Linguistik-Klassifikation
Refine
Year of publication
Document Type
- Part of a Book (44) (remove)
Has Fulltext
- yes (44)
Is part of the Bibliography
- no (44)
Keywords
- Pragmatik (12)
- Deutsch (8)
- Erzählen, pragm. (7)
- Topik (7)
- Diskursanalyse (6)
- Syntax (6)
- Optimalitätstheorie (5)
- Wortstellung (4)
- Chinesisch (3)
- Semantik (3)
Institute
- Extern (1)
To some, the relation between bidirectional optimality theory and game theory seems obvious: strong bidirectional optimality corresponds to Nash equilibrium in a strategic game (Dekker and van Rooij 2000). But in the domain of pragmatics this formally sound parallel is conceptually inadequate: the sequence of utterance and its interpretation cannot be modelled reasonably as a strategic game, because this would mean that speakers choose formulations independently of a meaning that they want to express, and that hearers choose an interpretation irrespective of an utterance that they have observed. Clearly, the sequence of utterance and interpretation requires a dynamic game model. One such model, and one that is widely studied and of manageable complexity, is a signaling game. This paper is therefore concerned with an epistemic interpretation of bidirectional optimality, both strong and weak, in terms of beliefs and strategies of players in a signaling game. In particular, I suggest that strong optimality may be regarded as a process of internal self-monitoring and that weak optimality corresponds to an iterated process of such self-monitoring. This latter process can be derived by assuming that agents act rationally to (possibly partial) beliefs in a self-monitoring opponent.
In this paper, focusing on the relevance-theoretic view of cognition, I discuss the idea that what is communicated through an utterance is not merely an explicature upon which implicature(s) are recovered, but rather a propositional complex that contains both explicit and implicit information. More specifically, I propose that this information is constructed on the fly as the interpreter processes every lexical item in its turn while parsing the utterance in real time, in this way creating a string of ad hoc concepts. While hearing an utterance and incrementally constructing a context, the propositional complex communicated by an utterance is pragmatically narrowed and simultaneously pragmatically broadened in order to incorporate only the set of optimally relevant propositions with respect to a specific point in the interpretation. The narrowing of propositions from the initial context at each stage allows relevant propositions to be carried on to the new level, while their broadening adds to the communicated propositional complex new propositions that are linked to the lexical item that is processed at every step of the interpretation process.
In dem Beitrag wird der Prozeß der Professionalisierung der Linguistik beleuchtet, indem die Zusammenhänge beschrieben werden, die zwischen linguistisch-diskursanalytischer Forschung an der Universität, der praktischen Anwendung ihrer Ergebnisse im Berufsfeld Kommunikationsberatung und -training sowie der Gestaltung der universitären Ausbildung, d.h. von Lehre und Studium, bestehen. Es werden Möglichkeiten und Wege aufgezeigt, diese drei Elemente enger aufeinander zu beziehen, sie in eine positive Wechselwirkung miteinander zu bringen und dadurch Synergieeffekte zu erzeugen. Die Herstellung und Absicherung solcher positiven Wechselwirkungen ist eine wesentliche Voraussetzung für eine verbesserte Trainings- und Beratungspraxis und zugleich ein Beitrag zur Professionalisierung der Linguistik.
Dynamic semantic accounts of presupposition have proven to quite successful improvements over earlier theories. One great advance has been to link presupposition and anaphora together (van der Sandt 92, Geurts 95), an approach that extends to integrate bridging and other discourse phenomena (Asher and Lascarides 1998a,b). In this extended anaphoric account, presuppositions attach, like assertions, to the discourse context via certain rhetorical relations. These discourse attachments constrain accommodation and help avoid some infelicitous predictions of standard accounts of presupposition. Further, they have interesting and complex interactions with underspecified conditions that are an important feature of the contributions of most presupposition triggers.
Deictic uses of definites, on the other hand, seem at first glance to fall outside the purview of an anaphoric theory of presupposition. There seems to be little that a discourse based theory would have to say. I will argue, however, that a discourse based account can capture how these definites function in conversation. In particular such accounts can clarify the interaction between the uses of such deictic definites and various conversational moves. At least some deictic uses of definites generate presuppositions that are bound to the context via a rhetorical function that I'll call unchoring, which if successful entails a type of knowing how. If this anchoring function is accepted, then the acceptors know how to locate the referent of the definite in the present context. I'll concentrate here just on definites that refer to spatial locations, where the intuitions about anchoring are quite clear. But I think that this view extends to other deictic uses of definites and has ramifications for an analysis of de re attitudes as well.
The aim of the present study was to test the influence of picture composition on the narrative complexity of preschool children, and to compare the different procedures of the Cat Story of Hickmann (2002) and the Fox Story of Gülzow & Gagarina (2007) with the Baby Birds and Baby Goats Story of MAIN, by Gagarina et al. (2012). For this purpose, 27 children between the ages of 5;01 and 6;09 were tested with both variants to check whether a macro-structurally controlled picture structure would lead to more complex stories. The results show that narratives with a Goal-Attempt-Outcome structure, i.e. the Baby Birds and Baby Goats Stories, make children with increasing age tell more complex stories by means of a rise in story complexity than the narratives of Hickmann and Gülzow & Gagarina without that structure.
In unserem Beitrag gehen wir der Frage nach, wie Erwachsene neue Fähigkeiten und Fertigkeiten zum mündlichen Kommunizieren erwerben, d.h. aneignen. Ziel ist es, die beteiligten Prozesse für Analyse-, Beratungs- und Vermittlungszwecke zu systematisieren, um Antworten auf die folgenden Fragen zu finden: Welche Teilfähigkeiten werden zum mündlichen Kommunizieren überhaupt benötigt? Welche lassen sich leicht – welche nur schwer oder vielleicht gar nicht vermitteln bzw. aneignen? Welche Methoden eignen sich für die Vermittlung welcher Fähigkeiten? Ausgangspunkt unserer Überlegungen sind praktische Fragen des Kompetenzerwerbs, d.h. des Erwerbs der Fähigkeit, angemessen mündlich kommunizieren zu können. Wir gehen davon aus, dass es sich hierbei um eine spezifische Kompetenz handelt, die sich von anderen Kompetenzen unterscheidet (vgl. Fiehler/ Schmitt i.d.Bd.). Ihre Besonderheit liegt in den spezifischen Bedingungen der mündlichen Kommunikation begründet: Gespräche und Diskurse sind immer das Resultat aller daran Beteiligter, so dass die Anteile und beteiligten Kompetenzen des Einzelnen weniger offensichtlich sind als bei individuellen Tätigkeiten. Mündliche Kommunikation ist durch ihre Flüchtigkeit, Prozesshaftigkeit, Interaktivität und Musterhaftigkeit gekennzeichnet (vgl. Deppermann i.d.Bd., Abschn. 3). Die Bewältigung mündlicher Kommunikation erfordert ein spezifisches Ensemble von Wissen und Fertigkeiten, die sich zusammenfassend als Gesprächskompetenz beschreiben lassen. Auch wenn wir uns in diesem Beitrag auf die Gesprächskompetenz konzentrieren, sind wir nicht der Auffassung, dass der faktische Gesprächsverlauf ausschließlich eine Funktion dieser Kompetenz ist. Vielmehr spielen andere Faktoren wie Emotionen und Affekte, Beziehungs- und Rollenfragen ebenfalls eine Rolle.
Speakers have a wide range of noncanonical syntactic options that allow them to mark the information status of the various elements within a proposition. The correlation between a construction and constraints on information status, however, is not arbitrary; there are broad, consistent, and predictive generalizations that can be made about the information-packaging functions served by preposing, postposing, and argument-reversing constructions. Specifically, preposed constituents are constrained to represent discourse-old information, postposed constituents are constrained to represent information that is either discourse-new or hearer-new, and argument-reversing constructions require that the information represented by the preposed constituent be at least as familiar as that represented by the postposed constituent (Birner & Ward 1998). The status of inferable information (Clark 1977; Prince 1981), however, is problematic; a study of corpus data shows that such information can be preposed in an inversion or a preposing (hence must be discourse-old), yet can also be postposed in constructions requiring hearer-new information (hence must be hearer-new). This information status – discourse-old yet hearer-new – is assumed by Prince (1992) to be non-occurring on the grounds that what has been evoked in the discourse should be known to the hearer. I resolve this difficulty by arguing for a reinterpretation of the term 'discourse-old' as applying not only to information that has been explicitly evoked in the prior discourse, but rather to any information that provides a salient inferential link to the prior discourse. Extending Prince’s notion in this manner allows us to account for the distribution of noncanonically positioned peripheral constituents in a principled and unified way.
This article analyses the German discourse particle wohl 'I suppose', 'presumably' as a syntactic and semantic modifier of the sentence types declarative and interrogative. It is shown that wohl does not contribute to the propositional, i.e. descriptive content of an utterance. Nor does it trigger an implicature. The proposed analysis captures the semantic behaviour of wohl by assuming that it moves to SpecForceP at LF, from where it can modify the sentence type operators in Force0 in compositional fashion. Semantically, a modification with wohl results in a weaker commitment to the proposition expressed in declaratives and in a request for a weaker commitment concerning the questioned proposition in interrogatives. Cross-linguistic evidence for a left-peripheral position of wohl (at LF) comes from languages in which the counterpart of wohl occurs in the clausal periphery overtly. Overall, the analysis sheds more light on the semantic properties of the left periphery, in particular of the functional projection ForceP.
In dem folgenden Beitrag beschäftigen wir uns mit den Merkmalen und Besonderheiten diskursanalytischer Fortbildungskonzepte. Unter diskursanalytischen Konzepten verstehen wir solche, die sich auf die Dokumentation, Transkription und Analyse authentischer Diskurse stützen. Wir beziehen uns hier im wesentlichen auf Fortbildungen im beruflichen Bereich und beschränken uns auf solche, die mündliche Kommunikationsformen zum Gegenstand haben. Maßnahmen für die schriftliche Kommunikation ("Schreibseminare") werden hier also nicht berücksichtigt. Im ersten Teil werden wir allgemeine Merkmale diskursanalytischer Fortbildungskonzepte vorstellen; im zweiten Teil folgt dann eine Darstellung des Standardverlaufs, nach dem diskursanalytische Fortbildung konzipiert und durchgeführt wird.
Editorial preface
(2000)
The present issue grew out of two sources. The main one was the workshop on Adding and Omitting (A & 0) held during the DGfS Conference organized in Konstanz at the beginning of 1999 by our ZAS project on Syntax der Fokusbildung. The purpose of the workshop was to bring together people working on topicalization (addition of expressions, in a sense) and ellipsis (omission, i.e. deletion of linguistic material) and their relations and interaction. Since the workshop was very successful and met with a great deal of interest on the part of both participants and outsiders, we decided to collect and publish the papers that were presented. Towards the end of 1999, a follow-up workshop on Ellipsis and Information Structure was organized by Kerstin Schwabe and Susanne Winkler (Tübingen). The papers given at this second meeting were supposed to be an integral part of the publication as well. More and more people got involved, further developing our common understanding of the topic phenomenon, so that there was too much material for a single volume. We therefore decided to split the enterprise into two volumes. The ellipsis papers are to be published by 'Benjamins' this year in Interpreting Omitted Structures.