Abstract There is a use of the German third person neuter pronoun e ses in the prefield, known as prefield- e ses, which is characterized by being neither referential, nor an argument of the verb. According to Speyer’s (2008, 2009) optimality theoretic prefield ranking, this should only occur if a sentence contains no alternative element eligible to be moved to the prefield. This paper investigates a so far unnoticed use of e ses in the prefield in combination with a demonstrative pronoun dies and a copula verb ist, which will be referred to as Es ist dies-sentence. This construction is an instance of prefield- e ses, but contravenes the expectations about the use of prefield- e ses postulated by Speyer, since Es ist dies-sentences do contain a suitable candidate to fill the prefield, the demonstrative pronoun dies. In a corpus study, Es ist dies-sentences are compared to a sample of Dies ist-sentences. According to the corpus data, Es ist dies occurs predominantly in southern dialects. Significant differences between the two samples concern 1) the distance to the antecedent of dies and 2) the type of content of the sentence. An online rating study, that compared acceptability judgments of Es ist dies-sentences between speakers from different regions, confirmed that Es ist dies-sentences are a phenomenon of southern dialects. In the light of these results, a modification of Speyer’s (2008, 2009) Stochastic OT model is proposed.
{"title":"A southern German use of prefield- e ses: Evidence from the corpus and an experimental study","authors":"Lea Fricke","doi":"10.1515/zfs-2020-2012","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1515/zfs-2020-2012","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract There is a use of the German third person neuter pronoun e ses in the prefield, known as prefield- e ses, which is characterized by being neither referential, nor an argument of the verb. According to Speyer’s (2008, 2009) optimality theoretic prefield ranking, this should only occur if a sentence contains no alternative element eligible to be moved to the prefield. This paper investigates a so far unnoticed use of e ses in the prefield in combination with a demonstrative pronoun dies and a copula verb ist, which will be referred to as Es ist dies-sentence. This construction is an instance of prefield- e ses, but contravenes the expectations about the use of prefield- e ses postulated by Speyer, since Es ist dies-sentences do contain a suitable candidate to fill the prefield, the demonstrative pronoun dies. In a corpus study, Es ist dies-sentences are compared to a sample of Dies ist-sentences. According to the corpus data, Es ist dies occurs predominantly in southern dialects. Significant differences between the two samples concern 1) the distance to the antecedent of dies and 2) the type of content of the sentence. An online rating study, that compared acceptability judgments of Es ist dies-sentences between speakers from different regions, confirmed that Es ist dies-sentences are a phenomenon of southern dialects. In the light of these results, a modification of Speyer’s (2008, 2009) Stochastic OT model is proposed.","PeriodicalId":43494,"journal":{"name":"Zeitschrift Fur Sprachwissenschaft","volume":"39 1","pages":"41 - 77"},"PeriodicalIF":0.3,"publicationDate":"2020-05-05","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1515/zfs-2020-2012","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"48263016","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"文学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Abstract Most acceptability judgments reported in the syntactic literature are obtained by linguists being their own informants. For well-represented languages like English, this method of data collection is best described as a process of community agreement, given that linguists typically discuss their judgments with colleagues. However, the process itself is comparably opaque, and the reliability of its output has been questioned. Recent studies looking into this criticism have shown that judgments reported in the literature for English can be replicated in quantitative experiments to a near-perfect degree. However, the focus of those studies has been on testing sentence pairs. We argue that replication of only contrasts is not sufficient, because theory building necessarily includes comparison across pairs and across papers. Thus, we test items at large, i. e. independent of counterparts. We created a corpus of grammaticality judgments on sequences of American English reported in articles published in Linguistic Inquiry and then collected experimental ratings for a random subset of them. Overall, expert ratings and experimental ratings converge to a good degree, but there are numerous instances in which ratings do not converge. Based on this, we argue that for theory-critical data, the process of community agreement should be accompanied by quantitative methods whenever possible.
{"title":"Data convergence in syntactic theory and the role of sentence pairs","authors":"Tom S Juzek, Jana Häussler","doi":"10.1515/zfs-2020-2008","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1515/zfs-2020-2008","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract Most acceptability judgments reported in the syntactic literature are obtained by linguists being their own informants. For well-represented languages like English, this method of data collection is best described as a process of community agreement, given that linguists typically discuss their judgments with colleagues. However, the process itself is comparably opaque, and the reliability of its output has been questioned. Recent studies looking into this criticism have shown that judgments reported in the literature for English can be replicated in quantitative experiments to a near-perfect degree. However, the focus of those studies has been on testing sentence pairs. We argue that replication of only contrasts is not sufficient, because theory building necessarily includes comparison across pairs and across papers. Thus, we test items at large, i. e. independent of counterparts. We created a corpus of grammaticality judgments on sequences of American English reported in articles published in Linguistic Inquiry and then collected experimental ratings for a random subset of them. Overall, expert ratings and experimental ratings converge to a good degree, but there are numerous instances in which ratings do not converge. Based on this, we argue that for theory-critical data, the process of community agreement should be accompanied by quantitative methods whenever possible.","PeriodicalId":43494,"journal":{"name":"Zeitschrift Fur Sprachwissenschaft","volume":"39 1","pages":"109 - 147"},"PeriodicalIF":0.3,"publicationDate":"2020-03-27","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1515/zfs-2020-2008","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"47107838","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"文学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Bei der Monographie handelt es sich um die überarbeitete und gekürzte Fassung der Habilitationsschrift von Hélène Vinckel-Roisin, verteidigt im November 2016 an der Universität Paris-Sorbonne. Vor diesem Hintergrund erklärt sich die Darstellung auf Französisch; Objektsprache der Untersuchung ist gleichwohl das Deutsche. Gegenstand der Arbeit ist ein bislang für das Deutsche weitgehend untererforschtes Phänomen: Die (fast) unmittelbareWiederholung von Eigennamen in referenziell eigentlich nicht-ambigen Kontexten, in denen der Gebrauch von anaphorischen Pronomen zu erwarten bzw. unmarkiert wäre, wie z. B. in (1):
{"title":"Hélène Vinckel-Roisin: La répétition immédiate du nom propre en allemand: enjeux textuels et argumentatifs","authors":"Rahel Beyer","doi":"10.1515/zfs-2020-2010","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1515/zfs-2020-2010","url":null,"abstract":"Bei der Monographie handelt es sich um die überarbeitete und gekürzte Fassung der Habilitationsschrift von Hélène Vinckel-Roisin, verteidigt im November 2016 an der Universität Paris-Sorbonne. Vor diesem Hintergrund erklärt sich die Darstellung auf Französisch; Objektsprache der Untersuchung ist gleichwohl das Deutsche. Gegenstand der Arbeit ist ein bislang für das Deutsche weitgehend untererforschtes Phänomen: Die (fast) unmittelbareWiederholung von Eigennamen in referenziell eigentlich nicht-ambigen Kontexten, in denen der Gebrauch von anaphorischen Pronomen zu erwarten bzw. unmarkiert wäre, wie z. B. in (1):","PeriodicalId":43494,"journal":{"name":"Zeitschrift Fur Sprachwissenschaft","volume":"39 1","pages":"103 - 107"},"PeriodicalIF":0.3,"publicationDate":"2020-03-10","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1515/zfs-2020-2010","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"47037783","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"文学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Abstract In the literature on relative clauses (e. g. Alexiadou et al. 2000: 4), it is occasionally observed that the German complex definite determiner d-jenige (roughly ‘the one’) must share company with a restrictive relative clause, in contrast to bare determiners der/die/das (Roehrs 2006: 213–215; Gunkel 2006; Gunkel 2007). Previous works such as Sternefeld (2008: 378–379) and Blümel (2011) treat the relative clause as a complement of D to account for its mandatory occurrence. While such syntactic analyses have intuitive appeal, they pose problems for a compositional semantic analysis. The goal of this paper is twofold. First, we report on two rating studies providing empirical evidence for the obligatoriness of relative clauses in German DPs introduced by the complex determiner d-jenige. Secondly, following Simonenko (2014, 2015), we provide an analysis of the phenomenon at the syntax-semantics interface that captures familiar (Blümel 2011) as well as novel related observations. Particularly, the analysis accounts for the facts that postnominal modifiers can figure in d-jenige-DPs and that the element can have anaphoric demonstrative pronominal uses.
{"title":"Revisiting obligatory relatives in German","authors":"Andreas Blümel, Mingya Liu","doi":"10.1515/zfs-2019-2007","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1515/zfs-2019-2007","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract In the literature on relative clauses (e. g. Alexiadou et al. 2000: 4), it is occasionally observed that the German complex definite determiner d-jenige (roughly ‘the one’) must share company with a restrictive relative clause, in contrast to bare determiners der/die/das (Roehrs 2006: 213–215; Gunkel 2006; Gunkel 2007). Previous works such as Sternefeld (2008: 378–379) and Blümel (2011) treat the relative clause as a complement of D to account for its mandatory occurrence. While such syntactic analyses have intuitive appeal, they pose problems for a compositional semantic analysis. The goal of this paper is twofold. First, we report on two rating studies providing empirical evidence for the obligatoriness of relative clauses in German DPs introduced by the complex determiner d-jenige. Secondly, following Simonenko (2014, 2015), we provide an analysis of the phenomenon at the syntax-semantics interface that captures familiar (Blümel 2011) as well as novel related observations. Particularly, the analysis accounts for the facts that postnominal modifiers can figure in d-jenige-DPs and that the element can have anaphoric demonstrative pronominal uses.","PeriodicalId":43494,"journal":{"name":"Zeitschrift Fur Sprachwissenschaft","volume":"39 1","pages":"1 - 39"},"PeriodicalIF":0.3,"publicationDate":"2020-02-12","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1515/zfs-2019-2007","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"42265334","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"文学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Abstract Sound change in the form of plosive mergers has been reported for a variety of languages and is the result of a reduction of phonetic distance between two (or more) sounds. The present study is concerned with the opposite development of phonetic differentiation in plosives (akin to a phonetic split), a less commonly reported phenomenon that is taking place in Austrian German at the moment. A previously small (or null) phonetic distinction between fortis and lenis plosives – a presumed near-merger – is gradually developing into a clear phonetic contrast in younger speakers. In the present study, voice onset time of word-initial plosives was measured in two generations of Austrian speakers (born in the middle and at the end of the 20th century), yielding an ongoing phonetic differentiation where the voice onset time of lenis consonants is shortened while, at the same time, that of fortis consonants is lengthened. These results present an insight into the recent diachronic development of Austrian German and the changes in plosive production that are currently taking place.
{"title":"Development of voice onset time in an ongoing phonetic differentiation in Austrian German plosives: Reversing a near-merger","authors":"E. Luef","doi":"10.1515/zfs-2019-2006","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1515/zfs-2019-2006","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract Sound change in the form of plosive mergers has been reported for a variety of languages and is the result of a reduction of phonetic distance between two (or more) sounds. The present study is concerned with the opposite development of phonetic differentiation in plosives (akin to a phonetic split), a less commonly reported phenomenon that is taking place in Austrian German at the moment. A previously small (or null) phonetic distinction between fortis and lenis plosives – a presumed near-merger – is gradually developing into a clear phonetic contrast in younger speakers. In the present study, voice onset time of word-initial plosives was measured in two generations of Austrian speakers (born in the middle and at the end of the 20th century), yielding an ongoing phonetic differentiation where the voice onset time of lenis consonants is shortened while, at the same time, that of fortis consonants is lengthened. These results present an insight into the recent diachronic development of Austrian German and the changes in plosive production that are currently taking place.","PeriodicalId":43494,"journal":{"name":"Zeitschrift Fur Sprachwissenschaft","volume":"39 1","pages":"101 - 79"},"PeriodicalIF":0.3,"publicationDate":"2020-02-07","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1515/zfs-2019-2006","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"46559299","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"文学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
{"title":"Eine Art Wortart: Das Adverb im Deutschen","authors":"Wilhelm Geuder","doi":"10.1515/zfs-2019-2004","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1515/zfs-2019-2004","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":43494,"journal":{"name":"Zeitschrift Fur Sprachwissenschaft","volume":"38 1","pages":"191 - 241"},"PeriodicalIF":0.3,"publicationDate":"2019-11-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1515/zfs-2019-2004","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"49487900","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"文学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Ziel der Monographie ist es, „den deutschen Konjunktiv in seinen vielen Erscheinungsformen, Anwendungsbereichen und Nuancen zu erfassen“ (Klappentext). Dies wurde ohne jeden Zweifel erreicht: meines Wissens gibt es keine andere Abhandlung, die sich derart detailliert, fundiert und systematisch mit dem Thema auseinandersetzt. Alle typischen und peripheren Verwendungsweisen von Konjunktiv I und Konjunktiv II werden abgehandelt und durch authentische Beispiele aus literarischen Texten und Pressetexten veranschaulicht. Schwerpunkt des Buchs ist die Redeund Gedankenwiedergabe; hier wird nicht nur der darin auftretende Konjunktiv besprochen, sondern das Gesamtsystem, einschließlich des Indikativs in seinen verschiedenen Funktionen. Eine besondere Rolle spielt die bei Redeund Gedankenwiedergabe auftretende Zeitenfolge (auch bekannt als Tempustransposition oder backshift), und die Einordnung der würde+ InfinitivKonstruktion in ihren verschiedenen Verwendungen. Bevor die Autor/-innen die Funktionen der beiden Konjunktive, ihre Überschneidungen sowie das Verhältnis zum Indikativ untersuchen, wird in Kapitel 1 der Formenbestand des Konjunktivs detailliert dargestellt. Prägnant wird herausgearbeitet, dass fast ausschließlich Hilfsverben (und identische Vollverben) eine starke Markierung des Konjunktiv I/II haben, welche in der Praxis auch tatsächlich Verwendung findet. Kapitel 2 gibt einen Überblick über die Funktionsbereiche der beiden Konjunktive. Als peripher betrachten die Autor/-innen denKonjunktivgebrauch in volitiven Sätzen (Konjunktiv I), abhängigen irrealen Sätzen (Konjunktiv II) sowie Finalsätzen und Vergleichssätzen mit als (ob) (Konjunktiv I/II). Zentral für beide Konjunktive ist die Verwendung in der Redeund Gedankenwiedergabe, für den Konjunktiv II zudemder Gebrauch in irrealen (kontrafaktischen oder potentialen) Bedingungssätzen. Kapitel 3 thematisiert den irrealen Konjunktiv II in Bedingungssätzen (1) und zeigt dessen Verwandtschaft mit irrealen Deklarativsätzen und Wunschsätzen auf. Beide Satztypen werden als verkappte irreale Konditionalgefüge betrachtet, wobei bei den irrealen Deklarativsätzen z. B. ein Adverbial als Antezedens dient (2) und bei Wunschsätzen das Konsequens implizit bleibt (3):
{"title":"Cathrine Fabricius-Hansen/Kåre Solfjeld/Anneliese Pitz: Der Konjunktiv. Formen und Spielräume","authors":"Irene Rapp","doi":"10.1515/zfs-2019-2001","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1515/zfs-2019-2001","url":null,"abstract":"Ziel der Monographie ist es, „den deutschen Konjunktiv in seinen vielen Erscheinungsformen, Anwendungsbereichen und Nuancen zu erfassen“ (Klappentext). Dies wurde ohne jeden Zweifel erreicht: meines Wissens gibt es keine andere Abhandlung, die sich derart detailliert, fundiert und systematisch mit dem Thema auseinandersetzt. Alle typischen und peripheren Verwendungsweisen von Konjunktiv I und Konjunktiv II werden abgehandelt und durch authentische Beispiele aus literarischen Texten und Pressetexten veranschaulicht. Schwerpunkt des Buchs ist die Redeund Gedankenwiedergabe; hier wird nicht nur der darin auftretende Konjunktiv besprochen, sondern das Gesamtsystem, einschließlich des Indikativs in seinen verschiedenen Funktionen. Eine besondere Rolle spielt die bei Redeund Gedankenwiedergabe auftretende Zeitenfolge (auch bekannt als Tempustransposition oder backshift), und die Einordnung der würde+ InfinitivKonstruktion in ihren verschiedenen Verwendungen. Bevor die Autor/-innen die Funktionen der beiden Konjunktive, ihre Überschneidungen sowie das Verhältnis zum Indikativ untersuchen, wird in Kapitel 1 der Formenbestand des Konjunktivs detailliert dargestellt. Prägnant wird herausgearbeitet, dass fast ausschließlich Hilfsverben (und identische Vollverben) eine starke Markierung des Konjunktiv I/II haben, welche in der Praxis auch tatsächlich Verwendung findet. Kapitel 2 gibt einen Überblick über die Funktionsbereiche der beiden Konjunktive. Als peripher betrachten die Autor/-innen denKonjunktivgebrauch in volitiven Sätzen (Konjunktiv I), abhängigen irrealen Sätzen (Konjunktiv II) sowie Finalsätzen und Vergleichssätzen mit als (ob) (Konjunktiv I/II). Zentral für beide Konjunktive ist die Verwendung in der Redeund Gedankenwiedergabe, für den Konjunktiv II zudemder Gebrauch in irrealen (kontrafaktischen oder potentialen) Bedingungssätzen. Kapitel 3 thematisiert den irrealen Konjunktiv II in Bedingungssätzen (1) und zeigt dessen Verwandtschaft mit irrealen Deklarativsätzen und Wunschsätzen auf. Beide Satztypen werden als verkappte irreale Konditionalgefüge betrachtet, wobei bei den irrealen Deklarativsätzen z. B. ein Adverbial als Antezedens dient (2) und bei Wunschsätzen das Konsequens implizit bleibt (3):","PeriodicalId":43494,"journal":{"name":"Zeitschrift Fur Sprachwissenschaft","volume":"38 100 1","pages":"305 - 309"},"PeriodicalIF":0.3,"publicationDate":"2019-11-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1515/zfs-2019-2001","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"42155586","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"文学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Abstract Three experiments investigated the interpretation and production of pronouns in German. The first two experiments probed the preferred interpretation of a pronoun in contexts containing two potential antecedents by having participants complete a sentence fragment starting either with a personal pronoun or a d-pronoun. We systematically varied three properties of the potential antecedents: syntactic function, linear position, and topicality. The results confirm a subject preference for personal pronouns. The preferred interpretation of d-pronouns cannot be captured by any of the three factors alone. Although a d-pronoun preferentially refers to the non-topic in many cases, this preference can be overridden by the other two factors, linear position and syntactic function. In order to test whether interpretive preferences follow from production biases as proposed by the Bayesian theory of Kehler et al. (2008), a third experiment had participants freely produce a continuation sentence for the contexts of the first two experiments. The results show that personal pronouns are used more often to refer to a subject than to an object, recapitulating the subject preference found for interpretation and thereby confirming the account of Kehler et al. (2008). The interpretation results for the d-pronoun likewise follow from the corresponding production data.
{"title":"The interpretation of German personal pronouns and d-pronouns","authors":"M. Bader, Yvonne Portele","doi":"10.1515/zfs-2019-2002","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1515/zfs-2019-2002","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract Three experiments investigated the interpretation and production of pronouns in German. The first two experiments probed the preferred interpretation of a pronoun in contexts containing two potential antecedents by having participants complete a sentence fragment starting either with a personal pronoun or a d-pronoun. We systematically varied three properties of the potential antecedents: syntactic function, linear position, and topicality. The results confirm a subject preference for personal pronouns. The preferred interpretation of d-pronouns cannot be captured by any of the three factors alone. Although a d-pronoun preferentially refers to the non-topic in many cases, this preference can be overridden by the other two factors, linear position and syntactic function. In order to test whether interpretive preferences follow from production biases as proposed by the Bayesian theory of Kehler et al. (2008), a third experiment had participants freely produce a continuation sentence for the contexts of the first two experiments. The results show that personal pronouns are used more often to refer to a subject than to an object, recapitulating the subject preference found for interpretation and thereby confirming the account of Kehler et al. (2008). The interpretation results for the d-pronoun likewise follow from the corresponding production data.","PeriodicalId":43494,"journal":{"name":"Zeitschrift Fur Sprachwissenschaft","volume":"38 1","pages":"155 - 190"},"PeriodicalIF":0.3,"publicationDate":"2019-11-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1515/zfs-2019-2002","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"43633575","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"文学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Abstract The article explores German discourse particles (DiPs) in rhetorical wh-questions (wh-RQs). While schon (roughly ‘unexpectedly’) only marks rhetorical wh-questions, denn (roughly ‘I wonder’) marks contextually arising information-seeking or rhetorical Questions under Discussion (QuDs), with or without schon. Since ja (roughly ‘unquestionably’) marks shared information, it is incompatible with questions by itself, but occasionally occurs in wh-RQs left of DiPs like schon instead of denn. The results of two acceptability judgment experiments confirm that ja is strongly dispreferred in RQs, the presence of schon improves RQs with and without ja, and denn has no effect on acceptability. A follow-up study further indicated the rhetorical reading of our target questions to prevail independently from DiPs. We conclude that ja in RQs operates on the information contributed by elements like schon, denoting roughly that the issue in question arises ‘unquestionably against expectations’. Our contexts were neutral regarding the discourse functions of ja and denn (side remarks vs. QuDs), unlike the contexts of the findings, from which we deduce that the marked ja schon-RQs, while grammatical, require specific felicity conditions. A first attempt to confirm this experimentally was globally unsuccessful and could only reveal potential hints in an exploratory analysis.
摘要本文探讨了德语语篇助词在修辞性wh问题中的作用。虽然schon（大致“出乎意料”）只标记修辞wh问题，但denn（大致“我想知道”）标记上下文中出现的信息寻求或讨论中的修辞问题（QuDs），无论是否使用schon。由于ja（大致“毫无疑问”）标记共享信息，它本身与问题不兼容，但偶尔会出现在像schon而不是denn这样的dip剩下的wh-RQ中。两个可接受性判断实验的结果证实，ja在RQs中强烈分散，schon的存在改善了有和没有ja的RQs，而denn对可接受性没有影响。一项后续研究进一步表明，我们的目标问题的修辞阅读独立于DiP。我们得出的结论是，RQ中的ja是根据schon等元素提供的信息进行操作的，这大致表明所讨论的问题“毫无疑问是违背预期的”。我们的语境对ja和denn的话语功能是中立的（旁注与QuDs），与研究结果的语境不同，我们从中推断出标记的ja schon RQs在语法上需要特定的适当条件。第一次尝试通过实验证实这一点在全球范围内都没有成功，只能在探索性分析中揭示潜在的线索。
{"title":"Wer kann denn schon ja sagen?","authors":"Yvonne Viesel, Constantin Freitag","doi":"10.1515/zfs-2019-2003","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1515/zfs-2019-2003","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract The article explores German discourse particles (DiPs) in rhetorical wh-questions (wh-RQs). While schon (roughly ‘unexpectedly’) only marks rhetorical wh-questions, denn (roughly ‘I wonder’) marks contextually arising information-seeking or rhetorical Questions under Discussion (QuDs), with or without schon. Since ja (roughly ‘unquestionably’) marks shared information, it is incompatible with questions by itself, but occasionally occurs in wh-RQs left of DiPs like schon instead of denn. The results of two acceptability judgment experiments confirm that ja is strongly dispreferred in RQs, the presence of schon improves RQs with and without ja, and denn has no effect on acceptability. A follow-up study further indicated the rhetorical reading of our target questions to prevail independently from DiPs. We conclude that ja in RQs operates on the information contributed by elements like schon, denoting roughly that the issue in question arises ‘unquestionably against expectations’. Our contexts were neutral regarding the discourse functions of ja and denn (side remarks vs. QuDs), unlike the contexts of the findings, from which we deduce that the marked ja schon-RQs, while grammatical, require specific felicity conditions. A first attempt to confirm this experimentally was globally unsuccessful and could only reveal potential hints in an exploratory analysis.","PeriodicalId":43494,"journal":{"name":"Zeitschrift Fur Sprachwissenschaft","volume":"38 1","pages":"243 - 298"},"PeriodicalIF":0.3,"publicationDate":"2019-11-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1515/zfs-2019-2003","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"43671935","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"文学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
京公网安备 11010802042870号
京ICP备2023020795号-1
扫码关注我们
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：