Im ersten Teil des Aufsatzes versuche ich aufzuzeigen, weshalb Sprechakttheoretiker bis auf den heutigen Tag illokutionäre Akte immerzu im Schema ,,Konventionalismus vs. Intentionalismus“ analysieren und fast ausnahmlos als kommunikative Akte deuten. Im zweiten Teil werde ich zeigen, dass diese Sichtweise grundlegend verfehlt ist, und im Gegenzug, wenigstens in groben Zügen eine Theorie illokutionärer Akte entwerfen, die sowohl Konsequenzen für eine Gebrauchstheorie der Bedeutung als auch für eine allgemeine Kommunikationstheorie hat.

In this article, I develop the basis for a general theory of wh-constructions that allows (a) to explain the variation found with respect to the positions of wh-phrases in single and multiple questions in the languages of the world, and (b) to distinguish between different uses of wh-phrases as question word phrases, wh-exclamatives, relative pronouns, and wh-indefinites. The analysis is based on the idea that fronting of wh-phrases applies for reasons of feature-checking, as assumed in Chomsky (1995, 2000, 2001). The features that have to be checked in wh-questions are universally, [wh]- (=[interrogative]) and [focus]-features. Typological variation with respect to single and multiple wh-questions results from the fact that it is parameterized (i) in which structural position these features are realized in a language and (ii) which of the two features triggers wh-fronting.

This paper discusses the binding paradox in German double object constructions as observed by Grewendorf (1988). At first glance, binding facts run counter to the standard conceptions of argument hierarchy, which requires the accusative argument to be base-generated in a lower position than the dative one. The claim that datives are not plural in the relevant semantic sense, together with a closer look at the syntax of reciprocals and at the structure of picture nouns is used to show that the binding facts do not contradict the argument hierarchy.