Volume 39, Issue 2

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)?

The subject of this paper is the presentation of the analysis of details of various German phraseologisms containing the constituent Hand [ hand ]. It will be shown that a considerable improvement in clarity can be achieved by analyzing these phraseolgisms as belonging to a specific construction family. The analysis follows in its classification previous studies from the project “Linguistik des Körpers” [ Linguistics of the Human Body ]. The essential objectives of this project are: (I) identification of the semantic potential of the body and (II) analysis and description of the meaning of phraseologisms containing body part terms (so called somatisms). As considered from a methodological point of view (II) would be the conditio sine qua non with regard to (I). The thesis is the following: Although phraseologisms – following Goldberg – are not absolutely predictable, the body part terms still allow the identification of a specific contribution to the phraseological meaning. To a certain extent the phraseological meaning turns out to be compositional as if moved along a metonymic guide. Analysis of the meaning will be the main focus of this investigation. Meanings occur in daily use. The only way to get further knowledge about the meaning(s) of linguistic entities is by analyzing their (actual) use.

Most grammars and text books list the element je in its correlative use as a subordinate conjunction. The present study shows that this classification is not correct. Je is rather a word or word-like element which introduces a larger constituent which occupies the clause initial position much like a question word, or more precisely an interrogative constituent. One of the pieces of evidence is the multiple occurrence of je (-constituents) inside the same clause, a finding which has never been recognized before. Furthermore it is shown – contrary to Bech (1964) – that je clauses are compatible with negation. The contribution ends with a speculative part in which je is proposed to be either a particle or else even a bound morpheme, lacking word status at altogether.

Elliptical structures can be seen as a challenge for grammar theory, grammatical research of individual languages and psycholinguistics. Whereas research on elliptical structures in grammar theory and psycholinguistics is mainly restricted to coordination ellipsis, grammatical research on ellipsis in German covers a much wider range of elliptical structures both in written texts and spoken language. The article argues for a broadening of the psycholinguistic understanding of ellipsis by taking into account different types of text ellipsis revealed by research in German linguistics and by correlating different types of elliptical structures with sub-processes of the understanding of texts (coherence, inference). It shows that the shift of attention to a wider range of types of elliptical structures also leads to new hypotheses of understanding elliptical structures. As the article only offers a first approach to the integration of text understanding and grammatical classification of elliptical structures, it cannot provide an elaborate set of methods for proving the hypotheses. It therefore closes with an appeal to a more extensive collaboration of different linguistic disciplines.

The German language has borrowed many words from other languages due to their strong cultural influence which lasted for centuries. As most of these have been substantives, they have obligatorily received grammatical gender. The present article is an attempt at showing the principles which determined the grammatical gender of the loan-words witnessed in OHG sources from the 8 th century.