Refine
Year of publication
- 2023 (87) (remove)
Document Type
- Part of a Book (87) (remove)
Has Fulltext
- yes (87) (remove)
Keywords
- Korpus <Linguistik> (35)
- Deutsch (27)
- Interaktion (10)
- Sprachgebrauch (9)
- Grammatik (7)
- Sprachdaten (7)
- Syntax (7)
- Annotation (6)
- Englisch (6)
- Konversationsanalyse (6)
Publicationstate
- Zweitveröffentlichung (51)
- Veröffentlichungsversion (32)
- Postprint (15)
Reviewstate
- (Verlags)-Lektorat (63)
- Peer-Review (24)
Publisher
- Narr Francke Attempto (17)
- de Gruyter (16)
- IDS-Verlag (14)
- Narr (5)
- Winter (4)
- Peter Lang (3)
- Stauffenburg (3)
- Buske (2)
- Olms (2)
- V&R unipress (2)
Komposition als Element nominaler Integration passt zum Sprachtyp des Deutschen. Diese Technik wird in verschiedenen Texttypen in unterschiedlicher Weise genutzt und funktional ausdifferenziert. Zweigliedrige Komposita prägen den alltäglichen Wortschatz. Die Erfahrung damit und ihre formale Offenheit bilden den Grund für spezifische Ausweitungen des Gebrauchs. Das wird gezeigt an der die Öffnung der Muster im literarischen Bereich, dann an der Interaktion von Kompositionstypen im Hinblick auf größtmögliche Explizitheit in juristischen Texten und letztlich an der Mischung von alltäglicher Klassifikation in gängigen Komposita und textfunktionaler Kondensierung in einem Sachtext.
Recent typological studies have shown that socio-linguistic factors have a substantial effect on at least certain structures of language. However, we are still far from understanding how such factors should be operationalized and how they interact with other factors in shaping grammar. To address both questions, this study examines the influence of socio-linguistic factors on the number of dedicated conditional constructions in a sample of 374 languages. We test the number of speakers, the degree of multilingualism, the availability of a literature tradition, the use of writing, and the use of the language in the education system. At the same time, we control for genealogical, contact, and bibliographical biases. Our results suggest that the number of speakers is the most informative predictor. However, we find that the association between the number of speakers and the number of dedicated conditional constructions is much weaker than assumed, once genealogical and contact biases are controlled for.
Der vorliegende Text unternimmt den Versuch, einen Beitrag zur grammatischen Analyse von Ellipsen zu leisten, indem kontextkontrollierte Ellipsen und Strukturellipsen konstruktionsgrammatisch verortet und interpretiert werden. In diesem Zusammenhang soll vor allem die Frage nach ihrem eventuellen Konstruktionsstatus im Mittelpunkt stehen. Wie sich zeigen wird, werden die beiden markanten Vertreter der Ellipsenwelt (Analepse und Strukturellipse) diesbezüglich unterschiedlich bewertet. Da der Phänomenbereich in beiden Hauptklassen eine Menge unterschiedlicher Formate und Typen umfasst (zu einem Überblick vgl. Hennig 2013: 447-448), kann die vorgelegte Analyse nur exemplarisch erfolgen und erhebt somit keinen Anspruch auf Vollständigkeit. Dennoch soll sie der Bedingung der Generalisierbarkeit theoretischer Annahmen insofern gerecht werden, als die beiden Hauptklassen (Analepse und Strukturellipse) genauer untersucht werden, die m. E. zwei entgegengesetzte Eckpunkte des Spektrums möglicher Ellipsen darstellen und somit in analytischer Perspektive, so auch in der konstruktionsgrammatischen Theoriebildung aus meiner Sicht besondere Aufmerksamkeit verdienen.
This presentation deals with collaborative turn-sequences (Lerner 2004), a syntactically coherent unit of talk that is jointly formulated by at least two speakers, in Czech and German everyday conversations. Based on conversation analysis (e.g., Schegloff 2007) and a multimodal approach to social interaction (e.g., Deppermann/Streeck 2018), we aim at comparing recurrent patterns and action types within co-constructional sequences in both languages. The practice of co-constructing turns-at-talk has been described for typologically different languages, especially for English (e.g., Lerner 1996, 2004), but also for languages such as Japanese (Hayashi 2003) or Finnish (Helasvuo 2004). For German, various forms and functions of co-constructions have already been investigated (e.g., Brenning 2015); for Czech, a detailed, interactionally based description is still pending (but see some initial observations in, e.g., Hoffmannová/Homoláč/Mrázková (eds.) 2019). Although the existence of co-constructions in different languages points to a cross-linguistic conversational practice, few explicitly comparative studies exist (see, e.g., Lerner/Takagi 1999, for English and Japanese). The language pair Czech-German has mainly been studied with respect to language contact and without specifically considering spoken language or complex conversational sequences (e.g., Nekula/Šichová/Valdrová 2013). Therefore, our second aim is to sketch out a first comparison of co-constructional sequences in German and Czech, thereby contributing to the growing field of comparative and cross-linguistic studies within conversation analysis (e.g., Betz et al. (eds.) 2021; Dingemanse/Enfield 2015; Sidnell (ed.) 2009). More specifically, we will present three main sequential patterns of co-constructional sequences, focusing on the type of action a second speaker carries out by completing a first speaker’s possibly incomplete turn-at-talk, and on how the initial speaker then responds to
this suggested completion (Lerner 2004). Excerpts from video recordings of Czech and German ordinary conversations will illustrate these recurrent co-constructional sequence types, i.e., offering help during word searches (see example 1 above), displaying understanding, or claiming independent knowledge. The third objective of this paper is to underline the participants’ orientation to similar interactional problems, solved by specific syntactic and/or lexical formats in Czech and German. Considering the more recent focus on the embodied dimension of co-constructional practices (e.g., Dressel 2020), we will also investigate the multimodal formatting of a started utterance as more or less “permeable” (Lerner 1996) for co-participant completion, the participants’ mutual embodied orientation, and possible embodied responses to others’ turn-completions (such as head nods or eyebrow flashes, cf. De Stefani 2021). More generally, this contribution reflects on the possibilities and challenges of a cross-linguistic comparison of complex multimodal sequences.
The idea of this article is to take the immaterial and somehow ethereal nature of aesthetic concepts seriously by asking how aesthetic concepts are negotiated and thus formed in communication. My examples come from theatrical production where aesthetic decisions naturally play a major role. In the given case, an aesthetic concept is introduced with which only the director, but none of the actors is familiar in the beginning of the rehearsals. The concept, Wabi Sabi, comes from Japanese culture. As the whole rehearsal process was video recorded, it is possible to track the process of how the concept is negotiated and acquired over time. So, instead of defining criteria what Wabi Sabi as an aesthetic concept “consists of,” this article seeks to show how the concept is introduced, explained and “used” within a practical context, in this case a theater rehearsal. In contrast to conventional models of aesthetic experience, I am interested in the ways in which an aesthetic concept is configured in and through socially organized interaction, and — vice versa — how that interaction contributes to the situational accomplishment of the same concept. In short: I am interested in the “doing” of aesthetic concepts, especially in “doing Wabi Sabi.”
Der vorliegende Beitrag diskutiert Implikationen für die grammatiktheoretische Grundunterscheidung von Argumenten und Modifikatoren, die mit der Erweiterung einer wortbasiert-valenzgrammatischen um eine musterbasiert-konstruktionsgrammatische Analyseperspektive einhergehen. Wird Argumenthaftigkeit nicht mehr (oder nicht mehr nur) relativ zum Verb, sondern relativ zur schematischen Argumentstrukturkonstruktion bestimmt, in der ein Verb gebraucht wird, hat sich das Problem einer Unterscheidung von Argumenten und Modifikatoren damit nicht erübrigt. Dem Problem, dass eine umfassende und trennscharfe Unterscheidung von Argumenten und Modifikatoren aus Sicht des Verbs allein nicht zweifelsfrei zu leisten ist, ist damit aber zumindest die grundsätzliche theoretische Sprengkraft genommen, dass der gesamte folgende Strukturaufbau auf einer unsicheren Anfangsunterscheidung aufsetzt. Gleichzeitig stellen sich im Rahmen des konstruktionsgrammatischen Perspektivwechsels aber neue Fragen. Welche Strukturen können Anspruch auf den Status einer eigenständigen Argumentstrukturkonstruktion erheben? Was sind ihre Bedeutungen und konstitutiven Bestandteile? Unter welchen Bedingungen können sie sowohl durch bestimmte lexikalische Füller als auch durch andere ihrerseits schematische Konstruktionen instanziiert werden? Wie können Argumentstrukturkonstruktionen sowohl mit Modifikatoren als auch mit anderen Argumentstrukturkonstruktionen kombiniert werden?
Tense, aspect, and mood are grammatical categories concerned with different notional facets of the event or situation conveyed by a given clause. They are prototypically expressed by the verbal system. Tense can be defined as a category that relates points or intervals in time to one another; in a most basic model, those include the time of the event or situation referred to and the speech time. The former may precede the latter (“past”), follow it (“future”), or be simultaneous with it (or at least overlap with it; “present”). Aspect is concerned with the internal temporal constituency of the event or situation, which may be viewed as a single whole (“perfective”) or with particular reference to its internal structure (“imperfective”), including its being ongoing at a certain point in time (“progressive”). Mood, in a narrow, morphological sense, refers to the inflectional realization of modality, with modality encompassing a large and varying set of sub-concepts such as possibility, necessity, probability, obligation, permission, ability, and volition. In the domain of tense, all Germanic languages make a distinction between non-past and past. In most languages, the opposition can be expressed inflectionally, namely, by the present and preterite (indicative). All modern languages also have a periphrastic perfect as well as periphrastic forms that can be used to refer to future events. Aspect is characteristically absent as a morphological category across the entire family, but most, if not all, modern languages have periphrastic forms for the expression of aspectual categories such as progressiveness. Regarding mood, Germanic languages are commonly described as distinguishing up to three such form paradigms, namely, indicative, imperative, and a third one referred to here as subjunctive. Morphologically distinct subjunctive forms are, however, more typical of earlier stages of Germanic than they are of most present-day languages.
‘Can’ and ‘must’-type modal verbs in the direct sanctioning of misconduct across European languages
(2023)
Deontic meanings of obligation and permissibility have mostly been studied in relation to modal verbs, even though researchers are aware that such meanings can be conveyed in other ways (consider, for example, the contributions to Nuyts/van der Auwera (eds.) 2016). This presentation reports on an ongoing project that examines deontic meaning but takes as its starting point not a type of linguistic structure but a particular kind of social moment that presumably attracts deontic talk: The management of potentially ‚unacceptable‘ or untoward actions (taking the last bread roll at breakfast, making a disallowed move during a board game, etc.). Data come from a multi-language parallel video corpus of everyday social interaction in English, German, Italian, and Polish. Here, we focus on moments in which one person sanctions another’s behavior as unacceptable. Using interactional-linguistic methods (Couper-Kuhlen/Selting 2018), we examine similarities and differences across these four languages in the use of modal verbs as part of such sanctioning attempts. First results suggest that modal verbs are not as common in the sanctioning of misconduct as one might expect. Across the four languages, only between 10%–20% of relevant sequences involve a modal verb. Most of the time, in this context, speakers achieve deontic meaning in other ways (e.g., infinitives such as German nicht so schmatzen, ‚no smacking‘). This raises the question what exactly modal verbs, on those relatively rare occasions when they are used, contribute to the accomplishment of deontic meaning. The reported study pursues this question in two ways: 1) By considering similarities across languages in the ways that modal verbs interact with other (verbal) means in the sanctioning of misconduct.; 2) By considering differences across languages in the use of modal verbs. Here, we find that the relevant modal verbs are used similarly in some activity contexts (enforcing rules during board games), but less so in other activity contexts (mundane situations with no codified rules). In sum, the presented study adds to cross-linguistically grounded knowledge about deontic meaning and its relationships to linguistics structures.
It is well known that the distribution of lexical and grammatical patterns is size- and register-sensitive (Biber 1986, and later publications). This fact alone presents a challenge to many corpus-oriented linguistic studies focusing on a single language. When it comes to cross-linguistic studies using corpora, the challenge becomes even greater due to the lack of high-quality multilingual corpora (Kupietz et al. 2020; Kupietz/Trawiński 2022), which are comparable with respect to the size and the register. That was the motivation for the creation of the European Reference Corpus EuReCo, an initiative started in 2013 at the Leibniz Institute for the German Language (IDS) together with several European partners (Kupietz et al. 2020). EuReCo is an emerging federated corpus, with large virtual comparable corpora across various languages and with an infrastructure supporting contrastive research. The core of the infrastructure is KorAP (Diewald et al. 2016), a scalable open-source platform supporting the analysis and visualisation of properties of texts annotated by multiple and potentially conflicting information layers, and supporting several corpus query languages. Until recently, EuReCo consisted of three monolingual subparts: the German Reference Corpus DeReKo (Kupietz et al. 2018), the Reference Corpus of Contemporary Romanian Language (Barbu Mititelu/Tufiş/Irimia 2018), and the Hungarian National Corpus (Váradi 2002). The goal of the present submission is twofold. On the one hand, it reports about the new component of EuReCo: a sample of the National Corpus of Polish (Przepiórkowski et al. 2010). On the other hand, it presents the results of a new pilot study using the newly extended EuReCo. This pilot study investigates selected Polish collocations involving light verbs and their prepositional / nominal complements (Fig. 1) and extends the collocation analyses of German, Romanian and Hungarian (Fig. 2) discussed in Kupietz/Trawiński (2022).