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)
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.
-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.
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.
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.
47
Using different constructions with the German item vcrstchcn (engl. understand), the current study addresses the relationship between lexical and constructional meaning. Construction grammar and cognitive grammar reject the theoretical distinction between (a semantic) lexicon and (a formal) syntax (e.g., Langacker: 2000). Instead, they take constructions to be the units of linguistic competence. It is claimed that constructions consist of form-meaning-pairings (e.g. Goldberg: 1995; Croft: 2001). From this view, it follows that formal variation should result in functional variation. Lexical items should therefore acquire different meanings depending on the constructions in which they occur. To test this claim, 300 instances of uses of the German lexical item verstehen in talk-in-interaction were inspected for the local meanings verstehen acquires in each case. The article compares the semantics of verstehen in two different constructions: The discourse marker verstehst du? (engl. do you understand?) and the negative construction [NP] nicht verstehen [COMP], The data show a poly- semic spectrum of meanings of verstehen, which is similar for both constructions. The precise local meaning of verstehen in most cases depends on pragmatic and discursive factors and is not provided for by the constructions themselves. There are, however, subtypes of the two constructions that satisfy the condition of being a form-meaning-pair. As a conclusion, some prospects for the conceptualization of different sources of meaning within a construction grammar approach are suggested.
27
The paper discusses the range of findings and theoretical concepts on which a conversation analytic study of the constitution of meaning in interaction might draw. It focuses on research on problems of word-semantics and linguistic categorization in context which have been researched by cognitivists and conversation analysts. While cognitive studies have mainly dealt with semantic representation, syntactico-semantic composition and the impact of pragmatic and inferential factors on interpretation, discursive approaches have centered upon interactional processes and the uses and functions of categorization in talk-in-interaction. The article concludes with a discussion of the prospects and eventual benefits of a more intense combination of the cognitive and the discursive approach.
27
The paper discusses the range of findings and theoretical concepts on which a conversation analytic study of the constitution of meaning in interaction might draw. It focuses on research on problems of word-semantics and linguistic categorization in context which have been researched by cognitivists and conversation analysts. While cognitive studies have mainly dealt with semantic representation, syntactico-semantic composition and the impact of pragmatic and inferential factors on interpretation, discursive approaches have centered upon interactional processes and the uses and functions of categorization in talk-in-interaction. The article concludes with a discussion of the prospects and eventual benefits of a more intense combination of the cognitive and the discursive approach.