this PDF file - Linguistic Society of America

Transcrição

-356.
Pragmatics
6:3.323
International
Pragmatics
Association
FROM SUBORDINATION TO COORDINATION?
VERB.SECONDPOSITION IN GERMAN
CAUSALAND CONCESSIVECONSTRUCTIONSI
SusanneGtinthner
1. Introduction
During the last few years various analysesof spoken colloquial German have
discussed
the apparentlygrowing tendencyof the use of main clauseconstructions
(i.e.verb-secondposition) in causaland concessiveclauses,and the reinterpretion
of 'subordinateconjunctions',such as WEIL, OBWOHL as 'coordinate conjunctions'.2German, which has verb-second as its basic word order in independent
sentences,
requires final position of the finite verb in subordinate clauses.Thus,
adverbialclausesintroducedby'subordinate'conjunctions,suchas WEIL ('because')
and OBWOHL ('although') - according to German grammar - display verb-final
ordering (e.9. ich geh jetzt nach Hau"se,weil ich mil"debin 'l am going home now,
becauseI am tired'; ich essekein Fleisch, obwohl ich's eigentlichgem mag'I do not
eat meat,althoughI actually like it'). German thus provides a clear signal for the
grammaticalincorporationof one clauseinto another.3However, during the last ten
to fifteen years,in spoken colloquial German as well as in certain written genres
that reproducecolloquial language (e.g., interviews, dialogues in advertisement),
speakersare tending more and more to use main clause order (and thus vejrbsecond-position)4
in final adverbial clausesintroduced by WEIL and OBWOHL.S
1 I would like to thank Peter Auer, Elizabeth Couper-Kuhlen,C-eciFord and Johannes
Wagnerfor their valuablecommentson an earlier version of this paper.
2 Cf. Gaumann(1982);Kiiper (1984,1991);Gtinthner (1993a);Wegener(1993);Keller
(1ee3).
3 Cf. Konig & van der Auwera (1983).
Speakersof colloquial German also aften display main clause syntax in adversative
WAHREND ("while") (e.g.'den Peter find ich okay,w?ihrendden Paul, den find ich enntsetzlich";
'l
M Peterokay;whereasPauI,I finn him honible) and conditional constructions(e.g."wenn Paul
anruft;ich bin im Garten'; 'if Paul calls,I am in the garden). In this article, however,I shall only
mnsidercausaland concessiveconstructions.
5 Actually,up to the l6th centuryboth word order constructionswere possible;howeverdueto the influenceof latin - around the 17th centuryverb-final position becamethe standardized
normin subordinate
clauses(Arndt 1956).Cf. also Sandig(1973)for the historicaldevelopmentof
subordinate
clauseorder in German.
324
Susanne
Gttnthner
In this paper, based on German everydayinteractions, I shall analyze the
interactive functions of different word-order constructions (verb-second
position/main clauseconstruction versusverb-final position/subordinateclauseconstruction) in final adverbial clausesintroduced by WEIL and OBWOHL. I shall also
demonstrate that speakersare starting to use the pronominal adverb WOBEI as a
concessiveconjunction displafng subordinateas well as main clauseorder. Furthermore, the relationship between syntacticmeans and discourse-pragmaticfunctions
of clause integration will be investigatedand the results will be discussedin connection with prevalent hypothesesconcerning grammaticalization. Specifically, I
argue that the choice between the two word order patterns (main clause order subordinate clause order) in present-day spoken German is not random or
unpredictable6;instead, there is a close relationshipbetween the choice of the particular word order and the discourse-pragmatic
function of the clause.
The analysisis based on 37 everydayinformal conversationsamong friends
and family members (dinner table conversations, coffee chats, telephone interactions) collected from 1983to 1995.7A discourse-based
approach to word order
is used to investigatethe different usesof WEIL, OBWOHL and WOBEI in their
natural environment; i.e. in communicativecontexts.The analysisaims at contributing to the study of the "ecologyof grammar" (Pawley& Syder 1983: 552); and thus,
at investigating the life and work of grammatical constructions in their
communicative contextsand the way thesecontextsin turn shapegrammar (Hopper
& Thompson 1994: 461).
2. WElLconstructions
2.1. Subordinate clause order in WElL-clauses
The standard, unmarked word order for WEll--clauses is verb-final position; and
thus "integrative word order" (Konig & van der Auwera 1988),marking the WEILclause as a subordinate one.
In her analysisof the English causalconjunctionBECAUSE Sweetser(1990)
distinguishesamong three different interpretationsof BECAUSE: As a conjunction
of content, of premisesin the epistemicworld, and of the speechacts performed via
the utterance of the clausesin question.sThis differentiation in the interpretation
of clausesas operating in the "content","epistemic"or "speechact" domain turns out
to be relevant for word order choicesin German WEIL- constructions.
The following segmentis taken from a telephoneconversationbetween Sonja
and her friend Kaja, who has a sore shoulder.They are discussingwhich doctor Kaja
6 Cf. Ktiper (1991)Giinthner (1993a).
7 The family data stems from middle-classfamilies in Southern Germany (BadenWiirttemberg); the participantsof the 'conversationsamong friends" are 24-45year-old academics
from different parts of Germany.
I Cf. also Couper-Kuhlen(in this volume).Cf. Halliday & Hasan's(1976:zntr.) distinction
between'externalnand "internal' conjunctiverelations.
From subordination to coordination?
325
shouldconsult,when Sonja providesthe following reasonwhy Kaja should go to Dr.
Kielmann:
(I) ("Antbesuclt")('seeing a doctor')
138Sonja:
139
t40ltuja:
hh auf der andem Seite wdr der Kelmann
weil der gleich en Rdntgengerdt da hat.
ja genau.
138Sonja:
139
140Kaja:
hh on theotherhandKielmannmightbebetter
because
he hasan X-rayright there.
yesthat'sright.
vielleicht besser
The causalclauseweil der gleich en Rdntgengeriitda hat'because he has an X-ray
rightthere'providesthe reasonfor the main clauseproposition auf der andern Seite
wiir derKielmann vielleicht besser'on the other hand Kielmann might be better' and
thus operatesin the content domain, the two clauses(the main clause and the
WEll-clause) are closelyconnectedby "real-world causality"(Sweetser
subordinate
1990).The WEll-clause is within the scope of the illocutionary force of the main
clause.
Causalityoperating in the content domain also connectsthe two clausesin
the followingsegment.Dora tells lro about a conflict interaction she had on the
phonewhen she was talking to an acquaintance(Thomas Vollenmaier):
(2) ("Anrufsbeantworter") (' answeringmachine')
l4
15
I6
17
l8
19
20
21
))
23
14
15
16
t7
18
19
20
2I
22
?3
Dora:
drei Dag spdter hats Telefon gklingelt,
i geh ran,
Thomas Vollenmaier.
[Q)J schon mal)=
Leo: tol
Leo: = ja. ja.
Dora: und deshan- des war tUN.glaub.lich.peinlich am Anfang.
(0.s)
weil derAN{ange hat
( (spia)) t < ICH = HAB =AUF = DEI N AN RUFBEANTWO RTER = GEREDET. >
Dora: threedayslater the phone rang
I answeredit
ThomasVollenmaier.
[(...)]alreadyonc€=
Iro:
t(..)l
= yeahyeah
lro:
Dora: and it has-it wasunbelievablyembarrassing
at the beginning
(0.5)
becausehe startedwith
((sharp))I left a message
on your answeringmachine
Doragivesthe reasonfor the embarrassingsituation with the WEll-clause (22-23).
However,in contrastto the WEll-construction in (1) the initial main clause in (2)
is not thematic,but carries new information. Yet, it still operates in the content
;
I
(
326
Susanne
Grtnthner
domain and the WEll--clause ties back to the scopeof the main clauseillocutionary
force.
A closer look at the prosodic realization of the two causal constructions
shows that in (1) the initial main clause and the WEll--clause are integrated into
one intonation contour. In (2) however, the two clausesare prosodically non-integrated; both clauses display their own intonation contour.e The clause final
intonation of the main clausemarks it "as an independent assertionrather than as
a presupposition"(Sweetser1990:83).
In general, causalrelations operating in the content domain, with the WEILclause tnng back to the scope of the preceding clause'sillocutionary force, are
expressed by means of integrative word order.l0 Ar (1) reveals, the syntactic
integration can be emphasizedby meansof prosodic integration; however, prosodic
integration is not a necessaryprerequisite for subordinate word order in WEILclauses.ll In my data prosodic integration is generally used in cases where the
initial main clause is presupposed,but it is not necessarilyused in caseswhere the
initial clause carries new information.
2.2. Main clause order in WEll-clauses
Now we shall considerWBll-clauses which displaymain clauseorder with the finite
verb in verb-second position; a word ordering which is considered to be 'ungrammatical'by many referencegrammars.Although WEll-clauses can be in initial
as well as in final position, main clauseword order only appears in final WEILclauses.
2.2.L.Speechact domain
In the following segment, Ute utters the first part of an adjacencypair and asks
Rita, 'what in her opinion wouldn't be okay' (2a). When no reply follows (there is
a pause of O.5 sec.),Ute - by introducing a WEll--clause - gives the reason for her
question:
(3) ("hob lemgesprticlr") ('troubles-talk')
9 Th*. in WEll-constructionswith subordinateword order the main clauseneither hasto
be alwaysprosodicallyrealizedwith rising intonalion,nordoes - as Wegener(1993)claims - the
whole constructionnecessarily
haveto be utteredas one singleintonationalunit.
1oCf. Gtinthner (1993a).
11Generally,when the initial clauseis presentedas presupposed,
it hasa rising intonation
and the following WEll-clause is prosodicallyintegratedinto one intonation contour embracing
both the main and the subordinateclause.Cf. also Ktiper (1991).Sweetser(1990)usesthe terms
"commaless
intonation' for prosodicintegrationand 'commaintonation",whenthe'because"-clause
is preceededby a "clause-finalintonation drop'.
23
24
25
26
Rita:
Ute:
s'macht mir echt NICHTS AUS.
WAS W/n denn deiner Meinung nach TNICHT OKAY. (0.5)
( (zunehm end leis er) ) Iw eil = du = h4 s1= j a = vorhin = gesagt =
er = N E RW - f,i611= gata = schtjn. >
23
24
?5
26
Rita:
Ute:
actually it doesn't bother me at all
what in your opinion wouldn't be okay (0.5)
((decreasing volume)) lbecause=ysrr=just=Srid=that
he=really= gets= on=your=nerves >
327
The main clause(line 24) is not a statementbut a question, and the WEll--clause
(lines25-26)connectedto it, does not provide a reason in the content domain, but
instead,givesa causal explanation of the speech act performed by the preceding
clause.The reading is somethinglike 'I'm askingwhat in your opinion wouldn't be
okay,becauseyou just said that he really gets on your nerves'.The WEll-'clause is
outsidethe scopeof the main clauseillocutionary force. The two clausesconnected
by WEIL not only reveal different illocutionary forces (question and account) but
alsodifferentintonationcontours.This prosodicdiscontinuityis furthermore marked
by the pausefollowing the main clause and by differencesin loudness and tempo
betweenthe two clauses.
In the next segmentUdo, who is invited to dinner at Maria and Karl's house,
requestswhether they 'by any chance' have the local political magazineBlasrohr:
(4) ("Fliegen")('flying')
22
23
24
Udo:
Maia:
Udo:
22
23
24
Udo: you don't happen to have the Blasrohr here (-) do you
Maria: onoo
becausePeter's article on flying is in it (-) about (-)
Udo:
ihr habt nich s- (.) zufdllig s'Blasrohr. (-) oder?
oheeh.o
weil da is ja em Peter sein Flugarcikel dnn. Q tlber? (-)
The pauseafter Blasrohr in line 22 already indicates an upcoming disagreement.
After Maria says'no', IJdo provides the reason for his request and thus a causal
connectionon the speech act level: A common friend (Peter) has published an
articlein it. Here again,the speakerusesmain clauseorder to introduce the reason
whyhe performeda particular speechact.
WheneverWEll--clauses provide the cause for the preceding speech act,
speakersin my data use main clause. order.l2 Both clauses have their own
illocutionaryforce (e.9. interrogative and account; request and account) and are
presentedas independentassertions,whose content is non-presupposed.l3The
non-integrative
word order in speech act qualifications is supported by prosodic
1? In casesof speechact qualifications,a substitutionof WEIL with the coordinate
mnjunction
DENN is possible:'ihr habt nich s-(.)zuflillig 'sBlasrohr.(.) oder?dennja is ja em Urs
seinFlugartikeldrin".
1l Cf. Foley & Van Valin's (1984:239) typologr of clausecombining; and also lrhmann
(1988:193).
328
Susanne Gtinthner
means: The nvo clausescarry their own intonation contours and often the prosodic
discontinuity between the clausesis further marked by meansof pauses,differences
in tempo and volume.
This type of causal constructionsregularly occurs in contexts in which an
expected recipient reaction (e.g. an answer to a question; or a reply to a request)
does not follow, or when the responseis rather hesitant and thus projecting possible
disagreement. Speakers then provide causal accounts,which come close to what
Ford (1993), looking at English BECAUSE, calls "post-completionextensions".
These WEll-clauses arise from particular interactional circumstances:They are
prompted by the presenceof a possibledispreferredreaction and thus ward off and
defeat doubts or disagreementsin advance.la
2.2.2.Epistemic domain
There is a second type of causalrelation which German speakersexpressin using
WEIL with main clauseorder: Causalconnectionsin the epistemicdomain.
(5) ("Frilhstilck" ) ('breakfast')
der hat sicherwiedergsoffen.(-)
weil (-) sie ltiufi total deprimiertdurch die Gegend.
12
13
Anne:
12
13
Anne: he must havebeendrinking again.(-)
because(-) shewalK aroundlooking totally depressed
'he
must have
Anne's WEll-clause (13) provides the basis for her conclusion that
WEll-construction
is that
been drinking again'. The causality of this epistemic
between the premise ('she walks around looking totally depressed') alg the
conclusion in the speaker's mind ('he must have been drinking again').tt The
modal adverb sicher'definitely' (line 12) functions as lexical indication for this epistemic reading.
In the following transcript Fritz, Gabi, and Rolf are talking about symbols
'indicators'
and
of cultural assimilation. Gabi introduces SCHWEINEFLEISCH
'pork'
as an'indicator' for Moslems' assimilation to the West:
(6) (" Schweinefleisch") ('pork')
48
49
50
Fia:
Gabi:
[des war (...............)l
[aber s'isch (-) Scheine-] SCI{WEINEFLEISCH
glaub = auch = so en INDIKATOR.
aber de-
IST
1acf. sacks(19s7).
15 For epistemiccausalclausescf. Sweetser(1990).Cf. also Kiiper's (1991) mncept of
epistemic causality,which is restricted to caseswhere the mnjuncts (p and q) are reversed(q,
becausep). I shall adopt Swe€tser's
broaderconceptof epistemiccausality.Cf. also Keller (1993)
for the use of epistemicWEIL and Willems' (1994)critique of Keller.
Fromsubordination
to coordination? 329
51
52
53
54
weil (-) ich haneauchenpersischen
Freund
(................/
fttlherundda warTIMMERderInditkator
(-)
diefragensichgegenserttg
int du FIei-SCIWEINEFLEISCH.
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
Fritz: burthlrhatwas(...............)l
put it's O pork-lporkis
Gabi:
suchan indicatorI believe
(-) I alsohada Persianfriend
because
(................)
beforeandtherewasalwalntheindicator
theyaskedeachother (-)
do youeatmea-pork.
The causalclauseweil (-) ich haue auch en persischenFreund...'because(-) I also
had a Persian friend' provides the premises and thus the background for the
conclusion
statedin the precedingclauseSCHWEINEFLEISCH ISTglaub:euch:so
enINDIKATOR 'pork is such an indicator I believe'.The verb glaub'believe' in line
50 supportsthe epistemicreading.As in FRUHSTUCK the non-integrativewordorderis accompaniedby prosodic non-integration.l6
A characteristicfeature that epistemic WElLclauses share with speech-act
WEll-clausesis that in both types of causal constructions,the WEll-clause is
'separately
assertable';i.e. it could occur as a separateassertionlT;both clausesare
rhematic;they both have their own illocutionary forces. The separate assertion of
thetrvoclausesin speechact and epistemicWEll-constructions is not only revealed
on the syntacticlevel by meansof main clauseorder; but also on the prosodic level:
The WEll--clauseis prosodically disconnected(by means of an own intonation
contour,pausesand other prosodiccontextualizationcuesindicatingnon-integration)
from the preceding main clause and thus from the material it elaborates on.
Syntactic
and prosodicmeansof non-integrationgo hand-in-handwith the discursive
functionsof these constructions:The first part of the construction is presented in
sucha way that it could actually stand by itself. As in the caseof speechact clauses,
discussed
above,an epistemic WEll-clause is often added to this independently
constructed
main clause,in caseswhere an expectedrecipient responseis noticeably
missing;
e.g.after affectivelyloaded evaluations;sensitivemoral judgments or other
kindsof strong assessments
that are sensitiveto disagreement.l8By introducing a
causalclause,the speakergivesan account,presentsan explanation,etc., and thus
prophylactically
counterspossibledoubts or disagreements.
?,.2.3.WElL-clausesthat are not directty related to the precedingclauses
In the WEll-constructions considered so far. word order functions as a cue to
16In contrastto syntacticallyintegratedWEll-clauses, WEll-clauses with syntacticnonintegrationcan display"main-clausephenomena"(Green 1976).Cf. Giinthner (1993a).
17For the term 'separateassertion"cf. Kdnig & van der Auwera
(1983:111ff.).
18Cf. Ford (lgg4) for a similar observationwith "because'-clauses.
330
Susanne
Gtinthner
interpret the causal relationship as operating in the content or the speech act and
epistemic domain. In these constructions the WEll-clauses followed the mainclauses,which they operated on. However, there are also WEll-clauses displaylng
main clause order, which differ from this kind of clauseorganization and reveal a
much more complex structural organization.WEll--clausescan operate on material
which has not been explicitly stated;they can give explanationsfor larger sequential
units or for just one particular item of the precedingclause.In these kinds of causal
clause combinations, (which are difficult to attribute to a particular domain), the
WEll--clause is not directly connectedto the precedingutterance and indicates this
dissociation by means of syntacticand prosodic non-integration.
In the following transcript Urs talks about a common friend Anna, who
refused to talk to her brother and sister (at a recent family meeting) and to be
"forgMng" towards them:
(7) (" Geschwistef')('siblings')
die war fand=ich sehr TUNWRZEIHLICH. so.
gegentlberdem BRUDER oder der SCHWESTER.oder?
ne. gegentlberdem BRUDER ischja OIQY. (0.5)
aber gegentiber
der ISCI{WESTER.
(1.0)
weil die SCHWESTERhdae sich da irgendwie
ganz andersanstellenmtlssen(-)
nach ihrer Meinung
wa- WANN?
WAHRendder eh HochZEIT.
55
56
57
58
59
60
6I
62
63
64
Urs:
Dora:
Urs:
55
56
Urs:
I thought she was being very unforgiving
Dora: towardsher brother or sisteryou know
no. towardsher brother I can understand (0.5)
Urs:
but towardsher sister
(1.0)
becauseher sistershouldhavebehaved
very differently (-)
accordingto her
Marie: wh- when?
during the eh wedding
Urs:
)/
58
59
60
6l
62
63
&
Maie:
(Jrs:
After Dora's question whether Anna's being unforgiving was directed towards the
brother or the sister, Urs respondsby providing his own perspective.According to
his opinion Anna's being unforgiving towards her brother could be understood,but
not towards her sister (57-58).When his evaluationreceivesno response(there is
a pause of 1.0 sec.),he then adds a causalclause(line 60) to introduce Anna's
perspectiveof the affair and her reasonfor being unforgivingtowards her sister: 7he
sister shouW have behaved very differentty (-) according to her. Tfis reason is not
semanticallytied to the precedingutterance,but relates to a premise which is unexpressed but reconstructable from the context: Anna was unforgMng towards her
sister....The change of perspectivebetween the WEll-clause (Anna's reason for
being'unforgiving') and the precedingutterance (Urs'evaluation), and thus the fact
that the WEll-clause does not provide a reason related to LJrs' preceding
evaluation, is indicated by syntacticnon-integration.Loose linkage between WEIL-
Fromsubordinarton
tu coordination? 331
clausesand the preceding turns and thus "dissociation from an established
schema"letend to be iconically represented by means of syntactic and prosodic
non-integration.m
In the next segmentSara asks her mother Ulla, whether she plans to go to
Stuttgartfor a shopping trip that day. In line 30 Ulla gives the reason for why she
is considering
to go: BecauseDIE'she'(line 30), i.e. Ulla's youngestdaughterLisa,
wantsto buy something.So Ulla asked her son (Rolf), if he has plans to drive to
Stuttgart:
(8) ("Einkaufen")('shopping trip')
n
30
3l
Sara: fahretihr nachTSTUTTGART
heut?
Wla: ha i- weildochDIE parTOW waswilL
no hani jem ntm Rolf pa: (.) i han gsa:
32
33
34 (to Lisa:)
35
gell=heut=isch=langer=Samschdich.
illy=fahret=ns1=n4sft=5ru:gan?
no hot el gsa:eigentlichNEI. 0
weil du hoschja die TGANZ Woch irgendwas.
ond dein Vater nehm i einfach net (immer gem) mittags in OH:spruch.
Sara: are you driving to Stuttgarttoday
Ulla: well I- becauseshe absolutlywants to buy some things.
so I just said to Rolf (.) I said to him
todayis one of thoseSaturdapwhen the shopsare open longer
aren't you going to stuttgart
33
then he said well no not really (-)
34 (to Lisa:) because
during the weekyou'vegot thingsto do
35
and I don't (always)like bothering your father in the afternoons
29
30
31
32
(Here, we are interested in the WEll-construction
in line 34 and not in the WEILclausein line 30, which on the content level provides the reason for Ulla's shopping
trip to Stuttgart). At first one might wonder what the WEll-clause
(line 34)
connectsto. Surely not to the preceding utterance, in which Ulla reconstructs her
interaction with Rolf about whether he is going to drive to Stuttgart that day. Here
againwe have a case,of "dissociation from schema instantiation" (Ono & Thompson
1994).The WEll--clause is not part of the schema instantiated in line 33, and thus
is not part of the reported speech. Ulla not only switches back again from the
reported world to the reporting world with this WEll--clause, but she also introduces
a change in participation framework: The addressee changes from Sara to Lisa.
Thus, the WEll-clause does not directly relate to the preceding clause itself, but to
a proposition which remains implicit: 'I'm considering going today - on a Saturday
(becauseyou (Lisa) are always busy during the week)'.
In the next segment Mira is explaining to Geli the kind of work a common
friend (Pia) is doing as a free lance publishing agent. Mira uses examples to
demonstrate the kind of work she does:
le Cf. Ono & Thompson(199a)and lrrner (1991).
20Ktiper (1991);Giinthner (1993a).
332
SusanneGrlnthner
(9) ("Verlage") ('publishing houses')
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
Mira:
Geli:
Mira:
Geli:
Mira:
40
4l
42
43
M
45
46
47
Mira:
Geli:
Mira:
Geli:
Mira:
du has zum=Beispiel(-) hh' beimABC VerlagpubliZl
IERT,J
[mhm]
und willst wech [seln,]
[mhm]
o- ja (.) oder wenn du en andem Verlag WLLST
der mehr WERBungmacht (.)
esil-1fi,(-Verlag=aasht=ilberhaupt=keine (.)
ja eh DANN (-) zum BeispielI(ANNste siefragen.
for exampleyou'vebeenpublishinghh'with the ABC publishing [house,]
[mhm]
and you want to
[change,]
[mhml
o- well (.) or if you want a differentpublisher
who doesmore advertising(.)
becauseABC publishing housedoesn'tadvertiseat all (.)
well then for example(-) you could ask her
'if.
you...' (line 44). After
Mira starts with a conditional construction wenn du...
presenting the protasis, which presupposes that other publishing houses advertise
more for their books than ABC, she interrupts her construction by adding a
parenthetical
causal clause which provides a reason for this implication:
(.)'because ABC publishing house
weil:ABC=Verlag=macht:ilberhaupt=keine
doesn't advertise at all'. Thus, with the WEll-clause Mira Jumps out' of the construction in progress, adds an explanation and then Jumps back'into her conditional
construction.
Sometimes, however, speakers leave their original construction to add a
WEll-clause
that provides some sort of explanation and then do not Jump back'
into their original construction as in the next piece of dialogue. Here Clara, who is
planning to travel to Thailand, asks her colleague Nora for information.
(I0) ("Thailand")
hh' Chiang Rai ischschlimm wasdo: jeat tanfdngt (.) du:
des-dieserbrutale tSEXtourismushihhh'
des (hasch mitlaiegt?)
AB.SO.LW BRWAL.
und zwar diese(-) Schwei((hi))nevon Typ((hi))endie da kommen
(-) weil ja: Bangkokisch ihne zu sehraidsverseucht=
=ahja.
und jetzt kommense dorthin.=
=un- jetzt kommen se da
[hinJ
[mhm].
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
2
Nora:
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
Nora: hh' ChiangRai it's terrible what'sstartingto go on there
the- this brutal kind of sextourism hihhh'
Clara: you (sawthis)
Nora: it's totally unbelievable
well these(-) bru((hi))tes((hi)) who go there (-)
becausethey think Bangkok is alreadytoo much infected with aids=
Clara: =oh yeah
Clara:
Nora:
Clara:
Nora:
Clara:
lNora:
Fromsubordination
19
20
2l
Nora: andnowtheygo there=
Clara: =an-nowtheygo th [ere]
Nora:
[mhm].
After the highlyaffectiveevaluation(lines 12-13,15),Nora startswith a construction
und rwar diese (-) I-Schwei ((hi))ne von T!p((hi))en die da kommen 'well these (-)
bru((hi))tes((hi)) who go there (-)' (line 16), stops, leaves the construction in
progressand adds a WEll-clause, which provides an epistemic reason for her
conclusionthat these tourists are Schwei((hi))ne'bru((hi))tes). The causal explanationmayhavebeen triggered by the fact that Nora presentsa highly affect-loaded
evaluation"AB.SO.LUT BRUTAL." (15) and refers to these tourists as "Schwei((hi))ne"(bru((hi))tes')-without receivingany responsefrom her co-participant.Her
$gglinginterspersedinto the highly evaluativeterm indicates the sensitivityof this
typificationand thus invites her recipient to display co-alignment.However, when
no responseappears,Nora adds the account weil ja: Bangkok isch ihne zu sehr aidsverseucht'because
they think Bangkok is already too much infected with aids' (line
17)whichhad lead her to the morally loadedjudgment. In contrast to the previous
example(9), the speakerin this episodedoesnot return to her original construction.
Hereagain,the dissociationof the WEll--clause from the preceding construction is
indicatedby meansof syntacticand prosodic non-integration.
23, Collaborativeprcductian of causal-construction
So far, in this analysiswe have only consideredcausal clauses,uttered by a single
speaker.However, in everyday interactions causal constructionsoften appear as
collaborativeproductions of different speakers.2lAt first, one might assume that
suchjointly produced causal-constructionsinvoMng two different speakers and
spreading
over two turns demand for non-integrativeword order. However, this is
not the case:a second speaker joining a prior speaker's utterance by adding a
WEll--clause,usually marks this kind of collaboration by means of syntactic
integration.22
(i) The display of congruent perspectivesa
In the followingsegmentlrna is complaining to Kai about her cousin'sbehavior.
Kai signalsco-alignmentwith Lrna's indignation and formulates a hypothetical
comparison
betweenthe cousin and the local baker ([rhmann):
(ll) ("BtickerLehmann") ('baker lrhmann')
21Cf. Ford (1993)for collaborativecausalconstructionsin English conversations;
Ono &
Thompson
(1994)for different typesof mllaborative activities.
22Th"t" are no casesof syntacticnon-integrationin mllaborativelyproducedWEll-clauses
in mydata.
23Cf. alsoFord (1993)for collaborative'displayof agreement'.
334
Susanne
Gttnthner
107
108
109
110
111
112
Kni:
tmein Gott+.da mtlBtdeBdckerLe\MANN (-)
eh ehmrlBt-milBtenwa:hnsinnigen
Auf- eh Tenormachen,
wei:lirgenden
andererBtickerihm in seinGetbietrein
[(geht.)J
Lena:
VA.NA|TURILICH.
WEILERAU TWECKLE
BACI{T.
Kni: JA: also[desischJ
I07
108
lW
110
111
172
Kai:
lrna:
Kai:
my Goshit wouldbe like whenthe bakerlrhmann (-)
eh eh startsraisingan incredible
terror
because
someotherbakerentershis
[territory]
[yeahof] course
because
he alsobakesrolls
yeahwell [thisis]
By presentingagreementtokensJA NAtTUnItCH'yeah of course'(line 110) and
adding a causal clause with integrative word order, lrna not only displays her
acceptanceof Kai's hypothetical comparisonbut activelyjoins in extending his rhetorical format ("similindo"). With her expansionof Kai's turn as well as the analogy,
Irna is communicating her congruent perspectiveof the event.
The question ariseswhy collaborativecausalconstructionsdisplayintegrative
word order. By adding a WEll-clause to prior speaker'sutterance,the information
of the preceding clause is treated as "given" (thematic). This constellation of a
thematic main clause and a rhematic WEll--clause seemsto make integrative word
order necessary.za
Furthermore, in using syntacticintegration, the second speaker
grammatically incorporates her utterance into the preceding turn and iconically
marks her turn as a continuation of his. This strategy comes close to what Falk
(1979) calls "conversationaldueting": The secondspeakertakes over the turn of the
prior speaker and continues in an unisono way, signalingthat s/he is "in synchrony"
with the prior speaker.
(ii) Supporting one's own argumentative line
Whereas in (11) the second speaker had taken for the floor to produce an expansion of prior speaker's clause and thereby demonstrating concordance and
agreement,in the following example- which is taken from an argumentativecontext
- the second speaker ties her utterance to the prior one and continuesby outlining
reasons for the prior speaker's assertionwhich contradict his argumentative line.
The transcript is taken from an argumentation between Doris and her Chinese
colleagues(Yang and Tan) on women's rights in China and the West:
(72) ("YANG 24a")
67
ffi
69
70
71
72
73
Doris:
Tan:
Doris:
Yang:
Doris:
also
[ich] WRSTEH eigentlich nich unbedingt
[hm]
WARUM du sagx eh in in Kna gibts kcin Frauenproblem.
des Problem is eigentlich das gleiche bloB daB
(-) eh:m? daB es mehr veTTUSCHT wird.
okeine so stark wie hief
JA WEIL DIE FRAUEN HIER BEWUBTER SIND.
2a Cf. Kiiper (1991);Gtinthner (1993a).
From subordinationto coordination?
67
68
69
70
7I
72
/J
335
Doris: well
[I] don't quite understand
Tan:
[hml
Doris: Wlry you saythat eh in in China there aren't any women,sproblems
the problemactuallyis the sameit's just that
(-) eh:m? that it is hushedup much more.
Yang: onotas bad as here'
Doris: yesbecausewomenare more conscioushere
In line 73 Doris latchesher WEll-clause back to Yang's assessmentthat 'women's
problems'in China are not as bad as in Germany. She thus takes his turn as
premiseto which she adds the agreementtoken JA'yes'plus a causalclause.The
WEll-clauseprovidesan explanationthat supportsher own argumentativeline but
contradictsher opponent's line of arguing. Thus, in argumentative contexts, close
linkageof a WEll-clause to a precedingassessmentcan be used as an argumentative strategyto support one's own argumentativeline and at the same time attack
the oponent'sline of argumentation.2s
(iii) Understandingcheckb
Participantsalso use syntactically integrated WEll-clauses to check their
understanding
of a prior speaker'sturn, as displayedin our next example.
Previousto the conversation,Gabi had noticed a wood tick on her leg and
had gone to a pharmacy to inquire about what to do. However, the pharmacists
turnedout to be "totally incompetent". In an affectively loaded way Gabi tells Ira
on the phone about her interaction with the pharmacists:
(13) ("Zeckenbisse")
('wood tick bites')
1I
12
13
14
15
ll
12
13
14
15
Gabi:
lra:
Gabi:
lra:
Gabi:
lra:
Gabi:
lra:
und die ham mir wirHich nix and.eressagen kilnnen
als daB ich halt mal zum Schmidt gehn soll.
und Schmidt, weil des DEIN Ant isch
foder was.J
pA:hhJ
'hhhh
4\|'SCHEI::::BE.
and they really couldn't tell me anything else
besidesthat I should go to see Schmidt
and to Schmidt, because he's your doctor
'hhhh
[or what]
[yeah]
hhh'shit
Ira'scausalclause(14) connectsback to Gabi's utteranceand provides a'candidate'
explanation
for the precedingstatement (Ford 7993:127).Also in casesof offering
'candidate'
explanations,the causalclauseis closelylinked to prior speaker'sturn,
takingprior speaker'sassessmentas given material to work on. This close linkage
is iconicallyrepresentedby means of syntacticintegration.
(vi) Astonishedquestions
25Cf. ctinthner (1993b).
26Cf. Ford (1993).
336
Susanne
Gttnthner
Closely connected to checks of understandingare WEll-constructions, which are
used to express astonished questions:The second speaker ties her WEll-clause
back to prior speaker'sutterance and provides a'candidate explanation'; however,
in contrast to a check for understanding, this type of candidate explanation
communicatesthe speaker'ssurpriseor astonishment.In the following segmentRolf
tells Anna about the troubles he had had with a student who had cheated on an
exam. After noticing that she was cheating, he had taken away her exam. The
student then reported this to the dean, and a teacher's conferencewas held.
(14)
("Seminat'')
44
45
46
47
48
Rolf:
44
45
46
47
Rolft
Rolf:
Anna:
Rolf:
und dann gabsja ne grol3eLehrerkonferenz,
(eh) ne kleine Lehrerknnfefrenz]
[wie?] t<weil DU des ManustKRIPT WEGNOMMEN
hast.>
ja--ja. die hat in der- ich hab die AUFSICHT ghabt.
and then there was a big teacher's conference
(eh) a small teacher's confe[rence]
[what?] because you took the exam away from her
yeah=yeah she had in the- I was the one supervising the exam
Anna's causalclausenot only providesa'candidate'explanation for Rolfs report
that a conferencewas held, but at the same time it expressesher astonishment.The
high globalzT pitch, the localu increase of volume and the rising-falling pitch
movementsfunction as prosodicmeansof contextualizingsurpriseand astonishment.
The analysisof "WElU'-clausesin everydayinteractionsrevealsthat the trpo
word order patterns (WEIL with main clause order and WEIL with subordinate
clauseorder) function as resources,which speakersof colloquial everydayGerman
use to communicate particular discourse-pragmaticmeanings: In cases of close
causal connections operating in the content domain and with a high degree of
dependencybet'weenthe main clauseand the WEll-clause, subordinateword order
is used; in casesof relative independencebetween the two clauses;e.g. in epistemic
and speech act causalityas well as in casesin which the WEll-clause does not directly relate to the preceding clause, syntactic non-integration is used. Syntactic
devicessuch as word order are highly iconic:2epragmatic non-integration (i.e. both
clauseshave their own illocutionary forces) is communicatedby means of syntactic
non-integration; and close pragmatic integration (i.e. WEll--clauses are within the
scope of the main clauseillocutionary force and the WEll--clause provides a content
level reason for the preceding clause) is communicatedby means of grammatical
incorporation.
27 'Global" refers to the use of a prosodic parameterlike pitch or loudnessfor an entire
turn-constructionalunit. Cf. Selting(1995).
28 'I ocaln refers to the use of a prosodicparameter(pitch or volume) in smaller segments
of speech.
2e Cf. also Kiiper (1991).
337
Thus, in order to communicateparticular discourse-pragmaticmeanings in
colloquialspoken German,
ryEIL is reinterpreted as a coordinate conjunJtion
displayingmain clausesyntax.s In such casesof reinterpretation, the WElLclause
as-wellas the preceding one has its own illocutionary force. The WEll-clause
is
subduedfrom the scope of the would-be main predication and independently
expresses
the speaker'spoint of view.3l
3. OBwOHLconstructions
3.1,Subordinateclause ordcr in OBWOHL-clauses
As with WEll-clauses, the standard unmarked word order for OBWOHLconcessives
is verb-fin_al
position (i.e. syntacticintegration),marking the OBWOHLclauseas grammaticallyincorporated into the preceding main cla-use.
the next piece of dialogue Hanna is telling Sara about a colleague (Eva)
y!9 has alreadystarted to apply for a job, althouftt rtt" has not yet finished her
habilitation(her post-docthesis):
(I5) (' Kaffeklatsch") ('coffeeklatsch')
16
17
t8
19
20
21
Hanna: eh:m da kamen wir (.)
da enlihlte die- die entihlte daB
SJE =j eat = anfdngt = sisll =zu = bewerben,
ob[wohl] ihre Habil noch nich femg is.
Sara:
[mhm]
Hanna: ehm (-) und dann knmen wir da irgendwie drauf
16
t7
t8
19
20
2T
Hanna: ehm we got to talking
she told me that sheshe
she's started to apply for jobs
al[thoughJ she hasn't finished her post_doc thesis vet
Sara:
[mhm]
Hanna: ehm and then somehow we got on to the topic
fu Quirk et al. (1985: 1098)state, "Concessiveclausesindicate that the situation
in
the matrix clause is contrary to expectation in the light of what is said in
the
concessive
clause".Concessivescarry an element of "contradiction" or "surpriseu32
or' as Konig & van der Auwera (1988: 107) point out, there is a "relationship
of
50WEIL with main
clausesyntaxcannot be used in initial posirion (preceedingthe main
al,aue)'This syntacticrestriction is due to the fact that mordinate mnjunction must go benveen
whattheycoordinare.
Cf. Gtinthner(1993a);l.ehmann(1991).
51cf' khmann (1991:
526).Thus,WEIL as a coordinatemnjunction replacesthe causal
coordinatemnjunction DENN. As pointed out in Gtnthner (1993a), DENN as a causal
conjulction- is only veryseldomlyusedin colloquial language;in certainsouthern
Germanvarieties
DENNis usedmainly as a modal particle.
32Cf. Eisenberg(1989:
358).
338
Susanne Gtinthner
'normal incompatibility' or dissonancebetween the two componentpropositions".
However, as Thompson (1987) points out, concessionshould be treated as a discourse-functionalrelation and thus has to be studied in its discursiveenvironment.
In using the concessive construction die erctihlte daB 518:jetzt:enfiingt=sich=zu:bewerben, obwohl ihre Hobil noch nichfertis it'she told me that sheshe she's started to apply for jobs although she hasn't finished her post-doc thesis
yet' (line 17-79), Hanna expressesthe fact that Eva has not finished her post-doc
thesis does not have the expectedconsequencethat she cannot apply for a job yet.
The concessiveclause obwohl ihre Habil noch nich fertig rs 'although she hasn't
finished her post-doc thesis' is within the scope of the main clauseillocutionary
force. The main clausedisplaysa rising intonation contour, signalingthat the present
utterance is still in progress.However, syntacticallyintegratedOBWOHL-clauses do
not necessarilyhave to be prosodicallyintegrated.
In the next segment Maria is gossipingabout another family (the Mi.iller's)
and supports her evaluation that they are unheimliche SPIEBER'incredible petit
bourgeoisconformists'and engstirnig'narrow-minded'
by providing an example.Herr
Mi.iller would not allow his daughterto wear'jeans' and bought her a dressinstead:
(16) ("Familie Milllef') ('Family Mi.iller')
6
7
8
9
10
11
Maia: wo GOTT:und=die:Welt=JEA:NS getragen
hat
hat ER ihr e KLEID beimABC LADEN gekaufi
aber koine Jea:ns.
(1.0)
obwohl desMiidle GHEULT hot.
(4.0)
6
7
8
9
10
11
Maria: At a time when God and the world waswearingjeans
he bought her a dressat the ABC shop
but no jeans
(1.0)
althoughthe girl wascrying
(4.0)
Maria presentsthe example (6-8) to support her morally sensitiveevaluation of the
father. However, after the expected recipient responsesand co-alignment fail to
follow, she adds an OBWOHL-clause to introduce a further piece of information:
'The girl was crying' (10). The OBWOHL-clause thus
functions as an additional
argument to support her negativejudgment. It implies, that in 'normal situations'
one could expect that if the daughter is cryrng,the father would give in and fulfill
her wish by buying her a pair of jeans.The post-completitionOBwoHl-extension although marked off from the preceding clauseby means of a pause and an own
prosodiccontour - still operateson the propositionof the precedingclause(content
domain) and is retrospectivelytied to the illocutionary force of the preceding statement. Thus, by using subordinateclauseorder post-completitionOBWOHL-clauses
still function as regular concessives.
However, as the following examplesreveal,postcompletition OBWoHl-extensions with main clause order invite a different
interpretation.
Fromsubordinarton
tu coordination? 339
3.2,Main clauseorder in OBWOHL-clauses
In colloquialGerman, speakersoften use syntacticallynon-integrated OBWOHLclauses.
Thesenon-standardvariations,which display main clause order, have - as
the analysiswill show - specific discourse-pragmaticfunctions.
Ulla is talking about a neighborwho suddenlybecameseriouslyill and comes
to the conclusionthat one can be lucky enough to have had good health so far:
(77) ("Krankheiten")('illnesses')
36
37
38
39
40
4T
Ulla:
36
31
38
39
40
4l
Ulla:
do: kann man bis=jetzt=no=eigentlich(-)
TOI. TOL fOI 0 no ganz FROH seLgett?
(0.5)
OBWOHL man weiBjo gar net was in oim SCHLIIMMERT.
(1.s
)
vielleichtsenmir au schobald mol DO.GWESE.
up to now one can actuaily (-)
knock on wood (.) be glad. right
(0.s)
althoughone never knowswhat is lying dormant inside of you
(t.s)
perhapsour time in this world will soon be up
In lines 36-37Ulla states that she is glad that she has always been healthy up to
now.However, after a short pause, the OBWOHL-clause introduces a sudden
switch in her perspective: oBWoHL man weiB jo gar net wes in oim
SCHLUMMER?"'althoughone never knows what is lying dormant inside of you'.
Here, the OBWOHL-clause does not present an 'incompatibility' between the
propositionof the precedingmain clauseand that of the OBWOHLclause, but it
limitsthe validity of the preceding utterance. Instead of $ing in the scope of the
mainclauseillocutionaryforce, the OBWOHL-clause has its own illocutionary force
andthusfunctionsas an independent assertion.
The next segmentis taken from an interaction between Gero and Tom. Tom
invitedGero to dinner. However, before they start eating, Gero has to make a
phonecall.Becausehe does not know the particular telephone number, he intends
to call information,and therefore asks Tom for a pencil:
( 18)("Sh/ahren") ('skiing')
32
33
34
35
36
37
Gero:
n
33
Y
35
Gero: hey I needa small pencil
(0.5)
Tom: just a second(...)
Gero: althoughno actually I do know it by heart
Tom:
Gero:
DU=ich brauch en Heinen STIFT.
(0.5)
moment mal (...)
obtwohl NE. eigntlich weiB iclu auch AUSwendig. glaub=ich.
(0.5) WI:L ich ndmlich die Vonvahl is: (0.5)
NII:LL FA:NF eh: (1.0) drei drei acht.
340
SusanneGtinthner
36
37
(0.s)because the area code is (0.5)
zerofive eh: (1.0) three three eight
Gero's OBWOHL-clause does not operate on the propositional level of his
preceding demand for a pencil, but rather on a metacommunicativelevel: After
having asked for a pencil, a short pause arises, then he realizes that he does
remember the number and therefore does not need the pencil. The negation
particle ne (line 35) supports this interpretation. The main clause syntax in the
OBWOHL-clause thus implies a particular interpretation of the sequencewhich
contrastswith the interpretation a subordinate clausesyntaxwould have implied:
(a) The subordinate syntax: Ich brauch en kleinen Stift, obwohl ichs eigentlich auch
awwendig weiB would suggestthat even though the speaker knows the number by
heart, he still needs the pencil. The two dissonantpropositionsare presented as cooccurrent. The truth of the main clause is asserted, despite the proposition
contained in the OBWOHL-clause; i.e. both clausesare presentedas valid.
(b) However, the main clause syntax:Ich brauch en kleinen Stift (-) obwohl eigentlich
weiB ichs auch auswendigsuggeststhat the speaker at first assumeshe needs a
pencil. Then, however, after he realized that he does remember the number and
therefore does not need the pencil, he corrects himself.
In the next example, Eva has prepared green tea and offers some to Hans:
(1e)("Grilner Tee") ('green tea')
44
45
46
47
Eva:
Hans:
44
45
46
47
Eva: you want to try some?
Hans: hm. I don't like greentea.
willsch mal proBIERe?
hm. ich MAG kcin gninen Tee.
(0.s)
Hans: obwohl GEB mir doch mal ne (-) h' HALBE Tassevoll.
(0.s)
Hans: althoughpour me a half cup of it
Hans first rejects the offer by stating his dislike for green tea (line 45). After a short
pause, he changes his mind and asks for a half a cup of tea (line 47). The
OBWOHL-clause again limits and correctsthe validity of the preceding speechact.
As in the previous examples,both clausesnot only have their.own prosodic contours
but also their own illocutionary forces; however, in GRUNER TEE, the illocutionary acts performed by the two clauses differ: The preceding clause is a
declarative, functioning as a refusal; whereas the OBWOHL-clause introduces an
imperative. Caseswith differing illocutionary acts demand OBWOHL-clauses with
syntactic non-integration; i.e. OBWOHL with subordinate clause order would not
only give a different reading to it, but would not be possible at all.
In contrast to integrated OBWOHL-clauses,where the speaker assertstwo
propositions 'p' and 'q', which 'normally do not go together', in non-integrated
OBWOHL-clauses the speaker first asserts 'p'; then however - contrary to
Fromsubordination
of 'p' being valid - s/he presentsanother proposition 'q' that corrects
expectations
the preceding statement and thus limits the validity of 'p'. So, non-integrated
OBWOHL-clausescan be consideredas post-completionextensions,which have the
meaningof 'againstwhat I just said'. They no longer function as 'concessives'in the
strictsense(entailing both components'p' and 'q'), but come close to 'adversative
or even to repair formats, in which the second utterance 'q' restricts
relations'33
the validity of the previous statement 'p'. In contrast to WEll-clauses added as
'post-completion-extensions',
OBWOHL-clauses do not function to support one's
precedingstatementbut to take it back (either totally or only parts of it). Thus, the
pragmaticfunction of this kind of OBWOHL-clause exceedsthat of a concessive
relationand comesclose to a repair format.
33. Collaborativeproduction of OBIIOH L-constructions
Similarto WEIL, OBWOHL-clauses often appear asjoint productions of different
speakers.
A secondspeaker adds an OBWOHL-clause on to the prior speaker's
.turn. In contrastto joint WEll-clauses, however, collaborative OBWOHL-clauses
maydisplaysyntacticintegration as well as non-integration.
3.3.1.Subordinateclquse order in collaborative OBWOHL-clauses
(i) Addingfurther explanations
A secondspeakercanjoin a prior speaker'sturn with an OBWOHL-clause,and add
furtherexplanations,thereby constituting her or his status as a 'co-teller'.v
lro and Anna are talking to Paul about their intercultural experiencesin
Chinaandmentionthe - in their eyes-'disturbing fact'that the Chineseoften laugh
as reactionto troubles-talk. lro states that in situations when one is telling a
Chineseperson about a personal problem and the co-participant responds by
laughing,one can become 'really angry':
(20) (' InterkulrurelleProbleme") ('intercultural problems')
33
34
J5
Leo:
Paul:
da reagien man dann schon zie:mlich HEFTIG.
und wird echt SAUER.
(mhm)
33Cf. Ktnig (1985:6), who definesadversative
relations('p'but 'q') as 'relationsbetween
propositions
that supportcontradictoryconclusionswith the main point of the speakerexpressed
by the semndpropositionn.Thus, a sentencen'p' but 'q" expresses
that the first clause'p' is an
argument
for a conclusion'r', whereasthe secondclause'q' supportsthe very oppositeconclusion
'not-r'.Furthermore,
this secondconclusioncarriesmoreweightin the whole argument.In contrast
to syntactically
non-integratedOBWOHL-clauses,where the secondcomponentrestricts (or even
takesback)the validity of the first component,in adversativeconstructions(e.9. "I like skiing, but
Pauladoesn'tlike it") both mmponents'p' and 'q' are still entailed.
3aCf. Ford (1993:124-l2g)on adverbialclauseextensionsto other speaker'sturns. In her
datasecondspeakers
often co-tell someinformationby addinga nbecausen-clause.
\7--
342
Susanne Gilnthner
36
37
Anna: obwohlmansWEIB
Leo: ja=ja. obWOHLmansweill (.) undschondilber glesen
hat.
33
34
35
36
37
I-eo:
thenonereactsratherharshly
andbecomes
reallyangry
Paul: (mhm)
Anna: althoughoneknowsaboutit
yeah=yeah
[ro:
althoughoneknowsaboutit (.) andhasalready
readaboutit
Anna in line 36 provides an OBwoHl-extension to lro's precedingstatement.The
OBWOHL-turn
adds further background information emphasizing the
unexpectednessof one's reaction: Even though one knowsabout cultural differences
concerning laughing, one still reactswith anger.Thus, by connectinga syntactically
integrated concessiveclauseto prior's speaker'sturn, Anna establishesher statusas
"co-teller" (Ford 1993: l24ff.) and as someonewho also has the relevant knowledge
about the topic.
(ii) Astonished questions
Similarily to collaborated WEll-clauses, a second speaker can also raise an
astonishedquestion by means of a joined OBWOHL-clause. In this case she also
uses syntactic integration.
Du, a Chinese lecturer of German and her German colleagues (Eli and
Anna) are talking about possiblereasonswhy so few women have leading positions
at Chinese universities.Du explains that female Chinese students usually assume
that they are not as intelligent as men:
(21) ("DU 3")
71
72
73
74
/)
76
77
78
Du:
EIi:
Du:
Anna:
Eli:
Du:
7l
72
Du:
t3
Eli:
Du:
Anna:
Eli:
74
75
76
77
78
Du:
die meisten Frauen. GI-/IUBEN. auch. daB sie eh nicht so
intregente? intelligenter? und auch=
=mhm
nicht so
[eh] ilchtiger als die Mdnner
[sind.J
[mhm]
[mhmJ
sie oft BESSERE PRUFUNGSergebnisse haben.>(.)
t<OBWOHL
ttoadem GLAUBen sie'snicht.>
trotzdem.
most of the women believe that they eh are not as
intregente intelligent and also=
=mhm
not so
[eh] hard working as
[men]
[mhm]
[mhm]
although they often have better results in their exams (.)
they still won't believe it
still
With the OBWOHL-question (line 76) Eli not only checks her understanding but
displays her astonishment. The OBWOHL-clause signals that the preceding
assessment('most of the female students think they are not as intelligent as the
male students') contradicts certain facts ('women's results in the exams are better
than men's') and thus surprisesher. (Eli thus invites Du to respond by providing a
From subordination to coord.ination?
343
reconfirmation.)
Eli's astonishmentis expressedby prosodicdevices,such as high
global pitch, changes of pitch movement and locally increased loudness.35The
OBWOHL-clauseprovides a particular fact which under normal conditions would
contradictthe precedingconclusion.This seeminglycontradiction or dissonantfact
is closelylinked to the prior's speaker'sturn and takes the preceding assessmentas
givenmaterial to work with. This close linkage is supported by means of syntactic
integration.
The following segmentis taken from the same interaction between Du, Eli
andAnna.Du hasjust told about avery successful
Chinesemanager,who had been
lMng with a woman and was not married. Therefore, his private life was considered
to be 'mentallycorrupted' and he was thrown into prison.
(22) ("DU 8")
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
ah verdorben. gebtlich verdorben.
und dann muB eh knnn er nicht mehr eh?
Anna: mhnt
ja (auf diese Stelle arbeiten dann er)
Du:
"muB sogar ins Gefdngnis geworfen.."
(-) obWOHL er das ALLES geleistethat.
Eli:
t<IWA:S
ja obwohl.
Du:
53
54
55
56
Du:
)/
58
59
Du:
ah corrupted mentally corrupted and then
he has to eh he can't any longer eh?
Anna: mhm
yeah(do his job anymore.then he)
Du:
oevenhasto be thrown in prison'
what
(-) althoughhe achievedall this?
Eli:
yeahalthough
Du:
Eli'sindignatedexclamationWAS 'what'followed by an OBWOHL-clause marks her
astonishment
and moral indignation concerningDu's report that the particular
manager,who worked very efficiently, was sent to prison for leading a 'loose' life.
Althoughthe OBWOHL-clauseis taken up by anotherspeakerand is disconnected
from the precedingclauseand indignation cry, Eli still connectsit to Du's previous
turn by meansof syntacticintegration.
Expression of astonishment and indignation often display features of
question-answer-sequences.
As they commenton "outrageousbehavior"which seems
hardlybelievableand contradictsexpectationsof "normal behavior", speakerstend
to signaltheir indignationby demonstratinga "fictitious"problem of understanding
or doubt.sIn respondingwith a repetition of the concessiveconjunctionja obwohl
(DU 8) andtrotzdem(DU 3), Du acknowledgesthe dissonanceand thus displaysher
co-alignment
with the indignation of her co-participants.
35Cf. Selting(1995)for prosodicfeaturesof astonishedquestions.
36Cf. ctinthner (1995).
344
Susanne
Gttnthner
3.3.2. Main clause order in collaborative OBWOHL-clauses
In the preceding examples we observed how second speakers use syntactically
integrated OBWOHL-clauses to join prior speaker's utterance and check their
understanding or express their astonishment and indignation about the facts
presented.In the following transcripts,in which secondspeakersjoin prior speakers'
turns by adding syntactically non-integrated OBWOHL-clauses, collaborative
constructions reveal very different functions.
The display of disagreement
Gerda and Anna who both work in China are talking about Gerda's eye problems.
Gerda mentions her fear of havingan eye operation done in China and that she is
consideringgoing back to Germany for the operation:
(23) ("Wuhan")
I
2
3
4
5
6
7
I
9
10
Gerda: aber ich trau mich nich das hier zu machen.
Anna: [he. eh.]
Gerda: [(wtirdestJ du auch nich) bei so ner wichtigen Stelle ne.
(ich warts ab bis zum) Winter.
ich fahr im Februar zurilck
meine Eltem (.........)
Anna:
obwohl es gibt ja hier ganz GUTE Krankenhduser. gell=
Gerda: :man knnn GLUCK haben,
und man kann PECH haben
ich hab auch schon (-) Pech gehabt.
I
Gerda: but I don't have the nerve to do it here
Anna: [no]
Gerda: [(you] wouldn't) when it conc€rns such an important part of your body
(I'm gonna wait till) summer
I will be going back in August
my sister(........)
Anna: although there are also good hospitals here you know=
Gerda: =one can have luck
and one can have bad luck
I've already had bad luck once
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
After Gerda expressesher fears of having the operation in China, Anna produces
a disagreementin form of an OBWOHL-clause obwohl es gtbt ja hier ganz GUTE
Krankenhtitner geII'although there are also good hospitals here you know'. The
OBWOHL-clause presents an assertiondie Krankenhiiwer hier sind ganz gut 'the
hospitals here are quite good'which contradictsGerda's implicit assumptionand
thus the reason for her fears. By using syntacticnon-integration, the OBWOHLclausefunctionssimilarlyto a non-integrativeOBWOHL-clauseuttered by a single
speaker (3.2. above): It limits the validity of the preceding turn.
Word order in collaborativeOBWOHL-clausesthus functionsto differentiate
between co-telling explanations or astonished questions on the one hand and
disagreementon the other. If Anna's OBWOHL-clause had displayedsubordinate
syntax, the interpretation could be that of a surprised or astonishedquestion:
345
Gerda: ich trau mich nich das hier zu machen.
I don't have the nerve to do it here
Anna: obwohl es hier ganz gute l(rankenhduser gibt.
although there are also good hospitals here you know
However,the OBWOHL-clause with main clause syntil( indicates disagreement.
This interpretation is supported by Gerda's reaction: She justifies her fear by
referringto her own bad experiencewith Chinesehospitals:Ich hab auch schon (-)
Pechgehabt'I've already had bad luck once' (line 10).
In the following example,Klaus and Hans are discussingthe quality of nonalcoholicbeer:
(24) ("Sommerhitze")('summer heat')37
Kaus: das is echt s'BESTEBIER. (-)
ich mein von den alkoholfreien.
(-)
Hans: hhm. obwohlesgibt schon BESSERE.
zum BeispielBECKS is bei weitem TNNKBARER.
Klaus: this is really the best beer (-)
I meanamongthe alcohol free ones
(-)
Hans: hhm. althoughthere are better ones
for exampleBecksis much more drinkable
After Klaus' assessmentconcerning the high quality of the beer he is drinking, a
short pause appears,which may already indicate upcoming disagreement.Then,
Hansusesan OBWOHL-clause to utter his disagreeingsecondassessmentobwohl
esgtbtschon BESSERE'althoughthere are better ones'. Syntacticintegration (das
is echt s'BESTEBIER. ich mein von den alkoholfreien obwohl es schon BESSERE
6zbr)would not be possiblehere, becausethe disagreementdoes not simply modify
the precedingturn but rather is a straight fonvard contradiction.
In contrast to syntacticallyintegrated OBWOHL-clauses, which take the
precedingclause as given material to work with, syntactically non-integrated
collaborativeOBWOHL-clauses refute the preceding clause and provide partially
or totallycontradictingassessments.
The reading of thesejoined OBWOHL-clauses
is somethinglike 'As againstwhat you just said...'
The analysisof OBWOHL-clauses in everydayinteractions reveals that - as
in WEll-constructions - the syntacticoptions (main clausesyntax and subordinate
clausesyntax) are resources speakefs exploit in order to communicate specific
discourse-pragmatic
meaning.Grammatical integration in OBWOHl-constructions
is usedin casesin which speakerswish to express close pragmatic connections
betweenthe two clauses.Whereas,speakersreinterpret OBWOHL as a coordinate
conjunctionin casesin which they intend to limit or correct the validity of the assertion postulatedin the preceding speechact.
37This segmentwaswritten down immediatelyafter it occurred.
346
Susanne Gtlnthner
4. WoBEl-constructions
4.I. Subordinate clause order in WOBEI-clauses
Traditionally, WOBEI does not function as a subordinateconjunctionused in adverbial clauses,but rather as a pronominal adverb introducing an embeddedclause,e.g.
ich hab dann Goffman im Seminar behandelt, wobei ich besonders auf dieses
GENDER Buch eingtng'in the seminar I talked about Goffman, whereby I in
particularlyconcentratedon his book on gender'.The subordinateclauseintroduced
by the pronominal adverb WOBEI introducesa co-occurringaspectin the senseof
'whereby'; 'while
or
doing a, I did b'.
In the following segment,Sonja tells her co-participant about the Milgram
experiment:
(25) ("Mitgram Expeiment")s
1
2
3
4
Sonja:
Milgram Expeiment heiBt des und des war so n Versuch
wobei die Versuchspersonenselbst nicht wuBten
daB sie selbst die Versuchspersonen sind
&ngs darum sie sollten andere Leute mit Stromschltigen bestrafen
1
2
3
4
Sonja:
this is called Milgram experiment and it was an experiment
wherebt'e the test persons themselves didn't know
that they were being tested
they were supposed to punish the other people with electric shocks
The subordinate clause introduced by the pronominal adverb WOBEI (wobei die
Venuchspersonen
selbstnicht wuBten... 'whereby the test personsthemselvesdidn't
know') relatesback to the main clause(deswar so n Versuch'itwas an experiment'):
it introduces a sort of relative clause which explains this kind of experiment by
providing further details.
In my data, however, a different use of WOBEI is much more frequent than
the traditional pronominal adverb:WOBEI is beingusedasa "concessive"
connector
which, in a manner similar to OBWOHL, may display syntacticintegration as well
as syntactic non-integration.
In the following excerpt, Ira is telling Lisa about the problems she has had
with her friend and that she 'wanted to get out of this very close relationship':
(26) ("Freundinnen") ('girl friends')
32
33
34
lra:
ich WOLLte auch da rauskommen.
ich hane KEIne LUST mehr.
ich = hab =des = antch=wirHich = LANnge = gelebt.
38 I am thankful to Kirsten Nazarkiewicz for this transcript.
39 Euen if it might sound slightly like a legal lease in some cases,I shall translate WOBEI
with WHEREBY.
From subordinationto coordination? 347
35
36
37
38
39
40
Lba:
Ira:
Lisa:
mhm. [mhm.]
[so] n IHRen Bedingungen
Ira:
(0.7)
wobei ich sie UNHEIMIich gern mag
und sie mir sehrNAH is.
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
Ira:
Lisa:
Ira:
Lisa:
Ira:
[weiBt du.]
fmhm]
I reallywantedto get out of it.
I just didn't want it anymore.
I've lived through it long enough
mhm. [mhm.]
[you know.]
[following]her mnditions
[mhm]
(0.7)
whereby I really like her a lot
and I feel very close to her
The WOBEI-clausein line 39 no longer functions as a pronominal adverb, but
comescloseto a concessiveconjuncti<ln.After having mentioned that she wants to
get out of this kind of relationship, Lisa states the fact: Wobei ich sie UNHEIMIich
gem mag'whereby I really like her a lot'. This co-existingfact, however, stands in
someconflictto the preceding assertion.Similarily to OBwOHl-concessives, here
WOBEIpresentsa fact'p' ('I really like her a lot'), which'normally'is not expected
to go togetherwith 'q' ('I really wanted to get out of this relationship'). Ira thus indicatesthat the situation mentioned in the preceding utterance is contrary to
expectationin the light of what was said in the WOBEI-clause.
This concessiveuse of WOBEI is neither mentioned in German grammars
nor in any of the linguistic studies of main clausesyntax in causal and concessive
clauses.
In the data at hand, it is only used in the interactionsamong the young and
middleagedacademics;it is not used - except once - in the family interactions.(The
exceptionconcernsthe use of WOBEI by a 25-year-oldwoman). Moreover, in the
datacollectedin the early and middle 80's among (young and middle aged) academics,there is only one singlecasewhere WOBEI is used as a concessiveconjunction.This suggests
that the concessiveuse of WOBEI may be a recent phenomenon
in spokenGerman.
4,2.Main clauseorder in WOBEI-clauses
Speakersnot only reinterpret WOBEI as a concessiveconjunction, but in certain
contextsthey also use main clauseorder in WOBEl-constructions.
The following transcript is taken from a dinner table conversationbetween
Urs, Fritz and Claus. IJrs, a journalist, is telling about his colleague Fred, who
cannotsingvery well. However, one can 'program' Fred in such a way that if one
singsa 'stupid melody' in his presence,he will get this melody in his head, and he
will be singingit all day long:
(27) (' Programmieren") (' progr amming')
ja und den FRED, (-) der kann eigentlichkaum singen,
348
2
3
4
5
6
7
I
9
10
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
l0
SusanneGilnthner
Fid:
Urs:
Claus:
Urs:
aber den kannst so schdn PROGRAMMIEREN,
hahahahaha
also du muBt- du muBt irgendeine GANZ IDIOTISCHE Melodie
du = knnnst =zum = Beispiel = deutsche: Nationalhyme = singen.=
=mhm=
:ja. (-) woBEI des is PEINlich wenn du irgendwie? (-)
in- in? Sachsen bist, (.)
und du hast den auf Nationahymne programmicrt,
und du stehst=rutn=fla-irgendwie=vor
der PDS Zentrale
yeah and Fred (-) actually he can't sing very well
but you can program him in such a nice way
Fritz:
hahahahaha
you just- you just have to sing any stupid melody
Urs:
for example you can start singing the German national anthem
Claus: :mhm=
=yeah. (-) whereby this is embarrassing when you are somehow (-)
Urs:
in- in Saxony (.)
and you programmed him to sing the national anthem
and you are standing somewhere infront of the PDS40headquarters
Urs:
With the syntacticallynon-integrated WOBEI-clause in line 7, Urs adds a further
aspectto the 'programmingepisode':Fred's singing'idiotic melodies'is funny, but
can turn out to be embarrassing.The WOBEI-clause here still carries part of the
traditionally WOBEI-meaning; i.e. the co-existingof two facts: 'you can program
Fred for example to sing the German National anthem' and at the same time 'it is
embarrassingwhen Fred has this melody in his head and keeps on singing it while
you (as journalists) are in Saxony in front of the headquarters of the PDS'.
However, there is also a concessivereading possible in this context: The fact that
one can program Fred to sing all sorts of melodies is presented as being amusing;
however in line 7 Urs, by using a WOBEI-clause, in a jocular way reveals a
problematic aspect of this kind of programming: Fred's behavior can lead to embarrassing situations. Thus, the WOBEI-clause modifies the preceding funny
implication of Fred's singingand receivesa concessivemeaning.One can substitute
WOBEI with OBWOHL. Main clausesyntaxis used here to present the WOBEIclauseas an independent unit, which limits the comic value implied in the preceding
turn. As in syntacticallynon-integrated OBWOHL-clauses, the WOBEI-clause is
presented as a post-completion utterance, implying that Urs retrospectivelyadds a
modification to the presented fact.
The modification provided in syntacticallynon-integratedWOBEI-clausescan
vary from slight modificationsup to clear contradictionsof the previouslystated fact.
The following transcript is taken from a telephone interaction between Bert
and Karl. Bert called to invite Karl and Anna for dinner on Thursday evening:
(28) ('Essenseinladung")('invitation for dinner')
11
Bert: ja KONNTlhr?
a0 PDS is the 'party of
democratic socialism"; the successorparty of the SED (the socialisr
party in former East Germany).
From subordinartontu coordination? 349
12
13
14
15
Karl:
11
lZ
13
14
15
Bert:
Karl:
Bert:
Karl:
Bert:
Karl:
ja. (-) wobeiich hab am frnhen Abend ne (Jniveranstalung
und weiBnicht genauwann die zuENDE ist.
na kannstDU [ja spdternachkommen.]
spriter.
[(ich komm) dann gegebenenJfalls
is it okay by you
yeah (-) wherebyI havea seminarat the universityin the early evening
and don't know for surewhen it will be over
then you can [join us later]
[(I will come)]later if rhar'srhe case
The WOBEI-clause, which follows the agreement particle ja and a short pause,
provides a sort of correction of the validity of the agreement. One could argue that
this kind of syntactically non-integrated WOBEI-clause does not operate in the
content but in the speech act domain: The speaker indicates that after he just said
something,a conflicting aspect crosses his mind. The reading of this WOBEI-clause
is similar to: 'yes we can come. However, while I am saying this I just remember
that I have a seminar at the university in the early evening'.
Whereas, in the last example, the WOBEI-clause introduced a modification
of the agreement, in the following episode, a clear contradiction is presented in the
WOBEl-construction:
(29) ("Miill') ('garbage')
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
Herta: und=der=Restmtill.=
Vera: -gelber Sack das ist dann jeden ZWEITEN Montag.
Herta: mhm.
(1.0) ((Vera bldttert im Kalen^der))
Vera: wobei das is seltener.
das ist NICH alle ZWEI Wochen.
einundntanzigsten rweiten, zwanzigsten dinen. das is SELTENER
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
Herta: and the left over garbage,
Vera: -yellow garbage bag. it's every other Monday
Herta: mhm.
(1.0) ((Vera flicks through the calendar))
Vera: whereby it's less frequent
it is not every two weeks
twenty first of February, twentieth of March. it's less frequent
In line 46 Yera assertsthat the yellow garbagebag will be picked up every other
Monday.After Herta has signaledher acknowledgmentand after a pause of one
secondhad passed,Vera - who in the meantime has checked the dates in the
garbagecalendar- now explicitly contradictsher prior statement: Wobei das is seltener.das istNICH alle ZWEI Wochen'wherebyit's lessfrequent it is not every two
weeks'(line 49-50). In this case, the WOBEI - similarly to syntactically nonintegratedOBWOHL-clauses - can function as a connector to introduce a
conection,which takes back the preceding assertion.
As with syntacticallynon-integrated OBWOHL-clauses, WOBEI can also
connecttwo clauseswith differing illocutionary forces:
350
Susanne
Grlnthner
(30) ("Miinchen")
1
2
3
4
5
Harri: ah gut.ich kontaktierihn dannsobalderjeat mal da isch.
Lea: jahh.
Harri: WOBEI:(-) knnnich daANrufen?
muRich da nichhin.
Lea: desgehtglaub=ich=schon
am Telefon.
I
2
3
4
5
Harri: okayfineI'll contacthim thenassoonashe'llbearound
Ina: yeahh.
Harri: whereby(-) canI actuallycallthere
don'tI haveto go there
I*,a: you cando it by phoneI assume
The WOBEI-clause (3) connects a prior declarative with a question. Again, the
WOBEI-clause appears with a time gap and is added to the preceding turn as a
post-completion-extension:After Harri has mentioned that he plans to contact the
person they are talking about, he seemsto have secondthoughts about it and utters
his doubts as to whether he can actually contact that person by phone. The
WOBEl-construction has a reading similar to'okay fine I'll contact him as soon as
he's around. However, while I am sayingthis/after I just said this, I am wondering
if I can actually do it by phone'. Thus, similarly to non-integrated OBWOHL'as againstwhat
clauses,non-integrated WOBEl-constructions have the meaning of
I just said'.
43. Collaborative productions of WOBEl-constructions
In my data, all collaborative WOBEl-constructionsdisplaysyntacticnon-integration
or main clause word orderal; there are no cases of collaborative WOBEIconstructionsexpressingastonishedquestionsnor providing further explanationsby
a co-teller. Collaborative WOBEl-constructions displaying main clause order,
however,turn out to have similar functionsto collaborativeOBWoHl-constructions
with main clause syntax: the second speaker signalsher/his disagreementwith the
prior speaker's utterance. This signalingof disagreementcan vary from presenting
a slight modification of the precedinglystated fact to uttering a clear contradiction.
Klara is consideringhaving her father, who is very ill, moved into her house
so that she can look after him. She and Nora are discussingthe consequencesthis
decision would have for Klara's dissertationplans:
(31) ('Dus") ('dissertation')
67
8
69
Klara:
Nora:
Kara:
naTURlich wilrd ich auch dazu STEHN daB ich dann HIER bin.=
=mhm.
und nicht s'G[fiihl hab]
41 This, of course does not mean that collaborativeWOBEI-clauseswith syntactic
integration are not possible.However,for the analpis at hand,I can only considerthe collaborative
productionsavailablein my data.
70
7I
72
73
Nora:
tG..-)l
Kara: ich mrlBt dann meine DISS grad fertig schreiben.
Nora: ojetzt: htc k = ich = schnell = nachm = Zu{
Nora: woBEI: (.) du kannst dich ja auch immer beURlaubn lassen.
67
68
69
10
7l
'12
Klara:
Nora:
Klara:
Nora:
Klara:
Nora:
Nora:
73
351
of course I would stand behind my decision that I was going to be here=
=mhm.
and not have the
[feelingJ
t(.....)1
that I would have to finish my disserationexactlyduring this time
'just a secondI'm going to checkon my train connectiono
WOBEI (.) you can alwaystake a leaveof absence
Here, the WOBEI-clause introduced by Nora (line 73) offers a new aspect to
consider:shecould 'take a leave of absence'.As this newly introduced aspectstands
in contrastto the perspectivetaken into account so far, there is a disagreeingsense
to it.
The next excerpt is taken from a telephone interaction between Bert and
Anna.They are planning to see a movie that night and Anna hasjust read out loud
from the newspaperwhat movies were plaflng.
(32) ("Kinopliine")('movie plans')
1
2
3
4
5
Ben:
Anna:
kontmt ja also: MUNELS
oder der bewegte MANN.
Bert:
wobei ich find den ja eher schlecht.
des is so en IntellelauellenfiIm aber toTAL HOHL.
I
2
3
4
5
'Muriels Hochzeit' that's worth mnsidering
Bert: well then there's only
Anna: or the'bewegte Mann'
Hochzeit in Frage.
(-)
(-)
Bert:
wherebyI actuallythink it is not a very good one
it's a sort of intellectualmoviebut totallv shallow
'Muriels Hochzeit' is worth considering,Anna
After Bert has concludedthat only
addsa further alternative('der bewegteMann') in a rather positive tone. The pause
in line 3 alreadyindicatesan upcoming disagreement.In line 4 Bert then explicitly
stateshis negativeevaluationof that movie. This negativeevaluation introduced by
the WOBEI-clausestandsin conflict to Anna's preceding proposal and thus turns
it down.
In sum,the data show that WOBEI is used in spoken colloquial German as
a 'concessive'conjunction which - similarly to OBWOHL - can display either
subordinate
or main clauseorder. A syntacticallyintegratedWOBEI-clause presents
a fact - which 'normally' (i.e. under 'normal expectations')would not go together
'I
with the fact stated in the preceding clause- as co-occurring(e.9. wanted to get
'I
out of this kind of relationship' at the sametime really like her very much'). Thus,
the factsstated in both clausesare presented as factual and valid. In contrast, a
syntactically
non-integrated WOBEI-clause provides a post-completion assertion
whichmodifies,correctsor contradictsthe precedingutterance. With both types of
'contrary to expectation';
WOBEI-clausesspeakerspresent a relation
concessive
352
Susanne
Gtinthner
however whereas an integrated WOBEI-clause communicatesa dissonanceon the
propositional or content level of the two clauses,stating that despite 'q', 'p' is still
valid; in non-integrated WOBEl-constructions the speaker by stating 'q' limits the
validity of prestated 'p'. Thus, the interpretation is somethinglike, 'as againstwhat
I (or you) just said', and the WOBEI-clause functions similar to a repair format.
The question arises,why the pronominal adverb WOBEI is used as source
for expressingconcessiverelations.As Konig & Eisenberg(198a) and Kcinig (1988)
point out, among the major sourcesin the developmentof concessiveconjunctions
are expressionswhich "imply remarkable co-occurrenceor co-existenceof two facts
as part of their literal meaning" (Konig 1988: 155). The traditional use of WOBEI
as a pronominal adverb implies such a 'co-occurrenceor co-existenceof two facts'
(e.9. ich hab dann Goffman im Seminar behandelt, wobei ich besondercauf sein
GENDER Buch einging'in the seminar I talked about Goffman, whereby I mainly
concentrated on his book on gender'). As the data show, some of the WOBEIclauses still retain part of their original meaning along with the concessive
implicature. By pointing out that two facts co-occur,even though there is a general
incompatibility between the two situations,the (syntacticallyintegrated) WOBEIconstruction suggestsa concessivereading. Traugott & Konig (1991) discussthis
process of development from concomitance to concessivity as part of a
grammaticalization process.They argue that "there are so many things cooccurring
that mere cooccurrenceor concomitanceof two situations(states,in particular), is
rarely highly relevant information. Nevertheless,there are some contexts in which
concomitance may be highly relevant and worthy of pointing out. One of these
contexts is where there is a general incompatibility between the two situations; i.e.
where one situation does not normally coocur with the other". (Traugott & Konig
1991.:200).
5. Conclusion
Analysis of the data from casualconversationsin contemporaryGerman revealsthat
syntacticchoicesin everydaylanguageare closelyconnectedto discourse-pragmatic
factors: Although in many casesboth integrative and non-integrative word order
patterns are possible,word order variations are not random and unpredictable.The
alternative word order constructionsin causaland concessiveadverbial clausesfulfill
distinct discourse-pragmaticfunctions: speakerstend to use syntacticallyintegrated
WEIL-, OBWOHL-, and WOBEI-clausesin casesof close integration between the
main clause and the subordinate one; i.e. when the causal or concessiveclause is
within the scope of the main clause illocutionary force and the adverbial
construction operate within the 'content domain'. In contrast, speakers tend use
syntacticnon-integrationwhen adverbialclausesare subducedfrom the scopeof the
main clause illocutionary force; this is the casewhen the causal or concessiveconstructions operate within the speechact or epistemicdomain or when there is only
a very loose relationship between the WEll--clause and the preceding one. These
causal or concessive clauses have their own independent illocutionary force.
Furthermore, syntactic'independence'is generallysupported by means of prosodic
non-integration and the possiblepresenceof other 'main clausephenomena'. Thus,
discourse-pragmaticfunctions determine the reinterpretation of subordinate causal
353
and concessiveconjunctionsas coordinate ones.42
The results of the analysisare closely connected to three issuesdiscussed
within grammaticalizationtheory:
(i) Concerningthe concessiveuse of WOBEI, we can observethe development of
a concessive
connectiveout of an adverbial pronoun whose original meaning was
"co-occurrence".Traugott & Konig (1991: 200ff.) speak of this process of
grammaticalization,
in which "expressionsof simultaneity, concomitance, or correlation"are "amplified and interpreted as expressionsof concessivity",as the processof "conventionalizingof conversationalinferences".
(ii) The data demonstrate that conjunctions such as WEIL, OBWOHL (and
WOBEI) are used in everyday colloquial language not only as operating in the
'content' domain but
also in 'speech act' and 'epistemic' domains. Within
grammaticalizationtheory, this tendency is considered to be a process of
grammaticalization,
in which "meaningstend to become increasinglysituated in the
speaker'ssubjectivebelief-state/attitudetoward the situation" (Traugott & Konig
1991:205).
(iii) The third tendency observed in the data, however, contradicts a major
assumption
of grammaticalizationtheory: Such theories (Hopper & Traugott 1993)
postulatean unidirectionalityin clausecombining from relatively free juxtaposition
to syntacticbondednessand argue that there is a continuum of development from
moreto lessparatacticclausecombining.Grammaticalizationtheory postulatesthat
thereis a developmentfrom coordination to subordinationin adverbial clauses.In
theiranalysisof clauseintegration in German and Dutch concessives,Konig & van
derAuwera(1988:108) argue,that German has "undergonea processof successive
clauseintegration"leading from non-integrativeto integrativeword order and thus
from parataxisto embedding. This may well be the case for written German.
However,as our analysisshows,there is a different tendency at work in spoken
German:Causal and concessiveconstructionsseem to be developing back from
integrationto non-integrationand thus again displalng the ordering possibilitiesof
main clauses.a3
This kind of grammatical "renewal" (lrhmann 1991: 524ff.) of
subordinate
clauseorder by main clauseorder, however,is restricted to causal and
concessiveconstructions which speakers use to express particular discourse-
42 As cross-linguistic
studiesare showing,different languagesoffer different formatting
optionsfor showingintegrationand non-integration;there is cross-linguistic
variation in mding
optionsfor clausecombiningand the functionalconsequences
of suchchoices.English,which does
not havethe option of syntacticnon/integrationseemsto make more use prosodic means;cf.
Couper-Kuhlen
(this volume).Japanese,
on the other hand,hasclauseinitial connectors(for less
constructions)and clausefinal mnjunct (for more integratedconstructions);cf. Mori &
integrated
Ford(194).
43This usageof subordinatemnjunctions (or pronominaladverbs)as coordinateonesalso
explainswhy syntacticallynon-integratedcausal and concessiveclausescannot occur as initial
adverbialconstructions:As coordinate conjunctionsthey must go betweenwhat they coordinate
(l*hmannI99l:527).
354
Susanne
Gtinthner
pragmatic meaning.44
The investigation into grammatical structures of causal and concessiveclausesin
everyday spoken German shows the inseparability of linguistic structure from
discourse.We are dealing with an 'ecologyof grammar', in which forms of syntactic
constructions are molded to suit the conditions and purposes of face-to-faceinteractions(Pawley & Syder 1983: 552).
Appendix Transcription conventions
[ja das] finde ich
[du ab]
(-)
(0.5)
(??)
(sestern)
:und=dann=ging=
conversational overlap;
short pauses of less than 0.5 sec.;
pauses of 0.5 sec. and longer;
unintelligible text;
ffrjl[:'ln::*:l'
'
fast tempo;
.
intonation phrase-final: falling;
intonation phrase-final: slightly falling;
global high pitch;
global low pitch;
high fall;
low rise;
lenghtening;
soft voice;
loud voice;
laugh particles within the utterance
laughter;
nonlexical phenomena (e.g.coughing).
,
t <word word>
I <word word>
rlike.t.
rliket
a:
flo"
NEIN
mo((hi))mentan
hahaha
((hustet))
ilH::ffiillll!.filll,:illti,
rising;
Refercnces
Arndt, Erwin ( 1956) Die begilndenden Siine im NeuhocMeutschen und ihre wichtigsten Konjunlctionen.
Dissertation. Humboldt UniversitAt: Berlin.
Chafe, Wallace (1984) How people use adverbial clauses.In C. Brugman and M. Macaulay (eds.),
hoceedings of the Tenth Annual Meeting of the Berkelq Linguistics Society. Berkeley: Berkeley
Linguistics Sociery, pp. 437-M9.
Eisenberg, Peter (1989) GrundiB der Deutschen Grammank. Stuttgart: Metzler.
Foley, William A & Robert D. Van Valin (1984) Functional Syntax and Universal Grammar.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
44 Here, it should be added that - since only during the last twenty years linguists have
startedto systematically
analyzespokendata,- main order constructionsin WEIL- and OBWOHLclausesmay have alwaysbeen in use in spokenGerman.Only due to the fact, that linguistshave
startedanalyzinggrammarhas it beenpossibleto discoverthesesyntacticstructures.
From subordinationto coordinati.on? 355
Ford,Cecilia(1993) Grammar in Interaction:Adverbialclausesin Ameican English conversations.
Cambridge:
CambridgeUniversity Press.
Ford, Cecilia (199a) Dialogic aspectsof talk and writing: Becauseon the interactive-edited
continuum.
Text14.4:531-554.
Ford,Cecilia& Junko Mori (1994)Causalmarkersin Japaneseand English conversations:A crosslinguisticstudyof interactionalgrammar.hagmatics4.1:31-61.
Gaumann,Ulrike (1982) "llteildie machenjeat bald ar'. Dissertation,Universitiit Mainz.
Green,Georgia(1976)Main clausephenomenain subordinate.Language52:382-391.
GUnthner,Susanne (1993a) '...weil - man kann es ja wissenschaftlichuntersuchen' Diskurspragmatische
Aspekteder Wortstellungin WEIL-Slitzen.LinguistischeBeichte 143:37-59.
Giinthner,Susanne
(1993b)Dishtrsstrategien
in derInterhtlurellenKommunikation.Analysendeutschchinesischer
Gesprdche.
Tiibingen: Max NiemeyerVerlag.
Giinthner,Susanne
(1995)Exemplarystories:The cooperativeconstructionof indignation.Versus
70171:147-175.
Halliday,M. A K & RuqaiyaHasan (1976) Cohesionin English.l,ondon: Longman.
Hopper,PaulJ. & SandraA Thompson(1994)Introduction.Tex 14.4:461-463.
Hopper,Paul& ElizabethC. Traugott (1993)Grammaticalization.
C-ambridge:
CambridgeUniversity
Press.
Keller,Rudi(193) Dasepistemische
WEIL. Bedeutungswandel
einerKonjunktion.In H.J. Heringer
& G, StOtzel(eds.),Sprachgeschichte
und Sprachlaitik BerlinA.lewYork: de Gruyter, pp.219-247.
K0nig,Ekkehard(1985) On the history of concessiveconnectivesin English. Qiachronic and
synchronic
evidence.Lingua 66: 363-381.
K0nig,Ekkehard(19SS)Concessive
connectivesandconcessive
sentences:
Crosslinguisticregularities
andpragmaticprinciples.In J.A Hawkins (eds.),ExplainingLangtage Universals.New York: Basil
Blachrell,pp. 145-165.
Kdnig,Ekkehard& PeterEisenberg(1984)Zur Pragmatikvon Konzessivsiitzen.
In G. Stickel (ed.),
in der Grammatik.Dtisseldorf:Schwann,pp.313-332.
Pragmatik
Kdnig,Ekkehard& Johan van der Auwera (1988) Clause integration in German and Dutch
conditionals,
concessive
conditionalsand concessives.
In J. Haiman & S.A Thompson(eds.),Clause
Combiningin Grammar and Discourse.Amsterdam/Philadelphia:John Benjamins Publishing
C.ompany,
pp. 101-133.
Kiiper,Christoph(1984) Zum sprechaktbezogenen
Gebrauchder KausalverkniipferDENN und
WEIL:Grammatisch-pragmatische
Interrelationen.LingtistischeBerichteV2: 15-30.
Kiiper,Christoph(1991) Geht die Nebensatxtellungim Deutschenverloren? Zur pragmatischen
Funktionder Wortstellungin Haupt- und Nebensiitzen.DeutscheSprache19: 133-158.
I:hmann,Christian(1988) Towardsa typolory of clauselinkage. In J. Haiman & S.A Thompson
(eds.),C/auseCombiningin Grammar and Discourse.Amsterdam/Philadelphia:John Benjamins
356
SusanneGtinthner
PublishingC-ompany,pp. 181-226.
and relatedchangesin contemporaryGerman.In
khmann, Christian (1991) Grammaticalization
John
Amsterdam/Philadelphia:
E.C. Traugott & B. Heine (eds.),Approaches
to Grammaticalization.
BenjaminsPublishingCompany,pp. 493-535.
Langtage in Society20.3: Ml-458.
l€rner, Gene (1991) On the syntaxof sentences-in-progress.
Ono, Tsuyoshi & Sandra A. Thompson (1994) Interaction and S\ntax in the Sntcnre of
ConversationaI Db course.Manuscript. University of California.
Pawley,Andrew & FrancesH. Syder(1983)Natural selectionin syntax:Notes on adaptivevariation
and changein vernacularand literary grammar.Ioumal of hagmatics 7:55I-579.
Quirk, Randolph, Sidney Greenbaum,Geoffrey l,eech & Jan SvarMk (1985) A Comprehensive
Grammarof the EnglishLangtage.l,ondon:Longman.
Sacks,Hanrey (1987) On the preferencefor agreementand contiguity in sequencesin conversation.
In G. Button & J.R. lre (eds.),Talk and socialorganisationPhiladelphia:Multilingual Matters,pp.
54-69.
Sandig,Barbara (1973) Zur historischenKontinuitiit normativ diskriminierendersyntaktischer
Muster in spontanerSprechsprache.
DeutscheSprache3:37-57.
Selting, Margret (1995) Prosodieim Gesprdch.Ttbingen: Niemeyer.
Sweetser,Eve E. (1990) From Etymologt to Pragmatics.Metaphoical and culural aspectsof semantic
sttucture.Cambridge:CambridgeUniversity Press.
Thompson,SandraA (1987)'Concessive'as
a discourserelationin expositorywritten English.In:
B. Joseph& AM. Zwickey (eds.),A Festschiftfor llse Lehiste.Ohio State University, pp. 6a-73.
of grammaticalization
Traugott,ElizabethC. & EkkehardKonig (l99l) The semantics-pragmatics
revisited.In Traugott & Heine (eds.),Approachesto Grammaticalization.Amsterdam/Philadelphia:
John BenjaminsPublishingCompany,pp. 189-218.
Wegener,Heide (1994)weil - das hat schonseinenGrund. Zur Verbstellungin Kausalslitzenmit
WEIL im gegenwiirtigenDeutsch.DeutscheSprache4:289-305.
Willems, Klaus (1994) weil es hat mit Bedeutungnicht viel zu tun... Zum Sprachwandeleiner
Konjunktion. DeutscheSprache3: 261-279.

this PDF file - Linguistic Society of America

Transcrição

Documentos relacionados

Vorschneller Schwur

French and German Skills

Template of Letters to Request Records

June 2011

ap® german language and culture exam 2015 scoring guidelines

Handouts

Faculty/Guest Artist Recital

Female Rx Plus Liquid

Anna E. Indahl - Modrall Sperling

2009 - 12. - 10. >> Floor1