1887
  1. Home
  2. e-Journals
  3. Written Language & Literacy
  4. Volume 19, Issue 2
  5. Article
Volume 19, Issue 2
  • ISSN 1387-6732
  • E-ISSN: 1570-6001
USD
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes

Abstract

In this paper, we analyze written sentences containing the German particles (“although”) and (“because”). In standard written German, these particles embed clauses in verb-last constituent order, which is characteristic of subordinated clauses. In spoken and – as we show – nonstandard written German, they embed clauses in verb-second constituent order, which is characteristic of independent sentences. Our usage-based approach to the syntax – graphemics interface includes a large-scale corpus analysis of the patterns of punctuation in the nonstandard variants that provides clues to the syntactic structure and degree of sentential independence of the nonstandard variants. Our corpus study confirms and refines hypotheses from existing theoretical approaches by clearly showing that writers mark clauses with verb-second order systematically as independent sentences, whereas clauses with verb-second order are much less strongly marked as independent. This work suggests that similar corpus studies could provide deeper insight into the interplay between syntax and graphemics.

© John Benjamins Publishing Company
Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1075/wll.19.2.04sch
2017-05-22
2025-01-13

  • From This Site

    /content/journals/10.1075/wll.19.2.04sch
    dcterms_title,dcterms_subject,pub_keyword
    -contentType:Journal -contentType:Contributor -contentType:Concept -contentType:Institution
    10
    5
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. Antomo, Mailin & Markus Steinbach
    (2010) Desintegration und Interpretation: Weil-V2-Sätze an der Schnittstelle zwischen Syntax, Semantik und Pragmatik. Zeitschrift für Sprachwissenschaft29(1): 1–37.
     [Google Scholar]
  2. (2013) Zur Semantik von Konzessivsätzen mit “obwohl.”Linguistische Berichte236: 427–453.
     [Google Scholar]
  3. Auer, Peter & Susanne Günthner
    (2005) Die Entstehung von Diskursmarkern im Deutschen – ein Fall von Grammatikalisierung. In Torsten Leuschner & Tanja Mortelsmans (eds.), Grammatikalisierung im Deutschen, 335–362. Berlin, New York: De Gruyter.
     [Google Scholar]
  4. Augst, Gerhard , Karl Blüml , Dieter Nerius & Horst Sitta
    (eds.) (1997) Zur Neuregelung der deutschen Orthographie. Begründung und Kritik. Tübingen: Niemeyer.
     [Google Scholar]
  5. Baayen, R. Harald
    (2008) Analyzing linguistic data. A practical introduction to statistics using R.Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  6. Baroni, Marco , Silvia Bernardini , Adriano Ferraresi & Eros Zanchetta
    (2009) The WaCky Wide Web: A collection of very large linguistically processed web-crawled corpora. Language Resources and Evaluation43(3): 209–226.
     [Google Scholar]
  7. Barth, Danielle & Vsevolod Kapatsinski
    (2014, ahead of print). A multimodel inference approach to categorical variant choice: construction, priming and frequency effects on the choice between full and contracted forms of “am,” “are” and “is.”Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory. doi: 10.1515/cllt‑2014‑0022
     https://doi.org/10.1515/cllt-2014-0022 [Google Scholar]
  8. Baudusch, Renate
    (1997) Zur Reform der Zeichensetzung – Begründung und Kommentar. In Gerhard Augst , Karl Blüml , Dieter Nerius & Horst Sitta (eds.), Zur Neuregelung der deutschen Orthographie. Begründung und Kritik, 243–258. Tübingen: Niemeyer.
     [Google Scholar]
  9. Behrens, Ulrike
    (1989) Wenn nicht alle Zeichen trügen. Interpunktion als Markierung syntaktischer Konstruktionen. Frankfurt am Main: Lang.
  10. Biemann, Chris , Felix Bildhauer , Stefan Evert , Dirk Goldhahn , Uwe Quasthoff , Roland Schäfer , Johannes Simon , Leonard Swiezinski & Torsten Zesch
    (2013) Scalable construction of high-quality web corpora. Journal for Language Technology and Computational Linguistics28(2): 23–60.
     [Google Scholar]
  11. Blühdorn, Hardarik
    (2008) Epistemische Lesarten von Satzkonnektoren – wie sie zustande kommen und wie man sie erkennt. In Inge Pohl (ed.), Semantik und Pragmatik – Schnittstellen, 271–251. Frankfurt am Main: Lang.
     [Google Scholar]
  12. Bredel, Ursula
    (2008) Die Interpunktion des Deutschen. Ein kompositionelles System zur Online-Steuerung des Lesens. Tübingen: Niemeyer.
  13. (2011) Interpunktion. Heidelberg: Winter.
     [Google Scholar]
  14. Breindl, Eva
    (2009) Fehler mit System und Fehler im System. Topologische Varianten bei Konnektoren. In Marek Konopka & Bruno Strecker (eds.), Deutsche Grammatik – Regeln, Normen, Sprachgebrauch. Jahrbuch des IDS Mannheim 2008, 274–308. Berlin, New York: De Gruyter.
     [Google Scholar]
  15. Bresnan, Joan
    (2007) Is syntactic knowledge probabilistic? Experiments with the English dative alternation. In Sam Featherston & Wolfgang Sternefeld (eds.), Roots: Linguistics in search of its evidential base, 77–96. Berlin, New York: De Gruyter.
     [Google Scholar]
  16. Burnham, Kenneth P. & David R. Anderson
    (2002) Model selection and multimodel inference: A practical information-theoretic approach, 2nd edition. New York: Springer.
  17. Bybee, Joan L. & Clay Beckner
    (2009) Usage-based theory. In Bernd Heine & Heiko Narrog (eds.), The Oxford handbook of linguistic analysis, 827–856. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  18. Canty, Angelo & Brian Ripley
    (2013) Boot: Bootstrap R (S-Plus) functions. R package version 1.3-9. cran.r-project.org/package=boot
     [Google Scholar]
  19. Croft, William
    (2001) Radical construction grammar. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  20. (2004) Syntactic theories and syntactic methodology: A reply to Seuren. Journal of Linguistics40: 637–654.
     [Google Scholar]
  21. Davison, Anthony Chr . & David V. Hinkley
    (1997) Bootstrap methods and their applications. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  22. Divjak, Dagmar & Antti Arppe
    (2013) Extracting prototypes from exemplars: What can corpus data tell us about concept representation?Cognitive Linguistics24(2): 221–274.
     [Google Scholar]
  23. Dobrić, Nikola
    (2015) Three-factor prototypicality evaluation and the verb “look.”Language Sciences50: 1–11.
     [Google Scholar]
  24. Dürscheid, Christa
    (2006) Einführung in die Schriftlinguistik, 3rd edition. Göttingen: Vandenhoek & Ruprecht.
     [Google Scholar]
  25. Fabricius-Hansen, Cathrine
    (2011) Was wird verknüpft, mit welchen Mitteln – und wozu? Zur Mehrdimensionalität der Satzverknüpfung. In Eva Breindl , Gisella Ferraresi & Anna Volodina (eds.), Satzverknüpfungen. Zur Interaktion von Form, Bedeutung und Diskursfunktion, 15–40. Berlin, New York: De Gruyter.
     [Google Scholar]
  26. Fahrländer, Sarah
    (2013) Zur Syntax und Semantik der konzessiven Satzkonnektoren “obwohl” und “trotzdem.”Mannheim: IDS.
  27. Fahrmeir, Ludwig , Thomas Kneib , Stefan Lang & Brian Marx
    (2013) Regression – models, methods, and applications. Berlin: Springer.
     [Google Scholar]
  28. Fox, John & Georges Monette
    (1992) Generalized collinearity diagnostics. Journal of the American Statistics Association87: 178–183.
     [Google Scholar]
  29. Fox, John & Sanford Weisberg
    (2011) An R companion to applied regression, 2nd edition. Thousand Oaks: Sage.
     [Google Scholar]
  30. Frazier, Lyn & Keith Rayner
    (1988) Parametrizing language processing system: Left vs. right-branching within across languages. In John A. Hawkins (ed.), Explaining language universals, 247–279. Oxford: Blackwell.
     [Google Scholar]
  31. Freywald, Ulrike
    (2008) Zur Syntax und Funktion von dass-Sätzen mit V2-Stellung. Deutsche Sprache36: 246–285.
     [Google Scholar]
  32. (2010) Obwohl vielleicht war es ganz anders. Vorüberlegungen zum Alter der Verbzweitstellung nach subordinierenden Konjunktionen. In Arne Ziegler (ed.), Historische Textgrammatik und Historische Syntax des Deutschen, 45–84. Berlin, New York: De Gruyter.
     [Google Scholar]
  33. (2016) V2-Nebensätze – ein eigener Satztyp. In Rita Finkbeiner & Jörg Meibauer (eds.), Satztypen und Konstruktionen, 326–373. Berlin, New York: De Gruyter.
     [Google Scholar]
  34. Gallmann, Peter
    (1996) Interpunktion (Syngrapheme). In Hartmut Günther & Otto Ludwig (eds.), Writing and its use. An interdisciplinary handbook of international research, vol.2, 1456–1467. Berlin, New York: De Gruyter.
     [Google Scholar]
  35. Gaumann, Ulrike
    (1983) “Weil die machen jetzt bald zu.” Angabe- und Junktivsatz in der deutschen Gegenwartssprache. Göppingen: Göppinger Arbeiten zur Germanistik.
  36. Gohl, Christine & Susanne Günthner
    (1999) Grammatikalisierung von “weil” als Diskursmarker in der gesprochenen Sprache. Zeitschrift für Sprachwissenschaft18(1): 39–75.
     [Google Scholar]
  37. Gries, Stefan Th.
    (2003) Towards a corpus-based identification of prototypical instances of constructions. Annual Review of Cognitive Linguistics1: 1–27.
     [Google Scholar]
  38. (2013) Statistics for linguistics with R: A practical introduction, 2nd edition. Berlin, New York: De Gruyter.
     [Google Scholar]
  39. Günthner, Susanne
    (1993) “… weil – man kann es ja wissenschaftlich untersuchen” – Diskurspragmatische Aspekte der Wortstellung in WEIL-Sätzen. Linguistische Berichte143: 37–59.
     [Google Scholar]
  40. (1996) From subordination to coordination? Verb-second positions in German causal and concessive constructions. Pragmatics6: 323–356.
     [Google Scholar]
  41. (2000) From concessive connector to discourse marker: The use of obwohl in everyday German interaction. In Elizabeth Couper-Kuhlen & Bernd Kortmann (eds.), Cause – condition – concession – contrast. Cognitive discourse perspectives, 439–468. Berlin, New York: De Gruyter.
     [Google Scholar]
  42. (2003) Lexical-grammatical variation and development. The use of conjunction as discourse markers in everyday spoken German. In Regine Eckhardt , Klaus von Heusinger & Christoph Schwarze (eds.), Words in time. Diachronic semantics from different points of view, 375–403. Berlin, New York: De Gruyter.
     [Google Scholar]
  43. Hay, Jennifer B. & R. Harald Baayen
    (2005) Shifting paradigms: Gradient structure in morphology. Trends in Cognitive Linguistics9(7): 342–348.
     [Google Scholar]
  44. Hintzman, Douglas L.
    (1986) Schema abstraction in a multiple-trace memory model. Psychological Review93(4): 411–428.
     [Google Scholar]
  45. Holler, Anke
    (2009) Informationsreliefs in komplexen Sätzen: Eine diskursrelationale Analyse. Linguistische Berichte Sonderheft16: 135–158.
     [Google Scholar]
  46. Imo, Wolfgang
    (2012) Wortart Diskursmarker?In Björn Rothstein (ed.), Nicht-flektierende Wortarten, 48–88. Berlin, New York: De Gruyter.
     [Google Scholar]
  47. Johnson, Keith
    (2008) Quantitative methods in linguistics. Hoboken: Wiley-Blackwell.
     [Google Scholar]
  48. Kapatsinski, Vsevolod
    (2014) What is grammar like? A usage-based constructionist perspective. Linguistic Issues in Language Technology11: 1–41.
     [Google Scholar]
  49. Kirchhoff, Frank & Beatrice Primus
    (2014) The architecture of punctuation systems: a historical case study of the comma in German. Written Language and Literacy17(2): 195–224.
     [Google Scholar]
  50. Kuperman, Victor & Joan Bresnan
    (2012) The effects of construction probability on word durations during spontaneous incremental sentence production. Journal of Memory and Language66: 588–611.
     [Google Scholar]
  51. Langacker, Ronald W.
    (2000) A dynamic usage-based model. In Michael Barlow & Suzanne Kemmer (eds.), Usage-based models of language, 1–63. Stanford: CSLI.
     [Google Scholar]
  52. (2008) Cognitive grammar. A basic introduction. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  53. Levine, Robert D. & Thomas E. Hukari
    (2006) The unity of unbounded dependency constructions. Stanford: CSLI.
     [Google Scholar]
  54. Manning, Christopher D.
    (2003) Probabilistic syntax. In Rens Bod , Jennifer Hay & Stefanie Jannedy (eds.), Probabilistic linguistics, 289–342. Cambridge: MIT Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  55. Mazuka, Reiko & Barbara Lust
    (1990) On parameter setting and parsing: predictions for cross-linguistic differences in adult and child processing. In Lyn Frazier & Jill de Villiers (eds.), Language processing and language acquisition, 163–206. Dordrecht: Kluwer.
     [Google Scholar]
  56. Medin, Douglas L. & Marguerite M. Schaffer
    (1978) Context theory of classification learning. Psychological Review85(3): 207–238.
     [Google Scholar]
  57. Mentrup, Wolfgang
    (1983) Zur Zeichensetzung im Deutschen – Die Regeln und ihre Reform. Oder: Müssen Duden-Regeln so sein, wie sie sind?Tübingen: Narr.
  58. Müller, Sonja
    (2014) Zur Anordnung der Modalpartikeln ja und doch: (In)stabile Kontexte und (non)kanonische Assertionen. Linguistische Berichte238: 165–208.
     [Google Scholar]
  59. Nakazawa, Minato
    (2014) fmsb: Functions for medical statistics book with some demographic data. R package version 0.4.4. cran.r-project.org/package=fmsb
     [Google Scholar]
  60. Nerius, Dieter
    (ed.) (2007) Deutsche Orthographie. Hildesheim: Olms.
     [Google Scholar]
  61. Panther, Klaus-Uwe & Klaus-Michael Köpcke
    (2008) A prototype approach to sentences and sentence types. Annual Review of Cognitive Linguistics6(1): 83–112.
     [Google Scholar]
  62. Pasch, Renate
    (1983) Die Kausalkonjunktionen “‘da,” “denn” und “weil”: Drei Konjunktionen – drei lexikalische Klassen. Deutsch als Fremdsprache20(6): 332–337.
     [Google Scholar]
  63. (1997) “Weil” mit Hauptsatz – Kuckucksei im “denn”-Nest. Deutsche Sprache25(3): 75–85.
     [Google Scholar]
  64. Pasch, Renate , Ursula Brauße , Eva Breindl & Ulrich Hermann Waßner
    (2003) Handbuch der deutschen Konnektoren. Linguistische Grundlagen der Beschreibung und syntaktische Merkmale der deutschen Satzverknüpfer (Konjunktionen, Satzadverbien, Partikel). Berlin, New York: De Gruyter.
  65. Paschke, Peter
    (2010) Die Interpunktion des Deutschen. Ein kompositionelles System zur Online-Steuerung des Lesens (review). InfoDAF37(2/3): 144–148.
     [Google Scholar]
  66. Pollard, Carl & Ivan A. Sag
    (1994) Head-driven phrase structure grammar. Stanford: CSLI.
     [Google Scholar]
  67. Primus, Beatrice
    (1993) Sprachnorm und Sprachregularität: Das Komma im Deutschen. Deutsche Sprache3: 244–263.
     [Google Scholar]
  68. (2010) Strukturelle Grundlagen des deutschen Schriftsystems. In Ursula Bredel , Astrid Müller & Gabriele Hinney (eds.), Schriftsystem und Schrifterwerb: Linguistisch – didaktisch – empirisch. Berlin, New York: De Gruyter.
     [Google Scholar]
  69. R Core Team
    R Core Team (2013) R: A language and environment for statistical computing. Vienna: R Foundation for Statistical Computing. www.R-project.org/
     [Google Scholar]
  70. Reich, Ingo & Marga Reis
    (2012) Koordination und Subordination. In Jörg Meibauer , Markus Steinbach & Hans Altmann (eds.), Satztypen des Deutschen, 536–569. Berlin, New York: De Gruyter.
     [Google Scholar]
  71. Reis, Marga
    (2013) Weil-V2-Sätze und (k)ein Ende? Anmerkungen zur Analyse von Antomo & Steinbach. Zeitschrift für Sprachwissenschaft32(2): 221–262.
     [Google Scholar]
  72. Rosch, Eleanor
    (1973) Natural categories. Cognitive Psychology4: 328–350.
     [Google Scholar]
  73. (1978) Principles of categorization. In Eleanor Rosch & Barbara B. Lloyd (eds.), Cognition and categorization, 27–48. Hillsdale: Erlbaum.
     [Google Scholar]
  74. Rosch, Eleanor , Carolyn B. Mervis , Wayne D. Gray , David M. Johnson & Penny Boyes-Braem
    (1976) Basic objects in natural categories. Cognitive Psychology8: 382–439.
     [Google Scholar]
  75. Schäfer, Roland
    (2016, ahead of print). Prototype-driven alternations: The case of German weak nouns. Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory. doi: 10.1515/cllt‑2015‑0051.
     https://doi.org/10.1515/cllt-2015-0051 [Google Scholar]
  76. Schäfer, Roland , Adrien Barbaresi & Felix Bildhauer
    (2013) The good, the bad, and the hazy: Design decisions in web corpus construction. In Stefan Evert , Egon Stemle & Paul Rayson (eds.), Proceedings of the8th Web as Corpus Workshop (WAC-8), 7–15. Lancaster: SIGWAC.
     [Google Scholar]
  77. Schäfer, Roland & Felix Bildhauer
    (2012) Building large corpora from the web using a new efficient tool chain. In Nicoletta Calzolari , Khalid Choukri , Thierry Declerck , Mehmet Uğur Doğan , Bente Maegaard , Joseph Mariani , Jan Odijk & Stelios Piperidis (eds.), Proceedings of theEighth International Conference on Language Resources and Evaluation, 486–493. Istanbul: ELRA.
     [Google Scholar]
  78. (2013) Web corpus construction. San Francisco: Morgan & Claypool.
     [Google Scholar]
  79. Schäfer, Roland & Ulrike Sayatz
    (2014) Die Kurzformen des Indefinitartikels im Deutschen. Zeitschrift für Sprachwissenschaft33(2): 215–250.
     [Google Scholar]
  80. Schwitalla, Johannes
    (2012) Gesprochenes Deutsch, 4th edition. Berlin: Schmidt.
     [Google Scholar]
  81. Stefanowitsch, Anatol & Stefan T. Gries
    (2003) Collostructions: Investigating the interaction between words and constructions. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics8(2): 209–243.
     [Google Scholar]
  82. Uehara, Satoshi
    (2003) A diachronic perspective on prototypicality: the case of nominal adjectives in Japanese. In Hubert Cuyckens , René Dirven & John Taylor (eds.), Cognitive approaches to lexical semantics, 363–391. Berlin, New York: De Gruyter.
     [Google Scholar]
  83. Uhmann, Susanne
    (1998) Verbstellungsvariation in weil-Sätzen: Lexikalische Differenzierung mit grammatischen Folgen. Zeitschrift für Sprachwissenschaft17(1): 92–139.
     [Google Scholar]
  84. Van Goethem, Kristel & Philippe Hiligsmann
    (2014) When two paths converge: debonding and clipping of Dutch “reuze.”Journal of Germanic Linguistics26(1): 31–64.
     [Google Scholar]
  85. Volodina, Anna
    (2011) Konditionalität und Kausalität im Diskurs. Eine korpuslinguistische Studie zum Einfluss von Syntax und Prosodie auf die Interpretation komplexer Äußerungen. Tübingen: Narr.
  86. Wegener, Heide
    (2000) Da, denn und weil – der Kampf der Konjunktionen. Zur Grammatikalisierung im kausalen Bereich. In Rolf Thieroff , Matthias Tamrat , Nanna Fuhrhop & Oliver Teuber (eds.), Deutsche Grammatik in Theorie und Praxis, 69–81. Tübingen: Niemeyer.
     [Google Scholar]
  87. Zeschel, Arne
    (2008) Introduction: Usage-based approaches to language representation and processing. Cognitive Linguistics19(3): 1–7.
     [Google Scholar]
  88. Zuur, Alain F. , Elena N. Ieno , Neil Walker , Anatoly A. Saveliev & Graham M. Smith
    (2009) Mixed effects models and extensions in ecology with R. Berlin: Springer.
     [Google Scholar]
/content/journals/10.1075/wll.19.2.04sch
Loading
Punctuation and syntactic structure in obwohl and weil clauses in nonstandard written German
Written Language & Literacy 19, 212 (2016); https://doi.org/10.1075/wll.19.2.04sch
/content/journals/10.1075/wll.19.2.04sch
/content/journals/10.1075/wll.19.2.04sch
Loading

Data & Media loading...

  • Article Type: Research Article
Keyword(s): connectors; discourse markers; German; independent sentences; nonstandard writing; Prototype Theory; punctuation; syntax – graphemics interface; usage-based linguistics

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