1887
  1. Home
  2. e-Journals
  3. Constructions and Frames
  4. Volume 7, Issue 2
  5. Article
Volume 7 Number 2
  • ISSN 1876-1933
  • E-ISSN: 1876-1941
USD
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes

Abstract

The distribution and frequency of individual heterosemes of a hyperlemma in basic communicative types, which are distinguished according to their primary expression of dialogicity (i.e. their factual communicative immediacy/distance), is shown to be dependent on the interplay of i) the heteroseme’s basic word class function, ii) its degree of grammaticalization, and iii) the presence of secondary (embedded or simulated) communicative situations (i.e. conceptual immediacy/distance) in the linguistic material. The items investigated are ‘then’, ‘quiet’, ‘silent’, ‘peaceful’ and ‘maybe’ in German, which as hyperlemmas incorporate a number of distinct heterosemes (, for example, is used as conjunction, comparative particle, modal particle etc.). The focus of this corpus-based investigation is on the modal particle functions of the three hyperlemmas. The corpora used are distinguished according to primary degree of communicative immediacy/distance.

© 2015 John Benjamins Publishing Company
Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1075/cf.7.2.03die
2015-12-30
2025-04-18

  • From This Site

    /content/journals/10.1075/cf.7.2.03die
    dcterms_title,dcterms_subject,pub_keyword
    -contentType:Journal -contentType:Contributor -contentType:Concept -contentType:Institution
    10
    5
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. Abraham, W
    (1991) The grammaticalization of the German modal particles. In E.C. Traugott & B. Heine (Eds.), Approaches to grammaticalization, Vol. II. (pp. 331–380). Amsterdam: Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/tsl.19.2.17abr
     https://doi.org/10.1075/tsl.19.2.17abr [Google Scholar]
  2. Antonopoulou, E. , & Nikiforidou, K
    (2011) Construction grammar and conventional discourse: A construction-based approach to discoursal incongruity. Journal of Pragmatics, 43, 2594–2609. doi: 10.1016/j.pragma.2011.01.013
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2011.01.013 [Google Scholar]
  3. Autenrieth, T
    (2002) Heterosemie und Grammatikalisierung bei Modalpartikeln. Eine synchrone und diachrone Studie anhand von „eben“, „halt“, „e(cher)t“, „einfach“, „schlicht“ und „glatt“. Tübingen: Niemeyer. doi: 10.1515/9783110960907
     https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110960907 [Google Scholar]
  4. Brünjes, L
    (2014) Das Paradigma deutscher Modalpartikeln. Dialoggrammatische Funktion und paradigmeninterne Opposition. Berlin: de Gruyter.
     [Google Scholar]
  5. Bühler, K
    (1989 [1934]) Sprachtheorie: Die Darstellungsfunktion der Sprache. Stuttgart: UTB.
     [Google Scholar]
  6. (1990 [1934]) Theory of language: The representational function of language. Amsterdam: Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/fos.25
     https://doi.org/10.1075/fos.25 [Google Scholar]
  7. Diewald, G
    (1991) Deixis und Textsorten im Deutschen. Tübingen: Niemeyer. doi: 10.1515/9783111376400
     https://doi.org/10.1515/9783111376400 [Google Scholar]
  8. (1997) Grammatikalisierung. Eine Einführung in Sein und Werden grammatischer Formen. Tübingen: Niemeyer. doi: 10.1515/9783110946673
     https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110946673 [Google Scholar]
  9. (1999a) Die Modalverben im Deutschen: Grammatikalisierung und Polyfunktionalität. Tübingen: Niemeyer. doi: 10.1515/9783110945942
     https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110945942 [Google Scholar]
  10. (1999b) Die dialogische Bedeutungskomponente von Modalpartikeln. In B. Naumann (Ed.), Dialogue analysis and the mass media. Proceedings of the International Conference , Erlangen, April 2-3, 1998 (pp. 187–199). Tübingen: Niemeyer.
     [Google Scholar]
  11. (2002) A model for relevant types of contexts in grammaticalization. In I. Wischer & G. Diewald (Eds.), New reflections on grammaticalization (pp. 103–120). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/tsl.49.09die
     https://doi.org/10.1075/tsl.49.09die [Google Scholar]
  12. (2006a) Context types in grammaticalization as constructions. Constructions. SpecialVol. 1. www.constructions-online.de/articles/specvol1/.
     [Google Scholar]
  13. (2006b) Discourse particles and modal particles as grammatical elements. In K. Fischer (Ed.), Approaches to discourse particles (pp. 403–425). Amsterdam [etc.]: Elsevier.
     [Google Scholar]
  14. (2008) The catalytic function of constructional restrictions in grammaticalization. In E. Verhoeven , S. Skopeteas , Y.-M. Shin , Y. Nishina , & J. Helmbrecht (Eds.), Studies on grammaticalization (pp. 219–240). Berlin: de Gruyter.
     [Google Scholar]
  15. (2009) Konstruktionen und Paradigmen. ZGL, 37, 445–468.
     [Google Scholar]
  16. (2010) On some problem areas in grammaticalization theory. In K. Stathi , E. Gehweiler , & E. König (Eds.), Grammaticalization: Current views and issues (pp. 17–50). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/slcs.119.04die
     https://doi.org/10.1075/slcs.119.04die [Google Scholar]
  17. (2011) Pragmaticalization (defined) as grammaticalization of discourse functions. Linguistics, 49, 365–390. doi: 10.1515/ling.2011.011
     https://doi.org/10.1515/ling.2011.011 [Google Scholar]
  18. (2013) “Same same but different” – Modal particles, discourse markers and the art (and purpose) of categorization. In L. Degand , B. Cornillie , & P. Pietrandrea (Eds.), Discourse markers and modal particles. Categorization and description (pp. 19–46). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/pbns.234.02die
     https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.234.02die [Google Scholar]
  19. (2015a) Review of: Elizabeth Closs Traugott & Graeme Trousdale, Constructionalization and constructional changes. Oxford: OUD. PBB: Beiträge zur Geschichte der deutschen Sprache und Literatur, 137, 108–121.
     [Google Scholar]
  20. (2015b) Grammar needs context – grammar feeds context. Plenary talk held at the 14th International Pragmatics Conference , Antwerp, Belgium, 26-31 July 2015.
     [Google Scholar]
  21. Diewald, G. , & Ferraresi, G
    (2008) Semantic, syntactic and constructional restrictions in the diachronic rise of modal particles in German. A corpus-based study on the formation of a grammaticalization channel. In E. Seoane & M.J. López-Couso (Eds.), Theoretical and empirical issues in grammaticalization (pp. 77–110). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/tsl.77.06die
     https://doi.org/10.1075/tsl.77.06die [Google Scholar]
  22. Diewald, G. , & Fischer, K
    (1998) Zur diskursiven und modalen Funktion der Partikeln aber, auch, doch und ja in Instruktionsdialogen. Linguistica, 38, 75–99.
     [Google Scholar]
  23. Diewald, G. , Kresić, M. , & Smirnova, E
    (2009) The grammaticalization channels of evidentials and modal particles. Integration in textual structures as a common feature. In M. Mosegaard Hansen & J. Visconti (Eds.), Diachronic semantics and pragmatics (pp.193–213). Amsterdam [u. a.]: Emerald.
     [Google Scholar]
  24. [DWB]
    Deutsches Wörterbuch. Jakob und Wilhelm Grimm . 33 Bde. Leipzig: Hirzel, 1854 ff. [Nachdruck München 1984].
     [Google Scholar]
  25. Eckardt, R
    (2012) Particles as speaker indexicals in free indirect discourse. Sprache und Datenverarbeitung, 2(2011)/1(2012), 109–119.
     [Google Scholar]
  26. Heine, B. , Claudi, U. , & Hünnemeyer, F
    (1991) Grammaticalization: A conceptual framework. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  27. Heine, B. , & Narrog, H
    (Eds.) (2011) Oxford handbook of grammaticalization. Oxford: Oxford University Press. doi: 10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199586783.001.0001
     https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199586783.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  28. Helbig, G
    (1994) Lexikon deutscher Partikeln. 3. durchges. Auflage. Leipzig: Langenscheidt Verlag Enzyklopädie.
     [Google Scholar]
  29. Helbig, G. , & Buscha, J
    (2002) Deutsche Grammatik. Ein Handbuch für den Ausländerunterricht. Berlin/München: Langenscheidt.
     [Google Scholar]
  30. Hentschel, E
    (1986) Funktion und Geschichte deutscher Partikeln. Tübingen: Niemeyer. doi: 10.1515/9783111371221
     https://doi.org/10.1515/9783111371221 [Google Scholar]
  31. Hentschel, E. , & Weydt, H
    (2002) Die Wortart “Partikel”. In A.D. Cruse , F. Hundsnurscher , M. Job , & P.R. Lutzeier (Eds.), Lexikologie. Internationales Handbuch zur Natur und Struktur von Wörtern und Wortschätzen. 1. Halbband (pp.646–653). Berlin/New York: de Gruyter.
     [Google Scholar]
  32. Hopper, P.J. , & Traugott, E.C
    (2003) Grammaticalization. Second edition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. doi: 10.1017/CBO9781139165525
     https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139165525 [Google Scholar]
  33. Ickler, T
    (1994) Zur Bedeutung der sogenannten “Modalpartikeln”. Sprachwissenschaft, 19, 374–404.
     [Google Scholar]
  34. Jakobson, R
    (1971 [1957]) Shifters, verbal categories, and the Russian verb. InSelected writings, Vol. II: Word and language (pp. 130–147). The Hague/Paris: Mouton.
     [Google Scholar]
  35. Keil, M
    (1990) Analyse von Partikeln für ein sprachverstehendes System – am Beispiel telefonischer Zugauskunftsdialoge. Magisterarbeit in der Philosophischen Fakultät II (Sprach- und Literaturwissenschaften) der Universität Erlangen. [typoscript].
     [Google Scholar]
  36. Koch, P
    (1999) Court records and cartoons. Reflections of spontaneous dialogue in early Romance texts. In A. Jucker , G. Fritz , & A. Lebsanft (Eds.), Historical dialogue analysis (pp. 399–429). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/pbns.66.16koc
     https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.66.16koc [Google Scholar]
  37. Koch, P. , & Oesterreicher, W
    (2011) Gesprochene Sprache in der Romania. Französisch, Italienisch, Spanisch2. Auflage. Berlin/New York: de Gruyter. doi: 10.1515/9783110252620
     https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110252620 [Google Scholar]
  38. Kwon, M.-J
    (2005) Modalpartikeln und Satzmodus. Untersuchungen zur Syntax, Semantik und Pragmatik der deutschen Modalpartikeln [Diss. München].
     [Google Scholar]
  39. Lichtenberk, F
    (1991) Semantic change and heterosemy in grammaticalization. Language, 67, 475–546. doi: 10.1353/lan.1991.0009
     https://doi.org/10.1353/lan.1991.0009 [Google Scholar]
  40. Langacker, R.W
    (1985) Observations and speculations on subjectivity. In J. Haiman (Ed.), Iconicity in syntax. Proceedings of a symposium on iconicity in syntax, Stanford . June 24-6, 1983 (pp. 109–150). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/tsl.6.07lan
     https://doi.org/10.1075/tsl.6.07lan [Google Scholar]
  41. (2002) Deixis and subjectivity. In F. Brisard (Ed.), Grounding: The epistemic footing of deixis and reference (pp. 1–27). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. doi: 10.1515/9783110899801.1
     https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110899801.1 [Google Scholar]
  42. Lehmann, C
    (1985) Grammaticalization: Synchronic variation and diachronic change. Lingua e stile, 20, 303–318.
     [Google Scholar]
  43. (1995 [1982]) Thoughts on grammaticalization. Revised and expanded version. First published edition. München: Lincom Europa.
     [Google Scholar]
  44. Meibauer, J
    (1994) Modaler Kontrast und konzeptuelle Verschiebung. Studien zur Syntax und Semantik deutscher Modalpartikeln. Tübingen: Niemeyer. doi: 10.1515/9783111339795
     https://doi.org/10.1515/9783111339795 [Google Scholar]
  45. Möllering, M
    (2004) The acquisition of German modal particles. A corpus-based approach. Bern [etc.]: Lang.
     [Google Scholar]
  46. Molnár, A
    (1998) Über die Grammatikalisierung von Modalpartikeln am Beispiel von eben und wohl . Sprachtheorie und germanistische Linguistik, 8, 51–70.
     [Google Scholar]
  47. (2002) Die Grammatikalisierung deutscher Modalpartikeln. Fallstudien. Frankfurt a.M.: Lang.
     [Google Scholar]
  48. Paul, H
    (2002) Deutsches Wörterbuch. Bedeutungsgeschichte und Aufbau unseres Wortschatzes. 10., überarb. und erw. Auflage von Helmut Henne , Heidrun Kämper und Georg Objartel . Tübingen: Niemeyer[1. edition 1897].
     [Google Scholar]
  49. Persson, G
    (1988) Homonymy, polysemy and heterosemy: The types of lexical ambiguity in English. In K. Hyldgaard-Jensen & A. Zettersten (Eds.), Symposium on lexicography III: Proceedings of the third international symposium on lexicography , May 14-16, 1986, at the University of Copenhagen (pp. 269–80). Tübingen: Niemeyer.
     [Google Scholar]
  50. Sweetser, E
    (1988) Grammaticalization and semantic bleaching. Berkeley Linguistics Society, 14, 389–405. doi: 10.3765/bls.v14i0.1774
     https://doi.org/10.3765/bls.v14i0.1774 [Google Scholar]
  51. Thurmair, M
    (1989) Modalpartikeln und ihre Kombinationen. Tübingen: Niemeyer. doi: 10.1515/9783111354569
     https://doi.org/10.1515/9783111354569 [Google Scholar]
  52. Traugott, E.C
    (1989) On the rise of epistemic meanings in English: An example of subjectification in semantic change. Language, 65, 31–55. doi: 10.2307/414841
     https://doi.org/10.2307/414841 [Google Scholar]
  53. Traugott, E.C. , & Trousdale, G
    (2013) Constructionalization and constructional changes. Oxford: OUD. doi: 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199679898.001.0001
     https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199679898.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  54. Zifonun, G. , Hoffmann, L. , Strecker, B ., [ et al. ].
    (1997) Grammatik der deutschen Sprache, Vol. 3. Berlin/New York: de Gruyter. doi: 10.1515/9783110872163
     https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110872163 [Google Scholar]
/content/journals/10.1075/cf.7.2.03die
Loading
  • Article Type: Research Article
Keyword(s): conceptual communicative immediacy/distance; conjunction; dialogic/monologic communicative type; embedding; grammaticalization; heterosemy; indexical relation; modal particle; simulation

Most Cited

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