From lexical meaning to functional role: the case of complex noun-verb phrases.

De Knop, Sabine;Hermann, Manon
(2019) ICLC15, International Cognitive Linguistics Conference,Crosslinguistic Perspectives on Cognitive Linguistics — Location: Kwansei Gakuin University, Japan (6.August.2019)

Files

ICLC15_DeKnopHermann_20190806FINAL.pptx
  • Open Access
  • Microsoft Powerpoint XML
  • 2.1 MB
Download

Details

Authors
Abstract
German so-called ‘Funktionsverbgefüge’ (FVG) are complex noun-verb phrases in which placement verbs (PLVs) are favored, e.g. Germ. zur Verfügung stellen (‘to make available’), in Bewegung setzen (‘to put into motion’) etc. These FVGs have often been described as fixed grammaticalized units in which the noun carries the main meaning and the verb has just a functional role and is considered to be semantically empty (see among others Fleischer 1997, Helbig and Buscha 2001, Eisenberg 2013). The use of these verbs is however not arbitrary. In FVGs the original spatial semantics of PLVs is replaced by aspectual and/or temporal semantics (‘Aktionsarten’), like inchoativity and causativity (compare von Polenz 1963, Herrlitz 1973, Eisenberg 2013). An analysis of data in the framework of Cognitive Linguistics shows that the selection of these verbs is linked to specific conceptualizations and semantic image-schemas. We will describe the use and motivation of PLVs in FVGs, thereby questioning the grammaticalization idea. The conceptualization of prepositions and nouns that are combined with the PLVs is also examined. A contrastive analysis of these FVGs in both closely related languages German and Dutch will also allow us to revisit the original typological class ‘Germanic languages’. Both languages have three main PLVs: Germ./Dt. stellen/stellen (‘to put in standing position’); setzen/zetten (‘to put in a sitting position’); legen/leggen (‘to put in a lying position’). The use of PLVs, which at first sight seems very similar in both languages, is characterized by some important differences. For instance, Dutch stellen (‘to put in a standing position’) is less frequently used than its German formal equivalent stellen. Dutch tends to generalize the use of zetten (‘to put in a sitting position’) and to make it to a default causative verb (Lemmens 2006). This imbalance does not apply to German, where stellen (‘to put in a standing position’) and setzen (‘to put in a sitting position’) are used to the same extent. However, a contrastive study in the framework of Cognitive Linguistics and with data from the German DeReKo corpora and Corpus Hedendaags Nederlands further shows that these differences do not occur in the same way in complex noun-verb phrases. So does Dutch stellen (‘to put in a standing position’) still appear frequently in highly grammaticalized and lexicalized FVGs. References Eisenberg, P. (2013). Der Satz (J.B. Metzler., Vol. 2). Stuttgart. Fleischer, W. (1997). Phraseologie der deutschen Gegenwartsprache (Niemeyer.). Tübingen. Helbig, G., & Buscha, J. (2001). Deutsche Grammatik. Ein Handbuch für den Ausländerunterricht (Langenscheidt KG.). Berlin und München. Herrlitz, W. (1973). Funktionsverbgefüge vom Typ “in Erfahrung bringen”. Ein Beitrag zur generativ-transformationellen Grammatik des Deutschen. (Max Niemeyer Verlag.). Tübingen. Lemmens, M. (2006). Caused posture: experiential patterns emerging from corpus research. In Corpora in Cognitive Linguistics. Corpus-Based Approaches to Syntax and Lexis. (Mouton de Gruyter.). Berlin: A. Stefanowitsch & S. Gries. von Polenz, P. (1963). Funktionsverben im heutigen Deutsch. Sprache in der rationalisierten Welt. (Pädagogischer Verlag Schwann.). Düsseldorf.
Affiliations

Citations

  • APA
  • Chicago
  • FWB

De Knop, S., & Hermann, M. (2019). From lexical meaning to functional role: the case of complex noun-verb phrases. ICLC15, International Cognitive Linguistics Conference,Crosslinguistic Perspectives on Cognitive Linguistics, Kwansei Gakuin University, Japan. https://hdl.handle.net/2078.5/213608