Stauffenburg Linguistik
Refine
Year of publication
Document Type
- Part of a Book (42)
- Book (3)
Keywords
- Deutsch (22)
- Konversationsanalyse (9)
- Konstruktionsgrammatik (8)
- Korpus <Linguistik> (7)
- Argumentstruktur (6)
- Bedeutung (6)
- Gespräch (6)
- Verstehen (6)
- Interaktion (5)
- Argumentation (4)
Publicationstate
- Veröffentlichungsversion (18)
- Zweitveröffentlichung (13)
- Postprint (3)
Reviewstate
- (Verlags)-Lektorat (28)
Publisher
- Stauffenburg (45)
127
„Actual words are of theoretical interest” (Audring 2021: 3). Unter Zugrundelegung dieser gebrauchsbasierten Prämisse geht der vorliegende Beitrag der Frage nach, wie sich die Nominalkomposition im Deutschen auf der Basis sprachlicher Massendaten als Konstruktionsfamilie, d.h. als ein hierarchisches Netzwerk von Konstruktionen unterschiedlichen Abstraktionsgrads, beschreiben lässt. Der Beitrag knüpft in theoretischer Hinsicht an Booijs (2010) „Construction Morphology” an, geht jedoch insofern über diese hinaus, als versucht wird, deren Grundannahmen auch auf automatisch erhobene sprachliche Massendaten anzuwenden. Konkret wird mit einem Inventar von rund 185.000 Zusammensetzungen aus zwei simplizischen Nomen gearbeitet, die systematisch aus dem Deutschen Referenzkorpus (DeReKo) (vgl. Leibniz-Institut für Deutsche Sprache 2007) extrahiert und im Anschluss (semi)automatisch weiterverarbeitet wurden.
77
The article aims to show how it is possible to use the idea of constructions in Construction Grammar for the purpose of capturing discourse phenomena within communication in sciences. First, 1 present an analysis of three grammatical examples in order to account for them as constructions. This attempt is based on their specific features relating to the role they play in scientific articles. It is then argued that the pragmatic properties described in connection with specific grammatical phenomena can be embedded in a general framework to account for text units as discourse-level constructions.
-109-
This paper investigates two verbal constructions containing the German verb verdienen (‘to earn / deserve’), e.g. er verdient sich sein Brot ‘he earns his living’ (lit. he earns himself his bread) und er verdient gewürdigt zu werden ‘he deserves to be appreciated". It is shown that the notion of analogy allows for motivating some important features of particular constructions with verdienen. Two interpretations of analogy are employed: analogy in the sense of non-hierarchical family resemblance on the one hand, and analogy leading to changes by mapping a structure from one domain to another on the other hand. It is suggested that both verdienen in combination with sich and verdienen in combination with a verbal complement can be accounted for by focusing on their formal and semantic similarities connecting them to other constructions coming from the same construction family. Moreover, it is shown that versprechen and vermögen could be regarded as analogical models for verdienen.
124
Der Beitrag thematisiert die Märchenformel es war einmal unter konstruktionsgrammatischem Gesichtspunkt. Im Mittelpunkt der Überlegungen stehen zwei Fragen: a) Wie kann man es war einmal im Kontext seines Gebrauchs in Märchen beschreiben? b) Wie Lässt sich diese Märchenformel im Kontext anderer, mit ihr formal und/oder semantisch verwandter Konstruktionen mit es erfassen? Um die erste Frage zu beantworten, wird auf Merkmale der Textsorte ‚Märchen' sowie auf den Begriff des Erzählens zurückgegriffen. Damit im Zusammenhang wird in Anlehnung an die Terminologie in Feilke (1996) von textuell-pragmatischer Prägung gesprochen. Zur Klärung der zweiten Frage sollen vor dem Hintergrund syntaktischer Prägung abstraktere Konstruktionen mit es (Rhematisierungskonstruktionen, Präsentativkonstruktionen und das es impersonate) herangezogen und in Beziehung zu es war einmal gesetzt werden. Die Überlegungen von a) über b) führen zu der Annahme einer auf Ähnlichkeiten basierenden Konstruktionsfamilie mit es als Thetizitätsmarker.
- 109 -
In German linguistics, a traditional distinction is made between (i) prepositional objects (POs) and prepositional adverbials, and (ii), among the latter, between adverbial complements and adjuncts. As a contribution to the debate on points of contact and possible syntheses between valency-based and construction-based approaches to verb argument structure, a corpus-based constructionist account of German PO and PP adverbial verb argument structures involving the preposition vor ‘in front of’ is developed. It is argued that ‘desemanticised’ PO-uses of vor are markers of inherently meaningful verb argument structure constructions that form a transparently motivated network comprising both PO and PP adverbial patterns. Analyses are presented for five interrelated families of vor constructions within the overall network thus defined. Their meanings are shown to reflect an interplay of more concrete spatial meanings of the preposition and the lexical semantics of verbal fillers of these constructions. Once conventionalised, they are subject to regular processes of metaphorical and metonymic semantic extension that are tentatively unravelled to create an integrated semantic map of verbal vor-constructions in present day German.
- 109 -
Argumentstrukturmuster. Ein elektronisches Handbuch zu verbalen Argumentstrukturen im Deutschen
(2019)
Valency-based and construction-based approaches to argument structure have been competing for quite a while. However, while valency-based approaches are backed up by numerous valency dictionaries as comprehensive descriptive resources, nothing comparable exists for construction-based approaches. The paper at hand describes the foundations of an ongoing project at the Institut für Deutsche Sprache in Mannheim. Aim of the project is the compilation of an online available description of a net of German argument structure patterns. The main purpose of this resource is to provide an empirical basis for an evaluation of the adequacy of valency- versus construction-based theories of argument structure. The paper at hand addresses the theoretical background, in particular the concepts of pattern and argument structure, and the corpus-based method of the project. Furthermore, it describes the coverage of the resource, the microstructure of the articles, and the macrostructure which is conceived of as a net of argument structure patterns based on family resemblance.
- 109 -
The following article shows how several verbal argument structure patterns can build clusters or families. Argument structure patterns are conceptualised as form-meaning pairings related by family relationships. These are based on formal and / or semantic characteristics of the individual patterns making up the family. The small family of German argument structure patterns containing vor sich her and vor sich hin is selected to illustrate the process whereby pattern meaning combines with the syntactic and semantic properties of the patterns’ individual components to constitute a higher-level family or cluster of argument structure patterns. The study shows that the patterns making up the family are similar with regard to some of their formal characteristics, but differ quite clearly with respect to their meaning. The article also discusses the conditions of usage of the individual patterns of the family, the contribution of verb meaning and prepositional meaning to the overall meaning of the patterns, coercion effects, and productivity issues.
- 109 -
This article shows what may be gained by a pattern-based analysis and lexicographic representation of argument structure patterns as compared to one based solely on the valency properties of verbs. The pattern analysed expresses a state whereby two or more entities are positioned on a scale of distinct values. Formally it minimally comprises a verb expressing a state or event and two NPs expressing the entities ranked. The NP referring to the entity occupying the lower position on the scale is embedded in a PP headed by vor. Allowing the identification of instances comprising verbs whose meaning is not straightforwardly related to that of the pattern, the pattern-based analysis employed raises the question of how the metaphorical state meaning of the pattern comes about. Since the verb does not express a ranking and / or a state in a large number of instances, the metaphorical state meaning of the pattern is argued to originate in these cases within the scalar meaning of the preposition and / or to be associated with the pattern itself.
109
This article investigates the transitive-oblique alternation in German that involves the preposition an ‘at, on’, e.g. ein Buch schreiben ‘write a book’ vs. an einem Buch schreiben ‘work on / write a book’ (lit. write at a book). The crucial semantic difference between the two structures is the obligatory atelic interpretation of the prepositional an-variant. Based on a corpus study for twenty verbs that were discussed in the previous work, I revisit the assumptions that were made by Filip (1999). First, the incremental theme verbs like bauen ‘build’ or essen ‘eat’ appear only seldom with an. This questions the central role of incrementality as the semantic explanation for the acceptability of the an-variant. Second, selectional preferences of verbs differ in the two argument structures. This observation challenges the assumption that the an-phrase and the direct object are alternative syntactic realizations of the same verbal argument. Overall, this first corpus-based study of the an-construction reveals complex interactions between the semantics of individual verbs, verb classes and the meaning of the preposition an.
90
In German there are about twenty-five elements (like gemäß, nahe, voll) that seem to be used as a preposition along with their use as an adjective. In former approaches the preposition is interpreted as the product of grammaticalizing (and/or reanalyzing) the adjective. It is argued that the two criteria these approaches rely on, namely change of linear position and change of case government, are insufficient. In this paper, seven criteria for distinguishing adjectives form prepositions in German are put forward. What is most important is that these criteria have to be evaluated on the token level as well as on the level of type and word class/syntactic category. It can be shown that the individual ‘adjective-prepositions' as types possess a specific mixture of adjective-like and preposition-like features. On the token level, occurring as part of a postnominal restrictive attribute is indicative for preposition-like status in German. The comparison of German with English and Italian adjective-prepositions (like near, far, due and vicino, lontano) reveals a lot of differences, which counts as evidence for the language-specific nature of word classes. Nevertheless, Lehmanns functional-typological approach uncovers a fundamental functional similarity between complement governing adjectives and prepositions: the primary function of the phrases, i.e., adjective/preposition + complement, is to modify a nominal or a verbal concept, respectively. This insight explains why adjective-prepositions can be found cross-linguistically. The question whether we should propose one type or two types for gemäß and its cognates is of minor importance only.
90
This paper discusses the categorial status of nominalized adjectives, which share formal properties with both adjectives and nouns, in present-day German. Based on a corpus study conducted in the Deutsches Referenzkorpus (DeReKo), it is shown that different types of deadjectival nouns do not behave uniformly with respect to pronoun choice in attributive relative clauses. While nominalized positives (in the neuter gender) preferably combine with the regular relative pronoun das ‘that’, superlatives strongly favor relativization by means of the corresponding wh-form was ‘what’. The contrasts are taken to reflect structural differences in the internal make-up of the respective categories that give rise to different degrees of ‘nouniness’.
58
Den Wald vor lauter Bäumen sehen - und andersherum: zum Verhältnis von 'Mustern' und 'Regeln'
(2011)
Die Konstruktionsgrammatik setzt dem Begriff der konstruktiven Regel den des komplexen Musters entgegen, das in syntaktischen Generalisierungsprozessen analogisch erweitert wird. Der vorliegende Beitrag präsentiert eine solche musterbasierte Analyse von deutschen Konstruktionen mit lokativem Subjekt (Wiesen und Wälder wuchern vor Blumen und Kräutern) als Extension einer Reihe verwandter Konstruktionen mit kausaler und intensivierender Funktion, aus denen die lokative Variante mutmaßlich hervorgegangen ist. Die Analyse argumentiert, dass der umgebenden ,Ökologie‘ der Zielkonstruktion im sprachlichen Wissen der Sprecher eine zentrale Rolle für die Erklärung der attestierten Varianten zukommt, die in regelbasierten Zugängen als unmotivierte ,Ausnahmen‘ von allgemeinen Linkingprinzipien gelten müssen.
55
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.