Hostname: page-component-7bb8b95d7b-495rp Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-09-18T11:38:01.041Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Von “hinichen” und honorablen Sprachen: Variationen, ihre Linguistiken und verbale Deixissysteme

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  05 December 2008

Werner Abraham
Werner Abraham
Affiliation:
Rijksuniversiteit Groningen Groningen, The Netherlands and University of California at BerkeleyBerkeley, CA 94720
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This essay addresses in general lines the issue of variance within some languages and how such variances are linked systematically, i.e., on the basis of some general abstract theoretical pattern, with the standard language. Several such variances are illustrated ranging from regiolects to sociolects of German, and it is shown what the abstract pattern is that serves as the base of description of the standard as well as the sociolectal and regiolectal variances. The main body of the text is dedicated to a specific criterion of variation, namely the deictic features in the grammars of COME and GO in German, English, Chinese, Japanese, and Korean. To the extent that the five languages deviate considerably from one another in choosing one against the other of the two verbs of motion, an inventory of sociopragmatic conditions has been uncovered which plays the guiding role in selecting deictic alternatives and which can be considered to be of universal status. The bottom line is that there are conditions, beyond those of semantic and grammatical selection, i.e., sociopragmatic ones which systematically determine choices from some well-conditioned lexical paradigms.

Type
Articles
Information
Journal of Germanic Linguistics , Volume 6 , Issue 2 , July 1994 , pp. 211 - 250
Copyright
Copyright © Society for Germanic Linguistics 1994

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

ZITIERTE WERKE

Teuschl, Wolfgang. 1981. Da Jesus und seine Hawara. Wien: Verlag Karl Schwarzer.Google Scholar
Abraham, Werner. 1988. “Duits ‘koud en mannelijk’– Nederlands ‘heet en vrouwelijk’. Vergeleijkende correlaties tussen taal en cultuur.” Duitsland in Nederland. Waar ligt de toekomst van de Nederlandse germanistiek? Eds. Prangel, Martin and Westheide, Henning. Groningen: Wolters Noordhoff. Pp. 95–131.Google Scholar
Abraham, Werner. 1982. “Das Konzept der ‘projektiven Sprache’ bei Ernst Jandl.” Deutsche Vierteljahrsschrift für Literaturwissenschaft und Geistesgeschichte 56:539–558.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Abraham, Werner. 1989. “Idioms in contrastive and in universally based typological research: Toward distinctions of relevance.” Proceedings of the First Tilburg workshop on idioms. Eds. Everaert, Martin und Linden, Eric-Jan van der. Tilburg: University Press. Pp. 1–21.Google Scholar
Abraham, Werner. 1991. “Die Logik der Lehre des ‘Deutschen als Fremdsprache (DaF)’.” Papiere zur Linguistik 44/45 (Heft 1/2):131–157.Google Scholar
Abraham, Werner and Wiegel, Anko. 1993. “Reduktionsformen und Kasussynkretismus bei deutschen und niederländischen Pronomina.” Dialektsyntax. Linguistische Berichte, Sonderheft, 5. Eds. Abraham, Werner and Bayer, Josef. Opladen: Westdeutscher Verlag. Pp. 12–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Abraham, Werner and Wiegel, Anko. 1994. Deutsche Syntax im Sprachvergleich. Grundlegung einer typologischen Grammatik des Deutschen. Tübingen. Studien zur deutschen Grammatik, 41. Tübingen: G. Narr.Google Scholar
Bailey, Charles-James N. 1973. Variation and linguistic theory. Arlington VA: Center for Applied Linguistics.Google Scholar
Bayer, Josef. 1991. “German particles in modular grammar: neurolinguistic evidence.” Discourse particles. Descriptive and theoretical investigations on the logical, syntactic and pragmatic preoperties of discourse particles in german. Ed. Abraham, Werner. Pragmatics and beyond, new series, 12. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Pp. 253–302.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bayer, Josef. 1993. “zum in Bavarian and Scrambling”. Dialektsyntax. Linguistische Berichte, Sonderheft, 5. Eds. Abraham, Werner and Bayer, Josef. Opladen: Westdeutscher Verlag. Pp. 50–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bhatt, Christa und Schmidt, Claudia. 1993. “Die am + Infinitiv-Konstruktionen im Kölnischen und im umgangssprachlichen Standarddeutschen als Aspektphrasen.” Dialektsyntax. Linguistische Berichte Sonderheft, 5. Eds.Werner, Abraham and Bayer, Josef. Opladen: Westdeutscher Verlag. Pp. 71–98.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bickerton, Derek. 1971. “Inherent variability and variable rules.” Foundations of language 7:457–492.Google Scholar
Cedergren, C.J. and Sankoff, D. 1974. “Variable rules.” Language 50:333–355.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Davies, Alan, Criper, C. and Howatt, A. P. R., eds. 1984. Interlanguage. Edinburgh: Edinburgh Univ. Press.Google Scholar
Fillmore, Charles J. 1966. “Deictic categories in the semantics of come”. Foundations of language 2:219–227.Google Scholar
Fillmore, Charles J. 1969. “Types of lexical information.” Studies in syntax and semantics. Foundations of language suppl. series, 10. Ed. Kiefer, Ferenc. Dordrecht: Reidel. Pp. 109–137.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fillmore, Charles J. 1975. Coming and going. Santa Cruz lectures on deixis 1971. Bloomington IN: Indiana Univ. Linguistics Club.Google Scholar
Givón, Talmy. 1992. “Coherence in text vs. coherence in mind.” Ms. University of Oregon.Google Scholar
Green, Georgia M. 1989. Pragmatics and natural language understanding. Hillsdale NJ: Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
Klein, Wolfgang. 1974. Variation in der Sprache. Kronberg: Athenäum.Google Scholar
Klein, Wolfgang. 1988. “Varietätengrammatik.” Sociolinguistics: An international handbook of the science of language and society ( = Soziolinguistik: Ein Internationales Handbuch…). Handbücher zur Sprach- und Kommunikationswissenschaft, 3. Eds. Ammon, Ulrich, Dittmar, Norbert and Mattheier, KlausBerlin: de Gruyter. Pp. 997–1006.Google Scholar
Kuno, Susumu. 1987. Functional syntax. Anaphora, discourse, and empathy. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Kuno, Susumu. 1988. “Blended quasi-direct discourse in Japanese.” Japanese syntax. Ed. Poser, William John. Stanford: Center for Study of Language and Information. Pp. 75–102Google Scholar
Labov, William. 1972. Language in the inner city: Studies in the Black English vernacular. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.Google Scholar
Langacker, Ronald W. 1987. Foundations of cognitive grammar. Vol. I: Theoretical prerequisites. Stanford: Stanford Univ. Press.Google Scholar
Langacker, Ronald W. 1988. “A usage-based model.” Topics in cognitive linguistics. Ed. Rudzka-Ostyn, Brygida. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Pp. 127–161.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Langacker, Ronald W. 1990. Concept, image, and symbol: The cognitive basis of grammar. Berlin: Mouton De Gruyter.Google Scholar
Langacker, Ronald W. 1991. Foundations of cognitive grammar. Vol. II: Descriptive application. Stanford: Stanford Univ. Press.Google Scholar
Lee, K. 1978. “The deictic motion verbs kata and ota in Korean.” Papers in Korean linguistics: Proceedings of the symposium on Korean linguistics. Ed. Kim, Chin.-W.. Columbia SC: Hornbeam Press. Pp. 167–176.Google Scholar
Li, Charles and Thompson, Sandra A.. 1981. Mandarin Chinese. A functional reference grammar. Berkeley: University of California PressCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nakazawa, T. 1990. “A pragmatic account of the distribution of come and go in English, Japanese, and Korean.” Japanese/Korean linguistics. Ed. Hoji, Hajime. Stanford: Center for Study of Language and Information. Pp. 59–68.Google Scholar
Norman, Jerry. 1988. Chinese. Cambridge Language Surveys. Cambridge: Cambridge Univ. Press.Google Scholar
Selinker, L. 1972. “Interlanguage.” International review of applied linguistics 10:209–231.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Slobin, Dan. 1987. “Thinking for speaking.” Proceedings of the 13th annual meeting of the Berkeley Linguistic Society. Eds. Aske, J., Beery, N. and Filip, Hana. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar