Hostname: page-component-cb9f654ff-nr592 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-08-19T02:43:53.516Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Presentational/Existential Structures in Spoken versus Written German: Es Gibt and SEIN

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  19 February 2013

Regina Weinert
Regina Weinert*
Affiliation:
Northumbria University
*
Department of Humanities, Lipman Building, Sandyford Road, Newcastle upon Tyne NE1 8ST, UK, [regina.weinert@northumbria.ac.uk]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This article presents a synchronic, corpus-based examination of spoken German with regard to the distribution and function of presentational/ existential es gibt NP and a range of SEIN NP structures such as da SEIN, locative SEIN, es SEIN, and zero-locative SEIN. In particular, the use of da SEIN has been neglected in previous research. While es gibt is equally frequent in the spoken and written data, SEIN structures are typical of spoken German only, with da SEIN being the most frequent. The article concentrates on clauses with indefinite NPs, while the presentation of events with da and wider da-usage in spoken German are also considered.*

Information

Type
Articles
Information
Journal of Germanic Linguistics , Volume 25 , Issue 1 , March 2013 , pp. 37 - 79
Copyright
Copyright © Society for Germanic Linguistics 2013

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

REFERENCES

Aarts, Bas. 2004. Modeling linguistic gradience. Studies in Language 28. 1–49.Google Scholar
Aarts, Bas. 2007. Syntactic gradience: The nature of grammatical indeterminacy. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Barlow, Michael, & Suzanne, Kemmer (eds.). 2000. Usage-based models of language. Stanford, CA: Centre for the Study of Language and Information.Google Scholar
Biber, Douglas, Stig, Johansson, Geoffrey, Leech, Susan, Conrad, & Edward, Finegan. 1999. Longman grammar of spoken and written English. Harlow: Longman.Google Scholar
Bolinger, Dwight. 1977. Meaning and form. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Ruth, Brons-Albert. 1984. Gesprochenes Standarddeutsch. Telefondialoge. Tübingen: Gunter Narr.Google Scholar
Czinglar, Christine. 1998. On existentials and locatives in German. Wiener Linguistische Gazette 62–63. 1–27.Google Scholar
Czinglar, Christine. 2002. Decomposing existence: Evidence from Germanic. Issues in formal German(ic) typology, ed. by Abraham, Werner & Zwart, C. Jan-Wouter, 85–126. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Croft, William, & Cruse, D. Alan. 2004. Cognitive linguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Dittmar, Norbert, & Ute, Bredel. 1999. Die Sprachmauer. Berlin: Weidler Buchverlag.Google Scholar
Duden, , vol. 4. 2005. Die Grammatik. 7th edn. Mannheim (etc.): Dudenverlag.Google Scholar
Durrell, Martin. 2002. Hammer's German grammar and usage. 4th edn. London: Arnold.Google Scholar
Erdmann, Peter. 1979. There constructions in English and German. Studies in contrastive linguistics and error analysis. II Descriptive contrastive analysis of English and German, ed. by Nehls, Dietrich, 47–71. Heidelberg: Julius Groos Verlag.Google Scholar
Firbas, John. 1992. Functional sentence perspective in written and spoken communication. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Halliday, M. A. K. 1985. Introduction to functional grammar. London: Edward Arnold.Google Scholar
Halliday, M. A. K., & Rugaiya, Hasan. 1976. Cohesion in English. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Henry, Alison. 2005. Idiolectal variation and syntactic theory. Syntax and variation: Reconciling the biological and the social, ed. by Cornips, Leonie & Corrigan, Karen P., 109–122. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Joseph, Brian D. 2000. What gives with es gibt? Typological and comparative perspectives on existentials in German, in Germanic, and in Indo-European. American Journal of Germanic Linguistics and Literatures 12. 187–200.Google Scholar
Lakoff, George. 1987. Women, fire, and dangerous things: What categories reveal about the mind. Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lambrecht, Knud. 1994. Information structure and sentence form: Topic, focus, and the mental representations of discourse referents (Cambridge Studies in Linguistics 71). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Langacker, Ronald W. 1987. Foundations of cognitive grammar, vol. I: Theoretical prerequisites. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
Lumsden, Michael. 1988. Existential sentences: Their structure and meaning. London: Croom Helm.Google Scholar
Lyons, John. 1975. Deixis as the source of reference. Form-semantics of natural language, ed. by Keenan, Edward, 61–83. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
McNally, Louise. 1998. Existential sentences without existential quantification. Linguistics and Philosophy 21. 353–392.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Miller, Jim. 2010. A critical introduction to syntax. London/New York, NY: Continuum.Google Scholar
Miller, Jim, & Weinert, Regina. 2009. Spontaneous spoken language. Syntax and discourse. 1st edn. 1998. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Milsark, Gary. 1974. Existential sentences in English. Cambridge, MA: MIT dissertation.Google Scholar
Newman, John. 1996. Give: A cognitive linguistic study. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Newman, John. 1997. The origin of the German es gibt construction. The linguistics of giving (Typological Studies in Language 36), ed. by Newman, John, 307–325. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Palmer, Frank Robert (ed.). 1968. Selected papers of J. R. Firth, 1952–1959. Bloomington, IN: Indiana Press.Google Scholar
Pfenninger, Simone E. 2009. Grammaticalization paths of English and High German existential constructions. A corpus-based study. Bern: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
Steger, Hugo, Ulrich, Engel, & Hugo, Moser. 1975. Heutiges Deutsch. Texte gesprochener deutscher Standardsprache. Erarbeitet am Institut für Deutsche Sprache, Forschungsstelle Freiburg I. Br., Düsseldorf. München: Max Hueber.Google Scholar
Weinert, Regina. 2004. Relative clauses in spoken English and German—their structure and function. Linguistische Berichte 197. 3–51.Google Scholar
Weinert, Regina. 2007. The relationship between deixis and modality. Spoken language pragmatics, ed. by Weinert, Regina, 94–127. London: Continuum.Google Scholar
Weinert, Regina. 2010. Formulaicity and usage-based language: Linguistic, psycholinguistic and acquisitional manifestations. Perspectives on formulaic language. Acquisition and communication, ed. by Wood, David, 1–20. London/New York, NY: Continuum.Google Scholar
Weinrich, Harald. 2005. Textgrammatik der deutschen Sprache. 3rd edn. Hildesheim: Georg Olms Verlag.Google Scholar
Zydatiß, Wolfgang. 1974. “There”—Ein Lernproblem im Englischen. Linguistik und Didaktik 5. 42–49.Google Scholar
Zydatiß, Wolfgang. 1981. Existential-locative sentences in English and German. Forms and functions: Papers in general, English, and applied linguistics, ed. by Esser, Jürgen, Fried, Vilém, & Hübler, Axel, 73–81. Tübingen: Gunter Narr.Google Scholar