Leila Behrens - Academia.edu (original) (raw)

Papers by Leila Behrens

P. Lang eBooks, 2002

When something is in focus, light falls on it from different angles. The lexicon can be viewed fr... more When something is in focus, light falls on it from different angles. The lexicon can be viewed from different sides. Six views are represented in this volume: a cognitivist view of vagueness and lexicalization, a psycholinguistic view of lexical

Studies in Language, Apr 6, 2007

According to traditional wisdom, reciprocal predicates can only occur with plural subjects. This ... more According to traditional wisdom, reciprocal predicates can only occur with plural subjects. This is assumed either because the reciprocal predicates in question are constructed by means of a reciprocal anaphor, which is considered as being inherently plural and hence requiring a plural antecedent, or, if there is no binding requirement, the following principle of argument mapping is implicitly assumed: all participants of a reciprocal situation need an overt realization by the same highest syntactic argument. Since a reciprocal relation minimally involves the existence of two participants, and since (in the languages considered so far) the highest syntactic argument is the subject, this mapping principle leads to the idea that the subjects of reciprocal predicates should be confined to plural or conjoined phrases. In this paper, I will show that this principle turns out to be unrealistically strong, once real discourse data are considered, in particular from a cross-linguistic perspective. Under certain structural and pragmatic conditions, participants of reciprocal relations may be backgrounded and also suppressed, with the result that, in the second case, they will lack an overt realization altogether. It will be argued that there is a typological correlation between the following three phenomena: discontinuous reciprocals (where one participant is backgrounded and hence realized as an oblique phrase), "true" singular subject reciprocals (where only one participant is realized overtly, while the other is suppressed), and plural subject reciprocals, admitting the interpretation that each individual among the subject's referents participates in a reciprocal relation with some other (unknown or arbitrary) individual that is, however, suppressed, i.e. not referred to by the subject phrase or any other phrase in the sentence. I will present data from four languages: Hungarian, German, (Modern) Greek and Serbian/Croatian. In general, a cross-linguistic approach will be favored which considers differences and similarities at all relevant levels of description, e.g. discourse pragmatics, verbal aspect, lexical-semantic fields, interfering effects of ambiguity, etc. in addition to structural constraints in marking reciprocity.

Human cognitive processing, 2012

Metadiscourse is a fundamental property of human communication in a way similar to speech acts. F... more Metadiscourse is a fundamental property of human communication in a way similar to speech acts. From a cross-linguistic study of metadiscourse, we can learn ‘how humans bridge the divide between self and others’ in communication. This chapter concentrates on those pragmatic aspects of metadiscourse which are associated, in some languages, with markers of evidentiality, epistemic modality, and focus (information structure). With respect to typological comparison, I advocate a domain-centered, onomasiologically-oriented approach. I argue that we have to distinguish between a subjective, speaker-related dimension of metadiscourse and an intersubjective, interactionally-oriented one in order to solve some longstanding puzzles in this domain. Data from Quechua, Tibetan, Hungarian, Albanian, and some other languages is used to support the presented claims. Keywords: Albanian; epistemic modality; evidentiality; focus; Hungarian; information structure; metadiscourse; mirative; Quechua; Tibetan

Linguistics, Jan 11, 2005

In this article, I will investigate genericity from a cross-linguistic perspective. After discuss... more In this article, I will investigate genericity from a cross-linguistic perspective. After discussing some methodological and theoretical problems involved in this task, I will present a multidimensional approach, arguing that it is necessary to factor apart di¤erent types of information involved in the notion of genericity. In the empirical part, generic marking and interpretation in the nominal domain will be analyzed in terms of this approach for five languages: English, German, French, Hungarian, and Greek. As a result, I will claim a fundamental typological di¤erence between QUALITYmarking languages (English) and DISCOURSE REFERENT-marking languages (French, Hungarian, Greek), with German representing a mixed type between the two.

Zeitschrift Fur Sprachwissenschaft, 1994

Gegenwärtig ist die theoretische Bewertung und damit auch die repräsentationstechnische Umsetzung... more Gegenwärtig ist die theoretische Bewertung und damit auch die repräsentationstechnische Umsetzung von syntakto-semantischen Alternationen im allgemeinen immer noch zu stark an der einzelsprachlichen Ausprägung einzelner bekannter Alternationen im verbalen Bereich orientiert. Daher wird der Frage nachgegangen, wie man Alternationen übereinzelsprachlich generalisieren und Repräsentationen für sie entwickeln kann, die allgemein genug sind, um als sprachunabhängig zu gelten, und differenziert genug, um sprachadäquat zu sein. Am Beispiel des Tagalog wird gezeigt, wie die Bewertung der Alternationen zum einen von der einzelsprachlichen Grammatik, genauer gesagt von der Interaktion zwischen Lexikon und anderen Komponenten der Grammatik abhängt und zum anderen zur Klärung und Generalisierung sogenannter exotischer typologischer Phänomene der jeweiligen Grammatik beitragen kann. Da sich Alternationen genau an der Lexikon-Grammatik-Schnittstelle befinden, bilden sie den besten Ausgangspunkt für eine integrierte Typologie, bei der nicht nur lexikalische oder strukturelle Variabilität bei gleichzeitiger Übertragung substantieller und meist sprachtypspezifischer Primitive untersucht werden. Durch den Vergleich dieser Schnittstelle in verschiedenen Sprachen lassen sich bestimmte nichtsubstantielle universelle Prinzipien wie z. B. Ambiguitäts-oder Kompositionalitätsprinzipien erkennen und erfassen. Alternationen dürften daher auch einen Schlüssel für zukünftige Universalienforschung darstellen. 1

Different languages employ different morphosyntactic devices for expressing genericity. And, of c... more Different languages employ different morphosyntactic devices for expressing genericity. And, of course, they also make use of different morphosyntactic and semantic or pragmatic cues which may contribute to the interpretation of a sentence as generic rather than episodic. [...] We will advance the strong hypo thesis that it is a fundamental property of lexical elements in natural language that they are neutral with respect to different modes of reference or non-reference. That is, we reject the idea that a certain use of a lexical element, e.g. a use which allows reference to particular spatio-temporally bounded objects in the world, should be linguistically prior to all other possible uses, e.g. to generic and non-specific uses. From this it follows that we do not consider generic uses as derived from non-generic uses as it is occasionally assumed in the literature. Rather, we regard these two possibilities of use as equivalent alternative uses of lexical elements. The typological ...

Im weiteren Teil dieses Einleitungsartikels werde ich […] auf einige offene Fragen in der Argumen... more Im weiteren Teil dieses Einleitungsartikels werde ich […] auf einige offene Fragen in der Argumentationstheorie generell eingehen und dann auf solche, die speziell durch die beiden Arbeiten in diesem Arbeitspapier aufgeworfen wurden. Danach werde ich auf die Wahl des Datenmaterials eingehen und auf die speziellen Probleme, die das gewählte Medium (Internet-Forum) mit sich bringt. Anschließend werden sowohl konvergente als auch divergente Ergebnisse der beiden Arbeiten diskutiert, letztere insbesondere in Hinblick auf die Frage, ob sie durch den unterschiedlichen Diskussionsgegenstand bedingt sind. Zum Schluss werden dann noch einige terminologische Details angesprochen

We are also indebted to Theresa Hanske and Agnes Kolmer for their patience in the tedious task of... more We are also indebted to Theresa Hanske and Agnes Kolmer for their patience in the tedious task of proofreading at various stages in the developent ofthis work. '0 The reader will not fmd it difficult to equate our TOPIC OF PREDICATION with wh at is ca lIed "subjeet" in the Aristotelian tradition. The tenn "subjeet" is also used by Strawson (1969). We deeided to avoid it here beeause of the risk of its being eonfused with the Ianguage-specifie grammatical subjeet. The tenn "topie" also has a 'A doctor told me that (implying that there was only one doctor).'

Dieses Arbeitspapier geht aus einem Hauptseminar zur Argumentationstheorie hervor, das [von Leila... more Dieses Arbeitspapier geht aus einem Hauptseminar zur Argumentationstheorie hervor, das [von Leila Behrens] im Wintersemester 2008/09 am Institut für Linguistik der Universität zu Köln gehalten [wurde]. In den beiden Arbeiten in diesem Band (Badtke et al. und Benning et al.) stellen die Studierenden dieses Hauptseminars die Ergebnisse vor, die sie (in zwei parallelen Projektgruppen mit unterschiedlichen Diskussionsgegenständen) bei der empirischen Analyse von Argumentationen in einem Internet-Forum gewonnen haben. Der Gegenstand der Diskussion betraf bei der einen Gruppe (Badtke et al.) die Unabhängigkeit des Kosovo, bei der anderen Gruppe (Benning et al.) die Einführung eines generellen Rauchverbots in europäischen Hauptstädten

Die empirische Grundlage für die Berechnung der dimensionsgenerierenden Korrelationen war das 40e... more Die empirische Grundlage für die Berechnung der dimensionsgenerierenden Korrelationen war das 40er Ländersample, d.h. diejenige Gruppe von Ländern, aus denen mindestens 50 Personen den Fragebogen beantwortet haben (zur Sample-Größe vgl. Fußnote 2 auf S. 4). Allerdings wurden von den 40 Ländern zwei (USA und Jugoslawien) nicht durchgängig berücksichtigt, so z.B. bei der für die Dimension "Unsicherheitsvermeidung" relevanten Frage nach der beabsichtigten Beschäftigungsdauer (A43). 8 Von den neun Arbeitszielen z.B., die sich für den Individualismusfaktor als konstitutiv erwiesen haben, wurden sechs ausgewählt, nämlich diejenigen, deren Ladungen (im positiven wie im negativen Bereich) über .45 lagen (vgl. Hofstede 2001: 257). 9 Der Faktor, aus dem die Dimension "Maskulinität/Femininität" hervorgegangen ist, wurde von Hofstede zunächst als "ego/social" bezeichnet (vgl. Hofstede 2001: 255ff., 284). 10 Nach dem Semikolon wird die jeweilige Faktorladung angegeben. "So respondents in higher-PDI [power distance index; LB]-that is, more unequal-countries more often chose "equality" and those in lower-PDI, more equal countries more often chose "freedom."" (2001: 93) "Levels of agreement with the "unjust world" statements... were stronger where (1) the country was poor... and (3) its society was unequal, expressed in the country PDI." (2001: 95-96) Somit belegen solche Formulierungen eindeutig die Vermutung, dass Ausdrücke wie "Machtdistanz" von Hofstede systematisch mehrdeutig verwendet werden, einmal, um Aussagen über Werte in einer Gesellschaft zu ermöglichen, und das andere Mal, um Aussagen über tatsächliche soziale Verhältnisse zu erzielen (zu dieser Mehrdeutigkeit vgl. auch unten S. 102). Ob externe Daten aus Geographie, Wirtschaft usw. tatsächlich eine "Validierung" der Länderindizes liefern, die aufgrund einer Hand voll von Fragebogenitems vor mehr als 30 Jahren berechnet wurden, soll weiter unten diskutiert werden (vgl. S. 16, 60). Es kann jedoch

Human Cognitive Processing

Studies in Language, Apr 30, 2007

According to traditional wisdom, reciprocal predicates can only occur with plural subjects. This ... more According to traditional wisdom, reciprocal predicates can only occur with plural subjects. This is assumed either because the reciprocal predicates in question are constructed by means of a reciprocal anaphor, which is considered as being inherently plural and hence requiring a plural antecedent, or, if there is no binding requirement, the following principle of argument mapping is implicitly assumed: all participants of a reciprocal situation need an overt realization by the same highest syntactic argument. Since a reciprocal relation minimally involves the existence of two participants, and since (in the languages considered so far) the highest syntactic argument is the subject, this mapping principle leads to the idea that the subjects of reciprocal predicates should be confined to plural or conjoined phrases. In this paper, I will show that this principle turns out to be unrealistically strong, once real discourse data are considered, in particular from a cross-linguistic perspective. Under certain structural and pragmatic conditions, participants of reciprocal relations may be backgrounded and also suppressed, with the result that, in the second case, they will lack an overt realization altogether. It will be argued that there is a typological correlation between the following three phenomena: discontinuous reciprocals (where one participant is backgrounded and hence realized as an oblique phrase), “true” singular subject reciprocals (where only one participant is realized overtly, while the other is suppressed), and plural subject reciprocals, admitting the interpretation that each individual among the subject’s referents participates in a reciprocal relation with some other (unknown or arbitrary) individual that is, however, suppressed, i.e. not referred to by the subject phrase or any other phrase in the sentence. I will present data from four languages: Hungarian, German, (Modern) Greek and Serbian/Croatian. In general, a cross-linguistic approach will be favored which considers differences and similarities at all relevant levels of description, e.g. discourse pragmatics, verbal aspect, lexical-semantic fields, interfering effects of ambiguity, etc. in addition to structural constraints in marking reciprocity.

STUF - Language Typology and Universals, 2000

P. Lang eBooks, 2002

Studies in Language, Apr 6, 2007

Human cognitive processing, 2012

Linguistics, Jan 11, 2005

Zeitschrift Fur Sprachwissenschaft, 1994

Human Cognitive Processing

Studies in Language, Apr 30, 2007

According to traditional wisdom, reciprocal predicates can only occur with plural subjects. This ... more According to traditional wisdom, reciprocal predicates can only occur with plural subjects. This is assumed either because the reciprocal predicates in question are constructed by means of a reciprocal anaphor, which is considered as being inherently plural and hence requiring a plural antecedent, or, if there is no binding requirement, the following principle of argument mapping is implicitly assumed: all participants of a reciprocal situation need an overt realization by the same highest syntactic argument. Since a reciprocal relation minimally involves the existence of two participants, and since (in the languages considered so far) the highest syntactic argument is the subject, this mapping principle leads to the idea that the subjects of reciprocal predicates should be confined to plural or conjoined phrases. In this paper, I will show that this principle turns out to be unrealistically strong, once real discourse data are considered, in particular from a cross-linguistic perspective. Under certain structural and pragmatic conditions, participants of reciprocal relations may be backgrounded and also suppressed, with the result that, in the second case, they will lack an overt realization altogether. It will be argued that there is a typological correlation between the following three phenomena: discontinuous reciprocals (where one participant is backgrounded and hence realized as an oblique phrase), “true” singular subject reciprocals (where only one participant is realized overtly, while the other is suppressed), and plural subject reciprocals, admitting the interpretation that each individual among the subject’s referents participates in a reciprocal relation with some other (unknown or arbitrary) individual that is, however, suppressed, i.e. not referred to by the subject phrase or any other phrase in the sentence. I will present data from four languages: Hungarian, German, (Modern) Greek and Serbian/Croatian. In general, a cross-linguistic approach will be favored which considers differences and similarities at all relevant levels of description, e.g. discourse pragmatics, verbal aspect, lexical-semantic fields, interfering effects of ambiguity, etc. in addition to structural constraints in marking reciprocity.

STUF - Language Typology and Universals, 2000