Evaluative meaning - Deskriptive Sprachwissenschaft Mainz

Transcription

John Benjamins Publishing Company
This is a contribution from Pragmatics & Cognition 20:1
© 2012. John Benjamins Publishing Company
This electronic file may not be altered in any way.
The author(s) of this article is/are permitted to use this PDF file to generate printed copies to
be used by way of offprints, for their personal use only.
Permission is granted by the publishers to post this file on a closed server which is accessible
to members (students and staff) only of the author’s/s’ institute, it is not permitted to post
this PDF on the open internet.
For any other use of this material prior written permission should be obtained from the
publishers or through the Copyright Clearance Center (for USA: www.copyright.com).
Please contact [email protected] or consult our website: www.benjamins.com
Tables of Contents, abstracts and guidelines are available at www.benjamins.com
Evaluative meaning
German idiomatic patterns, context,
and the category of cause*
Rita Finkbeiner
Johannes Gutenberg University Mainz
Linguistic evaluation has become an important area of inquiry in recent years.
In the traditions of, e.g., lexical semantics, phraseology, corpus linguistics, and
interactional linguistics, a large inventory of linguistic means have been identified by which speakers can express evaluative meanings. However, the class of
German sentential idioms, e.g., Das kannst du dir in die Haare schmieren (lit.
‘You can smear that into your hair’, fig. ‘That is useless’), has not gained much
attention. This paper explores how the evaluative meaning of German sentential
idioms is constructed syntactically, semantically, and pragmatically. In particular,
it is investigated how the meaning of these idioms interacts with the context in
which they are used. A context model of evaluation is developed in which the
cognitive category of cause plays a central role. The model is applied to contextualized examples, the findings supporting the hypothesis that cause is one of the
core categories of evaluation.
Keywords: Cause, context, German, idiomatic pattern, linguistic evaluation,
pragmatics, semantics, sentential idiom, sentence type, speaker attitude
1.
Introduction
In German, there is a certain class of idioms which can be used to express evaluative meanings, for example:
(1)
Das kannst du
dir
in die Haare schmieren.
that can youNom youDat in the hair smear
lit. ‘You can smear that into your hair’
fig. ‘That is useless/not practicable’
Pragmatics & Cognition 20:1 (2012), 107–134. doi 10.1075/pc.20.1.05fin
issn 0929–0907 / e-issn 1569–9943 © John Benjamins Publishing Company
108 Rita Finkbeiner
(2)
Das ist ja zum Mäusemelken!
that is mp to.the mice-milking
lit. ‘I could milk mice because of that’
fig. ‘I am really angry/desperate because of that’
(3)
Du hast wohl nicht mehr alle Tassen im Schrank!
you have mp not more all cups in.the cupboard
lit. ‘It seems that you don’t have all your cups in the cupboard left’
fig. ‘Your behavior is really unacceptable’
(4)
Da steppt
der Bär.
there tap-dances the bear
lit. ‘There tap-dances the bear’
fig. ‘This place is very popular/lively’
(5)
Da geht einem ja der Hut hoch!
there goes oneDat mp the hat up
lit. ‘One’s hat is rising because of that’
fig. ‘I am really angry/indignated because of that’
These idioms can, in a first approximation, be said to be evaluative in that they
express a certain kind of speaker opinion or attitude (cf. Thompson and Hunston
2000: 5). For each idiom, both the target of evaluation (what the speaker evaluates) and the parameter of evaluation (according to which dimension the speaker
evaluates something) can be specified. The target of evaluation in (1) is a physical
(e.g., the product of a creative action) or mental object (e.g., an idea, a plan). In (2)
and (5), the target of evaluation is an event, in (3) a person or a person’s behavior,
and in (4) a place. Relevant dimensions of evaluation are usefulness or practicability in (1), appropriateness in (3), and popularity/liveliness in (4). In (2) and (5), the
speaker expresses a certain emotional attitude (e.g., anger, indignation) towards
the target event.
As becomes clear from this short description, the evaluative meaning of the
sentences in (1) to (5) is conventionally fixed to a certain extent. At the same time,
it is obvious that they need to be further specified in context to fully develop their
meaning. As one can see, the targets are actually not part of the examples, but are
merely pointed to by indexical expressions such as das, da, or du. The range of potential targets, though, is restricted by the meaning of the idioms. The occurrence
of indexicals, in turn, points to another characteristic of these idioms: They are
fixed as complete sentential constructions. That is, it would not be correct to think
of, e.g., (1), as the phrasal idiom sich etw. in die Haare schmieren (können), as this
representation would suggest unrestricted usage possibilities concerning sentence
type. However, interrogatives or optatives such as #Kannst du dir das in die Haare
All rights reserved
Evaluative meaning of German sentential idioms 109
schmieren? or #Würdest du dir das doch in die Haare schmieren! are clearly unacceptable (# indicates loss of idiomatic meaning).
The sentence type restrictions interact with usage restrictions on the idioms.
For example, (1), (3), and (4) typically are used as comments (assertions), while
(2) and (5) are used as kinds of expressive speech acts. Obviously, the usage restrictions are closely related to both the syntactic structure of the sentences and their
evaluative semantics. The specific pragmatic potential of these expressions makes
them suitable for a range of important discursive functions.
Despite their clear relevance as a linguistic means of evaluation, research on
evaluative language has not paid much attention to sentential patterns. In the
literature on evaluation in general, the lexical means of evaluation have been a
more central issue (e.g., Keller 1977; Sandig 1979; Schippan 1979; Bergmann 1983;
Stürmer et al. 1997; Channell 2000; Bednarek 2006). More recently, with the advent of corpus linguistics (e.g., Sinclair 1991), lexical and grammatical patterns,
collocations and constructions have increasingly come into focus (e.g., Hunston
and Francis 1999; Hunston and Sinclair 2000; Bednarek 2009b; Hunston 2010).
However, studies on the specific evaluative functions of sentential idioms are still
lacking.
In the literature on phraseology and in constructionist approaches, the
category of sentential idioms has been widely neglected (see Finkbeiner 2008a
for a detailed research overview). In traditional classifications of phraseological
units (cf. Fleischer 1997 [1982]), where phrasal idioms typically are perceived as
the core category, sentential idioms generally have been marginalized,1 and it has
been questioned if sentences at all should be part of phraseology (e.g., Fix 1971).
With the more recent advent of “pragmatic phraseology” (cf. Feilke 2007), which
is strongly influenced by usage based models of grammar, Construction Grammar,
and corpus linguistics, the perspective on phraseology has changed, broadening
the range of relevant phenomena considerably (e.g., Wray 2002). However, despite
their specific pragmatic “load”, sentential idioms hitherto do not play a major role
in these approaches.
In this paper, I will advance the argument that idiomatic sentential patterns
in German have important evaluative functions and that this category therefore
should be accounted for in a comprehensive theory of linguistic evaluation. More
specifically, I will address the question in which way sentential idioms are associated with evaluative meanings. Adopting ideas from Construction Grammar,
Relevance Theory, and theories on linguistic evaluation, I will try to show how the
evaluative meaning of these patterns is constructed syntactically and semantically,
and how the evaluations expressed by these patterns pragmatically interact with
the context in which they are used. On these grounds, I will develop a context
model of evaluation where the cognitive category of cause plays a central role.
All rights reserved
110 Rita Finkbeiner
In what follows, I will first give a short overview of the linguistic means with
which evaluation can be expressed in German (Section 2), before describing in
more detail some of the core characteristics of German idiomatic sentential patterns (Section 3). In Section 4, I will propose an account of their complex semantics and pragmatics, and in Section 5, I will introduce the context model of evaluation. The paper closes with a short summary.
2. Linguistic means of expressing evaluation in German
Language provides a large and complex inventory of linguistic means on all levels of description that can be used by speakers to express evaluative meanings.
Thompson and Hunston (2000: 14) distinguish, with respect to English, three dimensions of evaluative language: Lexis, grammar, and text. Thereby, they take a
combined approach, subsuming attitudinal, emotional, and modal dimensions
under the cover term of evaluation:
For us […], evaluation is the broad cover term for the expression of the speaker or
writer’s attitude or stance towards, viewpoint on, or feelings about the entities or
propositions that he or she is talking about. That attitude may relate to certainty
or obligation or desirability or any of a number of other sets of values. (Thompson
and Hunston 2000: 5).
In this section, I will first list the main linguistic means of expressing evaluation
that have been described for German and then focus on approaches to evaluative
meaning of phraseological units. In this connection, I will point to differences
in the evaluative potential between those phraseological units that have been described in the literature and sentential idioms. Finally, sentence types and constructions will be highlighted as evaluative categories which are worthwhile to
look at when investigating sentential idioms. Here and in the paper throughout,
I will adopt Thompson and Hunston’s broad definition of evaluation, which has
become widely accepted in the literature on evaluation (cf. Fiehler 1990; Jahr 2000;
more recently, e.g., Martin and White 2005; Bednarek 2006, 2009a, 2009b; DamJensen and Zethsen 2007).
Table 1 provides an overview of the main lexical, grammatical and textual
means of evaluation in German, with examples and references. The table clearly
cannot be exhaustive and is merely intended to give an idea of the central research
areas.
Table 1 reveals that the German language provides a range of evaluative categories on all three linguistic levels mentioned above (cf. Thompson and Hunston 2000). As to phraseological units, mainly two kinds have been identified as
All rights reserved
Evaluative meaning of German sentential idioms
Table 1. Overview of linguistic means expressing evaluation in German
Linguistic
level
Linguistic
category
lexical
word formation Schön-ling (pretty-ling: pretty boy),
morphemes
Umstürz-ler (putsch-ler: subversive),
Mist-Computer (crap-computer),
Politiker-arsch (politician-arse)
Reference
Fleischer and Barz
1993; Fries 1996;
Meibauer, forthcoming
adjectives,
verbs, nouns
gut (good), schlecht (bad), Idiot
(idiot), abkratzen (to croak), grölen
(to bawl), Kommunist (communist),
Frau vs. Weib (woman vs. woman
[pejor.])
Sandig 1979; Bergmann 1983; Fries
1991; Fleischer and
Barz 1993; Fries
1996; Stürmer et al.
1997
interjections
Igitt! (Ugh!), Wow! (Wow!)
Fries 1991; Fries
1996
phrasal idioms,
binomials and
other formulae
jdm. auf die Finger gucken (to keep
a close eye on s.o.), kalter Kaffee
([that’s] old hat), gut in Schuss (in
good shape), ruck, zuck (in a flash)
Koller 1977; Kühn
1985; Burger 1987;
Sandig 1991, 1994;
Hemmi 1994;
Fleischer 1997; Lüger
1999; Balsliemke
2001
sollen (shall), wollen (want/will),
können (can), müssen (must),
dürfen (may, be allowed to), mögen
(may)
e.g., von Polenz 1988
sentential adverbs, adverbs
of degree
leider (unfortunately), wahrscheinlich (probably), glücklicherweise
(luckily); ungeheuer aufregend (incredibly exciting), wahnsinnig lustig
(hysterically funny)
Sandig 1979; Brandt
et al. 1992; Stürmer
et al. 1997; Frey and
Pittner 1998; Ferraresi 2006
focus particles,
modal particles
sogar (even), nur (only); wohl, ja,
schon [no direct equivalents in
English]
von Polenz 1988;
Thurmair 1989
sentence types
and constructions, cf. exclamatives, directives, vocatives,
insults, ICR
Wie schön die ist! (How pretty she
looks!), Her mit dem Geld! (Hand
over the money!), Du Idiot! (You
idiot!), Hätte ich doch Informatik
studiert! (If I only had studied computer science!), das Buch der Bücher
(the book of the books), Du und
tolerant!? (You be tolerant!?)
Altmann 1987; Fries
1988, 1991, 1996;
Brandt et al. 1992;
Bücker 2007; Jacobs
2008; D’Avis and
Meibauer forthcoming; Reis 1992, 1995;
Rauh 2004
lexical/gram- modal verbs
matical
grammatical
Example
All rights reserved
111
112
Rita Finkbeiner
Table 1. (continued)
Linguistic
level
Linguistic
category
Example
grammatical/ discourse mark- ich mein (I mean), nach dem Motto
textual
ers
(à la), ach so (I see), lobend hervorzuheben ist (it is commendable
that), was weiß ich (Search me!)
expressive
speech acts,
speech acts of
evaluation
textual
pity, anger, grief, moaning, congratulating; complaints, praises,
criticisms
proverbs, tautol- Wo gehobelt wird, fallen Späne
ogies, maxims, (From chipping come chips), Was
stereotypes
sein muss, muss sein (What must
be must be), Der Lehrer hat immer
recht (The teacher’s always right),
klein, aber oho! (good things come
in small packages)
repetition, contrast, rhetorical
questions, irony,
parallelism
Das ist lang lang her (It’s been a long
long time since …), ja aber warum
SETZSCH du die dõ: au midde NEI::
<<kichernd>> du kannsch doch
woandersch nõ:sitze. (‘Why do you
sit right here <<laughing>> you can
sit somewhere else’)
Reference
Stein 1995; Stürmer
et al. 1997; Günthner
and Imo 2006; Imo
2009; Bücker 2009
Zillig 1982; Sager
1982; Schumann
1990; Marten-Cleef
1991
Gülich 1978; Quast
hoff 1978; Hemmi
1994; Lüger 1999;
Balsliemke 2001
Fiehler 1990; Fries
1996; Christmann
and Günthner 1996;
Günthner 2000; Roth
2005
carrying evaluative meaning, namely phrasal idioms on the one hand, and proverbs
and certain other sentential constructions on the other hand. On the lexical level,
phrasal idioms such as kalter Kaffee, gut in Schuss, or jdm. auf die Finger gucken
have been described as expressions which “co-express evaluation” (Kühn 1985) or
carry additional “emotional-evaluative connotations” (Fleischer 1997 [1982]; cf.
Finkbeiner 2006 for a critique). On the textual level, proverbs and other conventionalized sentential expressions (tautologies, maxims, stereotypes) have been examined with respect to evaluative functions (e.g., Lüger 1999). However, sentential
idioms, due to their specific syntactic, semantic and pragmatic properties, carry a
specific evaluative load that distinguishes them from the above mentioned classes
of phraseological units.
As I have shown in previous work (cf. Finkbeiner 2008a), there is a continuum
of sentence type restrictions on idioms, where a prototypical phrasal idiom (e.g.,
mit der Tür ins Haus fallen, lit. ‘to fall with the door into the house’, fig. ‘to come to
the point in a too direct, clumsy way’) allows for a broad range of sentence types
All rights reserved
and constructions, whereas a prototypical sentential idiom (e.g., Das geht auf keine
Kuhhaut!, lit. ‘That goes on no cow skin’, fig. ‘That is absolutely staggering’) only
allows for very few, in extreme cases only one sentence type.2 As a consequence,
phrasal idioms may express a broader range of evaluative functions compared to
sentential idioms, which are semantically and functionally more restricted.
Proverbs, on the other hand, which share with sentential idioms the sentential
structure, differ from them in that they are not integrated in the same way into the
surrounding co-text (cf. Lüger 1999: 96). This is reflected by a lack of indexical expressions in proverbs. In line with that, proverbs have a rather general meaning, as
indicated syntactically by, e.g., present tense (Zeit ist Geld, ‘Time is money’), zero
article (Früher Vogel fängt den Wurm, ‘The early bird catches the worm’), or general
pronouns (Wie man sich bettet, so liegt man, ‘Make one’s bed and lie in it’). This has
an impact also on their meaning potential: In general, proverbs express relatively
context-independent moral meanings, whereas the evaluative meaning expressed
by sentential idioms is rather subjective and context-dependent to a higher degree.
Thus, sentential idioms are a specific kind of evaluative expressions, which
cannot be comprehensively described by simply relating to other kinds of evaluative phraseological units. Given the sentential structure of the idioms, it seems
promising, instead, to take the starting point for a description from approaches
to sentence type and sentence mood. Already during the 1970s, research into indirect speech acts (e.g., Searle 1975; Morgan 1978; Bach and Harnish 1979) has
pointed to the specific speaker attitudes connected with certain conventionalized
speech acts such as Your place or mine?; If you’ve seen one, you have seen them all.;
Do I look like a rich man? (cf. Morgan 1978). Regarding the German language,
there is a long-standing research tradition into sentence types and sentence mood
(e.g., Altmann 1987; Brandt et al. 1992; Altmann 1993; Reis 1999). The basic idea
behind the concept of sentence mood is that sentences, via clusters of specific formal properties, are associated with certain basic speaker attitudes concerning the
proposition expressed. These kinds of speaker attitudes have been investigated
particularly with regard to “peripheral” (Fries 1987) sentence types such as exclamatives, which are pragmatically highly restricted (cf. Table 1).
Recent literature within the framework of Construction Grammar (cf. Fillmore et al. 1988) focuses, similarly, on a range of sentential constructions connected to specific speaker attitudes. Most of the constructions that have been examined
in more detail are of the “formal idiom” type, that is, they are described as lexically
open syntactic schemata with an associated specific, non-compositional meaning
(cf. Why not fix it yourself?; One more beer and I’m leaving.; Now watch me drop it!)
(cf. Fillmore 1989; Culicover and Jackendoff 1997; Fillmore et al. 1988). In recent
years, constructionist approaches have been increasingly applied to the German
language as well (cf. Fischer and Stefanowitsch 2006, 2008; Lasch and Ziem 2011).
All rights reserved
113
114 Rita Finkbeiner
However, what distinguishes sentential idioms from formal idioms or
(peripheral) sentence types is that they are not only bound to a syntactic schema,
but also restricted regarding their lexical filling. That is, they are more specific than
formal idioms. In the following section, I will characterize the category of sentential idioms in more detail.
3. Characteristics of idiomatic sentential patterns
Sentential idioms are more or less fixed regarding potential sentence types in which
they can be used (see below). Moreover, at first glance, also their lexical component structure seems to be fixed. For instance, in the introductory example (1),
Das kannst du dir in die Haare schmieren, lexical substitutions such as #Das kannst
du dir auf die Haut schmieren (‘You can smear that onto your skin’) are not possible without a loss of idiomatic meaning. Thus, sentential idioms look like what
Fillmore et al. (1988) would call “substantial” idioms. However, at closer investigation, it turns out that the single sentences do come with sets of systematic variants
(cf. Finkbeiner 2008a). For example, there are at least the following variants for (1)
which all express the figurative meaning (roughly) ‘That is useless/not practicable’:
(6) Das kannst du dir an den Hut stecken. (‘You can put that onto your hat’)
(7) Das kannst du dir in den Arsch stecken. (‘You can put that into your arse’)
(8) Das kannst du den Hasen geben. (‘You can give that to the rabbits’)
(9) Das kannst du in die Tonne treten. (‘You can stomp that into the trash can’)
(10) Das kannst du in den Harz kicken. (‘You can kick that to the Harz’)
(11) Das kannst du in der Pfeife rauchen. (‘You can smoke that in a pipe’)
Furthermore, there are variants with simple verbs as infinitival complements, cf.
Das kannst du vergessen/knicken/streichen/abhaken (‘You can forget about/fold/
cancel/check off that’). The existence of the variants in (6)–(11) provides clear-cut
evidence for the claim that idioms such as (1) are no idiosyncrasies, but in fact instances of — more or less — productive idiomatic patterns (cf. Finkbeiner 2008b).
The fact that similar patterns exist in other languages, too, further underpins this
claim, cf. the following English patterns:
(12) You can wait until the cows come home / You can wait until hell freezes over.
(13) You can say good-bye to that / You can forget about that.
(14) It’s enough to drive you up the wall / It’s enough to make you blow your top.
All rights reserved
Hence, in the remainder of this paper, I will use the term idiomatic (sentential)
patterns to refer to these sentences.
Empirical evidence for the claim that idiomatic sentential patterns are bound
to certain sentence types comes from a corpus study (cf. Finkbeiner 2008a), which
I will report on shortly. The study was carried out using the corpora of written
language provided by the Institut für deutsche Sprache (IdS), Mannheim, which
contains roughly 2 billion text words from a range of text types. The study can
be classified as belonging to the ‘consultation paradigm’ (cf. Steyer 2004). That
is, samples of idiom examples were looked up in the corpus to validate the hypotheses about their syntactic restrictions. (In contrast, the ‘analysis paradigm’ is
used to extract candidates for phraseological units from a corpus, cf. Steyer 2004).
The IdS corpora, via the COSMAS platform, allow for highly differentiated search
queries. On the basis of pretests, for each of ten identified classes of idiomatic
patterns, three examples were selected and searched for in the corpus. The results
were analyzed qualitatively (see Section 5) and quantitatively. Table 2 shows, as an
example, the quantitative results for the idioms (1), (8), and (11), all belonging to
the pattern [Das kannst du + V’].3
As expected, in the majority of cases (82.5%), this pattern appears in the declarative sentence type. It therefore can be regarded as bound to the declarative
to a very high degree. Furthermore, the study showed that there are restrictions
concerning certain modal or functional components such as modal verbs, modal
particles, and deictic pronouns. For example, the modal verb können (‘can’) turned
out to be obligatory for the declarative uses of the idioms in Table 2. There were
no attested declarative examples without a form of können. Modal categories are
standardly assumed to interact with sentence type and therefore can be said to
Table 2. Syntactic distribution for [Das kannst du + V’]
Das kannst du
dir in die Haare
schmieren
Das kannst
Das kannst du Total
du den Hasen in der Pfeife
geben
rauchen
Percentage
Number of attested
examples
29
4
7
40
100
Declarative
22
4
7
33
Imperative
2
0
0
2
5
Interrogative
0
0
0
0
0
Optative
0
0
0
0
0
Exclamative
0
0
0
0
0
Indirect speech
3
0
0
3
7.5
Embedded clause
2
0
0
2
5
All rights reserved
82.5
115
116 Rita Finkbeiner
contribute to the determination of the restricted speech act potential of the patterns. For [Das kannst du + V’], e.g., the speech act potential may be specified as
containing critical comments and rejections.
As to the lexical filling of the patterns, there seems to be a certain degree of
variation, as becomes clear from examples (6) to (11). However, the patterns are
not unrestrictedly productive. Thus, whereas potential new coinings such as (15)–
(18) would probably count as acceptable for native speakers (cf. Finkbeiner 2008b
for an experimental investigation of that question), coinings such as (19)–(22)
probably would not.4 (Note, though, that I do not exclude the possibility that one
might be able to construe special contexts in which these examples would be acceptable).
(15) Das kannst du aus dem Fenster/ins Klo/auf die Halde werfen.
‘You can throw that out of the window/into the toilet/on the trash heap’.
(16) Das kannst du in den Urwald/in die Wüste/in die Pampa schicken.
‘You can send that to the jungle/to the desert/to the Pampas’.
(17) Das kannst du den Termiten/den Schweinen/den Motten geben.
‘You can give that to the termites/to the pigs/to the moths’.
(18) Das kannst du im Altenheim/Irrenhaus/Stall aufhängen.
‘You can hang up that in the old people’s home/madhouse/stable’.
(19) # Das kannst du auf den Tisch legen.
‘You can lay that on the table’.
(20) # Das kannst du dir in die Nase stecken.
‘You can put that into your nose’.
(21) # Das kannst du den Eidechsen geben.
‘You can give that to the lizards’.
(22) # Das kannst du im Restaurant aufhängen.
‘You can hang up that in the restaurant’.
In contrast, formal idioms can be regarded as highly productive (cf. Kay 2002).
For example, in the Incredulity Response Construction in German (e.g., Du und
tolerant?! ‘You be tolerant?!’, Der und Arzt?! ‘Him be a doctor?!’), the syntactic slots
are only restricted with respect to general functional properties of potential word
classes — the first conjunct must represent a topic, the second a comment, cf.
Bücker 2007 — but not with respect to specific lexical filler items.
The examples (15)–(22) suggest that the lexical restrictions on the idiomatic
pattern [Das kannst du + V’] have to do with the images evoked by the propositional content of the sentences. One may speak of “imaginative propositions” of
All rights reserved
the idioms (cf. for the notion of image Dobrovol’skij and Piirainen 2005; see also
Finkbeiner, forthcoming). One may distinguish two types of imaginative propositions: Either the proposition denotes (a) an act of something being destroyed, e.g.,
(8), (9), (11), and (17); or (b) an act of something being removed to a peripheral
place, e.g., (6), (10), (16), (18). The two dimensions also may overlap each other,
e.g. (7), (15). As one can see, the notions of norm and deviance from a norm play
a crucial role for the description of the meaning of the patterns (see also Feyaerts
1999).
Assuming these cognitive requirements, one can explain why (19)–(22) are
ruled out (or at least: why it seems quite hard to find contexts in which these
examples would be acceptable). In (19), the proposition neither denotes a destructive act nor a removal of something to a peripheral place. In (21), there might be
the possibility of destruction, but most of us probably would not really know; it is
at least no stereotypical property of lizards to be highly destructive or gluttonous.
In (22), the proposition clearly does not denote a destructive act, and typically neither a peripheral place. As becomes clear from example (20), there may be restrictions on specific lexical items as well, as the only reason why (20) would be ruled
out whereas (7) would not seems to be that Nase (‘nose’) is no expressive lexical
item while Arsch (‘ass’) is.5
As to their evaluative meaning in general, idiomatic patterns may express the
two main types of evaluation that have been described in the literature, namely
evaluations that refer to emotional and evaluations that refer to cognitive attitudes
of speakers (cf. Fiehler 1990; Fries 1991; Jahr 2000; Thompson and Hunston 2000;
Bednarek 2006, 2009b).6 By cognitive evaluations (opinion), one refers to attitudes
relating to a cognitive norm or standard, such as importance, usefulness, or appropriateness. By emotional attitudes, one refers to attitudes relating to basic emotional qualities such as anger, fear, surprise, or guilt (Fries 1991). In line with that,
idiomatic sentential patterns may be classified as expressing a cognitive or emotive
evaluation.
For example, by the pattern illustrated by (1), Das kannst du dir in die Haare
schmieren, a speaker expresses a cognitive evaluation (‘S finds X useless/not practicable’). Consulting the IdS corpora, one finds that X may be realized by expressions denoting physical objects such as das Grundstück (‘the site’) or die 365 Millionen Schilling (‘the 365 million Schilling’), or mental objects such as plans (e.g.,
ihren Plan, ein Weltcuprennen zu veranstalten, ‘their plan to organize a world cup
race’, or den geplanten autofreien Tag, ‘the planned car-free day’), but, for example,
no persons or places (Finkbeiner 2008a). Another cognitive evaluative pattern is
illustrated by (4), Da steppt der Bär, meaning ‘S finds X popular/lively’, where X
stands for a place (cf. in der Innenstadt, ‘in the inner city’, vor der Halle, ‘in front of
the hall’, see Finkbeiner 2008a). Further instances of the pattern are Da rockt die
All rights reserved
117
118
Rita Finkbeiner
Ratte (‘There rocks the rat’); Da fliegt die Kuh (‘There flies the cow’); Da wackelt die
Wand (‘There shakes the wall’).
The sentences (2) and (5) illustrate emotive patterns. By (2) — further examples
are Das ist ja zum Kinderkriegen! (‘I could get children’); Das ist ja zum Haareausreißen! (‘I could tear out my hair’); Das ist ja zum Wändehochgehen! (‘I could climb up
the walls’) — a speaker expresses an emotional attitude (anger, desperation, indignation) triggered by an event X (e.g., dass einem die Busse auf dem Weg zur Arbeit
wegfahren, ‘that one just misses the bus’, cf. Finkbeiner 2008a). Further instances of
(5) are Da geht einem ja das Messer im Sack auf! (‘One’s knife in the pocket is opening’); Da stellen sich einem ja die Haare zu Berge! (‘One’s hair is rising’).
By means of the pattern illustrated by (3), with further instances such as Du
hast wohl einen Vogel! (‘You must have a bird’), Du hast wohl einen Knall! (‘You
must have a bang’), Du hast wohl einen an der Waffel! (‘You must have one at the
wafer’), a speaker primarily expresses a cognitive evaluation which may overlap
with an emotional component (the expression of a negative feeling towards the
addressee). The evaluation can be represented generally as ‘S finds X’s behavior
inappropriate’, where X stands for a person (e.g., der Mann, ‘the man’, die da oben,
‘those up there’, see Finkbeiner 2008a).
4. Semantics and pragmatics of evaluation
In the following section, I will describe in more detail how the evaluative meaning
expressed by the idiomatic sentential patterns is constituted linguistically. To begin with, the evaluation expressed by the sentences obviously has two dimensions,
a semantic and a pragmatic one, both interacting with and overlapping each other
in multiple ways. How to adequately describe and delineate the role of semantics
and pragmatics in the constitution of linguistic meaning has been subject to much
debate under the past decades (Bianchi 2004; Szábo 2005). The basic question is
how much of the meaning of an utterance is (conventional) semantics (‘what is
said’ in Grice’s terms), and how much is (inferential) pragmatics (‘what is implicated’). In the case of idiomatic utterances, things get even more complicated,
because there are two layers of meaning already at a very basic level. How, then, is
the utterance meaning of idiomatic sentential patterns to be described? Consider
the following authentic example:
(23) Die Infos [in deinem externen Forum] kannst du den Hasen geben.
‘You can give the information [in your extern forum] to the rabbits’.
(See: http://www.wertpapier-forum.de/topic/35355-fragen-von-einemneuling/)
All rights reserved
For (23), one may start with assuming three different layers of meaning:
i. ‘S asserts that H can give the information to the rabbits’.
ii. ‘S proposes that H should make the information being destroyed/should remove the information to a peripheral place’.
iii. ‘S expresses that S finds the information useless’.
According to Bierwisch’s (1983) Two-Level-Semantics, (i) would represent the literal meaning, whereas (iii) would represent the utterance meaning which is based
on a non-literal meaning of the sentence. The representation in (ii) is not directly
accounted for in Bierwisch’s model. Preliminarily, one can say that it provides
some kind of inferential link between (i) and (iii). As one can see, (ii) corresponds
to the imaginative propositions described above, and it shows a causal relation
to (i). Whereas (i) is specific for the respective idiom instance, (ii) and (iii) are
generally applicable to the pattern as a whole (except the target referent, which is
interchangeable). While it seems to be quite uncontroversial that (i) is the literal
meaning of the sentence and as such part of idiom semantics, it is not clear how
to account for (ii) and (iii). If they come about via inferences — e.g., implicatures
(cf. Grice 1975; Levinson 2000) — one would expect that they could be cancelled.
However, that does not seem to be the case, at least for (iii); see
(24) * Die Information kannst du den Hasen geben. Aber ich finde die Information
nützlich.
‘You can give the information to the rabbits. But I find the information
useful’.
Thus, it seems that (iii) is derived with every occurrence of the idiom. In other
words, (iii) can count as part of conventional idiom semantics, or, more generally,
as part of the conventional semantics of the pattern. If, however, (iii) is conventional, then it doesn’t make sense to assume that (ii) should be an implicature. On
the other hand, it is not clear on which semantic or pragmatic level (ii) should be
situated instead, as it is not conventional in the same way as (i) or (iii). Speakers
who know the idiomatic meaning (iii) of Das kannst du den Hasen geben do not
necessarily have to know or be aware of (ii). Clearly, there is a need for in-depth
psycholinguistic studies on this specific type of idioms, with special reference to
potential differences in processing between conventional idioms as Das kannst du
den Hasen geben and new coinings such as Das kannst du auf die Halde werfen (see
above, example 15). As the sentences get conventionalized, presumably also the
ways of processing change.
Nevertheless, leaving the psycholinguistic status of (ii) aside, it is plausible to
describe (ii) as a cognitive procedure which makes the link between (i) and (iii)
transparent in a theoretical model of meaning representation. This model can also
All rights reserved
120 Rita Finkbeiner
make fruitful use of pragmatic theories of meaning constitution. That is not to say,
however, that the idiomatic meaning would be decoded or inferred in the way to
be described below every time a speaker encounters an idiom. The goal merely is
to provide a theoretical account of the complex semantic and pragmatic build-up
of sentential idioms. The sketch below also could be read as the inferential path a
speaker would choose the first time she encounters a sentence like (23).
In my account (Finkbeiner 2008a), which adopts ideas from Relevance Theory
(Carston 2002; Vega Moreno 2003), all three layers are part of the complex sentence meaning, which is perceived of as being constituted by a chain of interrelated
propositions (on the notion of propositional complexity of idioms, see Finkbeiner
2006). Relevance Theory contributes two important ideas: Firstly, the idea that
specific pragmatic processes (explicatures) determine the meaning of utterances
already at the propositional level and not only in terms of (post-semantic) implicatures; and secondly, the idea that all kinds of utterances, such as literal, non-literal,
metaphorical, or indirect utterances, may be explained by a single general comprehension procedure. As Vega-Moreno (2003: 311) puts it,
[b]oth literal and non-literal interpretations are context-dependent and pragmatically constructed on-line via relevance-driven inferential mechanisms, which
take what is linguistically encoded […] as merely a guide in inferring speaker
meaning.
Against this background, one may perceive of the three above representations as
follows: The primary proposition expressed by (23) is constituted by the linguistically encoded meaning of the sentence — corresponding to (i) — plus certain
explicatures. It can be represented as ‘S proposes that H should GIVE THE INFORMATION TO THE RABBITS*’.7 To arrive at that proposition, the hearer has
to disambiguate the modal verb can, turning the speech act expressed into a proposal, and construct an ad hoc concept for giving something to the rabbits (cf. VegaMoreno 2003). Starting from this enriched proposition, the hearer constructs an
auxiliary causal information corresponding to (ii), namely ‘S proposes that this
information may be destroyed’/‘S proposes that this information may be removed
to a peripheral place’. This information leads to the main information to be inferred, namely — corresponding to proposition (iii) — ‘S expresses that S finds
this information useless’.
As I will show in Section 5, the speaker’s causes for evaluating something in a
certain way play an important role in the contextual embedding of the idioms in
actual use. That fact is mirrored in the relation between the propositions (ii) and
(iii), which in most cases is a causal relation (see ‘You can destroy that/remove that
to a peripheral place because it is useless’). That is, the internal semantic-pragmatic
structure of the idiom with its causal hierarchy of propositions is in some sense
All rights reserved
transferred to utterance meaning, where speakers will try to give causes for the
evaluation expressed.
5. Evaluation in context
As pointed out repeatedly in the literature (e.g., Thompson and Hunston 2000;
Bublitz 2002; Bednarek 2009a), we need a closer look at contextual structures if we
want to fully understand how linguistic evaluation works. Consequently, in this
section I will examine the actual use of idiomatic sentential patterns in context.
In particular, I will provide evidence for the claim that the category of cause is an
important ingredient in the contextual construction of evaluative meaning. The
basic idea behind that claim is that the meaning of idiomatic sentential patterns
is essentially vague, but that the patterns by virtue of their complex evaluative
semantics are equipped with anchoring points for different types of contextual
information. By anchoring points, I mean open slots in the meaning structure of
the idioms which have to be specified in context. The relevant types of information
are constitutive for the concept of evaluation and can be explicated by the following questions:
–
–
–
–
What is evaluated? (target of evaluation)
According to which dimension is something evaluated? (parameters of evaluation)
What is the underlying norm or value system? (standards of evaluation)
Why does someone evaluate something in that way? (cause of evaluation)
While the first three factors are widely accounted for in theories on linguistic evaluation (e.g., Sandig 1979; Ripfel 1987; Fries 1991; Stürmer et al. 1997; Jahr 2000;
Martin and White 2005; Bednarek 2006; Hunston 2010), the last one is much less
acknowledged. As mentioned earlier, the target of evaluation (“Bewertungsgegenstand”, cf. Stürmer et al. 1997: 272) usually is referred to in the idioms by indexical
expressions. That is, the target necessarily has to be present in context. The parameters of evaluation (“Bewertungsaspekte”, cf. Stürmer et al. 1997: 272), e.g., usefulness, relevance, appropriateness, refer to the dimension according to which the
target is evaluated. They are inherent in the idiom and related to the standards of
evaluation, which they need as a reference point. By standards of evaluation (“Vergleichsbasis”, cf. Ripfel 1987: 155; Fries 1991), one refers to certain social or institutional norms determining, e.g., what can count as useful, relevant, appropriate etc.
By the cause of evaluation, now, I do not mean the more general questions
“Why do speakers/writers provide evaluations?”, or “What are possible functions of and motivations for expressing evaluations?”, as asked, e.g., by Bednarek
All rights reserved
121
122 Rita Finkbeiner
(2009a: 165), providing more general motivations such as “to express values, construct and negotiate communality, solidarity and commitment and construe specific discourse personalities”. Rather, I mean a speaker’s specific reasons to evaluate something in a certain way. Fries (1991: 23), one of few authors, allows for a
component “Veranlassung” (cause, motivation) in his model, assuming that the
causes for an evaluation are connected to the “core evaluative system”. However,
he does not elaborate on this issue. I think, however, that it is worthwhile to take a
closer look at the category of cause as a cognitive construct. I will argue that speakers, when using an evaluative sentential idiom, usually also provide some kind of
cause or motivation for the evaluation expressed. This motivation does not need
to be very specific, “objective”, or elaborated. The important point seems to be to
convey that the speaker has a reason for evaluating something the way she does.
Thus, there may be rather implicit or rather explicit ways of motivating an evaluation. From a discursive point of view, providing causes is, firstly, a strategy of
strengthening one’s point of view. Secondly, as evaluating something often means
to potentially expose oneself to critique, by giving causes together with the evaluation, one can avoid critique or loss of face.
Thus, put in relevance-theoretic terms, I assume that the use of a sentential
idiom will strongly raise the expectation in the hearer to get some kinds of answers
to the four questions or anchoring points mentioned above.
In my model, I further distinguish between primary and secondary anchoring
points. A primary anchoring point would be the target of evaluation, as the sentences are incomplete without a target referent. Parameters, standards and cause
of evaluation are secondary anchoring points, as they are either dependent on
the target (as the parameters) or additional explications of the evaluative meaning
which are associated with the idiom (as standards and cause).
Taken together, one could say that the evaluative context in which a sentential
idiom is used in some sense is embedded in the idiom. To put it differently, the
idioms, via their anchoring points, shape or structure their contexts to a considerable extent (cf. Finkbeiner forthcoming).
Developing a context model of evaluation, one can now, given the assumptions
above, try to restrict the kinds of possible specifications for the four anchoring
points of the idioms. As targets, one can generally assume a restricted set of basic
ontological categories such as persons, things, facts/events, substances/materials,
places, or time intervals (see Bierwisch 1988). As shown above, different idiomatic
patterns are bound to different restricted sets of targets or ontological categories.
Depending on the target, different restricted sets of parameters of evaluation become relevant (Sandig 1979; Stürmer et al. 1997). For example, for human beings,
a relevant parameter is behavior, whereas for physical objects, a relevant parameter
is functionality. Concerning possible standards of evaluation, there are different
All rights reserved
kinds of social and institutional norms or preferences in a speech community,
which also can be described as standard expectations about appropriate human
behavior (cf. Ripfel 1987). The category of cause often relates to a perceived deviance from the norm and corresponds to a restricted set of possible dimensions:
Generally speaking, one can motivate an evaluation either by referring to human
behavior (in a broad sense) or to states/facts of the world.
The resulting context model of evaluation predicts which kinds of expressions
one will find in the context of a sentential idiom. The model is summarized in
Figure 1. The examples for the different types of expressions are taken from the
illustration in (25).
(25) Illustration: Contextual anchoring of Da steppt der Bär (‘There tap-dances
the bear’)
Im Prenzlauer Berg und in Berlin-Mitte offenbaren sich die Folgen der
deutschen Einheit wie nirgend sonst anderswo. Seit 1990 hat fast die Hälfte
der 250 000 Bewohnerinnen und Bewohner den Wahlkreis 249 verlassen
— und ebenso viele kamen neu dazu. […] Denn heute ist die Gegend
so angesagt wie keine zweite in Berlin. Hier kommen Regierungsviertel,
Bundeskanzleramt und die meisten Ministerien zu stehen, hier herrscht aber
auch eine dichte Mischung aus Kultur- und Kiezleben, kurz: hier steppt der
Bär. Alles ist in Bewegung, es wird gebaut und abgerissen, dass einem Hören
und Sehen vergeht. (Züricher Tagesanzeiger, 16.09.1998)
Contextual anchoring points
Pirmary anchoring point: Target
Secondary anchoring points
Parameters of evaluation
Expressions denoting
the target of evaluation
im prenzlauer Berg, in
Berlin Mitte, Wahlkreis
249, die Gegend, hier
Expressions
denoting
parameters of
evaluation
angesagt,
alles ist in
Bewegung
Cause of evaluation
Expressions
denoting
human
behaviour
Expressions
denoting
states/facts of
the world
Es wird gebaut und
abgerissen, dass
einem Hören und
Sehen vergeht
Hier kommen
Regierungsviertel...
Kiezleben
Underlying social norms (standards of evaluation)
Social dynamics of places [implicit]
Figure 1. Context model of evaluation
All rights reserved
124 Rita Finkbeiner
‘In Prenzlauer Berg and in Berlin-Mitte the consequences of the German
reunification are getting obvious more than anywhere else. Since 1990,
almost half of the 250 000 inhabitants left constituency 249 — and as many
have moved in newly. […] For today, the quarter is as in as no other one
in Berlin. Here, the governmental institutions, the Office of the Federal
Chancellor and most of the ministries will be established, but also, a dense
mixture of cultural and Kiez life [cultural life of the neighborhood] is to
be found here. In other words, here tap-dances the bear. Everything is in
motion, people construct and demolish so one doesn’t know if one is coming
or going’.
In the following, I will apply the context model of evaluation to authentic uses of
three examples for the pattern [Das kannst du + V’] mentioned above (see Table 2,
Section 3), checking them for specifications of the four anchoring points. The hypothesis is that for every idiom, the anchoring points will be specified either explicitly by linguistic expressions in the co-text or implicitly via inferences from
expressions in the co-text. The examples are taken from the IdS corpora and have
been analyzed qualitatively to illustrate the explanative power of the model developed here. More examples can be found in Finkbeiner (2008a).
(26) Mannheimer Morgen, 25.09.2002
Nicht jeder Lehrer könne in jedem Schulfach Vertretungen übernehmen
— und es werde immer schwieriger, entsprechende Fachkräfte zu finden.
Kritisch betrachtet der Verband Bildung und Erziehung (VBE) diese
Entwicklung — vor allem, weil nur rund 35 Prozent der erfolgreich
geprüften Referendare direkt eingestellt werden konnten. „Den Rest haben
wir für die Straße ausgebildet, oder für andere Bundesländer“, bedauert
Berthold Schwind, VBE-Vorsitzender Nordbaden. „Dabei müssen die
Jungen doch mal ‘ran — die bringen einen ganz neuen Wind in die Sache“,
findet er. Wegen des Fachkräftemangels fehlen oft die Bedingungen für
gelungenen Unterricht: Neunte Klassen mit 32 Schülern, zu wenige und zu
kleine Räume, und überdies kaum Zeit für Extras: „Das, was Schule schön
macht, fällt aus — dieses System kann man doch landauf, landab in der
Pfeife rauchen“, wettert Schwind.
‘Not every teacher could take over every school subject, and it would get
increasingly difficult to find suitable skilled personnel. The VBE (association
of education) Nordbaden is critical of this development — especially because
only about 35 percent of the successful candidates could be employed
immediately. “The rest we educated for the streets, or for other states [of
the Federal Republic of Germany]”, says Berthold Schwind, VBE-chairman,
with regret. “But the young people have to get in charge — they bring in
All rights reserved
the winds of change”, he says. Because of the lack of skilled personnel,
the conditions for successful teaching often are not fulfilled. Ninth grade
classrooms with 32 pupils, too few or too small rooms and, moreover, nearly
no time for extras. “What makes school fun is cancelled — this system you
can smoke in a pipe across the country”, Schwind says angrily’.
In (26), the idiom Dieses System kann man doch landauf, landab in der Pfeife
rauchen is used by Berthold Schwind, chairman of VBE Nordbaden. As shown
above, the pattern generally is associated with the evaluative meaning ‘S finds X
useless’. In this context, the target X is specified by the expression dieses System
(‘this system’). From the context, it becomes clear that by the “system”, it is referred to the practice of educating good teachers, but not providing enough resources for employing them afterwards. As a concrete cause for the evaluation of
the system as worthless, Schwind in the preceding context provides the statement
Das, was Schule schön macht, fällt aus (‘what makes school fun is cancelled’). By
that statement, Schwind refers directly to a fact in the world, namely, that there
are no resources left for extra activities in schools. The lack of resources is also
explicitly mentioned in sequences such as es werde immer schwieriger, entsprechende Fachkräfte zu finden; nur rund 35 Prozent …; wegen des Fachkräftemangels
…. Indirectly, he refers to those people’s behavior who are responsible for cutting all additional activities at schools, assumedly the responsible politicians. The
underlying standard of evaluation can be inferred as institutional standards for
school systems as providers of education. Schwind obviously regards the system
as not being able to live up to these functions. The evaluative parameters remain
implicit, but can, via contextual clues, be specified as functionality or effectiveness
of education systems.
(27) Frankfurter Rundschau, 20.08.1998
FREIBURG. Als sich abzeichnete, daß in ihrem Abiturzeugnis eine Drei vor
dem Komma stehen würde, zog Sabine die Notbremse: Sie wiederholte die
Klasse freiwillig. „Ein Dreier-Abi kannst du den Hasen geben. Da nimmt
dich nicht mal die Bank.“ Durchschnittliche Leistungen sind nicht gefragt,
durchschnittliche Schüler auch nicht. Mittelmäßigkeit ist ein Schimpfwort.
Mit befriedigenden Noten darf sich niemand zufrieden geben.
‘When it became apparent that in her Abitur [school leaving exam] report,
a three would stand in front of the comma, Sabine called a halt before it was
too late: She repeated the year voluntarily. “An average three Abitur you can
give to the rabbits. Not even a bank will employ you.” Average performances
are not demanded, neither are average pupils. Mediocrity is a swearword.
Nobody is satisfied with mediocre marks’.
All rights reserved
126 Rita Finkbeiner
In (27), Sabine uses the idiom instance Ein Dreier-Abi kannst du den Hasen geben,
thereby evaluating the target ein Dreier-Abi (‘a school-leaving exam with average
three’) as useless. By the proposition Da nimmt dich nicht mal die Bank (‘not even
a bank will take [employ] you’), Sabine in subsequent discourse provides a cause
for her evaluation: Having average three in a school-leaving exam practically is so
bad that one does not have a chance to find a training vacancy anywhere, not even
at a bank (implicating that banks are among the institutions which normally do
employ one even if one does not have the best degree). By that explanation, thus,
Sabine refers to the behavior of people who potentially allocate training vacancies (die Bank). In this example, interestingly, the system of school grades, which
represents in itself an institutional standard, is subject to an evaluation on the
grounds of another standard, namely, that of daily life experience which tells us
that a degree of three is not what it stands for, the middle of a six grade scale and
as such average, but a bad, “worthless” degree. Sabine, thus, evaluates the DreierAbi regarding the evaluative parameter of practical usefulness for a career (it’s all
about the question of who will ‘take you’ after school).
(28) Die Presse, 17.07.1998
Preisvergleiche sollten etwas differenzierter vorgenommen werden.
So seien die Niederlande als Vergleich nicht geeignet, da durch deren
Eigenaufbringung so gut wie keine Leitungskosten entstünden. In Österreich
müsse das Erdgas über 4000 km aus Sibirien herangeschafft werden. Von
verbrauchten 7,5 Mrd. m3 kommen rund 70 Prozent aus Rußland. Zur
Wahrung der Versorgungssicherheit seien laut Branchenexperten hohe
Speicherkapazitäten erforderlich, die durch ihre Kostenintensität den
Preis in die Höhe trieben. Auch Adolf Fehringer, Generaldirektor der
Energie Steiermark AG, sieht darin den größten Nachteil für die heimische
Gaswirtschaft. „Das Argument kann man sich wirklich in die Haare
schmieren“, kontert hingegen Prinzhorn, „wir leben ja nicht mehr in Zeiten
des kalten Krieges. Darüber hinaus diskutieren wir hier nicht über zehn
Groschen pro m3, sondern über Preisdifferenzen von bis zu 80 Groschen”.
‘Price comparisons should be drawn more distinctively. For example, it
would not be suitable to compare the Netherlands [to Austria], because due
to their own [gas] resources, they had almost no transportation costs. In
Austria, gas had to be transported more than 4000 km from Siberia. From
a consumption of 7,5 billion m3, about 70 percent comes from Russia. In
order to secure supplies, there was, according to branch experts, a need for
high storage capacities, which due to their high costs raised the prices. Also
Adolf Fehringer, president of Energie Steiermark AG, regards that fact as the
biggest disadvantage for the local gas industry. “This argument one really
All rights reserved
can smear into one’s hair”, Prinzhorn replies, “we don’t live in times of the
Cold War any more. Furthermore, we do not talk about ten Groschen per
m3, but about price differences of up to 80 Groschen’.
In (28), the idiom instance Das Argument kann man sich wirklich in die Haare
schmieren is used by Prinzhorn (a representative of the Austrian party FPÖ). The
target of evaluation is das Argument (‘the argument’), which in context is elaborated as the argument of the electricity company Energie Steiermark AG (and other
“branch experts”). They explain the high gas prices in Austria by the high costs for
storage capacities, which, according to Energie Steiermark AG and others, are due
to the dependence of Austria on Russian gas deliveries. Prinzhorn evaluates this
argument as worthless — because invalid — and provides two causes for his evaluation: He states, in subsequent discourse, firstly, that the times of the Cold War are
over (wir leben ja nicht mehr in Zeiten des kalten Krieges) — implicating that the
gas deliveries are not at risk anymore — and, secondly, that the price differences
between Austria and the Netherlands are far too big to be explicable by high storage costs alone (Darüber hinaus diskutieren wir hier nicht über zehn Groschen pro
m3, sondern über Preisdifferenzen von bis zu 80 Groschen). Both explanations refer
to facts of the world. Prinzhorn’s evaluative parameter is the validity of the argument, the evaluative standard the ethics of (political) argumentation. Both remain
implicit.
Table 3 summarizes the findings.
Table 3. Specifications of anchoring points in three contextualized idiom examples
Anchoring points
Example (26)
Example (27)
Example (28)
Target
das System
ein Dreier-Abi
das Argument
Parameters
functionality, effective- usefulness for a
ness
career
validity
Cause
Das, was Schule schön
macht, fällt aus.
Es werde immer
schwieriger, entsprechende Fachkräfte zu
finden.
(= facts of the world,
behavior of people)
Wir leben ja nicht mehr in
Zeiten des Kalten Krieges.
Darüberhinaus diskutieren wir hier nicht über
zehn Groschen pro m3,
sondern über Preisdifferenzen von bis zu 80
Groschen.
(= facts oft he world)
Standard
institutional standards experience with
ethics of political argufor school systems
practical meaning of mentation
the grade scale
Da nimmt dich nicht
mal die Bank.
(= behavior of
people)
All rights reserved
128 Rita Finkbeiner
As becomes clear from Table 3, in all three examples, there are linguistic expressions in the co-text of the respective idiom which explicitly specify targets and
causes of evaluation. Parameters and standards of evaluation are substantiated via
contextual inferences which are guided by the linguistic expressions in the co-text
as well as situational and world knowledge. That is, the examples show very clearly
that evaluation is not only a local phenomenon evoked by certain linguistic items
in a text, but also a global phenomenon that pervades whole discourse structures
(see also Lemke 1998; Bublitz 2002; Bednarek 2006). In particular, the examples
illustrate that the cognitive category of cause plays an important role in the discursive construal of evaluative meaning. In providing causes for the evaluation,
a speaker also provides information about applied standards of evaluation. This
information, in turn, is the basis for deriving parameters of evaluation. That is, the
cognitive category of cause can be said to relate central aspects of evaluation to
each other in discourse.
6. Conclusion
The aim of this paper was to highlight the role of sentential patterns as an important linguistic means to express evaluation. Focusing on German sentential idioms,
it was shown that these expressions carry a specific evaluative load which can be
described as a result of the interaction between syntactic, semantic, and pragmatic
factors. Furthermore, it was shown that sentential idioms are no idiosyncrasies,
but instances of semi-productive patterns. The evaluative meaning of the patterns
was described as a three-layered propositional structure, containing a causal proposition as a central cognitive link between literal and figurative meaning. In order
to gain deeper insight into the interaction between evaluative sentence meaning
and context, a context model of evaluation was sketched and applied to attested
examples. In this model, the cognitive category of cause — together with the categories of target, parameters and standard of evaluation — turned out to play an
important role in the contextual construction of evaluative meaning.
Acknowledgments
I am grateful to Jörg Meibauer, John Weir, and two anonymous reviewers for their helpful comments on an earlier version of this paper.
All rights reserved
Notes
1. A good indication for the rather marginal status of sentential idioms in German phraseology
research is the striking heterogeneity of labels used for the class. They have been called, among
others, “festgeprägte Sätze” (Reichstein 1973), “feste Phrasen” (Burger et al. 1982), “kommunikative Formeln” (Fleischer 1982), “phraseologische Äußerungen” (Schindler 1993), and “Satz
idiome” (Korhonen 1995).
2. Cf. Er fällt mit der Tür ins Haus. (declarative), Fällst du etwa schon wieder mit der Tür ins
Haus? (interrogative), Fall doch nicht gleich mit der Tür ins Haus! (imperative), Wenn der doch
nicht immer gleich mit der Tür ins Haus fallen würde! (optative), Dass der schon wieder mit der
Tür ins Haus fällt! (exclamative); but: Das geht auf keine Kuhhaut. (declarative), #Geht das etwa
auf keine Kuhhaut? (interrogative), *Geh doch auf keine Kuhhaut! (imperative), #Wenn das doch
auf keine Kuhhaut ginge! (optative), #Dass das schon wieder auf keine Kuhhaut geht! (exclamative) (# indicates loss of idiomatic meaning, * indicates ungrammaticality).
3. The representation [Das kannst du + V’] is an approximation only and intended to convey
that the string das + kannst + du is relatively fixed, whereas the verbal projection V’ (e.g., oblique
object + infinite verb) is relatively variable.
4. As corpora only provide positive evidence, it is empirically impossible to give evidence for
structures that might exist potentially, as opposed to structures that cannot exist (cf. Hohenhaus
2005).
5. The notion of expressivity has gained renewed interest in recent research on semantics (e.g.,
Potts 2007), whereas in phraseology, the notion is still used quite inconsistently (cf. Burger
2007). There is no straightforward answer yet to the question of how expressivity is related to
evaluation in terms of the semantics-pragmatics interface. Generally, it seems that all expressive
items also are evaluative, but not all evaluative items also are expressive.
6. For the sake of simplicity, I disregard patterns expressing epistemic evaluation here. There are
some examples in German, e.g., Darauf kannst du Gift nehmen!, ‘You can take poison on that’
(cf. English You can bet your life on that) or Dafür lege ich meine Hand ins Feuer, ‘I put my hand
into the fire for that’ (cf. English to vouch for something).
7. Capitals and the asterisk (*) stand for an “ad hoc concept”, cf. Vega-Moreno (2003).
References
Altmann, H. 1987. “Zur Problematik der Konstitution von Satzmodi als Formtypen”. In J.
Meibauer (ed), 22–56.
Altmann, H. 1993. “Satzmodus”. In J. Jacobs, A. v. Stechow, and W. Sternefeld (eds), Syntax. Ein
internationales Handbuch zeitgenössischer Forschung. Vol. 1. Berlin: de Gruyter, 1006–1029.
Bach, K. and Harnish, R. 1979. Linguistic Communication and Speech Acts. Cambridge, MA: The
MIT Press.
Balsliemke, P. 2001. Da sieht die Welt schon anders aus. Phraseologismen in der Anzeigenwerbung; Modifikation und Funktion in Text-Bild-Beziehungen. Baltmannsweiler: SchneiderVerlag Hohengehren.
All rights reserved
130 Rita Finkbeiner
Bednarek, M. 2006. Evaluation in Media Discourse. Analysis of a Newspaper Corpus. London:
Continuum.
Bednarek, M. 2009a. “Dimensions of evaluation. Cognitive and linguistic perspectives”. Pragmatics & Cognition 17(1): 146–175.
Bednarek, M. 2009b. “Language patterns and attitude”. Functions of Language 16(2): 165–192.
Bergmann, C. 1983. “Ausdruck von Wertungen durch lexikalische Einheiten”. Zeitschrift für
Phonetik, Sprachwissenschaft und Kommunikationsforschung 36: 303–309.
Bianchi, C. (ed). 2004. The Semantics–Pragmatics Distinction. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.
Bierwisch, M. 1983. “Semantische und konzeptuelle Repräsentation lexikalischer Einheite”. In
R. Ruzicka and W. Motsch (eds), Untersuchungen zur Semantik. Berlin: Akademie, 61–99.
Bierwisch, M. 1988. “On the grammar of local prepositions”. In M. Bierwisch, W. Motsch, and
I. Zimmermann (eds), Syntax, Semantik und Lexikon. Rudolf Ruzicka zum 65. Geburtstag.
Berlin: Akademie, 1–65.
Brandt, M., Reis, M., Rosengren, I., and Zimmermann, I. 1992. “Satztyp, Satzmodus und Illokution”. In I. Rosengren (ed), Satz und Illokution. Vol. 1. Tübingen: Niemeyer, 1–90.
Bublitz, W. 2002. “Anmerkungen zur emotiven Prosodie des Textes”. In W. Bublitz, M. von Roncador, and H. Vater (eds), Philologie, Typologie und Sprachstruktur. Festschrift für Winfried
Boeder zum 65. Geburtstag. Frankfurt: Peter Lang, 25–40.
Bücker, J. 2007. “Du und tolerant?. Zur Syntax, Semantik und Pragmatik deutscher ‘Incredulity
Response Constructions’ (IRCs)”. gidi Arbeitspapierreihe 5 [http://audiolabor.uni-muenster.de/gidi/?page_id=6]
Bücker, J. 2009. “Quotativ-Konstruktionen mit Motto als Ressourcen für Selbst- und Fremdpositionierungen”. In S. Günthner and J. Bücker (eds), Grammatik im Gespräch. Konstruktionen der Selbst- und Fremdpositionierung. Berlin: de Gruyter, 215–248.
Burger, H. 1987. “Funktionen von Phraseologismen in den Massenmedien”. In H. Burger and R.
Zett (eds), Aktuelle Probleme der Phraseologie. Frankfurt: Peter Lang, 11–28.
Burger, H. 2007. “Semantic aspects of phrasemes”. In H. Burger et al. (eds), 90–109.
Burger, H., Buhofer, A., and Sialm, A. 1982. Handbuch der Phraseologie. Berlin: de Gruyter.
Burger, H., Dobrovol’skij, D., Kühn, P., and Norrick, N.R. (eds). 2007. Phraseology. An International Handbook of Contemporary Research, Vol. 1. Berlin: de Gruyter,
Carston, R. 2002. Thoughts and Utterances. The Pragmatics of Explicit Communication. Oxford:
Blackwell.
Channell, J. 2000. “Corpus-based analysis of evaluative lexis”. In S. Hunston and G. Thompson
(eds), Evaluation in Text: Authorial Stance and the Construction of Discourse. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 38–55.
Christmann, G. and Günthner, S. 1996. “Sprache und Affekt. Die Inszenierung von Entrüstungen im Gespräch”. Deutsche Sprache 24: 1–33.
Culicover, P.W. and Jackendoff, R. 1997. “Semantic subordination despite syntactic coordination”. Linguistic Inquiry 28(2): 195–218.
D’Avis, F. 2001. Über ‘w-Exklamativsätze’ im Deutschen. Tübingen: Niemeyer.
D’Avis, F. and Meibauer, J. Forthcoming. “Du Idiot/Din Idiot! Pseudo-vocative constructions
and insults in German (and Swedish)”. In P. Noel and B. Sonnenberger (eds), Vocative! Addressing between System and Performance. Berlin: de Gruyter.
Dam-Jensen, H. and Zethsen, K.K. 2007. “Pragmatic patterns and the lexical system — A reassessment of evaluation in language”. Journal of Pragmatics 39: 1608–1623.
Dobrovol’skij, D. and Piirainen, E. 2005. Figurative Language. Cross-Cultural and Cross-Linguistic Perspectives. Amsterdam: Elsevier.
All rights reserved
Feilke, H. 2007. “Syntaktische Aspekte der Phraseologie III: Construction Grammar und verwandte Ansätze”. In H. Burger et al. (eds), 63–76.
Ferraresi, G. 2006. “Modalpartikeln und Satzadverbiale. Gemeinsamkeiten und Unterschiede”.
Deutsch als Fremdsprache 43: 208–14.
Feyaerts, K. 1999. “Metonymic hierarchies. The Conceptualization of stupidity in German idiomatic expressions.” In K.-U. Panther and G. Radden (eds), Metonymy in Language and
Thought. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 309–332.
Fiehler, R. 1990. Kommunikation und Emotion. Berlin: de Gruyter.
Fillmore, Ch. 1989. “Grammatical construction theory and the familiar dichotomies”. In R.
Dietrich, C.F. Graumann (eds), Language Processing in Social Context. Amsterdam: NorthHolland, 17–38.
Fillmore, Ch., Kay, P., and O’Connor, M. 1988. “Regularity and idiomaticity in grammatical
constructions. The case of ‘Let Alone’ ”. Language 64(3): 501–38.
Finkbeiner, R. 2006. “ ‘Semantischer Mehrwert’ revisited. Ein propositionssemantisches Modell
zur Analyse der komplexen Semantik verbaler Idiome”. In A. Häcki Buhofer and H. Burger
(eds), Phraseology in Motion I. Methoden und Kritik. Akten der Internationalen Tagung zur
Phraseologie (Basel, 2004). Baltmannsweiler: Schneider Verlag Hohengehren, 129–144.
Finkbeiner, R. 2008a. Idiomatische Sätze im Deutschen. Syntaktische, semantische und pragmatische Studien und Untersuchung ihrer Produktivität. Stockholm: Acta Universitatis Stockholmiensis. [http://su.diva-portal.org/smash/record.jsf?searchId=1&pid=diva2:199979]
Finkbeiner, R. 2008b. “Zur Produktivität idiomatischer Konstruktionsmuster. Interpretierbarkeit und Produzierbarkeit idiomatischer Sätze im Test”. Linguistische Berichte 216: 391–430.
Finkbeiner, R. Forthcoming. “Emergent contexts: Observations on the context-creative power
of idioms”. In R. Finkbeiner, J. Meibauer, and P. Schumacher (eds), What is a Context?.
Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Fischer, K. and Stefanowitsch, A. (eds). 2006. Konstruktionsgrammatik. Von der Anwendung zur
Theorie. Tübingen: Stauffenburg.
Fischer, K. and Stefanowitsch, A. (eds). 2008. Konstruktionsgrammatik II. Von der Konstruktion
zur Grammatik. Tübingen: Stauffenburg.
Fix, U. 1971. Das Verhältnis von Syntax und Semantik im Wortgruppenlexem. Versuch einer objektivierten Klassifizierung und Definition des Wortgruppenlexems. Manuscript, Leipzig.
Fleischer, W. 1997 [1982]. Phraseologie der deutschen Gegenwartssprache. Tübingen: Niemeyer.
Fleischer, W. and Barz, I. 1993. Wortbildung der deutschen Gegenwartssprache. Tübingen: Niemeyer.
Frey, W. and Pittner, K. 1998. “Zur Positionierung der Adverbiale im deutschen Mittelfeld”. Linguistische Berichte 176: 489–534.
Fries, N. 1983. Syntaktische und semantische Studien zum frei verwendeten Infinitiv und zu verwandten Erscheinungen im Deutschen. Tübingen: Narr.
Fries, N. 1987. “Zu einer Randgrammatik des Deutschen”. In J. Meibauer (ed), 75–95.
Fries, N. 1988. “Ist Pragmatik schwer! Über sogenannte Exklamativsätze im Deutschen”. Deutsche Sprache 16(3): 193–205.
Fries, N. 1991. “Bewerten. Linguistische und konzeptuelle Aspekte des Phänomens”. Sprache
und Pragmatik 23: 1–31.
Fries, N. 1996. “Grammatik und Emotionen”. Sprache und Pragmatik, Arbeitsberichte 38. Lund:
Germanistisches Institut der Universität Lund, 1–39.
Gülich, E. 1978. “Was sein muß, muß sein. Überlegungen zum Gemeinplatz und seiner Verwendung”. Bielefelder Papiere zur Linguistik und Literaturwissenschaft 7: 1–41.
All rights reserved
131
132 Rita Finkbeiner
Günthner, S. 2000. Vorwurfsaktivitäten in der Alltagsinteraktion. Tübingen: Niemeyer.
Günthner, S. and Imo, W. (eds). 2006. Konstruktionen in der Interaktion. Berlin: de Gruyter.
Hemmi, A. 1994. Es muß wirksam werben, wer nicht will verderben. Kontrastive Analyse von
Phraseologismen in Anzeigen-, Radio- und Fernsehwerbung. Frankfurt: Peter Lang.
Hohenhaus, P. 2005. “Lexicalization and Institutionalization”. In P. Stekauer and R. Lieber (eds),
Handbook of Word-Formation. Dordrecht: Springer, 353–73.
Hunston, S. 2010. Corpus Approaches to Evaluation. Phraseology and Evaluative Language. London: Routledge.
Hunston, S. and Francis, G. 1999. Pattern Grammar. Amsterdam: Benjamins.
Hunston, S. and Sinclair, J.M. 2000. “A local grammar of evaluation”. In S. Hunston and G.
Thompson (eds), Evaluation in Text. Authorial Stance and the Construction of Discourse.
Oxford: Oxford University Press, 74–101.
Imo, W. 2009. “Konstruktion oder Funktion? Erkenntnisprozessmarker (“change-of-state-tokens”) im Deutschen”. In S. Günthner and J. Bücker (eds), Grammatik im Gespräch. Konstruktionen der Selbst- und Fremdpositionierung. Berlin: de Gruyter, 57–86.
Jacobs, J. 2008. “Wozu Konstruktionen?”. Linguistische Berichte 213: 3–44.
Jahr, S. 2000. Emotionen und Emotionsstrukturen in Sachtexten. Ein interdisziplinärer Ansatz
zur qualitativen und quantitativen Beschreibung der Emotionalität von Texten. Berlin: de
Gruyter.
Kay, P. 2002. Patterns of Coining. Talk held at ICCG2, Helsinki, Sept 8th, 2002 [www.icsi-berkeley.edu/~kay/coining.pdf].
Keller, R. 1977. “Kollokutionäre Akte”. Germanistische Linguistik 1: 4–50.
Koller, W. 1977. Redensarten. Linguistische Aspekte, Vorkommensanalysen, Sprachspiel. Tübingen: Niemeyer
Korhonen, J. 1995. “Zur Syntax und Semantik von Satzidiomen im heutigen Deutsch”. In J. Korhonen (ed), Studien zur Phraseologie des Deutschen und des Finnischen. Bochum: Brockmeyer, 43–48.
Kühn, P. 1985. “Phraseologismen und ihr semantischer Mehrwert. Jemandem auf die Finger gucken in einer Bundestagsrede.” Sprache und Literatur in Wissenschaft und Unterricht 16(2):
37–46.
Lasch, A. and Ziem, A. (eds). 2011. Konstruktionsgrammatik III. Aktuelle Fragen und Lösungsansätze. Tübingen: Stauffenburg.
Lemke, J.L. 1998. “Resources for attitudinal meaning: evaluative orientations in text semantics”.
Functions of Language 5(1): 33–56.
Lüger, H.-H. 1999. Satzwertige Phraseologismen. Eine pragmalinguistische Untersuchung. Wien:
Edition Praesens.
Marten-Cleef, S. 1991. Gefühle ausdrücken. Die expressiven Sprechakte. Göppingen: Kümmerle.
Martin, J.R. and White, P. 2005. The Language of Evaluation: Appraisal in English. Houndmills:
Palgrave-Macmillan.
Meibauer, J. Forthcoming. “Expressive Compounds in German.” Word Structure.
Meibauer, J. (ed) 1987. Satzmodus zwischen Grammatik und Pragmatik. Referate anläßlich der 8.
Jahrestagung des Deutschen Gesellschaft für Sprachwissenschaft, Heidelberg 1986. Tübingen:
Niemeyer
Morgan, J.L. 1978. “Two types of convention in indirect speech acts.” In P. Cole (ed), Syntax and
Semantics. Vol. 9: Pragmatics. New York: Academic Press, 261–280.
Polenz, P. von. 1988. Deutsche Satzsemantik. Zweite, durchgesehene Auflage. Berlin: de Gruyter.
Potts, Ch. 2007. “The expressive dimension”. Theoretical Linguistics 33(2): 165–97.
All rights reserved
Quasthoff, U. 1983. “Formelhafte Wendungen im Deutschen. Zu ihrer Funktion in dialogischer
Kommunikation”. In B. Sandig (ed), Stilistik. Band II: Gesprächsstile. Hildesheim: Olms,
5–24.
Rauh, G. 2004. “Warum Linguist in ich/du Linguist kein Schimpfwort sein muß. Eine konversationstheoretische Erklärung”. Linguistische Berichte 197: 77–105.
Récanati, F. 2004. Literal Meaning. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Reichstein, A.D. 1973. “Zur Analyse der festgeprägten Sätze im Deutschen”. Deutsch als Fremdsprache 10: 212–222.
Reis, M. 1992. “Zur Grammatik und Pragmatik von Echo-w-Fragen”. In I. Rosengren (ed), Satz
und Illokution. Vol. 1. Tübingen: Niemeyer, 213–261.
Reis, M. 1995. “Über infinite Nominativkonstruktionen im Deutschen”. In O. Önnerfors (ed),
Festvorträge anläßlich des 60. Geburtstags von Inger Rosengren (Special Issue Sprache &
Pragmatik), Lund, 114–156.
Reis, M. 1999. “On sentence types in German. An inquiry into the relationship beween grammar and pragmatics” Interdisciplinary Journal for Germanic Linguistics and Semiotic Analysis 4(2): 195–236.
Ripfel, M. 1987. “Was heißt Bewerten?”. Deutsche Sprache 15: 151–177.
Roth, M. 2005. Stereotype in gesprochener Sprache. Eine linguistische Analyse narrativer Interviews mit Ost- und Westberliner Sprechern 1993–1996. Tübingen: Stauffenburg.
Sager, S.F. 1982. “Sind Bewertungen Handlungen?”. Zeitschrift für germanistische Linguistik 10:
38–57.
Sandig, B. 1979. “Ausdrucksmöglichkeiten des Bewertens. Ein Beschreibungsrahmen im Zusammenhang eines fiktionalen Textes”. Deutsche Sprache 7: 137–159.
Sandig, B. 1991. “Formeln des Bewertens”. In C. Palm (ed), Europhras 90. Akten der internationalen Tagung zur germanistischen Phraseologieforschung Aske/Schweden 12.-15. Juni 1990.
Uppsala, 225–252.
Sandig, B. 1994. “Zu Konzeptualisierungen des Bewertens, anhand phraseologischer Einheiten”.
In B. Sandig (ed), Europhras 92. Tendenzen der Phraseologieforschung. Bochum: Brockmeyer, 549–596.
Schindler, W. 1993. “Phraseologismen und Wortfeldtheorie”. In P.R. Lutzeier (ed), Studien zur
Wortfeldtheorie./Studies in Lexical Field Theory. Tübingen: Niemeyer, 87–106.
Schippan, T. 1979. “Zum Problem der Konnotationen”. Zeitschrift für Phonetik, Sprachwissenschaft und Kommunikationsforschung 32: 679–684.
Searle, J. 1975. “Indirect speech acts”. In P. Cole and J.L. Morgan (eds), Syntax and Semantics.
Vol. 3: Speech Acts. New York: Academic Press, 59–82.
Sinclair, J.M. 1991. Corpus, Concordance, Collocation. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Stein, S. 1995. Formelhafte Sprache. Untersuchungen zu ihren pragmatischen und kognitiven
Funktionen im gegenwärtigen Deutsch. Frankfurt: Peter Lang.
Steyer, K. 2004. “Kookkurrenz. Korpusmethodik, linguistisches Modell, lexikografische Perspektiven”. In K. Steyer (ed), Wortverbindungen — mehr oder weniger fest. Berlin: de Gruyter,
87–116.
Stürmer, A., Oberhauser, S., Herbig, A. and Sandig, B. 1997. “Bewerten und Bewertungsinventar. Modellierung und computergestützte Rekonstruktionsmöglichkeiten”. Deutsche Sprache 25(3): 272–288.
Szábo, Z.G. (ed). 1995. Semantics versus Pragmatics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
All rights reserved
134 Rita Finkbeiner
Thompson, G. and Hunston, S. 2000. “Evaluation. An Introduction”. In S. Hunston and G.
Thompson (eds), Evaluation in Text. Authorial Stance and the Construction of Discourse.
Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1–27.
Thurmair, M. 1989. Modalpartikeln und ihre Kombinationen. Tübingen: Niemeyer.
Vega-Moreno, R.E. 2003. “Relevance theory and the construction of idiom meaning”. UCL
Working Papers in Linguistics 15: 303–323.
Wray, A. 2002. Formulaic Language and the Lexicon. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Zillig, W. 1982. Bewerten. Sprechakttypen der bewertenden Rede. Tübingen: Niemeyer.
Author‘s address
Rita Finkbeiner
Johannes Gutenberg University Mainz
FB 05, German Department
D-55099 Mainz
Germany
[email protected]
http://www.germanistik.uni-mainz.de/linguistik/mitarbeiter/finkbeiner/finkbeiner.php
About the author
Rita Finkbeiner is Research Fellow at the German Department, Johannes Gutenberg University
Mainz, Germany. She is the author of Idiomatische Sätze im Deutschen (2008), and has published
on phraseology, constructions, and context. She is teaching introductory and advanced courses
in German linguistics. Her current research project investigates the syntax, semantics, and pragmatics of a range of doubling constructions in German.
All rights reserved

Evaluative meaning - Deskriptive Sprachwissenschaft Mainz

Transcription

Documents pareils

272 [May

- Chili Con Pepper

The classical cd for people that hate classical music. - E-Werk

eng_01_History Audio.indd

Zum Weiterlesen

Fidelity China Focus Fund

Software design engineer (Ingenieur/in

Glass pipes for sale - Hookah Online Store

FACTSHEET - 19.09.2016 Solactive Rare Earth Total Return Index

What is a `Dinggedicht`?