02.12.2012 Views

Relativism and Universalism in Linguistics - Fachbereich 10 ...

Relativism and Universalism in Linguistics - Fachbereich 10 ...

Relativism and Universalism in Linguistics - Fachbereich 10 ...

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

YUMPU automatically turns print PDFs into web optimized ePapers that Google loves.

158 Workshops<br />

Ansche<strong>in</strong>end ‘apparently, seem<strong>in</strong>gly’ vs. sche<strong>in</strong>bar ‘seem<strong>in</strong>gly,<br />

at first sight’ <strong>in</strong> German:<br />

apparently only some people care<br />

Ammann, Andreas<br />

University of Bremen<br />

aammann@uni-bremen.de<br />

The German verb sche<strong>in</strong>en ‘seem’ has been placed <strong>in</strong>to the context of German modality by<br />

several l<strong>in</strong>guists (e.g. Diewald 2001). My focus will be on two modal expressions derived<br />

from it: ansche<strong>in</strong>end <strong>and</strong> sche<strong>in</strong>bar. Conservative descriptions of German grammar assign<br />

slightly dist<strong>in</strong>ct mean<strong>in</strong>gs to these modal adverbs. While both express that someth<strong>in</strong>g seems<br />

to be the case, sche<strong>in</strong>bar carries an additional counterfactual element: <strong>in</strong> reality it is not the<br />

case (Zifonun et al. 1997: 1133). I argue that it is most feasible to paraphrase the textbook<br />

def<strong>in</strong>ition of ansche<strong>in</strong>end as <strong>in</strong> (1a) <strong>and</strong> that of sche<strong>in</strong>bar as <strong>in</strong> (1b):<br />

(1a) it seems that p holds<br />

(1b) it only seems that p holds<br />

The counterfactual read<strong>in</strong>g of sche<strong>in</strong>bar is entailed <strong>in</strong> (1b), but not part of the encoded<br />

mean<strong>in</strong>g.<br />

It is well known that the dist<strong>in</strong>ction between (1a) <strong>and</strong> (1b) is not consistently observed <strong>in</strong> the<br />

spoken language, but the details are controversial. Some sources state that ansche<strong>in</strong>end <strong>and</strong><br />

sche<strong>in</strong>bar alternate freely (e.g.Scholze-Stubenrecht et al. 1997). A more precise claim is made e.g. by<br />

Bierwisch et al. (s.d.), an onl<strong>in</strong>e dictionary based on contemporary spoken <strong>and</strong> written data. It ascribes<br />

both the mean<strong>in</strong>gs <strong>in</strong> (1a) <strong>and</strong> (1b) to ansche<strong>in</strong>end, <strong>and</strong> to sche<strong>in</strong>bar as well, but <strong>in</strong> its case only for the<br />

spoken register. The entry suggests that sche<strong>in</strong>bar is still restricted to (1b) <strong>in</strong> written German.<br />

My paper tackles the follow<strong>in</strong>g questions:<br />

• What can we say about the distribution of the two adverbs <strong>in</strong> journalistic texts? How<br />

does this compare to the use <strong>in</strong> onl<strong>in</strong>e message boards – a genre that is written, but<br />

comes very close to colloquial speech <strong>in</strong> terms of <strong>in</strong>formality?<br />

• Assum<strong>in</strong>g that the adverbs, as well as sche<strong>in</strong>en, can be <strong>in</strong>terpreted as <strong>in</strong>ferential<br />

(=<strong>in</strong>direct evidential) or epistemic qualifications (=not stated as factual by the<br />

speaker): are there contexts <strong>in</strong> which evidential mean<strong>in</strong>g components are prom<strong>in</strong>ent,<br />

or epistemic ones?<br />

• What is the place of expressions of (1a) on an epistemic scale between weak<br />

possibility <strong>and</strong> strong probability?<br />

• appear to /seem to <strong>and</strong> apparently/seem<strong>in</strong>gly <strong>in</strong> English?<br />

References<br />

Bierwisch, Manfred et al. (s.d.): Das digitale Wörterbuch der deutschen Sprache des 20. Jh.<br />

http//:www.dwds.de (consulted <strong>in</strong> June 2006)<br />

Diewald, Gabriele (2001): “Sche<strong>in</strong>en-Probleme: Analogie, Konstruktionsmischung und die<br />

Sogwirkung aktiver Grammatikalisierungskanäle”. In: Reimar Müller & Marga Reis<br />

(eds.) (2001): Modalität und Modalverben im Deutschen. Hamburg: Helmut Buske, 87-<br />

1<strong>10</strong>.<br />

Scholze-Stubenrecht, Werner et al. ( 4 1997): Duden Richtiges und gutes Deutsch: Wörterbuch<br />

der sprachlichen Zweifelsfälle. Mannheim: Dudenverlag.<br />

Zifonun, Gisela et al. (1997): Grammatik der deutschen Sprache. B<strong>and</strong> II. Berl<strong>in</strong> /New York:<br />

de Gruyter.

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!