Volume 52, Issue 3

German and Turkish differ (slightly) in terms of their grapheme inventories. This leads to variation in the spelling of many Turkish names in German: Either the Turkish letters are used (e. g. the lowercase letters ç , ğ , ı , ş ) or integrated alternatives ( c , g , i, and s ). This article analyses how common Turkish surnames are written in German-language newspaper texts (e. g. Gündoğan vs. Gündogan ). It is shown that the use of Turkish letters tends to increase, that ç is used much more frequently than the other letters, and that there are significant differences between the newspapers analysed. The change in favour of the non-integrated variants is then explained (on the basis of metalinguistic comments) with their indexical potential: the non-integrated spelling is typically interpreted as correct and respectful and serves to indicate linguistic knowledge.

This paper examines the variation between -n and -s in the genitive singular inflection of determiners for masculine and neuter nouns as can be observed in Herbst diesen Jahres vs. Herbst dieses Jahres ‘autumn of this year’. So far, the discussion of this phenomenon has focused on the demonstrative determiner dies- , where the - n inflection is regarded as a new, non-standard variant. The results of our corpus study of newspaper texts show that the -n inflection occurs across the entire determiner system and is supported by the decreasing prototypicality of individual determiners: the less prototypical a determiner is, the more frequently it exhibits the -n inflection. The least prototypical determiner class is formed by indefinite determiners such as jed- , which predominantly exhibit -n inflection (e. g., Menschen jeden Alters ). The majority of demonstratives fulfil the prototypical features of determiners. Here, the -n inflection represents a rare variant of the -s inflection. Finally, possessive determiners are located in the prototypical centre of the determiners and consistently exhibit -s inflection with a few exceptions. Our study also shows that genitive noun phrases introduced by determiners exhibiting -n inflection have less paradigmatic depth and block adjectival attribution. Although the contexts in which -n occurs are restricted, it is always interchangeable with -s . We therefore classify these two forms as allomorphs.

If an entity is referred to multiple times in a text, a reference chain is created. This chain is considered neutral or unmarked when it is structured as follows: eine Frau – die Frau – sie – sie – sie … (‘a woman – the woman – she – she – she…’) (Thurmair 2003). Most studies on referential coherence (including those related to language acquisition) focus on animate entities in texts. For older school pupils to handle different types of texts (e. g. reports, descriptions, explanations) adequately, the question arises as to how references are made to inanimate objects in texts and whether simple possibilities of stylistic variation are used. In this experimental study with secondary-school pupils (Grades 5 and 8) and university students, we elicited chains of references to inanimate entities (eine Tasche – die Tasche – sie, ‘a bag – the bag – it’) and investigated the unmarked structuring of these references (indefinite NP – definite NP – personal pronoun) and the degree of precision in the introductory nominal phrase in terms of composition and/or attributes (e. g. eine Handtasche, eine gelbe Tasche, eine gelbe Handtasche , ‘a handbag, a yellow bag, a yellow handbag’). We also explored whether potential for variation was exploited through partial recurrence (e. g. eine Handtasche – die Tasche , ‘a handbag – the bag’). Although all three groups preferred using neutral reference chains, there were clear differences in the degree of preference between the two groups of pupils, on the one hand, and the students, on the other. The groups also differed regarding their use of precision and the extent to which they varied references through partial recurrence. In addition, deviations in agreement between a pronoun and its previous mention were observed in some pupils with German as a second language who followed the semantic strategy of referring to inanimate entities using the neutral pronoun es (independent of the grammatical gender) (e. g. eine gelbe Tasche  – die Tasche  – *es ). Another surprising finding can be seen in the student group. In an effort to express themselves diversely and eloquently, the students varied the personal and demonstrative pronouns within the reference chains without considering that demonstrative pronouns fulfil specific grammatical functions in texts (Diessel, 1999; Bosch & Umbach, 2007) and that incorrect use confuses the reader, potentially leading to misinterpretation. As analyses of textbooks have shown that referential coherence is largely neglected in German instruction (Averintseva-Klisch, Bryant & Peschel, 2019), the findings are hardly surprising. They demonstrate once again that more attention needs to be paid to this phenomenon in teacher training and in work on texts in schools.

This paper examines complex NPs in German with an attributive in -PP whose internal argument is an adjective as in Merkel in männlich (‘Merkel in male form’) or a colour or language name as Clinton in blue or Asterix in French . While the expressions with a colour and language designation are relatively common and well established, Merkel in männlich is a much more recent and, as far as I know, completely unnoticed construction. What is striking about it is that the uses of these in -PP are understood quite differently: It is about the expression of worn clothing in the corresponding colour, about the expression of a respective constitution as well as about expressions that attribute a characteristic to the reference object as the result of a transformation. This leads to the following questions, which are dealt with in the context of construction grammar: What can lead to the appellativisation and predicative use of a proper name? What triggers the referential comparative reading (someone like Merkel but different)? What role do expressions with colour designations play? Is there an abstract construction or different ones behind such expressions? What motivates the preposition in ? What motivates the different types of modification? Are the readings semantically coded or contextually and pragmatically determined? To answer the questions, I will propose a network of three prototypically related constructions. These are motivated by inheritance from the verbal level to the nominal level. The appellativisation and predicative use of proper names is attributed to routine pragmatic implicatures.

Adjectives with the borrowed head constituent like are a previously undescribed phenomenon in German. This corpus-based study shows that they occur frequently in certain text sources and analyses them as a productive word-formation pattern. The article describes the morphological, syntactic, graphemic, semantic, and pragmatic properties of these adjectives. While their structural formation is subject to only few constraints, their use is much more restricted. This is shown, among other things, by the frequent use of quotation marks which indicates that writers are aware of the novelty or expressiveness of the formations. Finally, the emergence of the pattern in German is discussed in terms of foreign word-formation vs. grammatical borrowing.

The article presents the RUEG corpora. We begin by describing the basic principles and research questions, that influenced and shaped the corpora and introduce the method of data generation. We proceed by describing the fundamental components of the building process and the overall outcome. Said outcome provides interfaces for new researchers, who wish to conduct their own research using the RUEG corpora. Options for such research are discussed by showing that it can succeed within the range of re-using exisiting annotations and metadata up to building entirely new, but comparable corpora.