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)
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.
47
In usage-based Construction Grammar, grammatical structure is assumed to ‘sedimenl’ from concrete linguistic experience as an automatic by-product o f repeated similar categorisation judgments (a process known as schematisation). At the same time, there is functional pressure on prospective inputs to such schematisations to retain or develop specialised properties that differentiate them from their near neighbours, i.e. other stored units in the constructicon (Goldberg: 1995). Moreover, Speakers are not assumed to necessarily extract all possible generalisations from their input. Using the example o f a group of German support verb constructions, the present study outlines a corpus-linguistic approach to identifying those Schemas that really seem to be formed by Speakers, and how they can be kept apart from mere potential generalisations.
83
Der Beitrag diskutiert ausgehend von einem historischen Sprachbeispiel die Korrelation zwischen lexikalisierten Wortverbindungen, die durch bestimmte außersprachliche Faktoren zu solchen geworden sind, und Wortschatzeinheiten ähnlicher Art, die ihrerseits Muster konstituieren. Es wird gezeigt, dass unauffällige Syntagmen zu verfestigten Wortschatzeinheiten werden können, dass dies aber gleichzeitig nicht im luftleeren Formulierungsraum geschieht. Vielmehr liegt auch hier syntagmatische Musterhaftigkeit in einem Netz graduell verfestigter Einheiten des Lexikons zugrunde. Solche Netze sind immer durch fragmentarischen Gebrauch und Überlappung von spezifischen Komponenten geprägt. Je nach Kommunikationssituation und -bedürfnissen werden Teilstrukturen fokussiert und aktualisiert, während andere im Hintergrund bleiben.