Refine
Year of publication
- 2021 (27) (remove)
Document Type
- Article (10)
- Part of a Book (10)
- Book (3)
- Other (3)
- Review (1)
Has Fulltext
- yes (27)
Keywords
- Grammatik (27) (remove)
Publicationstate
- Veröffentlichungsversion (19)
- Zweitveröffentlichung (7)
- Postprint (3)
Reviewstate
- (Verlags)-Lektorat (13)
- Peer-Review (8)
Publisher
- Heidelberg University Publishing (6)
- Leibniz-Institut für Deutsche Sprache (IDS) (5)
- de Gruyter (5)
- Benjamins (3)
- Verlag für Gesprächsforschung (2)
- Buske (1)
- Frontiers Media SA (1)
- Hogrefe (1)
- Karolinum (1)
- Tomsk State University (1)
Verbs may be attributed to higher agency than other grammatical categories. In Study 1, we confirmed this hypothesis with archival datasets comprising verbs (N = 950) and adjectives (N = 2115). We then investigated whether verbs (vs. adjectives) increase message effectiveness. In three experiments presenting potential NGOs (Studies 2 and 3) or corporate campaigns (Study 4) in verb or adjective form, we demonstrate the hypothesized relationship. Across studies, (overall N = 721) grammatical agency consistently increased message effectiveness. Semantic agency varied across contexts by either increasing (Study 2), not affecting (Study 3), or decreasing (Study 4) the effectiveness of the message. Overall, experiments provide insights in to the meta-semantic effects of verbs – demonstrating how grammar may influence communication outcomes.
Dieses Kapitel untersucht die syntaktischen Funktionen von vollen (nicht-pronominalen) Nominalphrasen (NPs) und die Funktionen der vier Kasus des Deutschen aus quantitativer Perspektive. Es wird vorgeschlagen, das Konzept der syntaktischen Funktion in grundlegendere Merkmale zu zerlegen. Dazu gehören der Typ desjenigen Elements, dem die NP untergeordnet ist, und die Art der Beziehung zwischen der NP und dem übergeordneten Element (ganz allgemein: Komplementation vs. Modifikation).
Dieses Kapitel untersucht die Stellung adnominaler Genitive im Deutschen. Die Stellungsvariation besteht fast ausschließlich für artikellose Eigennamen, weshalb diese im Zentrum der Analyse stehen. Auf Basis von Korpusdaten kann gezeigt werden, dass die Faktoren Belebtheit und Länge des Attributs sowie Kasus der Gesamtphrase einen großen Teil der Variation erklären.
When searching large electronic corpora of the German language, one finds variation at structurally critical points of the grammatical system. Two examples from the grammar of the noun phrase show that in certain cases this variation helps to ensure the function of a standard language, so that a certain amount of variation belongs to a realistic idea of a standard language. This is shown on the one hand by techniques of expanding the central adjective vocabulary and on the other hand by the choice of morphological alternatives in the area between determiners and attributive adjectives
Deutsche Genitivattribute benötigen eine hinreichend overte Kasusmarkierung an abhängigen Wortarten (Determinierern, Adjektiven), mitunter in Kombination mit einer Markierung am Genitivnomen selbst. Wenn die Struktur der Attributsphrase solche Markierungen unmöglich macht, wird eine Präpositionalphrase mit von genutzt. Es gibt allerdings eine Reihe von Grenzfällen, die Genitivgebrauch erlauben, obwohl keine hinreichende Markierung möglich ist. Die vorliegende Studie liefert zu drei solchen Fällen empirische Daten: 1. Fälle, wo der unflektierte Wortstamm des Adjektivs oder des Genitivnomens einem Genitivsuffix gleicht („Pseudoflexion“), 2. Fälle, wo Determinierer und Genitivnomen schwach flektiert werden („doppelt schwache Flexion“) und 3. Fälle, wo die Determiniererposition durch einen weiteren, pränominalen Genitiv besetzt ist, der keine Kongruenz aufweisen kann („verschachtelte Genitivattribute“). Anhand umfassender Korpusuntersuchungen kann so eingeschätzt werden, welche Rolle diese Grenzfälle im System der deutschen Standardsprache spielen.
The present paper explores how rules are enforced and talked about in everyday life. Drawing on a corpus of board game recordings across European languages, we identify a sequential and praxeological context for rule talk. After a game rule is breached, a participant enforces proper play and then formulates a rule with an impersonal deontic statement (e.g. “It’s not allowed to do this”). Impersonal deontic statements express what may or may not be done without tying the obligation to a particular individual. Our analysis shows that such statements are used as part of multi-unit and multi-modal turns where rule talk is accomplished through both grammatical and embodied means. Impersonal deontic statements serve multiple interactional goals: they account for having changed another’s behavior in the moment and at the same time impart knowledge for the future. We refer to this complex action as an “instruction.” The results of this study advance our understanding of rules and rule-following in everyday life, and of how resources of language and the body are combined to enforce and formulate rules.
This paper deals with a specific type of lexeme, namely binary preposition-noun combinations containing temporal references like am Ende [at (the) end] or für Sekunden [for seconds]. The main characteristic of these combinations is the recurrent internal zero gap. Despite the fact that the omission of the determiner can often be explained by grammatical rules, the zero gaps indicate a higher degree of lexicalization. Therefore, we interpret these expressions as minimal phraseological units with holistic meanings and functions. The corpusdriven exploration of typical context patterns (e.g. using collocation profiles and the lexpan slot filler analysis) shows that a) even such minimal expressions are based on semi-abstract schemes and b) temporal expressions can also fulfill modal or discursive functions, usually with fuzzy borders and overlapping structures. In the case of modalization or pragmatization one can regard such PNs as distinct lexicon entries.
Schegloff (1996) has argued that grammars are “positionally-sensitive”, implying that the situated use and understanding of linguistic formats depends on their sequential position. Analyzing the German format Kannst du X? (corresponding to English Can you X?) based on 82 instances from a large corpus of talk-in-interaction (FOLK), this paper shows how different action-ascriptions to turns using the same format depend on various orders of context. We show that not only sequential position, but also epistemic status, interactional histories, multimodal conduct, and linguistic devices co-occurring in the same turn are decisive for the action implemented by the format. The range of actions performed with Kannst du X? and their close interpretive interrelationship suggest that they should not be viewed as a fixed inventory of context-dependent interpretations of the format. Rather, the format provides for a root-interpretation that can be adapted to local contextual contingencies, yielding situated action-ascriptions that depend on constraints created by contexts of use.
Control, typically defined as a specific referential dependency between the null-subject of a non-finite embedded clause and a co-dependent of the matrix predicate, has been subject to extensive research in the last 50 years. While there is a broad consensus that a distinction between Obligatory Control (OC), Non-Obligatory Control (NOC) and No Control (NC) is useful and necessary to cover the range of relevant empirical phenomena, there is still less agreement regarding their proper analyses. In light of this ongoing discussion, the articles collected in this volume provide a cross-linguistic perspective on central questions in the study of control, with a focus on non-canonical control phenomena. This includes cases which show NOC or NC in complement clauses or OC in adjunct clauses, cases in which the controlled subject is not in an infinitival clause, or in which there is no unique controller in OC (i.e. partial control, split control, or other types of controllers). Based on empirical generalizations from a wide range of languages, this volume provides insights into cross-linguistic variation in the interplay of different components of control such as the properties of the constituent hosting the controlled subject, the syntactic and lexical properties of the matrix predicate as well as restrictions on the controller, thereby furthering our empirical and theoretical understanding of control in grammar.