{"title":"异构和定势:德语话语管理构式 Wo/wenn wir gerade/schon dabei sind 的语料库研究","authors":"Melitta Gillmann","doi":"10.1515/cog-2020-0117","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The paper reconciles the sociolinguistic concept of stance and stancetaking and Construction Grammar (CxG); it shows that overlapping allostructions may differ in terms of the stances they convey. Drawing on a corpus study of Wikipedia Talk pages, the paper presents a case study of German discourse management markers such as <jats:italic>wo wir gerade dabei sind</jats:italic> ‘speaking of which’ or <jats:italic>wenn wir schon dabei sind</jats:italic> ‘while we’re at it’. By statistically comparing the observed frequencies of the filler items with the expected ones (using Hierarchical Configural Frequency Analysis and Distinctive Collexeme Analysis), I will argue that there are two different collocational types, namely <jats:italic>wo wir/ich gerade bei</jats:italic> NP <jats:italic>sind/bin</jats:italic> ‘as we are/I am just at NP’ and <jats:italic>wenn wir/du schon bei</jats:italic> NP <jats:italic>sind/bist</jats:italic> ‘as we/you are already at NP’. Both serve as discourse management markers, topic orientation markers in particular, whose purpose it is to shift the topic. They involve the same fixed pattern, combining the same categorical slots. However, they diverge in collocational preferences. I will argue that these collocational preferences are indicative of the stances the allostructions conventionally convey: While the allostruction <jats:italic>wo wir/ich gerade </jats:italic>PP <jats:italic>sind/bin</jats:italic> seems to be neutral in terms of stance (face-less stance), <jats:italic>wenn wir/du schon </jats:italic>PP <jats:italic>sind/bist</jats:italic> is often used to express negative evaluation of a previous utterance made by an interlocutor, thus marking disalignment. The expression of disalignment seems to be related to the construction’s propensity to reference utterances made by an interlocutor.","PeriodicalId":51530,"journal":{"name":"Cognitive Linguistics","volume":"19 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.8000,"publicationDate":"2024-01-18","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Allostructions and stancetaking: a corpus study of the German discourse management constructions Wo/wenn wir gerade/schon dabei sind\",\"authors\":\"Melitta Gillmann\",\"doi\":\"10.1515/cog-2020-0117\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"The paper reconciles the sociolinguistic concept of stance and stancetaking and Construction Grammar (CxG); it shows that overlapping allostructions may differ in terms of the stances they convey. Drawing on a corpus study of Wikipedia Talk pages, the paper presents a case study of German discourse management markers such as <jats:italic>wo wir gerade dabei sind</jats:italic> ‘speaking of which’ or <jats:italic>wenn wir schon dabei sind</jats:italic> ‘while we’re at it’. By statistically comparing the observed frequencies of the filler items with the expected ones (using Hierarchical Configural Frequency Analysis and Distinctive Collexeme Analysis), I will argue that there are two different collocational types, namely <jats:italic>wo wir/ich gerade bei</jats:italic> NP <jats:italic>sind/bin</jats:italic> ‘as we are/I am just at NP’ and <jats:italic>wenn wir/du schon bei</jats:italic> NP <jats:italic>sind/bist</jats:italic> ‘as we/you are already at NP’. Both serve as discourse management markers, topic orientation markers in particular, whose purpose it is to shift the topic. They involve the same fixed pattern, combining the same categorical slots. However, they diverge in collocational preferences. I will argue that these collocational preferences are indicative of the stances the allostructions conventionally convey: While the allostruction <jats:italic>wo wir/ich gerade </jats:italic>PP <jats:italic>sind/bin</jats:italic> seems to be neutral in terms of stance (face-less stance), <jats:italic>wenn wir/du schon </jats:italic>PP <jats:italic>sind/bist</jats:italic> is often used to express negative evaluation of a previous utterance made by an interlocutor, thus marking disalignment. The expression of disalignment seems to be related to the construction’s propensity to reference utterances made by an interlocutor.\",\"PeriodicalId\":51530,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Cognitive Linguistics\",\"volume\":\"19 1\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.8000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-01-18\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Cognitive Linguistics\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"98\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1515/cog-2020-0117\",\"RegionNum\":1,\"RegionCategory\":\"文学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"0\",\"JCRName\":\"LANGUAGE & LINGUISTICS\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Cognitive Linguistics","FirstCategoryId":"98","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1515/cog-2020-0117","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"文学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"0","JCRName":"LANGUAGE & LINGUISTICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
摘要
本文调和了社会语言学中的 "立场 "和 "表态 "概念以及 "构式语法"(CxG),指出重叠的异构式在表达立场方面可能存在差异。通过对维基百科 Talk 页面的语料库研究,本文对德语话语管理标记进行了案例研究,如 wo wir gerade dabei sind "speaking of which" 或 wenn wir schon dabei sind "while we're at it"。通过统计比较观察到的填充项频率和预期的填充项频率(使用层次构词频率分析法和独特词形分析法),我将论证有两种不同的搭配类型,即 wo wir/ich gerade bei NP sind/bin 'as we are/I am just at NP' 和 wenn wir/du schon bei NP sind/bist 'as we/you are already at NP'。这两个标记都是话语管理标记,尤其是话题定向标记,其目的是转移话题。它们涉及相同的固定模式,结合了相同的分类槽。然而,它们在搭配偏好上存在差异。我将论证,这些搭配偏好表明了异构词惯常表达的立场:异构词法 wo wir/ich gerade PP sind/bin 在立场方面似乎是中性的(无脸立场),而 wenn wir/du schon PP sind/bist 则常用来表达对对话者先前话语的负面评价,从而标志着不一致。不一致的表达似乎与该结构倾向于引用对话者的话语有关。
Allostructions and stancetaking: a corpus study of the German discourse management constructions Wo/wenn wir gerade/schon dabei sind
The paper reconciles the sociolinguistic concept of stance and stancetaking and Construction Grammar (CxG); it shows that overlapping allostructions may differ in terms of the stances they convey. Drawing on a corpus study of Wikipedia Talk pages, the paper presents a case study of German discourse management markers such as wo wir gerade dabei sind ‘speaking of which’ or wenn wir schon dabei sind ‘while we’re at it’. By statistically comparing the observed frequencies of the filler items with the expected ones (using Hierarchical Configural Frequency Analysis and Distinctive Collexeme Analysis), I will argue that there are two different collocational types, namely wo wir/ich gerade bei NP sind/bin ‘as we are/I am just at NP’ and wenn wir/du schon bei NP sind/bist ‘as we/you are already at NP’. Both serve as discourse management markers, topic orientation markers in particular, whose purpose it is to shift the topic. They involve the same fixed pattern, combining the same categorical slots. However, they diverge in collocational preferences. I will argue that these collocational preferences are indicative of the stances the allostructions conventionally convey: While the allostruction wo wir/ich gerade PP sind/bin seems to be neutral in terms of stance (face-less stance), wenn wir/du schon PP sind/bist is often used to express negative evaluation of a previous utterance made by an interlocutor, thus marking disalignment. The expression of disalignment seems to be related to the construction’s propensity to reference utterances made by an interlocutor.
期刊介绍:
Cognitive Linguistics presents a forum for linguistic research of all kinds on the interaction between language and cognition. The journal focuses on language as an instrument for organizing, processing and conveying information. Cognitive Linguistics is a peer-reviewed journal of international scope and seeks to publish only works that represent a significant advancement to the theory or methods of cognitive linguistics, or that present an unknown or understudied phenomenon. Topics the structural characteristics of natural language categorization (such as prototypicality, cognitive models, metaphor, and imagery); the functional principles of linguistic organization, as illustrated by iconicity; the conceptual interface between syntax and semantics; the experiential background of language-in-use, including the cultural background; the relationship between language and thought, including matters of universality and language specificity.