Die Bindungseigenschaften von Demonstrativpronomen, komplexen Demonstrativa und definiten Beschreibungen
Zusammenfassung der Projektergebnisse
In the project Bound-variable-like interpretations of demonstrative pronouns, complex demonstratives and definite descriptions we investigated the conditions under which four types of expressions that have traditionally been analyzed as referential expressions allow anaphoric and bound interpretations: demonstrative pronouns of the der/die/das series (DPros), demonstrative pronouns of the dieser/diese/dieses series (DemPros), complex demonstratives such as diese Katze (this/that cat) and definite descriptions such as die Katze (the cat). Concerning the two kinds of demonstrative pronouns, we found out that they both avoid maximally prominent antecedents or binders. They differ with respect to how prominence is calculated, however: For DPros, perspective taking is crucial insofar as perspectivally prominent speakers or narrators are more prominent than discourse topics. Consequently, DPros can pick up or be bound by referents functioning as discourse topics in sentences or text passages where the speaker or narrator is prominent as perspective taker via evaluative comments or remarks. For DemPros, in contrast, perspective taking plays no role in the calculation of prominence. Consequently, they can never pick up or be bound by referents functioning as discourse topics. Concerning quantifier binding, there is evidence that demonstrative pronouns can be bound by non-subject quantificational DPs, which is in line with their avoidance of maximally prominent antecedents, since subjects are arguably the most prominent potential binders in configurations that structurally allow for quantifier binding. Sentences with demonstrative pronouns bound by negative quantifiers are read slower than sentences with demonstrative pronouns bound by universal quantifiers, however, which implies that demonstrative pronouns are possibly bound in a non-standard way: Universal quantifiers can not only bind pronouns in standard binding configurations requiring c-command, but also allow for so-called telescoping across sentence boundaries; in contrast, negative quantifiers only allow standard binding and no telescoping. Concerning definite descriptions and complex demonstratives, they are not directly constrained by prominence avoidance on their bound or anaphoric readings. Rather, they are subject to the pragmatic principle Minimize Restrictors!, which requires the deletion of redundant NPs from DPs whose interpretation depends on highly salient antecedents or binders. There does not seem to be any difference between definite descriptions and complex demonstratives concerning the availability of bound interpretations coming about via c-command at LF. They behave differently in configurations where two discourse referents have been introduced by indefinites in the preceding sentence, however: While it is unproblematic to pick up both referents by definite descriptions or one of them by a definite description and the other one by a complex demonstrative, picking them both up by complex demonstratives leads to a degree of infelicity that is comparable to other violations of pragmatic principles. We therefore propose an account that is based on the following assumption: When uttering a complex demonstrative, the speaker implicitly contrasts the referent of that demonstrative with all other entities that satisfy the predicate denoted by the NP-complement of the demonstrative determiner. At the same time, in sentences with two complex demonstratives picking up individuals that have been introduced by indefinites in the preceding sentence, the two individuals that are referred to by the complex demonstratives only differ with respect to the nominal predicates. Consequently, they are automatically implicitly contrasted with each other as well, resulting in two layers of contrast. The co-presence of two contrasts makes sentences with two anaphoric complex demonstratives unnecessarily complex, however. Therefore, they are dispreferred as compared to sentences with two anaphoric definite descriptions or sentences where an anaphoric complex demonstrative is combined with a definite description, which all involve just one layer of contrast.
Projektbezogene Publikationen (Auswahl)
-
(2018). An Experimental Investigation of the Binding Options of German Demonstrative Pronouns. Glossa. A Journal of General Linguistics 3(1), 1-25
Hinterwimmer, Stefan & Andreas Brocher
-
(2018). The Binding Properties of Demonstrative Pronouns and Full Demonstrative DPs, in Boef, E., M. Corniglio, E. Schlachter und T. Veenstra (Hrsg.), Demonstratives. Berlin/New York: De Gruyter, 197-232
Hinterwimmer, Stefan
-
(2019). How to point at discourse referents: On anaphoric uses of complex demonstratives, in M. T. Espinal, E. Castroviejo, M. Leonett und L. McNally (eds.), Proceedings of Sinn und Bedeutung (SuB) 23, 487-505
Hinterwimmer, Stefan
-
(2020). Binding options of German demonstrative pronouns: a large-sample study and a computational model. 33rd Annual Meeting of the CUNY Conference on Human Sentence Processing, Amherst, MA, USA
Patil, Umesh & Stefan Hinterwimmer
-
(2020). Constraints on German diese Demonstratives: Language Formality and Subject-Avoidance. Glossa: A Journal of General Linguistics 5(1), 1–22
Patil, Umesh, Peter Bosch & Stefan Hinterwimmer
-
(2020). Demonstrative Pronouns as Anti- Logophoric Pronouns: An Experimental Investigation. Dialogue & Discourse 11(2). 110–127
Hinterwimmer, Stefan, Andreas Brocher & Umesh Patil
-
(2020). Zum Zusammenspiel von Erzähler- und Protagonistenperspektive in den Brenner-Romanen von Wolf Haas. In Sonja Zeman (ed.), Sprachlichen Strukturen der Narration, Sonderausgabe der Zeitschrift für Germanistische Linguistik (ZGL) 48, 529–561
Hinterwimmer, Stefan
