Abstract
The aim of this paper is to analyze the communicative function of idioms and their constituents in the information structure of an utterance. Usually idioms tend to occupy the final position in a sentence, which correlates with their inherent rhematic properties. However, structural transformations such as fronting, passivization and conversion can lead to changes in their communicative status. Among such changes, we single out (a) topicalization or thematization of the fronted sentence constituent, (b) its focusing or emphatic rhematization, (c) focusing of the postponed constituent, or (d) rhematization of the sentence as a whole, etc. In spite of their lexical stability, idioms make use of the possibilities provided by German syntax. This allows them to contribute to the communicative structuring of utterances.
Danksagung
Die Arbeit ist z. T. im Rahmen des RGNF-Projekts 16-04-00291 entstanden. Für ihre wertvollen Kommentare danken wir Elisabeth Piirainen sowie unseren anonymen Gutachtern.
Literatur
Apresjan, Jurij D. 1988. Tipy kommunikativnoj informacii dlja tolkovogo slovarja. In: Jazyk: sistema i funkcionirovanie. Moskva: Nauka, 10–22.Search in Google Scholar
Beaver, David/Clark, Brady Zack/Flemming, Edward T./Jäger, Florian/Wolters, Maria. 2007. When semantics meets phonetics: Acoustical studies of second occurrence focus. In: Language 83, 245–276.10.1353/lan.2007.0053Search in Google Scholar
Bolinger, Dwight. 1958. A theory of pitch accent in English. In: Word 14, 109–149.Search in Google Scholar
Büring, Daniel. 2006. Intonation und Informationsstruktur. In Blühdorn, Hardarik/Breindl, Eva/Waßner, Ulrich Hermann (Hg.) Text – Verstehen. Grammatik und darüber hinaus. Berlin/New York: de Gruyter, 144–163.Search in Google Scholar
Cook, Philippa/Bildhauer, Felix. 2013. Identifying “aboutness-topics”: two annotation experiments. In: Dialogue and Discourse 4 (2), 118–141.Search in Google Scholar
Dalmas, Martine. 2012. L’ouverture d’énoncé. Cours polycopié. unv. Manuskript. Université Paris-Sorbonne.Search in Google Scholar
Dalmas, Martine. 2013. Strategien der Fokussierung: eine ‚spannende‘ Geschichte – und eine Revidierung mancher Vorurteile. In: Adam, Séverine (Hg.). ‚Informationsstrukturen‘ im gesteuerten Spracherwerb – Französisch-Deutsch kontrastiv. Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang, 67–77. (= Cognitio 17).Search in Google Scholar
Dobrovol’skij, Dmitrij. 2000. Ist die Semantik von Idiomen nichtkompositionell? In: Beckmann, Susanne/König, Peter-Paul/Wolf, Georg (Hg.). Sprachspiel und Bedeutung. Festschrift für Franz Hundsnurscher zum 65. Geburtstag. Tübingen: Niemeyer, 113–124.Search in Google Scholar
Dobrovol’skij, Dmitrij. 2011. The structure of metaphor and idiom semantics (a cognitive approach). In: Handl, Sandra/Schmid, Hans-Jörg (eds.). Windows to the mind: metaphor, metonymy and conceptual blending. Berlin, New York: Mouton de Gruyter, 2011, 41–62. (= Cognitive Linguistics Research, 48).Search in Google Scholar
Dobrovol’skij, Dmitrij. 2015. On the systematic variation of German idioms: converse pairs as a constructional phenomenon. In: Journal of Social Sciences. Volume 11, Issue 3, 248–257.Search in Google Scholar
Eroms, Hans-Werner. 1987. Passiv und Passivfunktion im Rahmen einer Dependenzgrammatik. In: Centre de linguistique germanique (Hrsg.). Das Passiv im Deutschen. Tübingen: Niemeyer. 73–95.10.1515/9783111357683.73Search in Google Scholar
Féry, Caroline. 2011. Informationsstruktur: Begriffe und grammatische Korrelate. In: Japanische Gesellschaft für Germanistik (Hg.). Mapping zwischen Syntax, Prosodie und Informationsstruktur. München: Iudicium, 9–29.Search in Google Scholar
Féry, Caroline/Krifka, Manfred. 2008. Information structure. Notional distinctions, ways of expression. In: Piet van Sterkenburg (ed.). Unity and diversity of languages. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 123–136.Search in Google Scholar
Féry, Caroline/Ishihara, Shinichiro. 2009. How focus and givenness shape prosody. In: Zimmermann, Malte/Féry, Caroline (Hg.). Information structure in different perspectives. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 36–63.Search in Google Scholar
Féry, Caroline/Hörnig, Robin/Pahaut, Serge. 2010. Phrasing in French and German: an experiment with semi-spontaneous speech. In: Gabriel, Christoph/Lleó, Conxita (eds.). Intonational phrasing at the interfaces: cross-linguistic and bilingual studies in Romance and Germanic. Amsterdam, Philadelphia: Benjamins, 11–41.Search in Google Scholar
Götze, Michael/Weskott, Thomas/Endriss, Cornelia/Fiedler, Ines/Hinterwimmer, Stefan/Petrova, Svetlana/ Schwarz, Anne/Skopeteas, Stayros/Stoel, Ruben. 2007. Information structure. In: Dipper, Stefanie/Götze, Michael/Skopeteas, Stavros (eds.). Information structure in cross-linguistic corpora. [= Interdisciplinary studies on information structure 7]. Potsdam: Universitätsverlag, 147–187.Search in Google Scholar
Haiman, John. 1978. Conditionals are topics. In: Language 54, 564–589.Search in Google Scholar
Jackendoff, Ray. 1972. Semantic interpretation in generative grammar. Cambridge MA: MIT Press.Search in Google Scholar
Janko, Tat’jana E. 2001. Kommunikativnye strategii russkoj reči. Moskva: Jazyki slavjanskoj kul’tury.Search in Google Scholar
Krifka, Manfred. 2007. Basic notions of information structure. In: Féry, Caroline/Fanselow, Gisbert/Krifka, Manfred (eds.). The notions of information structure. [= Interdisciplinary studies on information structure 6]. Potsdam: Universitätsverlag, 13–56.Search in Google Scholar
Kuno, Susumu. 1972. Functional sentence perspective: a case study from Japanese and English. In: Linguistic Inquiry 3, 269–320.Search in Google Scholar
Lambrecht, Knud. 1994. Information structure and sentence form. A theory of topic, focus, and the mental representations of discourse referents. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9780511620607Search in Google Scholar
Nunberg, Geoffrey/ Sag, Ivan A./ Wasow, Thomas, 1994. “Idioms”. In: Language 70, 491–538.10.1353/lan.1994.0007Search in Google Scholar
Padučeva, Elena V. 1985. Vyskazyvanie i ego sootnesennost’ s dejstvitel’nost’ju. Moskva: Nauka.Search in Google Scholar
Partee, Barbara H. 1999. Focus, quantification, and semantics-pragmatics issues. In: Bosch, Peter/van der Sandt, Rob (eds.). Focus: linguistic, cognitive, and computational perspectives. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 213–231.Search in Google Scholar
Prince, Ellen. 1981. Towards a taxonomy of given-new information. In: Cole, Peter (ed.). Radical pragmatics. New York: Academic Press, 223–256.Search in Google Scholar
Røreng, Anita. 2011. Die deutsche Doppelobjektkonstruktion. Eine korpusbasierte Untersuchung zur relativen Abfolge nominaler Akkusativ- und Dativobjekte im geschriebenen Deutsch. Dissertation, Tromsø.Search in Google Scholar
Rooth, Mats. 2004. Acoustic correlates of “second occurrence” focus: Towards an experimental investigation. In: Kamp, Hans/Partee, Barbara (eds.). Context- dependence in the analysis of linguistic meaning. Amsterdam: Elsevier, 475–487.Search in Google Scholar
Sgall, Petr/Hajičova, Eva. 1977. Focus on focus. In: Prague Bulletin on Mathematical Linguistics 28, 5–54.Search in Google Scholar
Stalnaker, Robert. 1974. Pragmatic presuppositions. In: Munitz, Milton/Unger, Peter (eds.). Semantics and philosophy. New York: New York University Press, 197–213.Search in Google Scholar
van Dijk, Teun A. 1977. Sentence topic and discourse topic. In: Papers in Slavic Philology, 1, 49–61.Search in Google Scholar
Wierzbicka, Anna. 1988. The semantics of grammar. Amsterdam, Philadelphia: Benjamins.10.1075/slcs.18Search in Google Scholar
Wöllstein, Angelika. 2010. Topologisches Satzmodell. Heidelberg: Winter Verlag.Search in Google Scholar
Zifonun, Gisela/Hoffmann, Lutz/Strecker, Bruno et al. 1997. Grammatik der deutschen Sprache. Bd. 3. Berlin, New York: Walter de Gruyter.Search in Google Scholar
© 2016 Walter de Gruyter GmbH & Co. KG, Berlin/Boston
