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)
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.
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-
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.
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.