Hat die gesprochene Sprache eine eigene Grammatik? Grundsätzliche Überlegungen zum Status gesprochensprachlicher Konstruktionen und zur Kategorie ‚gesprochenes Standarddeutsch‘

Abstract

Although most linguists agree that spoken language differs in relevant aspects from written language, it is still controversial whether they have different grammatical systems. In this article, I raise the general question of whether it is possible to speak of a specific grammar of spoken language. For this purpose the problem of spoken versus written modality is discussed together with the problem of rules and regularity (chapter 2); furthermore, the role of the concept “standard language” in this research context is discussed (chapter 3). Using different examples, I analyze syntactic phenomena of contemporary spoken German (chapter 4). On this empirical basis, the central theoretical question is developed and answered: Are there grammatical constructions in spoken Standard German which can be explained by the special modality – e.g. the fluidity and irreversibility – of the oral medium (chapter 5)?

Modality matters: On social forces determining what is standard in German Sign Language (DGS)

“…Thus, notwithstanding the fact that the (non-)existence of a written code as we know it is likely to surface in any discussion on what is standard in a language, the conceptualisation of what a given language codex must -or can -look like, also has to re-think notions of modality. One discourse where this line of thinking is overtly addressed in relation to spoken languages is the notion of "spoken standard" ("Standardsprachlichkeit"), which has recently gained some momentum in relation to spoken German (e. g. Hagemann et al 2013;Schneider 2011;. Whilst Schneider considers structural aspects of what might be categorised as spoken standard German, Maitz/Elspaß (2013) suggest that, in many respects, discussions surrounding its existence and desirability is predominantly informed by prevailing, culturespecific language ideologies (cf.…”

Historische Mündlichkeit

“…), Lockwood (1968: 121), Dentler (1997Dentler ( : 15, 1998 (Auer 2000) bzw. einer "primären Mündlichkeit" (Hennig 2006, Schneider 2011 zurückzuführen (im Folgenden: "Mündlichkeit 1"). Ebenso ist auch eine gegensätzliche Argumentation denkbar: die Ausbildung der Klammerstruktur im Deutschen und die damit späte Realisierung im Satz ist unter Einbezug der Hörerperspektive auch dahingehend interpretiert worden, dass sie sich in eine allgemeine Tendenz des Ausbaus von Strukturen eingliedere, die einer zunehmenden Literalisierung entgegenkommen, da das Vollverb erst am Ende des Satzes realisiert wird (vgl.…”

Korpuslinguistik

“…Vgl. exemplarischMoraldo & Missaglia (2013),Schneider (2013),Imo (2015Imo ( , 2016 undWeidner (i. E.).…”