Subordination und Parenthese als Mittel der Informationsstrukturierung in Texten

Brandt, Margareta

doi:10.1515/9783110918533.211

Cited by 13 publications

(22 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…the defendant remained seated although the judge the room entered c. *Der Angeklagte blieb sitzen, hat der Richter auch den RAUM betreten. the defendant remained seated has the judge MP the room entered Likewise, it can be shown that a temporal clause may be in the scope of a constituent negation appearing in the matrix clause, whereas an obwohl-concessive or a V1-concessive may not (cf., e.g., Brandt 1994). 7a.…”

Section: Concessives and The Distinction Between Cacs Pacs And Nonicsmentioning

confidence: 99%

German concessives as TPs, JPs and ActPs

Frey¹

2020

Glossa: A Journal of General Linguistics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The concessive relation is said to not be expressible by a central adverbial clause (CAC) but by a peripheral adverbial clause (PAC) or a non-integrated dependent clause (NonIC). This is true in the standard case. The paper argues that this ban on the appearance of the concessive as a CAC stems from the fact that the concessive relation standardly involves a judgement, which is due to a conception of an expected course of events that is associated as an implicature with the concessive relation. However, based on d’Avis (2016), it is shown that if a concessive just stands in opposition to a conditional that is salient in the context, it does not involve a judgement and can appear as a CAC.A judgement constitutes a private act of evaluation (Krifka to appear). It follows that in the standard case concessive clauses necessarily involve a richer semantic structure than just a core proposition. This has consequences for syntax. Following Krifka, the paper assumes that the private act of a judgement is syntactically represented in clausal structure by a J(udge)P(hrase). CACs do not contain a JP-projection, but PACs do.NonICs encode a speech act; in addition to a JP they also contain a Com(mitment)P(hrase) and an ActP(hrase). It is demonstrated that while concessives realised as PACs may host so-called weak root phenomena, concessives realised as NonICs may also host commitment modifiers and so-called strong root phenomena. Further distinguishing syntactic properties of concessives realised as PACs or as NonICs are discussed.

show abstract

Section: Concessives and The Distinction Between Cacs Pacs And Nonicsmentioning

confidence: 99%

German concessives as TPs, JPs and ActPs

Frey¹

2020

Glossa: A Journal of General Linguistics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…According to Leuschner (2005: 296), the "communicative weight" in concessive conditionals is on the information presented in the second component (q), while the information in the first component (p) is "pragmatically downgraded" (cf. also Brandt 1996;Hoffmann 2002). Crucially, the second, valid proposition is correlated with the speaker's (or a third person's) own argumentative position, while the first, irrelevant proposition is correlated with some opponent's position that the actual speaker (partly) rejects.…”

Section: 21mentioning

confidence: 96%

The grammar and pragmatics ofN hin, N her(‘N thither, N hither’) in German

Finkbeiner¹

2015

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In this paper, I investigate the German N hin, N her (‘N thither, N hither’) construction. I first provide a close description of its syntactic and semantic properties, arguing that N hin, N her is a grammatical construction. I then show that this construction is not entirely idiosyncratic, as there are specific pragmatic aspects contributing to its meaning and functional potential. These are the deictic adverbs hin and her, restrictions on the choice of nouns, and effects of syntactic disintegration. I argue that a purely semantic analysis of the construction as concessive or concessive conditional is insufficient, as it neglects pragmatic processes of contextual enrichment and implicature. Based on these assumptions, I provide a detailed analysis of the discursive and interactional functions of the construction, showing that it is a prime candidate for construing textual coherence and for subjectification and stance taking. Evidence comes from a corpus of newspaper examples

show abstract

“…18 The global structure or development of the text will be constrained in different ways depending on the nature of the (Blakemore 1987, Blakemore & Carston 2005 Associating syntactic subordination with a downgrading or backgrounding function at text level is common practice in more traditional linguistic description (see e.g. Aarts 2007, Brandt 1996, Cristofaro 2000, Hartmann 2004, Hetland & Molnár 2001, Peyer 1997. Unfortunately, however, these notions are understood in varying ways, having being explained alternately -and mostly not very explicitly -in terms of e.g.…”

Section: Relevant Discourse-theoretical Distinctionsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Editor's introduction: Subordination and coordination from different perspectives

Fabricius‐Hansen¹,

Ramm²

2008

Studies in Language Companion Series

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The present collection of papers addresses semantic, pragmatic or discourseoriented aspects of coordination and subordination in a broad sense. Five of the papers approach the topics from a cross-linguistic perspective. The collection is the outcome of a workshop (AG8) on 'Subordination' versus 'Koordination' in Satz und Text aus sprachvergleichender Perspektive / 'Subordination' versus 'Coordination' in Sentence and Text-from a Crosslinguistic Perspective, which was organised by the editors during the 28th Annual Meeting of the Deutsche Gesellschaft für Sprachwissenschaft in February 2006. 1 Coordination and subordination are well-established grammatical terms, but like many other linguistic terms with a long history, they are somewhat fuzzy, both being used in a variety of-mutually related-senses depending on the theoretical context. This holds for other, closely related notions such as parataxis and hypotaxis as well. Thus Lehmann (1988) observes in a paper on the typology of clause linkage:

show abstract

Subordination und Parenthese als Mittel der Informationsstrukturierung in Texten

Cited by 13 publications

References 0 publications

German concessives as TPs, JPs and ActPs

German concessives as TPs, JPs and ActPs

The grammar and pragmatics ofN hin, N her(‘N thither, N hither’) in German

Editor's introduction: Subordination and coordination from different perspectives

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About