Das Zustandspassiv – Pragmatische Beschränkungen und Regelkonflikte
Das Zustandspassiv – Pragmatische Beschränkungen und Regelkonflikte
复制标题
Das Zustandspassiv – Pragmatische Beschränkungen und Regelkonflikte
DOI：
10.1515/zgl.2007.006
复制
发表时间：
2007
期刊：
影响因子：
--
通讯作者：
Klaus Welke
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Klaus Welke
在系动词+分词II的结构中，我们发现了许多不明确的限制。Maienborn（2007年：83-115）解释了这些语用学在以下方面：一个不变的意义是反对不同的语用解读，获得他们的存在，只有在语用水平。我们解释语义本身的这些限制。连接词+分词II-构式构成的制约因素是连接词构式的构式意义与分词II构式意义的冲突。语用学是通过语用含义在相互冲突的构式意义之间进行调解。由于这些调整，几乎没有系动词+分词结构在严格意义上是语法错误的，但许多结构在可接受性方面仍然受到限制。Zustandspassiv的构式意义与分词II的三种意义变体相对。系动词结构的结构意义与分词II的三种意义变体之间的相互作用导致了系动词结构与分词意义之间的不同顺应。在某些情况下，分词意义适应于系动词结构意义，而在另一些情况下则相反：一方面，系动词结构的结构意义是一个属性对主语所指对象的陈述;另一方面，助词II有后状态意义、现在状态意义和过去时间意义。Zustandspassiv与连接结构的结构意义的相互作用导致了四种意义变体：后状态（目标状态）作为属性，现在状态作为属性，事件的过去时间作为属性，仅过去时间意义。“一个事件的过去时间作为一个属性”的意义是语法化的过去sein-passive，而不是过去werden-passive，具有完全的语法性。至少也有一些构式不是完全错误的，但对系动词构式的构式意义的适应是失败的，唯一的解释可能性是将sein +分词II的构式理解为过去时态的省略的werden被动语态。在这种情况下，分词的过去时间意义完全优于原来的系动词结构。
Abstract In constructions of copula + participle II, often called “Zustandspassiv”, we find many unclear restrictions. Maienborn (2007: 83-115) explains these by pragmatics in the following way: One invariant meaning is opposed to different pragmatic readings that are gaining their existence in the pragmatic level only. We explain these restrictions in semantics itself. Restrictions in forming copula + participle II-constructions are due to conflicts between the construction meaning of copula constructions and the construction meanings of participles II. Pragmatics is mediating between the conflicting construction meanings by means of pragmatic implicatures. Due to these accommodations nearly no copula + participle construction is grammatically wrong in a strict sense, but many constructions remain restricted in their acceptability. The construction meaning of Zustandspassiv is opposed to three meaning variants of participle II. The interplay between the construction meaning of copula constructions and the three meaning variants of participles II results in different accomodations between copula-constructions and participle meanings. In some cases participle meanings adapt to copula construction meanings, in other cases the opposite process is going on. On the one hand the construction meaning of copula construction is the predication of a property to the referent of the subject. On the other hand there are a post state (target state) meaning, a present state meaning and a past time meaning of particples II. The interplay with the construction meaning of the copula construction results in four meaning variants of Zustandspassiv: post state (target state) as a property, present state as a property, past time of an event as a property, and past time meaning only. The meaning ‘past time of an event as a property’ is grammaticalizing to a past sein-passive as opposed to past werden-passive with full grammaticality. At least there are constructions that are also not completely wrong, but the accommodation to the construction meaning of copula constructions failed in a way that the only possibility of interpretation is to understand these constructions of sein + participle II as elliptical werden-passives of past tense. In this case the past time meaning of the participle completely has gained superiority to the original copula construction.