1887
  1. Home
  2. Books
  3. The Pragmatics of Discourse Coherence
  4. Chapter

The coding of discourse relations in English and German argumentative discourse

image of The coding of discourse relations in English and German argumentative discourse

This chapter examines contrastively the overt and non-overt coding of discourse relations in British English and German editorials. Particular attention is given to the linguistic coding of discourse relations between adjacently and non-adjacently positioned discourse units, and to the question of granularity. In the data, the discourse relation of Contrast is coded overtly in adjacent and nonadjacent positioning in the two languages, while Continuation, Elaboration, Explanation and Comment are coded differently. In the British data, there is a clear preference for coding discourse relations between adjacently positioned subordinating discourse relations overtly on the level of clause, and in the German data, discourse relations holding between non-adjacently positioned sentences are preferably marked overtly.

  • Affiliations: 1: University of Saarbrücken, Germany; 2: University of Augsburg, Germany

References

  1. Anscombe, Jean-Claude , and Oswald Ducrot
    1983 L’Argumentation dans la Langue. Bruxelles: Mardaga.
     [Google Scholar]
  2. Asher, Nicholas , and Alex Lascarides
    2003 Logics of Conversation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  3. Asher, Nicholas , and Laure Vieu
    2005 “Subordinating and Coordinating Discourse Relations.”Lingua115: 591–610. doi: 10.1016/j.lingua.2003.09.017
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lingua.2003.09.017 [Google Scholar]
  4. Benz, Anton , and Peter Kühnlein
    2008 “Constraints in Discourse. An Introduction.”InConstraints in Discourse, ed. by Anton Benz , and Peter Kühnlein , 1–26. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/pbns.172
     https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.172 [Google Scholar]
  5. Biber, Douglas
    1988 Variation across Speech and Writing. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. doi: 10.1017/CBO9780511621024
     https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511621024 [Google Scholar]
  6. Bloor, Thomas , and Meriel Bloor
    1995 The Functional Analysis of English: A Hallidayan Approach. London: Arnold.
     [Google Scholar]
  7. Brinton, Laurel
    1996 Pragmatic Markers in English: Grammaticalization and Discourse Functions. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. doi: 10.1515/9783110907582
     https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110907582 [Google Scholar]
  8. Bublitz, Wolfram , Uta Lenk , and Eija Ventola
    (eds) 1999 Coherence in Spoken and Written Discourse. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/pbns.63
     https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.63 [Google Scholar]
  9. Chesterman, Andrew
    1998 Contrastive Functional Analysis. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/pbns.47
     https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.47 [Google Scholar]
  10. Clyne, Michael
    1987 “Cultural Differences in the Organization of Academic Texts.”Journal of Pragmatics11: 211–247. doi: 10.1016/0378‑2166(87)90196‑2
     https://doi.org/10.1016/0378-2166(87)90196-2 [Google Scholar]
  11. Degand, Liesbeth , Nathalie Lefèvre , and Yves Bestgen
    1999 “The Impact of Connectives and Anaphoric Expression on Expository Discourse Comprehension.”Document Design1: 39–51. doi: 10.1075/dd.1.1.06deg
     https://doi.org/10.1075/dd.1.1.06deg [Google Scholar]
  12. Doherty, Monika
    2003 “Discourse Relators and the Beginnings of Sentences in English and German.”Languages in Contrast3: 223–251. doi: 10.1075/lic.3.2.05doh
     https://doi.org/10.1075/lic.3.2.05doh [Google Scholar]
  13. Esser, Jürgen
    2006 Presentation in Language. Rethinking Speech and Writing. Tübingen: Gunter Narr.
     [Google Scholar]
  14. Fetzer, Anita
    2005 “Negative Theme Zones in Political Interviews: A Contrastive Analysis of German and English Turn-initial Positions.”InPressetextsorten im Vergleich. Contrasting Text Types in the Press, ed. by Andrew Chesterman , and Hartmut Lenk , 283–301. Hildesheim: Olms.
     [Google Scholar]
  15. 2008 “Theme Zones in English Media Discourse. Forms and Functions.”Journal of Pragmatics40 (9): 1543–1568. doi: 10.1016/j.pragma.2008.04.016
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2008.04.016 [Google Scholar]
  16. Gernsbacher, Morton-Ann , and Talmy Givón
    (eds) 1995 Coherence in Spontaneous Text. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/tsl.31
     https://doi.org/10.1075/tsl.31 [Google Scholar]
  17. Givón, Talmy
    1993 English Grammar: A Function-based Introduction. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. doi: 10.2307/416226
     https://doi.org/10.2307/416226 [Google Scholar]
  18. 2005 Context as Other Minds. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/z.130
     https://doi.org/10.1075/z.130 [Google Scholar]
  19. Gómez-González, Maria
    2001 The Theme–Topic Interface. Evidence from English. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/pbns.71
     https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.71 [Google Scholar]
  20. Grosz, Barbara , Ararvind Joshi , and Scott Weinstein
    1995 “Centering: A Framework for Modelling the Local Coherence of Discourse.”Computational Linguistics21: 203–225.
     [Google Scholar]
  21. Grosz, Barbara , and Candace Sidner
    1986 “Attention, Intentions and the Structure of Discourse.”Computational Linguistics12: 175–204.
     [Google Scholar]
  22. Gumperz, John
    1992 “Contextualization and Understanding.”InRethinking Context: Language as an Interactive Phenomenon, ed. by Alessandro Duranti , and Charles Goodwin , 229–252. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  23. Halliday, Michael , and Ruqaiya Hasan
    1976 Cohesion in English. London: Longman.
     [Google Scholar]
  24. Halliday, Michael A. K
    1994 Introduction to English Functional Grammar. London: Arnold.
     [Google Scholar]
  25. Hannay, Mike
    1994 “The Theme Zone.”InNauwe Betrekkingen, ed. by Ronney Boogart , and Jan Noordegraaf , 107–117. Amsterdam: Neerlandistiek and Münster: Nodus Publikationen.
     [Google Scholar]
  26. House, Juliane
    1996 “Contrastive Discourse Analysis and Misunderstanding: The Case of German and English.”InContrastive Sociolinguistics, ed. by Marlies Hellinger , and Ulrich Ammon , 345–361. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
     [Google Scholar]
  27. Kamp, Hans , and Uwe Reyle
    1993 From Discourse to Logic. Introduction to Modeltheoretic Semantics of Natural Language, Formal Logic and Discourse Representation Theory. Dordrecht: Kluwer.
     [Google Scholar]
  28. Karagjosova, Elena
    2003 “Modal Particles and the Common Ground.”InPerspectives on Dialogue in the New Millennium, ed. by Peter Kühnlein , Hannes Rieser , and Henk Zeevat , 335–349. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/pbns.114.19kar
     https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.114.19kar [Google Scholar]
  29. König, Ekkehard
    1997 “Zur Bedeutung von Modalpartikeln im Deutschen: Ein Neuansatz im Rahmen der Relevanztheorie.”Germanistische Linguistik136: 57–75.
     [Google Scholar]
  30. Krifka, Manfred , and Caroline Féry
    2008 “Information Structure. Notional Distinctions, Ways of Expression.”InUnity and Diversity of Languages, ed. by Piet van Sterkenburg , 123–136. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/z.141.13kri
     https://doi.org/10.1075/z.141.13kri [Google Scholar]
  31. Krzeszowski, Tomas
    1989 “Towards a Typology of Contrastive Studies.”InContrastive Pragmatics, ed. by Wieslaw Oleksy , 55–72. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/pbns.3.07krz
     https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.3.07krz [Google Scholar]
  32. Lenker, Ursual
    2010 Argument and Rhetoric – Adverbial Connectors in the History of English. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. doi: 10.1515/9783110216066
     https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110216066 [Google Scholar]
  33. Levinson, Stephen
    1979 “Activity Types and Language.”Linguistics17: 365–399. doi: 10.1515/ling.1979.17.5‑6.365
     https://doi.org/10.1515/ling.1979.17.5-6.365 [Google Scholar]
  34. 1983 Pragmatics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  35. Liedtke, Frank
    1997 “Gesagt? getan: Über illokutionäre Indikatoren.”Linguistische Berichte8: 189–213.
     [Google Scholar]
  36. Mann, William C. , and Sandra A. Thompson
    1987 “Rhetorical Structure Theory: Description and Construction of Text Structures.”InNatural Language Generation, ed. by Gerard Kempen , 85–95. Den Haag: Martinus Nijhoff. doi: 10.1007/978‑94‑009‑3645‑4_7
     https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-009-3645-4_7 [Google Scholar]
  37. 1988 “Rhetorical Structure Theory: Toward a Functional Theory of Text Organization.”Text8: 243–281.
     [Google Scholar]
  38. Martin, Jim R. , and David Rose
    2008 Genre Relations. Mapping Culture. London: Equinox.
     [Google Scholar]
  39. Pomerantz, Anita
    1984 “Agreeing and Disagreeing with Assessments: Some Features of Preferred/Dispreferred Turn Shapes.”InStructures of Social Action, ed. by John Atkinson , and John M. Heritage , 57–101. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  40. Quirk, Randolph , Sidney Greenbaum , Geoffrey Leech , and Jan Svartvik
    1985 A Grammar of Contemporary English. London: Longman.
     [Google Scholar]
  41. Reinhart, Tanya
    1982 “Pragmatics and Linguistics: An Analysis of Sentence Topics.”Philosophica27: 53–94.
     [Google Scholar]
  42. Reis, Marga
    1997 “Zum syntaktischen Status unselbständiger Verbzweit-Sätze.”InSprache im Fokus. Festschrift für Heinz Vater zum 65. Geburtstag, ed. by Christa Dürscheid , Karl-Heinz Ramers , and Monika Schwarz , 121–144. Tübingen: Niemeyer.
     [Google Scholar]
  43. Sacks, Harvey
    1995 Lectures on Conversation, ed. by Gail Jefferson . Oxford: Blackwell. doi: 10.1002/9781444328301
     https://doi.org/10.1002/9781444328301 [Google Scholar]
  44. Schegloff, Emanuel
    1995 “Discourse as an Interactional Achievement III: The Omnirelevance of Action.”Research on Language and Social Interaction28 (3): 185–211. doi: 10.1207/s15327973rlsi2803_2
     https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327973rlsi2803_2 [Google Scholar]
  45. Soria, Claudia , and Giacomo Ferrari
    1998 “Lexical Marking of Discourse Relations – Some Experimental Findings.” Proceedings of COLING-ACL Workshop on Discourse Relations and Discourse Markers , 36–42. Montréal.
     [Google Scholar]
  46. Sperber, Dan , and Deirdre Wilson
    1986 Relevance: Communication and Cognition. Oxford: Blackwell.
     [Google Scholar]
  47. Speyer, Augustin
    2010 “Die Markierung von Diskursrelationen im Frühneuhochdeutschen.”Sprachwissenschaft35: 409–442.
     [Google Scholar]
  48. Thibault, Paul
    2003 “Contextualization and Social Meaning-making Practices.”InLanguage and Interaction. Discussions with John J. Gumperz, ed. by Susan Eerdmans , et al. , 41–62. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/z.117.05thi
     https://doi.org/10.1075/z.117.05thi [Google Scholar]
  49. van Dijk, Teun A
    1980 Textwissenschaft. München: dtv. doi: 10.1515/9783110954845
     https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110954845 [Google Scholar]
  50. Widdowson, Henry
    2004 Text, Context, and Pretext. Critical Issues in Discourse Analysis. Oxford: Blackwell. doi: 10.1002/9780470758427
     https://doi.org/10.1002/9780470758427 [Google Scholar]
  51. Wöllstein, Angelika
    2010 Topologisches Satzmodell. Heidelberg: Winter.
     [Google Scholar]

References

  1. Anscombe, Jean-Claude , and Oswald Ducrot
    1983 L’Argumentation dans la Langue. Bruxelles: Mardaga.
     [Google Scholar]
  2. Asher, Nicholas , and Alex Lascarides
    2003 Logics of Conversation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  3. Asher, Nicholas , and Laure Vieu
    2005 “Subordinating and Coordinating Discourse Relations.”Lingua115: 591–610. doi: 10.1016/j.lingua.2003.09.017
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lingua.2003.09.017 [Google Scholar]
  4. Benz, Anton , and Peter Kühnlein
    2008 “Constraints in Discourse. An Introduction.”InConstraints in Discourse, ed. by Anton Benz , and Peter Kühnlein , 1–26. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/pbns.172
     https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.172 [Google Scholar]
  5. Biber, Douglas
    1988 Variation across Speech and Writing. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. doi: 10.1017/CBO9780511621024
     https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511621024 [Google Scholar]
  6. Bloor, Thomas , and Meriel Bloor
    1995 The Functional Analysis of English: A Hallidayan Approach. London: Arnold.
     [Google Scholar]
  7. Brinton, Laurel
    1996 Pragmatic Markers in English: Grammaticalization and Discourse Functions. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. doi: 10.1515/9783110907582
     https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110907582 [Google Scholar]
  8. Bublitz, Wolfram , Uta Lenk , and Eija Ventola
    (eds) 1999 Coherence in Spoken and Written Discourse. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/pbns.63
     https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.63 [Google Scholar]
  9. Chesterman, Andrew
    1998 Contrastive Functional Analysis. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/pbns.47
     https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.47 [Google Scholar]
  10. Clyne, Michael
    1987 “Cultural Differences in the Organization of Academic Texts.”Journal of Pragmatics11: 211–247. doi: 10.1016/0378‑2166(87)90196‑2
     https://doi.org/10.1016/0378-2166(87)90196-2 [Google Scholar]
  11. Degand, Liesbeth , Nathalie Lefèvre , and Yves Bestgen
    1999 “The Impact of Connectives and Anaphoric Expression on Expository Discourse Comprehension.”Document Design1: 39–51. doi: 10.1075/dd.1.1.06deg
     https://doi.org/10.1075/dd.1.1.06deg [Google Scholar]
  12. Doherty, Monika
    2003 “Discourse Relators and the Beginnings of Sentences in English and German.”Languages in Contrast3: 223–251. doi: 10.1075/lic.3.2.05doh
     https://doi.org/10.1075/lic.3.2.05doh [Google Scholar]
  13. Esser, Jürgen
    2006 Presentation in Language. Rethinking Speech and Writing. Tübingen: Gunter Narr.
     [Google Scholar]
  14. Fetzer, Anita
    2005 “Negative Theme Zones in Political Interviews: A Contrastive Analysis of German and English Turn-initial Positions.”InPressetextsorten im Vergleich. Contrasting Text Types in the Press, ed. by Andrew Chesterman , and Hartmut Lenk , 283–301. Hildesheim: Olms.
     [Google Scholar]
  15. 2008 “Theme Zones in English Media Discourse. Forms and Functions.”Journal of Pragmatics40 (9): 1543–1568. doi: 10.1016/j.pragma.2008.04.016
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2008.04.016 [Google Scholar]
  16. Gernsbacher, Morton-Ann , and Talmy Givón
    (eds) 1995 Coherence in Spontaneous Text. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/tsl.31
     https://doi.org/10.1075/tsl.31 [Google Scholar]
  17. Givón, Talmy
    1993 English Grammar: A Function-based Introduction. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. doi: 10.2307/416226
     https://doi.org/10.2307/416226 [Google Scholar]
  18. 2005 Context as Other Minds. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/z.130
     https://doi.org/10.1075/z.130 [Google Scholar]
  19. Gómez-González, Maria
    2001 The Theme–Topic Interface. Evidence from English. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/pbns.71
     https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.71 [Google Scholar]
  20. Grosz, Barbara , Ararvind Joshi , and Scott Weinstein
    1995 “Centering: A Framework for Modelling the Local Coherence of Discourse.”Computational Linguistics21: 203–225.
     [Google Scholar]
  21. Grosz, Barbara , and Candace Sidner
    1986 “Attention, Intentions and the Structure of Discourse.”Computational Linguistics12: 175–204.
     [Google Scholar]
  22. Gumperz, John
    1992 “Contextualization and Understanding.”InRethinking Context: Language as an Interactive Phenomenon, ed. by Alessandro Duranti , and Charles Goodwin , 229–252. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  23. Halliday, Michael , and Ruqaiya Hasan
    1976 Cohesion in English. London: Longman.
     [Google Scholar]
  24. Halliday, Michael A. K
    1994 Introduction to English Functional Grammar. London: Arnold.
     [Google Scholar]
  25. Hannay, Mike
    1994 “The Theme Zone.”InNauwe Betrekkingen, ed. by Ronney Boogart , and Jan Noordegraaf , 107–117. Amsterdam: Neerlandistiek and Münster: Nodus Publikationen.
     [Google Scholar]
  26. House, Juliane
    1996 “Contrastive Discourse Analysis and Misunderstanding: The Case of German and English.”InContrastive Sociolinguistics, ed. by Marlies Hellinger , and Ulrich Ammon , 345–361. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
     [Google Scholar]
  27. Kamp, Hans , and Uwe Reyle
    1993 From Discourse to Logic. Introduction to Modeltheoretic Semantics of Natural Language, Formal Logic and Discourse Representation Theory. Dordrecht: Kluwer.
     [Google Scholar]
  28. Karagjosova, Elena
    2003 “Modal Particles and the Common Ground.”InPerspectives on Dialogue in the New Millennium, ed. by Peter Kühnlein , Hannes Rieser , and Henk Zeevat , 335–349. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/pbns.114.19kar
     https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.114.19kar [Google Scholar]
  29. König, Ekkehard
    1997 “Zur Bedeutung von Modalpartikeln im Deutschen: Ein Neuansatz im Rahmen der Relevanztheorie.”Germanistische Linguistik136: 57–75.
     [Google Scholar]
  30. Krifka, Manfred , and Caroline Féry
    2008 “Information Structure. Notional Distinctions, Ways of Expression.”InUnity and Diversity of Languages, ed. by Piet van Sterkenburg , 123–136. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/z.141.13kri
     https://doi.org/10.1075/z.141.13kri [Google Scholar]
  31. Krzeszowski, Tomas
    1989 “Towards a Typology of Contrastive Studies.”InContrastive Pragmatics, ed. by Wieslaw Oleksy , 55–72. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/pbns.3.07krz
     https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.3.07krz [Google Scholar]
  32. Lenker, Ursual
    2010 Argument and Rhetoric – Adverbial Connectors in the History of English. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. doi: 10.1515/9783110216066
     https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110216066 [Google Scholar]
  33. Levinson, Stephen
    1979 “Activity Types and Language.”Linguistics17: 365–399. doi: 10.1515/ling.1979.17.5‑6.365
     https://doi.org/10.1515/ling.1979.17.5-6.365 [Google Scholar]
  34. 1983 Pragmatics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  35. Liedtke, Frank
    1997 “Gesagt? getan: Über illokutionäre Indikatoren.”Linguistische Berichte8: 189–213.
     [Google Scholar]
  36. Mann, William C. , and Sandra A. Thompson
    1987 “Rhetorical Structure Theory: Description and Construction of Text Structures.”InNatural Language Generation, ed. by Gerard Kempen , 85–95. Den Haag: Martinus Nijhoff. doi: 10.1007/978‑94‑009‑3645‑4_7
     https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-009-3645-4_7 [Google Scholar]
  37. 1988 “Rhetorical Structure Theory: Toward a Functional Theory of Text Organization.”Text8: 243–281.
     [Google Scholar]
  38. Martin, Jim R. , and David Rose
    2008 Genre Relations. Mapping Culture. London: Equinox.
     [Google Scholar]
  39. Pomerantz, Anita
    1984 “Agreeing and Disagreeing with Assessments: Some Features of Preferred/Dispreferred Turn Shapes.”InStructures of Social Action, ed. by John Atkinson , and John M. Heritage , 57–101. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  40. Quirk, Randolph , Sidney Greenbaum , Geoffrey Leech , and Jan Svartvik
    1985 A Grammar of Contemporary English. London: Longman.
     [Google Scholar]
  41. Reinhart, Tanya
    1982 “Pragmatics and Linguistics: An Analysis of Sentence Topics.”Philosophica27: 53–94.
     [Google Scholar]
  42. Reis, Marga
    1997 “Zum syntaktischen Status unselbständiger Verbzweit-Sätze.”InSprache im Fokus. Festschrift für Heinz Vater zum 65. Geburtstag, ed. by Christa Dürscheid , Karl-Heinz Ramers , and Monika Schwarz , 121–144. Tübingen: Niemeyer.
     [Google Scholar]
  43. Sacks, Harvey
    1995 Lectures on Conversation, ed. by Gail Jefferson . Oxford: Blackwell. doi: 10.1002/9781444328301
     https://doi.org/10.1002/9781444328301 [Google Scholar]
  44. Schegloff, Emanuel
    1995 “Discourse as an Interactional Achievement III: The Omnirelevance of Action.”Research on Language and Social Interaction28 (3): 185–211. doi: 10.1207/s15327973rlsi2803_2
     https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327973rlsi2803_2 [Google Scholar]
  45. Soria, Claudia , and Giacomo Ferrari
    1998 “Lexical Marking of Discourse Relations – Some Experimental Findings.” Proceedings of COLING-ACL Workshop on Discourse Relations and Discourse Markers , 36–42. Montréal.
     [Google Scholar]
  46. Sperber, Dan , and Deirdre Wilson
    1986 Relevance: Communication and Cognition. Oxford: Blackwell.
     [Google Scholar]
  47. Speyer, Augustin
    2010 “Die Markierung von Diskursrelationen im Frühneuhochdeutschen.”Sprachwissenschaft35: 409–442.
     [Google Scholar]
  48. Thibault, Paul
    2003 “Contextualization and Social Meaning-making Practices.”InLanguage and Interaction. Discussions with John J. Gumperz, ed. by Susan Eerdmans , et al. , 41–62. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/z.117.05thi
     https://doi.org/10.1075/z.117.05thi [Google Scholar]
  49. van Dijk, Teun A
    1980 Textwissenschaft. München: dtv. doi: 10.1515/9783110954845
     https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110954845 [Google Scholar]
  50. Widdowson, Henry
    2004 Text, Context, and Pretext. Critical Issues in Discourse Analysis. Oxford: Blackwell. doi: 10.1002/9780470758427
     https://doi.org/10.1002/9780470758427 [Google Scholar]
  51. Wöllstein, Angelika
    2010 Topologisches Satzmodell. Heidelberg: Winter.
     [Google Scholar]

  • From This Site

    /content/books/9789027269232-pbns.254.04spe
    dcterms_subject,pub_keyword
    -contentType:Journal
    10
    5
/content/books/9789027269232-pbns.254.04spe
dcterms_subject,pub_keyword
-contentType:Journal
10
5
Chapter
content/books/9789027269232
Book
false
Loading
This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was successful
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error