Linguistik
Refine
Document Type
- Working Paper (2)
- Article (1)
- Part of a Book (1)
Has Fulltext
- yes (4)
Is part of the Bibliography
- no (4)
Keywords
- Deixis (4) (remove)
Institute
- Extern (1)
Die auf den folgenden Seiten zusammengefasste Diskussion fand am 12. Februar 1969 zwischen den Mitgliedern des Instituts für Kommunikationswissenschaft und Phonetik der Universität Bonn (Leitung Prof. Dr. G. Ungeheuer) und Mitgliedern des Instituts für Sprachwissenschaft der Universität zu Köln (Leitung Prof. Dr. H. Seiler) statt. Es wurden folgende zwei Arbeiten zunächst referiert und der Diskussion zugrundegelegt: D. Wunderlich: Pragmatik, Sprechsituation, Deixis. Universität Stuttgart. Lehrstuhl für Linguistik. Papier Nr. 9, November 1969 ; Cd. Fillmore: Deictic Categories in the Semantics of 'come' FL2 (1965), 219-227. Die Zusammenfassungen dieser Arbeiten sind in das vorliegende Referat nicht aufgenommen worden. Die Redaktion wurde in Köln vorgenommen. Dass dabei Missverständnisse und Verzeichnungen unterlaufen sind, ist wahrscheinlich; die Unterzeichner bitten dafür um Nachsicht. Sie hoffen, dass Inhalt und Ergebnisse der Diskussion dennoch im ganzen wahrheitsgemäss zur Darstellung gekommen sind und dass dieser Bericht als Grundlage für weitere Diskussionen geeignet sein möge.
Remarks on deixis
(1992)
The prevailing conception of deixis is oriented to the idea of 'concrete' physical and perceptual characteristics of the situation of speech. Signs standardly adduced as typical deictics are I, you, here, now, this, that. I and you are defined as meaning "the person producing the utterance in question" and "the person spoken to", here and now as meaning "where the speaker is at utterance time" and "at the moment the utterance is made" (also, "at the place/time of the speech exchange"); similarly, the meanings of this and that are as a rule defined via proximity to speaker's physical location. The elements used in such definitions form the conceptual framework of most of the general characterisations of deixis in the literature. [...] There is much in the literature, of course, that goes far beyond this framework . A great variety of elements, mostly with very abstract meanings, have been found to share deictic characteristics although they do not fit into the personnel-place-time-of-utterance schema. The adequacy of that schema is also called into question by many observations to the effect that the use of such standard deictics as here, now, this, that cannot really be accounted for on its basis, and by the far-reaching possibilities of orienting deictics to reference points in situations other than the situation of speech, to 'deictic centers' other than the speaker. [...] Analyses along the lines of the standard conception regularly acknowledge the existence of deviations from the assumed basic meanings. One traditional solution attributes them to speaker's "subjectivity", or to differences between "physical" and "psychological" space or time; in a similar vein, metaphorical extensions may be said to be at play, or a distinction between prototypical and non-prototypical meanings invoked. Quite apart from the question of the relative merits of these explanatory principles, which I do not wish to discuss here, the problem with all such accounts is that the definitions of the assumed basic meanings themselves are founded on axiom rather than analysis of situated use. The logical alternative, of course, is to set out for more abstract and comprehensive meaning definitions from the start. In fact, a number of recent, discourse-oriented, treatments of the demonstratives proceed this way; they view those elements as processing instructions rather than signs with inherently spatial denotation (Isard 1975, Hawkins 1978, Kirsner 1979, Linde 1979 , Ehlich 1982.)
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.
U radu se analizira uloga deiktičkih obilježivača (markera) u generičkom strukturiranju diskursa. Najprije se podsjeća da u postojećim tipologijama žanrova diskursa prisutnost deiktičkih obilježivača i drugih tragova subjektivnosti predstavlja važan kriterij za razgraničenje žanrova koji koegzistiraju u određenom društveno-povijesnom okviru unutar određenog tipa diskursa i za deskripciju uvjeta njihove diversifikacije. Zatim se, na primjeru diskursa medijske informacije na čije generičko strukturiranje utječu različite strategije objektivizacije, nastoji pokazati da primjena tog kriterija dobiva svoj puni smisao tek u kombinaciji s kriterijima koji se odnose na tekstualna i situacijska obilježja relevantna za generičko strukturiranje diskursa, a to su, s jedne strane, komunikacijski ciljevi sudionika u interakciji i specifične diskurzivne aktivnosti koje oblikuju relacijski profil tekstualnih struktura i, s druge strane, složenost interakcijskog okvira i stupanj heterogenosti deiktičkih i polifonijskih struktura.