Semantik
Refine
Year of publication
Document Type
- Article (6)
- Part of a Book (4)
- Review (3)
Language
- German (11)
- English (1)
- Portuguese (1)
Has Fulltext
- yes (13)
Keywords
- Semantik (8)
- Deutsch (6)
- Deixis (3)
- Rezension (3)
- Konjunktion (2)
- Logische Partikel (2)
- Adverbiale Partikel (1)
- Adversative Konjunktion (1)
- Definitheit (1)
- Definition (1)
Publicationstate
- Veröffentlichungsversion (8)
- Postprint (1)
- Zweitveröffentlichung (1)
Reviewstate
- (Verlags)-Lektorat (6)
- Peer-Review (3)
Publisher
- Westdeutscher Verlag (3)
- Lang (2)
- Schmidt (2)
- Pacini Editore (1)
- Stauffenburg (1)
- Univ. Federal de Minas Gerais (1)
- Università di Pisa (1)
- de Gruyter (1)
The present paper examines the relationship between pragmatics, semantics and grammar as subdisciplines of linguistics from three different perspectives. The first section gives a historical survey of their development during the 20th century and classifies linguistic schools according to their interest in different fields of research. The second part presents a systematic model of the field of objects to be investigated by linguistics, aiming at a more precise delimitation of its subdisciplines. Finally, in the third section, the division of labour between pragmatics, semantics and grammar is discussed in the light of the concrete example of verb valence.
Connectives are conjunctions, prepositions, adverbs and other particles which share the function of encoding semantic relations between sentences, or rather, between semantic objects some of which can be meanings of sentences. The relata linked by any such relation will fall into one of four distinct categories: they will be physical objects, states of affairs, propositions, or pragmatic options (the atoms of human interaction). Physical objects constitute the conceptual domain of space, states of affairs the domain of time, propositions the epistemic domain, and pragmatic options the deontic domain. The relations encodable in any of these domains can be divided into four basic types: similarity relations, situating relations, conditional relations, and causal relations. Conceptual domains and types of relations define the universe of possible connections between semantic objects.
Connectives differ as to the interpretations they permit in terms of conceptual domains and types of relations. Very few connectives are specialized on relata of one certain category and relations of one certain type. Possible examples in German are später (‘later on’) and zwischenzeitlich (‘in the meantime’), which encode situating relations between states of affairs. Other connectives are specialized on relata of one certain category, but are underspecified with respect to the type of relation. An example is German sobald (‘as soon as’), which can only connect states of affairs, but accepts situating, conditional and causal readings. Connectives of a third group are specialized on relations of a certain type, but are underspecified with respect to the category of the relata. Examples of this kind are German weil (‘because’) and trotzdem (‘nevertheless’), which encode causal relations, but accept states of affairs, propositions and pragmatic options as their relata. Connectives of a fourth group are underspecified both for the category of relata and the type of relation. An example is German da (‘there’), which accepts relata of any category and allows for situating, conditional and causal readings. Connectives like und (‘and’) and oder (‘or’) exhibit an even higher degree of under specification, in that they allow for all kinds of relations and relata.
This paper investigates the use of linking adverbs in adversative constructions in German and Italian. In Italian those constructions are very frequently formulated with adverbs such as invece, while wordings without a lexical connective are more typical of German. Corpus data show that the syntactic und semantic conditions favouring the use of adversative adverbs are by and large the same in both languages. Lexical connectives can increase explicitness when the intended adversative interpretation is not obvious on other grounds. The higher frequency of adversative adverbs in Italian is shown to be a consequence of the more restrictive rules of the placement of prosodic accent.
Der vorliegende Aufsatz behandelt die Frage, ob generische Referenz ein semantisches oder ein pragmatisches Phänomen ist. Die Opposition von partikulärer vs. generischer Referenz wird vor dem Hintergrund von vier anderen Oppositionen diskutiert: definite vs. indefinite DP, Zähl-DP vs. Masse-DP, quantifizierte vs. nicht-quantifizierte DP sowie referentieller vs. attributiver Gebrauch. Es wird gezeigt, dass keine dieser Oppositionen entscheidenden Einfluss auf die Auswahl einer partikulären oder generischen Deutung einer DP durch den Interpreten hat. Die einzige formale Beschränkung scheint darin zu bestehen, dass quantifizierte Masse-DPs keine generische Interpretation erlauben. Die Analyse deutet darauf hin, dass generische Referenz keine semantische Eigenschaft von DPs ist. Als Alternative zu einem formal-semantischen Ansatz, wird hier eine kontextsensitive kognitive Suchroutine vorgeschlagen, die aus einer feststehenden Menge vorgefertigter Interpretationsmuster geeignete Lesarten für Determinansphrasen auswählt. Eine solche Suchroutine kann der Schnittstelle zwischen Semantik und Pragmatik zugeordnet werden. Darüber hinaus können wir annehmen, dass die Interpretation pseudo- generischer DPs durch rein pragmatische Inferenzprozeduren nach den zwei Haupttypen der Metonymie (pars pro toto und totum pro parte) geregelt wird.