Band 35, Heft 1-2

This paper deals with the usage of the personal pronoun ich in German scientific texts. As far as the speaker deixis is concerned, the present linguistic research on German scientific writing is predominated by the assumption of the so-called “Ich-Verbot” or “Ich-Tabu”. I will critically discuss this position and make a plea for a different point of view regarding both functional-linguistic and social-semantic aspects. Afterwards the results of a corpus-based investigation are presented, in which the frequency of ich -tokens is examined and the different usages are classified by introducing the terms “Verfasser-Ich”, “Forscher-Ich” and “Erzähler-Ich”.

Present approaches to the semantics of the German prepositions auf , an and unter draw on two propositions: First, that spatial prepositions in general specify a region in the surrounding of the relatum object. Second, that in the case of auf , an and unter , these regions are to be defined with concepts like the vertical and/or the topological surface (the whole surrounding exterior of an object). The present paper argues that the first proposition is right and that the second is wrong. That is, while it is true that prepositions specify regions, the regions specified by auf , an and unter should rather be defined in terms of everyday concepts like SURFACE, SIDE and UNDERSIDE. This idea is suggested by the fact that auf , an and unter refer to different regions in different kinds of relatum objects, and that these regions are the same as the regions called surfaces, sides and undersides. Furthermore, reading and usage preferences of auf , an and unter can be explained by a corresponding salience of the surfaces, sides and undersides of the relatum objects in question. All in all, therefore, a close look at the use of auf , an and unter with different classes of relatum objects reveals problems for a semantic approach that draws on concepts like the vertical, while it suggests meanings of these prepositions that refer to the surface, side and underside of an object.

This contribution focusses on grammatical peculiarities of German and Luxembourgish connected with the verb geben ‘to give’. It addresses the grammaticalization processes which have been resulted in the existential construction es gibt ‘there is’, the geben -copula, and the passive and conditional auxiliary uses of geben . The paper sets out to collect and pull together scattered research findings which address individual aspects of the phenomena, and further, to document the large number of unresolved issues surrounding the grammatical affinity of geben . Selecting from the latter the question of the historical relationship between the grammaticalized geben -variants, this contribution first reviews the hypotheses extant in the research literature before testing these against the inter- and intrasystemic variation found in German regional varieties (dialects and regional varieties).

The German adjectival passive, or “Zustandspassiv”, belongs to the most controversial topics of German grammar. The controversy centers around the following questions: What is the grammatical status of the Zustandspassiv: Does it belong to the verbal paradigm or is it a combination of copula plus adjectivized verbal participle? What are the restrictions governing its construction and combination? And what is its characteristic meaning range? The paper reviews a set of diagnostics, which will turn out to provide ample evidence for a “copula plus adjective”-account of the Zustandspassiv. It then goes on to discuss one particular problem for such an account, viz. the combination with event-related modifiers and it offers a new solution for the interpretative variability of the Zustandspassiv, aiming at a more balanced division of labor between grammar and pragmatics. Basically, the Zustandspassiv is analyzed as assigning an (arbitrarily complex) ad hoc property to the subject referent. While the grammar imposes only few constraints on the construction, legitimating and interpreting such an ad hoc property in context is basically the task of pragmatics. Adopting the notion of ad hoc properties from cognitive psychology, this article is an attempt to explore the fruitfulness of applying Lawrence Barsalou's theory of mental representations to linguistic analysis.

In constructions of copula + participle II, often called “Zustandspassiv”, we find many unclear restrictions. Maienborn (2007: 83-115) explains these by pragmatics in the following way: One invariant meaning is opposed to different pragmatic readings that are gaining their existence in the pragmatic level only. We explain these restrictions in semantics itself. Restrictions in forming copula + participle II-constructions are due to conflicts between the construction meaning of copula constructions and the construction meanings of participles II. Pragmatics is mediating between the conflicting construction meanings by means of pragmatic implicatures. Due to these accommodations nearly no copula + participle construction is grammatically wrong in a strict sense, but many constructions remain restricted in their acceptability. The construction meaning of Zustandspassiv is opposed to three meaning variants of participle II. The interplay between the construction meaning of copula constructions and the three meaning variants of participles II results in different accomodations between copula-constructions and participle meanings. In some cases participle meanings adapt to copula construction meanings, in other cases the opposite process is going on. On the one hand the construction meaning of copula construction is the predication of a property to the referent of the subject. On the other hand there are a post state (target state) meaning, a present state meaning and a past time meaning of particples II. The interplay with the construction meaning of the copula construction results in four meaning variants of Zustandspassiv: post state (target state) as a property, present state as a property, past time of an event as a property, and past time meaning only. The meaning ‘past time of an event as a property’ is grammaticalizing to a past sein -passive as opposed to past werden -passive with full grammaticality. At least there are constructions that are also not completely wrong, but the accommodation to the construction meaning of copula constructions failed in a way that the only possibility of interpretation is to understand these constructions of sein + participle II as elliptical werden -passives of past tense. In this case the past time meaning of the participle completely has gained superiority to the original copula construction.

The arrival of computer-mediated communication has called into question existing classifications such as the distinction between mass- and individual media, dialogic and monologic communication or the concepts of orality and literacy. This paper will focus on the question if and to what extent the orality/literacy-model proposed by Koch/Oesterreicher (1985, 1990, 1995) can be applied to new forms of computer-mediated communication. After some terminological clarifications it will deal with the medial (spoken vs. written) as well as with the conceptual (oral vs. literal) aspects of the model of Koch/Oesterreicher and will propose some adaptations to the latter allowing a more precise and appropriate classification and description of different forms of computer-mediated communication. It will finally introduce an alternative concept, the one of Media Synchronicity recently proposed by Dennis/Valacich (1999, 2002) and try to reveal parallels with the orality/literacy-model which may prove useful in view of an extensive analysis of new forms of communication.

An der Friedrich-Alexander-Universität Erlangen-Nürnberg fand vom 4. April bis zum 7. April 2005 die Tagung Valency:Valenz. Theoretical, descriptive and cognitive issues statt. Für die Organisierung der Veranstaltung zeichneten Thomas Herbst und Katrin Götz vom Institut für Anglistik und Amerikanistik verantwortlich. Die beiden Organisatoren luden zu einer Tagung ein, die möglichst viele Aspekte des Themas Valenz umfassen sollte. So wurden u.a. lexikografische, kontrastive, kognitive und computerlinguistische Herangehensweisen angesprochen. Die Tagung war vorwiegend englischsprachig, was aber germanistisch orientierte Fragestellungen nicht ausschloss. Nach den Begrüβ ungsworten von Thomas Herbst begann Gert Rickheit die Vortragsreihe mit seinen Überlegungen zum Thema „Cognition and valency“. Zunächst ging er auf strukturelle, semantische und funktionale Aspekte von Valenz ein, wobei er die kognitive Relevanz dieser einzelnen Ebenen beleuchtete. Im zweiten Teil des Vortrags legte er den Schwerpunkt auf psycho- und neurolinguistische Aspekte der Valenztheorie und stellte Gedächtnisexperimente vor, die das Vorhandensein kognitiver Schemata und so genannter „default slots“ demonstrierten. Er kam dann zu dem Schluss, dass in einer adäquaten Valenztheorie weder strukturelle noch kognitive Gesichtspunkte zu kurz kommen dürften.