Complex anaphors are nominal expressions that pick up sentential or longer antecedents referring to propositionally structured referents such as events and states. Concerning their textual function, complex anaphors do not only serve as a means of continuity but also effect the progression of the information flow in text, i.e. they are thematic and rhematic at the same time. The complexation process establishes the pre-mentioned referent as a unified discourse entity. On the basis of natural language corpus data, we show that complex anaphors have a central function in establishing coherence in texts. We distinguish type shifting and non type shifting complexation processes where the former is subject to ontological based constraints. In order to show how ontological features are involved in disambiguation we discuss an example of ambiguous complex anaphora.

The term indirect anaphor (IA) refers to a definite NP which has no explicit antecedent in text and is linked via a cognitive process to some element in prior text which functions as some kind of anchor for the interpretation of IA. According to one popular view, IA are treated as phenomena that can best be explained in terms of associability. In this paper I will argue for a more complex cognitive approach. Taking a procedural perspective, I want to demonstrate, firstly, that there are different types of IA. A distinction will be drawn between IA which are based on the activation of semantic knowledge in the mental lexicon and IA which require more general conceptual knowledge for their interpretation. I will base the discussion on naturally occurring data from German texts. All kinds of indirect anaphora have to be seen as “given-and-new-entities”. Combining both easy accessibility and the establishment of new referential files in text-world models, they serve as “progressive continuity markers”. The second aim of this paper is to illustrate that in many cases there is no clear-cut distinction between direct and indirect anaphora in text, showing that the most typical examples of direct and indirect anaphors may best be regarded as two extremes on a continuum of textual reference, thereby weakening the claim for a strict distinction between the two types and arguing for a unified account in explaining the interpretation of referring expressions.

No abstract

The aim of the paper is to outline the topic of the present special issue. In the first section, the authors give a concise overview of current discussions on the structure and function of linguistic data and evidence in general. They argue that one of the main insights which the discussions led to is the need to integrate different data sources in linguistic theorising. The second section deals with the specific manifestation of these discussions in cognitive linguistics. The authors raise the questions which the papers in the special issue address with respect to cognitive linguistics: What data sources can be integrated?; How can different data sources be integrated?; How does the integration of different data sources affect the acceptability of hypotheses? Finally, in the last section, the structure of the special issue is summarised.

Emotionen sind für das menschliche Leben und Erleben konstitutive Phänomene: Sie bestimmen maßgeblich unsere Bewusstseins-, Denk- und Handlungsprozesse. Mittels der Sprache werden Emotionen ausgedrückt und benannt, geweckt, intensiviert oder generiert. Das vorliegende Buch zeigt, wie vielfältig die sprachlichen Möglichkeiten sind, unserer Gefühlswelt Ausdruck zu verleihen. Emotion wird zunächst als mehrdimensionales Kenntnis- und Bewertungssystem definiert und es wird ein integrativer Ansatz vorgestellt, demzufolge Sprache, Kognition und Emotion relevante Schnittstellen haben. Anhand innovativer Fallstudien werden die textuellen Manifestationen zentraler Gefühle erörtert, die eine besonders intensive Symbiose von Emotion und Sprache aufweisen: Angst, Trauer, Liebe, Verzweiflung und Hass.