently realised in combination with an inanimate subject (cf. the right column of the table): This is the case with 39 out of 50 a-marked tokens (i.e. 78%). We might argue that the distinguishability constraint is roughly confirmed from this perspective, although, of course, we could expect a higher percentage of marked objects. There are, however, two types of counter-evidence, which challenge the distinguishability constraint. First, it should be kept in mind that in the very same configuration, namely the one of inanimate subjects and inanimate objects (right column), there are only 39 out of 72 tokens where the DO is marked with a (1.e. 54%), while 33 of the tokens occur without prepositional marking. Thus, object marking is not categorically attested in cases where we would expect it according to the distinguishability constraint. It only occurs in about half of the cases in which an inanimate DO is realised in combination with an inanimate subject. The second type of - probably more serious - counter- evidence to the distinguishability constraint consists in the fact that we also find object marking in the combination of an inanimate DO and an animate subject, i.e. in the semantically natural or unmarked configuration (cf. the left column of the table). Although no apparent distinguishability problem should arise in this configuration, object marking is found in 11 out of 163 tokens (6,75%), which is 22% of the total of 50 tokens that are marked with a. Hence, object marking is attested in cases, where, according to the distinguishability constraint, we would not expect any marking at all. Some of the relevant tokens will be discussed in section 4.

Research paper thumbnail of Trans-duction. Introduction to Transitivity. Form, Meaning, Acquisition, and Processing. (Linguistik Aktuell/Linguistics Today 166). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.

Trans-duction. Introduction to Transitivity. Form, Meaning, Acquisition, and Processing. (Linguistik Aktuell/Linguistics Today 166). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.

Research paper thumbnail of Kasus bei situationsidentifizierenden Argumenten; einen Traum haben, einen Traum träumen, ein Träumer sein

Ma g i s t e r a r b e i t I n s t i t u t f ü r d e u t s c h e S p r a c h e u n d L i t e r a ... more Ma g i s t e r a r b e i t I n s t i t u t f ü r d e u t s c h e S p r a c h e u n d L i t e r a t u r d e r Un i v e r s i t ä t z u K ö l n Gu t a c h t e r i n : F r a u P r o f . Dr . B e a t r i c e P r i mu s 2 0 0 1 i

Research paper thumbnail of Differential object marking and informativeness

Research paper thumbnail of Construcciones con verbo soporte y otras construcciones afines

Books by Marco García García

Research paper thumbnail of Transitivity. Form, Meaning, Acquisition, and Processing

Transitivity. Form, Meaning, Acquisition, and Processing

Research paper thumbnail of Aspectualidad – Transitividad – Referencialidad. Las lenguas románicas en contraste

Aspectualidad – Transitividad – Referencialidad. Las lenguas románicas en contraste

Research paper thumbnail of Variation in Language: System- and Usage-Based Approaches

Variation in Language: System- and Usage-Based Approaches

Research paper thumbnail of Focus Realization in Romance and Beyond

Focus Realization in Romance and Beyond

Research paper thumbnail of Construcciones con verbo soporte y otras construcciones afines

Estudios Filológicos Alemanes, 2005

Research paper thumbnail of p + di que + q als Konzessivkonstruktion im Spanischen?

p + di que + q als Konzessivkonstruktion im Spanischen?

p + di que + q als Konzessivkonstruktion im Spanischen?, 2011

Research paper thumbnail of Sprachwandel – Chat-Kommunikation

Sprachwandel – Chat-Kommunikation

Research paper thumbnail of Rezension von "Schwarze, Brigitte (2008): Genus im Sprachvergleich. Klassifikation und Kongruenz im Spanischen, Französischen und Deutschen

Rezension von "Schwarze, Brigitte (2008): Genus im Sprachvergleich. Klassifikation und Kongruenz im Spanischen, Französischen und Deutschen

Research paper thumbnail of Entwicklung und historischer Stillstand – zur DOM im Spanischen

Entwicklung und historischer Stillstand – zur DOM im Spanischen

Research paper thumbnail of System vs. usage: (Never) mind the gap

System vs. usage: (Never) mind the gap

Research paper thumbnail of Shifting from animacy to agentivity

Shifting from animacy to agentivity

Research paper thumbnail of NP exclamatives and focus

NP exclamatives and focus

This paper makes a contribution to the study of Spanish noun phrase (NP) ex-clamatives, such as ¡... more This paper makes a contribution to the study of Spanish noun phrase (NP) ex-clamatives, such as ¡Las tonterías que dicen! 'The silly things they say!'. The main purpose is to explore the relation between NP exclamatives and the notion of focus. I compare NP exclamatives with canonical focus-marking constructions such as focus-fronting constructions and cleft sentences and show that they share some crucial syntactic and prosodic features. Elaborating on both the similarities and differences between these different constructions, I argue that NP exclamatives exhibit a special kind of focus that points not to the propositional content, but rather to the relation between the propositional content and the exclamative illocution. Making use of both focus theory and speech act theory, I claim that exclamative constructions express a non-contrastive focus that indicates the presence of non-fulfilled speaker expectations.

Research paper thumbnail of Introduction: Core issues of focus realization in Romance

Introduction: Core issues of focus realization in Romance

Despite numerous theoretical approaches and empirical analyses, it is not entirely clear how diff... more Despite numerous theoretical approaches and empirical analyses, it is not entirely clear how different focus types and constructions are realized and interpreted in individual Romance languages. Due to the complexity of this linguistic area, an interdisciplinary and cross-linguistic approach seems most appropriate for exploring the topic further. This introductory article gives an overview of the core problems related to focus realization in Romance, such as methodological in-congruences, differences regarding the conceptualization of focus categories, and nonobservance of diatopic variation. Moreover, it gives an outline of the present volume and situates the contributions with respect to the aforementioned issues.

Research paper thumbnail of Nominal and verbal parameters in the diachrony of DOM in Spanish

In Ilja A. Seržant & Alena Witzlack-Makarevich (eds.), Diachrony of differential argument marking, 209–242. Berlin: Language Science Press, 2018

Research paper thumbnail of Attributive subjects and case-marked objects: a concatenation of mismatches?

Research paper thumbnail of Differential Object Marking with Inanimate Objects

As shown in the table, a-marking with inanimate DOs is most frequently realised in combination with an inanimate subject (cf. the right column of the table): This is the case with 39 out of 50 a-marked tokens (i.e. 78%). We might argue that the distinguishability constraint is roughly confirmed from this perspective, although, of course, we could expect a higher percentage of marked objects. There are, however, two types of counter-evidence, which challenge the distinguishability constraint. First, it should be kept in mind that in the very same configuration, namely the one of inanimate subjects and inanimate objects (right column), there are only 39 out of 72 tokens where the DO is marked with a (1.e. 54%), while 33 of the tokens occur without prepositional marking. Thus, object marking is not categorically attested in cases where we would expect it according to the distinguishability constraint. It only occurs in about half of the cases in which an inanimate DO is realised in combination with an inanimate subject. The second type of - probably more serious - counter- evidence to the distinguishability constraint consists in the fact that we also find object marking in the combination of an inanimate DO and an animate subject, i.e. in the semantically natural or unmarked configuration (cf. the left column of the table). Although no apparent distinguishability problem should arise in this configuration, object marking is found in 11 out of 163 tokens (6,75%), which is 22% of the total of 50 tokens that are marked with a. Hence, object marking is attested in cases, where, according to the distinguishability constraint, we would not expect any marking at all. Some of the relevant tokens will be discussed in section 4.

Research paper thumbnail of Trans-duction. Introduction to Transitivity. Form, Meaning, Acquisition, and Processing. (Linguistik Aktuell/Linguistics Today 166). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.

Trans-duction. Introduction to Transitivity. Form, Meaning, Acquisition, and Processing. (Linguistik Aktuell/Linguistics Today 166). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.

Research paper thumbnail of Kasus bei situationsidentifizierenden Argumenten; einen Traum haben, einen Traum träumen, ein Träumer sein

Ma g i s t e r a r b e i t I n s t i t u t f ü r d e u t s c h e S p r a c h e u n d L i t e r a ... more Ma g i s t e r a r b e i t I n s t i t u t f ü r d e u t s c h e S p r a c h e u n d L i t e r a t u r d e r Un i v e r s i t ä t z u K ö l n Gu t a c h t e r i n : F r a u P r o f . Dr . B e a t r i c e P r i mu s 2 0 0 1 i

Research paper thumbnail of Differential object marking and informativeness

Research paper thumbnail of Construcciones con verbo soporte y otras construcciones afines

Research paper thumbnail of Transitivity. Form, Meaning, Acquisition, and Processing

Transitivity. Form, Meaning, Acquisition, and Processing

Research paper thumbnail of Aspectualidad – Transitividad – Referencialidad. Las lenguas románicas en contraste

Aspectualidad – Transitividad – Referencialidad. Las lenguas románicas en contraste

Research paper thumbnail of Variation in Language: System- and Usage-Based Approaches

Variation in Language: System- and Usage-Based Approaches

Research paper thumbnail of Focus Realization in Romance and Beyond

Focus Realization in Romance and Beyond

Research paper thumbnail of Differentielle Objektmarkierung bei unbelebten Objekten im Spanischen

Differentielle Objektmarkierung bei unbelebten Objekten im Spanischen