Refine
Year of publication
- 2019 (164) (remove)
Document Type
- Part of a Book (76)
- Article (60)
- Review (11)
- Book (8)
- Conference Proceeding (7)
- Doctoral Thesis (1)
- Report (1)
Has Fulltext
- yes (164) (remove)
Keywords
- Deutsch (77)
- Korpus <Linguistik> (32)
- Gesprochene Sprache (11)
- Argumentstruktur (10)
- Wörterbuch (10)
- Rezension (9)
- Sprache (9)
- Sprachgebrauch (8)
- Verb (8)
- Sprachvariante (7)
Publicationstate
- Zweitveröffentlichung (164) (remove)
Reviewstate
Publisher
- de Gruyter (53)
- Erich Schmidt (15)
- Narr Francke Attempto (8)
- Stauffenburg (8)
- Editura Academiei Române (5)
- Institut für Germanistik der Universität Szeged (5)
- Lang (5)
- Winter (5)
- Buske (3)
- Springer (3)
Defining groups and affiliating the self and the other with specific social categories is an important part of constructing a colonial conceptualization of societies. Many written documents from the colonial period attest to this practice. The current paper focuses on missionaries’ ways of positioning themselves and others within the colonial context. The German speaking Rheinische Missionsgesellschaft (RMG, Rhenish Mission Society) established mission stations in the Astrolabe Bay area of New Guinea, an area that was under German domination between 1884 and 1914. The paper analyzes how RMG missionaries, by means of language, construct, define, and position different population groups, and it investigates what patterns emerge from these language practices.
This article examines a recurrent format that speakers use for defining ordinary expressions or technical terms. Drawing on data from four different languages - Flemish, French, German, and Italian - it focuses on definitions in which a definiendum is first followed by a negative definitional component (‘definiendum is not X’), and then by a positive definitional component (‘definiendum is Y’). The analysis shows that by employing this format, speakers display sensitivity towards a potential meaning of the definiendum that recipients could have taken to be valid. By negating this meaning, speakers discard this possible, yet unintended understanding. The format serves three distinct interactional purposes: (a) it is used for argumentation, e.g. in discussions and political debates, (b) it works as a resource for imparting knowledge, e.g. in expert talk and instructions, and (c) it is employed, in ordinary conversation, for securing the addressee's correct understanding of a possibly problematic expression. The findings contribute to our understanding of how epistemic claims and displays relate to the turn-constructional and sequential organization of talk. They also show that the much quoted ‘problem of meaning’ is, first and foremost, a participant's problem.