Subjectivity in causal connectives: similarities and differences between Dutch and German. Ninke Stukker and Ted Sanders Universiteit Utrecht. Meaning and use of causal connectives: Cross-linguistic unity …?. Outline: Cross-linguistic perspective on CC
Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author.While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server.
Ninke Stukker and Ted Sanders
Dus/ ?Also – Daarom/ ?Deshalb – Daardoor/ ?Dadurch
(Cf. Pit, 2003; Pander Maat & Degand, 2001; Degand & Pander Maat, 2003; Pander Maat & Sanders, 1995; 2000; Frohning, 2007, Stukker, Sanders & Verhagen, 2008; Sanders, 2005)
Findings from linguistic typology:
-synchronic intra-linguistic variation
“Connectives provide a window on human cognition”, BUT usage patterns vary across:
Lexical category ≈ conceptual category (cf. Lakoff, 1987; Taylor, 1995; Geeraerts, 1997)
When selecting one of the causal connectives available in a language, the language user assigns the causal coherence relation expressed to a specific conceptual type of causality
-Generalization over languages
-Filter out language specific factors
…but what do they look like exactly?
Where do they come from?
-Cognitive perspective on cross-ling ‘unity’
…Work in progress…!
‘Cognitive typology’ (e.g. Heine, 1997; Croft, 2001; Kemmer, 2003)
Categories of subjectivity = conceptual space that cross-linguistically constrains meaning and use of causal connectives
-Semasiological: meaning (cf. Geeraerts, 1997)
-pilot D-Coi, commentaries and opinion pieces
(74.415 wds; Oostdijk, 2006)
-Potsdam Commentary Corpus (33.209 wds; Stede, 2004)
-Daarom/ deshalb have general function
-Dus / also strongly specialize in SUBJ Epistemic
-Daardoor / dadurch strongly specialize in OBJ Non-volitional
-Frequency Also,dadurch < dus, daardoor
-Deshalb is more subjective than daarom
-Content volitional expressed with daarom / deshalb
-No specific ‘name’ for subjective causality
-Dutch has a specific ‘name’ for non-vol caus; Geman doesn’t
(If our small samples may be generalized)
Conceptual space/ semantic map
Frequency of use, distribution from onomas/semas perspective
specify ‘unity and diversity’ between Dutch-German…
BUT many questions remain…
THANK YOU! perspective
This study was enabled by The Netherlands Organization of Scientific Research, NWO, through NWO Vici-grant 277-70 003, awarded to Ted Sanders.