UCLA UCLA Electronic Theses and Dissertations
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
UCLA UCLA Electronic Theses and Dissertations Title A Contrastive Analysis of the German Particles eben and gerade: Underlying Meaning and Usage in German Parliamentary Debate Permalink https://escholarship.org/uc/item/912687kt Author Wiley, Patricia Ann Publication Date 2018 Peer reviewed|Thesis/dissertation eScholarship.org Powered by the California Digital Library University of California UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA Los Angeles A Contrastive Analysis of the German Particles and : Underlying Meaning and Usage in German Parliamentary Debate A dissertation submitted in partial satisfaction of the requirements for the degree Doctor of Philosophy in Germanic Languages by Patricia Ann Wiley 2018 © Copyright by Patricia Ann Wiley 2018 ABSTRACT OF THE DISSERTATION A Contrastive Analysis of the German Particles and : Underlying Meaning and Usage in German Parliamentary Debate by Patricia Ann Wiley Doctor of Philosophy in Germanic Languages University of California, Los Angeles, 2018 Professor Robert S. Kirsner, Co-Chair Professor Olga Tsuneko Yokoyama, Co-Chair This dissertation critically compares the two German focus particles and . It has been repeatedly noted in the relevant literature that the two display an intriguing yet challenging near-synonymy. However, factors motivating this relationship have not been sufficiently explained to date. This study argues that the particles’ ostensible partial overlap is systematic and non-trivial in nature and that it can be explained by positing two distinct speaker motivations for uttering each particle to mark a constituent in a sentence: While the particle marks a constituent as conform-to-expectation, marks a constituent as counter-to- ii expectation. Each marking is prompted by the discourse situation: If there is (extra)linguistic evidence that the interlocutor is inclined to select the same constituent as the speaker for completing a sentence, then is the appropriate marker. Alternatively, if no contrary evidence exists, may still be the appropriate marker. In the absense of favorable evidence, the speaker relies on assumptions about human communicative strategies and biases for arriving at the constituent choice matching the speaker’s and may still be prompted to utter . Conversely, the speaker utters to mark a constituent as counter-to-expectation when there is (extra)linguistic evidence that a different constituent is more likely to be selected, or has been selected. Alternatively, if at least no (extra)linguistic evidence exists that the identical constituent is selected, assumptions about human communicative strategies and biases for arriving at a different constituent choice as the speaker’s prompt the use of . The hypothesis is supported by two analyses: a minimal pair analysis employing substitution, elimination, and continuation tests as well as a synchronic, large-scale corpus-based analysis of syntactico-semantic features that frequently occur as the particles’ constituents. The former is employed to do away with compartmentalized interpretation suggestions for the particles, contaminated by adjacent elements, and suggests the underlying meanings of the particles to interact with said elements in generating the interpretations. The latter analysis presents a selection of syntactico-semantic features with which each particle frequently occurs in natural language and offers new insights on their functions based on interactions with and . iii The dissertation of Patricia Ann Wiley is approved. John A. McCumber Christopher M. Stevens Robert S. Kirsner, Committee Co-Chair Olga Tsuneko Yokoyama, Committee Co-Chair University of California, Los Angeles 2018 iv 1.1. Object of Inquiry and Goal ............................................................................................................. 1 1.2. Hypothesis ......................................................................................................................................... 2 1.3. Description of Study ..................................................................................................................... 11 1.4. Outline of Dissertation Structure ............................................................................................... 12 2.1. Historical Sketch: The Evolving Status of Particles ................................................................ 16 2.2. Phases and Foci of Particle Research ........................................................................................ 17 2.3. What are Particles? ........................................................................................................................ 20 2.4. Extant Particle Classifications .................................................................................................... 24 2.4.1. Modal Particles .................................................................................................................. 25 2.4.2. Focus Particles ................................................................................................................... 37 2.4.3. Additional Classifications ............................................................................................... 47 2.4.4. Classificatory Challenges and ‘Polyfunctional’ Particles ......................................... 50 2.5. The Relationship of and in Particle Scholarship ............................................. 53 2.5.1. Discussion of Altmann .................................................................................................... 59 2.5.2. Discussion of König ......................................................................................................... 70 2.6. Summary ......................................................................................................................................... 74 4.1. Suggested Interpretation 1: Emphasis .................................................................................... 102 4.2. Suggested Interpretation 2: Weakening Negation ................................................................ 128 4.3. Suggested Interpretation 3: Attenuating Criticism .............................................................. 136 4.4. Suggested Interpretation 4: Expressing Annoyance ............................................................ 145 4.5. Suggested Interpretation 5: Expressing Resignation ........................................................... 157 4.6. Suggested Interpretation 6: Confirmation/Summary .......................................................... 164 4.7. A Proposal for Polyfunctional ......................................................................................... 167 4.8. Summary ....................................................................................................................................... 169 5.1. Data Preparation .......................................................................................................................... 174 5.1.1. Corpus Specifications and Selection .......................................................................... 174 5.1.2. Data Extraction and Tagging ........................................................................................ 179 5.2. Particle Co-occurrence with Negation and Adversative Constructions ........................... 193 5.2.1. Forms and Functions of Negation in German........................................................... 193 v 5.2.2. Adversative Constructions in German ....................................................................... 196 5.2.3. Corpus Data Findings .................................................................................................... 202 5.2.4. Qualitative Analysis ....................................................................................................... 203 5.2.5. Summary ........................................................................................................................... 222 5.3. Particle Co-occurrence with Causal Markers ......................................................................... 226 5.3.1. Forms and Functions of Causal Markers in German ............................................... 227 5.3.2. Corpus Data Findings .................................................................................................... 235 5.3.3. Qualitative Analyses ....................................................................................................... 238 5.3.4. Summary ........................................................................................................................... 264 5.4. Particle Co-occurrence with Temporal and Spatial Expressions ....................................... 269 5.4.1. Forms and Functions of Temporal and Spatial Expressions in German ............ 270 5.4.2. Corpus Data Findings .................................................................................................... 273 5.4.3. Qualitative Analyses ....................................................................................................... 274 5.4.4. Summary ........................................................................................................................... 292 5.5. (Non-)Dialect-geographical Particle Distribution .................................................................. 294 7.1. List of Tokens and Texts of the Cosmas II PP Corpus by Year ......................................... 313 7.2. List of and Occurrences in Cosmas II PP Corpus by Year ........................... 314