Refine
Document Type
- Article (4)
- Part of a Book (4)
Has Fulltext
- yes (8)
Keywords
- Konditionalsatz (8) (remove)
Publicationstate
Reviewstate
- (Verlags)-Lektorat (3)
- Peer-Review (2)
Publisher
- Narr (2)
- de Gruyter (2)
- De Gruyter Mouton (1)
- Schwann (1)
- Springer Nature (1)
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.
Comprehending conditional statements is fundamental for hypothetical reasoning about situations. However, the online comprehension of conditional statements containing different conditional connectives is still debated. We report two self-paced reading experiments on German conditionals presenting the conditional connectives wenn (‘if’) and nur wenn (‘only if’) in identical discourse contexts. In Experiment 1, participants read a conditional sentence followed by the confirmed antecedent p and the confirmed or negated consequent q. The final, critical sentence was presented word by word and contained a positive or negative quantifier (ein/kein ‘one/no’). Reading times of the two quantifiers did not differ between the two conditional connectives. In Experiment 2, presenting a negated antecedent, reading times for the critical positive quantifier (ein) did not differ between conditional connectives, while reading times for the negative quantifier (kein) were shorter for nur wenn than for wenn. The results show that comprehenders form distinct predictions about discourse continuations due to differences in the lexical semantics of the tested conditional connectives, shedding light on the role of conditional connectives in the online interpretation of conditionals in general.
In this paper, the meaning and processing of the German conditional connectives (CCs) such as wenn ‘if’ and nur wenn ‘only if’ are investigated. In Experiment 1, participants read short scenarios containing a conditional sentence (i.e., If P, Q.) with wenn/nur wenn ‘if/only if’ and a confirmed or negated antecedent (i.e., P/not-P), and subsequently completed the final sentence about Q (with or without negation). In Experiment 2, participants rated the truth or falsity of the consequent Q after reading a conditional sentence with wenn or nur wenn and a confirmed or negated antecedent (i.e., If P, Q. P/not-P. // Therefore, Q?). Both experiments showed that neither wenn nor nur wenn were interpreted as biconditional CCs. Modus Ponens (If P, Q. P. // Therefore, Q) was validated for wenn, whereas it was not validated in the case of nur wenn. While Denial of the Antecedent (If P, Q. not-P. // Therefore, not-Q.) was validated in the case of nur wenn, it was not validated for wenn. The same method was used to test wenn vs. unter der Bedingung, dass ‘on condition that’ in Experiment 3, and wenn vs. vorausgesetzt, dass ‘provided that’ in Experiment 4. Experiment 5, using Affirmation of the Consequent (If P, Q. Q. // Therefore, P.) to test wenn vs. nur wenn replicated the results of Experiment 2. Taken together, the results show that in German, unter der Bedingung, dass is the most likely candidate of biconditional CCs whereas all others are not biconditional. The findings, in particular of nur wenn not being semantically biconditional, are discussed based on available formal analyses of conditionals.
Die Diskussion der Frage, nach welcher Methode die empirische Basis in der Linguistik gewonnen werden sollte, ist weitgehend reduziert auf die Alternative Korpus versus linguistische Intuition. Diese alternativen Möglichkeiten sind jedoch nur dann gegeben, wenn die Linguistik ihre Aufgaben in der synchronen Strukturbeschreibung der Gegenwartssprache sieht. Sobald geschichtlich zurückliegende Sprachzustände zum Forschungsobjekt gemacht werden, bleibt — weil kompetente Sprecher nicht mehr verfügbar sind — nur der Rückgriff auf Korpora. Im folgenden wird kurz diskutiert, ob die beiden genannten empirischen Methoden als gleichwertige Möglichkeiten gelten können und ob nicht auch andere empirische Verfahren mit herangezogen werden müssen, damit eine dem konventionalisierten Sprachgebrauch entsprechende Datenbasis überhaupt hergestellt werden kann. Dabei geht es auch um die Frage, unter welchen Bedingungen in der Linguistik Induktion, bzw. Deduktion, bzw. welche Art kombinierter Verfahren sinnvoll sind. An einem auf Probleme des Modusgebrauchs in Konditionalsätzen der heutigen deutschen Standardsprache und der Schriftsprache hin entwickelten Testverfahren zur Kompetenzermittlung wird gezeigt, daß die Entwicklung weiterführender empirischer Konzepte notwendig ist, wenn die Linguistik die von ihr erhobene Forderung, daß das Regelwerk einer Grammatik letztlich sprachliche Normen einer Sprachgemeinschaft beschreiben sollte, nicht fallen lassen möchte.