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.
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.
28.
In der wissenschaftlichen Forschung zum Argumentieren besteht immer noch ein eklatantes Empiriedefizit. Die gesprächsanalytische Untersuchung natürlicher Gespräche zeigt die Schwierigkeiten bei der Bestimmung der Grenzen des Argumentierens auf wie auch bei der Identifikation der internen Strukturen. Im Beitrag wird versucht, ausgehend von der theoretischen Konzeption der Interaktionskonstitution sensu Kallmeyer und Schütze, den Gegenstand 'Argumentieren in Gesprächen' aus den konstitutiven Eigenschaften von Interaktion selbst heraus zu bestimmen. Es zeigt sich, dass Gesprächsteilnehmer argumentieren, wenn die Bearbeitung übergreifender Handlungsaufgaben durch ein Darstellungsdefizit gefährdet oder blockiert ist. Argumentieren ist dabei intern in fünf Sequenzschritten organisiert, wobei die Argumentationssequenz auf verschiedene Weise expandiert und kondensiert werden kann. Sequenzielle Struktur und Variabilität gewährleisten interaktive Kontrolle des Geschehens und maximale Flexibilität, was Argumentieren zu einem praktikablen, lösungsorientierten Interaktionsverfahren macht.
- 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 -
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.
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.